# S.D. Gov'r "inclined" to ban abortions, shoves head up ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 25, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066 "2006-02-25T13:49:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/441 "2006-03-04T02:45:18Z")
It’s not out of the question for **the raindog** to be a divorced father of two daughters. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/442 "2006-03-04T02:49:58Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It’s not out of the question for **the raindog** to be a divorced father of two daughters. Thank you, **kaylasdad99** ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/443 "2006-03-04T02:51:44Z")
(…although I’m wondering what that’s all about…) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/444 "2006-03-04T03:03:04Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > (…although I’m wondering what that’s all about…) You know, real daughters, hypothetical wife, Traditional Values Father. They don’t all go together in the Stereotype File. (don’t mention it, btw) ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/445 "2006-03-04T03:12:18Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Now I would imagine the PCer sees the Human Life Continuum in much the same way; with an important distinction. The distinction is that there must be some other [objective] criteria that establishes us as humans. While there are some important distinctions between an infant and an adult, they do in fact share more similarities—liking a beating heart and the ability to survive outside the womb— than an infant and a zygote. Okay. I’m with you so far. > [@](#): > > I think it would be helpful if we could add some clarity and certainty to the discussion as it relates to the point in which “personhood” begins. For most PLers such clarity exists: The point of conception. For the purpose of this discussion however, it is not necessary to have all PCers have unanimity as it realtes to this “point”, for I won’t make any division between one “point” or another. From **WhyNot** ’s post, **North Carolina** ’s defintion is as good as any. For the purpose oy my posts **the end of the 20th week** is the point that **Human Life** , or **Personhood** begins. > > Now certainly not all PCers, including the intelligensia here at SDMB, are in unanimity as to the point in which personhood begins, although it would certainly appear that _the majority would apply some ‘viability’ test of some sort,—thereby establishing some “point”_ _after which a fetus is considered a person in their view._ I’d quibble, but for expediency’s sake, I’ll agree to your 20 weeks as “viability point.” > [@](#): > > My thoughts are directed at this majority; a majority I would add is reflected at SDMB and among the whole population, and to which Roe is written for. > > Here at SDMB there are a pretty fair amount of people who would allow abortions much later than the 20th week. Here are a few examples: > [Stonebrow](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7154216&postcount=40) apparently believes that life begins at conception but believes that the mothers rights (whatever they are) “trump” the life of the fetus, \*at any point during gestation. \* > [Blalron](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5223620&postcount=31) apparently believes that a heartbeat isn’t enough, _sentience_ must be the standard. > [jsgoddess](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7153000&postcount=37) apparently places no value on the fetus and doesn’t care much about it’s destruction. > [msmith537](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5616408&postcount=32) apparently is in favor of abortion until the “63rd trimester.” > [catsix](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7140794&postcount=45) apparently believes abortion should be “available at any point.” I’d say those are some fairly extreme examples, but I couldn’t say if they’re truly representative of the majority of the board. I’ll only speak for myself and say I disagree. As I have stated in at least two other threads, I do not believe abortions should be performed past the second trimester, and at that point, steps should be taken to save the baby. > [@](#): > > So I have some questions for the majority----specifically the **20-Week Pro-Choice Dopers:** (if you answer this post, please take the poll and answer in the same fashion as the thread [Poll on the SDMB community](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=359600), answering the bolded questions and “snipping” out the rest) \*\*The poll is exclusively for the dopers who are “20 week” PCers. > \*\* > **1) If Catsix, using her _only_ as an example, had an abortion in week 28, has she committed murder?** I don’t know. I’m sorry, but if a woman has terminated a pregnancy at 28 weeks, I would need to know the reason for her doing so before passing a moral judgement like “you just murdered someone.” How can I call anyone a murderer if what they’ve done was in attempt to save their own life? I’ll take an N/A on question two, I suppose. **3) If you answer “no”—and yet you recognize the 28 week fetus as a “person”—why do you believe she hasn’t committed a murder?** (if you answer "yes to #1, please N/A) One of the reasons I struggle so much with questions like this is, in order for a “murder” to take place, the “victim” must be definitively alive. And as I said before, I don’t believe life begins for mammals until that first breath is drawn. I don’t mean this as a cop out, but I simply don’t have enough information, here. **4) Regardless of how you answer #1, should she be prosecuted? Why/Why not?** No. Again, I have a difficult time assigning blame to someone who a) may have been acting to save their own life and b) in defense of something that, at this point, is still only a potential life, not a definitive one. **5) Is it fair to say that your views mirror those who are Pro-Life after week 20? Why/Why not?** No. Because at 1 week or 20 or 40, people who are Pro-Life reduce a pregnant woman to nothing more than an incubator with a pulse. The woman’s needs become secondary to the life she’s carrying, if her needs are even recognized at all. If the child dies, she will doubtless go through a period of mourning for that child, but _she will in all likelihood be able to conceive again_. Whereas if she dies in attempting to bring that child into the world, she leaves the baby motherless (if the baby doesn’t die in the process along with the mother) as well as any other children she has, and places a tremendous burden on her spouse and family in the process. Save the one that’s already living. **6)** _Generally speaking_ PLers see all fetuses as persons, _at conception_ while 20 week PCers make this distinction at _20 weeks._ The PLers (on average) allow abortion for a person only for rape/incest/mother’s health. **Would you agree that abortions for [post 20 week] persons should be restricted to rape/incest/mother’s health?** Yes. (again, I’d probably go with 24 weeks, but that’s me) **8) What is your general view towards the PCers who advocate “abortion at any point?” How does that differ from your view towards PLers?** I’d say that I understand their position, but I disagree. If a woman is so averse to pregnancy that she feels she needs an abortion, she should be able to obtain those services before 24 weeks. It’s highly unlikely that a woman is unaware that she’s pregnant even by 20 weeks. At that point, you’ve procrastinated far too long, and you’re committed to a pregnancy. If you want to schedule an early c-section, by all means, do so. Just make it as late as possible to make sure the baby has every possible chance at good health. **9) To the extent you believe a fetus becomes a person at 20 weeks, what is the basis for that belief? (i.e. viability)** Medical science tells us that fetuses are able to “sense” sounds, the mother’s heart beat, etc. Nerve endings are growing, there is a brain stem and a spinal cord. I can’t speak for anyone else, but as far as a persona anecdote: I had three sonograms in my third trimester with my first child. (I worked at a teaching hospital, so I was great learning material for the OB rotation). Whenever the OB resident would try to move the wand over him, he would throw his arm over his eyes and turn away from the sound, which, to me, inferred “personality.” Now, I realize that’s hardly scientific, but at that point, he was a person to me. **To what extent are your views influenced by your religious views?** [/QUOTE] Not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/446 "2006-03-04T05:27:03Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Question for Updike - what is your position on care and foster homes? I’m not sure what you’re asking. What about them? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/447 "2006-03-04T09:54:12Z")
While I’m not **Revenant Threshold** , I’ll take a shot at this. Making abortion illegal will result in children being born who would otherwise be aborted. These children will be born to women who are unwilling to care for them. Since these women won’t care for them, who will? CJ ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/448 "2006-03-04T12:20:20Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > No I don’t, nor do I think anyone has the right to call her immoral. It’s clear to me that she is a victim. > > As to her ordeal, I think it was wrong in every way. (based on the limited information you present) She should not have had to meet with that panel **at all** , and it was not their place to render judgement on her _in any way._ > > That having been said, the question remains: **"Was this a human life?"** > > **If it was** a human life, this is a tragedy on more than one front. First they humiliated this woman publicly, something they had no right to do. They amplified the tragedy by adding another victim to the mix by authorizing the killing of her unborn child. (which makes one wonder what the purpose of the kangaroo court was anyway, if not to humiliate her) > > **If it was not** a human life, the state (via the ‘panel’) had no compelling legal interest in the fetus, which should have had no more legal significance than her appendix. _At any rate,_ there is no context in which the state should have had any opinion on her ‘morals.’ > > I feel sympathy for her and the uneccessary humilation she was subjected to. I have greater concern for the fetus, who wasn’t humiliated, but murdered. > > I think the issue of welfare and the proper role of government are important issues. This issue is very complex and some very interesting arguments can be made on both sides of the political aisle. > > But I do not think this is relevent to this discussion, for if it is a human life the absence of adequate social services can never be a reason to essentially kill unborn children. > > Does this issue require discussion? yes. Is [tremondous] improvement in many, many ways, many if not most, are outside the purview of the state necessary? yes. > > Answers are needed. But killing babies is not the answer. > > In fairness to me, I haven’t at any point suggested that people shouldn’t have sex. > > My message has been clear: Human life begins at conception. > > Along those lines it would seem appropriate that: > > 1. People use better judgement. (certainly better than we see regularly) > 2. Show restraint when it is appropriate. (I do not believe the average 19 year old has the requisite emotional, mental, and financial maturity to accept the potential results from being sexually active) > 3. People have a better grasp of the subtle and less than subtle impact of their decisions and non-decisions. > 4)Accept personal responsibility for their choices, and understand that life is often ‘unfair’ or unpredictable. But if it a fetus is a human life it is a function of our character that we don’t kill the unborn—even when it is the easiest thing to do. > > I didn’t watch the hearings, but I did hear 4 or 5 hours worth during windshield time. > _Of course not!_ But if the fetus is a human life, what shall we do? Shall we authorize the killing of unborn children because some will seek illegal abortions, thereby putting themselves and their unborn children at risk? > > I do not believe that the state should have no compassion for the anguish and unplanned pregnancy can cause. But if the fetus is a human life, the women in your scenario are dying in the process of killing another human. The sperm is human life so each time a man ejuculates he is killing many lives even if one impregnates a woman. By that standard all men would have to be castrated so no human lives would be lost. Under a different circumstance all sperm could be called a potential human being. monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/449 "2006-03-04T12:23:49Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The sperm is human life so each time a man ejuculates he is killing many lives even if one impregnates a woman. By that standard all men would have to be castrated so no human lives would be lost. Under a different circumstance all sperm could be called a potential human being. > > monavis :smack: should have previewed the post I meant ejaculates. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/450 "2006-03-04T12:24:43Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The sperm is human life so each time a man ejuculates he is killing many lives even if one impregnates a woman. By that standard all men would have to be castrated so no human lives would be lost. Under a different circumstance all sperm could be called a potential human being. > > monavis That’s a tired argument and doesn’t even make sense. “Left alone”, in as much as it’s host is kept alive with nourishment, a sperm or egg will no more turn into a baby than your hair folicles. OTOH, an egg, fertilized by sperm is a human life and that is clearly manifest. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/451 "2006-03-04T12:40:41Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > That’s a tired argument and doesn’t even make sense. “Left alone”, in as much as it’s host is kept alive with nourishment, a sperm or egg will no more turn into a baby than your hair folicles. OTOH, an egg, fertilized by sperm is a human life and that is clearly manifest. What’s that old saw about people who claim that things ‘clearly’ are so in their arguments? And how ‘clear’ is it when you’re willing to posit one unholy hell of a complicated environment for cell A to eventually turn into a baby and therefore be alive, but positing the same enviroment plus one additional cell normally native to that environment (womb + egg cell) is not allowed? If you’re willing to posit an available uterine wall ready for implantation, why not that and an egg cell? Well, it would raise every human from mass murderer via our gestation to genocidal monster via our gonads. But why should the inescapable conclusion that life is murder dissuade us from the premise that single-celled anythings are human people? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/452 "2006-03-04T12:46:29Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > What’s that old saw about people who claim that things ‘clearly’ are so in their arguments? > > And how ‘clear’ is it when you’re willing to posit one unholy hell of a complicated environment for cell A to eventually turn into a baby and therefore be alive, but positing the same enviroment plus one additional cell normally native to that environment (womb + egg cell) is not allowed? If you’re willing to posit an available uterine wall ready for implantation, why not that and an egg cell? > > Well, it would raise every human from mass murderer via our gestation to genocidal monster via our gonads. But why should the inescapable conclusion that life is murder dissuade us from the premise that single-celled anythings are human people? wow At least you didn’t use the word “clearly”, huh? Care to translate that into something that makes sense? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/453 "2006-03-04T12:55:47Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > That’s a tired argument and doesn’t even make sense. “Left alone”, in as much as it’s host is kept alive with nourishment, a sperm or egg will no more turn into a baby than your hair folicles. OTOH, an egg, fertilized by sperm is a human life and that is clearly manifest. Indeed it won’t turn into a baby with out being combined with an ova, but like a apple blossom it is not yet a person, any more than an apple blossom is an apple. But It is a fact that A man’s sperm contains human life; and that seems to be an argument of yours that human lives are lost in an abortion and that seems to be why you dissaprove of abortions. The life was in the sperm that joined with the ova and is not yet developed into a person. I had 2 early miscarriages and saw no shape of a person even though I stayed in bed for 10 days trying to hold on to the pregnancy. I had 7 children but never felt I had lost 2 children,as I saw the clots of the pregnancy and there was no shape of a child. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/454 "2006-03-04T13:04:50Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Indeed it won’t turn into a baby with out being combined with an ova, but like a apple blossom it is not yet a person, any more than an apple blossom is an apple. But It is a fact that A man’s sperm contains human life; and that seems to be an argument of yours that human lives are lost in an abortion and that seems to be why you dissaprove of abortions. The life was in the sperm that joined with the ova and is not yet developed into a person. I had 2 early miscarriages and saw no shape of a person even though I stayed in bed for 10 days trying to hold on to the pregnancy. I had 7 children but never felt I had lost 2 children,as I saw the clots of the pregnancy and there was no shape of a child. > > Monavis Once again, I never said sperm is a human life. You may consider it alive in the same fashion your hair or fingernails are alive. But it is not **distinctly** a human, as separate from the man. A fertilized egg however, is a life that will develop into a baby, distinctly human, separate from the woman. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/455 "2006-03-04T13:05:22Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > wow > At least you didn’t use the word “clearly”, huh? > Care to translate that into something that makes sense? OK. Your logic is that a fertilized ovum, if left alone, will eventually become a child. You freely concede that ‘left alone’ in this case actually entails a hugely complicated environment (womb of healthy female of appropriate age at proper time for implantation). Now, I claim that this exact environment plus one additional cell that can normally be found in this environment (an unfertilized egg cell) means that a sperm cell can be ‘left alone’ and become a child. It is not ‘clear’ to me why, if you are willing to wave away the environment of womb as being left alone, the environment womb-plus-ovum cannot be similarly waved away. And I can do a whole routine about induced twinning and chimeras that makes it anything but clear that a cell capable of developing into a human is in fact a human, but I’ll save re-posting that until we’ve dealt with the issue at hand. Hopefully that made more sense. I can re-explain a specific bit of my argument, if need be. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/456 "2006-03-04T13:27:13Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > OK. Your logic is that a fertilized ovum, if left alone, will eventually become a child. You freely concede that ‘left alone’ in this case actually entails a hugely complicated environment (womb of healthy female of appropriate age at proper time for implantation). > > Now, I claim that this exact environment plus one additional cell that can normally be found in this environment (an unfertilized egg cell) means that a sperm cell can be ‘left alone’ and become a child. It is not ‘clear’ to me why, if you are willing to wave away the environment of womb as being left alone, the environment womb-plus-ovum cannot be similarly waved away. > > And I can do a whole routine about induced twinning and chimeras that makes it anything but clear that a cell capable of developing into a human is in fact a human, but I’ll save re-posting that until we’ve dealt with the issue at hand. > > Hopefully that made more sense. I can re-explain a specific bit of my argument, if need be. I’m not sure I understand 100%, but much more to be sure. Thanks for the clarification. And maybe I wasn’t 100% clear. It is my view that “left alone”, meaning that you take no active role in it’s course, environment, disposition etc, and do nothing more than keep it’s host nourished and in reasonably good health, your hair folicles, fingernails, and sperm will not produce a child. To those who say that sperm, using my arguments, is a human life and the loss of sperm is a de facto abortion, are playing word games. An unfertilized egg may remain in the woman for her whole life and will not produce a child. It is only a fertilized egg that will produce a child, and if an egg is fertilized in the woman’s womb, and the woman is kept in reasonably good health a baby will ensue with little or no intervention (intervention like prenatal care) by anyone during the gestation process. That’s not to say that medical technology, like artificial insemination, doesn’t alter the environment or process, but fundamentally it remains true that you and I got here through a fertilized egg—the point at which our development as humans _began._ ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/457 "2006-03-04T15:24:58Z")
The thing is, though, if a fertilized egg implants in one of a woman’s Fallopian tubes, not her uterus, it won’t grow to a baby left to itself. I’m not entirely sure what will happen, since I’ve no background in medicine, but it’s my understanding that such a pregnancy will kill the mother before the child becomes able to live on its own. For that matter, I gather that most of the time, a woman’s uterus isn’t in a condition which will provide the nourishment a fertilized egg requires. It only does so in response to the same hormonal changes which result in an egg being released. If you were to place a fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus during most of her monthly cycle, it wouldn’t survive until birth because the blood vessels and other things needed to sustain an embryo wouldn’t be in place. **The raindog** , I do accept your apology, by the way, and I’m afraid I was one of the people who thought you might be lumping me in with women who were more concerned about their bikini lines than a human life. You see, while you may have said such things lightly, there are people who share your opinion who appear to mean them. I used to go to a cheap bookstore which was in the same building as a clinic which performed abortions and I saw the protestors there. They weren’t as polite as you’ve been. To be honest, I’m not comfortable with placing restrictions on a point at which an abortion can be performed. Let’s look at a timeline, shall we? The birth control I use has stopped my monthly cycles. I can’t tell if I’m pregnant because things start late or not at all. Since this particular form is actually more effective than female sterilization, I’m also not expecting to get pregnant. I could, therefore, be well into a pregnancy before I noticed anything was amiss. Indeed, a woman in the GD thread asking if abortion was a bad thing was in just that position and only found out she was pregnant when she went to the doctor for an unrelated matter. In South Dakota, as in my state, there’s a 24 hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion. In South Dakota, however, there’s only one doctor who performs abortions, and she only holds office hours once a week. Some states are trying to make restrictions tighter, still. Given the time required to realize and accept that one is pregnant (by the way, I wouldn’t rule out denial when it comes to this), the time required to make a decision about what to do about it, then the time required to schedule two or more doctor’s appointments, I can see how a woman might be into her second, or even her third trimester before she’s able to have an abortion. I can also see some in the anti-abortion camp agreeing to only ban third trimester abortions, but then throwing up so many obstacles that, by the time a woman has jumped through the requisite hoops, she finds herself in or close to it. I realize this is a dishonest tactic, but there are those in the anti-abortion crowd who continue to disseminate information that abortion is linked to breast cancer when, in fact, studies have denounced that link. I have one other problem with the notion that life begins at fertilization and that anything which interferes with a fertilized egg implanting in the womb causes an abortion. All of the most effective forms of female contraception except sterilization have been accused of having the potential of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, thus the people doing so have called for them to be banned. This is one of the main arguments against emergency contraception, even though, when it’s used, there’s no way of knowing if there’s even an egg available to be fertilized. If one argues that keeping a fertilized egg from implanting is causing an abortion then one could claim that having a hysterectomy is immoral since, if an egg somehow manages to be fertilized (kudos to the sperm who pulls it off!), there is no womb for it to implant into. It seems to me that if you call abortion immoral then call for the most effective forms of contraception to be banned, rather than reducing the number of abortions, you’re likely to be increasing them because the number of accidental, unwanted pregnancies will increase. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/458 "2006-03-04T16:18:52Z")
Another question based on **robertliguori** ’s ones. **Raindog** , you think that it is when a sperm and egg come together and fertilize that it becomes a person, because, left to it’s own devices, it will grow into a baby. A sperm and egg, left in their respective creators, don’t have personhood because sex is the action needed before fertilization can occur. Right? So, let’s take that fertilized egg. We now have a cell, that, according to you, has personhood. So what happens next? It splits, making two cells. And it splits again, making another double of cells, and so on. As this carries on, the personhood you believe it to have encapsulates the whole group of cells, not just that first one. Right? Ok, let’s go back to that first split. The (fertilized) egg, which came to be through a specific action, will now split into two cells automatically. Except…not. It requires energy to split itself. Where does this energy come from? The mother, who must eat more and sometimes of specific foods during her pregnancy in order to nourish the embryo/foetus, and allow it to create a new cell. Just to sum up, this leave us with: Outside action (sex) -\> new cell Outside action (mother providing energy) -\> new cell As I hope you’ll see, an embyro requires more than just “to be left alone” to grow. The mother could starve herself and kill the baby (and probably herself, too). Even the mother starving herself of some particular proteins could kill or maim the baby. I think it’s pretty clear that there is no real difference between these two outside actions leading to new cells - so surely your belief that personhood begins there could be equally applied to each new cells as they split? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/459 "2006-03-04T19:30:02Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > OTOH, an egg, fertilized by sperm is a human life and that is clearly manifest. Which basically amounts to a claim that human life is worthless; a few cells are just a few cells, whether you label it a human life or not. It’s still just mindless tissue, no more deserving of rights than an equal mass of slime mold. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/460 "2006-03-05T02:23:38Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Another question based on **robertliguori** ’s ones. > > **Raindog** , you think that it is when a sperm and egg come together and fertilize that it becomes a person, because, left to it’s own devices, it will grow into a baby. A sperm and egg, left in their respective creators, don’t have personhood because sex is the action needed before fertilization can occur. Right? Yes, but not exactly. Fertilization is required, and while sex is not the only method, it is the preferred one. 😃 > [@](#): > > So, let’s take that fertilized egg. We now have a cell, that, according to you, has personhood. So what happens next? It splits, making two cells. And it splits again, making another double of cells, and so on. As this carries on, the personhood you believe it to have encapsulates the whole group of cells, not just that first one. Right? Yes, but not exactly. The ‘first one’ is part of the ‘whole group of cells.’ It is a progressive, continuous, dynamic process and so the ‘first one’, and the ‘later group’ are _both_ the person. These are not isolated events, they are part of a continuum that will end in death. (where a compelling argument can be made that another continuum begins) > [@](#): > > Ok, let’s go back to that first split. The (fertilized) egg, which came to be through a specific action, will now split into two cells automatically. Except…not. It requires energy to split itself. Where does this energy come from? The mother, who must eat more and sometimes of specific foods during her pregnancy in order to nourish the embryo/foetus, and allow it to create a new cell. Just to sum up, this leave us with: > > Outside action (sex) -\> new cell > Outside action (mother providing energy) -\> new cell > > As I hope you’ll see, an embyro requires more than just “to be left alone” to grow. The mother could starve herself and kill the baby (and probably herself, too). Even the mother starving herself of some particular proteins could kill or maim the baby. I think it’s pretty clear that there is no real difference between these two outside actions leading to new cells - so surely your belief that personhood begins there could be equally applied to each new cells as they split? Part of me wants to respond to this by pointing out to you that I said essentially the same thing: _“It is only a fertilized egg that will produce a child, and if an egg is fertilized in the woman’s womb, and the woman is kept in reasonably good health a baby will ensue with little or no intervention (intervention like prenatal care) by anyone during the gestation process.”_ The flaw in your argument is the only _active_ action you describe----the only one that would deviate from what the woman might ordinarily do otherwise----is to starve herself. The nourishment the baby receives is _passive_—it requires no _specific_ action on the part of the woman that she wouldn’t ordinarily do. And while the average soccer mom concerns herself with the finest pre-natal care, and specific nutrients, they are certainly not required to produce a child. In fact the _average_ diet contains enough nutrients to produce a reasonably healthy child. (and in fact millions of babies are born every year on less) If the gestation process produces a greater appetite in the mother, that’s hardly an active process. The better part of me, however, says “so what?” _It’s 100% irrelevent!_ The _sole_ purpose of the sperm is to fertilize an egg for the purpose of a child. If it doesn’t meet it’s purpose, it is resorbed into the body. Similarly the \*sole \*purpose of the egg is to be fertilized. If it doesn’t meet it’s purpose, it is progressively discharged through menstration. The egg has no other purpose. Independent of each other, they serve no purpose. You may say that they’re alive in the same sense you may say any other cell, gland, organ or muscle is alive----but _independent of each other_ they cannot said to be a human life, and will never become one. Once fertilization occurs, would the fact that active or passive care is needed change what that group of cells are?\* No!\* With even a nominally decent diet—something the mother do anyway— ; or an active planned diet, the result will be the same. The only thing that will halt this process, and cause harm or death to the fetus, are _external factors_—disease, injury, or starvation intended or otherwise. In short, it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is nourished actively or passively. The process is “automatic”, and only external actions or forces will impact it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=24)