# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/501 "2006-03-06T11:24:59Z")
After posting the above, I went to get the morning paper. Coincidentally, there was a headline reading, “Consent laws for abortion result in no sharp drops”. Because this was reprinted from _The New York Times_, they don’t have a link to the story on their website. To summarize what’s in the article, abortion rates were studied in South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia to see if the existence of parental consent laws could be used to predict whether the number of abortions went up or down. It couldn’t. In Tennessee, Arizona, and Idaho, the percentage of teenagers who had abortions went up after parental consent laws were put in place. I’m no fan of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, or pregnant teenagers, but I’m even a less a fan of ineffective legislation which does nothing to solve the problem it’s purporting to take on. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Stagger\_Lee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Stagger\_Lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stagger_Lee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/502 "2006-03-06T13:00:46Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > But, again, by taking this position, you are overlooking the factst that fertilized eggs fail to implant; miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies happen; and that when women decide to undergo in-vitro fertilization, more eggs are fertilized than are implanted. I understand all of these things happen. Without wanting to be mean your objection is based on a fallacy. People die all the time, for all sorts of reasons, at all different stages of life. Their deaths, while tragic, do not negate the humanity of those that survive. Even if 99.9% of fertilised embryoes died through non-implantation or miscarraige does not necessarily mean that they cannot be human and deserving of rights. For instance during the black death in the 1300s killed around one third of Europe, with some areas suffering considerably higher fatalities. Their deaths, while tragic, did not mean that those around were suddenly not human because there was a high mortality rate. > [@Siege](#): > > Earlier I mentioned a family friend who had to spend the last three months of her pregnancy in bed or have yet another miscarriage. This is a reasonable assumption since all of her prior pregnancies had resulted in miscarriages. If she hadn’t done so and had had a miscarriage, would you consider her guilty of having an abortion? Depends. Do we really understand for certain why miscarraiges happen anyway? (I don’t know, that is why I am asking). First of all for a murder to occur there needs to be an intent to kill. If she did intend for the miscarraige to happen, then there is the issue of whether she actually caused it to happen or not. If she intentionally caused the miscarriage then she would be morally guilty of murder. If she didn’t intend it then it is an accident. If she didn’t cause it then it is an unfortunate event. Legally since I assume there is no clear link between miscarraige and the mothers actions then I don’t think she should be prosecuted for anything because short of administering an abortive, it couldn’t be proven that she caused the miscarraige. > [@Siege](#): > > Again repeating an earlier argument, I’ve read arguments that the most effective forms of contraception and emergency birth control should be banned because there is an unknown but small chance that they might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In the case of emergency contraception, common sense and basic statistics leave me with the impression that the odds of it doing so are somewhat less than the odds of a pregnant woman losing her baby because she’s in an automobile accident, but since I don’t have hard numbers for either, that’s all conjecture on my part. As a woman who’s using one of those forms of birth control and for whom sterilization is not practical at this time, not to mention it would be less effective, I don’t like where the argument that life begins at fertilization goes. This argument is somewhat off track from abortion. Anyway the last I read on stuff about the pill was that it didn’t cause the death of fertilised eggs. That may well have been wrong. Without offering a firm opinion there is the case to be made that in society there is a certain level of risk that is deemed acceptable. So for instance we know that a certain relatively small number of people will die in cars every year. Yet we consider the utility of cars in general worth the lives of these people, by not outlawing the use of cars. If the percentages are around the same the argument could be made that the utility of the pill and other like contraceptives outweighs the relatively small cost of life that will inevitably happen. Either way there is nothing intrinsicly wrong with contraceptives that stop egg and sperm meeting. If the current contraceptives fo produce an unacceptably high rate of embryo deaths, then we should try to find better contraceptive methods. > [@Siege](#): > > I also know a woman who’s had two ectopic pregnancies. The argument that life begins at conception means she’s had two abortions and some would call her a murderess twice over if all they heard was that she had two abortions. As I said, I consider abortion immoral; I don’t consider what she did immoral. As I understand ectopic pregnancies (and I could well be wrong), the embryo implants outside the womb meaning that there is no chance that the emryo will develop into a child, and that if the pregnancy continues the woman will die. If that is wrong then correct me. Anyway, sometimes there are situations in which there is no right answer, just one that is less wrong. There will be cases in which either the life of the mother or the child can be saved but not both. In those sort of situations I guess some sort of triage is the best approach. Since you can’t save both save the one with the best chance of life. Either that let the mother decide which one to save. In the case of ectopic pregnancies I would say that given the mother has by far the better chance of living, and since both mother and child cannot both live, while killing the foetus is not a good thing to do, it is the best out of a bunch of bad options. Therefore I wouldn’t consider your friend immoral either. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/503 "2006-03-06T13:04:20Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Surely you understand that I am not the one suggesting that it is thought alone that creates the value that distinguishes “human beings” from “blobs of tissue.” I am just responding to that notion. Well, no…that’s not my understanding. You’re the one attempting to pigeonhole him into accepting the necessary but not sufficient condition. Look, I think **Der Trihs** ’s rhetoric is way overboard, bad form, and often borders (if not achieves) offensiveness. But, I’ve read the posts, and it’s clear to me that he considers both brain (or somesuch) structure and functional activity as necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/504 "2006-03-06T13:53:28Z")
> [@Stagger Lee](#): > > Of the two approaches I think that the ontological approach is by far the more logical. The main problem with the functional approach is that there is no clear functional property that can be used to define personhood. Well, of course the ontological approach is “more logical” than the functional approach. How fortunate for you that it provides a clear binary true/false position. Is, is not. For it or against it. Right vs. wrong. Just as fortunate, IMO, the concept of “alive” is just a tad more complex than that, just as is any position concerning ethics. While there seems to be tendency to use physics as a model for biology, seeking out a few fully descriptive “laws of nature” that are adequate to define life, it’s a pipe-dream. The world is messy and contains many shades of grey. In attempting to reduce “humanity” to a single true/false, you remove the wonderful, awe-inspiring complexity that provides the multitudes of color that make up the tapestry of life, preferring a bland, black and white facsimile. And we all end up the poorer for it when overly simplistic rules are forced on us. Oddly enough, you explictly recognize this in a later post: > [@](#): > > Anyway, sometimes there are situations in which there is no right answer, just one that is less wrong. Exactly. ---
**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 6, 2006, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/505 "2006-03-06T14:15:28Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does an irreversibly brain dead person have the capacity? Because he’s identical to the temporarily brain dead patient in this regard. > > So, I have to disagree. The brain dead person, at that moment, lacks the capacity for thought. It’s inarguable. If you’re arguing that his physical condition will change and in the future he’ll have the capacity for thought, then you’re correct. But the same could be said for a fetus. I’m not arguing that. Think of capacity as a factory, and activity of the workers in that factory. A foetus has no factory nor workers. A normal person has both factory and workers. A brain dead person has the factory, and all the equipment present, but no workers. Capacity without activity. > [@](#): > > So for instance take intellectual ability. Commonly it is seen that all animals have no personhood, and therefore it is fine to kill animals for food, clothing, whatever. However if we wish to use brain function to define personhood then there are many animals that exhibit much higher brain functioning that a third trimester or even newborn baby. If brain functioning is our standard, and we give personhood to newborn babies, then personhood should also be granted to a wide range of animals which exhibit similar brain function. There is nothing unique about the functional ability of a newborn baby in this regard. This is essentially the argument of Peter Singer for animal liberation, that if we are going to define personhood functionally, then we should be consistent. There’s the alternate view, actually - that newborn babies do not have personhood either. And I would suggest that that is partially the case - personhood develops over time, and is not yet “finished” when the baby is born. Thus it has “some” personhood, but not to the level of other humans. When this personhood begins, however, is the question. > [@](#): > > Personally I think that a lot of the typical pro-choice distinctions of when personhood begin have much more to do with allowing abortion, rather then a sense of intellectual rigour. So for instance take “viability”, which has been bandied about quite a bit (and as I understand it is also the line drawn in Roe vs Wade). As a definition of personhood it has a number of flaws > > 1. First and foremost “viability” is not a property of the foetus itself, but is a property of the society around it. What is “viable” in some places and times is not viable in others. 500 years ago viability was somewhere around 36 weeks. With increases in technology we have gotten it to somewhere around 24 weeks. In another 500 years we may have invented mechanical wombs so that a foetus is viable from the point of conception. It is absurd to try and define something fundamental to a person such as personhood through something that is not a property of the person themselves. But 500 years ago viability was not being used as the point of personhood. Now it is. Perhaps in 500 years time we will have such machines, and yet the level at which we believe personhood to begin will be the same as now. > [@](#): > > 1. To illustrate this there are several absurd situations that may arise. Say for instance the point of viability in the US is 24 weeks, but because of lower levels of medical care the point of viability in Somalia is 30 weeks. So a woman in the US, when she reaches 24 weeks as a “person” inside of her, and cannot ethically get an abortion. What happens then if at 27 weeks she travels to Somalia? Does the foetus stop being a person now that they are effectively unviable? Should the mother be charged with murder since she has destroyed the personhood of the foetus? And can she now get an abortion since the foetus in no longer viable? In law, she can, yes. But here we’re talking about the actual, rather than legal, limits. > [@](#): > > 1. “Viability” as a concept is almost meaningless anyway. Babies born premature often require intensive medical care to live. Even babies born full-term require constant care (feeding, nurturing, ect) or they will die. Given this “viability” doesn’t mean “can survive on their own”, viability simply means “able to survive without a specific means of support”. Given the level of care that premature babies need there is no logical reason to exclude the support of a human womb from the list of possible care. Why is a baby that is able to live only in a womb or a humidicrib and more or less a person than a foetus who is only able to live in a womb? In both cases without serious levels of care the child will die. I believe the distinction that is made is this - a baby that is not viable does not yet have full or any development of organs, or of the body that is needed to survive. Likewise, the brain is also not fully developed - thus, the brain being the centre of the mind, it is logical that personhood has not fully, if at all, developed. > [@](#): > > 1. The objection that until a foetus is “viable” then the care of the foetus comes down to one person, the mother, is commonly raised. The general principle advanced here is that since only one person is capable of caring for the foetus, then it cannot be a person. This is clearly absurd since this seems to be the only situation that this applies in. There are many situations that we place ourselves in where our life is dependant on the actions of an individual. Such situations in no way negate our personhood, and therefore neither should it in this case. I agree on this point. > [@](#): > > 1. If “viable” is the distinction for personhood, then again there are many animals that are not given personhood that clearly exhibit more viability than even a newborn infant. So for instance while newborns require constant care cockroaches live and breed not just in human indifference, but in human opposition. Clearly their life is more “viable” than a newborns, yet they are not considered to have personhood. Right, because they’re at, and will stay at, a lower level of intelligence. If you want to compare, compare to cockroach\* larvae\*, please. > [@](#): > > Since then there is no reasonable logically consistent definition of personhood besides that of conception, I would say that personhood begins at this point and therefore abortion is wrong. But you haven’t proved that personhood beginning at conception is logical. You’ve assumed that, pointed out flaws in one other method, and declared victory. Let’s actually look at the definition of conception, shall we? 1. It has been demonstrated that the brain is where all activity related to the concept of “mind” takes place. An embryo at conception has no brain. Thus, no mind, and no personhood. 2. A human thumb has DNA. Using a thumb in good condition, we (given advanced enough technology) could clone that entire human. So thumb has the potential to create human life. Does a thumb have personhood? 3. A fertilized egg immediately splits - yet, personhood is “shared” amongst all the cells that split and develop. Does this mean that if we cut off a person’s arm, we remove some of their personhood? 4. If personhood is not “shared” among all cells that develop, then does each cell qualify as having personhood? Is it murder if one absorbs the other? Or is only the original cell personhood-having? Seems it’s not logical to say personhood is a function of conception, either. Perhaps we’d better look at other definitions of when personhood arrives. ---
**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 6, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/506 "2006-03-06T14:16:34Z")
Whoops. Those quotes after the first one are from **Stagger Lee**. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/507 "2006-03-06T21:04:43Z")
We all knew it was coming, but Mike Rounds has [signed](http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Abortion_Rights_Debate) the bill into law. Bets on how long it takes before it’s struck down? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/508 "2006-03-07T00:22:31Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Well, no…that’s not my understanding. You’re the one attempting to pigeonhole him into accepting the necessary but not sufficient condition. > > Look, I think **Der Trihs** ’s rhetoric is way overboard, bad form, and often borders (if not achieves) offensiveness. But, I’ve read the posts, and it’s clear to me that he considers both brain (or somesuch) structure and functional activity as necessary. Sorry, I’m missing your point. Professor Der Trihs has advanced the notion that it is thought that distinguishes a human from a blob of tissue. That is the only idea I was addressing. Whether or not there are other reasons to justify abortion aren’t relevant to this particular exchange. Again, I miss your point. If Der Trihs considers fucntional activity as a prerequisite for assigning the designation “human,” then temporarily brain dead patients are not human by his definition. The fact that he balked at our momnetarily brain-dead friend being considered less than human shows the incoherence of his position. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/509 "2006-03-07T00:31:30Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’m not arguing that. Think of capacity as a factory, and activity of the workers in that factory. A foetus has no factory nor workers. A normal person has both factory and workers. A brain dead person has the factory, and all the equipment present, but no workers. Capacity without activity. It’s a distinction without a difference. I think we’re engaged in another semantical distinction here, really. When I say the temporarily brain dead patient lacks the capacity for thought, I mean only that he is incapable of thought at that moment. Which he is. I follow your anaology, but the same could be said of a corpse. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/510 "2006-03-07T00:34:34Z")
_sigh_ I give up. **Stratocaster** , congratulations. You totally win. I could take the time and effort to refute your posts, including the one above which is about as accurate as Bill O’Reilly’s fact checker; I could point out that the cite you linked to after my last post was basically a lay explanation of what happens during clinically induced hypothermia; I could even go on and explain how brain death is nothing whatever like an undeveloped fetus due to physiological differences in an undeveloped fetus and a grown man. But frankly, you aren’t open to any interpretation other than yours. Which makes you a monumental waste of my time and that of others who’ve tried to debate with you in good faith. If you’re not willing to listen, why take part in a discussion? Have it, the thread is yours. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/511 "2006-03-07T00:48:14Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > _sigh_ > I give up. **Stratocaster** , congratulations. You totally win. > I could take the time and effort to refute your posts, including the one above which is about as accurate as Bill O’Reilly’s fact checker; I could point out that the cite you linked to after my last post was basically a lay explanation of what happens during clinically induced hypothermia; I could even go on and explain how brain death is nothing whatever like an undeveloped fetus due to physiological differences in an undeveloped fetus and a grown man. But frankly, you aren’t open to any interpretation other than yours. Which makes you a monumental waste of my time and that of others who’ve tried to debate with you in good faith. If you’re not willing to listen, why take part in a discussion? > > Have it, the thread is yours. Gutless. No one with an ounce of sense is buying your bullshit. If my facts are so easy to refute, go on, do it. > [@](#): > > Tell you what. You give me a cite in which someone is declared clinically braindead and recovers, and I’ll take you seriously. Otherwise, you’re talking out your ass and are trying to bluff your way out and I will continue to ignore your blatherings with impugnity. You fucking liar! Oh well, I expected nothing different. Sweetheart, you are a riot. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/512 "2006-03-07T01:00:16Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > We all knew it was coming, but Mike Rounds has [signed](http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Abortion_Rights_Debate) the bill into law. > > Bets on how long it takes before it’s struck down? [del]There’s enough time left in this session to hear the case, but do they want to hear it?[/del] Here we are having this incredibly productive debate on abortion, specifically when life itself begins, and you try to hijack it with a completely unrelated news story about South Dakota governor Mike Rounds. Have you no shame? If you want to discuss South Dakota laws, I’d suggest you start your own damn thread! 😃 CMC fnord ---
**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 7, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/513 "2006-03-07T01:41:41Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > It’s a distinction without a difference. I think we’re engaged in another semantical distinction here, really. When I say the temporarily brain dead patient lacks the capacity for thought, I mean only that he is incapable of thought at that moment. Which he is. > > I follow your anaology, but the same could be said of a corpse. So what? A fresh corpse, with no rotting, yes. I see no difference between the two, excepting that all other bodily functions (save brain and some spine related ones) are working for the brain dead person. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/514 "2006-03-07T02:15:57Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > [del]There’s enough time left in this session to hear the case, but do they want to hear it?[/del] > > Here we are having this incredibly productive debate on abortion, specifically when life itself begins, and you try to hijack it with a completely unrelated news story about South Dakota governor Mike Rounds. > > Have you no shame? > If you want to discuss South Dakota laws, I’d suggest you start your own damn thread! Yeah…what was I thinking? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/515 "2006-03-07T03:05:24Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > A fresh corpse, with no rotting, yes. I see no difference between the two, excepting that all other bodily functions (save brain and some spine related ones) are working for the brain dead person. And excepting the fact that the temporarily brain-dead patient will actually be capable of thought at some point in the future. Much like a fetus. ---
**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 7, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/516 "2006-03-07T03:36:11Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > And excepting the fact that the temporarily brain-dead patient will actually be capable of thought at some point in the future. Much like a fetus. Yep. So? Currently, it’s not. Also, I may be the worst poster still in this thread to argue this point with - i’m for abortion even in some cases where the foetus has personhood. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/517 "2006-03-07T03:38:51Z")
[ > [@](#): > > When Is an Abortion Not an Abortion? > TIME’s Nancy Gibbs explores the meaning of the South Dakota Abortion Ban > By NANCY GIBBS > Posted Monday, Mar. 06, 2006 > > …I talked to Representative Roger Hunt, the main sponsor of HB 1215, about why the bill was written as it was. Why, for instance, did they reject the standard exception to protect the health of the mother? Because, he says, that phrase is far too stretchy. “If we were talking of pure, serious health concerns,” that would be one thing, Hunt said. But “health” can mean economic health, mental health. “It becomes an open barn door for anyone who wants an abortion. We might as well not have the legislation at all”. > > But what about cases of rape and incest, where there is overwhelming public support for allowing abortion as an option? \*\*Here the lawmakers admit that they carved out a little gray area. Hunt notes that the bill forbids doctors from prescribing any drug or doing any procedure on a pregnant woman “with the specific intent” of ending a pregnancy. It also protects the right of women to use “ a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing…” > > In other words, a woman presenting herself to an emergency room immediately after a rape, Hunt says, would be able to use emergency contraception; the trick is that she has to do within the first few days after the assault, before any test can determine whether she was pregnant in the first place. The lawmakers concluded that it’s OK for a rape victim to have an abortion, so long as she doesn’t know for certain that she’s doing it.\*\* > > So why not have an exemption for all rape victims, including the ones who are too shattered to report an assault right away? Hunt calls it “a fine line that we’re walking, but some of this is just to show that we’re being fair and reasonable. In cases where we cannot determine if there’s an unborn child or not, we’re trying to be sympathetic to a woman who alleges she’s been raped.” But the sympathy expires after about a week. “Very honestly,” Hunt adds, “We don’t want to have a lot of abortion clinics questioning a woman and having the woman say ‘well, I was raped four months ago, I need an abortion. We’re trying to be sensitive to women who are legitimate rape victims—and not give abortion clinics a chance to commit fraud on system.”… > > …And even if rape victims do get themselves to a hospital for treatment, she {Kate Looby, the state director of Planned Parenthood S.D.} adds, it may not do any good. “We’ve introduced a bill requiring emergency room doctors to tell assault victims about emergency contraception—they’re not required to provide it, just to tell patients about it—and that bill has repeatedly failed in the South Dakota Legislature.” South Dakota was among the earliest states to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense Plan B, the “morning-after pill,” if doing so violated their conscience. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html)) Wow, who knew [Schrodinger](http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/kitnext.html) had a uterus too! CMC fnord ---
**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 7, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/518 "2006-03-07T03:46:32Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Wow, who knew [Schrodinger](http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/kitnext.html) had a uterus too! Nah, he had a cat in the box, not a baby. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/519 "2006-03-07T11:10:23Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Yep. So? So, is a temporarily brain dead person a, well, _person_ or is he just a mass of tissue? For example, if you put a bullet in his head, have you destroyed a person? ---
**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 7, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/520 "2006-03-07T16:08:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, is a temporarily brain dead person a, well, _person_ or is he just a mass of tissue? For example, if you put a bullet in his head, have you destroyed a person? If the person wakes up, he was never brain dead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=27)