South Dakota Legislature ignore Constitution, tries to enact abortion ban

[Cerri]

So the fact that a particular moral conclusion, if applied, would cause a certain amount of emotional pain is just not relevant to truth of the conclusion itself. Reality is objective, and the mere fact of your emotional pain, while everyone would certainly sympathize with you, does not alter reality.

Reality is objective? News to me…I think reality is mostly what people perceive it to be. In your mind, abortion of a fetus is murder. That’s YOUR reality. Mine might be quite different.

All your point seems to be telling me, is that a bunch of random strangers, none of whom know me, or have to live my life, would like to force me to have an unwanted pregnancy, even if it was the result of a rape.

Which really, in MY reality, just tells me said random strangers, in all actuality, give not a single shit about either my well-being, OR the well-being of my not-yet-born fetus-child, beyond imposing their morality on whether or not they can force me to follow through on said pregnancy.

[RexDart]

@Who_me?

Uhhhh… Rex?

There’s kind of a big difference between you killing your neighbor and someone having an abortion… One’s killing a person, and the other isn’t.

Ummm, why do you seem confused?

Much of the abortion debate hinges on the question of whether the fetus is a person. In fact, I think that’s the primary question, since I believe rights attach to persons. You seem to think that’s the important question too, as it’s the reason you are giving for the difference between those two actions. If I get harassed by some other posters for glossing over the personhood argument, at least I was honest enough to come back to the thread and give a brief outline. In fact, I’d wager the personhood of a fetus, and the nature of the rights that attach to a person, are among the most hotly contested arguments. You seem to have just waved your hand in the air and concluded as if by magic that my neighbor is a person and the fetus isn’t, without even trying to describe the logical threshold for the distinction. You even manage to seem somehow shocked and befuddled. Did you read the part of my post where I noted quite clearly that I disagree with the notion that the fetus isn’t a person but the neighbor is? And if you did read that part of the post, what exactly was your response supposed to be?

Me: Because of X, Y, and Z, I believe it is the case that A is true
You: Uhhh…no it isn’t!

Anyways, this is all far afield from my initial point in this thread, which was only to show that failure to give a rape exception to an abortion ban is not just mindless cruelty, that there is a logical chain of reasoning by which one might reach it. With the exception of maybe one Pit outburst a few months back, I’ve managed to hang around here for almost two years and follow my personal rule not to jump into any general abortion debates. If I wanted to do that, I’d have given my two cents in the “non-religious pro-life arguments” thread over in GD.

[Anaamika]

These abortion debates always get so long. A couple of basic points:

People who believe fetuses are alive: I don’t force you to have an abortion, why do you think it’s OK to force me to have a baby? Aren’t there enough lost cause babies in the world that you have to go after the parasite that’s invaded my body against my will?

Also, the gov’t who can force births can force abortions as well. We don’t need this kind of power in the gov’t’s hand.

And all this stuff has been said before. I have to admit I was stunned and impressed my the honesty of this, quoted from the article linked above:

“The bill, passed 54-15, would outlaw abortion unless a mother’s life is in danger. It makes no exceptions for rape victims or women who could suffer permanent serious health problems by having babies.
When we’re considering an innocent life, the health of the mother is not a substantial enough justification to take the innocent life,” said Republican Rep. Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of the bill. "

Ah. So at least we’re coming clear about our motivations. Women don’t matter to these people, as many here have said. Only the clump of tissue.

Also, someone pointed out early an interesting anaology about a boat.

"If that passenger was invited (consensual sex) then you don’t have the right to just throw him overboard. "

This is ridiculous. Consensual sex means I’m inviting a baby every time? Don’t people realize that this is why the world is ridiculously overpopulated? Being a good Catholic and not practicing sensible birth control means being a bad and selfish human, not thinking about the limited resources available in this world.

[John_Corrado]

@Cerri

Can any male pro-lifer explain to me why it matters, being a man,what your opinion is regarding rape after abortion, especially as regards MY body and mind? YOU (the hypothetical-or-not pro-life male) will never have to endure the consequences of your Great Moral Decision.

Errr… cause we were once embryos, and therefore the “Great Moral Decision” had a very serious effect as to whether we existed or not?

[robertliguori]

@John Corrado

Errr… cause we were once embryos, and therefore the “Great Moral Decision” had a very serious effect as to whether we existed or not?

We were once sperm cells. No one seems to want to save all of them, or give them various rights.

[Cerri]

@John Corrado

Errr… cause we were once embryos, and therefore the “Great Moral Decision” had a very serious effect as to whether we existed or not?

Well, not to be nit-picky, but, my question asked why what a male pro-lifer thinks about abortion in the case of rape especially as regards MY body and mind matters.

Since I’m not your mother, the Great Moral Decision ™ as regards my body, would have had zero effect on your existence, or lack thereof.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@RexDart

In my view, having concluded that both the baby and the mother have rights, I put this in a libertarian framework. The baby is alot like a passenger on a boat. If that passenger was invited (consensual sex) then you don’t have the right to just throw him overboard. If, however, the passenger is a trespasser you did not invite on board (rape), then he has no right to remain on your property and you can expel him.

This seems an odd conclusion to reach. After all, the baby didn’t exactly decide to trespass on your boat.

Consider this: You own a boat, about to sail the oceans. I sneak up on my worst enemy, beat him up, bind and gag him, and hide him amidst your cargo. You discover him mid-voyage. Since you didn’t invite him, does this mean you can simply cast him to the sharks?

DISCLAIMER: While I disagree with the notion that the right to abortion has any locus within the federal constitution, as a matter of policy the issue gives me fits – I’m a consummate fence-sitter. The above should only be read as a critique of RexDart’s analogy, not as a statement of my own position.

[John_Corrado]

@Cerri

Well, not to be nit-picky, but, my question asked why what a male pro-lifer thinks about abortion in the case of rape especially as regards MY body and mind matters.

Since I’m not your mother, the Great Moral Decision ™ as regards my body, would have had zero effect on your existence, or lack thereof.

By that logic, if someone murdered you, I could not prosecute the murderer, as it wasn’t me that was murdered, and the murder had zero effect on my personal existence.

I believe that abortion is murder. That life does begin at conception. You claim to have a right to kill someone because his/her existence would otherwise inconvenience you; I find such an argument tenuous at best. My right to have that opinion is based in the same moral code that gives me a right to oppose human rights abuses in China (why should I care? I’m wasn’t born to a Chinese woman, and will never be incarcerated by them) or slaughter in Africa (why should I care? I wasn’t born to a Hutu or Tutsi woman, and therefore will never have my life risked) or feel that the Holocaust was a horrible, horrible crime (why should I care? I wasn’t born to a Jewish woman, and by the time I was born, Nazi Germany had been shut down for a generation or two).

[tdn]

@RexDart

The emotional responses that you mention are not relevant to the ultimate conclusion.

I’ll try to remember that the next time I see the stoic dispassion of those assholes that protest (and sometimes bomb) abortion clinics.

In fact emotional responses are central to the debate. The “personhood” of a zygote is not the central issue, it’s a debating tool to aid in support of one’s emotional position. Don’t fool yourself.

As well, pro-lifers usually cite the rights of the unborn as the primary reason to ban abortion. But when a scenario such as the one Cerri describes is brought up, where the lives of both mother and child would be miserable, pro-lifers usually fumble for a bit, then come back even stronger with “But won’t someone think of the poor children?” Not only an emotional response, but an inconsistant one at that.

I think that the position of pro-lifers is a theoretically sound one, but it doesn’t work in the real world. The fact that fully one sixth of women that get abortions are vociferously pro-life should tell you that (cite available on request, but it might take a few days). And the fact of back alley abortions should also indicate that some blowhard politician’s moral stance is inconsistant with real life.

[tdn]

@John Corrado

I believe that abortion is murder.

Correct. You believe that. It is your belief. An opinion, not an immutable law. Thank you for phrasing that way.

I believe it is an elective medical procedure. One that should be decided on by the mother, her husband, her doctor, her peculiar circumstance, and her god.

So whose opinion should carry more weight? That of a self-righteous politician that cannot possibly predict all circumstances? That will criminalize an act that, in individual cases, may be warranted? I think not.

[elmwood]

The proposed bill:

State of South Dakota
SEVENTY-NINTH SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2004

439J0700
HOUSE BILL NO. 1191

Introduced by: Representatives McCaulley, Bartling, Begalka, Christensen, Davis, Deadrick (Thomas), Dykstra, Frost, Fryslie, Garnos, Gassman, Gillespie, Glenski, Hackl, Hanson, Haverly, Heineman, Hennies, Hunhoff, Juhnke, Klaudt, Koistinen, Konold, Kraus, Lange, Lintz, Madsen, McCoy, Michels, Miles, Novstrup, Olson (Ryan), Peterson (Bill), Peterson (Jim), Rave, Rhoden, Rounds, Schafer, Sebert, Smidt, Solum, Teupel, Van Etten, Van Gerpen, Weems, Wick, and Williamson and Senators Schoenbeck, Abdallah, Albers, Apa, Bogue, Earley, Greenfield, Jaspers, Kelly, Kleven, Kloucek, Koetzle, Koskan, McCracken, Moore, Napoli, Sutton (Duane), and Vitter
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, and to prescribe a penalty therefor.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

 Section  1.  The Legislature finds that the State of South Dakota has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and protection of all human life within and subject to its jurisdiction and that the preservation and protection of human life applies to all human life, born or unborn.

 Section  2.  The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefor finds that unborn human life begins when the ovum isfertilized by male sperm.

 Section  3.  The Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human life and that there is no other justification for the taking of a guiltless human life by the state or by any person within and subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

 Section  4.  The Legislature finds that there is no justification for protecting an unborn human life in preference to the life of the mother if birth or continued pregnancy constitutes a clear and immediate threat of death to the mother or serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

 Section  5.  That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

 No person may administer to, prescribe for, or procure for any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the intent of causing or abetting the termination of an unborn human life unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. No person may use or employ any instrument or procedure with the intent of causing or abetting the termination of an unborn human life unless it is necessary to preserve the life of any pregnant woman or if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

 Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.

 Section  6.  That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

 No licensed physician who terminates an unborn human life in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and after determining in good faith that such termination of the unborn human life is medically necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman is guilty of violating section 5 of this Act.

 Section  7.  That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

 Terms used in this Act mean:

         (1)    "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a developing unborn human life within her body after the fertilization of the ovum by male sperm;

         (2)    "Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function," any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible physical impairment; and

         (3)    "Unborn human life," an individual organism of the species homo sapiens that begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.

Jesus.

Why is the South Dakota legislature so overwhelmingly pro-life? It’s not exactly a bastion of pre-Vatican II Catholicism or fire-and-brimstone-spewing Southern-style fundamentalism.

I can’t find very much information about the history or background of the bill, except from pro-life sites and right-wing RSS feeds.

[John_Corrado]

@tdn

So whose opinion should carry more weight? That of a self-righteous politician that cannot possibly predict all circumstances? That will criminalize an act that, in individual cases, may be warranted? I think not.

Or that of a self-righteous politician who cannot possibly predict all circumstances, and allows an act that is the equivalent to murder?

I believe abortion is murder, and use the word ‘believe’. I also believe that stealing money from my employees is embezzelment, but we don’t seem to be arguing over using that word or electing politicans that will support embezzelment laws.

You believe “it is an elective medical procedure. One that should be decided on by the mother, her husband, her doctor, her peculiar circumstance, and her god.” But note that the one who is aborted- the one who lives or dies- gets no say in that whatsoever. How is that right?

[tdn]

@John Corrado

Or that of a self-righteous politician who cannot possibly predict all circumstances, and allows an act that is the equivalent to murder?

That some people believe is the equivalent to murder. I understand where you’re coming from, really I do, but there is hardly a consensus on that. Probably never will be. But by banning abortion, we are in effect saying that pregnant woman have no moral standards, so the government will have to set some. Give women a little credit. Most don’t go through abortions lightly, they do what they see is best for all, including the baby. And sometimes the choice is a very painful one. The last thing they need is to become criminals on top of that.

I believe abortion is murder, and use the word ‘believe’. I also believe that stealing money from my employees is embezzelment, but we don’t seem to be arguing over using that word or electing politicans that will support embezzelment laws.

Bit of a straw man. There are some laws that are obvious, and some that are controversial. Abortion isn’t as cut and dry as, say, grand theft auto.

You believe “it is an elective medical procedure. One that should be decided on by the mother, her husband, her doctor, her peculiar circumstance, and her god.” But note that the one who is aborted- the one who lives or dies- gets no say in that whatsoever. How is that right?

This is your best point, and the hardest one for me to argue with. But I ask you – Is it child abuse if a mother forbids her child to play in the street? Is it immoral if a mother doesn’t let her kid have cookies for dinner? Of course not. So is it murder if a mother doesn’t want ther child to be born into a miserable life?

[NurseCarmen]

So incest isn’t even considered in the SoDak ban.

I forsee a population explosion.

[Lambo]

@elmwood

The proposed bill:

Jesus.

Why is the South Dakota legislature so overwhelmingly pro-life? It’s not exactly a bastion of pre-Vatican II Catholicism or fire-and-brimstone-spewing Southern-style fundamentalism.

I can’t find very much information about the history or background of the bill, except from pro-life sites and right-wing RSS feeds.

Well, the story this morning in the Argus Leader gives the latest thoughts by some involved. If you look at the archive, there are some stories that go a little deeper.

I miss my home state a lot. But not today. It is all but assured that the law will be found uncostitutional, and yet instead of working to reduce the number of abortions through other means like sex ed, they go this route, and really do nothing more than waste money.

Gahh. I don’t know. I’ve met a good number of those on the co-sponsor list, esp. the Democrats. Being an avowed pro-choice candidate in the state is a pretty high hurdle to overcome, unfortunately. It seems like a lot of other faults can be overlooked, as long as you are anti-abortion. Oh, and are dead set against an income tax.

[John_Corrado]

@tdn

That some people believe is the equivalent to murder. I understand where you’re coming from, really I do, but there is hardly a consensus on that. Probably never will be. But by banning abortion, we are in effect saying that pregnant woman have no moral standards, so the government will have to set some. Give women a little credit. Most don’t go through abortions lightly, they do what they see is best for all, including the baby. And sometimes the choice is a very painful one. The last thing they need is to become criminals on top of that.

Let me also be perfectly clear- I don’t see this as a cut-and-dried obvious issue, either; I think it’s an extremely confusing one where no one is completely right or completely wrong. Hell, even the clinic bombers have a point- we talk about how 6,000,000 dying in the Holocaust can ‘never happen again’, so if we truly believed that abortion was murder, we should be rioting in the streets over the number of abortions being performed. I have never voted for a candidate because of their abortion stance, and consider the issue near the bottom of my preferences.

I just get tired of the hypocritical moralism of “YOU have no right to say anything on this issue” that Cerri was evincing, or the “how DARE you think your morality means anything” that your first post seemed to contain. There’s way too much holier-than-thou on both sides of this issue.

Bit of a straw man. There are some laws that are obvious, and some that are controversial. Abortion isn’t as cut and dry as, say, grand theft auto.

Agreed it isn’t cut-and-dry, but any functioning society has a consensus on what is or is not acceptable morality. Just because abortion has moved into a more morally acceptable light than it was in fifty years ago doesn’t necessarily mean it has moved to a position where we must allow it because there’s a question on it.

This is your best point, and the hardest one for me to argue with. But I ask you – Is it child abuse if a mother forbids her child to play in the street? Is it immoral if a mother doesn’t let her kid have cookies for dinner? Of course not. So is it murder if a mother doesn’t want their child to be born into a miserable life?

It’s still murder. The question is, is it justifiable? And in a country where there is a functioning adoption system, too much of the emphasis in reasons to have an abortion focus upon the hardships to the mother- having to carry a child she won’t keep for 9 months, having the ‘shame’ of giving her child up for adoption- rather than the hardships of the child.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There is no fucking child, it isn’t fucking “murder,” and it’s nobody’s fucking business.

Only a sociopath would force a woman to endure a rape-induced pregnancy. People can fantasize that a zygote is a person all they want. It’s slightly less rational than when people anthropomorphize their pets but they’re allowed to have their fantasies.

They have NO right, however, to force everyone else to share in that fantasy and they have NO ownership over another person’s body.

[RexDart]

@tdn

In fact emotional responses are central to the debate.

No, they’re not. Take an ethics class some time. Emotional responses have absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a moral proposition. Nobody’s opinion has anything to do with it, nobody’s “gut feeling” has anything to do with it. Truth and falsity exist independantly of any human’s perspective, and “but wouldn’t that be awful if it were true” is not a response to a claim. These things have to be evaluated with logic and method, divorced from any emotional response that may exist on the periphery.

The “personhood” of a zygote is not the central issue, it’s a debating tool to aid in support of one’s emotional position. Don’t fool yourself.

I’m not the one fooling myself. I attack this problem as I attack all others, by formulating a position through logical consideration. I arrive all the time at conclusions that seem radical or unpleasant, but I don’t simply write them off because I may not like what their truth might result in. I do not do the opposite, start with the conclusion I want to have and create a path to reason my way there. If I did that, I wouldn’t have a coherent system anymore, and would wind up embracing contradictions.

As well, pro-lifers usually cite the rights of the unborn as the primary reason to ban abortion. But when a scenario such as the one Cerri describes is brought up, where the lives of both mother and child would be miserable, pro-lifers usually fumble for a bit, then come back even stronger with “But won’t someone think of the poor children?” Not only an emotional response, but an inconsistant one at that.

Well, I’m a pro-lifer in this thread, and I’m not doing what you accuse all pro-lifers of doing. I’m not like fucking Maude Flanders, spouting idiotic emotional drivel at the first sign of conflict. I have stated quite clearly where my conclusions come from, and that I am quite willing to follow the logical extension of my principles even to unpopular or emotionally distressing ends, because I value truth over emotional comfort. You may have a point about alot of the people on either side of those picket lines at rallies and such, and about those who reason to pro-life positions from religion or from visceral disgust at giant-dead-baby-pictures, but I’ve made it pretty clear I’m neither of those.

BTW, I don’t see why suddenly now it’s okay for you to impose your judgment in lieu of the unborn child on whether his life would be worth living, as the child is not in a position to decide whether to forfeit absolutely his right to life. Weren’t you and Cerri just in a huff a few hours ago when you thought that’s what I was doing, imposing my judgment on you? At least I wasn’t killing anybody in the process.

originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I just made that a blank space since that most accurately reflects the intellectual merit of your post. You continue to be the single worst poster on the SDMB. I see all your trademark post elements in this one, a real classic. You’ve got vitriolic indignant anger, outright hatred for the opposite side, complete derision and instant dismissal of the notion that they have any valid points at all, farcical exaggeration (“only a sociopath would…”), and sweeping conclusory statements with no contextual support.

Hey tdn, if you want a correct example of someone who clearly holds their position for emotional reasons, take worthless dickface Diogenes here as your shining case-in-point.

[tdn]

@John Corrado

I just get tired of the hypocritical moralism of “YOU have no right to say anything on this issue” that Cerri was evincing, or the “how DARE you think your morality means anything” that your first post seemed to contain. There’s way too much holier-than-thou on both sides of this issue.

I don’t think that either Cerri or myself had too much of a HTT attitude here. If that’s the way I came across, I apologize. Here’s what I really meant to say: There are many reasons to get an abortion. Due to rape, incest, poverty, health risks, etc., and probably five thousand more that neither you or I can conceive of.

I understand that a real and frequent occurence is for young ladies who stand outside of abortion clinics shouting “baby killer!” to show up inside those clinics wanting abortions. As I mentioned earlier, they account for about a sixth of abortions performed. Why the hypocrasy? “But you don’t understand – my circumstances are different!”

And that’s just the thing – Everybody’s circumstances are different. While I acknowledge that there are a few women that get weekly abortions as a form of birth control, I would bet that they are in the vast minority. I would bet that 99% of women that seek abortions have “different circumstances.” As I said, most of them don’t take it lightly. If they believe it’s murder, then they must see the alternatives to be much much more dire.

Pit this against a law that is inflexible and draconian. Supporters of such a law cannot possibly predict what those five thousand different circumstances. At most, they recognize two – health problems and rape.

But let’s say for a moment that that’s an OK compromise. Abortion is permitted if it is the result of health problems or rape. What sorts of health problems? Death, certainly. Serious disfigurement? A new condition such as diabetes or heart problems? What is rape? Does it have to be by a stanger? What if it’s from your boyfriend or husband or father?

Who will make these judgement calls? A doctor? A politician? A religious sect? Popular opinion? Let us just suppose that your wife is pregnant and carrying the baby to term would give her a heart problem that could end her life some 20 years prematurely. Do you expect a politician – who, let’s say, is up for reelection and panders to the religious right – to make a good judgement call in your particular case? Of course not. Do you let theists decide? I would hope not. How about this – you and your lovely wife consult with your doctor, and make an informed decision based on facts, your emotions, and a medical opinion? If you still feel that carrying the baby to term is the right thing to do, then you are free to do so. Do you want a politician making that decision for you, when he’s never even met you?

Honestly, who makes these judgement calls?

Agreed it isn’t cut-and-dry, but any functioning society has a consensus on what is or is not acceptable morality. Just because abortion has moved into a more morally acceptable light than it was in fifty years ago doesn’t necessarily mean it has moved to a position where we must allow it because there’s a question on it.

It’s not that we must allow it, it’s that we must fail to criminalize it. Huge difference.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@RexDart

I just made that a blank space since that most accurately reflects the intellectual merit of your post. You continue to be the single worst poster on the SDMB. I see all your trademark post elements in this one, a real classic. You’ve got vitriolic indignant anger, outright hatred for the opposite side, complete derision and instant dismissal of the notion that they have any valid points at all, farcical exaggeration (“only a sociopath would…”), and sweeping conclusory statements with no contextual support.

Hey tdn, if you want a correct example of someone who clearly holds their position for emotional reasons, take worthless dickface Diogenes here as your shining case-in-point.

Right. I don’t accept your arbitrary and baseless assertion that a zygote is a person so I’m an asshole. Well guess what, dude, I’m not the one trying to take away anyone else’s rights. You’re damn right I’m going to get pissed off and indignant when other people want to enshrine a completely irrational belief as a law and then use it as an excuse not only to deprive the civil rights of others to aggravate the misery and suffering of rape victims. I see no hint of caring or empathy in that position. I see arrogance. I see a supercillious elevation of egoistic philosophy over real and immediate human concerns. I see hostility towards victims and a dehumanization of women.

Nobody is forcing you to get an abortion, to perform one or pay for one. Your belief that a zygote is a person is purely philosophical, not factual and not really suppotable in any meaningful way. Just because you think something is a person does not mean that the world must adopt your position. PETA gets widely ridiculed for positions which overstate the rights of animals and imbue them with a virtual personhood. I would say that PETA’s positions are marginally more rational than those of pro-lifers because at least an animal has some semblence of sentience. Animals can suffer. Zygotes can’t. Zygotes have no awareness. Zygotes cannot be victims.

We know for sure that a woman is a person, that she can suffer, that if she was raped she has suffered and suffers even more if that rape results in pregnancy. It’s unfathomable to me that anyone would feel they have the right to step in and prevent that victim from terminating such an unwelcome pregnancy, that they would feel justified in causing that kind of emotional torture, out of some sort of sanctimonious, ivory tower definition of personhood.