Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fetal Fatalities
A counterintuitive observation from Scott Richert:
Abortion is on the rise in the United States -- and has been since George W. Bush was first inaugurated President in January 2001. Current estimates of the number of abortions performed annually in America hover just above 1.3 million. What may astonish many of the "moral values" voters who reelected President Bush last November is that, from 1992 to 2000 (coinciding with President Clinton's eight years in office), abortions actually declined, from 1.528 million to just over 1.1 million -- the lowest rate since 1974.
Richert's argument is that the rise in abortion rates is linked to a rise in male unemployment. The article isn't online, unfortunately, but it appears in the January issue of Chronicles.
(And yes, I know: Clinton's eight years in office actually stretched from 1993 to 2001. Caveat duly noted.)
|1.5.05 @ 2:47PM|#
"Richert's argument is that the rise in abortion rates is
linked to a rise in male unemployment."
Seems plausible.
|1.5.05 @ 2:50PM|#
rst, you'll have to be more specific. There's a whole lot of dumbasses running around ;->
|1.5.05 @ 2:52PM|#
Considering that Bush has done zilch to demonstrate his
supposedly dogged commitment to the pro-life movement, I'm not
surprised by the data.
But of course, there are other problems with this study --
comparing the total number of abortions in different years is not a
meaningful comparison. Abortions per capita, or even better,
abortions per live birth, would be a more apt statistic to
measure.
And needless to say, showing a causal relationship between male
unemployment and abortion would be nearly impossible. Not to
mention that the very hypothesis reeks of sexism -- why doesn't
female unemployment matter? I expect Patricia Ireland to
be aghast. ;-)
Tim Cavanaugh|1.5.05 @ 3:17PM|#
Considering that Bush has done zilch to demonstrate his
supposedly dogged commitment to the pro-life movement, I'm not
surprised by the data.
It was ever thus. "Values voters" should really be renamed, because
nobody gets less value for their vote: The number of politicians
who actually have any say over the legal disposition of abortion is
so vanishingly small that it almost never makes sense to base a
vote on how a candidate claims to feel on this issue. But even in
the case of a presidential vote-where judicial nominations, bully
puliteering, executive orders, etc. might have some effect on
abortion-voting for a foe of abortion is generally a waste of time,
because nobody will actually do anything about it. I suppose the
logic here is that in his second term Bush can really start
delivering on his pro-life beliefs, but fool me once...
But of course, there are other problems with this study --
comparing the total number of abortions in different years is not a
meaningful comparison. Abortions per capita, or even better,
abortions per live birth, would be a more apt statistic to
measure.
Having previously argued that ensoulment begins at conception and
thus every fetus is a full-on human being, I don't see how you can
make this case. If every abortion is a homicide, why should other
statistics matter?
|1.5.05 @ 3:25PM|#
I wonder how many cheating military wives are adding to this
abortion number as their husbands fight in Iraq for our
freedom?
Well, we can thank our lucky gods that Kerry wasn't elected,
abortions would obviously sky rocket regardless of Clinton's
record.
|1.5.05 @ 3:28PM|#
"Considering that Bush has done zilch to demonstrate his
supposedly dogged commitment to the pro-life movement, I'm not
surprised by the data."
"I suppose the logic here is that in his second term Bush can
really start delivering on his pro-life beliefs, but fool me
once... " a foo mah, can't get fooled again!
Bush, in particular, has demonstrated his adeptness at this. He
poses as a theocrat during elections, make lots of public
statements about how much he loved Jesus and sodomy laws, then
kicks the real theocrats to the curb once he takes office, maybe
throwing them a couple of empty symbolic bones. He ran as a
theocrat when he beat Ann Richards, then governed as a corporatist.
Ran as a theocrat to win re-election, governed as a corporatist.
Ran as a theocrat against Gore...
It's sort of amusing to see people like Pat Robertson talking about
how "we" won a man-date in the last election. Uh, yeah, sure Pat,
Bush is going to get on the Gay Marriage Amendment and prayer in
schools right away. While high level theocrats like Paul Weyreich
occasionally get wise, the masses of religious right voters seem
perfectly happy with zero progress on their issues and the
occasional culture war rhetorical tummy rub. Rubes.
Too many Democrats are fooled by this, as well. Some nut job
"Constitution in Exile" anti-regulatory quack is going to get
confirmed for SCOTUS with 95 votes, just by affirming that Roe vs.
Wade is settled law.
|1.5.05 @ 3:41PM|#
"Richert's argument is that the rise in abortion rates is
linked to a rise in male unemployment."
How closely would the rate of rise have to tie with the rate of
rise in unemployment for this to be statistically correct?
I don't think that a broad-reaching statement can be accurate
without some really close statistical ties.
|1.5.05 @ 3:48PM|#
I honestly hadn't considered the idea that Bush was a traitor to
value votin' anti-abortionists. I guess I got so wrapped up in his
betrayal of marginal rate tax cutters, budget busters, free traders
and pragmatic foreign policy buffs that I didn't notice.
...A single betrayal is treason, a hundred betrayals is a
statistic.
|1.5.05 @ 3:55PM|#
"Bush, in particular, has demonstrated his adeptness at
this."
Your own examples are demonstrations not of ineptness, but finesse.
Not Clinton levels of sell-out finesse of course, but still not bad
for a guy who looks like chimp.
BTW, we should include Bush's rank selling-out of federalist and
free trade principles here as well, just for the record.
drf|1.5.05 @ 3:56PM|#
"Not to mention that the very hypothesis reeks of sexism "
except! crimethink!
remember, we dudes are accused of fucking around and not getting
around. these unwanted pregnancies must come from said fucking
around...
*crickets*
(okay, it was funnier in the dark recesses of my brain)
plus, aborted fetuses require less quality time and fewer
diapers.
TPG: good call about the iraq debate BTW.
but a "link" could be a mere correlation, which as we all know, is
not causation. it's the old sheep in new zealand and bond trade in
finland argument then!
:)
|1.5.05 @ 4:42PM|#
Tim,
On the topic of "values voters", you're absolutely right. Which is
why I voted for Badnarik this time, much to the dismay of those I
know on my side of the abortion issue. "How can you vote for a
candidate who's pro-choice?!", they would ask. I would retort that
Bush's first term was no different than Gore's would have been as
far as abortion goes; and as long as he thinks he's got us in his
pocket, we can expect more of the same -- much rhetoric (at
churches and pro-life organizations) and zero action.
I've said it before; our situation is much like that of blacks, who
continue voting Democratic en masse, despite that party's
staunch opposition to school vouchers (which 90%+ of blacks say
they want). As a result, the Democrats have no reason to reconsider
their position on this issue.
For once, Tim, I think you're letting Bush off too easy. There is
much he could do on the abortion issue. True, he can't do anything
to ban or restrict the practice so long as the Supremes maintain
their position on RvW -- but nothing would stop him from advocating
an advertising campaign against abortion, similar to the current
federally-sponsored ads against such legal activities as cigarette
smoking and condomless sex. This would have the added benefit of
forcing Congressional Dems to tell us whether they really mean the
last part of "safe, legal, and rare..."
|1.5.05 @ 4:49PM|#
If every abortion is a homicide, why should other statistics
matter?
You are aware that the DoJ publishes per capita homicide
statistics, are you not?
|1.5.05 @ 4:50PM|#
Not to mention that the very hypothesis reeks of sexism --
why doesn't female unemployment matter?
Because most women leave work to have children anyway. And
presumably a woman who has been foregoing motherhood in favor of a
career might alter her priorities when her career suffers a major
setback.
Amy Alkon|1.5.05 @ 4:57PM|#
Hmmm...could it possibly be that the rise in abortions is linked to the push to avoid informing kids of any alternatives beyond abstinence? I have yet to see data on that, but I have seen data on the effectiveness of the abstinence "education." Kids do wait longer to have sex -- about a year, I believe -- and then when they do have sex, they tend to be unprepared to protect themselves.
|1.5.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Amy, are you saying that many teenagers will have sex anyway
despite attempts at indoctrination? Why, it almost sounds like
you're suggesting there's some sort of biological imperative to
have sex.
Next you'll try to tell us that the earth wasn't created 10,000
years ago!
|1.5.05 @ 5:48PM|#
"it's the old sheep in new zealand and bond trade in finland
argument then!"
drf took the words right out of my mouth.
I also like to say thunder seems to cause lightning.
|1.5.05 @ 6:47PM|#
Didn't Christians get their "partial birth abortion ban" out of
Bush and the Republican Congress? Of course whether it survives the
current SCOTUS' scrutiny is another matter entirely.
Didn't they also get a ban on family planning monies being spent on
abortion services (even if those services are only referrals)? Not
that I am a fan of such spending, but Christians are hardly (as a
rule) libertarians when it comes to how the government works and
what its functions are, so that was definately a win for
them.
"Abstinence only" programs and other "faith-based" theft, er, I
mean efforts, also play in here as well.
Also, in all fairness, Bush has to wait for someone to die on the
SCOTUS so he can appoint some moonbat crazy Christian zealot to
that body.
Amy Alko,
Pushing for ignorance is the modus operandi of some/most
Christians.
|1.5.05 @ 7:07PM|#
Gary,
I suggested a reasonable course of action open to Bush
now, that he has not chosen to take. Therefore I question
his commitment to his much ballyhooed principles.
|1.5.05 @ 7:13PM|#
crimethink,
And as usual you take the anti-liberty position and advocate taking
my tax dollars to advocate for policies I disagree with. If you
don't like abortion, use your own money, not mine, to advocate for
its end.
Keep abortion safe, legal and as common as individuals want to make
it.
|1.5.05 @ 7:21PM|#
Gary-
I don't even know that crimethink is actually advocating an ad
campaign against abortion. He simply said that if abortion was
really a high priority for Bush, here's something that Bush could
do that might be politically feasible. The fact that a known
statist like Bush hasn't pushed for a particular statist
intervention suggests that Bush isn't very serious about that
issue.
Which is not to say that crimethink wants such an ad
campaign (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't), but we can't assume too
much here.
|1.5.05 @ 7:26PM|#
Ah, but it is not merely an effort to discourage abortion; it is
also a ploy to make pro-choice politicians decide whether they want
to keep saying "...and rare", or keep raking in the Planned
Parenthood contributions. Can't do that with private money. It
wouldn't have to be a huge sum; even a token amount would be enough
to create a dilemma for Dems in Congress. Think of it as an
alternate way of spending the money we should be spending to
protect the unborn directly. ;-)
I'm not saying I expect pro-choice people to be in favor of it; I'm
saying if Bush really believes that abortion is murder, and thus
that we're allowing the murder of well over a million people every
year in the name of "freedom," he'd be willing to expend a bit of
political capital on the issue. He isn't, so I question his
pro-life credentials.
|1.5.05 @ 7:26PM|#
thoreau,
Its the program he stated would demonstrate seriousness on the
issue to him; his statements carried no caveats on the matter.
|1.5.05 @ 7:34PM|#
thoreau & Gary,
To clarify, yes I would support the program. While I would normally
disagree with spending even a tiny amount of money on
govt-sponsored ads, this is different IMHO. Since the SCOTUS will
not allow govt to protect the unborn by conventional means, the
duty to protect them should be fulfilled in unconventional
ways.
This proposal offers the opportunity to use a small amount of tax
money to get the debate out of the dead end it's been mired in for
the past 30+ years. Sometimes you have to spend rights to make
rights.
|1.5.05 @ 7:42PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, the notion that the anti-freedom crowd can't find a few
dollars amongst themselves to start such an ad campaign strikes as
highly disingenuous. But like I wrote above, as usual you take the
anti-liberty position. This is just another reason why you should
never trust the religious.
Keep abortion safe, legal and as common as individuals want to make
it.
|1.5.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Gary,
Not really; rather, I believe that protecting the right to life is
even more important than protecting property rights. This is one of
those rare cases where the two come into conflict.
|1.5.05 @ 7:44PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, post-viability, the government can "protect" the "unborn" all
it wants to. We had this discussion once before and you soundly
demonstrated your ignorance of the SCOTUS' rulings in this
area.
|1.5.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Gary-
I wasn't aware that the gov't could protect the unborn
post-viability. Could you tell me when that was discussed or what
the thread started off about, so I could google for it? It sounds
interesting.
|1.5.05 @ 7:47PM|#
I didn't say that an anti-abortion campaign couldn't be funded with private money (there are several that are). I was saying that the ulterior motive of the tax-funded campaign would be to screw with politicians hiding behind the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra, who would have to vote yea or nay on it. If it's privately funded, no Congressional vote would be required.
|1.5.05 @ 7:48PM|#
crimethink,
Face it; you're a hypocrite. You don't believe in forcing others to
support various types of speech until its speech you believe in.
You, thug, want to FORCE ME to support speech that you approve of
via the coervice power of the government. I say support the speech
you approve of out of your own bank account and not mine.
|1.5.05 @ 7:53PM|#
thoreau,
Just read the SCOTUS' Casey decision (or rather O'Connor's
opinion there). It significantly weakens Roe and uses
"viability" as the standard for when decision-making largely drops
into the lap of the government. Aside from cases concerning the
health or life of the mother (where even anti-abortion stalwarts
like Rhenquist say the state must tread lightly), states could
presumably enact post-viability bans. For matters of tactics or
strategy however they've tried to ban specific procedures
instead.
crimethink,
I could give a rat's ass what your motives are. Spend your own
money, not mine. Its a pretty fucking simple idea.
|1.5.05 @ 7:55PM|#
Gary,
I admit to my ignorance of the details of SCOTUS rulings. I had
heard that Doe v Bolton forbade state intervention
throughout the entire pregnancy; perhaps I was misinformed.
However, since I am not aware of a single state that restricts
abortions at any point in pregnancy, I'm more than a bit skeptical
of the state's practical authority to protect the viable
unborn.
Of course, you and I both know that's not the issue here. We're
mainly talking about pre-viability abortions.
Indeed, viability depends not just on the fetus' development but on
available technology; a fetus that wasn't viable with 1974's
technology may well be viable with 2005's. It's an utterly
nonsensical place to draw the line between nonpersonhood and
personhood.
|1.5.05 @ 8:08PM|#
Face it; you're a hypocrite. You don't believe in forcing
others to support various types of speech until its speech you
believe in.
Wrong again. My justification for supporting this ad campaign is
not that it's "speech I believe in," but that it's going to help
end RvW's madness sooner, without violating the decision
itself.
If the govt could start an ad campaign for Bert Blyleven to be
inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame, and by doing so help bring
an end to the murder of millions of people, I would be all for it.
Despite the fact that I don't think Blyleven belongs in the
Hall.
Does that make me a hypocrite? If so, I must concur with the saying
that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
|1.5.05 @ 8:12PM|#
crimethink,
You are pretty ignorant of state laws then. Numerous states - for
example - restrict the access teenagers have to abortions; indeed,
the parents of a minor can forbid her seeking such care (though a
judge may overrule such action in cases where there is a danger to
the minor, etc.). If that isn't a "state intervention," then I
don't know what one is.
It's an utterly nonsensical place to draw the line between
nonpersonhood and personhood.
Yes, let's hear your "every blastocyst is sacred" theory again.
|1.5.05 @ 8:17PM|#
crimethink,
Actually, you are a hypocrite and your statements demonstrate this
more than I ever could.
..but that it's going to help end RvW's madness
sooner...
That is speech that you believe in. Quit stupidly confusing your
motives and rationale with the real issue at hand - that is forcing
someone to support the speech that you support. You're starting to
sound as shrill as every other "its for the children" whackjob that
populates America today.
|1.5.05 @ 8:22PM|#
crimethink,
Let's put this in simpler terms that you might understand. You
claim that abortion is wrong and that forcing me (and others) to
support ad campaigns that I disagree with is a way to end abortion.
Yet you claim that this has nothing to do with "speech," when in
fact the bedrock issue involved here is speech. Your motives and
desires are superfluous and unimportant in other words. What is
important is speech and MY FREEDOM (and the FREEDOM of OTHERS) not
to support certain kinds speech that I/we disagree with. Certainly
I could get the government to support the things I agree with via
commercials and other forms of speech, but you won't see me doing
this because I'm not hypocritical, anti-liberty slime like you
are.
|1.5.05 @ 8:23PM|#
Gary,
Parental consent laws are not what I had in mind. First of all,
they are not only directed at post-viability abortions, so they are
not protected by the case law you discussed.
Also, those laws are less restrictive than laws prohibiting minors
from ingesting alcohol, smoking tobacco, viewing pornography, etc;
those activities are forbidden to minors even with parental
consent.
So, unless the people of each and every state have decided that
aborting a viable fetus is less harmful than smoking a cigarette,
I'm still skeptical of the actual ability of states to restrict
post-viability abortions.
|1.5.05 @ 8:28PM|#
[i]viability depends not just on the fetus' development but on
available technology; a fetus that wasn't viable with 1974's
technology may well be viable with 2005's. It's an utterly
nonsensical place to draw the line between nonpersonhood and
personhood.[/i]
It is, however, a perfectly good place to draw the line as to when
abortion should be legal. Even if a fetus is a human being with
full human rights, that doesn't include the right to live inside a
woman's body without her consent. If she wants to evict it, that's
her right. If there's a way to evict it alive (and this, as noted,
depends on both the stage of development and available technology),
she can be required to use it. If not--if the only way to evict it
is to kill it--that's still her right.
|1.5.05 @ 8:29PM|#
Gary,
I think to some extent we're arguing past each other. Obviously, we
disagree on whether the government has any business protecting the
unborn. Thus, the campaign I see as protecting the unborn (a valid
govt function imho) by unconventional means, you see as favoring
one type of speech over another.
But my point was, as thoreau said, that Bush's failure to offer
such a program, when he's shown no qualms about offering similar
programs on other issues, shows that he is not committed to the
pro-life movement.
|1.5.05 @ 8:34PM|#
Rex Little,
I may have to follow thoreau's lead and start copying and pasting
my rebuttal of the "abortion as eviction" argument. I've wasted a
lot of keystrokes on it in these threads. ;-)
Basically, this is no ordinary landowner-tenant situation, since
the fetus did not choose to enter the womb, and would be unable to
survive outside it. A somewhat analogous situation would be if a
pilot ejects from his doomed plane over the middle of the ocean,
and happens to land in someone's boat. Does the owner of the boat
have the right to throw him overboard?
|1.5.05 @ 8:41PM|#
crimethink,
Parental consent laws are not what I had in mind.
I know, because you were unaware of their existance due to
ignorance. You only reinforce the conclusion I made sometime ago:
anti-abortion types are largely cretins when it comes to the legal
aspects of abortion.
First of all, they are not only directed at post-viability
abortions...
Well, I never stated that the entire suite of powers the state has
extends only to post-viability issues, so I'm not quite sure why
you emphasize the point. Second, your original premise was based on
the claim that you were ...not aware of a single state that
restricts abortions at any point in pregnancy..., however
that clearly is NOT the case. Besides, even Roe allows for
third tri-mester bans; if you don't believe me, then read the
opinion (now that's a novel idea - reading).
Also, those laws are less restrictive than laws prohibiting
minors from ingesting alcohol, smoking tobacco, viewing
pornography, etc; those activities are forbidden to minors even
with parental consent.
Actually, many states allow a parent to serve their own children
alcohol so long as it is within the home, etc. (there are some
religious aspects to this well that might also include the
ingestion of peyote and other like hallucigens). Of course all of
this is beside the point, since stricter regulation of these areas
hardly means that there is no regulation in the area of minor's
seeking abortions.
|1.5.05 @ 8:48PM|#
crimethink,
It is an issue wholly about speech. Your concerns regarding the
abortion don't matter at all with regard to that issue. Indeed, its
a rather binary issue: either respect my liberty, that is freedom
to choose which speech I will support, or you won't and you'll act
the part of the thief by coercing money out of via the government
to support the speech that you support.
|1.5.05 @ 8:49PM|#
Crimethink, I'm pleased to learn that the eviction argument is
sufficiently widespread that you've developed a stock rebuttal.
I've never seen it advanced by anyone except myself and (radio talk
show host) Tom Leykis.
Your analogy of the pilot in the boat is very apt. But I would say
that yes, the boat owner does have a right to throw him out
(notwithstanding that I'd consider it despicable to do so). I would
also say that a woman's right to her own body is stronger and more
absolute than someone's right to his boat, or house, or other
property.
|1.5.05 @ 8:51PM|#
Gary, I was aware of parental consent laws. However since they
have nothing to do with the gestational age of the fetus, and we
were discussing the SCOTUS' position on abortion post-viability, it
didn't seem relevant (for indeed it wasn't). But I'll rephrase my
question: Is there any state in the US that restricts the ability
of an adult woman to have an abortion post-viability?
PS: In my last post I offered you a chance to agree to disagree and
save face. You would have been wise to take it.
|1.5.05 @ 8:57PM|#
Rex Little,
OK, fair enough. Again, I'll have to agree to disagree on
that.
However, I'm fairly certain that doing so within the US would be
prosecutable as murder, unless you acted in self-defense, of
course.
|1.5.05 @ 9:09PM|#
crimethink,
Gary, I was aware of parental consent laws.
No you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't have written something as
boneheaded as this:
...not aware of a single state that restricts abortions at
any point in pregnancy...
Come on, if you are going to lie, at least try to do so credibly
jackass.
...we were discussing the SCOTUS' position on abortion
post-viability...
Actually, we weren't discussing that with the the sort of
exclusivity that you claim that we were. I merely used it as an
example of how wrong you are with regard to the following
claim:
Since the SCOTUS will not allow govt to protect the unborn
by conventional means...
Clearly the mere fact that laws concerning minors that restrict
abortions have been found to be constitutional vitiates this claim
in its entirety. I also suggest that you actually read
Casey with regard to post-viability abortions; I asked you
to do this some months ago and it appears that you have been too
lazy to do so in the intervening period
And the only one in need of saving here is you.
|1.5.05 @ 9:17PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, after doing a bit of research, I found that I am wrong; forty
states and DC have bans on post-viability abortions (with
exceptions that include life of the mother).
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=16
What a fucking bozo you are. :)
|1.5.05 @ 9:19PM|#
Gary,
Regarding my alleged ducking of the question, here is the beginning
of Rex's eviction argument:
Even if a fetus is a human being with full human rights, that
doesn't include the right to live inside a woman's body without her
consent.
Note that, for the sake of argument, he grants that the fetus has
full human rights, and wishes to show that even so, abortion is
permissible. My rebuttal says that if the fetus has full human
rights, "evicting" it from the womb would be analogous to an act
prosecutable as murder under US law.
It is not I who assumes that the fetus has human rights in this
discussion, it is Rex, though only for the sake of argument.
|1.5.05 @ 9:22PM|#
crimethink,
Why use the analogy if you don't assume that the down on his luck
pilot and the fetus aren't also analagous in their traits? Sorry,
you're really dodging the issue now.
|1.5.05 @ 9:24PM|#
Gary,
All right, it appears you are right about post-viability abortions
being subject to state law. That is, however, only tangential to
our discussion.
|1.5.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Anyway, its patently clear that there are a lot of state laws
which do protect the fetus post-viability. The SCOTUS has not
overturned them and fall directly within the parameters of
protection that the SCOTUS created over the history of this
issue.
Accordingly claims like the following are simply wrongheaded:
...not aware of a single state that restricts abortions at
any point in pregnancy...
Since the SCOTUS will not allow govt to protect the unborn
by conventional means...
Of course, EVEN IF these claims were true, they wouldn't justify
your proposed thievery and violation of my rights.
|1.5.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Gary,
No analogy is perfect, of course. The eviction analogy offered by
Rex assumes that the fetus and the pregnant woman share traits with
a tenant and landowner, respectively. If you have problems with
this facet of analogies, you'd best ignore our argument.
|1.5.05 @ 9:28PM|#
crimethink,
No it isn't. Its why you claimed that you could willy-nilly violate
my free speech rights.
|1.5.05 @ 9:37PM|#
Gary,
So when my response to Rex's analogy is divorced from Rex's
analogy, it doesn't prove anything. Shame on me. 8-|
|1.5.05 @ 9:40PM|#
crimethink,
Not really. Your analogy assumes that the fetus is the same as an
out of the womb human; and part of the way it attempts to tear down
Rex's argument is by this assumption (the other being the lack of
voluntariness issue).
|1.5.05 @ 9:41PM|#
crimethink,
You can roll your eyes all you want to. So far you are 0 for 2
tonight. I'm just waiting for you to go 0 for 3.
|1.5.05 @ 9:43PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, I'd be pretty fucking embarressed and wanting to hide my head
in the sand right now if I were you, given all the erroneous crap
you claimed about abortion laws, what the court has said,
post-viability laws, etc.
|1.5.05 @ 9:51PM|#
No it isn't. Its why you claimed that you could willy-nilly
violate my free speech rights.
I assume you're referring to my comment that the viability
discussion was tangential to our argument. If so, let me restate my
justification for using tax dollars for the ad campaign.
(I assume you agree that it is just to use tax dollars to protect
the right to life of persons.) If the unborn are indeed persons,
protecting them is a legitimate function of govt. However, the
SCOTUS' rulings prevent us from doing it the way we protect the
rights of those already born. Thus, we must do so by unconventional
methods.
Of course, since you disagree on the question of the fetus'
personhood, you need not accept my conclusions. But I am not a
hypocrite for supporting this program; while I believe government's
actions should be limited to protecting the rights of individuals,
that includes protecting the unborn, in my estimation.
|1.5.05 @ 9:57PM|#
crimethink,
There you go being a hypocrite again. Look, I believe that, for
example, gay people should be able to legally marry, that gay
people should be treated equally under the law (a position with
which you likely disagree). Yet you are not going to see me
advocating the use of tax dollars to push that position via TV ads.
In other words, I'm not a hypocrite and you are. You want to steal
MY MONEY and use it for YOUR ENDS. That IMHO makes you one of the
lower forms of scumbag on the planet.
|1.5.05 @ 9:58PM|#
Gary,
Rex's analogy depends on the same assumption; if that assumption is
not justified, there is no need for me to tear his analogy down,
since it would then be based on a false premise.
Regarding burying myself in the sand, luckily, I am not you. I can
admit when I'm wrong. My aim is not to prove to the world how
superior I am to everyone else. My aim is to find the truth, and I
don't pretend to know it in its entirety.
|1.5.05 @ 10:04PM|#
crimethink,
My aim is to find the truth, and I don't pretend to know it in
its entirety.
No, your aim is to present falsehoods. Some time ago I told you
that you were wrong and presented you virtually the same
information. Now months later you present us with the same BS
analysis and when I prove you wrong again you try to fob me off
with excuses that simply aren't justified. The first time I
corrected you it was believable; now its just pathetic.
______________________
Rex's analogy isn't based on that same assumption.
|1.5.05 @ 10:06PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, in a few months I expect you to make the same crap claims
about abortion laws, etc., and I expect you to protest and fib
until you are forced to give into reality.
|1.5.05 @ 10:10PM|#
Gary,
There you go jumping to conclusions again. I believe gay people
should be treated equally under the law, though I don't believe
that requires that the govt endorse same-sex marriage. Gay and
straight men alike can legally marry women, but not other men. The
law is not forbidding gays from doing anything straights can do, so
there's no unequal treatment going on there.
TBH, I'd prefer the govt get out of the business of certifying
sexual unions altogether.
But in any case, if you feel strongly that basic human rights are
being violated, and five judges are blocking you from using the
normal democratic process to remedy the situation, you would be
justified in using unconventional means to do so. Though I would
vehemently disagree with you, I would not call you a hypocrite.
|1.5.05 @ 10:14PM|#
Besides the existence of post-viability abortion laws, which are
a minor detail in this discussion, what exactly have you proven me
wrong on?
Please, I don't want to continue spewing out falsehoods. 8-|
|1.5.05 @ 10:16PM|#
crimethink,
I believe gay people should be treated equally under the law,
though I don't believe that requires that the govt endorse same-sex
marriage.
Actually it absolutely does.
Gay and straight men alike can legally marry women, but not
other men.
Yes, but nothing justifies the law as it exists today except
prejudice.
The law is not forbidding gays from doing anything straights
can do...
Sure it is. It forbids gay people from marrying the people that
they love and are sexually attracted to. Its morally and otherwise
obtuse to claim otherwise.
|1.5.05 @ 10:17PM|#
Of course, what puzzles me is why I'm still arguing with Gary Gunnels, 72 posts into a thread that started with me dissing Bush... :-D
|1.5.05 @ 10:18PM|#
crimethink,
...not aware of a single state that restricts abortions at any
point in pregnancy...
Since the SCOTUS will not allow govt to protect the unborn by
conventional means...
(Note how you dishonestly try to collapse the above into one claim
about post-viability laws.)
The law is not forbidding gays from doing anything straights can
do...
etc.
|1.5.05 @ 10:20PM|#
If I'm in love with and sexually attracted to a married woman, or my sister, I'm forbidden from marrying her. A violation of my rights? Nope, just tough shit.
|1.5.05 @ 10:20PM|#
crimethink,
Anyway, I think you ought to take my advice and at least do some
cursory reading of the SCOTUS' rulings concerning abortion.
|1.5.05 @ 10:23PM|#
crimethink,
If she divorces her husband you may marry her. Of course the fact
is that I don't support anti-polygamy laws, etc., either, so your
point is moot since I find such laws as unequal and discriminatory
as laws which outlaw marraige between persons of the same
gender.
|1.5.05 @ 10:25PM|#
Gary,
I'll admit that I was wrong in the first statement, but the second
you are taking out of context; I clearly meant that the govt should
protect all unborn, including those that have not yet
reached viability. Such action would not be allowed by the SCOTUS'
rulings.
The third statement is not even related to the topic; anyway, you
haven't proven it wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
|1.5.05 @ 10:26PM|#
crimthink,
In other words, justifying one injustice with another injustice
hardly holds much merit in my eyes. Indeed, its a bit like your
Christian bretheren in the 19th century who justified slavery via
various other forms of injustice in the world.
|1.5.05 @ 10:29PM|#
Gary,
Perhaps I should have just left it at saying that I thought that
the govt shouldn't be in the marriage business -- that much it
appears we agree on.
|1.5.05 @ 10:32PM|#
crimethink,
The SCOTUS allows states to protect a fetus in any number of ways,
including bans post-viability; accordingly it does allow for
conventional means of protection (that protection just doesn't go
far enough your opinion - of course you earlier claimed that it
allow for NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER, which is clearly erroneous).
And no you did not clearly mean that; indeed, you only "clearly
meant" that once you were forced to re-state your claim.
As to the third statement you didn't ask for your errors to be
related to the issue of abortion. You opened the door without
caveats.
|1.5.05 @ 10:36PM|#
The SCOTUS allows states to protect a fetus in any number of
ways, including bans post-viability; accordingly it does allow for
conventional means of protection
In what ways does the SCOTUS allow states to protect fetuses
pre-viability? If none, then my claim that there is no conventional
means of protecting such fetuses is valid.
|1.5.05 @ 10:43PM|#
crimethink,
Quite obviously the SCOTUS allows this via its opinions in
Roe (there the state became paramount once the third
tri-mester started) and Casey. Otherwise the laws would
have been struck down. This is pretty simple shit and if you could
just get off your butt and read the Court's opinions you would be a
lot better off.
|1.5.05 @ 10:51PM|#
crimethink,
Look, current law as described by the SCOTUS demarcates two periods
regarding pregnancy and the right to an abortion.
Pre-viability: the individual is paramount with regard to the
choice of abortion and states may not impede access to an abortion.
There are exceptions to this rule, including minor females seeking
abortions; there right to an abortion is circumscribed and may not
be exercised without parental or - under some circumstances - court
approval.
Post-viability: the state becomes paramount and may ban - with some
exceptions - abortions once viability has arrived.
Clearly this scheme allows the states (and even the parents of
minor children) to protect a fetus in a variety of circumstances.
Thus the following claim is flat out wrong:
Since the SCOTUS will not allow govt to protect the unborn
by conventional means...
|1.5.05 @ 10:57PM|#
crimethink,
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that I have answered all your objections
adequately. Anything else you might bring up I can address up in
the "charity" thread. I'm getting tired of bouncing around the
variuous threads.
|1.5.05 @ 11:15PM|#
You still haven't shown what conventional means are available to
a state which seeks to protect the rights of the pre-viable
unborn.
BTW, parental notification laws are not really abortion restriction
laws; the state is not prohibiting minors from having abortions,
but rather giving the parent the option of doing so. Of course, US
law gives parents the authority to prohibit their minor children
from doing many things that the state cannot prohibit adults from
doing.
|1.5.05 @ 11:16PM|#
Gary,
I will not drag our argument into that unrelated thread. Or should
your eagerness for a change of venue be interpreted as a sign of
weakness?
blah|1.5.05 @ 11:35PM|#
you two need to pick up a damn phone, and quit talking past each other, on the phone one talks, the other listens. minutes are cheap these days too. no offense meant, but youre wasting each others time
|1.6.05 @ 4:08AM|#
crimethink,
You still haven't shown what conventional means are available
to a state which seeks to protect the rights of the pre-viable
unborn.
Quite obviously they can ban post-viability abortions under the
current court decisions. I mean duh!!! :) If you don't consider a
post-24 week ban "protection" (or any of the other numerous state
laws dealing with this issue), then are clearly a clueless
twist.
BTW, parental notification laws are not really abortion restriction
laws...
The fuck they aren't. They quite obviously restrict the right of a
minor to seek an abortion. They present a very significant barrier
to abortion than an adult female would not have to do deal with.
Acting like this isn't a limit on the abortion right or on the
ability of a person to get an abortion is just non-sensical. The
fact that the limit isn't absolute or insurmountable doesn't mean
that it isn't a limit; it just means that it is a partly porous
limit. Furthermore, its wilfully obtuse not the acknowledge the
fact that such laws were inspired by those who wanted to discourage
and limit abortions, and thereby "protect" the fetus.
Or should your eagerness for a change of venue be interpreted as a
sign of weakness?
No it should be an indication that I am tired of dealing with your
sophistry. :)
blah,
As usual, crimethink (or crimenotthink) is just being wilfully
obtuse.
|1.6.05 @ 9:17AM|#
Gary,
How exactly does a post-24-week ban protect a 12-week fetus?
As far as parental consent laws go, there are many areas in which
adults are free to make their own choices, but minors are not.
Minors cannot sign contracts without parental permission. Minors
cannot get their ears pierced without parental permission. Minors
cannot work a part-time job without parental permission. And most
pertinently, they cannot submit themselves to medical treatment
without parental permission, except in emergencies.
Parental consent laws are not primarily about restricting abortion,
they are about ensuring that parents take responsibility for their
minor children's well-being.
|1.6.05 @ 10:37AM|#
ah yes, 1.1-1.5 million different people with different lives all making decisions for different reasons, but what it really boils down to is who was president and what the unemployment rate was. who knew? my bananna tastes bad, my buddies taste bad too, but last week he liked his, must be related to some sort of government policy.
|1.6.05 @ 1:42PM|#
crimethink,
Parental consent laws are not primarily about restricting
abortion...
And thus you take your sophistic plunge. Whether they are
"primarily" about restricting abortion or not, they do indeed
restrict access to abortion. Your statements otherwise are beside
the point.
You still haven't shown what conventional means are available
to a state which seeks to protect the rights of the pre-viable
unborn.
I can see I mis-read this post, but the fact is that you keep on
changing your standard; indeed, the way you asked this question
makes it appear as if you've asked me this question several times,
when indeed this is an entirely NEW question. Like I wrote in
another thread, you're slippery.
Here was your original claim:
Since the SCOTUS will not allow govt to protect the unborn
by conventional means...
This of course clearly wrong.
|1.22.05 @ 4:27PM|#
http://les-sonneries.mobile-top.com http://logo-gratuit.mobile-top.com http://logo-pour-portable.mobile-top.com http://logo-telechargement.mobile-top.com http://logos-telechargement.mobile-top.com http://repondeur-portable-fun.mobile-top.com http://sonnerie-gratuite.mobile-top.com http://sonnerie-hifi-mp3.mobile-top.com http://sonnerie-telechargement.mobile-top.com http://sonneries-gratuites.mobile-top.com http://sonneries-hifi-mp3.mobile-top.com http://sonneries-portable.mobile-top.com http://sonneries-telechargement.mobile-top.com http://telechargement-sonnerie-logo.mobile-top.com http://telechargement-sonneries-logos.mobile-top.com http://telecharger-sonnerie-logo.mobile-top.com http://telecharger-sonneries-logos.mobile-top.com http://les-sonneries.top-sonneries-logos.com http://les-sonneries-gratuites.top-sonneries-logos.com http://logo-gratuit.top-sonneries-logos.com http://logo-pour-portable.top-sonneries-logos.com http://logo-telechargement.top-sonneries-logos.com http://logos-telechargement.top-sonneries-logos.com http://repondeur-portable-fun.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonnerie-gratuite.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonnerie-hifi-mp3.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonnerie-telechargement.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonneries-hifi-mp3.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonneries-portable.top-sonneries-logos.com http://sonneries-telechargement.top-sonneries-logos.com http://telechargement-sonnerie-logo.top-sonneries-logos.com http://telechargement-sonneries-logos.top-sonneries-logos.com http://telecharger-sonnerie-logo.top-sonneries-logos.com http://telecharger-sonneries-logos.top-sonneries-logos.com http://les-sonneries.top-melodias-logos.com http://logo-portable-l.top-melodias-logos.com http://logo-telechargement.top-melodias-logos.com http://logos-telechargement.top-melodias-logos.com http://repondeur-portable-fun.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonnerie-gratuite.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonnerie-hifi-mp3.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonnerie-telechargement.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonneries-gratuites.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonneries-hifi-mp3.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonneries-portable.top-melodias-logos.com http://sonneries-telechargement.top-melodias-logos.com http://telechargement-sonnerie-logo.top-melodias-logos.com http://telechargement-sonneries-logos.top-melodias-logos.com http://telecharger-sonnerie-logo.top-melodias-logos.com http://telecharger-sonneries-logos.top-melodias-logos.com
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245