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.)

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

"Richert's argument is that the rise in abortion rates is linked to a rise in male unemployment."

Seems plausible.

[rst]

The less these dumbasses reproduce, the better.

[thoreau]

rst, you'll have to be more specific. There's a whole lot of dumbasses running around ;->

[crimethink]

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]

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?

[Useless Thinker]

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.

[joe]

"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.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

"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.

[Ken Shultz]

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.

[Todd Fletcher]

"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.

[jc]

Money talks, Ashcroft walks. Or something like that.

[drf]

"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!
🙂

[crimethink]

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..."

[crimethink]

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?

[Dan]

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]

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.

[thoreau]

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!

[crimethink]

Amy,

If that's the case, maybe Joycelyn Elders was on to something...

😉

[Todd Fletcher]

Say Amy, since you're here...should I dump my girlfriend?

[Ruthless]

"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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[thoreau]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Its the program he stated would demonstrate seriousness on the issue to him; his statements carried no caveats on the matter.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I don't give a shit if its a penny. Spend your own money.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

In other words, you're a hypocrite. Typical.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[thoreau]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[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.

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Rex Little]

[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.

[crimethink]

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.

[crimethink]

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?

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Rex Little]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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. 🙂

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

Make that thirty-five states.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

No it isn't. Its why you claimed that you could willy-nilly violate my free speech rights.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Its your analogy that I'm concerned with, not Rex's.

[crimethink]

Gary,

So when my response to Rex's analogy is divorced from Rex's analogy, it doesn't prove anything. Shame on me. 8-|

[crimethink]

BTW, 8-| is intended as a "rolling eyes" emoticon. Kind of a stretch, but...

[Gary Gunnels]

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).

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[crimethink]

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-|

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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... 😀

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Anyway, I think you ought to take my advice and at least do some cursory reading of the SCOTUS' rulings concerning abortion.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[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

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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...

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[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.

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.

[crimethink]

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]

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

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[crimethink]

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.

[ah]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[spois]

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