Terrapin Tables

All laws like this actually do is endanger women...because abortions won't stop (especially in the case of rape). So, because idiots can't let people live their own lives, South Dakota will be back to this in no time:

Christ, this happened sooner that I thought. I figured this wouldn't even be an issue until after November. And you guys might know better, but I assume that this is a deliberate attempt to force the issue? I imagine Gov. Rounds (and others) wanting to pass this law, but they've just been waiting in the wings until an appropriately-minded bench was in place on the Supreme Court?

Anywho, we don't need this now - we've got enough polarization among Americans. Let's pull out of Iraq first. Or at least go three months without a scandal breaking out.

Yeah, I heard about this the other day on NPR, and commented on it on this thread on Pharyngula. Since I've already put down most of my thoughts there, I won't repeat them all here. But to summarize, this South Dakota law is stupid. Defining human life as the moment the egg is fertilized is way too restrictive. In my mind, determining when abortions should be legal is a question of when does this organism growing inside a woman start to get rights of its own, and how to balance those rights with those of the woman.

I think that the earliest you can assign rights to a person/baby/fetus is when it becomes self-aware. It makes perfect sense to me - plenty (most) living things aren't self-aware, even when mature (I'm thinking plants and small organisms here), and it's not a crime to kill them. With self-awarness comes thoughts, and possibly reason/logic... the kinds of things that separate us from the plants of this world.

Determining self-awareness is obviously difficult, but it's better than just saying "before 6 months is okay, anything after isn't", which is pretty much how the law stands now. There's nothing special about 6 months other than the fact it's a nice fraction of the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun. And I have a feeling that prenatal development has nothing to do with the earth's relation to its nearest star.

Heh . . . Rick wrote "pull out" . . . heh.

And so it goes. Abortion is murder, the death penalty isn't. For all those women who make a mistake and aren't ready to have children, can't afford to have children, well, you're screwed. And all those social programs that might help you . . . we're going to cut those. We wouldn't want to overburden the wealthy with taxes, would we? So here's a big "fuck you" to the women around the country who make one mistake and are often the least capable of dealing with that mistake. Who is this good for?

As far as a mistake being made, I agree with John. I will go on a tangent though that it isn't always a mistake. Things happen, condoms break, herbal supplements or other medication affect how effective birth control pills are (and for anyone to say that you know that stuff up front, that isn't always true. I have been taking a certain thyroid medication for almost ten years. I JUST last month found out that I need to be taking calcium supplements b/c the pills contribute to bone loss). Anyway, yesterday I was talking to a woman I know at work and she had to have an abortion recently. She actually had to go to a different state b/c they were making it so difficult for her. She is in her thirties - not a teenage mistake by any means - and the effectiveness of her birth control somehow was messed up just a little bit. Just a little bit, but apparently enough. She and her boyfriend might have gone through with it except that her mom had just died a few weeks prior, she was getting evicted from her DC apartment, her mom's house in Massachusetts had back taxes owed on it, a deer hit her car and it was totaled, and she and her boyfriend found out that he had a tumor on his spinal column in his neck. They weren't sure if he was going to make it. It wasn't about her being selfish and wanted to maintain a certain quality of life, it was about reaching a breaking point. It was about her not wanting to bring a child into chaos.

I feel the same way. My life is comfortable right now, but if I were to have a child, I wouldn't be able to work the hours that are necessary for me to be able to make the money that I am making (and it isn't even tons). Not only would MY quality of life change, it would also change for a child I might be bringing into this world. Right now I don't get any financial or health care assistance from the state... I highly doubt I would be able to get by without help from the state if circumstances changed. The way I see it, don't tell me that I have to bring a child into this world unless you are willing to help me out once that happens. And this is me! I am extremely capable! Imagine a young person or a poor person without that advantage!!

And another thing... I don't really like children that much. I dont' hate babies, I just don't want any. I'm not saying that will never change, but it isn't something I've ever had the desire for. So for somebody to say that I would HAVE TO have a child... wow. I make intelligent choices and I am holding up my end so if something goes awry, I should be able to make my own decision (and even if I made a mistake, I should still be able to make my own decision). Not everyone is cut out to have kids. No matter how loving and caring I am, what if some level of me totally resented that kid for changing my life? What if I weren't a big enough person to get past that? Some people have succeeeded and make great mothers and have great lives. Some people are cut out for it, some people make themselves be cut out for it. But just as many people have fucked up their lives and the lives of the children that they "saved." And then the financial folks complain about the burden of unwed mothers? but that is a whole other tirade...

If I really had to wait until marriage to have sex, that sucks. I would die a virgin. I don't really have the desire to get married either... again, not saying I never would, but it isn't something I am on the look out for. AND most importantly... just because I don't want babies doesn't mean I shouldn't be having sex (there's only so much a girl can take care of herself). I don't think anything I've said here makes me a bad person. Some might view it as selfish, but I don't necessarily think my purpose in life is to get married and procreate. potato potato. yeah, that doesn't really work just spelling it... poh-tay-toe, pah-tah-toe. there we go.

Like I wrote above, I do think that abortions should be legal for any reason up until the developing fetus is considerred a person (it's a moral decision for the parents, not the government), which I would think is some time in the second or third trimester. And after that, the woman's rights need to be balanced against the baby's rights. But, once that baby is considered a person, I don't think abortion should be used as some type of euthanasia. To say that this baby might have a bad life, so we might as well kill it now, is scary.

I think some people tend to dismiss this next option, while others overemphasize it, but if the mother doesn't want the baby, she can always give it up for adoption. From what Irma has told me of her experiences working Labor & Delivery at the hospital, it seems that those babies are nearly always adopted. Agencies facilitate many of the adoptions; there are so many couples wanting babies that they have a waiting list. The hospital chaplain even maintains his own waiting list of couples for the women that just show up to the hospital and give up the baby. Does anybody know where to find actual data on newborn adoptions/orphans, and not just rely on my secondhand anecdote?

Meg, that was entirely too logical, and made way too much sense.

Here are some statistics on adoption. While there are some interesting comments on race ("The most recent estimate of transracial adoption was performed in 1987 by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The findings revealed that only 8% of all adoptions include parents and children of different races" while "Approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care are of minority background".) I can't really make heads or tails out of them. However, from what I can gather, in 2000, there were 117k children eligible for adoption, and 47k were adopted. Which I guess seems like a decent rate.
After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children. Before leaving care, 47 percent were receiving some kind of counseling or medication for mental health problems; that number dropped to 21% after leaving care.

By no means am I saying there shouldn't be a time limit or certain other restrictions. But, knowing me and knowing my situation, I would never carry a fetus for so long before making the decision... I don't think anyone should. For me, there is definitely a period before that is a baby in there. And no matter how heartless I sounded with everything before, I recognize that at some point there will be a baby in there. With my principles though, there is a difference between a bunch of cells and an actual child. Even though my eggs each have the potential for life, I don't consider my BC pills to be euthanasia. Where exactly the change from "a bunch of cells" to a baby occurs, I'm not sure. Obviously it is a source, if not THE source of contention for a lot.

and another thing... it isn't entirely a logical decision. It would be nice if it were that easy, but crazy emotion gets involved in these thoughts too. I don't know anyone (myself included) who hasn't had a scare and doesn't for a second think, "I know what I should do, but what the fuck am I REALLY going to do?!?"

Here's an interesting question to pose to those people that maintain that humanity begins at fertilization, "if a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic, who do you save — a Petri dish with five blastula or the two year-old child?” Nothing like comic book style morality questions.

Well that obviously depends on whether or not the 2-year-old's diapers are dirty.

/had to ask Shorty if 2-year-olds wear diapers. I'm dumb.

Natalie doesn't need diapers. She poops everytime we put her in the tub. It's not cool.

I've decided to secure my first-class ticket on the MagnaLev to hell.

Fatboy: it depends. Is that child retarded, obese, or a minority? Because then its rating slips. And is "blastula" some kind of slasa, because then I'd totally save the dish.

John: it's simple. Unwanted children should comprise a nationwide workforce of sewage plant engineers, iron foundry workers, jizz moppers, and slaughterhouse Expiration Assistance Engineers. No one wants them, so they can do what we don't want to.

Meg: if you were pregnant you'd walk funny, because you're so little. It'd be like me carrying a keg, all bowlegged and wobbly. I'd push you over to watch you rock back and forth on your swelled tummy, and you'd flail your legs trying to get upright again, like a turtle, only a pregnant chick. But, much more importantly, what do you think of my new haircut?

Rick: is gay.

Nate: I cannot believe I beat you to posting a clothes hangar, but at least I did it for fear of what kinds of back-alley abortions would prosper under over-regualtion. Feel free to throw up a Dyson jpeg or something though.

If abortion and birth control is murder, what about all the chicks that swallow? Are porn stars (the intersting ones, at least) some sort of Unicron-esque kid gulpers now, destroying babies by the thousands? Am I Eichmann Jr. because I have allowed - no, encouraged - the occasional oral genocide of my underpants army?

In all seriousness...technology and health care has advanced to a point where the chief factor in the survival of our race is our own actions. Reproduction is never necessary anymore, we're not in danger of being wiped out by the weather, famine, or Mastodon (either the animal or the sludge-rock band). So we can decide whether or not to reproduce, based on personal choice. My own philosophy as to How the World Should Work is that people can do whatever the hell they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's happiness or well-being. Also, in my world, feti (plural of fetus, I guess) aren't people until they're born, unless someone murders a pregnant chick, because then they get rung up double. Anyway, what all this means is, if someone decides not to have a baby, they can get rid of it, since species survival isn't a big deal and really, deep down, it's no one else's business.

Now, I just have to convince the wolrd to tolerate the decisions of others. Sounds easy enough. I'll start in Israel/Palestine (can't you guys just share this little tiny thing?) and at Jessica Alba's house (can't I just share my little tiny thing with you?).

I agree with much of what others think, though I think that things are not always clear cut. As for the self-aware criterion, I think it is somewhat arbitrary (though not as arbitrary as 6 months). What's more, even if we accept that self-awareness is the criterion, it's ambiguous. What exactly constitutes self-awareness? Hard to tell.

In related areas, if we push toward a biological level, we move into the realm of identity theory, a particularly difficult area of philosophy (among other disciplines). In terms of ethics, questions regarding what constitutes life and why we value it lead to troubling questions about things from killing the spider in your house to popluation control for cultures with scarce food supplies.

That said, I generally oppose the banning of abortion. I have always meant to read the work of Judith Jarvis Thomson, widely recognized as a top philosopher rights, self, and abortion.

rick, when did you become self-aware?

He drifts in and out Shell.

Probably some time between 6 months and 9 months old (from conception). And not being able to remember doesn't make it any less valid. I don't remember my first birthday, but it doesn't mean that my life was any less important back then. And I'm not saying we even have the technology to accurately determine when self-awareness happens, but I can't think of any other criteria that comes close in determing 'when' a human fetus should be protected with legal rights. When you kill something that's not self aware, you're not causing it any harm in its mind. But if you take the life away from a being that realizes it exists, you're taking something away from it. If the zygote/bundle of cells/whatever isn't aware of its surroundings, then I don't think it's causing any harm when we kill it. I think it's more of a moral crime to step on an ant then to remove a bundle of a few cells from a uterus. But that' me, and obviously others don't feel that way.