"Sausage is pretty 'horrific' if you see how it's made."
Somehow, the equation of a later term fetus and the lancing of a boil is as troublesome, if not more so, than the gruesome procedure that is puncturing of a fetal skull.
5008. 109109 - 12/1/1999 2:48:29 PM
Of greater concern is the propping up of the procedure for fear that if an inch is given at the back end, the pro-life forces will "wedge" there way into the first trimester. It is akin to the NRA opposing bans on streetsweeper firearms and armor piercing bullets under the logic, "If we give in on them, they'll eventually get to deer rifles." Abortion and deer rifles may someday become threatened, but the fear of such a threat should not affect a thinking person's evaluation of partial birth abortions or bans on streetsweepers/armor piercing bullets.
5009. janjon - 12/1/1999 2:54:43 PM
An abortion discussion - how novel.
No question that those who latched onto PBAs knew what they were doing in terms of being able to grab people's attention and make them more than acutely uncomfortable - their hope being that that discomfort will end up covering abortion per se, not just the PBAs. So, so what if a lot more than just sensationalism and distortion of the rationale of the medical procedure gets used to promote the cause - all's fair in what so many characterize as God's Cause, right?
Right.
A much more compelling argument against abortion can be made based on the "age" at which a fetus is/can be viable, which of course thanks to modern medicine is becoming much earlier in the pregnancy term.
But - if you boil it all down, you are going to end up with a woman's rights versus what some, but only some, will call a fetus's (oh all right, an unborn baby as they would put it)so-called "rights".
I'll wager a lot that it will continue to be a woman's rights that will win out.
5010. CalGal - 12/1/1999 2:58:03 PM
It is such a horrific procedure that it is hard to defend. Once it has been successfully banned, then other procedures will become the target.
But it doesn't work like that. The problem is that they keep being banned as unconstitutional because it is entirely legal to have an abortion at 20 weeks, no matter the procedure.
TS,
Yes, I agree with you about tactics. But it is annoying me, because they are continually overturned--for what I consider to be good reason. And so the real problem isn't being addressed.
I returned the mail, but I just got notified of a meeting. I'll know in a few if I have to go or not so stay tuned for a last minute cancel.
5011. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:03:39 PM
janjon,
I don't understand the sarcasm against those (including myself) who want to save the lives of babies. Is it that terrible that we call them unborn children?
5012. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:08:21 PM
Jenerator:
It's not terrible. It's just wholly inaccurate.
5013. CalGal - 12/1/1999 3:09:37 PM
TS,
I sent you a mail as well, but I have to go to this damn meeting. Arrrrgg.
5014. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:09:58 PM
Cazart
I've seen the war over what-to-call-it-a-fetus-or-an-unborn baby many times.
5015. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:12:53 PM
I've seen the war over what-to-call-it-a-fetus-or-an-unborn baby
many times.
And you're still wrong? For shame.
5016. Spudboy - 12/1/1999 3:13:40 PM
My favorite bit of footage from last night's coverage of the WTO protests: A protester, all in black and wearing a mask, is shown tearing down the "Niketown" sign from the store downtown, evidently in protest of Nike's globalism. The camera zooms in on his shoes. He's wearing Nikes.
Another piece: A reporter interviews one of the masked "anarchists" who broke out windows and looted stores, walking off with clothes, TVs, electronics equipment. "Why are you doing this?" the reporter asks. The "anarchist" answers: "Well, these giant corporations steal from us every day. This is our way of taking back some of the pennies out of the millions that they take."
In case anyone wondered about what a collection of lame-stains we have here. They are robbing any serious-minded protesters of their legitimacy, frankly.
5017. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:14:39 PM
Cazart
Ha ha.
5018. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:25:43 PM
Let me turn it around and be the sarcastic pro-lifer.
An abortion discussion - how novel.
No question that those who became aware of PBAs saw that they would indeed inform the masses of this cruelty in terms of being able to grab people's attention and make them more than acutely uncomfortable -their hope being that that discomfort will end up covering certain aspects of abortion primarily the PBAs. So, so what if a lot more than just cold medical explanations of abortions are now mentioned. So, so what if people are forced to look at abortions from angles they're not used to or comfortable with. I can hear the violins now, we weren't suppose to actually SHOW everyone what an abortion does to the fetus. We're not suppose to actually KNOW that it is a fetus in there and not some combobulated group of cells. Heck no, we'll call it a procedure. It's so wrong of us to want people to know more about this termination of our youth, our destruction of the value of human life, right?
Right.
A much more compelling argument against abortion can be made based on the "age" at which a fetus is/can be viable, which of course thanks to modern medicine is becoming much earlier in the pregnancy term. Afterall viability is all that counts nowadays.
But - if you boil it all down, you are going to end up with a woman's rights versus what some will call an unborn baby's (oh all right, a combabulated group of cells' as they would put it)so-called "rights".
I'll wager a lot that it will continue to be a woman's so called rights instead of the life of the unborn baby that will win out. We are afterall, a society which chases immediate gratification, and one which doesn't value human life.
5019. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:31:30 PM
Jenerator:
Nice rant, but wholly inaccurate. It is sad that the anti-choicers must rely on hyperbole and outright lies to further their agenda.
In fact, C. Everett Koop has called the PBA amendment effort "a complete sham."
5020. janjon - 12/1/1999 3:36:34 PM
Jenerator. You prove my points. Fie on the value of human life as described in your diatribe.
5021. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 3:38:02 PM
Cazart,
We see things entirely different. You see it as choice, I see it as life. I call it an unborn baby, you call it a choice. I see the life of the unborn baby as valuable, you see it as a matter of choice for a mother. You say that I rely on lies and hyperbole, I say that I'm interested in saving lives, you seem to be interested in running for office. Typical.
5022. janjon - 12/1/1999 3:49:27 PM
It is a matter of choice for a woman who has chosen not become a mother in the case of most abortions. That alone is enough justification.
In the case of PBAs, however, it is a matter of something gone horribly wrong and it almost always is, sadly, a case of a woman who would like to be a mother but, as it turns out, safely cannot be. That is why the latching onto the PBAs for political purposes by the so-called prolifers becomes the equivalent of cynical cruelty. From my perspective, of course.
5023. cazart - 12/1/1999 3:50:05 PM
Jenerator:
It is always easier to debate a suject if one gets to frame the other's argument. It is also rather dishonest.
You say you're interested in saving lives. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. However, most so-called "PBAs" are done to save the life of the mother. You also fail to note that many of these procedures are done on already deceased fetuses.
But it sounds a lot better to say you're interested in saving lives than to state these truths.
5024. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 4:01:40 PM
Cazart,
What ARE the real statistics? Tell me, how many abortions are done to save the life of the mother? What percentage is it?
5025. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:03:50 PM
Cazart - It is sad that the anti-choicers must rely on hyperbole and outright lies to further their agenda.
It is always easier to debate a suject if one gets to frame the other's argument. It is also rather dishonest.
This is a riot coming from you. You are the worst offender in the Mote.
However, most so-called "PBAs" are done to save the life of the mother.
Nice lie. It has been documented here numerous times that in most cases the mother's life was not in danger.
You also fail to note that many of these procedures are done on already deceased fetuses.
Another lie. The laws only applies to a live fetus.
I guess you believe you are justified in lying since you are on a holy mission.
5026. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:11:48 PM
janjon - It is a matter of choice for a woman who has chosen not become a mother in the case of most abortions. That alone is enough justification.
Is it? If a woman doesn't want to be a mother there are many ways to prevent it. Once she has become pregnant she has already made her choice. Why should her child pay with its life just because the woman changes her mind?
In the case of PBAs, however, it is a matter of something gone horribly wrong and it almost always is, sadly, a case of a woman who would like to be a mother but, as it turns out, safely cannot be.
Unfortunately this is a myth.
5027. cazart - 12/1/1999 4:17:52 PM
Take it up with C. Everett Koop, JJBiener.
In a 5 Nov 96 letter to Martin Sabo (D-MN), Koop stated that all so-called 'PBAs' were "done to avoid serious adverse health
consequences to the woman."
I might not go that far but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that most so-called 'PBAs' are performed when the fetus is already dead or the mother's life is in danger.
5028. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 4:21:41 PM
cazart - I might not go that far but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that most so-called 'PBAs' are performed when the fetus is already dead or the mother's life is in danger.
What evidence would that be? If it is as overwhelming as you claim, can you provide a cite? We have seen plenty of cites that refute your claim. Can you provide any to support it?
5029. 109109 - 12/1/1999 4:22:40 PM
Overwhelming evidence can be easily provided.
5030. janjon - 12/1/1999 4:29:56 PM
Biener. So, for you, its abstinence or effective birth control or the woman pays the price. Period.
You talk about her "baby" losing its "life". I talk about a woman bearing a fetus which becomes a living baby upon birth.
Yet another area where you and I are about 180 degrees apart. Not surprising, I suppose.
5031. CalGal - 12/1/1999 4:32:44 PM
Caz,
There should, however, be no real problem in dropping that "most" to "none".
5032. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 4:32:44 PM
Actually, I'd like to see evidence from either side. Caz says the evidence is "pretty overwhelming" that most PBAs are performed because the unborn child is dead or the mother's life is in danger; JJ says he's seen "plenty of cites" that prove the opposite.
So, guys: put up or shut up.
5033. 109109 - 12/1/1999 4:37:27 PM
Trial
Agreed, though this was discussed a few months back, and I recall an article by a New Jersey newspaper that appeared pretty definitive (it was not screed from one advocacy group or another). It debunked cazart's absurd claim that "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to save the life of the mother" and shattered the anti-PBA contingents' that many of these procedures occured in the third trimester (most are in the 2d).
5034. angel-five - 12/1/1999 4:40:01 PM
Is it? If a woman doesn't want to be a mother there are
many ways to prevent it. Once she has become pregnant
she has already made her choice.
sigh.
Yes, Biener, children coerced into an incestuous relationship and rape victims -- both the traditional variety and those who are drugged with GHB or rohypnol or just given alcohol until they pass out -- have made their choice.
If you're going to hack, at least be honest.
5035. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 4:44:15 PM
Niner,
Yes, I remember that article ---it was based on the testimony of a single doctor who claimed to have personally performed thousands of unneccessary PBA's. I also recall that his testimony was called into question on several points by conflicting evidence.
I didn't save any of this however since this topic comes up so often. Sorry.
5036. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 4:47:00 PM
.
Breslin being Breslin on Journalist Gore and other stuff
5037. PelleNilsson - 12/1/1999 4:49:28 PM
What do you think about this?
5038. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 4:54:41 PM
A PBA link that claims to look at both sides.
5039. angel-five - 12/1/1999 4:59:26 PM
Pelle:
It's really interesting. The correlation offered seems very strong on a lot of counts. The problem is that correlation does not equate to causation -- there can easily be a third or more factors involved that influence the earlier two, and those factors may be very hard to identify.
Still, all the aligned data are suggestive. As one commentator in the article says, I think there's a kernel of truth in it. Maybe much more.
5040. cazart - 12/1/1999 5:37:26 PM
I defer to Dr. Koop who allegedly knows a thing or two about the subject. Certainly, his beliefs carry a tad more weight than 109109's "cite" from some unknown New Jersey newspaper of an indeterminate date.
Indiana Jones' link provides further evidence that most so-called 'PBAs' are done to protect the health of the mother or involve deceased fetuses.
5041. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 5:41:24 PM
Frequently the "health of the mother" translates to "mental health."
5042. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:46:19 PM
cazart
Incarnation 1: "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to save the life of the mother"
Incarnation 2: "most so-called 'PBAs' are done to protect the health of the mother or involve deceased fetuses."
5043. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:54:35 PM
The Record
September 15, 1996
THE FACTS ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION; BOTH SIDES HAVE MISLED THE PUBLIC
Ruth Padawer
"Even by the highly emotional standards of the abortion debate, the
rhetoric on so-called" partial-birth" abortions has been exceptionally
intense. But while indignation has been abundant, facts have not. Pro-choice activists categorically insist that only 500 of the 1.5
million abortions performed each year in this country involve the
partial-birth method, in which a live fetus is pulled partway into the birth canal before it is aborted. They also contend that the procedure is reserved for pregnancies gone tragically awry, when the mother's life or health is endangered, or when the fetus is so defective that it won't survive after birth anyway.
The pro-choice claim has been passed on without question in several
leading newspapers and by prominent commentators and politicians,
including President Clinton.
But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in
New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a "minuscule amount"are for medical reasons.
Within two weeks, Congress is expected to decide whether to
criminalize the procedure. The vote must override Clinton's recent veto.
In anticipation of that showdown, lobbyists from both camps have
orchestrated aggressive campaigns long on rhetoric and short on
accuracy.
For their part, abortion foes have implied that the method is often
used on healthy, full-term fetuses, an almost-born baby delivered whole.
5044. cazart - 12/1/1999 5:55:44 PM
109109:
Picking nits? How unbecoming.
However, it is the best you can do.
Just admit you were wrong and run along like the good simian you are.
5045. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:56:28 PM
In the three years since they began their campaign against the
procedure, they have distributed more than 9 million brochures graphically describing how doctors"deliver"the fetus except for its
head, then puncture the back of the neck and aspirate brain tissue until the skull collapses and slips through the cervix, an image that
prompted even pro-choice Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., to call it
"just too close to infanticide." But the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are not performed on almost-born babies. They occur in the middle of the second trimester, when the fetus is too young to survive outside the womb.
The reason for the fervor over partial birth is plain: The bill
marks the first time the House has ever voted to criminalize an abortion procedure since the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling. Both sides know an override could open the door to more severe abortion restrictions, a thought that comforts one side and horrifies the other.
How often it's done
No one keeps statistics on how many partial-birth abortions are
done, but pro-choice advocates have argued that intact "dilation and
evacuation", a common name for the method, for which no standard
medical term exists, is very rare,"an obstetrical non-entity,"as one
put it. And indeed, less than 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20
weeks gestation, the earliest point at which this method can be used,
according to estimates by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of New York, a
respected source of data on reproductive health.
5046. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:57:19 PM
The National Abortion Federation, the professional association of
abortion providers and the source of data and case histories for this
pro-choice fight, estimates that the number of intact cases in the
second and third trimesters is about 500 nationwide. The National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League says"450 to 600"are
done annually.
But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion providers
who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical in Englewood
estimate that their clinic alone performs 3,000 abortions a year on
fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which at least half are by intact
dilation and evacuation. They are the only physicians in the state
authorized to perform abortions that late, according to the state Board of Medical Examiners, which governs physicians practice.
The physicians estimates jibe with state figures from the federal
Centers for Disease Control, which collects data on the number of
abortions performed.
"I always try an intact D&E first,"said a Metropolitan Medical
gynecologist, who, like every other provider interviewed for this
article, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. If the fetus isn't breech, or if the cervix isn't dilated enough, providers switch to traditional, or"classic," D&E, in utero dismemberment.
Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New Jersey said
he does about 260 post-20-week abortions a year, of which half are by
intact D&E. The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious
teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching intact D&E since 1981, and he said he knows of two former students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the procedure."I do an intact D&E whenever I can, because it's far safer," he said.
5047. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:58:18 PM
The National Abortion Federation said 40 of its 300 member clinics
perform abortions as late as 26 weeks, and although no one knows how
many of them rely on intact D&E, the number performed nationwide is
clearly more than the 500 estimated by pro-choice groups like the
federation.
The federation's executive director, Vicki Saporta, said the group
drew its 500-abortion estimate from the two doctors best known for using intact D&E, Dr. Martin Haskell in Ohio, who Saporta said does about 125 a year, and Dr. James McMahon in California, who did about 375 annually and has since died. Saporta said the federation has heard of more and more doctors using intact D&E, but never revised its estimate, figuring those doctors just picked up the slack following McMahon's death.
"We've made umpteen phone calls to find intact D&E practioners,"
said Saporta, who said she was surprised by The Record's findings.
"We've been looking for spokespeople on this issue.. .. People do not
want to come forward to us because they're concerned they'll become
targets of violence and harassment."
When it's done. The pro-choice camp is not the only one promulgating
misleading information. A key component of The National Right to Life Committee's campaign against the procedure is a widely distributed illustration of a well-formed fetus being aborted by the partial-birth method. The committee's literature calls the aborted fetuses"babies" and asserts that the partial-birth method has "often been performed"in the third trimester.
5048. 109109 - 12/1/1999 5:59:16 PM
The National Right to Life Committee and the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops have highlighted cases in which the procedure has been
performed well into the third trimester, and overlaid that on instances in which women have had less-than-compelling reasons for abortion. In a full-page ad in the Washington Post in March, the bishops conference illustrated the procedure and said women would use it for reasons as frivolous as"hates being fat," "can't afford a baby and a new car," and "won't fit into prom dress."
"We were very concerned that if partial-birth abortion were allowed
to continue, you could kill not just an unborn, but a mostly born. And
that's not far from legitimizing actual infanticide,"said Helen Alvare, the bishops spokeswoman.
Forty-one states restrict third-trimester abortions, and even states that don't, such as New Jersey, may have no physicians or hospitals willing to do them for any reason. Metropolitan Medical's staff won't do abortions after 24 weeks of gestation."The nurses would stage a war,"said a provider there."The law is one thing. Real life is something else."
In reality, only about 600, or 0.04 percent, of abortions of any
type are performed after 26 weeks, according to the latest figures from Guttmacher. Physicians who use the procedure say the vast majority are done in the second trimester, prior to fetal viability, generally thought to be 24 weeks. Full term is 40 weeks.
5049. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:01:49 PM
Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson denied that his group had focused on third-trimester abortions, adding,"Even if our
drawings did show a more developed baby, that would be defensible
because 30-week fetuses have been aborted frequently by this method, and many of those were not flawed, even by an expansive definition."
Why it's done. Abortion rights advocates have consistently argued that intact D&Es are used under only the most compelling circumstances. In 1995, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a press release asserting that the procedure"is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality."
In February, the National Abortion Federation issued a release
saying,"This procedure is most often performed when women discover late in wanted pregnancies that they are carrying fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life."
Clinton offered the same message when he vetoed the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act in April, and surrounded himself with women who had
wrenching testimony about why they needed abortions. One was an
antiabortion marcher whose health was compromised by her 7-month-old
fetus neuromuscular disorder.
5050. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:02:52 PM
The woman, Coreen Costello, wanted desperately to give birth
naturally, even knowing her child would not survive. But because the
fetus was paralyzed, her doctors told her a live vaginal delivery was
impossible. Costello had two options, they said: abortion or a type of
Caesarean section that might ruin her chances of ever having another
child. She chose an intact D&E. But most intact D&E cases are not like Coreen Costello's. Although many third-trimester abortions are for heart-wrenching medical reasons, most intact D&E patients have their abortions in the middle of the second trimester. And unlike Coreen Costello, they have no medical reason for termination.
"We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,"said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment
confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black
and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who
didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are
teenagers."
The physician who teaches said:"In my private practice, 90 to 95
percent are medically indicated. Three of them today are Trisomy-21
Down syndrome with heart disease, and in another, the mother has brain
cancer and needs chemo. But in the population I see at the teaching
hospitals, which is mostly a clinic population, many, many fewer are
medically indicated."
Even the Abortion Federation's two prominent providers of intact
D&E have showed documents that publicly contradict the federation's
claims.
In a 1992 presentation at an Abortion Federation seminar, Haskell
described intact D&E in detail and said he routinely used it on patients 20 to 24 weeks pregnant. Haskell went on to tell the American Medical News, the official paper of the American Medical Association, that 80 percent of those abortions were"purely elective."
5051. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 6:04:14 PM
It would be nice if the abortion debate were not dominated by fire eaters willing to distort the truth, if not wholly fabricate, the evidence to support their positions.
The hard truth is that even couched in the rhetoric of the extremes, the conclusions they advocate don't follow. There is clearly a quantum leap from clumps of cells with the potential for independent life, and a fetus nearing or past viability. But the activists both want to deny this reality. There is a moral difference between abortion as a means of sex choice, and as a response to fatal genetic disorders or any of the myriad conditions and fact patterns that pregnant women find themselves in.
5052. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:04:23 PM
The federation's other leading provider, Dr. McMahon, released a
chart to the House Judiciary Committee listing"depression"as the most
common maternal reason for his late-term non-elective abortions, and
listing"cleft lip"several times as the fetal indication. Saporta said
85 percent of McMahon's abortions were for severe medical reasons.
Even using Saporta's figures, simple math shows 56 of McMahon's
abortions and 100 of Haskell's each year were not associated with
medical need. Thus, even if they were the only two doctors performing
the procedure, more than 30 percent of their cases were not associated
with health concerns.
Asked about the disparity, Saporta said the pro-choice movement
focused on the compelling cases because those were the majority of
McMahon's practice, which was mostly third-trimester abortions. Besides, Saporta said,"When the Catholic bishops and Right to Life debate us on TV and radio, they say a woman at 40 weeks can walk in and get an abortion even if she and the fetus are healthy."Saporta said that claim is not true."That has been their focus, and we've been playing defense ever since."
Where lobbying has left us. Doctors who rely on the procedure say the way the debate has been framed obscures what they believe is the real issue. Banning the partial-birth method will not reduce the number of abortions performed.
5053. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:05:12 PM
Instead, it will remove one of the safest options for mid-pregnancy
termination.
"Look, abortion is abortion. Does it really matter if the fetus
dies in utero or when half of it's already out?"said one of the five
doctors who regularly uses the method at Metropolitan Medical in
Englewood."What matters is what's safest for the woman,"and this
procedure, he said, is safest for abortion patients 20 weeks pregnant or more. There is less risk of uterine perforation from sharp broken bones and destructive instruments, one reason the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has opposed the ban.
Pro-choice activists have emphasized that nine of 10 abortions in
the United States occur in the first trimester, and that these have
nothing to do with the procedure abortion foes have drawn so much
attention to. That's true, physicians say, but it ducks the broader
issue.
By highlighting the tragic Coreen Costellos, they say, pro-choice
forces have obscured the fact that criminalizing intact D&E would
jettison the safest abortion not only for women like Costello, but for
the far more common patient: a woman 4 1/2 to 5 months pregnant with a
less compelling reason, but still a legal right, to abort.
5054. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:05:22 PM
That strategy is no surprise, given Americans queasiness about
later-term abortions. Why reargue the morality of or the right to a
second-trimester abortion when anguishing examples like Costello's can
more compellingly make the case for intact D&E?
To get around the bill, abortion providers say they could inject
poison into the amniotic fluid or fetal heart to induce death in utero, but that adds another level of complication and risk to the pregnant woman. Or they could use induction, poisoning the fetus and then "delivering"it dead after 12 to 48 hours of painful labor. That method is clearly more dangerous, and if it doesn't work, the patient must have a Caesarean section, major surgery with far more risks.
Ironically, the most likely response to the ban is that doctors
will return to classic D&Es, arguably a far more gruesome method than
the one currently under fire. And, pro-choice advocates now wonder how
safe from attack that is, now that abortion foes have American's
attention.
Congress is expected to call for the override vote this week or
next, once again turning up the heat on Clinton, barely seven weeks from the election.
Legislative observers from both camps predict that the vote in the
House will be close. If the override succeeds, a two-thirds majority is required, the measure will be sent to the Senate, where an override is less likely, given that the initial bill passed by 54 to 44, well short of the 67 votes needed.
5055. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:07:49 PM
Niner:
There are such things as links.
5056. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:10:46 PM
angel
A legitimate beef. And normally, I have no defense. But on this, my source was not the internet. So, I'm like one of the Menendez boys who, while shooting at Ma and Pa, got lucky with simultaneous and spontaneous heart attacks.
5057. janjon - 12/1/1999 6:11:04 PM
109109 doesn't want to be a pussy. And therefore he don't link.
5058. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:15:35 PM
The number I saw was 3-4 thousand per year nationwide. What's up with the folks in Jersey that they account for more than a third of the PBAs performed annually?
5059. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:16:12 PM
5060. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:17:43 PM
God, Must I Do All 109109's Work AND Educate Him, Also?
5061. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:17:47 PM
Whadja do to the source code Cazart?
5062. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:17:55 PM
Chris
You never heard about Jersey girls?
Actually, I imagine an accurate count is difficult given the subject matter. But 500 a year is as much a fantasy as the the suggestion that most PBAs are performed in the third trimester.
5063. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:18:31 PM
hmmm....back to normal
5064. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:18:45 PM
cazart
You rock.
I checked the web site (not that I would have linked) and I thought it only went back as far as 1997.
5065. cazart - 12/1/1999 6:19:16 PM
Dunno, ChristinO.
Likely something 'horrific.'
5066. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:21:12 PM
Niner,
As I said I'd heard that the number was 3-4 thousand and that the 500 number was a reactionary and deliberate misstatement in response to the hysteria that women on the verge of labor were having their babies sucked out of them in the hundreds of thousands.
5067. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:26:29 PM
Chris
I believe the term you are seacrhing for is "defensive fabrication."
5068. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:33:52 PM
For those of you who don't like to click blind links, this is Pelle's link. And it's fascinating. The link leads to a Scientific American article on a new study which links the drop in violent crime rates to the post Roe v Wade abortion trend. It's the first reasonable, scientific offering I've seen in the debate that abortion has positive consequences for society as a whole.
5069. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:39:56 PM
Niner,
Well, I would have said he popped off with a lie because he was pissed.
5070. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 6:41:39 PM
angel-five--Do you realize what you're saying?
5071. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:41:43 PM
but then the lawyerly version puts a much better spin on it.
5072. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:42:31 PM
Indy,
He almost always is.
5073. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:42:53 PM
er, "does."
5074. 109109 - 12/1/1999 6:43:10 PM
And that's why it commands the big bucks.
And free condiments.
Later.
5075. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 6:44:35 PM
Chris, I'm doing him the Koppel-Campanis favor.
5076. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:46:16 PM
See ya later Niner!
5077. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:48:54 PM
Indy,
Kind of you but not needed. You'll notice he hasn't yet taken a position other than to state that this is the best presentation of that particular position that he's seen.
5078. angel-five - 12/1/1999 6:49:38 PM
Indiana Jones:
What? All I'm saying is that the debate on the social benefits of abortion, pro and con, have thus far been characterized by baseless assertion. This is the first hard science argument I've seen from either side.
Or was there something else that caught your attention, some implied gaffe I'm not aware I committed? Do tell.
5079. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 6:51:07 PM
Is this where I shout "BINGO!!"?
5080. vonKreedon - 12/1/1999 6:59:23 PM
Cos - Good call.
5081. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:04:53 PM
Up until now pro-choice activists, when arguing societal benefits of abortion, have been forced to invoke an unproven model of action -- that abortions prevent the unwanted births of many children who would not be cared for, loved, supported, and so on, and therefore abortion benefits society as a whole.
Moreover, the thinking went, these unwanted children would be much more likely to be a detriment to society, either as free-riders or as criminals. This model's logic is reasonably clear but until now its conclusions have been unsupported -- there's been little conclusive data that anyone can point to in the real world to support this model as an accurate rendition of reality. The study supports the model.
If this study is debunked, then we will be back to square one. But as it is, the pro-choice position has been elevated above the pro-life position, which is still reliant upon unsupportable assertion in its arguments about how abortion damages the moral fiber of society.
5082. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 7:05:28 PM
Okly, dokly, it's this here:
"It's the first reasonable, scientific offering I've seen in the debate that abortion has positive consequences for society as a whole."
I glanced quickly at the SA story, and it's focus is on the crime rate. The clear implication to me is that aborted children have a higher propensity to cause society ills (such as crime) should they live than non-aborted children. It extrapolates some reasons.
The argument pro/con abortion has chiefly been reproductive rights versus the rights of the unborn, which is a bad enough pickle. Under such circumstances the abortion procedure is at best seen as a necessary evil to enforce the mother's civil rights. If we move to the position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own compelling interest. Basing a case for abortion on the odds of what the fetus is likely to do 20 years from now can stir the pots of racism, class war, you name it, and goes against our judicial presumption of innocence.
Have to go, but will be interested in your response.
5083. ChristinO - 12/1/1999 7:10:25 PM
Thanks Cos, I do try.
5084. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:13:16 PM
Under such circumstances
the abortion procedure is at best seen as a necessary evil
to enforce the mother's civil rights. If we move to the
position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are
treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own
compelling interest. Basing a case for abortion on the
odds of what the fetus is likely to do 20 years from now
can stir the pots of racism, class war, you name it, and
goes against our judicial presumption of innocence.
But the societal argument has always been a part of abortion dialogue. And it isn't a justification, merely a correlation.
'Building a case for abortion' on the grounds of socioeconomic and family-life indicators is hardly going to foment class warfare, simply because it has been a part of the case for so long already. And people have already voiced criticisms of abortion rights based upon the notion that it's a racist or classist institution. They're usually hooted off the stage, because a) most people recognize that free will is involved and b) it's also recognized that family size is still larger among lower-class families, even presuming that they will opt for a higher rate of abortion.
5085. angel-five - 12/1/1999 7:17:48 PM
If we move to the
position of whether society benefits from abortion, we are
treading on dangerous ground. Society then has its own
compelling interest.
To put this another way: This would only be 'dangerous ground' if, indeed, the benefits and detriments to society were to become the primary argument for or against abortion, as opposed to taking a supporting role alongside the current primary arguments, which center upon individual rights.
5086. ranheim - 12/1/1999 7:50:33 PM
I think it appropriate, in the discussion of the WTO and the protests in Seattle, that all of us consider Alistair's post #3784 in the International thread.
Businesses are contributing to have the CEOs or their representatives in attendance at meetings; receive briefings; attend cocktail parties; etc.
Gold Level : $25,000 - 74,999
Platinum : 75,000 - 144,999
Diamond : 150,000 - 249,999
Emerald : $250,000 or more.
I don't think it takes too much thinking to figure out who is going to most influence the bureaucrats of the WTO.
I repeat again : I am not an internationalist! I suspect Friedman; most of the media; anyone who speaks for the Council on Foreign Relations. The WTO does not sound like an entirely benign group to me.
5087. wonkers2 - 12/1/1999 8:27:44 PM
Well, the WTO people's conception of the rule of law is a bit narrower than one might imagine. When they talk about observing "the rule of law" what they are referring to are laws protecting intellectual property, integrity of accounting statements, banking regulations, opening markets to foreign corporations and other matters of interest to multinational corporations and essential to economic development. They resist efforts to condition trade on labor rights, employee health and safety and environmental conservation. As in the case of Singapore, "the rule of law" can be used to protect corporate interests but to repress the rights of individuals. It does not follow that increased trade will also alleviate human rights or environmental concerns. China may well be more likely to follow the Singapore model than the western democratic one.
5088. Greystoke - 12/1/1999 8:40:51 PM
The Pigs kill another innocent citizen in the War on Drugs.
5089. Greystoke - 12/1/1999 8:45:49 PM
An editorial about "no knock" police searches in Denver.
5090. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 8:57:03 PM
But, angel-five, you are still avoiding the implications of your argument. Listen to all the so-called pro-choice candidates for president. They still say things like, "Abortion is a terrible thing and I'm against it. But I'm also for a woman's right to choose. Let's not ban abortion; let's make abortions unnecessary." No mainstream figure wants to make the argument that abortion may do society good.
Suppose we say that those aborted fetuses would likely grow up to be criminals (which, of course, the study isn't demonstrating and no study will ever demonstrate--it may just indicate a greater propensity, but the majority of them won't). Even that doesn't matter because our entire judicial system is based on the premise that better ten guilty go free as one innocent suffer. Alright, then, some can use (again) the argument that we're not talking about people but tissue, but we would still be giving reason for the state to have a compelling interest in reproduction, if not life and death.
Either way, I don't see the advantage you do for the pro-choice folks. They've built the case for the unconstitutionality of abortion prohibition on "it's my body and you can't tell me what to do with it." That flies in the face of any majority (perhaps viewing legalized abortion as a terrible blot on civilized society) saying "We cannot let this go on."
Now, on the basis of this scientific study, you would open the door and say, "Look. It benefits society, too." You cannot keep governmental authority out with a "right to privacy" and simultaneously demonstrate a "compelling interest" for the state. Moreover, if allowed to affect the outcome of a real case, such a legal argument would open the door for the worst kind of governmental malfeasance.
5091. angel-five - 12/1/1999 9:24:06 PM
Indiana Jones:
But no one is 'demonstrating a compelling interest of the state', for many reasons, some of which you mention -- the study is very far from conclusive. No one is using the study to argue for abortion. You're building strawmen. If you'd argue otherwise, you have to address yourself to the bridging of a critical gap -- the difference between noting that declarations of martial law lower crime, and arguing that martial law should be the norm simply because it reduces crime.
Furthermore, arguments about the effects of abortion on society and arguments on whether abortion ought to be allowed are seperate arguments, and commenting on the one does not necessarily change one's stance on the other.
Now, on the basis of this scientific study, you would
open the door and say, "Look. It benefits society, too."
Please. I've done nothing of the kind. All I've said is that the study is interesting and I suspect there's something to it. That's a far cry from the sort of words you'd put in my mouth -- let's stick to facts, please.
However, to play devil's advocate, were I to do that, I would not be invoking a societal imperative in the debate. I'd just be point out a result. I would only be bringing the society's needs into it if I were to abandon the individual responsibility locus of the argument.
5092. 109109 - 12/1/1999 9:47:23 PM
I can't imagine you need much of a scientific basis to conclude that crime is reduced by zeroing out all kids who, if their makers had had their druthers, would be dead. Is that a legitimate basis for abortion policy? Not unless we can smartly salute and wear earth tone brown well.
But the conclusion is hardly startling.
5093. angel-five - 12/1/1999 9:48:27 PM
Exactly.
5094. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 9:51:38 PM
Well, angel-five, I always tire rather quickly of the abortion debate and certainly don't want to be a cazart in this and just restate my position (of what arguing from compelling societal interests implies). So you may have the last word.
5095. CalGal - 12/1/1999 10:09:57 PM
Actually, Indy is quite right in that pro-choice folks did not view this news in a positive light. In fact, they found it rather embarrassing and did their best to spin it. There were quite a few articles about it when the study was first released some months ago.
5096. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 10:58:31 PM
Greystroke- good examples of how constitutional safeguards are truly designed to protect the innocent, rather than merely the guilty.
5097. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 11:02:38 PM
A5 - children coerced into an incestuous relationship and rape victims --both the traditional variety and those who are drugged with GHB or rohypnol or just given alcohol until they pass out -- have made their choice.
I have no problem making exceptions for rape and incest in the first trimester. You have seen my rationale for it a dozen times, I am surprised you would bring it up again.
5098. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 1:26:42 AM
See, I just don't get it.
If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist. In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime -- which might not, depending on the facts and the prejudices of the judge or jury, even net the guilty parent a lengthy stay in jail?
Now if abortion isn't murder, never mind.
5099. CalGal - 12/2/1999 1:37:08 AM
Exactly. I have never understood either side's willingness to dismiss murder.
5100. concerned - 12/2/1999 2:10:46 AM
First it was Love Story, now Love Canal, next I half expect that Al 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore will be claiming that he was, in reality, Gavin MacLeod of the 'Love Boat' TV show.
As if claiming to 'invent' the Internet wasn't foolish enough, Bore showed further symptoms of terminal hoof in mouth disease by claiming (from a AP release):
At a high school forum Tuesday in New Hampshire, Gore 'answered' a student's question about youth cynicism with a tale from his early days as a Tennessee congressman as follows:
"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue," Gore said.
"That was the one that started it all. ... We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."
In August of 1978, Gore did chair hearings on the matter by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations - two months after the Love Canal homes were evacuated and President Carter declared the neighborhood a disaster area.
Tobacco Bore - the man's a pathological liar.
5101. concerned - 12/2/1999 3:27:34 AM
A quick note on the WTO: It appears that the WTO goal of a single economic global trading block may be too simplistic and is certainly premature at this point in time, when the Euro is in trouble, the Asian economic crisis has not yet resolved itself, and the US has been pursuing such an ineffective foreign policy and increasing interest rates.
Therefore, the US should not look to the WTO to 'control' or restrict US trade policy, especially given the disarray and widely disparate interests and goals of the members of the WTO resulting largely from the above factors.
5102. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:54:43 AM
Some pro-choice folks, perhaps, may have been embarrassed by the study, and I'm imagining they were the none-too-bright ones. I can say with certainty that some pro-choice folks did not see the need to 'spin' the study. The existence of a possible argument does not indicate that it is a valid argument; noting it and quoting supporting data does not mean that you're embracing the straw-man argument that lower crime rate alone is a sustainable reason to allow abortion.
Noting that abortion may have a beneficial effect upon society does not a priori mean that societal gain or loss should be the pivot point upon which the argument for abortion rests. You are just talking about secondary side effects. FWIW, I do agree that arguing the legitimacy of abortion primarily from a society net loss-gain angle does open you up to a lot of other arguments. The problem, Indiana, is that you immediately assumed that I was indeed embracing that argument in that fashion, and implied that I was doing so, when in fact I was not.
To put this another way: The fact that most pro-choice activists seize upon the individual reproductive rights of the mother as the cornerstone argument for allowing abortion does not mean that they can't consider other reasons, such as net benefit to society, as well. Why would it?
Noting that legalized abortion may decrease violent crime as a secondary side effect isn't distasteful, either, though there clearly are problems with converting this side effect into a desirable goal and pushing abortion onto 'at-risk' populations in an effort to 'cleanse' society. It is sensible to do the former, while the latter is a morally untenable position. The problem is that pro-life activists (at least the ones who think they can get away with it) would equate the two positions in an attempt to subvert their opposition, and evidently some pro-choice activists are dumb enough to let that happen.
5103. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:01:07 AM
JJ:
You either are trenchantly refusing to admit the point or else are being dim.
I know that you've publicly stated that you think it's acceptable for such cases to have access to abortion. I know that you're aware of them. But you don't mention them until someone forces you to. It happens reasonably often, and this frequency suggests that you are doing it deliberately in an effort to present a stronger front in your arguments against abortion --when you can ignore the exceptions to your arguments, your blanket argument looks much stronger and more seamless. You, for one, don't have to contend with TS's excellent point (not that you will probably willingly contend with it anyway). That's why you use such categorical language preferentially when you present your position on abortion, and I suspect you know it is, and it's dishonest.
5104. 109109 - 12/2/1999 9:05:50 AM
TS
"If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist. In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime -- which might not, depending on the facts and the prejudices of the judge or jury, even net the guilty parent a lengthy stay in jail?"
For the purposes of the pro-life position, it is really a case of whether certain abortions are justifiable homicides. Not a clean position, but there you have it (it is akin to the extremist pro-choice wing who insist that the child is not a child unless free of the mother, which logically would allow for abortion up to the day of delivery).
Society has naturally split the baby, making first trimested abortions readily acceptable, second trimester abortions available (but hardly readily) and third trimester abortions difficult, and getting more difficult as state legislatures act.
Why? I think the reasons are aesthetic. Society doesn't really accept that a fetus at 2 months is a life, or that a fetus at 7 months is the medical equivalent of a mole.
5105. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 9:11:17 AM
angel-five, you seem to want to say an argument has validity while simultaneously saying that doesn't mean you're endorsing it. No offense intended, but I'll reserve my disputations for those who indicate the position they take is a sincere one. When I first asked you in 5070 if you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the chance to distance yourself from the implications of abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's not why we should have it. Either you think its social benefit is germane or not. If not, let's leave it out. If it is, defend it: "part of the reason abortion should be legal is a scientific study has indicated that legalized abortion has reduced the crime rate."
I don't think I'm stretching to say that sentence should send shivers down your...umm...spine.
5106. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 9:17:58 AM
Another take on what WTO means to us
5107. cazart - 12/2/1999 9:41:13 AM
5108. cazart - 12/2/1999 9:42:09 AM
US Secret Weapon Against No. Korea Revealed
5109. Ronski - 12/2/1999 9:52:38 AM
Niner,
I think a bit more than aesthetic. For some, myself among them, the time of "quickening" is suggestive (and I admit this is subjective) of a major step in the process by which a fetus becomes a human being. Quickening occurs in the second trimester, I am told.
5110. 109109 - 12/2/1999 9:58:47 AM
Ronski
Understood. For public consumption, however, I think the benchmark really becomes "when does it look like me" rather than "when can it be like me." Given the medical advances, which will rapidly allow harvesting children outside of the womb at an earlier and earlier date (didn't you see "The Matrix"?), the distinction will prove critical to abortion law in the future.
5111. Ronski - 12/2/1999 10:05:43 AM
Justice O'Connor has spoken of Roe v. Wade being in a race with technology. But I think it will be many decades before fetuses can be removed from wombs and turned into children in the first two months after conception, images of human-like forms floating in plexiglass vats of chemicals and similar TV- and movie-screen fantasies notwithstanding.
5112. 109109 - 12/2/1999 10:10:16 AM
Whoa.
I thought The Matrix was a documentary.
I agree with you, but the dicey time will be second trimester. And if the ability to maintain fetuses outside of the womb at earlier stages will press the point. And if the medical sense of the general public is primary, then second trimester abortions will find themselves under greater and greater scrutiny and restriction. But is the aesthetic predominates, public opinion will follow the arbitrary yet structured system of Roe.
5113. Cellar Door - 12/2/1999 10:33:33 AM
Just caught up with "The Matrix."
Couldn't make heads or tails of the damned thing, but Keanu is just so pretty.
5114. 109109 - 12/2/1999 10:37:17 AM
Cellar
I was fond of the sleek female leads.
I swear.
I don't know. I'm just so confused.
5115. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 11:03:04 AM
Regarding viability and abortion:
To my mind the relevant moment of viability is not when technology can replace the womb in sustaining the fetus, but the moment that the fetus becomes capable of independent life. As long as the fetus requires an outside entity to sustain its fundemental processes its fate should remain a private decision of the mother.
I know, a baby requires assistance to survive; it cannot feed or clothe or protect itself. The fundemental difference is that ANY adult can provide this assistance. Prior to biological viability a SPECIFIC adult, the mother, must host the fetus OR the fetus must be hosted by a technological womb.
5116. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 11:05:04 AM
A5 - I know that you've publicly stated that you think it's acceptable for such cases to have access to abortion. I know that you're aware of them. But you don't mention them until someone forces you to.
I mention them whenever the subject is brought up. No one has to force me. Since they are the exception and not the rule, I don't believe it is necessary to inject them into every conversation.
5117. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 11:11:53 AM
Went to downtown Seattle after work yesterday, had a great time. Got a wiff of CS gas (I can still taste it on my coat), helped a woman who was maced get to an aid station, and did my citizenly duty of quietly observing the situation first hand. What I saw was a protest of the police/curfew rather than a WTO protest. When I first arrived the police where aggressively clearing intersections, but, in shades of Vietnam, failing to hold any ground so the crowd would simply move through the alleys and back around the police. Finally, at about 6:20PM, the police simply pulled back and mostly out of sight. The crowd stood in the intersection of 3rd and Pine for about half an hour and then suddenly moved west to 4th and then north and out of downtown. I went home.
While I was downtown, for about two hours, the closest thing I saw to vandalism was someone dragged a plastic free newspaper stand into the street. Someone else immediately dragged it back and set it up. The damage downtown is pretty minor, some of the stores, Nordstrom's for instance, have pre-emptively boarded up the whole storefront and I've seen a couple of video clips that give the impression that this is all broken.
I saw on the news today that the police again went into the Capitol Hill area and tear gassed that area until about 2AM. I fail to understand the rationale for this.
5118. CalGal - 12/2/1999 11:20:05 AM
To my mind the relevant moment of viability is not when technology can replace the womb in sustaining the fetus, but the moment that the fetus becomes capable of independent life. As long as the fetus requires an outside entity to sustain its fundemental processes its fate should remain a private decision of the mother.
I pretty much agree with that--although I'm okay with any logistical restrictions after 12 weeks, quite frankly.
However, after the viability, I don't see any reason to give the mother's life automatic precedence.
5119. Cellar Door - 12/2/1999 11:23:35 AM
I was fond of the sleek female leads.
Sleekness is All.
5120. robertjayb - 12/2/1999 11:32:05 AM
.
Dantheman,
Thanks for Message # 5106 and the link to the WTO article.
VonKreedon,
Thanks for your notes from Seattle. NPR had some fairly
tough reporting on the early-morning tear gassing. The
story was that most of these victims were behaving
themselves and that they had little, if anything, to do
with the WTO conference.
5121. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 11:32:43 AM
TS - See, I just don't get it.
There's a surprise.
If abortion is murder, then it's no less murder because the unborn child's father was a rapist.
The issue is not who the father is, but how the child was conceived. Unlike most pro-choicers I recognize that there are two individuals involved with conflicting rights. The fetus has a right to be born and the mother has a right to make choices about her own body. Neither of these rights are absolute. It is necessary to weigh these rights in order to come to a solution.
When deciding whose rights should prevail, it is useful to look at what each one must sacrifice. If the abortion is prohibited, the woman must endure the remainder of her pregnancy. If the abortion is allowed, the fetus loses its life. In most cases the rights of the fetus should prevail.
There are exceptions. If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice. Cases of rape and incest are more difficult. Rape and incest are traumatic experiences. If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail.
Another factor is that in most cases the mother already made her choice by engaging in the activities that caused the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, the mother had that choice taken away from her.
In what society do we permit killing the blameless child for his or her parent's crime
Our society currently permits the killing of a blameless child on nothing more than the whim of one parent. Anything is better than that.
Now if abortion isn't murder, never mind.
The subject can not be reduced to such simplistic terms.
5122. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 11:46:31 AM
JJB- you're going to get flak for your positions, but I agree that the issue is not simple, and your reasoning seems sound.
It is reasonable to me to recognize that there are differences between a clump of cells not yet implanted into the womb, a fetus of 20 weeks, and one of 30 weeks. There are no easy answers to when we become human. The common law looked to "quickening", St. Thomas Moore thought that ensoulment came 40 days after conception, and medical technology pushes the envelope farther and farther with regard to viability. Yet many want this to be black and white. Unfortunately, it is a murky continuum of grey.
5123. ranheim - 12/2/1999 11:47:23 AM
I don't do abortion battles.
Just a note to both sides. I have one patient who weighed in at 2 lbs. 14 ounces at birth. Not thriving; but, still alive at 1 1/2 years, or so. Quite a few patients born weighing in the 3lb. + category. Most of those are doing less well than optimal also.
5124. cazart - 12/2/1999 11:53:26 AM
There are exceptions. If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice.
Agree.
Cases of rape and incest are more difficult. Rape and incest are traumatic experiences. If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail.
Inconsistent. What is this "further harm" you talk about? The mother's mental health? The threat of further violence or abuse?
5125. ranheim - 12/2/1999 11:55:01 AM
In today's Baton Rouge Advocate editorial page there was an editorial on the WTO : Robert J. Samuelson. Seemed pretty even handed to me.
I'm too computer illiterate to link. Should any of you technical people read it - and find that it has useful things to say - possibly you could link it.
Samuelson questions whether the powers-that-be at the WTO were wise in scheduling the meeting. He says that more and more countries are lowering tariff rates all the time - without this conferance. They see the advantages; so no conferance was necessary. Samuelson feels that there is more downside risk - due to the points made by some of the protestors - than upside advantage.
5126. Ronski - 12/2/1999 11:57:52 AM
Free the turtles.
5127. 109109 - 12/2/1999 11:58:00 AM
The issue requires, even demands inconsistency, lest you feel compelled to glom on to idiocies such as life begins at conception and/or the mother can smother her child so long as he or she is still connected to an umbilical cord. The gray areas are pronounced and thus, JJ's reading is certainly as consistent as most mainstream thought. True, it's not Dworkin or terry, but we can't have everything.
He makes a legitimate distinction between the further harm attendant to delivering and caring for a child brought about by rape or incest and delivering or caring for a child brought about by consensual sex.
5128. Ronski - 12/2/1999 12:00:27 PM
I'm utterly consistent on turtles.
5129. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:05:33 PM
109109:
Horseshit. It is a distinction that is convenient for conservatives.
If you're going to argue that abortion is murder then the means or circumstances of conception are meaningless.
5130. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:09:18 PM
Further, JJBiener talks about a "further harm" and a "constant reminder." While JJBiener has not fully explained his interpretation of these terms, they seem inconsistent with the position taken by most anti-choicers that the mental health of the mother should not be considered a legitimate medical reason to terminate pregnancy.
5131. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:11:02 PM
cazart - If you're going to argue that abortion is murder then the means or circumstances of conception are meaningless.
As usual you don't even understand the argument. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing anything other than black or white.
5132. 109109 - 12/2/1999 12:11:22 PM
cazart
If you are going to argue true choice, then you would support the right to abortion at 8 months, 27 days.
Which would make you a monster.
A consistent monster, no doubt, but a monster nonetheless.
The conservatives and liberals each rely on conveniences.
5133. wonkers2 - 12/2/1999 12:13:37 PM
Ranheim--good to see a fellow Moter from Baton Rouge. Last month I was there for my University High School class reunion. I hadn't been back for many years. The town and school looked good. I was disappointed, however, to learn that the school was forced to begin charging tuition ($2000). When I was there it was essentially free, and we got ticket books for all LSU athletic events. I attended the game in which Bob Pettit broke the NCAA scoring record with 55 points against Georgia and watched Y.A. Tittle, the great LSU quarterback, many times.
5134. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:13:50 PM
cazart - While JJBiener has not fully explained his interpretation of these terms
Niner understood the use of terms without any problem. What's your excuse?
5135. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:16:45 PM
JJBiener:
I've asked for clarification from you on the issue. You refuse to do so.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion.
5136. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:21:33 PM
cazart - I've asked for clarification from you on the issue.
I don't clarify the meaning of 'is' either. If you can't understand simple English, don't bother commenting.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
You are the one trying to make this a black or white issue, not me.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion
I know why I oppose abortion and I have explained it. You have demonstrated that you are unable to understand it.
5137. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:27:58 PM
JJBiener:
I've asked for clarification from you on the issue. You refuse to do so.
The issue is not black and white. However much the anti-choicers wish it to be.
First, you must examine the grounds for your opposition to abortion.
5138. cazart - 12/2/1999 12:30:55 PM
Sorry for the double posting.
Yes, JJBiener, 109109 understands you. That is because he is simple and not given to critical thought.
What is your meaning with regard to "further harm" and "constant reminder" as it applies to rape and incest?
5139. robertjayb - 12/2/1999 12:50:02 PM
.
Here is the Robert J. Samuelson column cited in ranheim's Message # 5125:
We Don't Need This Trade Pact
5140. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 12:57:19 PM
cazart - What is your meaning with regard to "further harm" and "constant reminder" as it applies to rape and incest?
Let me see if I can put this in terms you will understand. . . .
See Mary. Mary is walking home. Walk, Mary, walk.
See Bill. Bill sees Mary. Bill has evil thoughts. Run, Mary, run!
See Bill grab Mary. See Bill beat Mary. See Bill rape Mary. See Bill leave Mary to die in an alley.
See Mary. She is in the hospital.
See the doctor. The doctor is treating Mary's injuries. The doctor tells Mary that she is going to have Bill's baby.
Mary is sad. See Mary cry.
See the baby grow. Grow, baby, grow. Mary feels the baby kick. Mary remembers Bill raping her.
Mary is sad. See Mary cry.
Is that simple enough for you?
5141. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:11:33 PM
JJBiener:
So emotional trauma should be grounds for terminating pregnancy? The mental well-being of the mother?
5142. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 1:20:41 PM
HaHa...Cazart vs Beiner...excuse me if I seem "Jaded", but isn't something familiar here?
5143. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:24:48 PM
caz
Sure. Some emotional trauma.
Just like the civil law awards damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress that shocks the conscience.
And does not award damages for inflicted emotional distress of lesser severity.
Now, you play.
If the woman is in control of her body, and the fetus is 8 months, 27 days along, do you support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at that date?
5144. ranheim - 12/2/1999 1:31:28 PM
wonkers2 and Robert
Thank you.
I'm from rural LA., wonkers. But, my wife and I held season football tickets to Tiger games for roughly 15 years and it is one of our favorite cities - with New Orleans - in the state.
5145. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 1:32:12 PM
Psych - excuse me if I seem "Jaded", but isn't something familiar here?
I was thinking the same thing. Cazart is every bit as predictable and impenitrable as Jade.
5146. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 1:33:42 PM
JJ...I have always enjoyed both you and Jade...I was just remembering...
5147. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:37:54 PM
Just like the civil law awards damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress that shocks the conscience.
What does this have to do with anything?
Eye on the ball, son.
We're talking about the legalization or banning of a medical procedure.
5148. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:40:11 PM
cazart
Answer my question, or continue your widely known practice of intellectual dishonesty, and find yourself talking to yourself. Brochures I can read. I prefer debate and dialogue.
5149. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 1:40:59 PM
"Eye on the ball, son."
Verrry Jade Gold-esque. But could Jade Gold ever refrain for so long without mentioning its military career as a Requisitioning Clerk?
5150. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 1:45:46 PM
Psych - Remember when I spent a week analyzing Jade's posts and identifying all the propaganda techniques she was using. That was fun. Maybe I should do that with Cazart.
5151. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:50:50 PM
Yo, Hitler.
What question would that be?
5152. 109109 - 12/2/1999 1:52:00 PM
5143
5153. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 1:56:07 PM
Niner,
Do you now answer to Hitler? Can I call you that, too?
5154. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:56:42 PM
Answer: yes.
See how easy that was? No deflections or attempts to frame the question differently.
5155. cazart - 12/2/1999 1:59:07 PM
DantheMan:
I only use 'Hitler' to those who make demands such as, "answer this or I'll..." and the like.
5156. CalGal - 12/2/1999 1:59:30 PM
Caz,
You frame the question differently every time you focus on the fact that "most" late trimester abortions are on dead fetuses, etc.
So you are saying that a woman should be able, if she chooses, to terminate a healthy fetus at any time before delivery?
5157. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:00:20 PM
Niner is Hitler!!...Chrissakes...first we out Jade, now Niner.
5158. 109109 - 12/2/1999 2:01:46 PM
cazart
Well, you are consistent, if gruesome. But I appreciate the answer
Dan
I also answer to "Belle" and "Mobutu."
5159. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:04:22 PM
Ka-Zart,
I'm glad to know you believe in appeasing dictators.
5160. cazart - 12/2/1999 2:04:35 PM
You frame the question differently every time you focus on the fact
that "most" late trimester abortions are on dead fetuses, etc.
At least try to accurately represent what I said, CalGal.
5161. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:05:05 PM
Niner,
What about "Kissyface"?
5162. 109109 - 12/2/1999 2:06:12 PM
Dan
Depends on what you're wearing? If it is an Eva Braun get-up, and you remind me of my Aunt Wudgie, you bet.
5163. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:06:50 PM
Was it Mobutu whose name translated meant "the cock who leaves no hen untouched"?
5164. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:08:38 PM
cock
Now that's funny.
Cock.
Favorite Simpsons line: Monty Burns saying about Homer, "Why, I bet he thinks he's the cock of the walk."
You know they just wrote that line to say "cock" and get away with it.
And everyone laughed just because they said "cock."
Cock.
Funny.
5165. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:09:26 PM
Indiana...no...I believe that is the translation for the name "Nostradumbfuck"...haha...a Niner orignal...
5166. PsychProf - 12/2/1999 2:10:35 PM
Ace...South Carolina GameCOCKS...
5167. Dantheman - 12/2/1999 2:11:38 PM
Niner,
I never met your Aunt Wudgie, and my Halloween cosutme is of Fred Flintstone, not Eva Braun, so I guess the Squirrel can relax, knowing that I will not lose my virginity to you.
5168. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:11:51 PM
Actually I just wanted to get away with saying Mobutu.
5169. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:13:40 PM
I remember seeing a picture of a brightly colored bird called "the Cock of the Rock."
It was in one of those mail-order "Animal Indexes" that used to be the rage, where "every month, you will receive twenty new Animal cards. You can organize them alphabetically, by phylum, by habitat, or by part of the world."
5170. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 2:16:34 PM
JJ --
"There's a surprise."
Tsk, tsk. Play nice.
"The issue is not who the father is, but how the child was conceived."
A issue over which the child has no control.
"If the abortion is prohibited, the woman must endure the remainder of her pregnancy. If the abortion is allowed, the fetus loses its life. In most cases the rights of the fetus should prevail."
I'm with you so far.
"If the mothers life is stake, there is no way the law can force her to make that sacrifice."
Well, actually, it could; it is legally permissible to require people to risk or even sacrifice their lives to protect other people. Leaving that aside, however, I agree that self-defense and defense of another are well-recognized defenses to the charge of murder.
"Cases of rape and incest are more difficult."
Well, yes, that was my point.
"Rape and incest are traumatic experiences."
I can think of contrary examples. If the incest is not traumatic, will you forbid the killing of the child? Or does it depend on the degree of trauma involved in the conception? If so, who gets to decide?
5171. CalGal - 12/2/1999 2:17:39 PM
Caz,
I believe that is what you said, earlier. If not, I'll go hunt it up or you can correct it.
But you didn't answer my question.
Can a woman choose to abort a healthy, viable fetus at any time prior to delivery?
5172. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 2:17:52 PM
continued ...
"If a pregnancy occurs as a result, it will be a constant reminder and cause further harm. I believe the mother's right to protect herself from harm should then prevail."
By "further harm," I assume you mean to the mother. You assume that the birth of a child will cause the mother further harm than killing her unborn child. In using the term "constant," you assume that the child's very existence will remind her of the traumatic conception, even if the child is turned over to the state for adoption.
I do not believe your assumptions would be borne out in all cases. More importantly, since you are advocating killing a human being based on your assumptions, I do not believe you can demonstrate that those assumptions always hold true.
Even if they did, it would be a novel defense to murder of a born person: "Your Honor, the so-called victim's continued existence was a constant reminder to me of a traumatic experience. So I killed him." Such reasoning would permit the mother to strangle the child after it was born.
"In the case of rape and incest, the mother had that choice taken away from her."
Again, this is not always true in cases of incest. Even assuming it were true, the person who took the mother's choice away was not the person you propose to kill.
"Our society currently permits the killing of a blameless child on nothing more than the whim of one parent. Anything is better than that."
Your proposal permits exactly the same thing. Unless you intend to mandate abortion of babies conceived by rape or incest, it's still going to be the choice of one parent that prevails. You would limit the number of murders (if abortion is such), but you would permit them just the same.
5173. CalGal - 12/2/1999 2:18:00 PM
And TS, get your ass to lunch. I'm on my way.
5174. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 2:18:45 PM
Here's a bbc link that offers a better translation: "the cock who jumps on everything that moves."
(Sheepishly, I must admit that my source indicates Mobutu preferred "the all-conquering warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest leaving fire in his wake.")
5175. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 2:20:36 PM
it is legally permissible to require people to risk or even sacrifice their lives to protect other people
Ummmmm... outside of drafted soldiers, can you name a single law which requires such a sacrifice or risk? I don't think cops or firemen or paramedics can be arrested for cowardice or refusing to act.
When you say "legally permissible," do you mean that such a law has never been struck down? If so, I would suggest that may because no such law has ever existed. The "Forcible Good Samaritan" law on Seinfeld is alien to Anglo-American law as far as I know.
5176. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 2:28:22 PM
Answer: yes
It looks like cazart is possessed by the spirit of GodlessClif. Or possibly Joseph Mengele.
5177. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 2:48:22 PM
TS - A issue over which the child has no control.
As I explained, the child is not the only one involved.
I can think of contrary examples.
Real life cannot be addressed using absolutes.
If the incest is not traumatic . . .
I suppose this is possible, but I have never come across a case. I am a foster parent and I have dealt with many victims of incest. The scars may not always be readily apparent, but they are always there.
By "further harm," I assume you mean to the mother. You assume that the birth of a child will cause the mother further harm than killing her unborn child.
I am making no such assumption. I know that in some cases this is true.
In using the term "constant," you assume that the child's very existence will remind her of the traumatic conception, even if the child is turned over to the state for adoption.
I am referring only to the pregnancy.
the person who took the mother's choice away was not the person you propose to kill.
I am not proposing to kill anyone. I am saying that in certain cases the woman's rights prevail, and in others the baby's rights prevail. I am not claiming that my position is perfect. I just think it is the best way to balance the rights of both the mother and child.
5178. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:02:03 PM
When I first asked you in 5070 if
you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the
chance to distance yourself from the implications of
abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have
it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's
not why we should have it.
Indiana:
Are you, then, of the opinion that any possible benefit one can note from a practice is grounds for sponsoring that practice? Really? You ignore the several places where I explain why that's a bad idea, but maybe you just skimmed, so I'll restate them briefly: If noting that the practice of abortion lowers violent crime rates is an endorsement of abortion, then noting that polio keeps kids off the street is an endorsement of polio, and noting that police snipers prevent recidivism is an argument to shoot criminals. There's no 'having my cake and eating it too' to the argument.
Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society. Pro-life advocates argue about the way abortion dehumanizes our society -- the way it teaches us to not respect human life or each other, the way we all are silently complicit in 'mass murder' and whatnot. This is a common trend in pro-life argumentation, and -- as opposed to pro-choice advocates, who usually leave societal arguments out of the justification process -- it is seen as a valid argument against institutionalized abortion by pro-lifers.
Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality.
5179. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:02:35 PM
When I first asked you in 5070 if
you "knew what you were saying," I was giving you the
chance to distance yourself from the implications of
abortion's social benefits, but you seem to want to have
it both ways: i.e., abortion does society good, but that's
not why we should have it.
Indiana:
Are you, then, of the opinion that any possible benefit one can note from a practice is grounds for sponsoring that practice? Really? You ignore the several places where I explain why that's a bad idea, but maybe you just skimmed, so I'll restate them briefly: If noting that the practice of abortion lowers violent crime rates is an endorsement of abortion, then noting that polio keeps kids off the street is an endorsement of polio, and noting that police snipers prevent recidivism is an argument to shoot criminals. There's no 'having my cake and eating it too' to the argument.
Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society. Pro-life advocates argue about the way abortion dehumanizes our society -- the way it teaches us to not respect human life or each other, the way we all are silently complicit in 'mass murder' and whatnot. This is a common trend in pro-life argumentation, and -- as opposed to pro-choice advocates, who usually leave societal arguments out of the justification process -- it is seen as a valid argument against institutionalized abortion by pro-lifers.
Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality.
5180. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:03:48 PM
Forgive the double.
Yet it is no such admission -- any more than noting a contradiction in a religious creed is an admission that the creed is accurate or a vaible way of describing the function of the world. If the data does not support the anti-abortionists dogma WRT socialization of dehumanized ethics, then it does not, and that's that. After all, if we were all becoming callous murderers-by-proxy, you'd certainly expect to see some other trend in the violent crime rate. The position of the anti-abortionists, until they can offer a similarly unbiased hard data result which contradicts the study, is therefore stripped of an angle of attack. They're reduced to categorically arguing that abortion is murder and murder is wrong, period, and that's that.
Which more or less renders the pro-life position untenable to anyone but the hard-core fanatics, because if we can see anything in this thread's discussion, it's that moderate pro-lifers generally hold that the 'wrongness' of abortion isn't an overriding factor in all cases -- sometimes, as in the case of rape or incest, there are other factors which trump the fact that 'it's just murder'. IF you hold that the life of the fetus is not sacrosanct and inviolable in and of itself -- FOR ANY REASON, IN ANY SITUATION, NO MATTER HOW RAREFIED -- then you are compromising the entire remaining basis for being pro-life.
5181. angel-five - 12/2/1999 3:14:11 PM
Now, you of course can argue that 'well, killing isn't always a no-no, because sometimes it's permissible, but it is something that you should always take pains to avoid for pragmatic reasons (even though we've tossed out the pure moral reasons as being untenable). That's why abortion should be criminalized except in the cases of severe health risk or mental health issues, in which case the well-being of the mother is more important than the child's life.' And that, to me, is a much more reasonable position. It's just not terribly popular because it has little weight -- there's not much to use as leverage against the opposition. You've got no moral authority -- you've tossed it. You've got no sociological pragmatic authority, because the data doesn't support it. And the crux of your argument supports your opposition's argument -- that the mother's rights can trump the 'rights' of the fetus.
5182. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 3:37:59 PM
"Where the data comes into play is NOT at the justification stage -- i.e. what makes abortion defensible or indefensible -- but in the clash of theory and ideology over abortion, as it relates to society."
Call me a big hulking Mac truck, angel, but I can't negotiate the hairpin curve you wants me to. Can we drop it with the above being your final eqloquent statement on the matter?
"Now, to offer up contrasting data, such as the study does -- you would paint that as an admission that the societal angle is a valid avenue to argue against or for abortion's legality."
If you say that social impact is relevant to the argument, it seems to me you are saying that social impact is relevant to the argument.
5183. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 3:42:09 PM
A5, not intentionally dismissive of your last two posts--just thought you'd concluded with 5179. I'm a-willing to let them go unresponded to, if you is.
5184. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:06:10 PM
Indiana: You can respond or not as is your wont, provided that you don't go about subsequently mistaking my stance on this issue.
If you say that social impact is relevant to the argument,
it seems to me you are saying that social impact is
relevant to the argument
Please try to understand that you are equating two separate arguments. Moreover, you're conveniently ignoring the difference between legitimizing someone's argument (i.e. agreeing that the argument is valid) and showing how that argument is internally inconsistent and unsupported (i.e. demonstrating that the argument is contradicted by basic evidence). That isn't a hairpin curve, Indiana, it's a straight line. It's how opposing belief systems can argue with each other even though their basic precepts are entirely different -- you examine the logical consistency of the opposing argument and speak of it in its own terms. Of course, you can just toss up your hands and tell the pro-lifers that their argument from social results isn't applicable and that's why you don't address it, but that seldom works -- because they refuse to understand why and won't accept explanations germane to the query, but rather just hammer the table and announce that they've got a point, dammit, and that's that. So you're left with hoisting them on their own petard, should they choose to press the societal argument.
5185. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:08:12 PM
I can't help but think you're being deliberately dense, here. Don't you recognize any difference at ALL between a) suspecting that an inverse correlation between legal abortion incidents and illegal violent crime does in fact exist, and b) arguing that this in and of itself is a sine qua non reason to have legal abortion? If you answer me at all, answer that question first --and then explain to me how it is that by noting the former you could possibly assume I'm a proponent of the latter. It makes no sense to do so, but you apparently believed that you'd caught me doing it, and acted accordingly -- so I'd like the explanation why.
5186. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:20:02 PM
Angel:
Well said.
However, I believe you are misconfabulating Indiana's position. Moreover, you stridently obtusulate the core difference in the underlying matter of disputality when you state that one agent's modality of argumentation (let us say, to give the beast a name, so to speak, their "modus") is somehow divergulent to the intended object to which they direct their bellicosotic energies (for example, the demonstratum regarding the inherent comustuality of compensatory mismatch between form and function belies the undercurrent of kevlar whittling through their tempers (or, to put it more clearly, flagellates their overweening demeanors); and in so doing, of course, more or less militates towards a less dualisticious orgasmulation of cultivitities-- and this, by necessity, reduces nonsensically to the proposition that what is to be furthered is not necessarily what is to be proven; and I think that's quite clarificacient based on the very factum which you assiducidiously reify cornswallop nacent vector red blue green white, curiouser and curiouser-- now, were I to accept your pusilanignomious garments to be somehow germanicious to this course of reasoning, I would of course nuckle nuckle nyuck nyuck noo; but I think that, in the interest of fairness, I will rather goosum goosum tit fligwillow paunch.
Now, Angel, I must say, you can respond or not as is your wont, or even your ilk, or even a wont *and* an ilk, but-- and this is is important -- only provided that you don't go about subsequently mistaking my stance on this issue.
Because I think I've been sufficienally clear.
5187. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:20:45 PM
Oh, I missed Biener's response to me.
Biener: Oh, come on. If that was the case, then why use language in all other cases that is specifically and unmistakably categorical? It doesn't add up.
5188. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:22:41 PM
Ace -- Not everyone else is so afflicted with attention deficit disorder that they can't read long and complex posts without suffering brain spasms.
5189. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:26:28 PM
Angel:
Ah yes: The standard defense of the chronic bad writer. "I'm not a bad, dense, sloppy, meandering writer; you're just a bad reader."
There are things called called paragraphs. Look into them.
Some people find they help impose an *orderliness* and crispness to their writing. Perhaps they will do the same for you.
5190. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 4:30:41 PM
Ace's channeling William Buckley on acid!
5191. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:36:17 PM
Oh, yes, Ace, we all know, those little breaks between sentences give you a chance to west your bwain.
I know, I know, it's a frustrating problem, which is why you usually give up reading partway through and instead, by trying to heckle, shift the blame away from your comprehension to the object which eludes it. Of course, we could BOTH be right -- I might write in a manner that's cryptic and hard for you to follow, and you might have ADD and subsequently be prone to spastic defensive outbursts about my cryptic, hard to follow writing. OR maybe big words are the problem. I don't know, but drug therapy is much better these days, look into it for your own sake. HAve a nice day!
5192. angel-five - 12/2/1999 4:37:36 PM
Oh, yes, Ace, we all know, those little breaks between sentences give you a chance to west your bwain.
I know, I know, it's a frustrating problem, which is why you usually give up reading partway through and instead, by trying to heckle, shift the blame away from your comprehension to the object which eludes it. Of course, we could BOTH be right -- I might write in a manner that's cryptic and hard for you to follow, and you might have ADD and subsequently be prone to spastic defensive outbursts about my cryptic, hard to follow writing. OR maybe big words are the problem. I don't know, but drug therapy is much better these days, look into it for your own sake. HAve a nice day!
5193. janjon - 12/2/1999 4:43:15 PM
Why is everyone knocking Ace so? His 5186 is the best thing I've ever seen him write.
5194. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 4:45:28 PM
You may have a point, in the sense that, yes, upon occasion, I have been known to employ ridicule in my modus of discourse; however, I think you will grant me, and I hope I am here not being presumptuous in the least, or perhaps I am, but that is the risk one runs when one enters these sorts of discussions, after all, that, and I wish to stress this, while not putting too fine a point on it, that perhaps you are wont, if I may be so bold as to say "wont," to write rather sloppily, one thought running unpoliced into the intersection of an oncoming thought, to coin a metaphor (and I hope you understand that no offense at all is intended); and I merely am politely, nay, *constructively*, stating that, all things being considered, perhaps you ought to try segmenting separate thoughts into separate paragraphs or, more essentially, different sentences, and that, if your thoughts were so organized according the more-or-less standard conventions of prose writing, perhaps, oh, I don't know, you posts wouldn't read like Japanese VCR instruction manuals or, more charitably, like the extended, recursive footnotes of a postomodernist marxist feminist postgraduate thesis.
Note that the above paragraph is fundamentally, gramatically sound. It makes sense. I have violated no rules in writing it.
It is, however, a horrible chore to read, I'm guessing. I hope you enjoy deciphering it.
5195. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 4:46:14 PM
Ace --
Ummmmm... outside of drafted soldiers, can you name a single law which requires such a sacrifice or risk?
No, that's who I had in mind.
5196. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 4:53:29 PM
a-5, at the Mote at least, I'm never deliberately obtuse, but I do think that I've stated my position as effectively as I can without repeating myself. Re your questions a and b, I believe that scientific evidence is scientific evidence, and ideology should never disqualify it. And admitting that any particular evidence exists doesn't endorse a position that such evidence is the "sine qua non" to judging an issue. (Most pro-lifers would admit that hospital abortions are inherently safer than those conducted in back alleys.)
Where our "failure to communicate" occurs is not regarding the conclusion of the statistics--dead babies of course don't tell any tales, commit crimes, eat scarce food, or otherwise overtly affect society (I think Niner mentioned that this was self-evident without any studies last night). People already know that from common sense.
The pro-abortion rights side, however, cannot enter into the debate from this position because, no matter the statistics, they lose. Their strong argument--the basis of Roe v. Wade--is the Right to Privacy, which is predicated on "the right to be left alone." Once "you" (someone) begin arguing that it is statistically possible to predict probable outcomes for a potential fetus, you are undermining the notion that society has no compelling interest in reproduction. Once the state has a compelling interest, blanket "reproductive freedom" is dead.
Moreover, "you" will have moved the debate to a much weaker position for the pro-abortion side. Killing babies because some might become criminals is infinitely weaker in my opinion than saying the state has no business telling a woman whether or not she can reproduce.
I understand you would draw an arbitrary distinction between your well-defined "stages of argument," but I'm guessing judges are every bit as obtuse as me and might not grasp such subtleties.
5197. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 4:58:54 PM
JJ --
"Real life cannot be addressed using absolutes."
Ever?
" ...the child is not the only one involved."
No, but the child is the only one whose killing you propose to permit.
"I am not proposing to kill anyone. I am saying that in certain cases the woman's rights prevail, and in others the baby's rights prevail."
And when the woman's rights prevail, she gets to kill the baby if she wants. And you're willing to allow that -- right?
Earlier you said you'd allow the killing of an unborn child so that the mother would not be traumatized by the thought of having to carry and bear the child. If you're willing to permit abortion for therapeutic reasons, just admit it.
In no instance, however, has the baby done anything to forfeit its right to live -- assuming that it has such a right to begin with. Kill the s.o.b. who fathered the child if you thinks someone should die, but on what ground do you defend killing the innocent when their death is not necessary to save the life of another?
5198. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 5:08:08 PM
(I hate to add more after such a lengthy post, but a-5 is still ahead on the word count.) The pro-abortion side also loses psychologically by talking about predictive outcomes: it's difficult to reconcile the position that the fetus is just tissue--not a person--with the notion that it's entire life is already determinable and that at age 25 it will be holding up banks.
5199. PelleNilsson - 12/2/1999 5:21:43 PM
janjon
There are some very funny and witty writers around here. Check out this site when you have a few moments to spare.
5200. Spudboy - 12/2/1999 5:30:11 PM
Ace of Cliches lecturing others on bad writing is rather like Jesse Jackson chastising someone for crass opportunism.
5201. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:33:43 PM
Spudboy - Ace of Cliches lecturing others on bad writing is rather like Jesse Jackson chastising someone for crass opportunism.
I am shocked that you post such an insensitive statement. I am also LMAO.
5202. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:38:00 PM
TS - I have already explained my beliefs about abortion and why I believe the way I do. If you would like to comment, fine. I am not going to keep answering questions I have already answered.
5203. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:42:20 PM
Is it?
If my presence here is unappreciated, I can easily arrange my permanent departure.
Good luck with your pissant little website. Adieu.
5204. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:42:44 PM
A5 - If that was the case, then why use language in all other cases that is specifically and unmistakably categorical?
This is a online forum. The necessity to be brief and direct can make some statements seem categorical when they aren't intended to be so. When I was asked about specific circumstances, I was honest and forthcoming.
5205. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 5:43:45 PM
Ace - Is there an echo in here? One with a very long delay?
5206. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:44:28 PM
Hi guys! I'm back! Did you miss me?
I really, really, really meant to stay away that time, but I got soooo many e-mails during my three second absence, from fans just begging me to come back, that I just had to oblige them.
So... what's up?
Eh, fuck you guys. That's the straw that broke this wildcard's back.
Good luck and good fucking bye. So long, simps.
5207. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:47:02 PM
Hey, how's everybody doin'?
I decided to come back again due to the pleadings of my numerous friends here who just couldn't endure without me.
What do you guys think about Turkey? I think that's a funny name for a country. "Turkey." It's silly.
I'm sick of the incessant bitching and nastiness here. You all suck ass.
Good day and good riddance, jerkweeds.
5208. CalGal - 12/2/1999 5:48:39 PM
JJ,
I agree with TS, quite frankly. If it's murder, then how can you justify it in any situation? I mean, it's murder except when you have a really really really good JJ-approved reason?
5209. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 5:48:45 PM
Too bad Ace isn't a woman. I could really go for a psycho like that.
5210. CalGal - 12/2/1999 5:50:57 PM
Ace isn't really psycho, is he? He's kind of a wannabe.
True psychos do their best to act within the realm of normal.
I say this because I know.
5211. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:52:04 PM
Hey gang, what's happenin'?
You know, like they say on that show What's Happenin'-- "what's hap-pen-IN'"?
Yeah, dat's right baby. You know it.
Lookin' good there, Indiana. Hey, did you lose weight JJ? Or get a haircut?
Well, it was great seeing everybody again, but now I'm going, because you all suck and I hate you and you don't appreciate me, except for my legions of fans who keep begging me to come back.
Once I'm gone, then you'll *really* miss me. That'll show you.
Good night and godspeed, I'm outta here. I've had it up to here with you sickening losers.
5212. Raskolnikov - 12/2/1999 5:54:30 PM
Is Ace parodying someone that I don't recognize?
5213. PelleNilsson - 12/2/1999 5:55:44 PM
Please, Ace, how would we survive?
Devotedly,
A fan.
5214. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:55:53 PM
That's it. Now I'm going for real.
Adios, auf wiedersehen, sayanora, bye-bye. You won't have ace of spades to kick around anymore.
5215. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:56:38 PM
Hi!
5216. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 5:59:59 PM
rask:
I am not parodying anybody. I am emulating the drama-queenish exits of our favorite potato, who once had his back broken by a straw Niner placed on it, who has sworn to never darken this place's door again on two occasions now.
And yet here he is again.
And fuck you anyway, Guiseppe. I don't have to *justify* myself to you.
That's it. I'm off. And for good this time. I mean it.
Take care, fools.
5217. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:04:32 PM
Well, CalGal, if you're anywhere near as psycho as Ace, lay it on me, baby. Tell your troubles to old Indy, and then slap his face real hard right before you walk out the door.
5218. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 6:06:35 PM
CalGal - If it's murder, then how can you justify it in any situation?
I have already explained this.
5219. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:11:15 PM
JJ,
Well, all you've come up with so far is that it's okay when the reason is JJ-approved.
5220. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 6:15:32 PM
CalGal- I think that JJB has come up with something more than his feeling on the issue. He has clearly stated that it is a contest of rights requiring a balancing test. Sloppy stuff ideologically, but reality is sometimes like that. This does merely put off the values issue one step, however while not deciding precisely what we use for the balancing test.
5221. JJBiener - 12/2/1999 6:17:42 PM
CalGal - I don't believe that the issue can be dealt with using absolutes. There are times when exceptions should be made. I have said when I believe there should be exceptions and why. If you dispute my reasoning, fine. Offer something else. I haven't said that these exceptions are valid because I say so. I have given a logical basis for them.
5222. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:20:56 PM
Jones,
Well, yes. You just put in a bunch of words for "JJ-approved". (g)
5223. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 6:23:54 PM
You just put in a bunch of words for "JJ-approved".
Ummm, what other criteria would JJ advance? TrialShark-approved criteria, perhaps?
5224. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:24:58 PM
Wheh! Ace is back. That was a close one.
5225. AceofSpades - 12/2/1999 6:26:17 PM
Fuck you. Good bye.
5226. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 6:34:28 PM
Shane? Shane?
5227. CalGal - 12/2/1999 6:34:36 PM
Ace,
Well, it's just that when one declares that abortion is "murder" except when--and then provides an utterly arbitrary list that happily corresponds to one's own value system, I'm not sure that there is any legitimacy to it.
JJ said:
Abortion = Murder
If X, then Murder = bad
If Y, then Murder != bad
At that point, who gives a fuck whether or not he thinks it's murder? He's just completely annhilated any negative connotation it might have.
5228. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 7:33:30 PM
JJ --
"I have already explained my beliefs about abortion and why I believe the way I do."
Yes. You believe abortion is murder, except when it isn't.
It isn't murder when the mother's rights prevail over those of the unborn infant.
The mother's rights prevail over the infant's in the case of incest or rape because you think it might -- in some, but not all instances -- cause the mother emotional trauma to bear a child so conceived. However, the consent (or lack thereof) of the mother to the act of conception is not necessarily dispositive -- as in the case of incest which does not amount to rape.
The problem is that that rationale could also justify aborting an unborn child whose mother consented to the act of conception understnading that a child could result, but who now suffers severe emotional distress at the prospect of actually bearing a child. It could also apply to the mother who consented to the act expecting no child to result, but who as a result of a failure of contraception winds up pregnant anyway.
These cases are not the same as rape or incest; but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the difference should amount to the difference between life and death for the unborn baby.
"If you would like to comment, fine."
Whew. Glad I have your permission.
"I am not going to keep answering questions I have already answered."
Well, if your position boils down to "because I said so, that's why," then you needn't bother with answers. If you have a principled reason, I'd like to hear it. I think I may be more conservative on this issue than you expect.
5229. vonKreedon - 12/2/1999 8:06:37 PM
Many people believe that killing another human is not at all times an immoral act. Soldiers and state executioners are the obvious examples of people who kill other people with societal sanction. Neither of these is allowed to kill just anyone, there are specific circumstances in which this is allowable. It is not a huge step to then include abortion under specific circumstances as a moral, or at least non-immoral act.
5230. TrialShark - 12/2/1999 8:41:14 PM
vK --
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to group an unborn child with a condemned criminal or an enemy soldier as a person who may be killed with moral impunity.
Even were the grouping valid, killing prisoners and killing the enemy in wartime are arguably justifiable as self-defense, or as acts committed in defense of another. Since we're not arguing over abortion performed to save the life of the mother (which even I will concede is permissible), these doctrines don't appear applicable.
5231. angel-five - 12/2/1999 8:53:15 PM
The pro-abortion rights side, however, cannot enter into
the debate from this position because, no matter the
statistics, they lose. Their strong argument--the basis of
Roe v. Wade--is the Right to Privacy, which is
predicated on "the right to be left alone." Once "you"
(someone) begin arguing that it is statistically possible to
predict probable outcomes for a potential fetus, you are
undermining the notion that society has no compelling
interest in reproduction. Once the state has a compelling
interest, blanket "reproductive freedom" is dead.
Indiana:
But this doesn't follow, because in our society, the protection of individual rights ARE a 'compelling state interest'. Protecting individual rights, as an act, is part and parcel of American societal dialogue, if indeed not the entire raison d'etre for our state. Correct?
This is a societal argument no matter what spin you put on it. Arguing that abortion should be legal because women have the right to control their own bodies under the spirit and letter of our law is a societal argument that concerns individual rights in a collective sense. Arguing that abortion should be legal because it weeds 'undesirable elements' from our population is a societal argument that concerns collective rights at the level of mandating individual behavior.
Nevertheless, they are both arguments relating to compelling societal interest in the issue of abortion. The only difference is the locus of overriding control that you decide upon -- individual or collective benefit.
I think what you are arguing is that pro-choice proponents cannot ethically invoke the concept of purifying society as a guiding rationale for allowing abortion, and you will get no argument from me on the issue. I don't think that we should approach abortion from a eugenic or social Darwinist perspective.
5232. angel-five - 12/2/1999 8:53:25 PM
However, what you must understand is that pro-life activists approach the abortion debate from precisely that angle, and hence -- in terms of pointing out the inconsistency and unfoundedness of some pro-life argumentation -- it is perfectly legitimate for pro-choice activists to engage pro-life positions on those grounds. It's as sensible as arguing with, say, a francophone in French as opposed to a language that person does not speak.
Examine the isse in this light: The arguments that many pro-life activists indulge themselves in center upon purported detrimental effects to society. If the data available do not support their conclusions, then it's perfectly acceptable to point that out. It doesn't mean that you yourself suddenly are arguing the validity of abortion based upon society's right to trump the individual's rights -- all it means is that you are demonstrating that your opponent's argument on that ground is contradicted by the available evidence. Do you follow that?
5233. ChristinO - 12/2/1999 9:04:16 PM
Allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest is at root about whether or not the woman had a good time during conception.
If mental trauma is to be accepted as a legitimate reason to allow abortion then the issue is not the cause of the trauma but the severity.
What I keep hearing is JJ's claim that a woman who participated in consensual sex already made her choice. That's the real point---you had sex, you enjoyed it, you pay the consequences. It has nothing to do with the life of the baby which is not at all changed by whether the mother had a good time.
5234. angel-five - 12/2/1999 9:06:06 PM
Re your questions a
and b, I believe that scientific evidence is scientific
evidence, and ideology should never disqualify it.
What we have is a cited study that correlates abortion's rise with the drop in violent crime. Correlative study means that someone has noted similar trends in two presumably linkable sets of statistics and is (not always, but sometimes) proposing that the two are related in some way. What it does NOT do is establish a cause and effect relationship, and that's critical here.
In order for us to make the leap from noting the trend to arguing for or against abortion based upon this trend, we would have to a) be able to conclusively demonstrate direct causation (as opposed to, say, the existence of a third factor which controls both the rate of abortion and the rate of violent crime) and b)we would have to then argue that the drop in violent crime is a compelling reason to keep abortion legal.
No one is doing that. Why? Because the argument for abortion is not ideologically based in social Darwinism, but rather individual freedom! This is one case where ideology trumps data. Another one, to reiterate, is the argument for, say, the use of lethal force by police officers while stopping misdemeanor offenses in action. If we were to allow officers to cap jaywalkers and shoplifters, the scientific data would most definitely show a drop in those two offenses. Why, then, should we not allow the police to do so? Because in doing so, they institute a policy that runs counter to the cornerstones of our legal philosophy. We must keep other things in mind -- such as the individual citizen's legal rights -- when we decide how police should act to stop petty crime. And so our ideology trumps the narrow conclusion which can be drawn from one scientific analysis. Do you follow, Indiana?
5235. ChristinO - 12/2/1999 9:10:06 PM
For the record I support elective abortions up until the age of viability regardless of method of conception, sexual mores of the woman, her socio-economic status, age, race or parental status.
5236. bubbaette - 12/2/1999 9:16:44 PM
Come Back, Little Sheba!
5237. angel-five - 12/2/1999 9:24:16 PM
Re: my Message # 5232
"However, what you must understand is that pro-life
activists approach the abortion debate from precisely that
angle, "
'that angle' should refer to 'the concept of purifying society' and not, as my editing would make it seem, 'eugenics or social Darwinism'. Pro-lifers would 'purify society' but in a different way.
5238. Indiana Jones - 12/2/1999 11:09:12 PM
"But this doesn't follow, because in our society, the protection of individual rights ARE a 'compelling state interest'."
a-5, that's not the basis of Roe v. Wade. It threw out anti-abortion laws by saying the state didn't have a strong enough reason to regulate the individual's right to privacy. Who was the Court protecting "individual rights" from in this case? The state, of course.
I'm going to stop with that nibble for now. If we get that down the hatch, I'll work on digesting some more of what you said, ere these tomes get anymore massive. (As an aside, I'll editorialize that your perception that a primary interest of the state is the protection of individual rights is a belief that distinguishes today's liberals from the classical version--and why I'm not an adherent of the modern definition. The classical version saw the state as being the greatest obstacle to individual rights, and in my opinion, rightly so.)
5239. JonesAtLaw - 12/2/1999 11:46:36 PM
ChristinO- Good point regarding whether the woman enjoyed the sex. It doesn't cover the incest issue, because no matter how unplesant the suggestion, sometimes the victims actually enjoy the relationship. It's the Stockholm syndrome I suppose.
WRT correlation between increased abortions and decreased crime, there seems to be one large confounding variable, and that is the general demographic shift where the portion of the population most likely to engage in crime has diminished. Perhaps when the echo of the baby boomers fully hits the 20's we'll have a better idea, but for now, its really difficult to say which is the causation.
5240. joezan - 12/2/1999 11:51:17 PM
You know, this correlation between decrease in crime/increase in abortions is about the silliest thing I've heard. I mean, consumption of liver and other organ meat has decreased at least as drastically as abortion has increased. Personally, I see much more of a correlation there.
5241. TrialShark - 12/3/1999 12:44:01 AM
If you make me eat that liver ...
I'll kill you and eat yours.
Yeah.
5242. CalGal - 12/3/1999 1:16:32 AM
Samuelson column on the study.
Interestingly, both sides deplore the study. "Fraught with stupidity," says one anti-abortion group. If you believe abortion is murder, the idea that it's an anti-crime device is outrageous. Consider the grim arithmetic: between 1991 and 1997, the annual number of homicides dropped by 6,500 (from 24,700 to 18,200), while abortions regularly exceeded a million a year. But pro-abortion groups also dislike the study. They promote abortion as a woman's right, not as a covert means of social control — weeding out criminals and incompetents — with racial overtones. Blacks and other minorities account for about 40 percent of abortions.
According to Samuelson, the study is well-regarded but shouldn't be considered final.
I think the reason that both pro and anti-abortion lobbies dislike the study results is simple: a definitive link between abortion and crime could cause the public to make the obvious link between abortion and welfare. Considering the public's fairly consistent support for abortion and fairly consistent distaste for welfare, I can see why they'd both be concerned.
The study isn't definitive, obviously. But it's a step on the way, which is why it gets both sides ancy.
5243. angel-five - 12/3/1999 2:46:32 AM
a-5, that's not the basis of Roe v. Wade. It threw out
anti-abortion laws by saying the state didn't have a
strong enough reason to regulate the individual's right to
privacy. Who was the Court protecting "individual
rights" from in this case? The state, of course.
(Right to privacy? Are you sure about that, Indiana?)
So why'd the Court do that? Because the protection of individual rights IS a compelling interest of the state in our system of government, Indiana. ANYthing which is legitimized and mandated by the state, including freedom from regulation by the state, can be said to fall under this heading. They may take different forms, but the source of the authority is the same. So it's just not so easily accomplished, this delineation between arguments that suggest some are collectivist and some are not.
Incidentally, both the classic and modern liberal systems are concerned with protecting individual rights. It's just that the modern system proposes a direct means of doing so and the classical system proposes an indirect means of doing so.
5244. Stumbo - 12/3/1999 3:04:29 AM
Antsy is as antsy does.
I've previously advocated, in this forum's precursor, mandatory abortion when either parent is on welfare. Thank goodness there's now some Empirical Data to validate my position.
"Grim Arithmetic" will be my new middle name, just as soon as that paperwork goes through.
5245. DaveM - 12/3/1999 4:04:18 AM
CalGal -
My memory is failing me - you were the first to mention this study on abortion, weren't you? Would you mind posting a link, if available? Thanks.
5246. PelleNilsson - 12/3/1999 6:11:51 AM
Here is the link
5247. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 8:25:55 AM
a5, absolutely sure--I've read the decision. That's the basis of the approximate trimester thing: first trimester, no compelling interest. Second semester, some compelling interest due to the health of the mother issue. Third semester, viability creates a compelling interest on the basis of the fetus.
And if you can't see that the Court was protecting individual rights from the state when it prohibited the state from making such laws and threw out existing ones, well, there's little basis for me to think continued arguing with you is worthwhile.
"ANYthing which is legitimized and mandated by the state, including freedom from regulation by the state, can be said to fall under this heading."
I endorse the idea of "inalienable rights," rather than the slogan "All power to the Soviets!"
5248. Dantheman - 12/3/1999 8:48:25 AM
An issue near and dear to my heart
The reason it's dear to my heart is that I work for a company that owns many shopping malls, and this is viewed as a threat, as the internet may be an unlevel playing field.
5249. Indiana Jones - 12/3/1999 9:00:08 AM
Dan, I can see the argument from the "erosion o