January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 12, 2012 at 8:34 am
And now Newt Gingrich is slamming Mitt Romney in South Carolina for his switching on abortion. Gingrich has a tough commercial showing how Romney used to be pro-choice. I never thought I’d say this but “Go Newt!”
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 8:59 am
I love Primary fights. They rip each other apart and then totally backtrack and pretend to be supportive friends.
Some probably have some perverse political mentation to actually feel able to behave like that.
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I agree, Robert, it’s pretty fascinating. I love how Newt first said he would never engage in negative advertising, now he’s killing Romney with attack ads. Of course, he would say that he is just “putting out the truth.” But his ad on Romney flip flopping on abortion is pretty tough. You can probably youtube it!
LikeLike
January 14, 2012 at 7:56 am
Have to remark on the youtube it. It’s like Google becoming a verb. The evolution of technology has had such an impact on our language. Love it.
Also, using abortion as the quintessential trump card for the primary battlefied, rather than jobs, the economy, foreign relations and the environment, says so much, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
January 14, 2012 at 8:22 am
I agree, Kate. I am still trying to figure out what the verb is when I send a message to someone via Facebook. “Hey, I Facebooked you the other day – why haven’t you responded?” ?????
Of course, in SC, they are all just trying to out-right-wing each other. Have you seen the Gingrich commercial about Romney supporting PPFA? It’s pretty direct…Watch out for Santorum!!
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm
It seems every campaign cycle there is someone that says they won’t go negative. And as long as they are not way in front place, They always go negative – Amazing, even when they lie like crazy it works – that’s why they do it I suppose.
The sickening part is these liars are who we elect as our public officials and legislators. The only consolation I guess it’s better than all the other forms of government.
LikeLike
January 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The GOP has got to be scared that Romney is a closet Moderate!
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Anti Abortion people are scum and should not be allowed to vote.
They seem to be wrong on all the other issues also. These people are just the worst of the worst.
LikeLike
January 15, 2012 at 11:42 am
Later today, I’ll be posting my latest words of wisdom. Gonna talk about the allegations that abortion providers engage in “black genocide”
LikeLike
January 16, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Never forget: On November 11, 1997 Doctor Jack Fainman, an abortion provider, was shot and injured while sitting in his home in Winnipeg, Canada.
LikeLike
January 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Dirtball Anti Abortion Terrorists.
Thank you for reminding me about the scum Pro Lifers that walk around pretending to be pro Life. They are dung balls.
LikeLike
January 17, 2012 at 10:08 am
Never forget: On July 22, 1997 an incendiary device started a fire at the West Alabama Women’s Center. The device was thrown through a hole cut into the air conditioning duct on the clinic’s roof.
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Should we make a National Holiday to remember the victims of Pro Life Terrorism? Perhaps post the list here in a table format so people can see the massive number of terrorists attacks done by Christian Pro Lifers?
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Evan, there should be a national campaign to point out that the so-called “pro-lifers” don’t match their words with actions. They care ABOUT fetuses, but they don’t care FOR them as children!
What in the world is their problem? I say it’s aborticentrism.
LikeLike
January 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Never forget: On May 23, 1997 the Lovejoy Surgi Center in Portland, Oregon was hit by an arsonist who ran a hose from a metal drum containing flammable liquid and poured it into the clinic, then lit it.
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 9:25 am
With no disrespect to the terrorism inflicted on clinics and providers, never forget the accumulated indignities and harassment women endure every day to act on their legal and moral right to health care.
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 10:35 am
Agreed, Kate. Which makes me wonder…what if we created a tab for you and you can, on as regular a basis as possible, share short stories or observations about the indiginities suffered by women? You’ve been with the clinics for years, you must have observed an awful lot of stuff, maybe you could become the ultimate “chronicaler” of stories? It would almost be like what I’ve started going here with the violence. Just short reminders of what goes on, painting a picture of life in the clinics. Something to mull over!
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Kate is so right.
If one could quantitate that worldwide somehow (I don’t know what the units could possibly be) that would extraordinary.
Add up the harm by CPCs, Genital Mutilation, Societies that have the Death Penalty for women for things that should not be even crime, and so on, and so on.
LikeLike
January 20, 2012 at 7:09 am
In Charlotte, NC, an abortion clinic was literally under siege by prolife zealots. Despite the clinic’s six ft stockade fence, Flip Benham mounted a much higher steel pipe and wood platform so that he could sermonically share his gospel including telling each woman that inside the clinic Satan was going to drink the blood of her child. Then he would finish with his invocation that he loved her and her child, even if she did sin by having sex out of wedlock.
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 9:54 am
That Flip is an incredibly crazy person if this is true.
What would be the rational for a christian crazy to think that Satan would drink blood of an aborted pregnancy?
His shaming of these women should be, if it is not, a crime.
To publicly Slander and Defame a private person’s good stature cannot be legal.
The element for Slander exist here.
Flip is defaming the private person.
It is purposeful.
The statements are not true.
The victim does suffer damages.
Has anyone gone after the crazy pro lifers on this basis?
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 11:12 am
Evan, in addition to being an aborticentric, Benham is a “dry drunk,” an alcoholic who no longer drinks, but continues the same self-exculpatory, manipulative behavior to get those around him to satisfy his needs. And you’re right, what’s needed is lawyers to press lawsuits against people like him, but who can afford one?
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 9:50 am
Let’s not forget the scorn that a self-proclaimed prolife Catholic told a mother outside an Allentown, Pennsylvania abortion clinic that her daughter’s rape and subsequent pregnancy was God’s will.
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm
ONe of the greatest things going for religion is that with God all things are possible; hence, no matter how bad something is, a Christian can refuse to acknowledge the evil, because God did it.
It’s the quintessential form of refusing to acknowledge one’s responsibility toward others.
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm
It’s stuff like this, Kate, that I’d love to see you recount on your own tab! Not sure what has to be done to set it up, will talk to powers that be.
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Meanwhile, the anti’s are coming, the antis are coming! I’ve seen a bunch of buses with fun signs on them coming into d.c. Big march on Monday when it’s supposed to rain all day. Counter demonstrations as well. Oh fun!
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I was a solo counter-demonstrator down there years ago, at the entrance to the National Right to Life Committee’s building, with an infant seat, an infant bundled in a blanket and a few leaflets. The baby kept squalling in the bitter cold (probably 15 degrees), and as Wanda Franz (then the Catholic bishops’ Executive Director) and her minions crawled in, at one point with a celebratory cake, they ignored both me and the baby’s cries. Their lobbyist, some Irish-named guy, John something, at one point came down to probe what I was doing. Wanda had brought along her daughter, who didn’t look like she was enjoying Take Mommy to Work Day very much. An intern who called himself Robert Christian also came down to tell me a lot of crazies were in town today, and I was not appreciated. They eventually called the cops, who suggested I move on.
The only person who expressed any concern about my baby was a woman from Building Security, to whom I revealed that the squalling infant was a large bag of Cheetos accompanied by a looped tape recording.
My taping of my hometown’s so-called “pro-lifers” saying, “no, no, no” to all my questions about what they do for kids ought to be done with the masses descending upon the Mall for this year’s display of unconscious irony.
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 7:44 am
The scales of justice are really unbalanced when a “prolife” man stalks an abortion doctor for years and does so with impunity while another man is sentenced to 365 days in jail and ordered to undergo psychological counseling for stalking Halle Berry and trespassing on her property.
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Dear Rick Santorum,
When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it’s legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. Eleanor Cooney, MotherJones(2004)
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 9:53 am
Santorum is a lunatic.
LikeLike
January 22, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Well, I’ve seen absolutely no coverage so far of the anti-abortion crowd being in D.C. HMMMMMM
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 5:37 am
That’s odd. I’m sure the anti crowd will declare that millions were there.
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 10:02 am
Well, I’m really on top of things here! Seems that the march to save pre-born pulitzer prize winners is today!!! Why march on January 23, when the 22nd was yesterday and they could probably get more people on a weekend day?
LikeLike
January 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm
The Pro lifers are a bunch of losers that have nothing better to do with there time. They should be out there helping children in poverty if they really care about children. They are so transparent.
LikeLike
January 26, 2012 at 1:15 pm
You’re right, Cara, although I have no doubt that some of them do a lot of work helping kids in poverty. I know a few myself personally…
LikeLike
January 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Pro Lifers make me ill.
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Cara, they’re trying to work through their problem with the oblivion that death will bring to them.
They haven’t figured out how to cope with the fact that they will be lucky if a hundred years from now there will be even one person who can look at their photograph and state their name.
Their fight against abortion is their allegorical battle against Death. They are so wrapped up in it that they for the most part don’t have the energy, much less the skills or knowledge, to nurture children.
If they weren’t so fixated on abortion, they’d have a lot better to do with their time.
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 6:30 am
WaPo article on bodily descration offered this gem: “Respect for the dead has been a core teaching within Christianity”
How can that be true when anti abortion activists, self-proclaimed Christians, parade grotesque images of mutilated fetuses?
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 8:33 am
What’s interesting to me about yesterday’s march was that there were not as many gross signs as there used to be. I think that is a tactic used by the older pro-lifers. The newer ones are using the “regret” issue, just praying, etc. That’s probably the smarter way to go from their perspective….
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 9:16 am
The older ones, or the ones who are stuck in the past, like many who live here in Pennsyltucky, believe the way it used to be is best. But that “used to be” is nothing but a sanitized, mythologized “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” imaginary world.
LikeLike
January 25, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Then there are some pro-choicers who also live in the past and their slogans seem outdated….I still think “Choice” no longer cuts it anymore. If we ever hope to make abortion more acceptable, if we ever hope to mitigate the stigma, we gotta say the damn A word more often.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Actually, I think if those who believed in a woman’s right to the full spectrum of reproductive right would use a mantra along the lines of pro woman/pro woman’s agency/ pro trust women—it might work….is there a phrase that captures all this?
Maybe Mary Daly was right when she wrote that we can’t use the language of patriarchy. We need a new vocabulary.
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm
The only thing I’ve come up with attacks so-called “pro-lifers”: “The closer it gets, the less sacred it becomes.” Short, memorable, but incomplete. People have to think too much about it.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 9:17 am
Anti abortion rhetoric is often a confounding admixture of logic and emotion. Take Maria Vitale Gallagher, the legislative and political action committee director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation in Harrisburg, who recently opined that logic, based on the biology of the fetus, demands another look at Roe (meaning “let’s get rid of Roe”). She then offered a metaphor of omniscient vision, “I have also looked into the eyes of women who deeply regret their abortions and who speak openly and poignantly about the pain that abortion has caused in their lives” (Morning Call).
Gallagher’s use of an ordinary conversational metaphor poses a serious challenge between rational communication and mere causal association. She works diligently to build an argument based on scientific facts about the humanity of the fetus as a rationale for ending Roe then plies her readers with the metaphor of seeing regret and pain. Nowhere does Ms. Gallagher attempt to “look into the eyes” of the millions of women who do NOT regret their abortion. In fact, these millions of women are not factored into her logic.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 10:20 am
Yikes! I wish I had the power to look into someone’s eyes and know what they are thinking. That would have been very helpful when I was dating.
Well written, as usual, Kate. I have not forgotten about getting you a larger forum for your thoughts and memories. Working on it!
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 4:19 pm
She’s appealing to the base and people who have not gotten past the “authority must know what it’s doing” stage of development.
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 7:55 am
Abortion for a minority of individuals is a black and white issue (think Rick Santorum, the Catholic Church or Troy Newman). For the majority of the population abortion is far more complex, more nuanced and definitely less capable of being distilled into silly slogans.
From a mediated cultural perspective, sound bytes and simple words have been effective to persuade but not to inform. Simple words are dead ends, obstacles to clarity, smoke screens for propagandists, politicians, advertisers and the religious. The word * prolife* is simple one that can and does mean different things to different people. For some it means protecting life from conception to natural death. For still others it means anti abortion, anti contraception, and pro war to protect our national assets. And for the majority, prolife means those minority who are antiabortion.
As media critic Patricia Aufderheide writes “all audiences negotiate meaning” in any medium. For those of us who believe in a woman’s moral and legal right to agency to choose her own path to family planning, we have to work to penetrate a wall of ignorance, misinformation, faith (not science), cultural expectations of “woman’s place” especially regarding her sexuality and motherhood, and societal hoopla about the sacredness of children (despite the grim realities of many children’s lives at home and at school, their life opportunities and their health/wellness).
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Really well written. That makes perfect sense. You should write a book!
LikeLike
January 28, 2012 at 10:58 am
Congratulations to Merle Hoffman, the founder of Choices Women’s Medical Center on her new memoir, “Intimate Wars: The Life and Times of the Woman who Brought Abortion from the Back Alley to the Boardroom.” Merle has been on the front lines for years. For more information go to http://www.intimatewars.com.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 12:49 am
As requested:
I am an opponent of abortion because I believe that intentionally killing the unborn deprives it of its legitimate interest in its future experiences as a person.
I am a law student who has completed my honours year.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:07 am
Do you believe Abortion is always wrong? What is your stance, as best as you can describe it?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:14 am
Of course not, like with any wrongful action I think the state of mind of the woman is always relevant as is empirical evidence that the unborn has severe abnormalities which will preclude it from obtaining personhood altogether.
So self-defense and “euthanasia” of a severely abnormal unborn z/e/f would be complete justifications in my view whilst rape would be a mitigating factor considering the state of mind of the woman is less culpable but does not lack culpability entirely.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:23 am
Prima facie wrongful action*
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:25 am
Dan,
Hi!
Would you vote for a legislator that would try and take away the choice from a woman to take the Morning After Pill?
Or even better since you are an honors student in Law. if you had complete control over legislation, what Law would you construct regarding Abortion that would fit in your world view of Abortion and the right of Women to make a choice for themselves?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:30 am
I think it is difficult to determine precisely when there is an individual that will prima facie develop into a person. However, I would argue it is a safe bet that once monozygotic twinning ceases then an individual with legitimate interests exists until the contrary is proven.
So I’m not necessarily morally opposed to the MAP. In terms of what law I would construct regarding abortion.. I think it should be legal in the limited circumstances as I described but fully govt funded.
Any woman would have the right to go to their doctor to attempt to get an abortion but the law would be much more restrictive in terms of when it would actually be legally permissible to obtain one.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:36 am
Dan Man,
We live in a real world with real laws.
Can you come up with a pragmatic law?
Whenever we talk to someone who is against abortion, they never seem to be able to actually describe what the law would really be. Have you thought it through. I like Elena’s question. I’m not a lawyer, Although I have had to deal with a bunch (no offense intended).
Can you be more specific. Write up a bill or amendment, or whatever you call it.
If you want to limit abortion, we live under a rule of law, right?
So we gotta write the law, and I guess the punishment parameters?
Go for it!!!
This should be fun!!!!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 am
Alright.
Section X – Killing an unborn individual
(1) Every one is liable to life imprisonment who by unlawful act causes the death of any individual that has not become a person in such a manner that they would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a person.
(2) No one is guilty of any crime who before or during the birth of any unborn individual causes its death by means employed in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother.
(3) Unlawful acts defined:
(a) Administering or causes to be taken by her any poison or any drug or any noxious thing; or
(b) Uses on her any instrument; or
(c) Uses on her any means other than any means referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:50 am
(4) No one shall be liable under subsection (1) who has not given their consent to any unlawful act causing the death of the unborn individual being performed on them.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:58 am
I’ll just look at (1)
I know very little about law so excuse my ignorance.
How is
Person defined?
How is
Child Defined?
By Present well respected definitions I just don’t see how this legislation works.
A child is already defined as a person.
Are you defining a child differently tan the rest of the country?
There are already laws about killing children?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:14 am
@ Robert: sorry I put in the word “child” completely by accident. I meant “individual”. Person means natural person i.e. human being, as opposed to legal person which obviously includes a corporation.
It is really not very difficult considering homicide laws have no trouble defining person.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:15 am
Howdy,
Does this cover the babies that have the diseases that the baby is miserable and dies usually after a few months of life?
You know, the ones that can be diagnosed real early by blood tests?
Can the Mom get an abortion on those, or does she have to be forced through ten months of being miserably pregnant only to have to go through a miserable delivery, spend all that money and suffer and watch her baby die within the first few years of life. Is that covered here?
Hammer Time
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:19 am
How many cells are a human being?
4,
8,
16,
32,
. . . ? When is it a human being?
Laws are tough. Gotta get it right or a lot of people will go to jail for life because the wrong word was used.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:23 am
@ The Hammer: If you re-read subsection (1) you’ll notice it says
“in such a manner that they would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a person”.
I meant “individual” not “child” btw so excuse my lapse into using loaded terminology.
So this excludes an unborn individual who would never develop into a human being. That is arguably more a question of science to be determined by the expert evidence of a medical professional in any case.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:24 am
So a mother gets some black market Cytotec and induces her own abortion.
We know this happens in countries right now where abortion is illegal.
How many women a year are you willing to put in jail for life with your law?
Who will take care of their children they already have when they are in Jail?
Every year, more and more women will be placed in jail as it will accrue to a very big number.
Who is going to pay for building all these Jails?
By your laws there will be millions of women in Jail after a decade if the law is actually enforced.
You don’t see that as a big problem?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:27 am
When they are born they are a person . . ?
I’m confused.
Just because they have a disease does that make them NOT a person outside the womb?
What am i missing?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:32 am
@ Robert: You’re getting hung up on interpretation which will ultimately be a matter for the judiciary but anyways I think human being should be defined as a born human individual that has attained 3 years of age. I’m flexible on the age but I think that’s roughly the point at which personhood has been attained.
Before then I would advocate a separate offense of infanticide (exists in a few jurisdictions) since the newborn up to that age is not a person but is also not an unborn individual.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:36 am
@ The Hammer: Read my reply to Robert. I actually think there should an infanticide law to fill the gap between my proposed legislation and homicide laws.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:43 am
Seems like one may have to place a lot more time into writing some coherent legislation. Lots of bugaboos that are not expected. Not your fault, you did it pretty quick. I think one would really have to think this through to get it right.
Doesn’t the 14th Amendment make it clear that a person has legal rights upon birth?
Where does the three year, three revolutions around the sun come into defining when an entity that has been born is now a per on by definition.
That seems sort of strange doesn’t it. What does three times round the sun have to do with being a person. Isn’t everyone a little different anyway? Three years seems so arbitrary. Maybe there is a precedent that I never heard of. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know much about law.
Help me out.
I like Kira’s question too. How many millions of women are you willing to place in Jail for life? That is a serious issue.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:47 am
Dan,
So a kid that can be diagnosed with a disease at 6 weeks that typically kills them at 4 years old, you would force the mother to go through that experience if she didn’t want to?
That’s pretty mean.
That harms the Mother, and her Family in a big way.
An abortion on a six week pregnancy is simple.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:02 am
@ Robert: Firstly where does the 14th amendment define personhood? It merely defines when a person is automatically a US citizen.
Secondly legal protection does not depend upon invoking Constitutional rights. For example in the case of State of South Carolina v Cornelia Whitner the defendant was convicted of criminal child neglect for imbibing cocaine during her pregnancy. States can define criminal laws to protect the unborn notwithstanding the unborn’s lack of Constitutional rights. Obviously the state cannot criminalize abortion until Roe v Wade is overturned but the point is there is precedent for giving the unborn protection in law.
In terms of defining a person it would be arbitrary wherever the law drew the line. Why not a day earlier or a day later? I chose 3 years because that is generally the age at which human infants attain self-awareness which is a major capacity reflecting personhood.
As for your claim that my standard is absurd by reference to “three revolutions around the sun”, it is no more absurd than deciding that someone has attained personhood when they exit a uterus.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:24 am
@ Robert: Sorry the case you should read is Cornelia Whitner v State of Carolina which is the Supreme Court of South Carolina decision upholding her conviction.
Hope to discuss more with you 🙂
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 6:58 am
Dan,
Agreed the three year Arbitrary mark is absurd.
There is no dichotomous day or sliver of time in life that personhood is achieved in every individual. So how are going to make a law that invokes that personhood?
Yes the fertilized egg Personhood people are bizarre.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:09 am
@ Robert: Now in regards to Kira’s point; I believe just punishment is for its own sake and is not negated by a utilitarian argument that it is for the greater good not to punish someone for their culpable conduct.
Murderers go to prison and their children suffer, so what? The murderer must still be punished even if they are not necessarily an ongoing threat to society.
If the child has even 1 year of experience as a person then that is a legitimate interest which it is generally wrongful to deprive it of. Obviously if the abnormality is so severe that it would never obtain personhood, whether by reference to age or expert evidence from the medical profession that it would not even get close to that capacity, then that is an exception the law I drafted accounts for.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:13 am
Btw you should also check out section 187 of the California Penal Code.
Obviously it cannot apply to abortions until Roe v Wade is overturned but this is another example of the State offering legal protection for the unborn. I also think the law is overly broad but hey its a law.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/8/1/s187
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:13 am
Btw you should also check out section 187 of the California Penal Code.
Obviously it cannot apply to abortions until Roe v Wade is overturned but this is another example of the State offering legal protection for the unborn. I also think the law is overly broad but hey its a law.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:46 am
I don’t see where you answer how society will deal with the repercussions of your law.
Society must remain intact.
Your law will rip society apart.
Pro Lifers don’t want to pay to help feed starving children, do you think they will pay More taxes to build prisons for millions of people?
Pragmatically how do you enforce your law and punishment? I don’t see where you answered that question.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:40 am
Dude,
You said you are an opponent of Abortion.
You write so far like you are pretty moderate.
I guess we’ll see as you tell us more, huh?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:42 am
Dan, You definitely don’t write like the Pro Life Crazies we get on this blog.
Do you believe in Justifiable Homicide?
Do you believe in the death penalty?
Do you believe Killing in a war is OK? Even a civilian by mistake?
Do you believe Euthanasia is OK of people with living wills?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:55 am
Of course I believe in justifiable homicide. I don’t believe the death penalty constitutes a justifiable homicide however.
I believe killing individuals (lawful combatants or civilians) who are directly participating in hostilities is justifiable homicide provided the reason for the continuation of hostilities constitutes lawful self-defense.
I believe voluntary euthanasia should be decriminalized only where consent to be killed has been obtained from the patient.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:08 am
It may be a cultural thing, but on an Abortion Blog, Justifiable Homicide refers to the ProLifers that believe it is OK to kill Abortion Providers or anyone that helps them.
I’m thinking you had some other thought in mind.
Do you believe in the Pro Life Terrorists style of Justifiable Homicide?
Or how about just Pro life Terrorism in General, like Anthrax, or Butyric Acid attacks, Bombings, etc., these Pro Life Terrorist activities happen to some degree daily.
What should be the Law for people that incite violence in their speech, calling for people to rise to the occasion and encourage and fund domestic terrorism that has gone on for years in this country against innocent people that work in doctor’s offices?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:16 am
I do not believe that retaliatory killing is justifiable homicide e.g. bombing abortion clinics.
I think the 1st amendment protects most speech but not speech that incites people to violence. That should be a crime.
Nice talking to you so far but I’m not too sure where all this is going.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:37 am
Sorry I didn’t answer all your questions but I’ll do so now:
I gave my reason for endorsing killing in war generally but in circumstances where individuals are not directly participating in hostilities but are killed “by mistake” I think it is justified provided the soldier had an honest belief that the civilian was posing an imminent threat. These things happen in the heat of the moment and if the soldier honestly believed it was a combatant that posed an imminent threat then if they are mistaken and kill a civilian that is nonetheless a justifiable homicide as much as it is a tragedy.
I’ll give you another example that might further explain why I think we can sometimes kill the morally innocent. Take for example a person in a state of automatism (a sleepwalker for example). Let’s say the sleepwalker picks up a knife and is moving to kill someone. I would argue that notwithstanding the lack of culpability of the sleepwalker who is really morally innocent we are nonetheless completely justified in killing them as an act of defence of others even though it is a tragedy.
Finally as I said to Robert regarding your point about punishing women who abort I believe just punishment is for its own sake. It is not negated by a utilitarian argument that it is for the greater good not to punish someone for their culpable conduct.
Murderers go to prison and their children suffer, so what? The murderer must still be punished even if they are not necessarily an ongoing threat to society.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:33 am
This is like a joke. This Dan guy has almost nothing in common with ProLifers. What he is writing is like a Liberal that thinks it is Not OK todo an abortion sometimes. That Ain’t a ProLifer.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 2:01 am
This is ver bad. My country is Chile.
We have law against abortion.
Women get them still.
Women die because abortion is law against.
Sorry for my English, learning.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:11 am
How does your lofty incoherent thought process work with frozen multi cell embryos?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:46 am
Are all those frozen multi cell embryos you refer to going to develop personhood? If not I hardly see what relevance it has to the discussion.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:54 am
They all have that same personhood potential and many will be implanted for future fertility cycles or donations.
Pro Lifers believe these to be babies, and killing them is wrong.
Do you think killing them is OK?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:08 am
@ July: “They all have that same personhood potential and many will be implanted for future fertility cycles or donations.”
When they are implanted they will prima facie develop into natural persons. Until then they require that act of implantation in order to develop into a natural person.
I certainly do not believe there is some sort of duty to implant them into women to ensure they all get the chance to become persons any more than I think we should fertilize every single egg lol
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:25 am
So you are OK with killing millions of frozen embryos? You are going to have to be careful around ProLife terrorists. They don’t like people like that.
You must be a pariah to your Pro Life friends.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:36 am
I guess I am OK with it and actually I don’t have too many pro-life friends. My politics are generally left-leaning.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:42 am
Dan,
You are not a believer in the spirit of ProLife.
The almighty blessed Lord has a place for all you sinners.
Repent now while you still can!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:30 am
Hi Dan looking forward to your reply.
I would like to see your proposed legislation.
Anyway, my baby just woke up. Perhaps I can read it tomorrow?
Regards,
Elena
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
I just posted it but you better go be with your baby 🙂
Have a good evening.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:49 am
Hey Dan,
I’m feeding her, and I do have to run.
I’m really disappointed with that reply.
Can you be a little more specific, like a detailed law?
We gotta work off of something here.
I agree with Evan. If Abortion is wrong, we must know the exact laws to follow. Especially if there are punishments. Your response is really vague. I don’t mean to disparage you. I know it takes more than a minute to write such an item.
I’ll read it tomorrow. I’m on the East coast, and it is really late for me.
Thank You, and a have a pleasant evening.
Elena
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:15 am
Thanks.
I just read your law.
That is a horribly written law.
What a disappointment. I was hoping you would come up with something of interest. I see a bunch of people have already punched glaring holes and problems in that “Law.”
Hopefully your planning on doing PI law?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:44 am
Actually I responded to each concern but if you think there is an issue I did not respond to fully then feel free to offer a reasoned critique of your own 🙂
Look forward to continuing the discussion.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:03 am
A) How do you plan on incarcerating 10’s of Millions of people in our society?
We don’t even have room for real criminals right now.
B) Your law is so ambiguous. Explain it to a regular person.
At what gestation can a women choose an abortion without going to jail for life?
This Individual term is so vague. You could apply it to any single entity at any gestation. That would outlaw Hormonal Birth Control and IUD’s also.
Even monozygotic twins are unique entities. They are not exactly alike, despite what most lay people think.
Is that your Plan?
C) It would also outlaw ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) as infertility treatments as some pregnancies are aborted as part of the process.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:23 am
Assertion A) On what basis can you claim that the law would result in the incarceration of 10s of millions of people? Many people are law-abiding citizens and this law is not so severe as to make people want to resort to dangerous back-alley procedures. That happened when there was virtually no safe procedures available.
Assertion B) If you say its ambiguous you have to explain how it is. Just because you cannot actually understand it does not make it ambiguous, it just makes it a little bit complex.
A woman can choose abortion if there is medical evidence that the unborn would not develop into a person – see subsection (1). This could be for all kinds of reasons but severe abnormalities is the big one.
A woman choose abortion if its to preserve her life – see subsections (2) and (3)
A woman is not liable for the abortion if it was performed without her consent – see subsection (4)
It may outlaw many abortifacients (except where lawfully permitted) but it would not outlaw most birth control since that does not yet involve an individual that will prima facie develop personhood.
Of course each twin is an individual that will develop personhood.
Assertion C) I’m not clued up on the process so will have to read up on it and get back to you on that. But I can say that if it violates any of the sections of the law I proposed then that part of the process would be illegal of course.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:45 am
A) It has already been explained to you how millions will accrue over time as you give a life sentence. And a lot of people are involved in the Abortion process.
There are decades if not centuries of history and present day experience that show women will routinely seek abortion in any society that it is illegal. Even in countries that presently have the death penalty for abortion.
Come on and be sensible. If you are going to write this stuff get informed on abortion.
How could you even try if you never have even seen at least a few dozen in an office. If you haven’t you are just clueless in trying to write laws about things you don’t know about.
With the advent of over the counter, and ease of getting foreign or black market or cross border abortifacients it will be even easier for women to do their own abortions than it was in the past.
So you are wrong here. So how are you going to manage the massive new Jail infrastructure system in this economy, and warehouse mother’s for life, and harm their present children? You gotta take care of those kids too.
It doesn’t happen now for the underprivileged, you think you are going to solve that? I am really skeptical.
If you get rid of Abortion you will have around one million more unwanted babies born every year in this country alone. Are you going to take care of them?
B) Already been explained, maybe you missed another’s comment. If an individual is a baby, i believe you wrote that, how does this apply to the Z-E-F before it is born?
C) If an individual is a newborn it won’t get rid of Birth control. If you are asserting a fertilized egg is an individual you will get rid of the most widely used and effective means of birth control, causing millions of more unwanted pregnancies. Please read up. And clarify this individual concept. Is it a NewBorn like you said?
D) Pretty sad that in all this law you would heap on it taking away the chance for infertile couples to actually have babies. That is sort of a sick twist in your law.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 9:14 am
Elena,
Why bother with this guy Dan?
He keeps having to revise his thoughts as he figures out he completely does not know the facts of what he is talking about.
Typical Lawyer/ possible future politician.
If he had seen an abortion he would of known where all the areas he is mistaken and how dumb his law is. He made it ambiguous because Dan doesn’t know what’s going on.
He may not be a typical ProLifer but in many ways he acts like one.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm
@ Elena:
A) Firstly, whilst a lot of people are involved in an abortion process not all of them will be tried under this provisions and certainly not all will get a life sentence since the penalty is a maximum not a mandatory term.
According to a study in 2004 the vast majority of abortions in the United States were because having a baby would dramatically change the woman’s life (74% of respondents) and they cannot afford a baby at the moment (73% of respondents).
Other major reasons include not wanting to have relationship problems (48% of respondents), don’t want more children (38% of respondents) and not ready for another child (32% of respondents).
Hardly reasons that a woman would be so desperate as to seek out a back-alley abortion and risk incarceration. Besides I am in favour on increasing child support payments toward families that are struggling so that should help keep the rate down. There is plenty of waste in the welfare system that could be cut e.g. disproportionate payments to welfare recipients. Ultimately I support easier access to welfare but tightening up on payments through cash cards that can only be used to purchase the necessities. I also support general support through tax breaks and perhaps even supplementary payments to people with children.
Reasons that would make a woman almost certain to seek out a back-alley abortion include possible problems affecting health of fetus (13%), concerns about her own health (12%), was a victim of rape (1%). Having an abortion due to many of those concerns would be excluded from the law I proposed.
As you yourself point out, for many women the option of foreign travel will give them ready access to an abortion and I didn’t say that the law I proposed was going to prevent that real likelihood so its moot.
You then go on about the millions of additional unwanted babies. There will be abortion on demand up to the end of the 2nd week of pregnancy and I support greater access to birth control. I would also roll out more sex education programmes in schools so that should mitigate much of the potential increase. In the end however we will always have unwanted kids because irresponsible people will continue to choose to have children or just won’t be bothered taking the necessary preventive steps to stop it.
This happens whether you have the right to choose or not. Since we aren’t going to mandate abortion for the irresponsible there is really little I can say on the topic except that I support alternatives to bring down the unwanted child rate. This could include monetary incentives to people who voluntarily sterilize themselves. I can see the drug addicts going for that and of course it is much cheaper than the state having to raise an unwanted child for 18 years.
Anyway most of this discussion is conjecture. You are making the positive claim so you have the burden of furnishing empirical evidence that in countries with heavy restrictions on abortion there are disproportionate incarceration rates that would equate to 10s of millions in the United States.
B) You mean if a baby is an individual? Well obviously the unborn will be considered an individual once monozygotic twinning would have ceased. Twinning is rare but once it reaches the stage were it is an identifiable individual entity that will prima facie develop into a natural person then that is the point where abortion will be illegal. This is up to 14 days after conception as I understand it?
Therefore, I do support the use of drugs and procedures to terminate the pregnancy up to 14 days in.
C) A fertilised egg would not be considered an “individual” for the purposes of this law as explain in B).
D) If its an individual that will prima facie develop into a natural person.then yes.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 10:33 am
Dan, why did you not reply to Elena blasting away of your post?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I’m not on here 24/7 sorry. I will reply when I can 🙂
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:16 am
You are an honors law student; I am a representative for those who wish they’d never been born. Consequent to your legislation for fetuses, what obligation do you personally then have for their nurture?
Without the proper care in the womb, they are likely to be irretrievably disadvantaged over their lifetime– fetal malnutrition and exposure to nicotine and alcohol/substance abuse is responsible for them being 50% of the school failure rate (three times the incidence for the rest of the population) and 95% of the 19 to 24-year old prison population. ( I won’t go into the billions in costs this imposes on society.) Their mothers-to-be, given insufficient protection (Susan Smith, Louise Cowell) and support, fail in horrible ways to nurture them.
Meanwhile, you stay completely out of the picture, sitting on all the money you save by not caring for them, using your time and talents to do whatever you want to advance your own life, while they develop into slouching beasts or cruelly stultified victims? Your law does a terrific job of making you feel better in the short run while ruining the lives and prospects of millions.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:19 am
This Dan guy thinks he knows a lot of stuff. The reality is he is really lacking in knowing anything about the issue of abortion. He is all over the place and doesn’t address core issues.
He is better than the average Pro Lifer that is a raging cretin though.
He writes like he is a closet Pro Choice Person trying to debate the other side in some pseudo moderate Pro Life position.
That is just weird.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:02 am
Which core issues?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:42 am
Thanks for that little diatribe
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:07 am
Your Welcome.
What do you do to help impoverished living children?
Or do you just dream up ridiculous laws to mandate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.
Have you adopted any kids?
Do you do much volunteer work for Children?
ProLifers are more concerned about cells than they are about living children.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:10 am
I was asked to come up with a legislative proposal by posters here and I did. I didn’t ask you approve of it but I’m happy to debate it with you.
Also I’d appreciate you playing the ball not the man 🙂 thanks.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:21 am
Dodging the question?
I guess the translation is:
“No I don’t help children at all.”
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:31 am
So unless I have adopted kids or done much volunteer work for children then my positions are invalid?
Correct me if that was not the point.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm
That was not the point.
The point was, and you let it be known is you dodge questions.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm
@ July: I will answer any questions about my positions on abortion.
I am not here to answer whatever questions you happen to ask though..Whether I adopt kids or do much volunteer work is my business not yours. I am actually not dodging the question, I am blatantly refusing to answer it until you can explain exactly how it relates to my position on abortion.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 1:19 am
What about the single fertilized cell. Is it OK for the mother to take the Morning After Pill or later the Abortion Pill if the Mother feels the Need to not be forced into a pregnancy? They can buy it off the black market I hear. The MAP I think is over the counter, but behind the counter, depending on the state?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 5:42 am
Reposting it with a bit of tweaking since it was very rushed.
Section X – Culpable killing of the unborn individual.
(1) Every one is liable to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment who by any means intentionally or knowingly causes the death of any individual that has not become a natural person in such a manner that they would have been guilty of murder if that individual had become a natural person.
(2) No one is guilty of any crime who before or during the birth of any unborn individual causes its death by means employed in good faith for preserving the life of the woman.
(3) No one is guilty of any crime who before or during the birth of the unborn individual they are carrying causes its death by means employed in good faith to preserve their life.
(4) No one shall be liable under subsection (1) who has not given consent to an act being performed on them which causes the death of an unborn individual.
(5) “any means” defined:
(a) Administering or causing to be taken by her any poison or any drug or any noxious thing; or
(b) Using on her any instrument; or
(c) Imbibing herself any poison or any drug or any noxious thing; or
(d) Using on herself any instrument; or
(e) Uses any means other than any means referred to in paragraphs (a)-(d).
Now in terms of abortion funding I would just add a brief section to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 stating that all abortions lawfully carried out by a licensed medical practitioner shall have full publicly funded coverage.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:23 am
I guess you deserve a B+ for effort.
How is a Z/E/F an Individual?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:00 am
Wittgenstein would turn in his grave lol people insist on exhaustively defining things even though the term is common usage.
Its an individual as in it is a single entity and its relevance as it will prima facie develop into a natural person.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:10 am
You have it backwards. The common understanding of individual is more like a person walking around on the street. I am guessing you are not using the common usage of individual, you want to use the specific unique definition of individual.
Is that accurate?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:11 am
I think its common usage to consider the newborn an individual despite the fact they’re not “walking around on the street” so no I think I got it right.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:19 am
So:
’causes the death of any individual ‘
you are only trying to talk about newborns or older?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:29 am
Haha it does not strain the meaning of individual to apply it to the unborn. In fact it is ludicrous to apply it to a newborn and pretend somehow the unborn is not an individual.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:40 am
Who could possibly make sense of this law?
It is so ambiguous it is worthless.
The very first part that places people in Jail for life, would also include medical assistants anesthesiologists, and innumerable others that help in the Abortion procedure.
This guy wants to place 30 million People in Jail. He will deconstruct society. I hope he is not writing any legislation any time soon.
Honors Law student? What school? Actually I wouldn’t name it. Embarrassing for the school.
The publicly funded part was nice. Most ProLifers probably hate your positions!
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 7:56 am
A lawyer could make sense of it 😉
If you don’t think it is practically enforceable you are free to explain why.
The requirement is intention or knowingly causing death by any means so really unless its the abortion doctor it won’t be straightforward obtaining a conviction.
Prosecutors go for safe convictions, they aren’t going to waste time trying to convict those who are clearly not culpable so could you please elaborate on why you think its a slippery slope.
Yes I raise the hackles of many pro-lifers lol
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:15 am
Dan,
I explained why as have others.
1) Every one is liable to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment who by any means intentionally or knowingly causes the death of any individual that has not become a natural person in such a manner that they would have been guilty of murder if that individual had become a natural person.
“who by any means’
Have you ever seen an abortion? Doesn’t sound like it. There are a few people helping.
And women buy the abortion pill and self administer it.
This is a no brainer. Really? Do you know much about abortion? Or are you just creating a belief system without knowing much about abortion.
Funny – The Pro Lifers must hate you. Your belief system is the oddest I have read here. You are so different, and such a tiny percentage agree with you, your unique beliefs won’t go anywhere.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
If your actions didn’t cause the death then you didn’t violate the legislative provisions.
I would propose a separate provision for aiding and abetting but it would certainly not involve life imprisonment since there is less culpability.
As for women self-administering it that would clearly violate the section unless one of the exceptions apply. Read sub-section (5) paragraph (c).
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:50 am
Women buy and take home and place the Abortion Pill in their own mouth an swallow them. So your assertion that only a small number of people like the doctors are culpable is just plain wrong.
Worldwide millions of women take the Abortion Pill every year.
Might as well include the millions that take the Morning After Pill also in your mindset. Are those women going to Jail for life also?
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 3:45 pm
@ July: Obviously any abortifacient will be heavily restricted but yes people will continue to get hold of it illegally and will use it illegally.
The maximum penalty isn’t necessarily the sentence that the courts will lay down but it is the starting point for any act that violates the provisions.
Will we need more prisons? Initially of course, just like with any new crime on the books.
Will this be in the 10s of millions as some have claimed? I have seen no cogent argument so far that the numbers would be any where near that high considering there are many countries that heavily restrict abortion with severe penalties and I am yet to see examples of disproportionate incarceration rates.
Anyway if people are claiming the rates will be that high that is for them to prove by furnishing verifiable empirical evidence not scare-mongering conjecture.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:26 am
Dan you will go to Hell talking like this. Save your Sole!
Accept the Baby Jesus to show you the true Path.
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:37 am
My feet are just fine thanks, have a nice day! 🙂
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 8:47 am
How can you know that?
Only God knows that.
LikeLike