The Goat Pen

The answer is that the interest of the state overrides that of the mother when there is viability (about 23 weeks) outside the womb unless their is a risk to life and health (I know this is a big loophole that a truck can drive through) of the mother. Before viability, restrictions (not banning) can be placed as long as they don't place an 'undue burden' on the mother.

Viability is unlikely to change until we invent an artificial uterus (a truly wonderful and special organ) or until we figure out a way to transplant midterm pregnancies. The latter would require a number of volunteers probably to take all the pregnancies.

The primary deterence for couples engaging in unprotected sex (and making babies that they never intended) used to be the social stigma that went along with it and the reality of being a parent and having a living, breathing person who will then depend on you for it's care. So we took that away with legalized abortion. Now, the #1 deterent is the fact that most people still seem to feel like there is something that is just not quite right about aborting an otherwise healthy unborn baby for the sake of convenience. And this includes those who are having the abortions, BTW. As soon as we develop a procedure that takes the place of abortion, without killing the unborn baby, we'll immediately see the number of such procedures far outstrip the number of abortions being performed now, IMO.

This problem was solved many years ago. It's called birth control. Used properly, it's >99% effective and would get rid of the vast majority of abortions, which surveys have consistently shown are mostly done as a form of retroactive pregnancy control -- and which most of us, according to those same surveys, have a real problem with. (This is why arguments about abortion are always steered to the more compelling rape, incest and life of the mother talking points, because the real truth that abortion is most often used as birth control is not something abortion advocates want to focus on.) But there are people out there who just aren't responsible enough to use the very effective birth control tools that are already available to them. That's why no change in the law will ever fix it. Technology won't fix it. Some people will continue to act irresponsibly and end up with those pesky inconvenient pregnancies that they just don't want to be bothered with. And they will continue to create a drain on society in myriad ways.

Frankly, this is a huge societal issue that deals with a lot of things that political correctness makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about.

Mind your own business.

others, many in fact, would disagree with your suggestion that fertilized eggs are human beings by any rational metric.

Actually, if you read the standard I proposed, the legal standard of human life would be human DNA, a heartbeat, and brain waves. The advantage of these standards are they are consistent because they are also applied at the end of life. When a car accident victim is brought into an emergency room, they recognize it as being a human even if it is damaged, and deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If it has no heartbeat, they try desperately to restart one because that is what makes the human being alive and with constitutional rights. They also look for brain function because, without that, the human being is not really alive. No heartbeat, no brainwaves = dead person = no longer a human being = no longer having constitutional rights. If everybody instinctively understands and applies those standards to the end of human life, it makes logical and scientific sense to apply those standards to the beginning of life.

Human DNA, brain waves and heartbeat as the standards of human life, and deserving of constitutional rights, certainly makes FAR more sense than the vague, unscientific, unquantifiable, and frankly bullshit "trimester" and, in the case of partial birth abortion, "head still in the birth canal" standards painfully contrived by lawyers and old fat men in black robes.

Anyway, as pointed out above, the law of the land isn't based on human beings versus non-human beings or life versus non-life, it's based on primarily a balance of interests.

There's that utilitarian and convenience argument that I previously mentioned which, as you say yourself, underlies current abortion law. Yes, I'm sure it was VERY inconvenient for slave holders to give up their non-human slaves. I'm sure it was a real pain in the ass for Ole Miss to let those non-human black students enroll. I'm sure there was a lot of challenges to the personal interests of white people having to share water fountains with non-human black people. There was a lot of "state interests" that were threatened when the literacy tests preventing non-humans from voting were thrown out.

When does the interest of the state in the fetus override that of the mother?

The highest interest of the state is to protect its citizens from being killed. Mothers don't have a right to kill their children after the children are born. They should not have the right to kill their children before they are born. Geography should not confer humanity and constitutional protections.

Why do you care?

The highest interest of the state is to protect its citizens from being killed

You're not a citizen until you are born in this country or naturalized after you are born. So from your above statement, elective terminations wouldn't violate the highest interest of the state.

Jungle Rat wrote:Mind your own business.

I'm paying for it, so that makes it my business.

What are you paying for Magoo? Its not your child.

...or terminated egg & sperm meeting

Jungle Rat wrote:What are you paying for Magoo? Its not your child.

Freudian slip.

And yeah, as a taxpayer I am expected to help pay for abortions.

No your not. As a taxpayer you vote for people to follow what you believe. You have no say in abortion and your opinion means squat once you vote for your guy.

cheaper than pregnancy. Much cheaper than a live birth. More expensive than birth control. But then most pregnancies aren't about birth control, but about the use (or lack thereof) of birth control. Although certain antibiotics reduce the efficacy of oral contraceptives.

The number one reason condoms fail is drawer disease.

Jungle Rat wrote:No your not. As a taxpayer you vote for people to follow what you believe. You have no say in abortion and your opinion means squat once you vote for your guy.

That's true to some extent. You don't have a right to sue the feds as a taxpayer except in rare circumstances involving the establishment clause (this has been further limited by the current conservative Supreme Court).

People who cry about abortion need to move on and fix their own houses.

Abortion discussions do not usually bear fruit. They are emotion charged and little said will make people change their minds.

My own opinion is that early abortion is a necessary evil, and that late term abortion (30 weeks are more), should be strongly regulated (if not illegal).

Moving on...loved the story about the mom shooting the intruder to protect her baby and herself. She k ew they were trying to break in, so she moved the sofa in front of the door, called 911 and got her shotgun. Pretty tough.

She lost her spouse from lung cancer and she's only 18? Wow, heart breaking. And why would it take cops more that 20 minutes to get there?

Hey. I was adopted. I thank my birth mother every day for not aborting me (although I wouldn't doubt her decision if she did). Abortion is not your choice or is it mine. Its the choice of the future mother of said child. Who are you to tell me how to live my life?

And for those of you who wished she aborted me, Fuck off.

that dude must have been in his 40's or 50's--the pciture looked like it was taken in the 1970's--very rare for a lung cancer to hit a 20 something yearold

I wondered about the time it took for the cops to get there--must have been in the sticks --probably just a county sheriff who had to get ahold of the state police

for all you know rat she might have tried

you could be the worlds only living abortion

"I was adopted. I thank my birth mother every day for not aborting me (although I wouldn't doubt her decision if she did)."

No, I should think you wouldn't.

I'm glad you weren't aborted, Rat. Now I have a super-cool new signature line. Thanks, buddy.

Owlman wrote:others, many in fact, would disagree with your suggestion that fertilized eggs are human beings by any rational metric. Anyway, as pointed out above, the law of the land isn't based on human beings versus non-human beings or life versus non-life, it's based on primarily a balance of interests. When does the interest of the state in the fetus override that of the mother?

It took a Constitutional amendment to overturn Dred Scott and apportionment representation. The others were overruled by a combination of Supreme Court rulings and legislative rule.

Excuse me but if it isn't life or a baby then how the fuck can you call her a mother?

I'll tell ya because deep down inside you know it's a baby.

Anyway viability will continue to become earlier and earlier until its not long after conception due o the advance of science.