Join 3,556 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Legislatures in 14 states have considered or are considering almost complete bans on abortion.
July 14, 2006 11:18 AM   Subscribe

The Supreme Court is increasingly anti-abortion, and they have already agreed that next year they will be deciding on so-called partial birth abortion bans. Given this context, you might need to learn how to do it yourself. (Here's more on some useful equipment.) Also see more inside.
posted by serazin (90 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Also, some material I worked on that might be of use.
posted by serazin at 11:19 AM on July 14, 2006


Oops, screwed up link but I wanted to say that you can track how state legislatures are moving on anti-abortion legislation too.
posted by serazin at 11:21 AM on July 14, 2006


Banning abortion is such a terrible, terrible mistake.

I really think white Protestant conservatives want to end abortion because minorities are growing at an ever faster rate. Ending abortion, in their view, will open the spigot for blessed little white babies.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:25 AM on July 14, 2006


I really think white Protestant conservatives want to end abortion because minorities are growing at an ever faster rate. Ending abortion, in their view, will open the spigot for blessed little white babies.

...or maybe killing unborn babies is murder.
posted by b_thinky at 11:30 AM on July 14, 2006


I'm done caring.
posted by Captaintripps at 11:30 AM on July 14, 2006


Protestant conservatives don't traditionally have a problem with murder, b_thinky.
posted by brundlefly at 11:34 AM on July 14, 2006


"...or maybe killing unborn babies is murder."

teh lol, the we are against death of all kinds mantra rings so hollow when you put up a comparison map of states against abortion with one that shows states that support the death penalty.
posted by sourbrew at 11:36 AM on July 14, 2006


Killing murders isn't murder, sourbrew. Or something.
posted by chunking express at 11:38 AM on July 14, 2006


They won't end abortion. Women who want abortions will have to cross a state line or buy a bottle of RU-486 on the street corner, but there's no way to legislate an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one.

If you really want to reduce abortions, make birth control pills OTC. There's no reason not to. Statistically, they're safer than asprin.

But I don't think it's even really about abortion. Some white protestants have a utopian ideal in their heads where nice girls don't have sex, homosexuals don't exist, poor people are happy with their lot, and everybody goes to church on Sunday. In the words of the Doobie Brothers, they're "trying hard to recreate what has yet to be created / what a fool believes…"
posted by Jatayu das at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2006


Ending abortion, in their view, will open the spigot for blessed little white babies.

Actually, they tend to argue the opposite -- that the hidden goal of the pro-choice lobby is a racist one whose goal is to keep the African American pouplation low.

So, now that you and they have both raised the straw men, shall we see the straw men fight?
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2006 [2 favorites]


Is supposing the United States is in Iraq for the oil a strawman too, eustacescrubb?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:46 AM on July 14, 2006


Looks like a protacted war in the Middle East is in the offing, so we'll need more babies to replenish our stock of soldiers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:46 AM on July 14, 2006


+r
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:46 AM on July 14, 2006


Actually, they tend to argue the opposite -- that the hidden goal of the pro-choice lobby is a racist one whose goal is to keep the African American pouplation low.

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <25 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%).
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:48 AM on July 14, 2006


They won't end abortion

Yes and no. The supreme court won't make abortion illegal. What they have been slowly doing since the 80's is undercutting the protections of Roe vs. Wade in such a way that states can limit the rights of women to have abortions. So for example, several states now have parental consent laws, most states limit abortion in the 3rd or 2nd trimesters, etc. Also, in practical terms, many women have zero access to abortion since a 90's supreme court decision mandated that medicaid not pay for the procedure. Also, women in the armed forces do not have the procedure covered under their health plan.

What the supreme court is likely to do now that there is almost an anti-abortion majority is to allow states to outlaw or deeply limit the procedure. So poor women who can't afford to travel won't have access. A number of states have laws on the books that limit abortion and that would go into effect if the supreme court significantly alters Roe.

Finally, RU486 isn't a magic bullet. Medical abortion (abortion with drugs) is only safe and effective up to 8 weeks. Their is a largescale attack on misoprostol - one of two abortion drugs that are used together - and the FDA may curb it's use.
posted by serazin at 11:55 AM on July 14, 2006


Back to the days of midwifery? I had never heard of menstrual extraction. I can picture myself as a crone performing these services in the darker times.
posted by rainbaby at 11:59 AM on July 14, 2006


(** sets fire to the straw men and watches them burn)

The death penalty comparison is a little silly. It may be that in their minds killing innocent unborn babies is a little different than killing not-so innocent adults who killed other people.

In any case, the idea of teaching people to perform a medical procedure on themselves is a little ridiculous. You can always go to another state and get one legally.

The push to ban abortion is just part of the larger re-paternalization of the south and west. If adult women are getting pregnant every two years, society will re-segregate itself. It also helps to keep people poor, particularly minorities, which is extremely important for southern preachers and politicians to maintain power.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2006


It may be that in their minds killing innocent unborn babies is a little different than killing not-so innocent adults who killed other people.

This is a valid distinction, but something I wonder:

If you truly believe that Christ can save anyone, how can you possibly favor the death penalty?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2006


In any case, the idea of teaching people to perform a medical procedure on themselves is a little ridiculous. You can always go to another state and get one legally.

One of the links says it is impossible to perform on your own self, and as mentioned, if you don't have the funds to get to another state, or even to a remaining clinic in your state, you can't "always go to another state and get one legally."

Menstrual extraction isn't illegal yet.
posted by rainbaby at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2006


i don't know if i agree with him really, but that dubner guy made an interesting point about crime rates in the 90's and roe vs. wade. the jist was that there were simply far fewer criminals in the 90's generation because the previous generation's impoverished mothers who were unwilling/unable to take care of their young were allowed to abort their pregnancies.
posted by dminor at 12:10 PM on July 14, 2006


But I don't think it's even really about abortion. Some white protestants have a utopian ideal in their heads where nice girls don't have sex, homosexuals don't exist, poor people are happy with their lot, and everybody goes to church on Sunday. In the words of the Doobie Brothers, they're "trying hard to recreate what has yet to be created / what a fool believes…"
posted by Jatayu das at 11:40 AM PST on July 14 [+fave] [!]


So there was never a time when millions of unborn children weren't violently sucked out of the womb? Is the number of abortions each year ever-increasing or ever-decreasing?

People who don't wish to become parents should consider this prior to intercourse. Many will proceed to have sex, but the possible ramifications of the act should be considered. Killing one's own child shouldn't be a valid option accepted by any section of humanity.
posted by b_thinky at 12:10 PM on July 14, 2006


What the supreme court is likely to do now that there is almost an anti-abortion majority is to allow states to outlaw or deeply limit the procedure. So poor women who can't afford to travel won't have access. A number of states have laws on the books that limit abortion and that would go into effect if the supreme court significantly alters Roe.

posted by serazin at 2:55 PM EST on July 14 [+fave] [!]


The thing to watch out for here is any move toward "daddy consent" laws, where the father of the unborn child must give his written consent to the abortion.

It sounds absurd of course, but legally, you just need to demonstrate a dad's interest in the fetus, a rebuttable legal presumption that two adults engaging in sex without contraception intend to get pregant. It will start with re-examining husband consent laws, and progress from there.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2006


I didn't say they were right, The Jesse Helms, just that their conspiracy theory is the same as yours.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2006


The obvious solution to the rising abortion rate is to promote gay marriage in our schools.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2006 [2 favorites]


Howzcome no one bombs fertility clinics? I mean overpopulation is a problem particularly by the standards of existence without misery. Indeed, it’s one of Bill Gate’s pet projects. There are proven material (that is - beyond ethical considerations) problems associated with overpopulation (inadequate clean water, poor sewage, famine, conflict over resources, etc.) and if any concept could justify killing other humans it would be negative population growth. And yet some adherents to life at all costs kill, destroy property or are willing to inflict misery on others for their position. I think the aims and concerns are something other than life and it’s attendant rights and pursuits.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2006


If you truly believe that Christ can save anyone, how can you possibly favor the death penalty?
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:04 PM EST on July 14 [+fave] [!]


Two possibilities. One, if you believe this, you must also believe that Christ can save you after you die, so from God's perspective, you don't need to be saved before you die, nor does he need the criminal law to help Him.

Secondly, one could argue that part of being saved is accepting your mortal punishment, however severe. Our laws are an imperfect creation of man, and therefore incapable of dispensing justice in the platonic sense. Thus it is unreasonable to expect man's imprefect law to implement God's perfect justice, which is another thing the Christian right conveniently glosses over.

Personally, though I don't think God wants to save everybody. And the ones he does save aren't who you'd expect.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:23 PM on July 14, 2006


b_thinky, I assume you're not arguing that abortions are a recent development.

Please do realize that people have different views of when a human life begins, and your precious little Mozart-to-be is my unaware, soulless ball of cells. An unaware, soulless ball of cells that has a 10% to 50% chance of aborting itself, depending on the woman's age.

If you have a problem with early-term abortions, how do you feel about the millions of "babies" that die in fertility clinics each year when they dump their extra embryos?

Also, does this mean gay sex is the ideal?
posted by schroedinger at 12:24 PM on July 14, 2006


>>>
So there was never a time when millions of unborn children weren't violently sucked out of the womb? Is the number of abortions each year ever-increasing or ever-decreasing?


Ahem. From the earlier link:

"Results: A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.5% decrease from the 861,789 legal induced abortions reported by 48 reporting areas for 1999 and a 1.3% decrease for the same 48 reporting areas that reported in 1999. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2000 (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999), compared with 256 reported for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decline in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999) was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2000. This was also a 3.8% decrease from the rate reported for procedures performed during 1997--1999 for the same 48 reporting areas."

So. Not millions. Not increasing.
posted by grabbingsand at 12:29 PM on July 14, 2006


What about the $3 abortion pill, misoprostol? (NYTimes, free registration required)

Commonly used to treat ulcers. 80% effective when used alone.
posted by surplus at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2006


Also, does this mean gay sex is the ideal?
posted by schroedinger at 3:24 PM EST on July 14 [+fave] [!]


No, but interestingly, it may explain why early cultures (and modern third world cultures (namely Arabic Islam)) found homosexual contact routine. Too risky to involve girls, etc...
posted by Pastabagel at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2006


if you believe this, you must also believe that Christ can save you after you die

I don't want to get too far OT into the vagaries of fundie theology, but the majority of American Christians do not believe this, one is supposed to have to convert during life.

Universal salvation used to be more popular than it is now, for some reason.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:31 PM on July 14, 2006


I really think white Protestant conservatives want to end abortion because minorities are growing at an ever faster rate.

White protestant conservatives don't want to end abortion. Or at least, their behavior is inconsistent with the hypothesis that their goal is to reduce the number of abortions or eliminate them entirely.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions to as low as possible, the answer is clear: widespread accurate sex education, easy access to reliable birth control, and direct education on how that birth control works.

But they don't press for that, by and large. Therefore their goal must be something else, or they're complete fucking morons, or both. It's seemed plain to me for a long time that their goal is not to reduce abortions but merely to have a law against it that makes them feel better, so that things are like they were when Leave It To Beaver was still in production. Whether or not they're complete fucking morons is, I suppose, debatable.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:32 PM on July 14, 2006


So now b_thinky gets to decide whether I have sex or not, and, if a pregancy results, b_thinky gets to decide to punish both me, the mother, and the eventual child of that sexual encounter by forcing an unwanted pregancy to term?

Sweet. Enjoy your power, my friend.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:33 PM on July 14, 2006


Pfft! Breeders.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:36 PM on July 14, 2006


The problems with misoprostol:

It's being used 'off label', meaning not as the company that makes it recommends. The company is not going to persue labeling it as abortion drug because of the controversy around abortion.

It is also generally used (and is much more effective) with mifeprestone which was recently linked to a numer of deaths. Although it is still statistically safer than a traditional abortion, anti-abortion activists are using the deaths to fight to limit the availability of the drug. Our current right wing FDA is likely to take these concerns very seriously.

Finally, it only works up to 8 weeks.

Oh, and finally, finally, it's not free.
posted by serazin at 12:38 PM on July 14, 2006


But they don't press for that, by and large. Therefore their goal must be something else, or they're complete fucking morons, or both. It's seemed plain to me for a long time that their goal is not to reduce abortions but merely to have a law against it that makes them feel better, so that things are like they were when Leave It To Beaver was still in production. Whether or not they're complete fucking morons is, I suppose, debatable.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:32 PM PST on July 14


It's simple. They don't care about children or fetuses or zygotes or blastocytes. They want to punish people for having sex.

Well, women, anyway.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:40 PM on July 14, 2006


oh sweet an abortion debate on the internet
posted by Mikey-San at 12:41 PM on July 14, 2006


b_thinky®: now with more question-begging.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:44 PM on July 14, 2006


Well, yeah, it is, Mikey-San, but I was fascinated by the do-it-yourself movement information in the original post. Things deteriorated quickly, but I appreciate those links, serazin.
posted by rainbaby at 12:46 PM on July 14, 2006


No more wire coat hangers on MetaFilter! Evar!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:46 PM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]


The DIY angle is what makes this (IMO) a legitimate topic for posting and disucssing and not a tired re-tread, but b_thinky had to go and abort it all up, didn't s/he?
posted by joe lisboa at 12:49 PM on July 14, 2006


I reject the argument that a fertilized cell is the same as a baby. If it is, then God Himself murders about a third of every baby conceived.

The whole "life begins at conception" thing is just something an anti-abortionist made up. It's an opinion masquerading as a fact; you won't find that phrase any medical text, nor will you find it any religious text.
posted by Jatayu das at 12:55 PM on July 14, 2006


The purpose of all of this is to control sex. Read 1984:

"The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm."

The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the Party had turned it to account. They had played a similar trick with the instinct of parenthood. The family could not actually be abolished, and, indeed, people were encouraged to be fond of their children, in almost the old-fashioned way.

His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake.

The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it.

And what he wanted, more even than to be loved, was to break down that wall of virtue, even if it were only once in his whole life. The sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:59 PM on July 14, 2006


Given: Humans are sexual creatures, always have been.
And:
Having one power segment of a population (government) saying sex may result in pregnancies and if your pregnant from day one you need carry the cells to term (+) another segment of the population saying contraception is a sin (religion) and having this tacitly endorsed by the first segment mentioned (read back on the US's opposal of family planning in total), = total fucking authoritarian bullshit.

Saying all abortions = killing babies is frankly idiotic. If you want to make a distinction in trimesters that is a valid argument with the later you go the more consensus you'll find.
posted by edgeways at 1:00 PM on July 14, 2006


Somewhat similarly, this guide to DIY abortion made the rounds on the blog-world a few months ago.

Personally, while I'm all in favor of women having complete control over their bodies, up to and including the right to late-term abortions, the idea of performing an abortion with relatively little training sounds like a bad idea to me.
posted by needs more cowbell at 1:00 PM on July 14, 2006


Pastabagel writes "You can always go to another state and get one legally."

This is not true for some states in the USA even today and if the Teen Endangerment Act passes it won't be true anywhere in the US.
posted by Mitheral at 1:02 PM on July 14, 2006


The whole "life begins at birth" thing is just something a pro-abortionist made up. It's an opinion masquerading as a fact; you won't find that phrase any medical text, nor will you find it any religious text.
posted by LarryC at 1:04 PM on July 14, 2006


It's a terrible idea, needs more cowbell. The fact that activists are putting the information out there signals their deep concern, and gives me the heebie jeebies. Some elements of the Pro-Choice community are beginning to think that they will fail in the courts and legislatures, or, maybe more accurately, are beginning to say so publicly. This seems like a Plan B (pun intended).
posted by rainbaby at 1:08 PM on July 14, 2006


b_thinky: ...or maybe killing unborn babies is murder.

murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
posted by damnthesehumanhands at 1:11 PM on July 14, 2006


Good thing no one actually says "life begins at birth," I guess.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:12 PM on July 14, 2006


pro-abortionist? heh.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:13 PM on July 14, 2006


You leave "pro abortionists" outta this thread, mister! We're talkin' amateurs, here.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:17 PM on July 14, 2006


oh sweet an abortion debate on the internet
posted by Mikey-San at 3:41 PM EST on July 14 [+fave] [!]


Oh sweet, a snark on the internet.
posted by juiceCake at 1:18 PM on July 14, 2006


Sick post.
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 1:20 PM on July 14, 2006


On more thought: while I can imagine people receiving sufficient training to be able to perform these procedures without terrible risk, those people are still *performing abortions* and, moreover, are practicing medicine without a license. If performing an abortion is illegal in a particular state, why would it matter -who- performs it? Wouldn't it be better for experienced medical practitioners to perform said illegal abortions?

I think (and hope) that some of these activists are just overly prone to alarmist thinking at times...

Mitheral, what do you mean? Do you mean that there are states from which it would be difficult to travel to another state to get a legal abortion, or are you talking about something else?
posted by needs more cowbell at 1:21 PM on July 14, 2006


life begins at birth

One thing that really fucking bothers me about abortion debates is the constant misuse of the word "life." The fetus is quite obviously alive, because it's at the minimum a cluster of respirating cells. The real issue at hand is whether or not said cluster is a person deserving protection under the law.

This gets under my skin almost as much as when people leave the "to be" out of their verbs (e.g. "The fetus needs aborted").
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:21 PM on July 14, 2006


You know what gets under my skin?

Zygotes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]


Subcutaneous zygotes? I suggest you see a doctor immediately, Astro Zombie.
posted by needs more cowbell at 1:31 PM on July 14, 2006


You know, people keep telling me to see Dr. Immediately, but he doesn't seem to have a listing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:35 PM on July 14, 2006


Life begins at 40. Hence my support for retroactive abortion.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:37 PM on July 14, 2006


Life Begins At Foreplay - baby, if you don’t let me go all the way with you, you’re killing a child.

“Sick post.” -posted by BackwardsHatClub
I’d think that’d be part of the point of it.
/Gonna name the kid Dionysus, Astro Zombie?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:39 PM on July 14, 2006


I can't. Kid Dionysus is my emcee name.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:39 PM on July 14, 2006


It's Raining Florence Henderson made me do it.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:46 PM on July 14, 2006


Kid Dionysus, Live at the Apollo.
posted by Haruspex at 1:54 PM on July 14, 2006


needs more cowbell writes "Do you mean that there are states from which it would be difficult to travel to another state to get a legal abortion, or are you talking about something else?"

I've spent the last half hour looking for it to no avail so I may be mistaken, however I thought there was a widely publicized case last year where a teen crossed state lines with a family member rather than her parents (who were not aware she was traveling for this purpose) to procure an abortion. When they returned the escort was arrested for assisting in the transportation. I thought it was Texas where this took place but that doesn't seem to be helping searches. Anyone remember this?
posted by Mitheral at 1:56 PM on July 14, 2006




"Republicans need live babies to make dead soldiers." - George Carlin
posted by bukharin at 2:05 PM on July 14, 2006


a bit more on parental consent laws and legislation...
posted by serazin at 2:23 PM on July 14, 2006


"Republicans need live babies to make dead soldiers." - George Carlin

Ok George is a pretty smart (and most amusing) guy normally but this one seems a stretch. So what's up here, he:

Values human life above all else, and so is anti-abortion and anti-war.

Allows for the possibility that other things could trump the value of human life, and so is pro-abortion and pro-war given the benefits that clearly derive from both?

Or manages to have it both ways, valuing human life above all else in the one case and not the other?
posted by scheptech at 2:31 PM on July 14, 2006


The modern medical name of the procedure is "manual vacuum aspiration" (there is also electric/machine vacuum aspiration)(more here). Despite the claim on this page that the procedure is "an underground technique," it does appear to be known clinically. For places where electricity is not always available, a procedure that requires none is also advantageous. Not to mention the low-cost training materials.

You can make the equipment out of things found at Home Depot, but this not a good DIY project for most people. Consider that many people still think you can sterilize something with ice water or by freezing. (Hint: You can't.)


The death penalty comparison is a little silly. It may be that in their minds killing innocent unborn babies is a little different than killing not-so innocent adults who killed other people.
posted by Pastabagel


Our legal system is imperfect. To execute the guilty, we also execute the innocent.
posted by zennie at 2:49 PM on July 14, 2006


So what's up here, he:

Is pointing out hypocrisy.
posted by oaf at 2:55 PM on July 14, 2006


I have a hard time with the parental consent side of the pro-choice equation. Esp. given that I’m legally responsible for my child until they turn 18. I can see applications for concessions to parental consent being legal though. Sometimes home is not such a good place. Consulting a boyfriend would not necessarily result in the best advice. I would like to see an adult involved (teacher, counselor, etc.) But there are certain realities involved there and the CCPA doesn’t seem to recognize them. From a parent position, my child only has to go to the state and tell them I beat on her or is afraid I will beat on her if she tells me she’s pregnant. (In such a case I might be many things - upset included (if only because - why the hell weren’t you using birth control?, but y’know, ok, not 100%) but I wouldn’t disown my daughter or harm her for it. After the initial shock I suspect I’d be quite supportive.) So where do my rights and obligations as a parent end here?
Lotta nuance in that question.
I’d want to be informed, but I’d err on the side of least state interference in my and my childs life - which ultimately seems to me given the convolutions here to be no consent. If the laws were (overall) less restrictive I could honestly argue in favor of what I really want - which is parental consent, but they ain’t. So I can’t.
/thanks for the link serazin
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2006


Actually, they tend to argue the opposite -- that the hidden goal of the pro-choice lobby is a racist one whose goal is to keep the African American pouplation low.

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <2 5 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%)./em>

Actually, doesn't that statistic support the argument above because white women constitute more than 57% of the female population under 25?

posted by gyc at 3:04 PM on July 14, 2006


oops, forgot to close the EM tag
posted by gyc at 3:04 PM on July 14, 2006


Actually, doesn't that statistic support the argument above because white women constitute more than 57% of the female population under 25?

No, since an absolute halt to abortions would theoretically cause a greater absolute increase in the white population, even if the percent increase was lower.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:28 PM on July 14, 2006


As I read in some book somewhere, there is nothing new under the sun. Menstrual extraction, meet Jane.
posted by vetiver at 6:20 PM on July 14, 2006


What?

No one posted the Onion op-ed on this?
posted by baylink at 8:39 PM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]


serazin: It is also generally used (and is much more effective) with mifeprestone which was recently linked to a numer of deaths.

Wait, wait, wait. This abortion drug is associated with deaths?

Personally, I think the abortion window should be a moving one that shifts with medical science, if a premature baby has ever survived from a given date, that's the ceiling for elective abortions. I can't believe anyone can POSSIBLY think that third trimester abortions are acceptable. If it's going to kill the mother, like, right now, take it out. If it's third trimester it'll almost certainly live.

Babies have survived from what, 23 weeks? So that's it, never any abortions later than that. Though my personal view is actually that even 12 weeks is probably pushing it.

I am anti-abortion and pro-choice.
posted by The Monkey at 10:16 PM on July 14, 2006


Babies have survived from what, 23 weeks? So that's it, never any abortions later than that.

Congratulations. You have just eliminated 0.08% of abortions in the US.

I can't believe anyone can POSSIBLY think that third trimester abortions are acceptable. If it's going to kill the mother, like, right now, take it out. If it's third trimester it'll almost certainly live.

Most late term abortions take place either because of danger to the mother's health or because the fetus has a lethal birth defect (and abortion is safer than bringing it to term only to die essentially immediately). The number that take place as simple birth control is utterly miniscule though nonzero.

If you care about preserving infant life, attack by wild animals, being struck by lightning, or tragic skywriting accidents probably kill more infants than do third-trimester abortions-as-birth-control in the US.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:01 AM on July 15, 2006


I'd rather those lives were saved than, you know, someone made some stupid joke about their deaths. Like you did.
posted by The Monkey at 5:24 AM on July 15, 2006


An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. ~ Dr. Arnold Halpern


murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder


Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime  
posted by bevets at 6:18 AM on July 15, 2006 [1 favorite]


Summoning complete! Is this the Troll Aeon?

Grafted ears on mouse backs are also things with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection.

And I'm all for postponing the beginning of life. In fact, I'm all for postpartum abortion too, because if there's no difference between trimesters there surely isn't any difference whether the fetus has passed through a bloody cervix or not.
posted by casarkos at 8:18 AM on July 15, 2006


Hey bevets, no one played your summon card
posted by Mitheral at 8:42 AM on July 15, 2006


A bevets post without a self-link? Has the world gone topsy-turvy?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:33 AM on July 15, 2006


bevets writes "person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people."

Or if you're a twin.
posted by signal at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2006


bevets writes "murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person."

So killing guilty people isn't murder.
posted by signal at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2006


Or if you're a twin.
posted by signal at 10:57 AM PST on July 15


"Twins are the devil's two-step."
- bevets
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:08 PM on July 15, 2006


The USA has fallen behind China in manufacturing because it lacks a desperate underclass population that will work for slave wages simply to survive.

Ergo the need to outlaw abortion: the educated and wealthy classes will continue to have access to abortion, because they can always dodge the laws.

The poor and uneducated will breed like rabbits, just like they did in the old days and for much the same reason: lack of resources to prevent pregnancy, and need for bodies to work for the common family good.

The USA will be ready to take back the manufacturing jobs at about the same time the Chinese nation takes the lead in technology development and starts outsourcing production... say, 2075AD.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2006


bevets, please do not quote The Third Man again. You don't understand that film in general or that quote in particular. Quote The Omega Code or something.
posted by brundlefly at 2:05 AM on July 17, 2006


Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime

brundlefly

bevets, please do not quote The Third Man again. You don't understand that film in general or that quote in particular. Quote The Omega Code or something.

Please explain why you think the quote is inappropriate.
posted by bevets at 9:20 PM on July 20, 2006


How long has bevets been known as a lunatic? Which, I suspect, is the same as asking how long has "bevets" been known as a username on the internet.

He goes way back to 2002 according the the web archive. Like the inerrancy of God, he doesn't change. (Guess he could change it now to make me look silly! Consult the archive, alpha and omega, then.)

Imagine, he's likely spent the past four or more years doing his weird form of preaching on the bulletin boards, and never is he taken seriously. Everyone just heaps on the abuse.

Ten to one he's a JW. Ugh.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:18 PM on July 20, 2006


« Older A new kind of hate has come to Provincetown....  |  Zidane!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments