Abortion

[Danneskjold]

I find that men are as MikeLee describes women as much as women are. I don't really like either all that much. I think his description is more one of our culture than one of women. However, I do respect the balls it took to post that even if I don't agree completely with what he said.

So I still haven't really understood when a unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it becomes a human being. Anyone have any ideas?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Mike Lee, you're a troll. Have fun talking to yourself -- I don't engage trolls.

Judith,

Mike takes getting used to, since he is very provocative, but he isn't a troll. Often he says things everybody thinks but nobody says. His manner can get very comical if you roll with the punch a little.

I first noticed this quality here when PARC first came out and there was a strong attempt to intimidate everyone from voicing any criticism of Rand or support of the Brandens. I saw his comment on NB's Yahoo group and flew it proudly on OL. This hit home so hard that it was even reproduced by the dark side on the front page of SLOP and had the exact opposite effect from intimidation on most readers. It backfired in their faces.

Please go into banter mode with Mike. He might piss you off, but you won't regret it.

Michael

Looking at the world through a pair of Mike Lee sunglasses can be a scary proposition. I have done it a number of times. Each time I have learned something new and I have never become stuck there. Try taking a look at the world according to Mike. It can be a wild, fun and interesting trip.

I tend to agree with Jeff. It is just as easy to point to men acting irrationally or immorally as it is to women. I think the species still has a lot of growing up to do. The fools are the one's who have stopped growing: men or women. Decisions made by people who haven't developed emotionally beyond the psychological level of a child will be irrational and morally questionable decisions regardless of the gender. Decisions about whether or not to abort a pregnancy should be made by emotional grown-ups. Unfortunately, emotional maturity is not a prerequisite for becoming pregnant or for becoming a father.

Many of the rules are made under the assumption that society is composed of self-responsible, emotionally and intellectually mature individuals. Maybe one day the individuals that compose society will reach the level of maturity that is presumed by some of our laws. Until then we will have a lot of emotionally and/or intellectually immature individuals making irrational, irresponsible decisions and living with the consequences. I consider such laws as being optimistic about human potential and a form of encouragement for us to strive for that potential.

I have to agree with Mike. Most women are emotionally immature and make lots of irrational and immoral decisions. I just don't see things in an us against them framework. Most men are emotionally immature and make lots of irrational and immoral decisions also. The answer is for us to improve, as a species, in our ability to help ourselves and our children to negotiate psychologically healthy development to emotional maturity. For some, maybe not having negotiated this development for themselves is a good reason for choosing to abort.

Paul

[Kat]

So I still haven't really understood when a unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it becomes a human being. Anyone have any ideas?

Ok, I'll bite. When the baby starts moving independently of the mother....kicking, punching and jumping on the mama's bladder is when I think of the fetus as an actual little human inside. When is an egg a chicken? When is a seed a tree?

I realize that some people don't consider the developing child as a person until birth. I believe it is a developing person. Since legally and medically the human being issue has not been defined as far as I know, everyone pretty much says whatever suits them. Just because the fetus is a developing human being, the mother is not required to bring the baby to term and give birth. Her rights cannot be surrendered to a fetus. That is simply not rational. Yes the fetus is human, but until birth or at the earliest, viable outside the womb, the mother's will trumps fetal rights. The baby has no right to life until after he or she is born.

Kat

[Judith]

I realize that some people don't consider the developing child as a person until birth. I believe it is a developing person. Since legally and medically the human being issue has not been defined as far as I know, everyone pretty much says whatever suits them. Just because the fetus is a developing human being, the mother is not required to bring the baby to term and give birth. Her rights cannot be surrendered to a fetus. That is simply not rational. Yes the fetus is human, but until birth or at the earliest, viable outside the womb, the mother's will trumps fetal rights. The baby has no right to life until after he or she is born.

Exactly! Separating the two issues would bring much needed clarity to the whole thing. People keep thinking that medical science will eventually solve the whole thing by defining when life begins, but it won't; women will always find a way to abort.

Judith

[mikelee999]

Women should be free to do with their own bodies what they want and if they want to kill part of it that's their own business and no one else's.

There are a few implicit propositions in this statement that deserve unpacking:

1. The right to self-ownership entitles a woman to do anything she wants with her body (assuming, I will add because I'm sure you would, that she's not violating someone else's rights).

2. A fetus is part of a woman's body, and therefore she can do whatever she likes with/to it.

3. Whether or not a fetus (at some stage) is a being morally equivalent to an infant, a woman has a right to evict it with lethal force.

There are a few questions that it might be interesting to consider:

The radical libertarian idea of self-ownership says that it's ok to sell yourself into slavery (even if that's a bit self-ownership-contradictory) or to take harmful drugs, or be a prostitute, or commit suicide, or even accept payment to let someone torture and kill you to death. In this forum, there's nothing inconsistent about most readers and writers asserting this radical idea of self-ownership. But in general, it's rank hypocrisy for the great majority of pro-choicers to stand on self-ownership.

While you're considering whether being part of someone else's body means you're not a full fledged person, you might want to consider Siamese twins.

Is lethal force justified in all cases of self-defense? Nearly every legal tradition says No. You can't kill someone for threatening or taking your property. You can't even kill someone for beating you up, unless you can establish you were in fear for your life. Even most Objectivists would agree that the right to self-defense is not absolute. While your body is more intimate property than most, the burden is still on the pro-choicers to justify making an exception to proportionality in this case.

Mike Lee

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition....

[mikelee999]

Ok, I'll bite. When the baby starts moving independently of the mother....kicking, punching and jumping on the mama's bladder is when I think of the fetus as an actual little human inside. When is an egg a chicken? When is a seed a tree?

It is almost always difficult to draw sharp, atomic lines between transition states. When does a baby go from being an infant to a toddler to a child to a teenager to an adult?

Nonetheless, most of the time, we find it pretty easy to tell the difference not just between infants and adults, but between infants and toddlers.

The law, in all kinds of cases, must use the fiction that it is possible to draw sharp dividing lines between transition states. Setting the drinking age at 21 does not imply that at 20 and 364 days a person is too immature to drink responsibly, but that at 21 and 1 day, they have magically and suddenly acquired maturity. (I don't want to argue here whether there should be a legal drinking age or what it should be--I'm just using this as a convenient example of a legal fiction about sudden status changes).

It isn't necessary to define the exact moment when a blastocyst becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes an infant before you can tell the difference between them, or make reasonable public policy. Roger Bissell, in his excellent Reason article from 25 years ago, argued that the 28th week was a reasonable line.

Personally, I'd set the line at the 24th week, just to err on the side of the fetus, and because the beginning of the third trimester strikes me as an easy line to draw without much of a fundamental difference from Roger's line (fundamentally, I still accept Roger's analysis of fetal developmental milestones).

There's nothing magical about week 24 or week 28, but nothing irrational about picking either one as a legal line (once you grant that a fetus becomes the moral equivalent of an infant sometime before birth but well after conception, and that there are criteria that can be applied to detect at what point in development this line is likely to have been crossed).

One last comment before I stop goofing off and get back to work:

There's nothing magical about birth in settling when a fetus becomes a person. Birth as the finish line for personhood is just another convenient fictional line we use because it so easy to draw.

There are quite a few developmental specialists who would tell you that a newborn baby is not yet developed enough that it should be considered a person yet. This seems repugnant and counterintuitive because we're so used to treating birth as if it were a developmental milestone. These specialists argue that it is no different, morally, to kill a severely deformed infant than to abort it in the first trimester. In both cases, you got there before there was a person there.

Any parent who has held an infant will tell you these specialists need to put down the crack pipe, and the response will be that the parent is anthropomorphizing the infant and mistaking random biological automatic responses for consciousness.

I'm not pointing this out because I agree that infanticide should be as up to parental whim as circumcision. I just want to say that it's not self-evident that birth is the right bright line. Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you take, you can't escape having to deal with the serious issue of at what point in development, because of characteristics in its own identity, does a fetus become a human being with rights of its own, regardless of whether those rights conflict with anyone else's.

Mike Lee

Hello, world

[John Dailey]

~ I have a prob with dealing with a Bill O'Reilly style of loaded language in referring to a fetus as an 'unborn baby'; we don't refer to an infant as a 'post-born fetus' so let's start off with established nomenclature to avoid emotionally loaded confusion (like, there's not enough in this subject already!)

That a fetus (or embryo, or blastula or zygote) is a 'life' there's only straw men to debate; of course it is, as is the original egg, sperm and every biological cell. It's DNA-human also. But, this is sufficient to jail a woman aborting? NOPE.

~ A preg female's 'right to her body' is sovereign (sorry, 'fathers'.) However, if a part of her body is regarded as a 'person'...it's no longer a 'part of...'; it's attached to. Parasite? Dependent? Sure. So? To kill it, if identified as said, is to commit murder. Let's not mince words here. The idea of self-defense doesn't apply until a threat is identified. --- The question is not what rights the 'father' has; it is: has the fetus become a 'person' BEFORE birth? If so, we're talking potential murder; if not, then not.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Re the tricky question as to when the fetus is to be recognized as a person (if not 'baby'), I've always regarded as dependent upon when it possesses a consciousness; so far, that's always been post-birth as far as I know.

~ Roger Bissell posted an excellent attempt at specifying a an induced rationale (and delineating a method to apply) for regarding the fetus in the (more or less) 3rd trimester as a person; this would mean that killing it is more than removing one's tonsils. I'm most surprised that no one has dealt at all with any points he brought up...and I mean not even one. It's like his post is totally avoided.

~ Until his points are dealt with, which is necessary to even clarify disagreements therein, nm come to some kind of an agreement, or even conclusion that he's way off base, all these pro/con views which imply if and when a preg female should be considered suspicious/monitored/jailed are really all emotionally superficial and will go on forever...even amongst 'rational' O'ists.

LLAP

J:D

[Roger Bissell]

I was going to post this reply in the Ayn Rand Corner thread in Living Room, then I realized, as MLK pointed out, that it really didn't have much to do with the thread. So, I decided to dredge up the Abortion thread in the Politics folder and put it here....

"galtgulch" wrote:

I spoke with a fellow in MA who was campaigning to become the head of the RP state committee in MA. He had revealed his "prolife" position. I pointed out that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will violates the "involuntary servitude" clause of the Constitution and that there is a distinction between a human embryo or fetus and a human being, and that there is a distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being. It all fell on deaf ears. He asserted that he is for life and that trumped everything else. I hope he is not typical of the great mass of republicans. Fool.

GG, there are some good comments preceding this that address your issues.

But let me point out that "forcing a woman to remain pregnant" is only involuntary servitude if her fetus is not a human being with rights.

Many Objectivists and Libertarians are of the considered opinion that while earlier fetuses and embryos are not human beings with rights, those fetuses whose cerebral functions have kicked in and have begun integrating their sensory inputs into percepts (which happens sometime near the end of the 2nd trimester, about the 28th week of pregnancy, perhaps a bit earlier) ARE human beings with rights. (Some Objectivists and Libertarians even argue that we are human beings with rights from conception onward, but they do so, not on the basis of our having an up-and-running perceptual consciousness, the contents of which is the input for our rational conceptual knowledge, but on the basis of our being a genetically distinct living organism. I don't agree with their position, which is an Extreme Pro-Life position.)

You may also object that fetuses are not independently existing beings, separate from the mother's body. True, but there is a vast difference between early fetuses and embryos who are not perceptually conscious and cannot exist independently of the mother's body -- and later fetuses who can, by induced labor or Caesarian section, very quickly become "independent" of the mother's body. When the law (rightly) recognizes and upholds the right to life of prematurely born babies, is it really rational or just to deny the same right to late-term fetuses who are even better developed than those preemies, and who can be safely removed from the mother's body in a matter of minutes by the same doctor that you would sanction to "late-term abort" them?

You might feel, even despite the above considerations, that it still amounts to involuntary servitude, and that there is a genuine "clash of rights" between a late-term fetus and its mother, when she no longer wants it in her body, and wants an abortion rather than an induced or surgical delivery. Well, consider this:

Suppose I were to invite you out on my yacht, and then I decided 50 miles from shore that I no longer wanted you on my yacht, and I also didn't want to provide you safe transport to shore, so: out you go! Oh, you can't swim? Too bad. But wait, you object: you have a right to life. I reply: sorry, it's involuntary servitude to require me to get you safely off my boat. There is a genuine "clash of rights" between you and me, and it being my property you're on, I get to decide whether you remain or not.

Yes, this is complete sophistry. The reason is this: I am completely responsible for the safety and security and support of any human being that I have placed in a position of helplessness. I have to take care of him, or find someone else who will agree to do so. This is true whether he is a young child I have brought into the world -- or a pro-basketball player I have run into with my car and made into a quadruplegic -- or a guest on my yacht who cannot swim -- or (if I'm a pregnant woman) a late-term fetus that is perceptually conscious and viable. You do not have the right to put another human being in a state of helplessness, and then disregard their helpless state. Your actions have created morally and legally (in the sense of natural rights) binding obligations, and a death resulting from your default on those obligations would be tantamount to murder.

If your acquaintance in MA is of the Extreme Pro-Life persuasion, he will probably find my above arguments as objectionable as you found his position. Perhaps you will, too, from the Extreme Pro-Choice direction. Goodness knows, there are plenty of well-known Libertarians and Objectivists that take the hard-line position that we do not have rights until we have actually emerged from our mothers' bodies. But I really do think that something like my views is what Libertarians and Objectivists need to adopt, if they are to remain true to their principles and the facts of reality.

REB

P.S. -- Interested readers can find my extended essays on the above points at:

A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments (Reason magazine Sep. 1981)

The Case Against Egoistic, Libertarian Baby-Starving (Libertarian Familist c. 1983)

[BaalChatzaf]

But let me point out that "forcing a woman to remain pregnant" is only involuntary servitude if her fetus is not a human being with rights.

Even if a fetus had rights, it would still be involuntary servitude. The woman's life take precedence. Forcing women to be brood mares against their will lacks a certain grace.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If only a fetus could vote...

That would resolve the issue for all time. Until then, there will be conflict over when a human being is entitled to protection of rights under the government, and it will hinge on how human life is defined.

I don't see a resolution for this in sight, but instead a perennial seesaw.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I'm not quite sure what Roger is saying, is he saying that the moment a fetus is viable it has rights? I can go along with that, to me the further along the pregnancy progresses the more rights the fetus has and so an arbitrary cut-off point is called for. I believe in practice this is done already isn't it?

[Brant Gaede]

As far as I can tell the right-to-lifers don't advocate any other rights, which makes it seem like an ad hoc rhetorical-semantical device.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Yes, if a woman is raped and then strapped to a table for three months and then told that she can't abort the child at that point, one could perhaps argue that she had been enslaved. But by the rapist, not the fetus.

Pregnancy is not something that happens to a woman against her will, and a woman has at least a three month period in which to abort a fetus before it quickens, during which time no person exists and hence during which time she would be killing no person if she were to have an abortion.

But actions have consequences. Normal adult humans - those competent to make choices - are quite aware that if they have sex, conceive, and take no other actions, at some point they will find themselves carrying a child. I think three months is quite sufficient time for a woman to decide to abort.

Abortion at that point is not about "ending the pregnancy" which will happen anyway if the woman waits. It is about killing the child. Sorry. The woman knew the risk when she had sex. She even had three months in which to recosider and take action. By not taking action, she has created another individual whose right to life came about due to her own choices. She cannot evade the consequence of her choices at that point as if it were the fetus or the father who forced it upon her.

You have a certain time durring which to evict a squatter. A fetus is only a temporary squatter, and a woman's indecision is not a justification for murdering him.

[Roger Bissell]

But let me point out that "forcing a woman to remain pregnant" is only involuntary servitude if her fetus is not a human being with rights.

Even if a fetus had rights, it would still be involuntary servitude. The woman's life take precedence. Forcing women to be brood mares against their will lacks a certain grace.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, don't go for a ride with me in my yacht. Even though you have rights, requiring me to transport you safely back to shore would be involuntary servitude. Forcing me to be a transporter against my will lacks a certain grace.

Ba'al, if the woman's life is in jeopardy, I am the first one to applaud her decision to take whatever steps are necessary to save her own life, even if it means the loss of the child she is carrying. But if you have read my previous posts on this subject, I think you already ~know~ that I am not arguing against this. So why the snide comment about "grace"? Unless it's to discredit my arguments by making me look like some misogynistic basher of pregnant women and their rights?

Even if a woman's life takes precedence over her fetus's life, what if it is not her ~life~ that is in question, but just her morale or convenience? Are you really going to champion partial-birth abortions of 8-month and 9-month fetueses, when the mother's life is not in jeopardy? When the fetus could just as easily be removed by Caesarian or induced labor? Seems to me ~that~ "lacks a certain grace," too. Plus, a viable child is dying, when it could be saved if not for a gratuitous partial-birth abortion.

It is my respectful opinion that a woman who has chosen to carry her fetus to the third trimester, when it is a human being with rights, is far more than a "brood mare." She is now a parent and has legal obligations she did not have prior to that time. She is now transporting a viable, conscious human being, just as surely as when she later drives it around in its child seat in her automobile. And she is now just as responsible for its safety and well-being as she is after it is born.

I suppose you might argue that forcing people to support their children ~after~ they are born "lacks a certain grace," too, but I have never had any sympathy for deadbeat dads. Nor do I have any sympathy for pregnant women who dawdled away 6 months before the fetus became a human being with rights, and then decide, after it has become conscious and viable, to have its skull crushed, rather than having it delivered surgically or naturally.

You want grace, Ba'al? Go watch figure skating. And stop trying to defend the undefendable.

REB

[kiaer.ts]

But let me point out that "forcing a woman to remain pregnant" is only involuntary servitude if her fetus is not a human being with rights.

Even if a fetus had rights, it would still be involuntary servitude. The woman's life take precedence. Forcing women to be brood mares against their will lacks a certain grace.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, don't go for a ride with me in my yacht. Even though you have rights, requiring me to transport you safely back to shore would be involuntary servitude. Forcing me to be a transporter against my will lacks a certain grace.

Ba'al, if the woman's life is in jeopardy, I am the first one to applaud her decision to take whatever steps are necessary to save her own life, even if it means the loss of the child she is carrying. But if you have read my previous posts on this subject, I think you already ~know~ that I am not arguing against this. So why the snide comment about "grace"? Unless it's to discredit my arguments by making me look like some misogynistic basher of pregnant women and their rights?

Even if a woman's life takes precedence over her fetus's life, what if it is not her ~life~ that is in question, but just her morale or convenience? Are you really going to champion partial-birth abortions of 8-month and 9-month fetueses, when the mother's life is not in jeopardy? When the fetus could just as easily be removed by Caesarian or induced labor? Seems to me ~that~ "lacks a certain grace," too. Plus, a viable child is dying, when it could be saved if not for a gratuitous partial-birth abortion.

It is my respectful opinion that a woman who has chosen to carry her fetus to the third trimester, when it is a human being with rights, is far more than a "brood mare." She is now a parent and has legal obligations she did not have prior to that time. She is now transporting a viable, conscious human being, just as surely as when she later drives it around in its child seat in her automobile. And she is now just as responsible for its safety and well-being as she is after it is born.

I suppose you might argue that forcing people to support their children ~after~ they are born "lacks a certain grace," too, but I have never had any sympathy for deadbeat dads. Nor do I have any sympathy for pregnant women who dawdled away 6 months before the fetus became a human being with rights, and then decide, after it has become conscious and viable, to have its skull crushed, rather than having it delivered surgically or naturally.

You want grace, Ba'al? Go watch figure skating. And stop trying to defend the undefendable.

REB

Except for your indefensible use of the solecism "undefendable" I sanction your reasoning and repeat that I declare you my intellectual heir, Roger, until such time as I find it convenient to repudiate you irrevocably.

[BaalChatzaf]

You want grace, Ba'al? Go watch figure skating. And stop trying to defend the undefendable.

REB

I would not attempt to defend the undefnsible or justify the unjustifiable with an argument. I would use force. That is more likely to work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Except for your indefensible use of the solecism "undefendable" I sanction your reasoning and repeat that I declare you my intellectual heir, Roger, until such time as I find it convenient to repudiate you irrevocably.

Quite sporting of you, Ted! But since you're like to survive me (if not some of my awful puns), perhaps ~I~ should declare ~you my~ intellectual heir. You are welcome to peruse and use any of my arguments and insights and add your name to them, if you find them true and useful.

I realize that "undefendable" is not in the dictionary. But "defendable" ~is~, and I just do not understand why you cannot legitimately slap "un" in front of a perfectly good adjective. Oh, well....

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would not attempt to defend the undefnsible or justify the unjustifiable with an argument. I would use force. That is more likely to work.

Bob,

That sounds nice but that's not what you do.

You preach.

You've been doing that for as long as I've known you.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I would not attempt to defend the undefnsible or justify the unjustifiable with an argument. I would use force. That is more likely to work.

Bob,

That sounds nice but that's not what you do.

You preach.

You've been doing that for as long as I've known you.

Michael

In any case I would not demean reason by defending (by logic) the contradictory or unreasonable.

You did not know me when I was dangerous, lo these many years past. I used to use (or make possible) force when I was a weapon-smith. I have scalps on my belt and I cherish each and every one. I have only shed blood once (and that by accident). But I have guided and targeted the application of deadly force.

The swordsman needs a sword smith. The archer a bow smith and fletcher. The spear thrower needs one to make his spears. That is what I did when I was younger. I was a missile-smith (specifically guidance and terrain mapping). We build them good in the Fatherland*.

I will let Conan, the Barbarian speak for me:

Ba'al Chatzaf

*best line from -The Enemy Below-.

Edited January 29, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Guyau]

The potential for involuntary servitude in the state regulation of abortion lies in the (temporary) involuntary servitude of the pregnant woman to guardians of the fetus who are not that pregnant woman. The potential involuntary servitude is not to the fetus; it is to the guardians of the fetus demanding service from the pregnant woman. I have elaborated this view here (1983):

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1886#comment-23968

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1886#comment-24099

Edited January 29, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

Either a woman has a right to an abortion or she doesn't. That's the starting point for discussion, not whether the baby or fetus is "alive."

--Brant

I agree. And I believe no, women have no right to abortion.

We have to either agree that

A: People have rights inheritly, and we have to protect eachother's rights as part of a rational and moral society.

B: People don't have rights inheritly, so noone is obligated to protect one another and there are no morals.

If the former is true, abortion is a horrible act violating human rights. All rights should center around life. Since you gotta' be alive to excersise rights, the right to life is vital and irreplecable. There is no greater violation of rights then taking someone's life, in which they can never practice their rights again. You can say what you want about women getting raped, abused, having to bare a child, but they're still alive to bitch and whine about it. Therefore they still have rights. And furthermore it's degrading to human intelligence to perceive the fetus as somehow to be the problem here, when it was other people's own consent to put them there. Even a woman who was raped, some third party is responsible. Why should the fetus die for someone elses decision?

If the latter is true, then there is no moral outrage for abortion, but then there is no moral outrage against abortion clinic bombings, or being a serial killer, or any homocide. At that point we have to just admit we legalized abortion out of convience. Who wants the responsibility of being a parent?! Why go out of your way to take a pill or get a hysterectemy?! When you can just waltz into a clinic, spread your legs, and let them hook that damn baby right out of you! But why then isn't all murder legal? Surely if illegal abortions would flood the streets with blood, we should legalize all murder so it's not all messy and dangerous and we have legitamate hitmen agencies killing people on your behalf. Give it a catchy named like "Planned Friendship".

Human beings want something to apply to them but not other people. That's just the natural reaction, and is part of self preservation. But then I don't need to hear a bunch of psuedo-intillectual babble talk if nooone really means it anyway.

Human rights are NOT inherent. Human need for rights is. Political philosophy respecting rights is a human invention transliterated into law and protected by efficacious law enforcement.

--Brant

Edited February 6, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

So then you agree there are no human rights and that objectively speaking.. all murder is good game? That we merely don't murder because we more then likely, cannot get away with it..

Meaning then that it shouldn't matter if abortion is banned as if the serial killers can deal with it, so can bitchy women seeking an abortion. They'll get over it.

I'm not going to discuss anything further with you, you bastard. A rapist who doesn't rape only because he doesn't want to go to jail. That makes you lower than a rapist who rapes and is willing to pay for it by going to jail, all the other crap being equal.

--Brant