These posts on the S.D. law are thoughtful and interesting. They prove, to me, that this issue is unresolvable. Those who would consider abortions a legitimate option in a pregnancy have defensible and thoughtful arguments as do those who would never consider such an option. Every expert and every "moral" authority that can be trotted out has a counterpart in the other arena.

So, we don't agree about this, never will, and people should be allowed to make up their own mind and pursue their own course of action, or non-action. It is a matter of personal conscience.

What we don't agree on is when a "person" begins. I don't think we can ever know. All logical progressions deteriorate as we count backwards. At conception? A few days later? In the 26th week? At birth? 18 years after birth? Some even argue for prior to conception, or at least the "potential" for being a person. Any line drawn is arbitrary. So, we arbitrarily pick a line that is certainly a compromise but at least gives us a legal set point. It's at 26 weeks. Some think that's too early, some too late. Let's leave it at that.

If as you say there is no agreement about when a life starts (although my understanding is the science is pushing the evidence closer and closer to the moment of conception), wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution and not allow any abortions? I agree with you that picking an arbitrary date is absurd.

Even if we assume a fetus is a person from the first second, that *still* doesn't mean the state could or should prevent abortions.

Pregnancy is difficult, dangerous, and has various side effects, some of them permanent. The state doesn't have the right to make people go through that. No one has the right to impose that or similar burdens on someone else.

I'm very skeptical we want to give the state that right. If I need part of your liver, are you good with the State forcing you to give it to me? No? But I'm a person with the right to live and the burden imposed on you would be probably be less than going through pregnancy.

Depends on what science you're talking about, and what you mean by life. Genetics, embryology, and biology may be pushing that life begins at closer to conception (i.e. fetuses are independent beings). Neuroscience (especially cognitive neuroscience), and psychology seem to be pushing that a person isn't truly a person until after the brain is well-developed (closer towards birth).

Scientifically speaking, what makes humans unique is the existence of the human mind, I'd personally argue that science is pushing farther and farther from conception. Of course, other scientists who argue that humans are not unique would probably tend to disagree.

it's amazing to me the lengths people will go to to deny that a human being in a particular stage of its development is not a human being.

and why? is it really because the state shouldn't have the right to protect human life? or is it because it's simply too inconvenient to build a culture that cherishes life, every life.

...or is it because it's simply too inconvenient to build a culture that cherishes life, every life.

"Inconvenient" isn't the right word. When we start defining what such a culture would look like we get contradictions and outcomes the vast majority of people would never tollerate.

We aren't willing to give the State the ability to order people to give up their internal organs for other people's use... or to let the State permanently damage the health of people so that others can prosper. We aren't willing to execute or imprison the large numbers of women who would get abortions anyway even if it were illegal.

So both the theory and the outcome look pretty ugly when we assume the State can't magically make people believe what we'd like them to.

It cracks me up how you tote pregnancy as 'dangerous'. It came naturally for me, and many of my friends, and dare I say for women since the dawn of time. Not to say that there aren't high risk pregnancies, but you make it sound like pregnancy is an endemic threat to a woman's body...not unless you count the hours I log on my stairmaster post-partum.

<"Inconvenient" isn't the right word. When we start defining what such a culture would look like we get contradictions and outcomes the vast majority of people would never tollerate.>

You mean like large families? This was pretty much the norm until not so long ago. Obviously the world did not collapse; otherwise we wouldn't be here.

I chose the word 'inconvenient' because many people today seem to feel that having a child will interfere with their lifestyle. They're right of course -- it will make their lifestyle seem shallow and egocentric. Is that bad?

You all seem to be proving my point.

Cheekyone: your statement has such a common sense logic to it. However, that prudence is imprudent in many cases that neither you, or at least I, don't have to face. A woman with her own feelings and circumstances may find your erring on one side as totally unacceptable for her.

I do believe, and it is a belief, not incontestable knowledge, that every woman should have the protected right to determine her own course of action in her own pregnancy according to her own set of values, understanding of the issues debated in these posts, and her own private instincts. And I also believe that South Dakota's attempt to tilt a woman's decision by state sponsored guilt inducing "statements" is flat out wrong. She has a doctor, may have a minister of some sort, she has family, she has counselors, and she has friends. The state need not be involved; at least until somehow there is a consensus from every corner on the issue of when is a human a human that should be granted its rights. On that, we are all throwing darts.

<Cheekyone: your statement has such a common sense logic to it.>

Thank you, Crowe.

<However, that prudence is imprudent in many cases that neither you, or at least I, don't have to face. A woman with her own feelings and circumstances may find your erring on one side as totally unacceptable for her.>

Well if her feelings are directing her to terminate her own offspring then I would encourage her to resist those feelings, for her own sake as well as for the offspring's.

My observations from watching my wife is pregnancy is considerably *more* tramatic than the car accident I didn't walk away from. For that matter I suspect it'd be less traumatic to donate a third of my liver.

Calling pregnancy "natural" trivializes it. Death is also natural. Similarly, "morning sickness" is misnamed since she was perfectly fine during the morning, it was the rest of the day she felt like shit.

Yes, unlike "the dawn of time" dying in Childbirth is rare now. But we don't call it "Labor" because it's easy. Pregnancy is deep into the territory where it's easy to die or be maimed if something goes wrong.

My wife had easy labors and she still was months recovering from the bone she broke last time. For that matter I can tell that these pregnancies have aged her.

We don't have the right to inflict medical risks and side effects of this nature on each other.

I chose the word 'inconvenient' because many people today seem to feel that having a child will interfere with their lifestyle. They're right of course -- it will make their lifestyle seem shallow and egocentric. Is that bad?

Fine, let's go down this path and look at what "inconvenient' really means.

After we make abortion illegal, how many years in prison do you suggest is appropriate for a woman who gets one anyway?

And can I gather you don't have a problem with society strongly encouraging unwed childbirth and motherhood?

<After we make abortion illegal, how many years in prison do you suggest is appropriate for a woman who gets one anyway?>

I don't know. What did they used to get before the procedure was legalized? I will at least say any doctor doing this should have his license taken away as it violates the hippocratic oath.

<And can I gather you don't have a problem with society strongly encouraging unwed childbirth and motherhood?>

I'm pro-child and pro-motherhood. Because it's better for a child to grow up in a stable family unit with a mother and a father, I would encourage people to do this. But unwed motherhood is better than no motherhood at all.

Calling childbirth natural is not trivializing it. It simply is. Of course, I'm not saying it comes easy to everyone, and obviously your wife suffered. But however, you ARE trvializing it by calling it dangerous, you needed to qualify that instead of making a blanket statement for all women.

Oh and obviously we can't agree.

Its not a question of agreeing or not. The medical data is clear. It is three times more dangerous (fatality) to carry a pregnancy to term than to get an abortion.

So for you to claim that it isn't dangerous is to say that abortion is trivial. Is that what you want to say?