More States Require a Waiting Period to Have an Abortion Than to Own a Gun

A fascinating infographic at The Huffington Post shows that many states have longer waiting periods for abortions than firearm purchases:

In fact, 35 states require that women must undergo mandatory counseling so that they can be “informed” before going through with an abortion, and 26 of those states require an extra waiting period of 24 hours between counseling and the actual procedure. Meanwhile, 8 states have a required waiting period for various gun purchases, with waits ranging from 2-10 days.

While waiting periods for guns have been linked to a decrease in suicides, enforcing mandatory waiting periods for abortion increases emotional and financial hardship on women and have little to no effect on whether or not they decide to proceed.

This is what happens when politics and emotions override science and common sense.

About Lauren Lane

Lauren Lane is the co-founder of Skepticon, the Midwest's largest skeptic student-run conference and remains a lead organizer today. She has not one, but TWO fancy art degrees and is not afraid to use them.

  • Tobias2772

    This is what happens when politics and emotions override science and common sense.

    Boy, if we could just solve this problem how much better would our collective lives become how much quicker.

  • ajginn

    I’m curious if most here believe the default position on on-demand abortion by atheists should be unmitigated support. I’m an atheist, but I think late term abortion is abhorrent and should be opposed. I believe this was Hitchens’ view on abortion as well. Should it be outlawed? I don’t believe it should. I would prefer that moral arguments be used to point out its barbarity.

    The idea that a two-week old embryo is fully human is absurd, but I can’t understand how anyone could support the right of a woman to end a third-trimester pregnancy. Instead, the emphasis should be on preventing unwanted pregancies in the first place, something that Christians in particular are completely off the rails about.

    • Makoto

      I’m curious why you bring up third-trimester abortions. They are extremely, EXTREMELY rare, and almost always done for medical reasons (usually either the fetus would die upon birth, or the mother would). In fact, I don’t know of any legal abortion that has been performed that was done in the third trimester except for medical necessity.

      I agree that the focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancies – sex ed, lots of contraceptives, those sorts of things would do wonders.

      • decathelite

        This.

        Pro lifers are notorious for proclaiming that there are all these 24 week and later abortions that are going on when in reality it’s such a tiny percent of them (It’s in the ballpark of 1 or 2 percent), and even then there is usually a medical reason involved.

        Oh looks like lizbert and C peterson summarized the other stuff I was going to say.

      • Miss_Beara

        But real sex ed and contraception is against their religious freedom!

      • brianmacker

        School shootings are even more rare (and falling) but that doesn’t stop it from being the centerpiece of recent gun grab legislation.

        • brianmacker

          I like the down vote feature. Shows me that there are people who disagree with my opinion, have checked it, and are unable to formulate a response to support their position. Which means my opinion has be tested. One thousand down votes with no proper response would indicate a very well tested theory indeed. Keep them coming.

        • Makoto

          What gun grab legislation? I’ve seen calls for limits on magazine capacity, limits on specific types of guns, and background checks. None of those are grabbing guns. Please illuminate us on this gun grab legislation.

          • brianmacker

            Limiting capacity is gun grabbing, silly. The magazine is part of the gun. If you limit capacity to 5 you can’t have a gun that holds 10, etc. Limiting specific types of guns is gun grabbing, because if someone owns one then they have to turn it in. This is obvious gun grabbing.

            • Nox

              The only limitation that was ever actually proposed was a limit on the sale of magazines. Sale. Not possession.

              When the Brady Bill was in effect, and we already had stricter restrictions that were in the recently proposed gun legislation, no one’s guns were ever taken away because of it.

              • brianmacker

                See my comment above. That’s a gun grab. If the government were to restrict cars to only have a one gallon gas tank to promote electric car use that would be a car grab for those who had normal gas car. The fact that one can disengage the clip is incidental. One could make a car so that the gas tank could be easily swapped out, and/or you could take it to the shop. In fact if every state had different laws on gas tank limits the manufacturers would have an incentive to make tanks that swap.

                If you knew the history of clips you could see that. Six shooters used to have models where the revolving part with the bullets could be swapped out. Suppose we limited the capacity of such guns to three bullets. That would in effect grab all the guns from people who owned them.

                “Gun grab” is a term with a very broad meaning. Making it illegal to manufacture and/or sell new or existing guns (but not own them) would also be a gun grab. Although literally anyone owning a gun would not necessarily have their gun taken away.

                It is legal to own a machine gun. But machine guns were gun grabbed by past legislation by these kinds of restrictions on manufacture and sale, not ownership. It becomes impossible to own a machine gun when no one can make one to sell to you.

                These are just legal games with the same effect.

                • Nox

                  So a couple minutes ago when you said “Limiting specific types of guns is gun grabbing, because if someone owns one then they have to turn it in”, you already realized that the situation you were describing was not the same as the situation you were talking about?

                • brianmacker

                  I already made it clear that I define a gun as a functioning one of a particular kind. Fully auto AR15 rifles are banned and if you have one they will grab it (and all your other guns and rifles). They don’t do this by banning the AR15. They do it by banning a particular kind of firing pin.

                  When 30 round clips are banned then everyone is banned from having a gun that has the attribute of a 30 round clip. Just like if they ban a certain caliber of bullet they are banning the fully functional gun that uses that caliber. Banning all bullets is the equivalent of banning all guns, because guns cannot function without bullets. This isn’t rocket science. A full on bullet ban is obviously gun grabbing legislation to anyone with any kind of intelligence.

                  Technically a rifle isn’t a gun, but “gun grab” does not refer to just handguns. Many phrases like this have definitions that are not simply derivable from the phrase. Anti-semite does not mean one who hates Semites. It means one who hates Jews. So other Semites, like Arab Muslims and Christians, can also be antisemitic despite being Semites. There is no word for people who hate Jews, Christians, and Muslims based on only the fact that they are Semites.

              • brianmacker

                “Sale. Not possession.”

                Wrong, possession, too. Plus the ability to sell is part of the entire economic package of ownership. Ownership includes the right to obtain, control, and dispose of property. If you have a factory and the Nazis force you to produce nerve gas then you are not the true owner of the factory, they are part owners. Restricting to 7 bullets on a gun magazine is usurping ownership rights. If someone possesses a gun with a magazine that has more than 7 bullets, they now go to jail in NY whereas before they did not. Plus a felony and confiscation of all their other guns.

                I’m not talking about the Brady Bill so don’t bring up a red herring. That was about background checks.

          • brianmacker

            Anyone owning those specific types of guns will experience a gun grab.

            The magazine is part of the gun. It will not function without it. A gun with a 10 round clip is a different gun than one with a 30 round clip. When you limit capacity you are grabbing all the 30 round clips and in effect grabbing all guns with a 30 round capacity.

            Suppose the government put restrictions on birth control, limiting the capacity of condoms to one inch, and banning specific types of birth control like the pill, IUDs, and abortion? You don’t think that would be a grab?

            Now condoms are sold with wrappers, and no restriction need be put on the actual condom, one can merely restrict the size of the wrapper you are allowed to sell the condom in so that it can only hold a tiny condom. Restrictions on magazine capacity are similar to such nonsense.

            People who buy 30 round clips want a gun that can handle them, because that is what they want to buy, the gun with a higher clip capacity. This is obvious because if a gun manufacture were to make a gun that somehow artifically restricted magazine capacity to 10 rounds then people who wanted the ability to use 30 would not buy that gun.

            Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining.

            • Makoto

              Your comparison might be more valid (about condom wrapper size) if you were showing how specific bullet characteristics, such as grain count, was being limited. A limit on magazine capacity is more akin to limiting the number of condoms a person can carry.. though, fact of the matter is, condoms are designed to prevent problems, while bullets are designed to do damage.

              EDIT – and you do realize there are already gov’t restrictions and requirements on condoms, right?

              A “gun grab” as understood by most folks is where the gov’t or other agency comes and “grabs” your “guns”.. thus the name. A limit on future sales is not a grab, it’s a restriction. Your rights already have a variety of limits for public safety – your right to throw a punch ends at the bridge of my nose, as the saying goes.

              And if you need more than a couple of shots to hit your target, I worry about your training and abilities to handle the weapon, anyway. What in the world do you need 30 rounds for instead of 10?

              Please, please don’t feed me the line about standing up to the gov’t. It has nukes, drones, fighter jets, tanks, and way more troops than you could gather among your friends. Your 30 round magazine will do nothing more than a 10 round would against that.

              • brianmacker

                My comparison is valid because you are completely ignorant about guns and how they are used. A gun encounter is not at all like they show in the movies. Every bullet doesn’t hit it’s mark, sometimes you fire to keep heads down, sometimes to intimidate, sometimes you don’t fire at all an that large clip commands respect. Ever here of gazelle stottng? Firing rounds in warning can indicate an adequate supply of bullets, and a large clip. A gun that can only fire six bullets at a time is inadequate to many situations. Just like a one, two, three, or four inch condom will be inadequate to certain circumstances. Sure I can use a four inch long condom but most people would need to be very careful about how far I penetrate and fast I go.

                “EDIT – and you do realize there are already gov’t restrictions and requirements on condoms, right?”

                Not important to my argument, one way or the other. I’ll make my side of the argument if you please.

                “A “gun grab” as understood by most folks is where the gov’t or other agency comes and “grabs” your “guns”.. thus the name.”

                It is understood differently by the ignorant for sure.I’m not ignorant so I am using it the way it is used by people who understand guns. The gun is the entire operational package in this regard. Just like a gasoline car can’t operate without wheels and gas tank, a .223 mm 30 round gun cannot operate without .223 mm bullets and a 30 round clip.

                If you were to ban .223 mm bullets you are banning a functioning part of the gun and therefore banning the gun. Make it a felony to own .223 bullets and that amounts to gun grabbing all .223 caliber guns. Why? Because the bullets are part of the functioning gun, and banning the bullets bans the use of it.

                If I do use it, or even have bullets to prepare to use it, then I can be charged with a felony, found guilty, thrown in jail, and every single other gun I may or may not have would be grabbed to. Heck, they don’t even have to find me guilty to grab all the guns. Plus now with a felony, I would not be allowed to buy another gun every. Sounds like gun grabbing to me and every other person who uses the phrase pejoratively. Of course people who irrationally hate guns are going to misunderstand and think it has a different meaning, they are generally phobic and ignorant.

                “And if you need more than a couple of shots to hit your target, I worry about your training and abilities to handle the weapon, anyway.”

                LOL. Ignorant nonsense.

                “What in the world do you need 30 rounds for instead of 10?”

                Why do people like you who have no knowledge think they have the knowledge let alone right to violate other peoples rights? This is openly available knowledge and yet here you are asking me the question. Go find out, and it goes way beyond what I wrote above.

                “Please, please don’t feed me the line about standing up to the gov’t. It has nukes, drones, fighter jets, tanks, and way more troops than you could gather among your friends. Your 30 round magazine will do nothing more than a 10 round would against that.”

                More ignorant drivel. Ignorant of history. Ignorant of current events. Ignorant of military strategy. Ignorant of the many purposes of guns. Where should I even start, there is so much ground to cover that I cannot possibly cover it all without wasting several days clearing up your ignorance.

                FIrst off, since when do governments use nukes on their own people, Don’t you feel ridiculous bringing that up? Where do you think the government gets its resources, and how do you think it would feed a vast army when it starts nuking its own territory?

                We can’t even suppress the Taliban and they don’t have nukes, drones, fighter jets, or tanks. I can understand your ignorance of all the historical examples of private guns deterring government, but you should be up on current events. Our government is even now trying to negotiate with the Taliban despite all your points.

                A book would be required to respond in full to the rest of your ridiculous assumptions on the issue of resistance to government, and then another on all the other uses for guns, on natural rights, on justification for government, etc.

              • brianmacker

                I’m experiencing the deletion of my comments. I replied to this in detail this morning, yet I don’t see it here.

                “A limit on magazine capacity is more akin to limiting the number of condoms a person can carry.”

                “Your rights already have a variety of limits for public safety – your right to throw a punch ends at the bridge of my nose, as the saying goes.”

                You don’t understand what the saying means, obviously. The point of the saying is that natural rights properly understood are limited in their scope not to include crimes that violate other natural rights. The point is NOT that such limits are arbitrary as you seem to think, and must be justified by reference to other rights. In this case the right not to be battered. So what exactly is the other right you are trying to preserve by limiting cartridges to 10 rounds instead of 30. Is your nose exactly 20 bullets long, and positioned under my gun barrel?

                “A limit on magazine capacity is more akin to limiting the number of condoms a person can carry.. though, fact of the matter is,”

                Not really, the number of bullets needed for any particular incident varies. Larger is better and even if you don’t have to fire a single bullet. There are all sorts of reasons for this that you seem totally ignorant of. In some instances a single bullet will suffice, whereas in others 30 will not be enough.

                ” though, fact of the matter is, condoms are designed to prevent problems, while bullets are designed to do damage.”

                Condoms are designed to do damage to fertility. Bullets are designed prevent problems like starving (for lack of animal meat), and being victimized (for lack of protection). See how this works.

                “EDIT – and you do realize there are already gov’t restrictions and requirements on condoms, right?”

                So what? I’m not arguing the government can’t prevent gun makers from selling defective guns (that blow up in peoples faces) like they can prevent condom makers from making defective condoms.

                “A “gun grab” as understood by most folks is where the gov’t or other agency comes and “grabs” your “guns”.. thus the name.”

                You probably don’t understand the term antisemetic either. Hint, it isn’t about Semites, but about Jews. Banning bullets is also gun-grab legislation because they are an integral part of a functioning gun. It is know as a “taking”. Ownership of property involves several rights, the right to purchase, sell, and control the property. If a National Socialist forces a capitalist to manufacture nerve gas with their property, they are in fact usurping control, and thus “grabbing” part ownership in the chemical plant. Likewise environmentalists who make land grabs by zoning peoples property so they cannot build on it.

                “And if you need more than a couple of shots to hit your target, I worry about your training and abilities to handle the weapon, anyway. What in the world do you need 30 rounds for instead of 10?”

                That’s an incredibly ignorant statement. You should look that up on the internet. Geesh. Every hear of supression fire? That’s just one of dozens of reasons. It would take too long to educate you on this one. I don’t have the time.

                “Please, please don’t feed me the line about standing up to the gov’t. It has nukes, drones, fighter jets, tanks, and way more troops than you could gather among your friends. Your 30 round magazine will do nothing more than a 10 round would against that.”

                This is perhaps your most ignorant comment. Our government doesn’t even use nukes against the Taliban, and you think they will nuke their own territory? Sure, that would be effective. Destroy the very infrastructure that is used to support your troops. Who they going to tax to support them then, the Russians?

                Don’t you pay attention to history or even current events? Despite all our “nukes, drones, fighter jets, tanks, and way more troops” we are having to negotiate with that same Taliban. Someone forgot to give them liberal talking points or something. Guess you never heard of the Arab spring or the American Revolution either. People just like you made the same exact arguments in those cases too. We have no navy, we have no cannon, we have no, blah blah.

                • Makoto

                  I tire of this back and forth, to be honest. I wish you could understand that I shoot guns, too, and actually enjoy the practice. And yet I’m perfectly fine with limits on them. You claim I’m ignorant time and again, and yet I’ve shot everything from muskets to ARs to military weaponry.

                  So, sure, I’m ignorant, you totally won the comment screed. Go you. I’m an ignorant lib that knows nothing, that’s cool.

                  (I have no idea what happened to your earlier comment. I saw it as well, but didn’t feel like replying. The fact that I saw another reply today moved me to respond so you’d just stop after you won the thread. I’m tired of the email notifications about you, too.)

                • brianmacker

                  So I should be surprised to find out that someone who knows nothing about French culture slept with a French grandmother, had a french girlfriend and enjoys sex with french women?

                  The topic is what the definition of gun grabbing is. Apparently you think that limiting magazine size counts as “gun” control. Why on earth wouldn’t taking away magazines from people who own them not count as “gun” grabbing?

                  So we have several arguments here. One about common usage of a word (which an simple internet search clears up). Recent legislation (whether passed or not) has been refered to gun grabbing. Then there is the issue of whether that phrase is valid when referring to things like assault weapons bans, and clips size restrictions. Clearly you think it is fine to refer to clip size restrictions as “gun control”, so the issue can’t be the word “gun”. Then there is the issue of whether the restriction on size counts as “grabbing”. Would it be reasonable to call this “magazine grabbing”. That might be debatable if they set the restricted size of the clip above what anyone owns. However, they have set the restriction so that people who already own clips that hold more than seven rounds become felons, on arbitrary grounds like having one extra bullet in the clip.

                  My personal preference is to call any sort of ban on ownership of any kind of property as a “grab”, whether or not I or anyone else happens to own that kind of property. You may not be grabbing the physical property but you are grabbing someone elses rights away from them. I have a right to self defense, which includes the right to own sufficent means to defend myself from others. Thirty round clips exist and outlawing them for private individuals is not going to keep them out of the hands of criminals (whether or not they work for the government).

                  Even without these arguments, you (and any group of people like you) need a valid reason to force me to do what you want me to do. You have not provided one, and you can’t provide one in the case of a 30 round clip. In Washington DC possessing a 30 round clip is a felony. David Gregory got on TV from Washington, DC and waived around a 30 round clip explaining why no one should possess one. He commited a felony, and the police know it, and declined to prosecute him because they felt he had a valid reason for having it. Yet, were a homeowner to use a 30 round clip there to defend his or her family from a home invasion you can be sure they would be spending a long time in jail. Self defense, which John Locke called the first law of nature, is far more important than some guy spouting off his political opinons on TV, especially when those opionions are hypocritical, and advocating the violation of the rights of others.

                  David Gregory, did the exact opposite of what he set out to show. He showed that possessing a 30 round clip is not a true crime. It is merely criminalized, and worse, with arbitrary political application of the law.

                  You exhibited ignorance of why a 30 round clip is needed. You exhibit ignorance of natural rights. You continue to do so.

                  I’m more than willing to limit the ownership of 30 round clips if you can provide a valid reason that comports with natural rights. I just can’t think of one and have never heard or read one, and I read arguments by all the most respected anti-gun advocates. I can give valid reasons for controlling the private ownership of nuclear weapons, unfortunately those exact same reasons would apply to any group of individuals, including any governments. I happen to believe in individual equality (as the term is formally used in both natural rights theory and US founding documents), so just because you are a government official you don’t get to commit actual crimes. Storing a nuclear weapon in a NYC apartment would be such an example (criminal endangerment of others).

                  So give a valid reason. Can you?

    • LizBert

      I think that late-term abortion is really a red-herring. The reality is that almost 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester and that less than 2% take place after 20 weeks. Personally, I think elective abortion post viability is probably morally wrong, but I can recognize that that is not a common occurrence. Women do not wait until they are visibly pregnant to get an abortion because they can’t make their minds up. Late abortions are generally the result of extreme circumstances: lack of earlier access or knowledge that they were pregnant, fetal defects, or threats to the mother’s health. I do not support increasing restrictions on what are already rare procedures because I have no desire to make it more difficult for women who are in tough situations to access the healthcare they need.

      • ajginn

        Yes, I suppose that makes sense. I admit I don’t know the statistics on late-term abortions versus total number of abortions. I guess my problem is that it seems that many non-theists associate being against abortion for any reason with Christianity. I believe Hitchens was heavily criticized by many because he voiced his opposition to abortions after the first trimester.

        • LizBert

          There are plenty of good reasons to be against a ban on abortions after the first trimester. To begin with, in the second trimester you are still quite far from viability which means that the fetus must remain inside the mother’s body to survive, and there is no legal or moral precedent which says than an individual may be compelled to use their body to keep another person alive.

          • ajginn

            Oh I quite agree. It’s a difficult issue to be sure and unique to every person faced with the decision. I am NOT arguing that the procedure should be outlawed at any arbitrary stage of gestation. I do have ethical views that are my own but I don’t presume that my views should be legally binding in any way.

            • LizBert

              I’m merely pointing out that there are rational reasons to disagree with somebody, Hitchens or others, who wish to impose bans on abortion. I would say that many atheists as individuals have qualms with abortion, but most of us also trust that humans are capable of making moral decisions on their own, without undue government influence.

              • brianmacker

                “but most of us also trust that humans are capable of making moral decisions on their own, without undue government influence.”

                Well except when it comes to guns.

                • LizBert

                  I haven’t said anything about guns, you’re making assumptions.

                • brianmacker

                  That’s a reference to “most of us” “atheists”.

                • LizBert

                  Except I didn’t say a thing about guns, you’re just hankering for a fight, aren’t you? You’ve been hostile from your first comment, I’m not sure what’s going on with you.

                • brianmacker

                  Except, surprise, surprise the topic here is guns. No reason I shouldn’t make an aside about guns, and there was nothing hostile about it. Nor was there anything hostile about pointing out that you wrote a false statement. Which you did and that was my first comment to you. You seem to think like the religious when anyone questions their dogma it is considered impolite and militant.

          • brianmacker

            In fact this statement is false: “and there is no legal or moral precedent which says than an individual may be compelled to use their body to keep another person alive.” Care to rephrase so that it is truthful?

            • tsara

              What’s the precedent?

            • LizBert

              I’m not sure what precedent exists that compels a person to allow another to use their body against their will. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

              • brianmacker

                There are many such precedents in many different situations. It also depends on your location. In Massachusetts women are compelled to allow their babies to use the womb after a certain period of residence, 24 weeks. Also legal precedence has it that elected officials can in fact institute the draft and force mens bodies to be used against their will. Likewise any state with forced labor for prisoners. Parents can be forced to use their bodies to earn income to support their children. Want me to continue with the legal? Now I haven’t even touched on the moral, and there are many different religions to choose from, but I think you can figure it out from here. Maybe not so … Moral precedent in Catholic moral system is that every woman in every situation can be forced to carry to term. …

                • LizBert

                  Please, that is not the same thing. I am talking about directly forcing another person to use their bodily organs to support another. This has already made it to the courts and been shot down. If you are a donor match for somebody who would otherwise die without your kidney, there is nothing at all that can be done to force you to give up your kidney. Nor can any individual be forced to donate blood. Even post-death the state cannot remove an individual’s organs without permission. The post 24 weeks pregnancy abortion ban is wrong in my opinion, but it also allows for delivery at that point because the fetus is viable. Moral precedent, I suppose you got me there with Catholicism although pregnancy is the only situation in which they compel a person to use their body without consent to support another.

                • brianmacker

                  Baloney, The Massachusetts ban on abortions after 24 weeks is exactly forcing one person to directly support another via their organs. Not sure why you find organs so important in this as it is the person not the liver that matters. A male forced into the draft is having every organ in his body used to support the safety of others against his will, often with fatal results at a much higher rate than death from childbirth. A pregnant woman uses every single organ in her body to support the fetus too. So we don’t need to go down to the organ level in the first place. A drafted male can be forced to directly use his body to support the life of another by for instance being ordered to carry an important scientist to safety, at grave risk to self. No one can be ordered to sacrifice themselves to another in any case but that is true with abortion too, as there are life of the mother clauses. But late term abortion bans do not in fact force anyone to sacrifice a life. So you are wrong. There is legal precedence in multiple areas for even direct support (with organs) of another. Plus you ignored the whole moral precedence part of the sentence that all by itself renders the sentence false. That sentence was false, period.

                • LizBert

                  Of course… this is all about the men. I forget how it goes with you types. No matter the issue at hand, the men are the victims. Never mind that one can avoid the draft by being a conscientious objector, being in college, or the fact that the draft is unlikely to ever be used again. Tell me more about this precedent of forcing unwilling people to sacrifice their organs. I never said that late term abortion bans force anyone to sacrifice a life, I said that they force an individual to allow another person to use their body without consent.

                • brianmacker

                  “I said that they force an individual to allow another person to use their body without consent.”

                  Which, as I demonstrated is false, despite your red herrings. The fact that one (one mind you) counterexample proving your statement false involves men doesn’t matter, and does NOT demonstrate “it’s all about the men”, and is a red herring, and shows you have an issue with men. I made no statement that restricted such concerns only to men and in fact used examples that applied to women. You on the other hand started belittling problems men had in your comment.

                  If your statement were true then it would be legal to do late term abortions under all circumstances. It is false. That is an example using women.

                  You have added additional bad arguments to your claims now, because you are just plain ignorant on these issues.

                  It is not possible to be a conscientious objector unless you are one, and that is not as easy as you ignorantly think. Going to college means you have to be accepted in one and have money for it. The draft is not as unlikely as you seem to think, as it has been repealed and reinstated many times. Ever hear of selective service? Probably not. There have been multiple such bills passed and ended, pretty much for each war. If we end up in a major war with a serious enemy the draft will happen again.

                  You are a hypocrite because if someone told you that you could avoid restrictions on abortions by getting raped, having the abortion early, getting permission from your parents, lasting out some waiting period, or whatever, you’d be livid.

                  You were the one who brought up organs to embellish your argument for your original false statement so don’t blame me.

                  ” I never said that late term abortion bans force anyone to sacrifice a life, I said that they force an individual to allow another person to use their body without consent.”

                  No kidding, show where I said you did, because I didn’t. I talked about both mere sacrifice (which allowing someone else to use your body is) and the more extreme sacrifice of life. I was preemptively closing an escape route that you might try. Which would be to try to claim that soldiers do not sacrifice their bodies in any way. It was part of my argument, not yours. I was also showing that the draft was even a more extreme form of use. Forcing someone to die while using their body is the most extreme form. For example murdering people to harvest their organs would be more extreme than leaving them alive.

                  Just admit that your blanket statement was false. It is especially false when you consider that you included moral precedent to.

                  What is particularly laughable is your argument wouldn’t even work if abortion were illegal. No one could or would use that argument if abortion were illegal. You’d have to modify it to be exclusionary, by adding a qualifier like “except abortion”.

                  One is able to support the legality of abortion without bad argumentation. Problem is that when you do that certain restrictions will become logically apparent. You don’t want to deal with these complex issues. You want it to be simple absolutes (and false ones mind you).

                • brianmacker

                  One thing you are ignorant on is history. You seem to think that the unpopularity of the draft is somehow unlikely to make it happen again. Which is ridiculous given any knowledge of history. You think it is unpopular now then go back to the Civil War. Lincoln actually had to bring in troops and used cannons to shell NYC to get riots under control.

                • LizBert

                  To quote you: “But late term abortion bans do not in fact force anyone to sacrifice a life.” That would be where you said that. In case you wondering what I was referencing.

                  I don’t agree that it’s false for the reasons stated above, and this is really just getting circular. I don’t agree that the situations that you have brought up demonstrate what you believe that they do. I know this may be a situation that you have never encountered in your life, but I do not agree with you.

                • brianmacker

                  “To quote you: ‘But late term abortion bans do not in fact force anyone to To quote you:sacrifice a life.’”

                  That sentence doesn’t restrict the concern to men. That is true only because such restrictions have “life of the mother” exceptions, which I specifically mentioned in the sentence prior to that one. Here is the full quote:

                  “No one can be ordered to sacrifice themselves to another in any case but that is true with abortion too, as there are life of the mother clauses. But late term abortion bans do not in fact force anyone to sacrifice a life.”

                  Your problem is that you are supporting a false blanket statement that is not true. That last sentence of mine was false, out of context, because I am obviously referring to the late term abortion bans I know about here in the states. There is no reason why a late term abortion ban couldn’t be crafted to never allow an abortion even if the mother is dying. But if such exist then your claim that there is no legal precedence looks even weaker still. Not only would women be forced to do something against their will (as they are now) but even in the case where they would die from it.

                  Such a total ban on all late term abortions for any reason would put all pregnant woman at risk of dying should their be complications. Just like the draft puts all those drafted into making bomber runs at risk of dying should the plane take fire.

                  There is nothing biased about such claims. They are just facts.

                  “I don’t agree that it’s false for the reasons stated above, and this is really just getting circular.”

                  If you are trying to say that my argument is using a circular fallacy then you are wrong. Your reasoning is invalid, and you are somewhere in your mind aware of that, because you are throwing anything against the wall to see if it sticks. Clearly my argument was not in any way making this about men vs women, and you brought up an obvious red herring to divert from the fact you can’t support your position. Ignoring any moral and legal precedent involving males you are still wrong. I only included them to provide multiple examples.

                  ” I don’t agree that the situations that you have brought up demonstrate what you believe that they do.”

                  So what?

                  “I know this may be a situation that you have never encountered in your life, but I do not agree with you.”

                  Actually you don’t know that. In fact, the opposite is the most reasonable assumption, because most everyone has run into someone else that doesn’t agree with them. This is just another unsupported claim. I am aware that you don’t agree, and this is another red herring. I was never arguing that you agree with me. I was arguing that you were wrong.

                  You have all sorts of bad intellectual habits, like these I have shown. You are not even playing the same game that those who understand the rules operate by. There are rules that are designed to prevent us from deluding ourselves and you don’t abide by them. So of course, it is no surprise that you get things wrong.

                • Nox

                  How do the commands of the catholic church constitute a moral precedent?

                • brianmacker

                  Because millions of people take them as moral precedent. Kinda obvious, isn’t it?

                • Nox

                  Over a billion people take them that way.

                  They are wrong to do so.

                  That the catholic church commands something establishes only that the catholic church has commanded this thing. That does not mean the thing they have commanded is moral.

                • brianmacker

                  I don’t have to make the argument of whether it is right or wrong. That is exactly why any argument from “precedence” is fallacious. I’m objecting to that kind of argument because it leads to error.

    • C Peterson

      Late term abortions are extremely rare, and virtually always associated with valid medical needs. They are already regulated in most or all states. So I see most discussion of them in the broader discussion of abortion rights to be a smokescreen.

      I don’t think anybody should or should not support abortion. That’s a position that has to come from one’s personal ethical standards, and really no view can be considered superior to any other. An atheist is as justified in considering the procedure unethical or ethical or ethically neutral as anybody else. I do think, however, that in the context of modern western culture, it is extremely difficult to justify restricting a woman’s right to secure an abortion. By that I mean that I think a very strong case can be made why free access to abortion is an ethically superior position to restricted access (or complete illegality).

      Atheists usually lean toward some sort of humanism, and humanists generally believe in maximizing rights (or in optimally balancing individual rights and the common good). So I’d expect atheists, broadly, to support free access to abortion, which means opposing mandatory counseling and required waiting periods, both of which impede a decision making process that should involve nobody but a woman and her doctor.

      Most atheists are probably perfectly comfortable with a rationally determined, although somewhat arbitrary cutoff somewhere in the later part of gestation where non-medically required abortions are restricted. But that really doesn’t have much to do with the current efforts in many states to restrict abortions.

      • ajginn

        Thank you. That was an informative and well-reasoned response.

    • Carmelita Spats

      Hitchens is no authority. He also said that women aren’t funny. If the woman needs a late term abortion, the decision should be between the woman and her gynecologist, not the state. Tiffany Moore Campbell has her story about this. More barbaric than late term abortions? Obligating a nine-year-old rape victim to undergo a pregnancy and a C-section. Medical decisions are best left to doctors and their patients…Same with end of life choices.

      • ajginn

        If the woman needs a late term abortion, the decision should be between the woman and her gynecologist, not the state.

        I don’t think I argued anywhere that it should not be up to the woman. And moral opposition to late-tems abortions for other than medical reasons does not constitute support for the case you linked to above.

    • Mackinz

      It depends on the situation.

      If thew woman is in her third trimester and, for example, requires an abortion to save her life or avoid risking it then I am definitely in support of that. Such was the case with Beatriz in El Salvador and Savita Halappanavar in Ireland who died because she was denied an abortion.

    • tsara

      I support the right anybody who is pregnant to end a pregnancy at any time, for any reason.

      I call it a moral right, and I believe that it should be legal and accessible. The instant something — or someone — inside my body is there against my will, it is violating my body, and I should have the right to remove it in whatever way I believe to be best for me (regardless of what happens to the thing or person). That’s the moral reason.

      The practical reason is that we don’t seem capable (in courts, primarily) of having a sensible conversation about it. I won’t say that nobody ever just up and decides, after months of being happily pregnant, that they’ve changed their mind and are going to get an abortion two weeks from their due date. But I’d be willing to bet that type of situation is a negligible proportion of late-term abortions.
      The vast majority of late-term abortions are for health reasons, even if the mother’s life is not always directly at stake and even if it isn’t always 100% necessary to abort — who is to determine how much risk a pregnant person has to accept before an abortion is ‘medically necessary’ if not that person? As long as the pro-life rhetoric stays the way it is, I won’t trust the laws to be reasonable on this.

    • johnlev

      I’m probably going to get flamed for this opinion but abortion isn’t an easy subject. I do support a woman’s right to choose. I have no problem with that but anyone who’s honest about this will also have to admit that it does become murder at some point. The question then is, of course, when does it? This is the best answer I can think of after much thought on the issue. To the best of my knowledge, we define “death” as the cessation of brain activity. The body may live on but the essence of what/who we are is gone at that point. Using that as a litmus test, I would define the start of “life” as the start of brain activity. From what I gather that is at about the 22-24 week period so that would be where I think it should be off the table except for threat to the mothers life. This is just MHO.

      • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

        Every pregnancy is a threat to the pregnant person’s life, and in many cases is a threat to their long-term health. What level of threat would be acceptable for you to force someone to risk? 30% chance of death? 50%? 70%? 90%?

        • John Lev

          Mythbri: You’re just being disingenuous.

          • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

            How so? In Ireland they are having this exact conversation, about when they would consider a life-saving abortion to be legal. And they are attempting to make a legal distinction between the life and health of the mother.

            • brianmacker

              Every abortion is also a threat to the pregnant persons life. The risk’s not zero so your Pascal wager of hyper sensitivity to risk is equally applicable to an abortion. The pregnancy itself was a risk as was the sex itself. The resulting risks are in fact not forced on the pregnant person except in the case of rape. They were perfectly predictable consequences of the initial choice to have sex in the first place.

      • Kodie

        Waiting periods don’t really help, with what being farther along you go, the closer you get to something that requires more deliberation! Also included are financial obstacles, which create waiting periods of their own. I’m pretty much against the whole “thinking about it like it’s serious” issue. If you want to consider it a heavy decision to make, realize that one way or the other, you will reach a point of no return. I’m not necessarily about being totally rash, but what’s the big deal if you have an abortion? Life goes on as before, you’ve done nothing wrong. If you wait and think and deliberate and become emotional, because that’s what this culture expects you to do, your choice will be made for you, and it’s going to last a long fucking time.

        Would that it were most women faced with this decision were realistic about their own means and counseled to be so. I don’t know what the counselors talk about in there. Everyone should be made aware how expensive it is to have a child, and how all your time will be spent, and be realistic about whether you have a support system. Anti-abortioners never seem to talk about this in any way other than saying she should have then thought about the “consequences” before, or even to call a child “punishment” for the mother having sex. Other than that, it is made to be a life or death decision (death always being wrong, and feeling guilty that that’s what you really want) and god’s business, women serving no greater purpose, and all other romantic idealism and imagery. The topic of abortion seems very controversial even for people who believe the choice is up to the mother, that she must be made to think a long time, very seriously, before she rests on a decision.

        Let me ask you how long you have to think of someone handing you a bill for a few hundred thousand dollars if you want that bill or not. Let me ask you how long you have to think of what you want to do about that cancerous tumor, in or out? Do you like to sleep?

        I am being drastic, but what more is there to think about having an abortion if that’s the first thing you wanted to do? Why do people worry about how they’re supposed to feel after they get one? If you don’t get one, you are going to feel other feelings. Making decisions doesn’t mean you will like what you have done, but that’s something adults do all the time.

        • John Lev

          Kodie: Where did I say anything about waiting periods? Or maybe you missed the part about me stating that I support the right to choose. I think waiting periods are a bad idea for anything. Abortion or guns. Yes, I’m pro 2nd. My post is meant to address the issue of when does it go from being an abortion to being murder? I’m often asked that question when debating anti-abortionists. The reasoning I’ve laid out above has made even some of my more staunch anti-abortionist family and friends concede that I have a point. Again, BOTH SIDES have to agree that a fetus is not a person but at some point abortion does become murder.

          • Kodie

            Look, don’t take this personally, but I think this whole subthread is “the usual”. The topic is “waiting periods” and I wasn’t addressing only you. Late-term abortion is a diversion that’s often brought up – I said in my post, waiting periods don’t really help much, and neither does the cultural expectation that a woman really needs to think whether or not she wants to “murder” her pregnancy or not. It shouldn’t be an issue. What is this alleged “late-term” abortion you’re talking about but a failure to decide a lot earlier? Why should that ever need to happen? In the vast majority of cases, it’s because something has gone terribly wrong and a worst-case scenario. The culture makes this into a terribly significant decision that will affect your whole life!

            It will affect your whole life if you don’t get an abortion.

            It will not affect your life if you get an abortion.

            There is really no late-term abortion topic. It’s whether or not a woman should wait and why she should be forced or encouraged or manipulated in any way to wait, and what obstacles can be placed to prevent women from getting the abortions they seek when they seek them. The earlier that is, the later it isn’t. Do you understand?

        • allein

          I pretty much agree with you. I think the argument that annoys me most is the one that basically says, “some women regret it so we should take the decision away from all women.” People do things, big and small, that they regret all the time. I left a job 12 years ago, for personal emotional reasons, and I later regretted doing so. Some people in my life worried if it was the right thing for me to do, if it was really what I wanted to do, but no one tried to get the legal system involved to make me stay. In some ways it was a bad decision but now I live with it. Would I be happier now if I had stayed then? I don’t know and I can’t know, so I have to go forward from where I’m at now. From what I’ve read, the majority of women do not regret the decision to end a pregnancy. It is up to each individual woman to decide for themselves what they feel is right, and if they regret it afterwards they can talk to someone to work through their feelings, if they choose to, just like anyone else who regrets a decision. I do think anyone considering it should make sure it is what they want, but by the time most women get to the point of making an appointment, they have already made up their minds. Making them wait a day or two and come back isn’t going to make a difference.

          • Kodie

            And why do some women regret it? It’s because the powerful message they keep sending is that there is something wrong with it. Having had plenty of discussion about this over the years, I understand that anti-abortioners imagine all women who go to get an abortion have not thought it through, that it’s just another form of birth control, and the waiting periods and “information” they are required to dispense are designed to make the decision seem like it has to be difficult before you go ahead and have one.

            Why? If a woman finds it real bad news to see the line indicating “pregnant” on her pee stick, and just go terminate it, she feels “nothing”. Why does she have to be made to feel “something” so that she might regret something that she wouldn’t have regretted? I just don’t get it. They want to impose “difficulty” on the easy decision to make it seem harder to do than the actual harder thing to do.

            Abortion is really a more difficult decision if what you choose, all things being equal, is to have a child, but it is otherwise impossible to pull off financially, or causes harm medically. If you have to make the difficult decision to face reality and do the right thing for right now, in the former case, it’s normal to feel a sentimental regret, but that doesn’t mean having a baby in those circumstances is easier than not having one or something you should consider doing. Heroic amounts of love don’t pay the rent. In the latter, it’s heartbreaking, and regret is part of the package, but I imagine a whole world of difference in type.

            • allein

              If you have to make the difficult decision to face reality and do the right thing for right now, in the former case, it’s normal to feel a sentimental regret, but that doesn’t mean having a baby in those circumstances is easier than not having one or something you should consider doing.

              This is pretty much what I mean when I say some women regret it. If they would otherwise want to have the baby and circumstances just don’t make it feasible, I think there would be some amount of sadness at that (so maybe “regret” isn’t quite the right word). And that’s something that those people should be able to discuss, if they feel the need (whether with close family/friends or a professional therapist), without the stigma of “omg how could you kill your baby?!”

              • Kodie

                So if they really would have liked to have a child, but went to get an abortion instead, I kind of think they thought about it already. What new facts do they need to think about that’s intended to make a decision easier? Life’s rough sometimes, and you gotta deal with it realistically. Being made to feel like a murderer when you’re already feeling down about your life is not the right way. Imagine the choice instead is to sell your family heirlooms to keep from becoming homeless in the short term – if only there were another way, like a surprise windfall to float you, but that is not a realistic expectation. You do what you gotta do sometimes in life, and would a baby on the way be likely to improve one’s circumstances? This is where they pose the martyrs and say you can and should do it anyway, because it can be done if you really try.

                And so what if your life situation improves within the next few months to a year – and you could have managed that baby after all. Huge gamble! Why regret that particular terminated pregnancy? Why add additional guilt trips to a person who has made her life to where a baby now fits?

                • allein

                  I am agreeing with you here..

                • Kodie

                  I know. I’m agreeing with you too.

                • allein

                  Just making sure. I feel like there’s an argument going on but we seem to be saying the same thing ;). But I’m tired and I’m also at work, so..

                • Kodie

                  I get a little worked up over the emphasis constantly being made that it is a difficult decision, and if it’s not, then there is something wrong with the woman. It can be difficult for some women but that doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do. What they mean to imply is that if you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. After you’re pregnant, it’s too late, and it’s simply not. They want you to wait so that you grow the feelings you’re supposed to have when you find out you’re pregnant, and the embryo grows into something they can show you a sonogram of something baby-shaped. I am on the extreme other side. Terminating a pregnancy early and without developing emotions is just about equal to not being pregnant in the first place.

                  They don’t trust women to make their own decisions because women are capable of actually making a decision they disagree with, without falling apart completely. Those falling-apart-completely feelings some women have come from propaganda that that’s how you’re supposed to weigh the decision, and feel bad because you’re not married, you don’t have enough money, you’re family has alienated you, or you want other things right now and not ready to have a baby or might actually not want one any time, and you’re supposed to feel bad about those real-life issues impeding your freedom to continue the pregnancy. Once (it’s assumed) you grow attached, you’re supposed to do what they think you should do.

                  Funny how they trust women just fine to decide that having a baby is the right choice, no matter what real obstacles and challenges they have ahead of them if they do not abort. They don’t seem to care about preventing the sorts of regret women who put their baby up for adoption may have. That’s supposed to go away with the magical thoughts: “it’s the loving choice for your child”. Thinking it all the way through, in the real world, is why women have abortions. They pretend to care about the potential for psychological life-long repercussions over having an abortion that they manufacture it as a deterrent, just like they made up Jesus as the cure to a problem you didn’t have until they told you just how unworthy he thinks you are but he loves you anyway. They manufacture potential severe regret, and I won’t say that some women don’t feel it, but they shouldn’t be made to. They are in the business of damaging people in the head any way they can so they can eliminate their guilt and be forgiven through Jesus.

      • Gus Snarp

        When does it? When a viable infant can be safely delivered. And that’s a decision best made by the doctor in the room.

    • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

      I note that Hitchens was never in a position to need an abortion, so I’m going to disregard him as any kind of authority on the subject.

      The “abortion on a whim after eight months, three weeks and six days of pregnancy” is a myth, and one that should be corrected whenever it is found. The only thing stopping most women from getting abortions as early as possible is lack of access and resources, and the reason access and resources are restricted is due to compromising women’s rights to appease people’s feelings of “ickiness” regarding the procedure. Most abortions that are considered “late term” are only performed because something has gone terribly, drastically wrong with the pregnancy – the pregnant person’s health or life is in danger, or the fetus has died or isn’t viable, or the fetus has some kind of disease or deformity that will cause it to have a painful and short life. Most abortions that occur “late term” were of pregnancies that were very much wanted. Forcing women to carry to term and go through labor in those circumstances risks their very lives, their long-term health and well-being, and prolongs their suffering to no purpose whatsoever.

      Restrictions on abortion do not provide fetuses with similar or equal rights to persons. It gives them more rights than anyone else, because in no other case am I legally required to allow someone else to use my body. I cannot be compelled to donate blood, tissue or organs, even if it will save someone else’s life – why should I be compelled to donate the use of my entire body against my will?

      This is an issue of bodily autonomy, and my bodily autonomy doesn’t magically disappear the moment I become pregnant. I am a person with bodily autonomy 100% of the time. Not just for 20 weeks. Not just for two trimesters. 100% of the time.

      • Lucilius

        Actually I have argued on this very board with at least one person who demanded the legal ability to abort a fetus five minutes before delivery, with no medical reason – in those specific terms. It’s certainly very, very rare, but that doesn’t make it a myth.

        • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

          Perhaps you’d be so good as to provide an example, then. A real life example of someone deciding to abort a viable fetus with no health problems, excellent family and financial circumstances and no risk of life or health.

          • Lucilius

            I don’t have any, didn’t claim to have any, and in fact don’t need any.
            The fact that people are actually arguing for the legality of that position is enough. Many things are unlikely without being impossible; and given the millions of pregnancies which occur nationwide within the span of a few years, it’s an issue that is sure to arise at some point. I’d rather be prepare for that contingency through advance discussion than have legislators argue about it at the last literal minute.

            • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

              So you want legislators discuss the possibility of restricting access to abortion because of something that would almost never happen anyway? The fact that people believe in the absolute right to bodily autonomy, and argue for that position, is enough for you to push for debate that could possibly increase the obstacles that women already face in exercising their rights?

              It’s also not impossible for me to be robbed by ninja warriors. That doesn’t mean I need a law about ninja robberies.

              • Lucilius

                As I just said, “very unlikely” is not the same as “never.” Can you guarantee the situation will never, ever arise? No, you can’t.
                A big part of legislators’ job is saying “Yeah, but what if ..?” So yes, I do want it debated now. The alternative is waiting until a test case does occur. If you’re really worried about restricting women’s rights, then you won’t enjoy what would likely emerge from the rushed, emotion-charged debate on that occasion.
                I ask you bluntly: do you think abortion should be legal up to the moment of delivery, absent any compelling medical reason such as the mother’s health or major abnormality in the fetus?

                • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                  Are you from the U.S.? Then your wish has been granted! A bill just passed the House that bans abortions after 20 weeks, even for rape victims! Isn’t that wonderful and awesome that they’re placing even MORE restrictions on my rights? This isn’t abstract for me.

                  If you’re asking me whether I believe that my bodily autonomy is absolute, the answer is yes.

                  And if you think that there exists a hypothetical person who would get pregnant and stay pregnant until five minutes before they were supposed to deliver the baby and then demand an abortion that ended the fetus’ life, why would you want such a person to have a child?!

                  Just so you know, an abortion at the point of delivery would be going through labor. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Once the fetus is separated from the pregnant person, then there is no longer an infringement on bodily autonomy.

                  You are worried about something that does not happen.

                  Canada has no restrictions on abortion other than access in some of the more remote areas, though their situation isn’t ideal.

                  How many Canadian women do you think choose to abort for little to no reason right before they’re due to deliver?

                • Miss_Beara

                  A bill just passed the House that bans abortions after 20 weeks

                  This has no chance passing through the Senate, right?

                • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                  I seriously doubt it, and President Obama has already said that he will veto it if it does.

                  But the fact that it has even passed, that it was even proposed, and that one of its proponents thinks that fetuses masturbate and therefore can feel pleasure and pain, is ridiculous. This level of over-reach is unprecedented.

                  Abortion rights hang by a thread in several states already. Our right to bodily autonomy is by no means a done deal in the U.S.

                • Lucilius

                  In short, you avoid answering the question by pretending it doesn’t exist. I’m not surprised.
                  You seem to be on the verge of several inaccurate assumptions about me. Do I support legal abortion? Yes. Do I support it for any reason, or none, until quite late in pregnancy? Yes. Do I support the decision resting solely with the woman? Yes.
                  But I also know one contrary case can overturn an entire general rule, if it’s not dealt with. 99.999 percent is not 100 percent. And when that one anomalous “never gonna happen” case does arise, abortion opponents will be ready for it and you will not.
                  That’s why I say even the uikeliest circumstances must be mapped out – to defend everything else that’s left.

                • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                  Are you asking if I, specifically, would wait until five minutes before I was supposed to deliver a pregnancy and then demand an abortion that would terminate the fetus’s life?

                  No. I wouldn’t. And that’s my position. That I get to make decisions for myself.

                  But I also know one contrary case can overturn an entire general rule, if it’s not dealt with.

                  But this isn’t even the rule. Do you understand? In the U.S., women are already prohibited from seeking an elective abortion past “the point of viability.” In this context, therefore, I think it’s a ridiculous waste of time to propose legislators take the time to debate the issue of this mythical 0.01% when they’re not even anywhere close to allowing it to become a reality. And frankly, I don’t want our current Congress anywhere near this issue unless it’s to declare that the restrictions being passed in the states right now are illegal.

                • Miss_Beara

                  do you think abortion should be legal up to the moment of delivery, absent any compelling medical reason such as the mother’s health or major abnormality in the fetus?

                  This never happens. Ever. Up to the moment of delivery is delivery.

        • tsara

          I’d like to point out here that arguing for the legal ability to do something does not mean that they would do it. I want the legal ability to obtain an abortion at any time for any reason.
          One reason why I want this? In the unlikely event that I were to become pregnant with a fetus that I want, I would not want there to be a point at which I stop being able withdraw consent. In order to keep what remains of my sanity, I would need to reaffirm every day that I am doing this because I want to do this, and that I can stop at any time if I need to.
          (Plus, you know, inflexible cutoff points lend themselves very well to abuse.)

          Or would my mental health issues get me a pass?
          (I would also guess that the vast majority of the insignificant fraction of people who get late-term abortions who do so for no apparent reason get them for reasons that they, personally, think are very good.)

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          If someone did decide at such a late date they absolutely positively could not be pregnant anymore, they wouldn’t have an abortion. They’d have an induction; they would give birth either vaginally or through C-section. Late-term abortion are almost always inductions because they are usually safer for the mother than surgical abortion at such a late date.

          So if a woman decided five minutes before giving birth she didn’t want to be a mom, she’d give birth to a life baby which she could then place for adoption. Your theoretical scenario just wouldn’t ever happen.

          EDIT: Oh, mythbri already said this, though you ignored it when ze did.

      • brianmacker

        “I note that Hitchens was never in a position to need an abortion, so I’m going to disregard him as any kind of authority on the subject.”
        Kinda flippant, isn’t that?
        You planning on disregarding ever woman who has never been pregnant too, plus all the women who never were in “need” of one, regardless of position on the topic? Planning on ignoring all those men who support your position too, including any published research they do?
        Should we also ignore all those peace activists who have never served in the army or been in a country at war?
        Should we ignore E.O. Wilson ‘s opinion on ants because he isn’t one?
        There should be a name for this intellectual fallacy and I should know it. Alas, either one or the other isn’t true.

        • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

          Are you talking about having opinions or having authority?

          I don’t see OB/GYN listed as one of Hitchens’ credentials, nor do I have any reason to believe that he made any kind of extensive study on the subject of abortion. And given that he was physically incapable of ever finding himself with an unwanted pregnancy, it’s no skin off his nose if he turned out to be incorrect (which he was) in his position regarding abortion, because he would never be directly affected by the legislative effects of such a position.

          Hitchens was originally cited in this thread in a context that made the reference an argument from authority, which is also a logical fallacy.

          • brianmacker

            Mentioning that Hitchens shares an opionion is NOT an appeal to authority. Your statement was constructed in such a way that you would also have to disregard an authority like an OB/GYN if that authority “was never in a position to need an abortion”. You continue in your fallacies with the “no skin off his nose” business, which equally applies to every male OB/GYN out there. Then again you are incorrect to assume all men have no skin in the game. In fact we have our entire genetic heritage on the line, and perhaps years of investment in a parner when they decide to flush OUR children down the toilet. That’s more than a little somatic skin cells.

            • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

              ……Wow.

              Uterus envy.

    • Gus Snarp

      I agree with C Peterson and LizBert below (or above, depending on Diqus sorting) about late term abortions. As such, I think that such abortions are a matter of medical ethics: doctors need to be in a position to determine what is medically necessary and give good advice and service to patients without fear of being prosecuted when all they did was provide the standard of care. As far as most abortions go: I am an unabashed supporter. I think abortion is a choice to be made by a woman with sound scientific and medical advice from a doctor, but that the only value a non viable embryo has is that which its bearer gives it. Abortion can be, and in many cases is, a highly ethical decision. While the pregnant woman is the sole arbiter of value of the embryo, I think religions that promote the notion that it has all the value of a viable human child because it fits with their archaic patriarchal moral notions is inherently immoral.

  • A3Kr0n

    What an odd, and politically charged comparison.

    • C Peterson

      Well, it’s a pair of politically charged issues.

      • 3lemenope

        Yeah, but we don’t see charts comparing state-by-state union shop laws to capital punishment, or sales tax rates to gay marriage laws, both comparisons which make about as much sense as comparing gun ownership and abortion.

        • C Peterson

          As much sense, maybe, but none of those issues have the same sort of emotional charge.

          And there is a certain logic to comparing the waiting time requirements, since one intent is the same (to provide time to change minds) and the impetus for each is coming from different political viewpoints.

          • 3lemenope

            none of those issues have the same sort of emotional charge.

            Maybe in your neck of the woods. Generally speaking, all four really get people’s dander up pretty reliably.

            And there is a certain logic to comparing the waiting time requirements, since one intent is the same (to provide time to change minds) and the impetus for each is coming from different political viewpoints.

            As someone else articulated quite well further up the thread, the intents are not the same. The abortion rule is intended to make the decision burdensome enough that a non-trivial number of abortion-seeking pregnant women will not have an abortion. The gun rule is about preventing a purchaser of a gun from doing so in the heat of the moment so that they will not kill themselves or someone else. There is no expectation that the gun won’t eventually be bought.

            • C Peterson

              I would distinguish between the stated intent and the underlying intent, however.

        • Gus Snarp

          I would say comparing waiting periods for guns with waiting periods for abortions makes perfect sense, far more than comparing the completely unrelated examples you give.

          There is a hypocrisy in saying that having to wait a few days to purchase a dangerous weapon is an undue infringement on one’s rights, but having to wait weeks to get a basic medial procedure is perfectly OK.

          On the other side one could also consider that proponents of waiting periods for abortions are likely to consider abortions to be a cause of child deaths (however medically and scientifically wrong they are), and proponents of waiting periods for guns consider easy access to guns to be a cause of child deaths.

          And there’s the constant claims to care about the life of children from anti-choice advocates, while it is likely that many of them are extremists for gun rights as well (at the very least those two positions go hand in hand politically – most Republican politicians today won’t vote for a universal background check, let alone a waiting period, or against an abortion restriction) while children are killed with guns every day in the U.S.

          • Kodie

            Once you have to wait for your gun the first time, you never need to wait again. Next time you don’t want to wait to kill yourself or someone else, you don’t have to. In order to prevent the first rash decision, the state implores you to calm down and seek help. As for abortion, they are actually imploring the seeker to become more emotional, not less.

            • Gus Snarp

              To be clear, the reason its reasonable to compare the two, in my view, is that waiting periods for guns make far more sense than waiting periods for abortions, but the political right, and most of the country in its laws, has it exactly backwards. That’s the point the map, and I, are attempting to make: that waiting periods for abortions are wrong, waiting periods for guns are perfectly reasonable and could save a few lives, and we’ve gone and gotten it bass ackwards in our laws.

    • Mary Howerton

      Well, one side calls themselves “pro-life”, apparently the same side that doesn’t want a waiting period on guns, which kill real, actual human beings. Were they to label themselves honestly, like pro-fetus, pro-birth, or anti-abortion, it would be an odd comparison. But they chose “pro-life”, so of course people want to point out what a lie that is.

      • C Peterson

        Anti-abortion isn’t a fair label, either. Plenty of people are anti-abortion and still pro-choice. Nothing wrong with that.

        Bottom line is that “pro-life” people aren’t “pro” anything. They’re “antis” all the way.

        • Mackinz

          They are correctly labeled “pro-forced birth”, so HAH.

          One upped you, liberal atheist scum ;)

        • ajginn

          Anti-abortion isn’t a fair label, either. Plenty of people are anti-abortion and still pro-choice. Nothing wrong with that.

          Yes, that’s exactly how I would characterize my position. I would encourage my wife and daughter not to have an abortion unless it was medically necessary, but I would never support outlawing the procedure for them or anyone else. In addition to it being immoral for someone else to dictate how to handle an issue as personal as a pregnancy, I see no pratical way a ban on abortions could be enforced.

          • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

            You say that it’s immoral to dictate how someone should or should not handle a pregnancy, yet in your previous sentence you said that you would “encourage” your wife and daughter not to have one unless it was medically necessary. What gives you the right to have significant input on decisions they make about their own bodies? Why would you not trust them to make the best decision for their own circumstances?

            You are correct that a ban on abortions could never be enforced. It would simply result in the deaths of many women who would resort to desperate and unsafe measures to stop being pregnant.

            • C Peterson

              Seriously? Everybody has a right to use reason or persuasion to try and influence others to their viewpoint. It’s what everyone who participates in the blogosphere does! And that’s all the more true when it’s a dialog between family and loved ones. Why would you automatically assume such input wouldn’t be welcome? It’s not a matter of trust, but of concern.

              Expressing an opinion about whether somebody should or shouldn’t have a medical procedure isn’t “dictating” anything.

              • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                What I’m challenging is ajginn’s assumption that they would automatically encourage their wife and daughter to have an abortion unless it were medically necessary.

                Really? There’s absolutely no circumstance in which ajginn would think that an abortion might be necessary?

                What if their daughter was raped?
                What if their daughter was in an abusive relationship, and a child would legally tie her to her abuser forever?
                What if their daughter didn’t have medical insurance, and ajginn couldn’t financially support her?

                So there’s expressing opinions and offering advice to close friends, family and loved ones, but there’s also making uninformed predictions without taking into consideration the myriad circumstances in which an abortion could be the preferable – even responsible – option.

                • C Peterson

                  He said nothing like what you imply. All he said is that he would encourage his wife or daughter to not have an abortion. I heard nothing to suggest that there wouldn’t be circumstances where he’d not do that. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that we’re talking about ordinary, elective abortions here. He didn’t say anything about forcing his wife or daughter to do anything, only that he’d give his opinion. I can’t honestly see anything wrong with that. If they’ve seen fit to share their condition and plans with him, surely he’s entitled to that.

                • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                  I’m going by what they said – that they would encourage their wife and daughter to keep a pregnancy unless an abortion was medically necessary. That, to me, indicates an uninformed opinion on the subject, and a lack of awareness of the different circumstances in which someone might choose to have an abortion.

              • 3lemenope

                Seriously? Everybody has a right to use reason or persuasion to try and influence others to their viewpoint. It’s what everyone who participates in the blogosphere does!

                But not always and in all circumstances. It would be illegitimate for me, for example, to walk up to two complete strangers having a debate about a personal issue and then inject my opinion in an attempt to persuade. Or to attempt to bust into the Situation Room at the White House to tell the president what he should or should not do.

                The argument is not that it is wrong to try to persuade people. The argument is that he has no business injecting himself into a private decision to deliver his suasive attempt. Offering an unsolicited opinion to sexually mature people on what they should go do with their reproductive organs usually falls into this category of restricted contexts, regardless of their relationship to you.

                • C Peterson

                  You have a perfect right to walk up to a stranger and try to convince them of your opinion. That it might be socially inappropriate is another matter altogether.

                  In this case, however, I see nothing remotely inappropriate in a man trying to convince his wife or daughter not to have an abortion (or, for that matter, to have one). In the end, it is their decision, of course. But for a family member not to voice an opinion in a situation like that strikes me as what would be inappropriate.

                • brianmacker

                  The “he” in the situation that Peterson was replying to was the husband or father. Presumably the child’s guardian has a say that some random stranger doesn’t, as does the spousal partner which the woman contracted with for mutually reproduction. Especially when it is limited to persuasion. Seems you approve of every kind of stranger influencing the woman on the issue except the husband, unless you are issuing a complete ban on anyone discussing the topic with anyone. That’s the effect of your husbands and fathers should shut up, but I can have my word attitude.

              • Tom

                You don’t seem to be making a very thorough distinction between stating one’s opinion and attempting to influence the opinions of others. There is a difference.

                • brianmacker

                  Go read ajginn’s comment again. There is no way to confuse what he said with improper influence like a beating. There was nothing to distinguish. However let’s assume we are talking about physical abuse. Since when is that something that only husbands and fathers are not allowed to do. That is something even a stranger is not allowed.

                  Also a husband saying he will divorce the wife because she is constantly aborting your babies or planning to abort one is pretty much equivalent to a stranger saying they
                  won’t marry someone who plans not to have kids and abort any accidents. The husband has interests to and if the wife or potential wife is not satisfying those interests he has every right to communicate that fact.

                • C Peterson

                  Yes, there’s a difference. But either one is perfectly acceptable ethically. Indeed, I’d argue that we have an ethical responsibility to attempt influencing other people’s opinions on matters we feel strongly about.

            • ajginn

              I don’t think a response to this would be productive. Let’s just say that C Peterson is correct in his responses to you. Thanks for your input.

              • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

                Sounds like you don’t like strangers interfering in your personal family business.

                I can relate.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Some of the posters over at LJF call pro-lifers pro-forced birthers or fetus fetishists. Both have the benefit of being accurate and making them really angry.

    • Gus Snarp

      I don’t see anything odd about it.

  • LizBert

    Abortion waiting periods disgust me. As if women have no idea what being pregnant means or will result in. By the time we are 12 most of us have a solid understanding of where babies come from and what happens if you are pregnant, there is no need to treat us is if we are clueless children.

    • Travis Myers

      To be fair, most people also have a solid understanding of what guns are by the time they are 12.

      • onamission5

        I wish this was true, but I grew up in huntin’ country and you would not believe the way fully grown adults all too often treat their firearms like toys. They even call them toys, ffs. I had neighbors *in town* who shot their guns into the air on New Year’s and saw not a thing wrong with that.
        So there’s a cognitive sort of knowing (this is a gun it shoots bullets) that is demonstrated by people who treat their guns like toys or firecrackers, and then there’s understanding (this gun is a deadly weapon specifically designed for killing living creatures, people included) that I have seen among a good many hunters, and then there’s believing (I could have an accident with this gun and kill someone so I must be careful at all times). That last one is all too rare.
        Some people do have a solid understanding by age 12, no doubt, and I have met those people too, but you simply cannot bank on it.

      • Anna

        I think a good comparison would be to make people who are applying for a hunting license listen to anti-hunting propaganda. Maybe there should be a representative from PETA there. You know, just to make sure would-be hunters fully understand the ramifications of killing those deer.

    • Anna

      It’s absolutely sickening. Few things make me angrier than the anti-choice movement’s treatment of women. They have three modes: women as ignorant children, women as hapless victims, and women as sluts and whores.

  • headphase

    “waiting periods for guns have been linked to a decrease in suicides”

    Why is suicide anybody’s business? People have to right to govern their own bodies, right?

    • TCC

      I understand the point you’re trying to make, but think about the logic of the policy here: If people have to wait for guns (and hence cannot make as impulsive a move) and the suicide rate decreases, then the likelihood is that the decrease is due to people not being able to act impulsively. We know that impulsive decisions are often poor ones, so even if you think that suicide is a morally neutral proposition (I’m not sure I agree, but ignore that for the moment), people making better decisions (ones that they would not make given more time) is assuredly a good thing.

      • Drew M.

        I find myself curiously agreeing with both of you.

      • Tom

        I doubt suicide is the primary motive for waiting periods, for precisely this reason, although it’s almost certainly a strongly contributing factor. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a suicide-only gun.

        Actions, and the means for carrying them out, that have the potential to directly, strongly, negatively influence other people, up to the point of killing them, should be subject to much more oversight and restriction than those which only harm the individual; this is not to say, however, that actions that could potentially harm only the individual should not be subject to *any* supervision, monitoring or suggestion in a society that includes in its purpose maintaining the health and happiness of its citizens – especially in cases where the individual might not be in their right mind and may well come to later appreciate an intervention or restriction on their actions once they’re back to normal.

        This is why abortion prior to the point where the foetus can honestly be called a person should not be subject to anything like the same kind of restriction as after that point, and this is why guns should have waiting periods, registrations, etc.

        • Tom

          Edit: for “harm,” read “influence,” in paragraph 2, to make the argument more properly applicable to abortion as well. A properly conducted abortion does not harm the patient.

        • TCC

          I agree that it’s likely not specifically the reason for waiting periods, but the same underlying issue (impulsive behavior) is probably a core motivator, since it would prevent self-harm as well as harm to others based on impulse.

    • Gus Snarp

      Because many people who kill themselves are suffering from depression or other mental illness.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      To add to the other comments, some suicidal people use guns to force the police to kill them.

  • John of Indiana

    When I re-entered the shooting sports after a 30-year absence, I was surprised that there was no longer a 7-day waiting period to purchase a handgun, nor do you now have to show ID and sign a book to buy ammunition.
    But you have to wait to terminate a pregnancy.
    Weird.

    • brianmacker

      Did you move?

  • imjustasteph

    I’m not sure, but does ‘waiting period for some type of gun’ mean that there is at least one type of gun that requires a waiting period, because if so, this must not be very accurate. My husband and I live in North Carolina, and he had to wait about a week for his permit to buy his handgun. Granted it wasn’t a wait at the retailer- at the retailer, he had only to show the permit and make the purchase- but he had to wait for the permit before he could buy it. Rifles are available quickly- you might spend an hour in WalMart filling out paperwork and waiting for the clerk to make the call to the federal database that keeps up with those who aren’t allowed to buy one.

    But there are two points here: #1, the accuracy of this information is in question, and #2, I’m not sure ‘waiting period to buy some type’ is really all that relevant. A waiting period on one type isn’t a waiting period on all types, and even a shotgun (which I believe can actually be bought with no paperwork or background check, unlike rifles and handguns, but don’t quote me on it because I’ve never been present for the purchase of a shotgun) can be used to commit a murder.

  • Drew M.

    Um. Okay.

    I’m glad to be in a grey state.

  • Rwlawoffice

    During the gun control debate, the argument used is if it saves one life it is worth it. Isn’t that the same here- if one women changes her mind and saves the life of her child, isn’t it worth it?

    • C Peterson

      No rational person believes that a person shot isn’t a person. But plenty of rational people don’t believe that a “child” in the womb is a person. So your argument is going to leave a good many people unpersuaded.

    • Kodie

      I think it’s a woman’s decision if she wants to think about it. Since it’s not murder, no lives will have been saved.

      • C Peterson

        Well… I think it’s accurate to say a life has been saved. The thing is, those opposed to abortion and those who consider it ethically neutral have very different ideas on the value of that life. The former consider any human life to be worth saving; the latter place the value on people. Just being alive isn’t what’s important, there has to be somebody home.

        • Kodie

          I don’t consider this a fact that is up for opinion. You can still have that opinion, but I would say to that then it’s murder to get to 2nd base and decide you better stop there. Who are they to deny that itch the chance at life? If they could save one life, oughtn’t they go ahead and have sex?

          • C Peterson

            I’m not sure which “fact” you’re talking about. Which opinion? It isn’t an opinion that a fetus is a living human. It isn’t an opinion that having an abortion kills that human, or that not having one “saves” that human. These are simple facts. When those of us who feel abortion is morally neutral, or who feel abortion should be legal in any case, suggest these things aren’t true we weaken our own case.

            I’m not sure where “murder” enters this. Abortion inside the term of viability as defined by the law isn’t murder (although a few states are creating laws that make this fuzzy).

            Anybody who considers a fetus to be a person, or who places the same value on a fetus as on a baby, would be horribly unethical if they approved of abortion. The issue of the morality of abortion is inherently unresolvable. The discussion has to be around the issue of the legality of abortion, because that is something that can be rationally addressed.

            • Kodie

              I don’t think not having an abortion saves a life. I would say it has the capacity to add a life, but not save a life. I know some people have different ethics than I do, but it’s a projection. It may be very real to them – in most cases, I would say the projection results from actually wanting to have a baby, thus easily deciding to continue the pregnancy. Why is difficulty associated with not wanting to continue a pregnancy? Because we’re trained to want babies and imposed upon to deliberate the irreversible decision to terminate a nothing-yet. Wanting to terminate throws a big wrench in the otherwise “normal” or “natural” or “successful” or “loving” non-decision to want to have a baby.

              I don’t think continuing to be pregnant is sparing someone actual. I think projecting that to be a significant “fact” in the decision-making is an illusion. Having an abortion is to just continue your life the way it is. Not having an abortion is to allow your life to change significantly, if you really really want to. Changing your life is difficult, not easy. Not changing your life is easy, not difficult. I also don’t think deciding to have an abortion is irreversible. If it was the wrong decision, get pregnant again. If having a baby is the wrong decision, put it back! Oh yeah, you can’t!

    • Yoav

      This is only the case if you accept the paternalistic attitude hidden at the background of many of these laws that women are irrational and just go to have an abortion on a whim and therefore need a serious republican legislator (preferably one owning a Y chromosome) to make them stop thinking about shoes long enough to think through their decision to not be pregnant.
      Waiting periods for guns on the other hand are there for a different reason, and it’s not to make sure you really want a gun. Like it was pointed in the story it can give a person a chance to cool off and realize that thing are not that bad or that while your neighbor’s dog had crapped on your lawn for the last time maybe shooting him is a bit of an over reaction. Waiting periods can also be used, if allowed, to conduct a more thorough background check.

    • brianmacker

      Actually both arguments are wrong.

  • Beth

    Ohio wants to pass a bill that tells women that abortion causes breast cancer. Lie for Jesus strikes again!
    Edit: The GOP in Ohio, not everyone hates women here.

    • allein

      Pretty sure there are other states that do this (or want to) as well. It’s part of the “information” doctors are required to impart to their patients before they are allowed to make a decision.

      • C Peterson

        And it’s even more awful than just making abortion illegal. Legislating morality isn’t a good thing, but it happens. But legislating what a doctor has to say to his patient? That’s a law that ends up requiring an expert to say something he disagrees with, and which isn’t even accurate.

        • allein

          Absolutely agreed.

      • Kodie

        Are they required to tell people how much it costs to have a baby, and all the work and worry going after it for decades, if not the rest of your life? I mean, if they really want to help people make a decision, they should have to tell them everything. When people go to get an abortion, do they only have to tell them one side of the story (including lies) to discourage abortion, or do they give them everything they need to know in order to decide?

        They tell you if you jump out the window, you could break your leg, but they don’t tell you that your other choice is to stay in a burning building. Am I right?

        • allein

          Are they required to tell people how much it costs to have a baby, and all the work and worry going after it for decades, if not the rest of your life?

          Of course not, that’s just silly. Babies are unquestionably wonderful things to have no matter the consequences and you don’t need to know what it entails. (Do I need a “sarcasm” tag here?)

          They tell you if you jump out the window, you could break your leg, but they don’t tell you that your other choice is to stay in a burning building. Am I right?

          I like that analogy; I’ll have to remember that one.

        • Beth

          Imagine if I went into an OB/GYN and he or she had to tell me that abortion is safer than having a baby…and that is a true statement!

    • Gus Snarp

      I went ahead and wrote my rep about this. Fat lot of good it will do, he’s a cosponsor of the damned thing, and the Ohio House is so tightly controlled by the religious right, there’s not much hope there at all. Off to write my senator next..

      • Beth

        I hear that its unlikely to pass the senate, but who knows in this wacky state?

        • Gus Snarp

          The Senate is probably the only real chance to stop it, I’m not sure what its makeup is like these days, but they tend to understand things like the cost of litigation over an unconstitutional law better than the house.

  • fentwin

    Easy solution, to increase waiting times for background checks on gun purchases (e.g. to prevent suicides), make all hand guns in the shape of a vagina?

    • brianmacker

      Actually the title of the article is not supported by the facts. How about we make vaginas into the shape of a gun and then the police won’t even let you have one unless you can establish a need for it, get a license for it, and renew that license under felony penalty.

  • brianmacker

    Lauren,

    I’m disappointed that you call yourself a skeptic given the quality of the skepticism exhibited in this article.
    Waiting periods aren’t the only obstacles to gun ownership in the states you label as “no waiting period”. Do you need a license to have an abortion? Do you need to go to the police to get that license? Can the police refuse you for arbitrary reasons, like a lack of a need for an abortion? If you get an abortion do you have not only have a license but renue every so often (ever few years) after you got it or face a felony charge?

    These rule are so onerous in Massachusetts that I risk more harm owning a gun that I would being robbed at gunpoint in my own home. How would you balance a felony, loss of job, time in jail (with likely rape there), against having my wife raped in front of me in my own home? Hard choice, and especially if she is the one who gets the felony for having the gun to protect herself and forgetting to reregister. Yet, your map shows Massachusetts as gray, like it is a gun free for all here.
    I could go on. Next time, as a skeptic, you should read criticisms from all sides, or even just mildly inform yourself on a topic, before posting. You are an ignoramus when it comes to gun issues.

    Also your sentence on the link to suicides is also appallingly simplistic. As is often the case with political advocacy good science and math do not prevail. The article you link to states, “We do find that the Brady states experienced a greater reduction than the non-Brady states in gun suicides to older people, who have the highest rates.” Do you know how to parse that weasle sentence? It means that it is also true, to paraphrase you, that “NO waiting periods for guns have also been linked to a decrease in suicides”. You see there must be some other factor causing a decrease in gun suicides, because the sentence from the article indicates there was a decrease in non-Brady states. It is also dishonest in that it ignores the fact that people in Brady states turned to other means for suicides. Plus you did not mention the fact that for those under 55 there was NO difference. Which tends to undermine this the argument that waiting periods decrease suicide. After all the waiting periods do not apply only to those over 55.
    Adjusting for variables is part of the bedrock of science and the linked article shows very little regard for it. Therefore it amounts to political propaganda of the kind a skeptic would want to avoid. This is true of a vast array of both left wing, and right wing issues, but I expect better from skeptics than the irrationally religious. Turns out that on the issue of gun control it is the anti-gun side that is in the wrong. They lie via statistics and false comparisons in the worst possible ways. Did you know, for instance, that the British and Europeans do not even count crimes in their statistics unless they have a suspect, or a conviction in some cases. We count them as murder when we find a dead body with a bullet hole in their back.
    Besides, who are you to tell me whether when I get above 55 that suicide might not just be the correct answer to some serious health issue I have.

  • brianmacker

    “While waiting periods for guns have been linked to a decrease in suicides, enforcing mandatory waiting periods for abortion increases emotional and financial hardship on women and have little to no effect on whether or not they decide to proceed.”
    False comparison. You are comparing the apple of suicide reduction, to the orange of emotions, financial hardship, or decision to proceed. If you find a tiny difference in reduction of suicides only in those 55 and over as a valid reason to make gun purchasers wait, then one would think that a 30% reduction in suicide rates achieved by abortion waiting periods would make you all for them. Also given your reliance on shoddy work, it really shouldn’t matter to you if this link even does the statistics right, or confuses correlation with causation.

    http://clinicquotes.com/laws-requiring-waiting-periods-before-abortion-reduce-suicide-rate/
    Personally, no matter what right someone is trying to violate, a reduction in suicide rates is not going to sway me. You seem to be of a different opinion however. So please explain away.

  • clane

    That is such a pathetic fact!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X