Archived: Should the state limit late term abortions?

approved more straightforward issue covering this area. PLEASE DO NOT POST RESEARCH FOR THIS ISSUE.

issue revision:

---

Reworded as per discussion.

---

Clark - thanks for playing along in the negation game.  Technically, in formal logic, you're completely correct - so negating a negation of a negation isn't all that complicated for us to deal with symbolically.

But linguistically - all sorts of concepts get buried in there.  And the problem arises constantly when we're talking about laws.  Every step in the process makes ambiguities cross in (think of speaking in "double negatives": "He can't not do that" - does that mean he must do it, or he can't do it?)

Which is another way of reinforcing your point:

but I'm still arriving at the same conclusion, which is, simply put: The wording of this question is confusing.

My thoughts exactly - if a bit more convolutedly. 

Jacki -

Never occurred to me that this was a loaded term - pretty sick, huh?

You were never supposed to think of any other term than "partial birth" abortion - which was constructed and clung to by the media by "intelligent design." 

By the "can/should" claim - hmmm...well, technically you're right.  A state "can" do whatever it pleases - only to get it tossed out some day further down the road by some Court...I think, like Clark, I got buried away in negating negatives and nixed my thinking.

sorry, one more thing: let's change Donovan's issue to "should"  rahter than "can."  of course the state "can" do whatever it wants.  anyone "can" file a lawsuit, right? the question is whether that person will win the lawsuit.  similarly, the answer to donovan's issue would be - yes the state "can" pass a law but later, will that law be upheld? 

i like Donovan's "late term abortion" revision.  Ashamed to admit that i have adoped the term "partial-birth" abortion.  Never occurred to me that this was a loaded term - pretty sick, huh?  i do not care what you call it, so long as you do not outlaw it.  anyway,  here is the proper terminology: "intact dilation and extraction procedures."  i find the actual term more creepy than "partial-birth" but in any event, i will let you all decide.  my vote:  late term abortion.

I like Donovan's revision, but I'm trying to swim through the legal jargon to understand how he got there.

How is negation defined here? I'm going to go through this and try to understand it:

"restriction" is a negation of freedom
"partial birth abortion" is a negation of having the child
"right to privacy" is the negation of the right to state intervention

Man, negation is a tough word to understand in this context.

So...Ok, so the idea here, I think, is that this is not a simple wording of the question and it needs to be revised. Yes?

Now saying that it's a "negation of a negation of a negation" means that there is a primary negation that is negated by another negation which is then negated by another negation...I think...

So the first negation is: "restriction", which is negated by "partial birth abortion" which is negated by "right to privacy"

The first two should negate each other, if they're true negations, leaving the third negation, the right to privacy, the only man left standing.

Ok, so there's all this negation going on with these phrases all negating each other, but I'm still arriving at the same conclusion, which is, simply put: The wording of this question is confusing.

Now with Donovan's new version:

Can the state limit late-term abortions?

Ok, now i'm stuck in bold. Sorry about that. So there are a few more negations in this question, which Donovan admits. I suppose the are:

"limit" a negation of of the state not limiting...

Nevermind, I'm done. I'm sure I got a lot of this negating stuff wrong but the point, I think, is that Donovan came up with a simplified version.


Holy Christ, Donovan.

Nick is right about the baggage in the terminology.  Even asking about D&X procedures evokes a wave of revulsion.  Surprised Matt finds it "simple." 

As presented, the question is a negation of a negation of a negation ("restriction" = negation 1, "partial birth abortion" = negation 2, "right to privacy" = negation 3, the right that negates the ability for the state to interfere). 

Only appears "simple" because so many views on the matter are crystallized into radical camps.

Anakela's new version "legaleses" the language (maybe people can appreciate just why statutes are so ugly!).

How about this?

"Can the state limit late-term abortions?"
(1) Yes
(2) No

That's still a negation of a negation, with an implicit, unstated third negation still looming in the background - privacy doesn't go away simply because it's not mentioned - but it does move that complexity down to the options, rather than building it into the form of the question.

Does criminilizing late-term abortions when (1) the fetus is not viable, or (2) the woman's life is in danger, violate a woman's right to privacy?

I don't know about this wording, as (someone correct me if I am wrong here) these are not the only times that D&X are performed, just the most common times, right? And so then would would we have to get into the flip side, "Does criminilizing late-term abortions if the fetus is viable, or the woman's life is not in danger, not violate a woman's right to privacy?" I don't know, I just don't like the wording of the question with the labeling of 1 and 2 like that.

I hate to spoil this... but "partial-birth abortion" is a loaded term. The medical term is "dilation and extraction".

"Partial-birth" is a made up term meant to sound horrible. It is a term created by anti-choice groups.

D&X procedures are basically done (1) when the fetus is not viable and the head needs to be made smaller to simplify extraction, or (2) when the woman's life is in danger.

So how about...

Does criminilizing late-term abortions when (1) the fetus is not viable, or (2) the woman's life is in danger, violate a woman's right to privacy?

I'm in agreement as well

good question. We need more simple questions like this.

The wording/answers are fine by me.

I'm ready to go on this issue.  I like it as is.

This certainly gets right to the heart of the matter, which is a good thing. I think it's fine as is.

I am ok with the wording of this proposed question.