South Dakota outlaws abortion

Can somebody tell me where the whole "abortion may not be done, EXCEPT if it's a risk to the mother" position comes from?

If you accept that a fetus is a human being, equal to those already born and that therefore abortion is murder, what justificiation is there to kill the baby to protect mommy?
If a plane's about to crash, and you are charged with distributing the few parachutes you have, surely you will give them to the younger passengers?

I am pro-choice. Sovereignty over your own body and all that. While I am disgusted by those who get pregnant because they acted carelessly and then abort as if human fetuses can be thrown away like garbage (a tiny minority of cases), I think that full right to early abortions is preferable to "no abortion for you, unless..." legislation.

If you're going to acept that the fetus is human(some thing that I don't acept in most cases), then its right to live has priority over its mothers right to happiness.


A robber breaks into a mans home and destoys some expensive but uninsured items. You're not going to let the man steal things from other people to make up for it?! Why, you're letting the robber win!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Gah! So first a rapist forcefully takes control over a woman's body, followed by the state taking control of her body next.

I'll back women's right to souvereignity over their bodies and sod everything else. :furious3:

---

I couldn't agree more.

i am 100% pro-choice and i consider the option of abortion a freedom that shouldn't be taken away.

I don't always approve of abortion but it is not my place to tell a woman what she has to do with her body or what she does with the trash some rapist deposited in her.

If you don't like abortion then encourage women not to get one, offer them support and try to convince them that there are other options, etc. This is something that is of the greatest importance and shouldn't be decided or forcibly decided by someone that is not directly involved in the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Gah! So first a rapist forcefully takes control over a woman's body, followed by the state taking control of her body next.

I'll back women's right to souvereignity over their bodies and sod everything else. :furious3:

---

Of course a women have the right to have control over their body; but an embryo isn`t a part of the mothers body, because it carries different DNA. If she aborts, she takes another beings life.

Personally, I don not now what to say about this matter. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

How? I never said the result of a conviction of such murder charges would be capital punishment.

And does a pro-lifer consider the human life a murderer while they are killing their victim? Certainly it takes backseat to the goal of protecting the victim.

---

You seem to be saying that the fetus has more right to life than the mother. I can't comprehend caring about a cell over an actual person. Humans didn't evolve to view a cell as a human life. How can you have no empathy for the mother?

And yes, pro-life would mean caring for all life, not casually dismissing god knows how many deaths or injuries from coat hanger abortions. Your post was more along the lines of "they don't agree with my stance on abortion so they can burn in hell for all I care". :no:

So what is the pro-lifers stand on test-tube children?

They usually get several extra fertilized eggs that is destroyed. So if you consider a fertilized egg as a human being, then you murder 7 (a number for the sake of argument) children to give birth to one child. But on the other hand, if you avoid these murderous practices then the child will never exist and thus never being born.

One life and 7 child-murders or nothing, nothing at all?

Actually, I don't really care either way about abortion because I'm a guy and I have no rights anyway. I think its just as absurd to consider a zygote a fetus as it is to abort a developed fetus.

So yeah, I am saying kill a living human thing based on its parentage because it means one less kid trying to rob me when I'm old. You breach a whole new line when you force people to have babies for sex they were an unwilling participant of. I have a feeling you would meet a lot of women who would be enthused about stretch marks and labor for a baby put in them by a strangers penis. That sounds awesome, sign me up!!!!!!!

Fat chance this is gonna wash. I give it less than 30 days.

BTW you guys sound like chicken farmers

Sasaki - I'm operating under the position that life begins at conception. As such, a coat-hanger abortion does not kill just the pregnant mother, but the child as well. It is not a victimless crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

And yes, pro-life would mean caring for all life, not casually dismissing god knows how many deaths or injuries from coat hanger abortions. Your post was more along the lines of "they don't agree with my stance on abortion so they can burn in hell for all I care".

---

Undoubtedly I could have phrased my position more clearly. What I meant to express was more along the lines of "they are committing murder so I think to some degree they take their lives into the own hands."

BigTex - I have to congradulate you. You have demonstrated an especially mature grasp of the bombastically hyperbolic for a relative Backroom newcomer. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Of course a women have the right to have control over their body; but an embryo isn`t a part of the mothers body, because it carries different DNA. If she aborts, she takes another beings life.

---

Right.

I really don't know what is the whole issue. Though there isn't, in the bill, a justification in a former rape or incest (?), they're not always a cause in wich it's presumed the lack of responsability. There has to be some degree of alterated faculties (mental or physical) to consider the individual as inimputable. The rape and the incest alone are not sufficient nor necessary. Now that I think about it, it's well written, sintetic and economic. The issues that probably could be generated in the moment of acting due to a cause (such as rape or incest) should be evalueted case by case. Considering it a presumption of "insanity" or "alterated faculties" is unreasonable because those states are to be considerated as factual. So this law is just fine in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

As for when life begins, well the sperm and the egg are both a group of living cells.

---

Oh how I hate that argument... it's so tiresome. :rolleyes:

An egg or a sperm by themselves are not a seperate human life- an egg or sperm by itself will never become anything. The difference that should be painfully obvious to anyone is when the two are combined it now has a complete set of DNA that is distinct and discernable from both the mother or father. At that moment, it has the complete genetic code that will determine eye color, hair color, heigh, ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You seem to be saying that the fetus has more right to life than the mother. I can't comprehend caring about a cell over an actual person. Humans didn't evolve to view a cell as a human life. How can you have no empathy for the mother?

---

Of course you think that- you dont believe a fetus is a human life. If you thought you were going to be murdering an infant instead of "aborting a fetus" I think you'd have a different view.

Right on. Finally some sane people still alive in this day and age who have moved to stop the mass murdering of human babies.

Now if only every place on the planet followed with an end to this evil Holocaust, that would be perfect.

MRD,

I have stated my philosophical disagreement with your stance. I do respect what you are saying -- I wish I had some perfect answer.


On the larger scale, this is not an insignificant issue. According to Planned Parenthood data (single largest abortion provider in the USA), over 32 million abortions of one form or another have been performed in the USA since the Roe decision was rendered. It is staggering to consider this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't think people realize here that Women can vote in South Dakota too. This was not a tyrannical decree, this was a democratically decided law. :no:

---

WOMEN GET TO VOTE???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't think people realize here that Women can vote in South Dakota too. This was not a tyrannical decree, this was a democratically decided law. :no:

---

And the legislature is what, 1/5 women?

They didn't have everyone in the state vote.

Quote:

---

Of course you think that- you dont believe a fetus is a human life. If you thought you were going to be murdering an infant instead of "aborting a fetus" I think you'd have a different view.

---

Exactly, we aren't wired to have the same amount of empathy for a blob of cells as we have for something that looks like a baby. This is why I object to the classification of abortionists as murderers. You have to be a really nasty person to kill a baby, not so for terminating a 3 week old fetus.

Quote:

---

Sasaki - I'm operating under the position that life begins at conception. As such, a coat-hanger abortion does not kill just the pregnant mother, but the child as well. It is not a victimless crime.

---

Yes, so now we have double death, and one of the deceased had a family that loved her, and possibly a husband and other children, who will now grow up without their mother :no:

Quote:

---

Undoubtedly I could have phrased my position more clearly. What I meant to express was more along the lines of "they are committing murder so I think to some degree they take their lives into the own hands."

---

Ok.

Get out your Guns! We're going to war with South Dakota!

... Oh wait I remember all of you Europeans don't have them anymore:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Exactly, we aren't wired to have the same amount of empathy for a blob of cells as we have for something that looks like a baby. This is why I object to the classification of abortionists as murderers. You have to be a really nasty person to kill a baby, not so for terminating a 3 week old fetus.

---

Ummm, ok. Again, that's your opinion- but I was debating the 'rape exception' with those that think abortion ends a human life. Your view on it is a forgone conclusion and pretty much irrelevant to that debate. You don't think it's a human life and don't have a problem with abortion period- let alone any rape exceptions.

There seems to be a view (promulgated by pundits over here) that South Dakota has jumped too soon, and that whatever the result of any Supreme Court review of Roe, it will be good for the pro-choice lobby.

The analysis I have heard goes like this: Even with the new nominees to SCOTUS, 5 of the 9 justices are still on record as affirming Roe. This means that either the SC will choose not to review the case, or that there will be a majority in favour of upholding the status quo.

Should SCOTUS overturn Roe vs Wade, then the decisions on abortion rights will go back to the individual states. Since it appears that the majority of voters seem to favour abortion rights but with stricter time-limits, the likelihood is that most states will adopt laws that allow choice but only in the first and second trimesters. If that happens, the right to choice will be formally legalised by due process, rather than dependent on a court decision - which would be preferable because of the democratic argument that Gelatinous Cube noted.

One commentator from the US argued that this may be a potential problem for the religious right. One of the things that unites them is their opposition to Roe. If this goes to state legislation, and the democratically decided will of the people, they may be in for a shock, and lose their great icon of unity.

I can't say, just reporting some of the analysis over here in Europe. I suspect the Supreme Court will dodge the issue for now. A further point made was that this may make the possible retirement of another justice a very hot potato for President Bush as the squealing over another conservative nominee would be quite spectacular. :hide:

I use to be a hardline pro life person, and I still usually lean more towards that point of the arguement. With that said, both sides, I believe need to comprimise simply because, since abortion is here much like other given "rights" it is hard if not impossible to change the lay out. I believe that if the NARAL side and the Aborion Clinic Harrasers were to stop the extreme rhetoric then there can be room to atleast come to a point where this can be stomached for both sides.
This will never happen of course because of the years and years of hatred for each other coming from both sides. My positions?
Let the States decide.
Outlaw Partial birth abortion.
Allow abortion in the cases of incest or rape.
Parental notification if someone under 18 is getting an abortion.
Mandatory councilling for women seeking abortion, including a sonogram viewd by the mother of the fetus she is carrying.
More money provided to adoption programs.
Better screening of abortion clinics and their procedures in their presurgery councilling and operations.

I don't like the fact that many use abortion as a birth control but I can't think of any way to enforce this practice as long as there is some form of legal abortion. I personnaly find abortion a very sad fact of life in the same line as war, hunger, sickness, poverty, and hopelessness. But as these problems still affect our lives and are continuosly being attempted to be "cured", we must view abortion on the same level. We all need to work on this because I'm sure that most wpuld prefer that there would never be a need for abortion, but until that time, both sides of the argument should stop going for the throat on this and strive to one day make this procedure a footnote in our history. Maybe my beliefs are wrong, but I'm willing to actually find solutions to this, unlike how i use to be. I would encourage everyone to try to do the same.

I was listening to a report on this on the radio this morning, it sounded like an abortion up to full term for any reason is still legal in most of the USA. This true? I'm pro-choice but that's horrific if it's true. Even 24-weeks like here seems a bit late.

Having said that operations on the unborn are generally carried out without an anaesthetic on the baby, with no ill-effects...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I was listening to a report on this on the radio this morning, it sounded like an abortion up to full term for any reason is still legal in most of the USA. This true? I'm pro-choice but that's horrific if it's true. Even 24-weeks like here seems a bit late.
...

---

Its very true.

Yes, well, it depends on where you are. I think in most states, it is illegal after the second trimester. Basically, Roe says that a fetus is not viable as a citizen/person in the first trimester. In the second trimester, Roe says it is slightly viable, and therefore restrictions on abortion are OK for the states to pass, but I don't think outright disallowing of abortion is OK in the second trimester. The third trimester is wide open. There are no Federal laws regarding abortion, as far as I know, and the rest is up to the states to decide, which is how most Americans like it anyway.

Actually, I think any restrictions on abortion, even on late term, partial birth abortion, are not allowed under Roe vs Wade.

The pro-abortion lobby pushed the 'right' of abortion to the extreme, not allowing any debate or votes on it, and they are getting their just desserts.

Crazed Rabbit

Huh, re-reading it, the fetus is not a citizen until birth (14th amendment), so the only thing that is vying for the fetus's existence is one of those compelling interests that aren't even in the Constitution. (We all know that when the Court talks about "compelling interests" they're just making BS for the sake of arguing their position.) My friends, there is no legal basis for the pro-life argument, besides the argument that the woman's body is not her right anyways; quite a slippery position.

Anyways, the text of Roe that's important to the trimester mumbo-jumbo:

"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0113_ZO.html

Essentially, the mother's life takes precedence, because she is a citizen, and the child is not until it is born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

...While I am disgusted by those who get pregnant because they acted carelessly and then abort as if human fetuses can be thrown away like garbage (a tiny minority of cases), I think that full right to early abortions is preferable to "no abortion for you, unless..." legislation.

---

Actually, this law specifically relates to abortions being performed in one of the 50 United States. I don't have statistics on South Dakota specifically, but within the US as a whole, well over 90% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control (not a tiny minority at all).

As somebody mildly pro-choice (I support a woman's right of choice up to the point of medically proven viablity), I've always had serious issues with Roe v. Wade. Abortion was already legal in (I believe) 39 states in January, 1973, when SCOTUS decided to invent a right in the Constitution. The legal decision has been cited as the basis for a whole host of woes justifying granting the government at all levels powers they never hitherto possessed. Last year's Kelo v. New London, claiming that local governments have the right to seize property from one private citizen and give it to another just to gin up tax revenues is only the latest atrocity.

I find it sad and disgusting that 30 years later, the 'moving towards making it unnecessary and unheard of, but safe and legal' is a forgotten goal. Sadly, as with most 'single-issue' issues over here, it has become too much of a cash cow for either side in the US to ever even consider a reasonable compromise. So, currently, the 'in the 39th week, you still have a choice' crowd has succeeded in forcing their extremist minority view on the rest of us. It would appear that South Dakota's bipolar extremist minority is taking a shot at going equally far in the oppossite direction.

Personally, I think it should be a state by state decision. It's the only medical procedure that is governed at the federal level. If the folks in Utah want to outlaw it, so be it. Who am I to tell them what to do?

As for the whole rape argument, i have to agree with Goofy. Either a fetus is a human being or it's not. The circumstances of it's creation should have absolutely nothing to do with it's right to life. We force people to deal with the consequences of criminal actions all the time. If somebody burns down my house, the government doesn't pay to replace the entire house. Either I, or my insurance company (because I paid them premiums) does that. Hell, there's a whole school out there on the far, far left, that says rapists don't deserve to go to jail. The fetus should be killed, sure, but it's not fair to punish the rapist.... :dizzy2: WTF is that about??? At the end of the day, regardless of whether it's fair or not, if I had my way, and abortions were outlawed at 20 weeks, I wouldn't let somebody get one at 30 weeks only because they had been raped. That shouldn't have any bearing on the decision.

As for Papewaio's genetic rewards argument, boy... you're scaring me Pape! I'm not saying that to 'play the man, not the ball' as Goofball said (that's an American/Canadian football term, btw), but what in that entire argument couldn't be used as the basis to forcibly abort the unborn children of rapists from 'consensual' relations with a willing participant? Not all rapists rely solely on rape for their sexual relations. Sadly, some are husbands and fathers in committed relationships. Should we force the woman who's consenually carrying this man's child to have an aboriton because of what it might grow up to be? Does your argument lose weight if we determine the sex to be female? What about already born male children of this rapist. To 'save society the damage' as you put it, should we euthanize a generation of boys whose only crime was their parentage? Finally, if you feel so strongly about your argument (and I'm going to toss this one Louis' way as well) why don't you advocate for sterilization of convicted rapists as part of their sentancing?

it does seem crazy that there can't be some workable compromise between the hard position groups...

for example, in NZ the limit is 12 weeks... has anyone tried to legislate for these types of compromise options in the US?

Kanamori, either you're being disingenouos, or you've been living in a hole. Surely you've heard the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that restrictions on abortions performed in the 3rd trimester are unconstitutional because such prohibitions inhibit the emotional health of the mother? There was first a Nebraska state law, then a federal law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Both laws got struck down because they didn't offer an exception for health, which includes mental health (which would effectively gut the law as it's up to abortionist who's being paid $5K to perform the procedure to determine what's in the best interests of the mental health of the mother).

Somebody up above made the statement that abortionists srape a cluster of cells, they're not inhuman monsters vivisecting fully developed babies. I'm telling you, (and I checked on this)... go look at the pictures of my daughter from when she was born. According to current US law, my wife could have chosen to have an abortion for another 3 weeks after the day she actually came out (provided she hadn't actually come out yet).

The only person I've ever seen argue in favor of 3rd trimester abortions with any sort of integrity is Soulforged. I disagree with him to the Nth degree on it, but he at least as the integrity to agree travelling down the birth canal makes no difference in the development of a 'human being' and he would allow for infanticide until self-awareness developed. Disgusting, but honest.

An all out ban is a bad idea IMO, to many what if's. I support abortion up to the unborn baby can be pulled out of the womb and be kept alive (thats when the baby is a human being IMHO). So no 3rd term abortion. Something i've never understood anyways, why wait that long for an abortion in the first place....:dizzy2: Another thing that should be done is more government support for condom use and birth control pills. Abstinence doesnt work its a bit of a ridiculous idea. Putting your hands over your ears humming a psalms and rocking back and forth isnt going to change that fact. You'd also be preventing all these abortions as a form of birth control.

Also there has been found to be an interesting gene that some rapists have. It apparently helps them find victims, allowing them to know when someone is weak, paniced, basicly an interresting survival gene. I will state that I believe firmly that nurture has more to do with how a person acts then nature. A homicidal maniac doesnt become a homicidal maniac in a day. It takes many years of practice, i've never heard of a homicidal maniac baby either. Now to go set a small memorial by my washer were the bleach fell, those bacteria will not be forgeton!:saint:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

it does seem crazy that there can't be some workable compromise between the hard position groups...

for example, in NZ the limit is 12 weeks... has anyone tried to legislate for these types of compromise options in the US?

---

If you work for NARAL or the 700 Club, there's no money to be made in compromise, as the vast majority of Americans would agree to an NZ type law and move on. If you're a politician, you don't get any money from 'comromise' groups... all of your money comes from the far left or the far right (the moderate middle generally doesn't contribute much cash either way on any issue).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

An all out ban is a bad idea IMO, to many what if's. I support abortion up to the unborn baby can be pulled out of the womb and be kept alive (thats when the baby is a human being IMHO). So no 3rd term abortion. Something i've never understood anyways, why wait that long for an abortion in the first place....:dizzy2: Another thing that should be done is more government support for condom use and birth control pills. Abstinence doesnt work its a bit of a ridiculous idea. Putting your hands over your ears humming a psalms and rocking back and forth isnt going to change that fact. You'd also be preventing all these abortions as a form of birth control. Now to go set a small memorial by my washer were the bleach fell, those bacteria will not be forgeton!:saint:

---

Amen, Brother Tex. The ONLY people I can understand taking an issue to distributing contraception to those who want it (youths included) would be Catholics, because they have moral objections to contraception in any form. Unless you're opposed to contraception at large, it's just incredibly shortsighted and hypocritical to deny it to those who need it most... teenage and college age kids.

That being said, there is a freaky statistic out there that 15% of the abortions last year were performed on women who had already had 2 or more abortions and did not use any other form of contraception :scared: I guess there's a segment of the population out there that doesn't see anything wrong with the procedure.

The only way a compromise would be able to work is if they (as far as I see):

A) Turned the decision of when the fetus is viable over to the states (which is a bit dangerous imo, when it comes to concepts of justice).
B) Added an amendment for when a fetus is viable.
C) Overturned Roe and say that we do not have the right to treat our bodies as we see fit, whether it be to disease or whatever, and therefore turn the decision over to the states.
D) Added an amendment to clarify the whole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Kanamori, either you're being disingenouos, or you've been living in a hole. Surely you've heard the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that restrictions on abortions performed in the 3rd trimester are unconstitutional because such prohibitions inhibit the emotional health of the mother? There was first a Nebraska state law, then a federal law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Both laws got struck down because they didn't offer an exception for health, which includes mental health (which would effectively gut the law as it's up to abortionist who's being paid $5K to perform the procedure to determine what's in the best interests of the mental health of the mother).

---

Don, I really like you and you are generally open to different views, but you needn't make eveything two sided where there is yours, and then there is satan in the corner lying and trying to seduce everyone.

That is clearly a false dilema. I neither live in a hole, nor am I disingenuous. The 9th circuit is one circuit, there are ten others. And I quite clearly labled it with an "I think" meaning that I am quite sure that it is the case in at least one state, and probably the majority. If you want to look at the problem as it is legally, it boils down to this:

The Court has acknowledged the right of the woman to do as she pleases regarding issues of her health (not explicitly in the Constitution, but mostly a logical extension of all the other privacy related issues as they have developed). With just this, the fetus has no rights whatsoever, and abortion would have to be acceptable until the child's birth when it is obviously a non-issue. For, the child is not a citizen, and therefore does not have the rights of the rest of us until it is born. However, Roe acknowledges the state's legitimate and compelling (oh how I hate the word) interest to preserve life. So, legally, the question comes down to when the fetus is viable and fits in that interest.

It was an awful decision, because it is so inflexible and the only way to fix it well is with an amendment or a direct overturn of thirty year old precedent -- both are neither likely nor appealing.