South Dakota outlaws abortion

Well my conservative friends, you are getting your wish. This will most likely end up going to SCOTUS.

What do you think?

Will your newly picked conservative judges uphold or strike down this law?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

S. Dakota reopens abortion issue
Associated Press

Pierre, S.D. — Governor Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Mr. Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Mr. Rounds said in the statement.

The Governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Mr. Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Legislators said an anonymous donor has pledged $1-million (U.S.) to defend the ban, and the legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Mr. Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

Hopefully this will lead to the states deciding for themselves what they prefer. So, overall I think it's a good thing.

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

I know getting pregnant from incest or rape has odds of like one in a million, but still, thats pretty harsh, and you may even see some deranged criminals committing such acts with the intent of getting the victim pregnant because it will punish her further, like a man who rapes a woman because she dumped him.

Of course, you could always just travel to the next state

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

I know getting pregnant from incest or rape has odds of like one in a million, but still, thats pretty harsh, and you may even see some deranged criminals committing such acts with the intent of getting the victim pregnant because it will punish her further, like a man who rapes a woman because she dumped him.

Of course, you could always just travel to the next state

---

I completely agree. I would very happy with the ban, if it would make exceptions for rape and incest.

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

Well Bill Napolli says the exceptions in cases like that are covered , lets see ...... if they were virgins and religeous and the rape was really brutal then it would be covered by the health threat to the mother bit ...feckwit politician shites .
What the hell does some victims religeon have to do with their rights in rape cases and what sort of tosspot is going to determine the level of brutality involved to see if the rape victim is really brutalised enough to be an exception .:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

Well Bill Napolli says the exceptions in cases like that are covered , lets see ...... if they were virgins and religeous and the rape was really brutal then it would be covered by the health threat to the mother bit ...feckwit politician shites .
What the hell does some victims religeon have to do with their rights in rape cases and what sort of tosspot is going to determine the level of brutality involved to see if the rape victim is really brutalised enough to be an exception .:furious3:

---

No, there's no health exception in the South Dakota law- only to save the life of the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Hopefully this will lead to the states deciding for themselves what they prefer. So, overall I think it's a good thing.

---

Exactly. I would hope and expect that if states were allowed to decide, most (not all) would pass similar bans and restrictions. Regardless though, at least it would be getting decided by the people instead of being handed down as a non-existant constitutional right created by a 9 member oligarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

I completely agree. I would very happy with the ban, if it would make exceptions for rape and incest.

---

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Exactly. I would hope and expect that if states were allowed to decide, most (not all) would pass similar bans and restrictions. Regardless though, at least it would be getting decided by the people instead of being handed down as a non-existant constitutional right created by a 9 member oligarchy.

---

Unless, of course, they overturn Roe. Then they are champions of justice and freedom.

~;)

Well, from a pseudo-pro-choice standpoint, in cases other than rape there was a choice made by the mother. If she was raped, she was robbed of that opportunity. It doesn't quite fit a pro-life argument, but it does fit what I think a pro-choice one should be.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Unless, of course, they overturn Roe. Then they are champions of justice and freedom.

~;)

---

If they overturned a clearly wrong decision and left abortion to the people to decide? I dont know that Id call them 'champions of justice and freedom', but it'd certainly be making the correct decision.

Quote:

---

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

---

I can sympathize with the "rape" exception crowd- but I really dont agree with it. It's not the babies fault that it's dad was human garbage, and if you believe it's a life how do you justify killing it just because it was a product of rape? I can understand how carrying a baby to term that is a result of rape could be traumatic, but having it aborted could also be quite traumatic. Instead they could give it up for adoption, or believe it or not, there are cases where the family keeps and raises the child as their own.

Now, if it were up to me to decide, I'd say no exceptions except for the life of the mother- at which point it would be up to the doctor and parents to decide who lives. However, if my choice is between free and unrestricted abortion like we have now, or only if from rape or when the mother's life is endangered- obviously I'd choose the latter since it would be such a vast improvement.

Goof':

As to exceptions for rape or incest, I am unhappy to say I agree with you -- if not with the harshness of tone in your post -- the unborn has committed no crime in such cases, even where others have. Not a happy/fun scenario to contemplate at all, of course.

As to Roe v Wade:

Any SCOTUS decision that establishes a practice/action/communication event as constitutionally protected removes the issue from most legislative restriction (barring a full-on constitutional ammendment). The reversal of such a decision, however, does NOT prevent the isssue, it merely requires the states to legislate any allowance or restriction thereof.

The Warren and Burger courts were, in my opinion, far too willing to broadly interpret various issues as being protected and issue decisions regarding such issues, rather than leaving them up to the states as per the 10th ammendment. The goal of the FF in this ammendment was to leave decisions as local as practicable, in order to keep the central government from becoming too oligarchical and bureacratic in nature. THAT is the oligarchic overstep that X-man references.

No exception for incest or rape is beyond my line. I'm pro-life to that point but you have to have an exception for the life of the mother, incest, or rape. This will and should be struck down. I would like to see this decided on the state level for the abortion issue, but with a Federal ammendment that keeps it legal for the life of the mother, rape, or incest. To do otherwise is as barbaric and backwards as partial birht abortion in my opinion.:furious3:

time to buy some stock!

https://img461.imageshack.us/img461/4140/hanger8hj.jpg

Does it really deserve to die just because of something that it's father did?


If you acept that abortion is wrong, then the circumstance of the preganacy shouldn't matter as long as someone is not at risk(IE, someone is going to die anyway)

That said, I'm for very early abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

---

I'm Glad I make you sick then. Please proceed and vomit.

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking. I could really care if you think others. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking.

---

well, you should know that that stance is standing on what is possibly the slipperiest slope ever. just fyi.

It will be interesting to see how the court reacts to this. I hope they overturn Roe. They don't have to support this bill, they just have to recognize the non-existence of a right to abortion in the consitution.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking. I could really care if you think others. :bow:

---

Yes, but in all fairness, lots of things can scar a child for life. Pedophilia can scar a child for life, but no one advocates killing the child to solve the problem. Many people have extraordinarily difficult lives, but I bet an overwhelming majority of them would take a hard life over no life at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

---

From what I gather (just hearing stuff on the radio, haven't read much yet) they took a tough stance just so it would get sent up to the SCOTUS.

Btw, a life is a life is a life to me. I don't understand why people differentiate the way someone was concieved if life is their primary concern. If the mother is going to be reminded of her rape every time she looks at her child, give it up for adoption.

Anyway, the states should decide. If I already don't have or want any say in Canada's laws, why should I care what people do in West Virginia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

I know getting pregnant from incest or rape has odds of like one in a million,

---

Actually, women have a higher chance of getting pregnant after being raped than after having 'normal' sex...:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

---

I'm Glad I make you sick then. Please proceed and vomit.

---

Sorry. I admit to playing the man instead of the ball for a minute there. I will retract the part about you making me sick. However, I stand by my comment that allowing a woman to kill her baby just because she was raped is hypocritical.

If a fetus is a life, then it's a life. No matter how it was conceived, killing it is murder.

Outlawing abortion has an unpleasant habit of driving women who for one reason or another want one to find "alternative" solutions - Big_John illustrates this quite succintly. At least in the past this went as far as outright infanticide.

And then there's the little issue that the women can go elsewhere to get it done; this happens a lot in Ireland, I understand.

Sort of defeats most of the points.

Do the damn math. Principles are fine. Stupid ones that cause people pointless grief aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, but in all fairness, lots of things can scar a child for life. Pedophilia can scar a child for life, but no one advocates killing the child to solve the problem. Many people have extraordinarily difficult lives, but I bet an overwhelming majority of them would take a hard life over no life at all.

---

It isn't fair to compare pedophilia to rape/incest. They are two completely different things.

:inquisitive:
Care to elaborate ? I'm pretty sure most instances of pedophilia qualify as "rape", you know.

But that's not what we're doing...

You say that it shouldn't be protected because it would grow up damaged. Is that really any different then saying that all people who have been abused shouldn't be allowed to live? Yes, we know that they're two different things:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:inquisitive:
Care to elaborate ? I'm pretty sure most instances of pedophilia qualify as "rape", you know.

---

I didn't mean the act of raping or the act of Pedophilia. I meant, that it isn't fair to classify a child which is a result of rape/incest in the same field as "What would happen if the child was assaulted by a Pedophil?"

:book:
:shame:
:stupido2:
...maybe it's just late and I'm tired or something, but you kinda lost me there mate.

To not have the exception for rape or incest seems eerily similar to the state forcing the mother to carry a child that was never hers.

At most, I think Roe would get some amending. This law is so strict though that it may be very difficult to interpret the wording differently, and apply it to the ruling with relevance. It sure may get there, but I wonder if it was too much to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

But that's not what we're doing...

You say that it shouldn't be protected because it would grow up damaged. Is that really any different then saying that all people who have been abused shouldn't be allowed to live? Yes, we know that they're two different things:dizzy2:

---

Like you said, they are different situations. It's just how I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:book:
:shame:
:stupido2:
...maybe it's just late and I'm tired or something, but you kinda lost me there mate.

---

I'm just saying, being a product of rape or incest is different then being exposed to a Pedophil when you are a child.

Oh. No offense, but what you originally posted isn't exactly saying that... I think it's missing a few words or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

At most, I think Roe would get some amending. This law is so strict though that it may be very difficult to interpret the wording differently, and apply it to the ruling with relevance. It sure may get there, but I wonder if it was too much to succeed.

---

The SCOTUS will never come out and say "Roe v Wade is overturned!" They'd just set new precedents that would supercede/replace parts or all of it.

Two separate issues:

Abortion.

Abortion as Constitutionally protected right.


As a Catholic, I oppose the former. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose the latter.


I, personally, cannot say that a life conceived as a result of some criminal action is any less a life. To me, the murder of an unborn merely adds another crime to the list. Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this. I wish I had some Solomonically perfect answer.

The constitutionalist in me prefers a fairly straightforward reading of the Constitution, with fairly narrow bounds for interpretation. By this view, the Roe v Wade decision was too indirectly connected and should, therefore, have been out of the scope of federal control and a matter for the states as per ammendment 10.


As to the "coathanger" image, you should remember that you are indulging in a bit of exaggerated rhetorical imagery. At the time of the Roe v Wade decision, abortion was legal in a majority of the 50 states. A reversal of Roe would NOT make abortion illegal, but would put the issue back under state control. Though the state legislatures are more likely to be controlled by conservative politicians than they were at the time of the Roe decision, it is extremely unlikely that abortion would be made illegal in all states.

In fact, you will find a number of people who support abortion who oppose keeping it as a Constitutional mandate.

Children come from sex. Forcing a woman to carry to term a child that comes from non-consensual sex is wrong, you can all blow your "the child didn't do anything" out your butts. Forcing someone to spend the next 9 months of their life carrying a child -- is akin to sending someone to jail for something they didn't do. It's hards on the body, it prevents you from being productive and working, you have to alter your lifestyle, you could be charged with manslaughter is it is a miscarriage, you now have a nice new set of baggage to accompany the baggage of the rape. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

There would need to be strict guidleines as to what qualifies a rape. You couldnt exactly require a conviction because not all rapists are cuahgt. But at the same time you would need some measure to protect from women who had consensual sex then cry rape when they find out they are pregnant. Therein lies the dilemma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Children come from sex. Forcing a woman to carry to term a child that comes from non-consensual sex is wrong, you can all blow your "the child didn't do anything" out your butts. Forcing someone to spend the next 9 months of their life carrying a child -- is akin to sending someone to jail for something they didn't do. It's hards on the body, it prevents you from being productive and working, you have to alter your lifestyle, you could be charged with manslaughter is it is a miscarriage, you now have a nice new set of baggage to accompany the baggage of the rape. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

---

Do you think an unborn child is human life? If so, how can you justify killing an innocent human because of a rape? If it's not human life, why care about abortion at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Do you think an unborn child is human life?

---

I don't, incidentally. Or at least it'll need to be pretty damn far into the term to qualify (for starters it should be able to be easily told from a fish or a cow...). But when comes down to it, for better part of the pregnancy it's little more than a cluster of cells and a human being merely in potentia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Do you think an unborn child is human life? If so, how can you justify killing an innocent human because of a rape? If it's not human life, why care about abortion at all?

---

You and I are in complete agreement on this point Xiahou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I, personally, cannot say that a life conceived as a result of some criminal action is any less a life. To me, the murder of an unborn merely adds another crime to the list. Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this. I wish I had some Solomonically perfect answer.

---

Genes.

What you are proposing is a form of eugenics in which you reward rapists with their genes being pased on to the next generation. If any component of rape is gene based then you will have a nice compounding spiral.

Why reward the criminal of one of the most horrendous crimes with a child.

And why punish the victim of the crime to carry the child of the person who commited the crime?

So you advocate punishing victims and rewarding criminals.

No, there's no health exception in the South Dakota law- only to save the life of the mother.

Well Xiahou , what I wrote is what the Senator said would fit the exemption clause ....if they were virgins and religeous and the rape was really brutal then it would be covered by the health threat to the mother bit ...
Oh and for some more of his rubbish..... and they were saving their virginity till they were married....and they had been sodomised ......hence...feckwit politician shites .

Where do you dig up these idiots from ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Genes.

What you are proposing is a form of eugenics in which you reward rapists with their genes being pased on to the next generation. If any component of rape is gene based then you will have a nice compounding spiral.

Why reward the criminal of one of the most horrendous crimes with a child.

And why punish the victim of the crime to carry the child of the person who commited the crime?

So you advocate punishing victims and rewarding criminals.

---

Ive gotta say, that's a really twisted view. You're saying we should kill people based on their genetics? :dizzy2:

Edit: To be clear, this is mostly an academic debate. I'm in favor of any serious restrictions on abortion. An exception for rape is much better than abortion at will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this.

---

Life certainly begins at conception, but most argue when it becomes human. This is the Constitutional issue too; when does the embryo become a citizen, so that its right may challange the right of its mother. They just decided to say, "meh, not viable 'til 6 months."

Since life begins at fertilization, wouldn't it be wrong not to implant all of those fertilzed eggs back into their 'mothers' or just some random women that never asked for it?

Actually, what am I talking about. It's not a citizen until it's born. Is my memory totally buggered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Oh. No offense, but what you originally posted isn't exactly saying that... I think it's missing a few words or something.

---

Most likely. I'm tired myself. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Ive gotta say, that's a really twisted view. You're saying we should kill people based on their genetics? :dizzy2:

Edit: To be clear, this is mostly an academic debate. I'm in favor of any serious restrictions on abortion. An exception for rape is much better than abortion at will.

---

Actually either avenue will end up with a form of eugenics.

One that excludes rapists.

The other that rewards them.

So pick your flavour. Either way by having a social policy that influences who gets born in the next generation we create a eugenics program. This may be done without us even realising it.

But at the end of the day if we are choosing one gene set over another by government intervention then it is eugenics.

heh heh heh

Bush says, "America will help women stand up for their freedom, no matter where they live,".

Seriously. :tomato:

I dont really think it matters I mean they going to continue no matter how sick or perverted is to kill a baby just becuase you cant make the time for it. Lazy commie welfare minorty a clowns. It dosent matter how much I hate abortion there going to continue and Id rather have 1 death than 2. Damn hippies

Sure doesn't take much to make you go all suicidal, then...

Although I'm going to contest calling a cluster of cells functionally indistinguishable from an amoeba without a DNA check or similar a "baby".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Although I'm going to contest calling a cluster of cells functionally indistinguishable from an amoeba without a DNA check or similar a "baby".

---

but that's just because you are evil incarnate. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually either avenue will end up with a form of eugenics.

One that excludes rapists.

The other that rewards them.

So pick your flavour. Either way by having a social policy that influences who gets born in the next generation we create a eugenics program. This may be done without us even realising it.

But at the end of the day if we are choosing one gene set over another by government intervention then it is eugenics.

---

No, by definition, eugenics would only apply when you kill a baby because of its 'impure' genes. Allowing nature to run it's course could not be considered eugenics. You must be one of those people that calls a tax cut a subsidy. :wink:

Besides, what label you use is irrelevant- you're arguing for the killing of humans based on their parentage. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

but that's just because you are evil incarnate. :devil:

---

But... I don't even kill puppies, isn't that a requirement for the job ? :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

---

It's not outlawing exactly, it only punishes cases in wich the abortion is performed without proper justification and reducing all cases of justification to "serious risk of life" to the mother. I think it's a desicion with logical strength but not very reasonable. Woman that suffer a rape or incest are usually subjects of mental problems that lead them to perform an abortion or kill their sons after they're born. WARNING: This will not make abortion as the figure is conceived any less an "abortion" it only means that the subjects are not responsable for their actions. It's true however that this is not the proper thing to put in a bill text, it's a matter of culpability and it must be evalueted case by case, but I thought it will be important to clarify it.

Yay! Abortion thread!

Seriously, Goofball, Seamus, and Xiahou have all been spot on. Couldn't have expressed any of my opinions better myself. I have to say that I agree with the lack of exception for rape or incest, even though it really sucks for those who suffer from rape.

Pape - how relevant is a discussion of genetics here? Is rape a genetic tendency? How many rape victims become pregnant vs. rape victims in general? How many rape victim abortions are there vs. abortions in general?

As to the "coat hanger" argument, outlawing something will not keep people from trying to do something. We don't consider theft to be a constitutionally protected right. In fact, we make laws against that action. People still find other venues to take for themselves what belongs to others. Should we legalize stealing to eliminate "back alley theft?" What about the health of the thieves? I'm going to write my Senator!

If someone jeopordizes their life in an attempt to break the law, we don't show too many tears if they are hurt in the process, no? Same thing with back-alley abortions, if abortion were to be made illegal. And if the guilty survive, they can face murder charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

If someone jeopordizes their life in an attempt to break the law, we don't show too many tears if they are hurt in the process, no? Same thing with back-alley abortions, if abortion were to be made illegal. And if the guilty survive, they can face murder charges.

---

For a pro-lifer, you don't show much respect for human life.

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.

absolutely disgusting ban. Of course, I've never been a lover of children... does that make me evil as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

absolutely disgusting ban. Of course, I've never been a lover of children... does that make me evil as well?

---

Depends....

Being a "lover of children" can get you a mandatory 25 years in any Jessica's law state and would clearly be evil by most folks' definition.

If, as I suspect is correct, you are expressing an opinion closer to that held by that eminent 20th century sage William Claude Duchenfeld, then I suspect it isn't truly evil.

Though you are unlikely to end up with grandchildren if you continue that attitude.:laugh4:

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:

Really then, I see no reason why the State shouldn't start forcing women to carry all of the fertilized and frozen embryos out there. The life has already begun, anything else is just cheating them of their chance to life.

Crap, talk about ruining the woman's life. After being raped, she's forced to carry the child. I'd jump off a freaking bridge; how would she ever want to have legitimate children in her life?

The more I read of Senator Napolis comments over this abortion bill the more I wonder what he is doing in ofice instead of being locked in a padded cell , he is insane .

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:

---

Louis is absolutely right about this.:bow:

Wow not even an exception to a case of rape or incest. Unless the mother was highly religious, hmmm seperation of church and state?

As for when life begins, well the sperm and the egg are both a group of living cells. So all of the men out there who have spanked the monkey (I'm reminded of a montey python bit atm actually, but I wont mention a thing about selling some children to make room, that'd be to cliche.) your guilty of murder, you've prevented a human life from being born, killed the weakest of our population. To all those women who've had just one period your guilty of murder also. Now for those who say that a couple of cells is a human life, capable of all thoughts and emotions linked to being human. I would just like to get this off my chest, I'd be guilty of mass murder. This morning I washed my kitchen counters with a harsh soap, laying waste to all the innocent and helpless cells located on them, poor bacteria. Last night I cooked some steak, killed all the bacteria located on and inside of it. Also a couple days ago I spilled some bleach on the floor, chemical warfare.

I'd also like to add that in times of high stress women will alot of times naturaly abort babies, murderers! Btw popes official doctrine is life doesnt begin till about 6 weeks into the pregnancy.

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.