South Dakota outlaws abortion

[Goofball]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[Big_John]

time to buy some stock!

[Mongoose]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[Big_John]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Ice]

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.

[Watchman]

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

[Ice]

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?"

[Watchman]

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

[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

[Ice]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Kanamori]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[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.

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