South Dakota outlaws abortion

[Watchman]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Xiahou]

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?

[Watchman]

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.

[Goofball]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Xiahou]

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?

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.

[Kanamori]

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?

[Ice]

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.

[Papewaio]

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

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.

[solypsist]

heh heh heh

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

Seriously.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Watchman]

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".

[Big_John]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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

[Watchman]

but that's just because you are evil incarnate.

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

[Soulforged]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[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.

[Samurai Waki]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.

[Kanamori]

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?

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Kagemusha]

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.

Louis is absolutely right about this.

[BigTex]

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.