South Dakota Bans Nearly All Abortions...

[iGary]

CNN -

Governor Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. The law will make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life -- but there are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, has pledged to challenge the legislation. Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

[leekohler]

CNN -

Governor Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. The law will make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life -- but there are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, has pledged to challenge the legislation. Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

Well- here we go. The inmates are running the asylum. I suspect there will be several legislators out of jobs soon. :)

[scem0]

and this just in.... Stoning as a punishment for crimes such as homosexuality has been reinstated. If your slaves run away, just stone them! If your women attempt to... vote... stone them! It's easy!

Yay for moving backwards. :rolleyes:

e

[leekohler]

Pretty soon, the terrorists won't have to attack us anymore. We won't have any freedoms to defend. We become more like them every passing day.

[blackfox]

This looks like a calculated testing-of-the-waters.

As the linked article states, this law will likely never go into effect, mired in lawsuits and will probably not make it past SCOTUS review.

What it will do is please certain constituencies and revive a bunch of "moralistic" debate coming into the mid-term elections, which will probably serve to detract from other issues.

The real interest will be when SCOTUS does rule, and what they decide. IF their ruling opens up more breadth for States' Rights, that could open up an interesting can of worms - on liberal and conservative issues.

The sky isn't falling yet...

[vniow]

This looks like a calculated testing-of-the-waters.


I have a feeling like its more like that as well, that seems to be a tactic of the right-wing nowadays. Like when they tried to introduce a marriage amendment defining it as between one man and one woman, there was no chance of it actually getting passed but it did split things moreso than what they were before.

[leekohler]

The sky isn't falling yet...

But it's beginning to crack.

[Airforce]

Pretty soon, the terrorists won't have to attack us anymore. We won't have any freedoms to defend. We become more like them every passing day.

Oh, come on now :rolleyes:

You don't even know "them". On our worst day without freedoms, we wouldn't become "like them".

[leekohler]

Oh, come on now :rolleyes:

You don't even know "them". On our worst day without freedoms, we wouldn't become "like them".

Can I get that guaranteed in writing, please? ;)

[scem0]

This looks like a calculated testing-of-the-waters.

As the linked article states, this law will likely never go into effect, mired in lawsuits and will probably not make it past SCOTUS review.

What it will do is please certain constituencies and revive a bunch of "moralistic" debate coming into the mid-term elections, which will probably serve to detract from other issues.

The real interest will be when SCOTUS does rule, and what they decide. IF their ruling opens up more breadth for States' Rights, that could open up an interesting can of worms - on liberal and conservative issues.

The sky isn't falling yet...

You know what? I think you're probably right. It's like the Michael Jackson case being on the news 24/7 to distract from the war in Iraq.

e

[Sayhey]

Folks, how do you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned? If it is, it will be through a court case from a law just like this. That this won't go into to effect until it is heard by the Supreme Court is immaterial. The whole point is it will be heard by this Supreme Court and given the changes and possible changes in the makeup of that body it is quite likely Roe is going to be gone.

Do we have to wait until we are hit over the head with the reality of abortion being outlawed outright nationally or outlawed in any state with a majority of the legislature beholden to the religious right, to understand this isn't a "testing of the waters" - it is the fight. Let's understand, the right wing in this country thinks it has the votes or will have the votes when this case is decided. If you value the right to choose, we had better wake up and fight for it now (http://www.naral.org/).

[leekohler]

Folks, how do you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned? If it is, it will be through a court case from a law just like this. That this won't go into to effect until it is heard by the Supreme Court is immaterial. The whole point is it will be heard by this Supreme Court and given the changes and possible changes in the makeup of that body it is quite likely Roe is going to be gone.

Do we have to wait until we are hit over the head with the reality of abortion being outlawed outright nationally or outlawed in any state with a majority of the legislature beholden to the religious right, to understand this isn't a "testing of the waters" - it is the fight. Let's understand, the right wing in this country thinks it has the votes or will have the votes when this case is decided. If you value the right to choose, we had better wake up and fight for it now (http://www.naral.org/).

I'm with you, man. This isn't some test. They seriously want to do this. And if they succeed with this, there's no telling how much further they'll go on other issues.

[scem0]

I agree, I think we should fight on every level.

e

[IJ Reilly]

I believe Roe is nearly history, it's only a matter of time before it either gets overturned outright or chipped away such that it's no longer of any real substance. I don't know at this point how this eventuality can be stopped. The Supreme Court is stacked with ideological conservatives -- at least four certain votes against any abortion rights case that comes along. One more vote out the other five, and that's all she wrote.

Whether they understood it or not, this is what people voted for in the last few elections. Now they're going to get it. The only thing I have to look forward to is the inevitable backlash.

[blackfox]

Folks, how do you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned? If it is, it will be through a court case from a law just like this. That this won't go into to effect until it is heard by the Supreme Court is immaterial. The whole point is it will be heard by this Supreme Court and given the changes and possible changes in the makeup of that body it is quite likely Roe is going to be gone.

Do we have to wait until we are hit over the head with the reality of abortion being outlawed outright nationally or outlawed in any state with a majority of the legislature beholden to the religious right, to understand this isn't a "testing of the waters" - it is the fight. Let's understand, the right wing in this country thinks it has the votes or will have the votes when this case is decided. If you value the right to choose, we had better wake up and fight for it now (http://www.naral.org/).
I understand this, and perhaps I am just being naive, but I do not see things unfolding as you suggest.

The public is still very tolerant of abortion rights, and this is a very dangerous issue for the GOP to mess with. It has the initial advantage of galvanizing and important part of the Right's constituency - which could prove invaluable come Election time. It also, however, will galvanize the Left in opposition and more importantly, possibly alienate the Independent vote - which ultimately are the deciding factor in Elections.

That said, you could very well see a gradual chipping away of Abortion Rights which may not make it onto the average voters radar. As for SCOTUS, as long as Stevens remains, I think RvW is safe and depending on time-frames the GOP may have lost (relative) power in Congress or even the WH, making the future more uncertain.

Depressing or not, these are exciting times.

[leekohler]

Depressing or not, these are exciting times.

"Exciting"? What? More like "frightening". Women being forced to bear the child of their rapist or relative? That's the reality of this law, man. This is one scary thing that just happened.

[blackfox]

"Exciting"? What? More like "frightening".
I say "exciting", because this is a BIG issue, and issues like this will mobilize alot of people to engage in Politics for once. It is at times like this where you see a Nation's true character.

I don't say "frightening", because although there are ominous signs - no-one knows how it is going to play out yet - this could prove to be the thing that topples the GOPs house-of-cards - it is certainly possible.

Although the influence of the Right seems more than ever, so does people's dissatisfaction with it...

[Sayhey]

Blackfox, I think we (on the left I mean) make the mistake of seeing the radical right as monolithic in its actions. It isn't and there are conservatives who are concerned what this will mean to the GOP nationally. But, the fight among conservatives over whether to press on toward the overturning of Roe already happened, and it took place before our very eyes with the removal of one nominee (Miers) for another (Alito) because the religious right demanded their promised goal be a priority. It doesn't matter to these folks that it may hurt them in the polls because they will have the ability, assuming that abortion isn't outlawed altogether, to restrict it by making it meaningless in many, many states, and then focus on states where they can make an impact.

What we are confronted with now is a court that could well uphold the trappings of Roe, through keeping the exceptions for the health of a mother, and gutting it by allowing states to limit on every other cause. Will Kennedy vote to keep Roe in any meaningful way? Because IJ is right, that is the fight right now. If Stevens goes, as is the rumor, there is only the hope of a turn over in the Senate to prevent Bush from appointing another extreme right justice to go along with Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts. That is the most conservative Supreme Court since before the New Deal and it will be "ruling from the bench" for decades to come.

[zimv20]

If Stevens goes, as is the rumor
that's a rumor i've not heard. uh-oh.

[Sayhey]

that's a rumor i've not heard. uh-oh.

The right wing blogs are full of this rumor; they are speculating that he will retire this summer. I hope he can hang on until 2009 but I wouldn't be surprised if he can't.

[zimv20]

The right wing blogs are full of this rumor; they are speculating that he will retire this summer.
uh-oh again.

[pseudobrit]

uh-oh again.

lights out

[zimv20]

so w/ this scotus, and the possibility of an even more-right one, what court decisions do we feel are in danger?

i've got:
- roe v wade
- clinton v new york

what else?

[blackfox]

so w/ this scotus, and the possibility of an even more-right one, what court decisions do we feel are in danger?

i've got:
- roe v wade
- clinton v new york

what else?
Well, don't put the cart ahead of the horse here...

Nevertheless, the revistitation of the validity of partial-birth abortion bans, (which were narrowly struck down in 2003) by SCOTUS should prove illuminating.

In 2003 O' Connor proved to be the swing-vote.

BTW, Mississippi has a similar law to SD in the Legislature right now...


**As a separate discussion topic, anyone care to guess what might happen if Stevens steps down later this year? A nominee may be up for confirmation in 2007, but will the WH and the GOP be able to strong-arm their confirmation?**

[leekohler]

BTW, Mississippi has a similar law to SD in the Legislature right now...


I'm surprised they didn't do it first.

[pseudobrit]

**As a separate discussion topic, anyone care to guess what might happen if Stevens steps down later this year? A nominee may be up for confirmation in 2007, but will the WH and the GOP be able to strong-arm their confirmation?**

Unless they lose both houses they'll push through whomever they please.

[Heb1228]

Like when they tried to introduce a marriage amendment defining it as between one man and one woman, there was no chance of it actually getting passed but it did split things moreso than what they were before.
I guess you mean the federal amendment? It has passed in every state thats voted on it. Thats 19 states so far with at least 7 more due up this year.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/Marriage50States.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/images/usamapnew.jpg

Sorry for this being a little off topic, but vniow brought it up.

[Ugg]

I guess you mean the federal amendment? It has passed in every state thats voted on it. Thats 19 states so far with at least 7 more due up this year.



Sorry for this being a little off topic, but vniow brought it up.

I think she was referring to the attempt to amend the US Constitution. That has failed and will continue to fail as not enough states will ratify it. It's one thing to pass something on a state level, the federal bar for such things is much higher.

[Sayhey]

so w/ this scotus, and the possibility of an even more-right one, what court decisions do we feel are in danger?

i've got:
- roe v wade
- clinton v new york

what else?

Off the top of my head, how about the "unitary executive" theory and any ability for Congress or the Courts to curtail the power of the President (ie torture, indefinite imprisonment, etc.,) Miranda, Lawrence v. Texas, the endangered species act, and I'm sure there are many more I'm not thinking of right now.

[Desertrat]

Ah, it's good to see that tolerance for opposing viewpoints is alive and well in this thread! :D

Look: If a person believes that life or human-ness or the soul begins at conception, then abortion must equal murder. No philosophical choice, there. If one believes that it occurs at birth, no problem with abortion = murder, because it doesn't.

I dunno. It just seems to me that if the majority of a state's population believes that human-ness begins at birth, that legislature should ignore the issue and stay out of it, with no law on the books one way or the other. If a majority believes that conception is the starting point, it can then outlaw murder. I.e., the feds oughta stay out of it.

'Rat

[Stella]

The u.s is becoming a religious-christian-state, ruled by religous doctorien ( spelling ).

When religion has such a hold on law etc, then this is when a country starts to regress, instead of advancing. Science and technology in the u.s. is already beginning to suffer - for example, stem cell research, and issues regarding 'intelligent design'. All due to religious belief.

Religion should never hinder progress or countrys' law.

Abortion should not of course be used as birth control, but in extreme circumstances such as a thread to the mothers life, rape ( especially rape ) and so on.

[Sayhey]

Ah, it's good to see that tolerance for opposing viewpoints is alive and well in this thread! :D

Look: If a person believes that life or human-ness or the soul begins at conception, then abortion must equal murder. No philosophical choice, there. If one believes that it occurs at birth, no problem with abortion = murder, because it doesn't.

I dunno. It just seems to me that if the majority of a state's population believes that human-ness begins at birth, that legislature should ignore the issue and stay out of it, with no law on the books one way or the other. If a majority believes that conception is the starting point, it can then outlaw murder. I.e., the feds oughta stay out of it.

'Rat

'Rat, if I read you right, for those who don't believe abortion equals murder and who live in a state with a majority who believe it does, they should just accept the state mandating one religious view over the other? Doctors in that state should accept a prison sentence if they choose to perform a procedure that both they and their patient both want and think is appropriate because the provincial majority sees fit to impose their interpretation of when life begins - based on what - a particular religious belief? What ever happened to individual liberty? Whatever happened to religious freedom? Whatever happened to equality under the law?

Seems like you're writing a whole new definition of tolerance here, 'Rat. Tolerance becomes tolerating the imposition of one view over the other and not speaking against it. Not how I learned it.

[leekohler]

'Rat, if I read you right, for those who don't believe abortion equals murder and who live in a state with a majority who believe it does, they should just accept the state mandating one religious view over the other? Doctors in that state should accept a prison sentence if they choose to perform a procedure that both they and their patient both want and think is appropriate because the provincial majority sees fit to impose their interpretation of when life begins - based on what - a particular religious belief? What ever happened to individual liberty? Whatever happened to religious freedom? Whatever happened to equality under the law?

Seems like you're writing a whole new definition of tolerance here, 'Rat. Tolerance becomes tolerating the imposition of one view over the other and not speaking against it. Not how I learned it.

It's the old "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" trick. It's also a Limbaugh fave. ;)

[Sayhey]

It's the old "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" trick. It's also a Limbaugh fave. ;)

It is becoming a version of "newspeak" when words are turned on their heads and have meanings opposite their original. I'm all for tolerance of others belief systems; I just don't want them imposed on me or others who don't subscribe to them. If someone thinks abortion is a mortal sin, equivalent to murder, they should not have one. Such a person should have their rights protected to teach their views to others, but tolerance doesn't extend to allowing one view to dominate others in law because they have a majority in a particular region. It is, indeed, the opposite of tolerance.

[Lyle]

What ever happened to individual liberty? Whatever happened to religious freedom? Whatever happened to equality under the law?I thought that 'Rat stated things pretty clearly. Those of us who are anti-abortion believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder. For that reason alone, your personal beliefs about when life begins are immaterial to me. And please understand I'm not using those words to attack you personally; but the idea that I should stand by and do nothing about what I consider to be a life and death matter is crazy.

I understand that your spiritual beliefs are different from mine, but this isn't a discussion about how some folks like Pepsi and some folks like Coca-Cola and we should just let bygones be bygones. And I know that it's a moot point to even get involved in this discussion, but sometimes I can't help myself.

[Josh]

What I don't understand, is what's the big deal?

Are so many women just running to get abortions, that if told no, the lines would get so long they'd block the streets?

Not surprisingly, I'm not a fan of abortions. I think rape/saving life is the only justified excuse.

"I didn't want it." "I'm not ready." etc are not justified excuses; if that's the case being pleaded, people need responsibility, not abortions.

Not trying to open a can of worms, which a debate could easily do. But, as I'm not "up" on the politics and reasonin of this, what is the main justification for the process that pro-abortion folks are arguing?

[leekohler]

I thought that 'Rat stated things pretty clearly. Those of us who are anti-abortion believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder. For that reason alone, your personal beliefs about when life begins are immaterial to me. And please understand I'm not using those words to attack you personally; but the idea that I should stand by and do nothing about what I consider to be a life and death matter is crazy.

I understand that your spiritual beliefs are different from mine, but this isn't a discussion about how some folks like Pepsi and some folks like Coca-Cola and we should just let bygones be bygones. And I know that it's a moot point to even get involved in this discussion, but sometimes I can't help myself.

Again- I think the key word here is "belief". No one here can state when exactly life begins as a separate entity from the mother. So, do we make laws based on what we "believe" to be true?

[Ugg]

Not surprisingly, I'm not a fan of abortions. I think rape/saving life is the only justified excuse.

"I didn't want it." "I'm not ready." etc are not justified excuses; if that's the case being pleaded, people need responsibility, not abortions.



And accidents don't happen? Should a woman or girl be burdened with a child when that child is not wanted? Married women with children make up a substantial portion of those who have abortions. Their choice is economic in many cases. Losing a job is a very real aspect of pregnancy much less the added burden of the cost of raising a child. I think few women "choose" abortion but are forced into it due to repressive social attitudes and economic policies.

Abortion rates are going down across the board. The Aids scare probably is partly responsible but I think a lot of it is due to the fact that the Sexual Revolution honeymoon is over. Those seeking abortions in today's climate of fear and repression must have to want one badly. Forcing these women into a role of servitude due to the supposed moral opinions of a few is a hardly a sign of an enlightened state much less an enlightened populace. It's more indicative of the desire to repress the weak and disadvantaged. Unfortunately, many of those expressing this desire are Christians.

[trebblekicked]

what is the main justification for the process that pro-abortion folks are arguing?

i can't speak for everyone, but personally, i've just always hated babies.

[leekohler]

i can't speak for everyone, but personally, i've just always hated babies.

That was hilarious! :D

[Josh]

And accidents don't happen? Should a woman or girl be burdened with a child when that child is not wanted?

I was hoping that wasn't the main case being argued....

Since when is a child an "accident?"

If the parents do not wish to have a children, there are many forms of contraception. Not only is it more practical, but for someone who doesn't mind grinding up a baby, they might be pleased to hear it will save them some money too...

[Lyle]

Again- I think the key word here is "belief". No one here can state when exactly life begins as a separate entity from the mother. So, do we make laws based on what we "believe" to be true?Of course we make laws based on what we believe to be true. Why is it against the law for me to break into your house and rob you? Is it because there's some scientific proof that stealing is a bad thing to do, or is that we as a society "believe" that it's so?

[Lyle]

And accidents don't happen? Should a woman or girl be burdened with a child when that child is not wanted?What if a child is born with a birth defect that his parents don't want to deal with? Would it be OK with you for them to kill the baby to correct that "accident"? Why not?

[leekohler]

Of course we make laws based on what we believe to be true. Why is it against the law for me to break into your house and rob you? Is it because there's some scientific proof that stealing is a bad thing to do, or is that we as a society "believe" that it's so?

Oh boy, lyle- that is absolutley ridiculous. Is anyone honestly going to stand up and say "stealing is right?" There are obvious negative consequences on a small and large scale. Did I ask for scientific evidence of anything?

[blackfox]

At the risk of opening things up to much - I wonder if those who oppose Abortion have thought of the consequences of it's banning.

There is, of course, the often mentioned black-market for abortions and the all the risks that go with that. This is mentioned alot, so I will not comment further.

But how about the following:

- costs of having the baby in hospital
- long-term costs of supporting said child
- economic disruption, both personal and aggregate of increased maternity leave - (what would this do to dual-income households or the woman's place in the workplace?)
- increased strain on social services. If children are born into poorer households at a large %, there is a definite social cost - possibly in crime, definitely in social service and education expenditures.
- happiness/opportunities of the child

Look, the general point here, is that there are real-world consequences of such a principled stance - which need to be looked at. Ultimately, we should be aiming for a stable society, which requires compromise.

If you think abortion is wrong, is it any more wrong than all the misery it's absence will create?

The use of the word "responsibility for your actions" works both ways, you know...

[leekohler]

What if a child is born with a birth defect that his parents don't want to deal with? Would it be OK with you for them to kill the baby to correct that "accident"? Why not?

That's a tough one. I guess it would depend on the severity and nature of the defect.

[Lyle]

Oh boy, lyle- that is absolutley ridiculous. Is anyone honestly going to stand up and say "stealing is right?"No, I don't think they would. Stealing is against the law because we believe that it's wrong.

[scem0]

I support abortion because of Exodus 21:17 -

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Every child, at some point, curses their father or mother, so every child should die.

e

[IJ Reilly]

Again- I think the key word here is "belief". No one here can state when exactly life begins as a separate entity from the mother. So, do we make laws based on what we "believe" to be true?

This debate quickly begins to parallel the debate over gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, then by all means, don't marry a gay person. Everyone is perfectly entitled to their own set of beliefs, and to live by them. But should they be able to force others to live by them as well? This is the question for the ages. Many conservatives today seem to believe that the very existence of rights that they personally choose not to exercise is morally unacceptable. Americans have to decide which point of view best conforms to their definition of liberty.

[leekohler]

No, I don't think they would. Stealing is against the law because we believe that it's wrong.

You've got to be kidding me. You don't "know" that stealing is wrong? You just "believe" it? Wow- I'm stunned.

[Lyle]

That's a tough one. I guess it would depend on the severity and nature of the defect.Wow. Thanks for being honest. What if the kid wasn't born with a birth defect, but did show homosexual tendencies when he reached his teenage years? Would it be OK with you for them to kill him then?

Don't get me wrong. I would be personally opposed to that, and you would perhaps consider that wrong in your belief system as well, but what if they believe it's the right thing to do? You are tolerant, right?

[IJ Reilly]

No, I don't think they would. Stealing is against the law because we believe that it's wrong.

No, it is against the law because one person is not entitled to take whatever they like from another.

[Lyle]

No, it is against the law because one person is not entitled to take whatever they like from another.Who says that I'm not entitled to take whatever I like from someone else? (And please don't answer, "The Law Says.")

[scem0]

Wow. Thanks for being honest. What if the kid wasn't born with a birth defect, but did show homosexual tendencies when he reached his teenage years? Would it be OK with you for them to kill him then?

Don't get me wrong. I would be personally opposed to that, and you would perhaps consider that wrong in your belief system as well, but what if they believe it's the right thing to do? You are tolerant, right?


hah. Abortion of fetuses and zygotes. The murder of a teenager.

Undeniably different.

e

[leekohler]

Wow. Thanks for being honest. What if the kid wasn't born with a birth defect, but did show homosexual tendencies when he reached his teenage years? Would it be OK with you for them to kill him then?

Don't get me wrong. I would be personally opposed to that, and you would perhaps consider that wrong in your belief system as well, but what if they believe it's the right thing to do? You are tolerant, right?

I can't really answer that. I would find it abhorrent that someone would do that, but I really don't feel I could tell them no. However, who's being intolerant? Me or them? EDIT- Big Oops. See below.

[Lyle]

hah. Abortion of fetuses and zygotes. The murder of a teenager.

Undeniably different.Well, Lee seemed to indicate that he was open to the murder of an infant with a birth defect. Just curious, what's the cutoff age where it becomes a problem for you?

[Lyle]

I can't really answer that. I would find it abhorrent that someone would do that, but I really don't feel I could tell them no.Please tell me that you're being sardonic. Or sarcastic, either one.

[leekohler]

Well, Lee seemed to indicate that he was open to the murder of an infant with a birth defect. Just curious, what's the cutoff age where it becomes a problem for you?

Seems I misread your earlier post. No- if a child is already out of the womb, especially in it's teenage years, we have no right to kill it for exhibiting certain tendencies. What is your point, lyle?

[pseudobrit]

Who says that I'm not entitled to take whatever I like from someone else? (And please don't answer, "The Law Says.")

Our proud tradition of English Common Law covers all things WRT property.

But we're not talking about property at all. Care to try using a relevant comparison?

[IJ Reilly]

Who says that I'm not entitled to take whatever I like from someone else? (And please don't answer, "The Law Says.")

The answer is obvious, and I think lee has already expressed it far more succinctly than I.

In any event, I know where this is headed, so we should cut to the chase: I assume you believe that a human being, possessed of all rights, is created the moment a sperm meets an egg. I think the anti-abortion rights movement has utterly failed to come to grips with the implications of such a view, at least insofar as the impact of forcing it on people who don't believe it is concerned. The personal rights and liberties issues automatically involved are far more profound and far-reaching than the anti-abortion rights movement has allowed.

[scem0]

Well, Lee seemed to indicate that he was open to the murder of an infant with a birth defect. Just curious, what's the cutoff age where it becomes a problem for you?

5 and a quarter years old. I kid, I kid.

Personally, I'm okay with it until it's out of the vagina. Would a kid suffer more pain from the physical pain of an abortion, or would the kid suffer more from a life where they don't get the things they need because its parents aren't ready to give those things to him?

e

[Lyle]

Seems I misread your earlier post. No- if a child is already out of the womb, especially in it's teenage years, we have no right to kill it for exhibiting certain tendencies.I am relieved to hear this temporary flirtation with eugenics has passed. And I think that this is where I go with my original instinct and drop back out of this discussion...

[leekohler]

I am relieved to hear this temporary flirtation with eugenics has passed. And I think that this is where I go with my original instinct and drop back out of this discussion...

And what was your point?

[pseudobrit]

For me, it all boils down to whether we want doctors and patients deciding in private what's best for the patient's health or whether we introduce public officials and judges into what should be a purely medical process free from political interference.

I wonder what the pro-lifers would think about the idea of a judge meting out when and where a couple can attempt to conceive and a state law limiting the number of children you're allowed to have. Or requiring a judicial waiver to get a vasectomy.

These are things that are very private, very personal and medical in nature. Any one person required to be involved in the decision beyond your physician is one too many.

[~Shard~]

But how about the following:

- costs of having the baby in hospital
- long-term costs of supporting said child
- economic disruption, both personal and aggregate of increased maternity leave - (what would this do to dual-income households or the woman's place in the workplace?)
- increased strain on social services. If children are born into poorer households at a large %, there is a definite social cost - possibly in crime, definitely in social service and education expenditures.

Gotcha - it's all about money. Everything in this world all comes back to money. Money makes the world go 'round, and greed is good. :p :cool:

[leekohler]

Gotcha - it's all about money. Everything in this world all comes back to money. Money makes the world go 'round, and greed is good. :p :cool:

Shard! Good to see ya, hot stuff. ;) (don't get jealous scem0)

[Sayhey]

I thought that 'Rat stated things pretty clearly. Those of us who are anti-abortion believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder. For that reason alone, your personal beliefs about when life begins are immaterial to me. And please understand I'm not using those words to attack you personally; but the idea that I should stand by and do nothing about what I consider to be a life and death matter is crazy.

I understand that your spiritual beliefs are different from mine, but this isn't a discussion about how some folks like Pepsi and some folks like Coca-Cola and we should just let bygones be bygones. And I know that it's a moot point to even get involved in this discussion, but sometimes I can't help myself.

Lyle, I don't expect my personal beliefs to be material to you. I don't expect you to run your life by my moral code. I do expect you to be able to try and convince me or any others of the correctness of your views and persuade us to stop making decisions you think are wrong. I just don't think you or the folks running the state of South Dakota have the right to put your beliefs into law and make the rest of us follow them. You're right, this isn't Coke and Pepsi, it's much more important than that. It changes the very nature of our society if we allow one religious viewpoint to dictate our laws. I would hope you could agree with that.

[Desertrat]

sayhey, were I practicing medicine, I'd not be in a state where my belief in the reasonableness of abortion was outlawed. There are many reasons beyond scenery to be or not be in some location. I have no problem at all with the idea that if I don't like the way some majority runs things, I'll go somewhere else. That's what folks have been doing since long before I showed up...

'Rat

[scem0]

Shard! Good to see ya, hot stuff. ;) (don't get jealous scem0)

hah! Just don't get any wise ideas, Shard ;).

e

[zimv20]

Those of us who are anti-abortion believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder.
murder has no place in the abortion debate, but it serves the arguments of the pro-life crowd pretty well.

murder also has no place in the capital punishment debate, but it serves the arguments of the anti-capital punishment crowd pretty well.

let's let murder mean murder and treat abortion and capital punishment as their own subjects. that way we clarify the arguments and can stop dealing with this unending silliness about "when life begins".

[~Shard~]

Shard! Good to see ya, hot stuff. ;) (don't get jealous scem0)

Good to see you too! :) I was reading through this thread and thought I might as well throw a comment in.

I hardly ever participate in these pol/rel/soc Forums, but do enjoy being a controversial bastard and pissing people off with comments every once and a while. And it's so easy to do in these Forums! :D

"Abortion is murder. You're all going to hell."

"Abortion is cool. I wish I was female so I could have an abortion."

See? :cool:

hah! Just don't get any wise ideas, Shard

Don't worry, none of my ideas are wise... ;) :D

And nice to see you back as well scem0, I thought you posted a thread a while back saying your final farewell from MacRumors... decided to come out of retirement or something?

[leekohler]

Good to see you too! :) I was reading through this thread and thought I might as well throw a comment in.

I hardly ever participate in these pol/rel/soc Forums, but do enjoy being a controversial bastard and pissing people off with comments every once and a while. And it's so easy to do in these Forums! :D

"Abortion is murder. You're all going to hell."

"Abortion is cool. I wish I was female so I could have an abortion."

See? :cool:



Don't worry, none of my ideas are wise... ;) :D

And nice to see you back as well scem0, I thought you posted a thread a while back saying your final farewell from MacRumors... decided to come out of retirement or something?

I asked him to swallow his pride and come back. I can be a persuasive fella. :)

[Sayhey]

sayhey, were I practicing medicine, I'd not be in a state where my belief in the reasonableness of abortion was outlawed. There are many reasons beyond scenery to be or not be in some location. I have no problem at all with the idea that if I don't like the way some majority runs things, I'll go somewhere else. That's what folks have been doing since long before I showed up...

'Rat

Believe me 'Rat, I'm not running to South Dakota anytime soon. Part of the reason I live in San Francisco is the level of toleration for people's differences. The food and scenery don't hurt either. However, I think we're talking about something that shouldn't be left to regional differences. We have a Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion by the state. The law in South Dakota does just that. It imposes on the people of that state one view, a religious one, about embryonic life as human beings. We shouldn't be able to impose those kinds of views on each other, regardless of the neck of the woods we hail from or how big the local "majority" is. And that doesn't even touch the question of the invasion of state authority into a realm that should be one of personal liberty.

[blackfox]

Gotcha - it's all about money. Everything in this world all comes back to money. Money makes the world go 'round, and greed is good. :p :cool:
Ahhh!!!Too much irony!!!

Did you get mine? Did I get yours? Excuse me while my head explodes...

[pseudobrit]

sayhey, were I practicing medicine, I'd not be in a state where my belief in the reasonableness of abortion was outlawed. There are many reasons beyond scenery to be or not be in some location. I have no problem at all with the idea that if I don't like the way some majority runs things, I'll go somewhere else. That's what folks have been doing since long before I showed up...

This nation was founded by folks fleeing the oppression of religion.

I was unaware that one needs to be willing to move to enjoy the equal protections of the Constitution. Enlighten me.

[Ugg]

What if a child is born with a birth defect that his parents don't want to deal with? Would it be OK with you for them to kill the baby to correct that "accident"? Why not?

It happens more often than you think and the orphanages of China and India are filled with unwanted girls. Many of whom never make it to adulthood or if they do, are turned into prostitutes or virtual slaves.

Infanticide is murder, pure and simple. There are no excuses for it, but prenatal screening would allow parents the option of abortion if it were found out that the fetus was suffering from serious defects.


My opinion of abortion was formed in High School. I worked at a grocery store and one of the checkers, who was about 50 had 3 children. One of whom had leukemia. He and his wife decided they wanted another child. they tried to adopt but were turned down. They decided to conceive a child, knowing full well the risks involved. She was about 45. The girl was born with her heart outside her body. She lived about a year, her parents were never able to hold her and she cost them over a million dollars. Of course, they never paid a penny due to their indigence. Every time I think of it I can't help but think how much that child must have suffered. She was never held by another human being, her parents could only see her through the plexiglas of the incubator. Her 3 siblings were neglected during the year because her parents were constantly at her side.

She should have been allowed to die naturally instead of being a poster child for human greed and stupidity. The suffering her parents inflicted upon her continues to make me sick and angry. How could they call themselves Christians? Technology is there to ensure that we lead the fullest lives possible not to ensure that life is little more than pain and suffering.

[MarkCollette]

I was hoping that wasn't the main case being argued....

Since when is a child an "accident?"

If the parents do not wish to have a children, there are many forms of contraception. Not only is it more practical, but for someone who doesn't mind grinding up a baby, they might be pleased to hear it will save them some money too...

My parents used two forms of birth control, and yet here I am. I agree that birth control should be used in preference of abortions, but that doesn't affect the necessity of availability of abortions.

[tristan]

This post should be split into two versions - one on politics and one on ethics.

Politically, Roe v Wade is toast. It'll go state by state if we're lucky, banned if not. Forget about fighting, the time to fight was last election and the one before. Plenty of groups warned that if the republicans got into power they would overturn Roe, but nobody listened. Now it's too late.

On to the ethics - Is this country really going to put women and their doctors in prison who want to terminate a pregnancy? Turn the police force and the court system into moral police who hunt down, arrest, and imprison women when they're at their most physically and mentally vulnerable? No matter what your ethics, that sounds horrifying to me.

[blackfox]

I agree that birth control should be used in preference of abortions, but that doesn't affect the necessity of availability of abortions.

At the risk of painting with too broad a brush, I might say part of the problem here lies with those who wish to ban abortion also don't look kindly on birth-control measures either.

While the evangelicalism of some Religious folk is good at appealing to other more rational folks beliefs on the subject of abortion (that abortion is wrong - that it may take a life etc) it is utterly irresponsible in dealing with the logical consequences of it's actions - motivated as they are by faith and principle.

To state simply, the coordinated plan of the Christian Right, involving abstinence-only education, retreat of scientific learning in the classroom and outlawing of abortions, could only possibly work if everyone was the same type of Christian that they see themselves as.

Which is impossible and delusionary as well as hurtful and irresponsible.

[leekohler]

On to the ethics - Is this country really going to put women and their doctors in prison who want to terminate a pregnancy? Turn the police force and the court system into moral police who hunt down, arrest, and imprison women when they're at their most physically and mentally vulnerable? No matter what your ethics, that sounds horrifying to me.

Of course they will if they can. Many conservatives are unbelieveably obsessed with what goes on in other people's bedrooms. And if they can punish you for any mistake made there, they will. Do I think people would get angry about it? Yes. But will that accomplish anything? Who knows.

[MarkCollette]

I am relieved to hear this temporary flirtation with eugenics has passed. And I think that this is where I go with my original instinct and drop back out of this discussion...

What was scary about eugenics wasn't so much the idea of parents deciding to abort of their own free will, but rather the state coercion of abortion and sterilisation. Especially when the state used racism and pseudo science as criteria.

Apparently there was this thing in the USA where they'd sterilise poor black women after they gave birth, so they could not get pregnant again. Scary stuff to have that taken away from you against your will, without even being told.

Oh, and considering that a baby shares DNA from the father and the mother, I think that fathers should have some sort of ability for an injunction against an abortion. Hey, if mothers can force fathers to pay child support, then maybe fathers should be able to have a child that the mother doesn't want. Maybe the father would have to compensate the mother for the duration of the pregnancy or something. Just an idea.

My theory is that this abortion issue reemergence is just a passing fad. There's this window where all the baby boomers are past child bearing age, so they don't need access to abortion themselves. But, they're not quite old enough, like their parents, to be contemplating their right to die, so they don't really care about restricting other people's freedoms. Maybe with all their kids married, and grand-children coming along, they're not quite so receptive to chopped up fetuses.

[MarkCollette]

To state simply, the coordinated plan of the Christian Right, involving abstinence-only education, retreat of scientific learning in the classroom and outlawing of abortions, could only possibly work if everyone was the same type of Christian that they see themselves as.

Clearly the solution is for people to convert ;)

[pseudobrit]

At the risk of painting with too broad a brush, I might say part of the problem here lies with those who wish to ban abortion also don't look kindly on birth-control measures either.

While the evangelicalism of some Religious folk is good at appealing to other more rational folks beliefs on the subject of abortion (that abortion is wrong - that it may take a life etc) it is utterly irresponsible in dealing with the logical consequences of it's actions - motivated as they are by faith and principle.

To state simply, the coordinated plan of the Christian Right, involving abstinence-only education, retreat of scientific learning in the classroom and outlawing of abortions, could only possibly work if everyone was the same type of Christian that they see themselves as.

Which is impossible and delusionary as well as hurtful and irresponsible.

It's chilling that their agenda continues to roll forward.

It's a curse; their ideology will be a plague on middle America, marginalising the children of the middle class and leaving those born to the borderline poor destitute.

I can't tell you how many of the (mostly boomer age or slightly younger) women at my workplace have daughters or nieces trapped in single motherhood.

Irony looms large over the Bible belt of Pennsylvania.

[cslewis]

I don't see what's so horrible about encouraging abstinence.

[Josh]

i can't speak for everyone, but personally, i've just always hated babies.

No excuse beats an honest one :p

I think things like abortion/gay marriage/euthenasia(spelling?) are situations that our society will *never* agree on and "solve."

The feelings, opinions, and beliefs people have towards them are as numerous as the people themselves.

However, I strongly feel that as long as a doctor's duty is to give life, he should never, except extreme circumstances*, take it by means of abortion or other method.

* extreme cases being: rape, to save the mother, etc.

Life isn't something we should think so lightly of. If you make a mistake, pay the consequences, not an abortion fee. If everything in life could be solved with money and a trip to the doctor, wisdom would be non-existent, and no one would ever learn a thing.

[Ugg]

I think things like abortion/gay marriage/euthenasia(spelling?) are situations that our society will *never* agree on and "solve."

The feelings, opinions, and beliefs people have towards them are as numerous as the people themselves.

However, I strongly feel that as long as a doctor's duty is to give life, he should never, except extreme circumstances*, take it by means of abortion or other method.

* extreme cases being: rape, to save the mother, etc.

Life isn't something we should think so lightly of. If you make a mistake, pay the consequences, not an abortion fee. If everything in life could be solved with money and a trip to the doctor, wisdom would be non-existent, and no one would ever learn a thing.

No, a doctor's duty is to preserve life, not to give it unless you consider them gods....

Doctors make life and death choices all the time although abortion is more extreme than most of their choices. Do no harm, is I believe a part of the Hippocratic oath. Harm can mean many different things and carrying a fetus to term could certainly be considered one of them. There are a quite a few unwanted children out there and the price they pay is far too extreme. Especially those born to drug-addicted women. I see no purpose in bringing into this world a child who is not wanted or too damaged.

If the Christian right were to start a program ensuring that every woman who decided not to abort would have the support, both financial and emotional to raise the child in security, I'd be willing to support more restrictive abortion laws. Until that day comes those who deny a woman the right to choose will be the greatest hypocrites in the world in my eyes. A partial solution is no solution at all when the innocent are the ones that suffer.

I still wonder why so many on the right feel the need to approve of homosexuality or a woman's right to choose. They're the ones clamoring for their right to force religion on the public whether they like it or not. Live your life the way you want to, but stay the heck out of mine, it's simply none of your business.

[MarkCollette]

Life isn't something we should think so lightly of. If you make a mistake, pay the consequences, not an abortion fee. If everything in life could be solved with money and a trip to the doctor, wisdom would be non-existent, and no one would ever learn a thing.

It's not just the parents paying the price, it's the child as well. Read up on Freakonomics where they correlate a drop in crime to the advent of abortion.

[~Shard~]

Ahhh!!!Too much irony!!!

Did you get mine? Did I get yours? Excuse me while my head explodes...

Oh yes, it's all good. I got yours and it appears as though you got mine. It's all good, we're both very clever . :D :cool:

[scem0]

No, a doctor's duty is to preserve life, not to give it unless you consider them gods....

Doctors make life and death choices all the time although abortion is more extreme than most of their choices. Do no harm, is I believe a part of the Hippocratic oath. Harm can mean many different things and carrying a fetus to term could certainly be considered one of them. There are a quite a few unwanted children out there and the price they pay is far too extreme. Especially those born to drug-addicted women. I see no purpose in bringing into this world a child who is not wanted or too damaged.

If the Christian right were to start a program ensuring that every woman who decided not to abort would have the support, both financial and emotional to raise the child in security, I'd be willing to support more restrictive abortion laws. Until that day comes those who deny a woman the right to choose will be the greatest hypocrites in the world in my eyes. A partial solution is no solution at all when the innocent are the ones that suffer.

I still wonder why so many on the right feel the need to approve of homosexuality or a woman's right to choose. They're the ones clamoring for their right to force religion on the public whether they like it or not. Live your life the way you want to, but stay the heck out of mine, it's simply none of your business.

I'm gunna be ironic and say.

Amen to that ;).

e

[scem0]

It's not just the parents paying the price, it's the child as well. Read up on Freakonomics where they correlate a drop in crime to the advent of abortion.

exactly. That's the main reason I am pro choice. Children are the ones who pay most dearly when they don't have parents who can raise them with care and (more important than you'd think) financial backing.

And you can't just say 'Go and live with your mistake' to a 16 year old girl who is peer pressured by a boy who she thinks she loves into having sex without a condom. It happens everyday, people.

e

[IJ Reilly]

If the Christian right were to start a program ensuring that every woman who decided not to abort would have the support, both financial and emotional to raise the child in security, I'd be willing to support more restrictive abortion laws.

This is essentially the Communitarian position on abortion (not that anybody has heard of Communitarians). Abortions could be made more rare if the social welfare system made better accommodations for, say, single working mothers. I'd be willing to support more restrictions on abortion if the country had universal health and child care. I'm waiting for Christian conservatives to support that position. I've been waiting. For a long time.

[blackfox]

No excuse beats an honest one :p

I think things like abortion/gay marriage/euthenasia(spelling?) are situations that our society will *never* agree on and "solve."

The feelings, opinions, and beliefs people have towards them are as numerous as the people themselves.
This, imo, is an endorsement of policies like abortion, albeit an indirect and unintentional one.

The reason being is that we will NOT ever agree as a society on a variety of issues, especially ones as emotionally and theologically-charged as abortion.

If you allow abortion, however, you also promote liberty. No-one forces someone who opposes abortion to have one, or to recommend it to their friends/family/aquaintances. Also, the concrete effects of abortion do not effect larger society - making it again merely an exercise in personal liberty.

If you ban abortion, however, you automatically discount all those opinions of those who disagree with that banning. You take out the important component of choice from the equation - you take away liberty. Also, in this case the concrete effects of banning abortion do effect larger society - in terms of social costs, that involve difficult, nuanced choices of their own and are not amenable to moralistic solutions either.

However, I strongly feel that as long as a doctor's duty is to give life, he should never, except extreme circumstances*, take it by means of abortion or other method.

* extreme cases being: rape, to save the mother, etc.

Life isn't something we should think so lightly of. If you make a mistake, pay the consequences, not an abortion fee. If everything in life could be solved with money and a trip to the doctor, wisdom would be non-existent, and no one would ever learn a thing.

No life isn't to be taken lightly, but there are more lifes at stake than that of the embryo - that of the mother, the family, the community and the society - all which are effected by the consequences of the bringing of new people into this world and the circumstances in which they will arrive.

When we talk about responsibility, we must also talk about choice - because when you limit a potential option - you are limiting valid choices. It is hardly responsible to choose from an option list of one.

I also think you discount how difficult the process of abortion is on the women - psychologically and physically. To cast it as a mere transaction, is to ignore the very real reality that it is an imperfect and agonizing choice for many women - and that they choose to do so for some very responsible reasons.

[pdham]

Maybe more families with the means should strongly consider adoption. Then, teenage mothers, uncapable mothers, etc. wouldnt have to get an abortion, but could give their child up for adoption with the knowledge that a loving home awaits it.

[tristan]

Anyone can say "oh I would never get an abortion, I think it's wrong" - that's fine, you're entitiled to your point of view. That isn't the issue at all.

The question is whether you want women hunted down, arrested, put in jail, and forced to carry their pregnancy to term. Even if the woman was raped or is the victim or incest. Because that's exactly what this law does and where our country's leadership has taken us.

Ethics isn't just about right and wrong - that's the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do with people who are in the wrong. Do you have any compassion? Do you think about their circumstances? Or do you just round them up and lock them away?

Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing, but you can think of a million special cases that require compassion - imagine a wife raped by her abusive husband. Should she be jailed for wanting an abortion? How about a drug addict who had unprotected sex? How about a fifteen year old who got drunk and her male friend took advantage of her? How about a woman whose fiancee just left her when he found out she was pregnant? Or a mentally retarded girl sexually abused by her uncle? Or a woman whose new husband died suddenly and she can't afford to raise the child on her own? Or a wife who found out her fetus will be born brain dead? Which of these women would you have arrested, thrown in jail, and forced to carry their child to term?

[pseudobrit]

However, I strongly feel that as long as a doctor's duty is to give life, he should never, except extreme circumstances*, take it by means of abortion or other method.

* extreme cases being: rape, to save the mother, etc.

Life isn't something we should think so lightly of. If you make a mistake, pay the consequences, not an abortion fee.

Double standards make me sick.

Why is it a precious innocent life when it's the accidental result of fornication and okay to terminate when it's the result of rape?

This line of reasoning, in all its variations, exposes the view-holder to be a misogynst who thinks forced child-bearing is an appropriate "punishment" for a woman's sluttiness.

"Pay the consequences"? ****ing obscene.

[pseudobrit]

Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing, but you can think of a million special cases that require compassion - imagine a wife raped by her abusive husband. Should she be jailed for wanting an abortion? How about a drug addict who had unprotected sex? How about a fifteen year old who got drunk and her male friend took advantage of her? How about a woman whose fiancee just left her when he found out she was pregnant? Or a mentally retarded girl sexually abused by her uncle? Or a woman whose new husband died suddenly and she can't afford to raise the child on her own? Or a wife who found out her fetus will be born brain dead? Which of these women would you have arrested, thrown in jail, and forced to carry their child to term?

Or what about a couple in a long term relationship who have taken the reasonable precautions of using contraceptives that nevertheless failed?

It doesn't always have to involve an irresponsible slut or a sob story. Most cases of unwanted pregnancy are just normal people in the typical unfortunate situations.

[Ugg]

~25% of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages. There are many reasons for this but the potential is there for a women to be prescribed a drug innocently by a doctor who doesn't know the woman is pregnant, that results in a miscarriage. Is the doctor then going to be prosecuted? He caused her to abort. What if the woman, knowing she is pregnant, engages in strenuous exercise or does something to cause a miscarriage. Is she going to be prosecuted? There's no gray area in the bill in SD, but in real life there's plenty of grayness.

Unfortunately that's what happens when religious nuts start trying to impose their wills on other people. They can only see black and white not reality.

[Ugg]

Maybe more families with the means should strongly consider adoption. Then, teenage mothers, uncapable mothers, etc. wouldnt have to get an abortion, but could give their child up for adoption with the knowledge that a loving home awaits it.


Absolutely, and that is the one thing that is totally lacking at this point in time some kind of true compassion for childless couples and pregnant women who would rather not have a child. Once again, I'd support more stringent restrictions on abortion if there were a viable program in place for women who don't want or can't afford to have a child. Sadly, such a program is irrelevant to the lifers who feel that anyone who is pregnant is solely responsible.

[Josh]

Double standards make me sick.

Why is it a precious innocent life when it's the accidental result of fornication and okay to terminate when it's the result of rape?

This line of reasoning, in all its variations, exposes the view-holder to be a misogynst who thinks forced child-bearing is an appropriate "punishment" for a woman's sluttiness.

"Pay the consequences"? ****ing obscene.

I'm pretty sure most women will agree: rape is bad enough, but to force a woman to give birth to that child, and live with that for the rest of her life, is ridiculous.

It's nearly primative/animalistic to think that if a man forces himself on a women, impregnates her, that she should have no choice but to raise his baby.

The child is not punishment and should never be seen as such; but if such an idea makes you draw the conclusion that the girl is a slut, that is punishment alone, don't you think?

If I "make an oopsie" and hit someone in a car, I can't erase that mistake in less than an hour with a doctor. But when a girl experiences an unwanted pregnancy due to unprotected, irresponsible sex, it's totally cool for her to make that go away?

"Obscene" doesn't come close.

[scem0]

Another thing to consider is that there are varying degrees of rape. Many women are just easy to pressure into doing things. Many guys prey on females who feel the need to be 'attached'. They feel that their boyfriend/husband/S.O. will leave them if they don't have sex. And in some cases, if they don't have sex without a condom.

This isn't considered rape, because she consents to do so. But there's an element of rape to this, as the woman was pressured into having sex. I think it would be ludicrous not to allow these women to have abortions as well. How can anyone think a child growing up with a mother and a father in that kind of relationship will be happy? It's cruel to allow a child to have such parents.

e

[pseudobrit]

I'm pretty sure most women will agree: rape is bad enough, but to force a woman to give birth to that child, and live with that for the rest of her life, is ridiculous.

It's nearly primative/animalistic to think that if a man forces himself on a women, impregnates her, that she should have no choice but to raise his baby.

What's the difference though? If a doctor's job is to "give life" as you see it, then why is the innocent life created through primitive crime less worthy of being born than the innocent life created through primitive accident?

You simply cannot have it both ways on this argument; you either pick a side or ride the fence of hypocrisy.

The child is not punishment and should never be seen as such

Interesting that you then say this:

If I "make an oopsie" and hit someone in a car, I can't erase that mistake in less than an hour with a doctor. But when a girl experiences an unwanted pregnancy due to unprotected, irresponsible sex, it's totally cool for her to make that go away?

because what else could you be getting at other than punishment? You're forcing a woman to "take responsibility" by bearing a child. That's not making her "take responsibility" at all, it's forcing her to undergo what can be a traumatic, painful and disfiguring experience.

"Make it go away"? The pregnancy or the irresponsible sex?

And how do you separate the women who were impregnated through irresponsibility and those who took every precaution? If you've got reciepts for ortho tri-cyclen can you get a ticket for an abortion?

I also can't believe you're seriously comparing accidental pregnancy to a car wreck.

[MarkCollette]

I don't see what's so horrible about encouraging abstinence.

Of course it's a good idea to encourage abstinence. The problem is that, by itself, it has been shown to be statistically less effective than teaching safe sex. One might then think, hmm, why not teach both, in conjunction to each other? But, things are so polarised and politicised, that in many places they only teach one or the other.

[Ugg]

Of course it's a good idea to encourage abstinence. The problem is that, by itself, it has been shown to be statistically less effective than teaching safe sex. One might then think, hmm, why not teach both, in conjunction to each other? But, things are so polarised and politicised, that in many places they only teach one or the other.

It's interesting to note that the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies of all EU countries. They also have the most ambiguous approach to sex ed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that education is the surest way to minimize teenage pregnancies. Unfortunately, Americans are too ashamed of their own bodies to talk about them but they sure eat up all the sex on violence in movies and on TV. Talk about a sick double standard.

[MarkCollette]

If I "make an oopsie" and hit someone in a car, I can't erase that mistake in less than an hour with a doctor. But when a girl experiences an unwanted pregnancy due to unprotected, irresponsible sex, it's totally cool for her to make that go away?

"Obscene" doesn't come close.

I don't want to post redundantly, but err, I guess I will. It's not about whether or not the woman learns her lesson. It's about what life the child will lead.

Maybe this will sound a little cold, but here's another perspective. We all have limited resources. There's only so much money and time we have, which limits the number of children we can have. A lot of it is situational. I might be able to raise 1 mentally handicapped child, or alternatively 3 healthy children. A woman might be able to raise 4 children with her loving husband, if they're both in their 30s, or only 2 if she has them with different boyfriends, when she's 17 and 19. We are biological entities, so our primary function is to reproduce. We are humans in a complex society, so, some of us don't want to reproduce, and some of us do, but to different degrees. Our situation determines how much we can fulfill our desire to complete our function. So, biologically, it may make sense to abort, and thus control our situation, to maximise our reproduction. Yes, we must balance the rights of the parents and the children. But, one must remember that the rights of children is a new concept, while the biological imperative goes all the way back to the beginning. Whether we evolved from goop, or a creator made us this way, the result is the same. In the end, any rights we have, or our children have, serves only one purpose, to help us in this life, to support the coming generations, when we have all passed away, and time has forgotten us. In any case, I fail to see how the state can decide that it somehow holds authority over us, on this issue.


What's the difference though? If a doctor's job is to "give life" as you see it, then why is the innocent life created through primitive crime less worthy of being born than the innocent life created through primitive accident?

You simply cannot have it both ways on this argument; you either pick a side or ride the fence of hypocrisy.

True, but sometimes it's best to put your best argument forward, and win a debate, rather than the position of less consensus, and possibly lose. Especially when talking about laws that affect our freedoms.

But yes, on an online forumn like this, it's nice to explore the nuances of a topic.

[scem0]

If abortion is banned, yet allowed in cases of rape and incest, supposed cases of rape and incest will rise a lot, I'd imagine. Won't that make our country look great? Well, SD :).

e

[jelloshotsrule]

i was raised (and still am) catholic, and would probably have been considered "pro-life" until a few years ago. i still struggle with the moral implications of abortion on the whole. i have a problem with people on either side who act like it is cut and dried.

i do not think that you can just write off the belief that ending a pregnancy is wrong as some religious fanaticism. what if the person who believes that is non religious? or perhaps no such person exists. i'll admit, i haven't met such a person.

that said, the idea that all abortions are the worst option, and turning a blind eye to society's hand in "causing" these abortions (poverty, unequal rights for women, etc) is also bad.

the problem is, we can't solve all the core issues instantly (even if all "pro life" people said "let's go with universal health care right now" it still wouldn't fix things entirely). so, what do we do in the meantime? i think that the only option is to keep abortion legal and safe. and restrictions on it need to be very light, because as others have said, we cannot have judges and lawyers ruling on each case, trying to decide "well does she really NEED it???" that is a slippery slope and should not be treaded on.

i think it's important for pro choice people to know that not all pro life people are religious nuts, and many of them spend a lot of time and effort working with pregnancy centers, helping new mothers, etc. i've seen this firsthand with my mom spending many long hours doing this (for free) and meeting struggling families, etc.

i also think it's important for pro life people to know that pro choice people don't want to "kill babies".

as ij said, we need to see more done to effect change at the core of the issue. that is where a very valid, strong argument can be made to pro life people in support of "pro choice" candidates. personally i believed ralph nader's health care reform and economic equality platform would do more to end unwanted pregnancies than telling kids not to have sex til they're married.

i'm rambling. but to conclude: it's not a black and white issue, either way. and so it does no good to call people baby killers, but also does no good to see all pro life people as the "religious right" who force their views on others. if YOU thought it was wrongly killing, YOU'd do your best to put an end to it too, right? both sides need to work together to root out the circumstances that create a "need" for abortion, not throw insults back and forth.

[MarkCollette]

jelloshotsrule, you could have just posted that to begin with, and saved everyone the trouble :D

[stubeeef]

an interesting thought.

2 sisters are pregnant. Both are judged to be the same number of weeks pregnant.

1 is a victim of a random crime and her baby dies as a result. The criminal is charged with manslaughter or murder for the babies death.

The same week the other daughter has an abortion.

[leekohler]

an interesting thought.

2 sisters are pregnant. Both are judged to be the same number of weeks pregnant.

1 is a victim of a random crime and her baby dies as a result. The criminal is charged with manslaughter or murder for the babies death.

The same week the other daughter has an abortion.

I've always been of the opinion that charging the criminal for two deaths like that is ridiculous. However, we are talking about choice and clearly, the sister who was killed by the criminal was not given a choice. That's the only difference I see here. So I can see why some people might charge the criminal for two deaths, even though I disagree with it.

[Josh]

an interesting thought.

2 sisters are pregnant. Both are judged to be the same number of weeks pregnant.

1 is a victim of a random crime and her baby dies as a result. The criminal is charged with manslaughter or murder for the babies death.

The same week the other daughter has an abortion.

The doctor loses his job, goes to prison for the same charges, and burns in hell for all eternity.

He is joined by homosexuals and liberals.

(Not that I agree, but what response is more fitting? :p )

[stubeeef]

I've always been of the opinion that charging the criminal for two deaths like that is ridiculous. However, we are talking about choice and clearly, the sister who was killed by the criminal was not given a choice. That's the only difference I see here. So I can see why some people might charge the criminal for two deaths, even though I disagree with it.

Actually in my scenario neither adult dies. One side it is the taking of "life" the other is a "choice about 'my' body."

[jelloshotsrule]

an interesting thought.

2 sisters are pregnant. Both are judged to be the same number of weeks pregnant.

1 is a victim of a random crime and her baby dies as a result. The criminal is charged with manslaughter or murder for the babies death.

The same week the other daughter has an abortion.

is it the same father?

and is that father shadow? or is it sam sham?

[tristan]

1 is a victim of a random crime and her baby dies as a result. The criminal is charged with manslaughter or murder for the babies death.


You mean the fetus? The embryo? It's not a baby yet. And unborn baby is an oxymoron - just a way to play with language.

[stubeeef]

You mean the fetus? The embryo? It's not a baby yet. And unborn baby is an oxymoron - just a way to play with language.

Please. Next pregnant women you see, ask her how she feels about her fetus.

Now, eliminate the diversion and address the scenario.

Question, what makes one murder and the other a "choice"?

[tristan]

Question, what makes one murder and the other a "choice"?

The death of an "unborn baby" has never been considered as murder until recently, when the high-profile cases like Laci Peterson pushed legislatures to make the crime equivalent to murder.

Anyway, if you want to take that route, a miscarriage is suicide or murder. Which is nonsense.

[FoxyKaye]

Question, what makes one murder and the other a "choice"?
Aside from the fact that your initial scenario is directly out of the 1994 Right Wing Playbook designed to obfuscate the law, it's very simple: The state has no right to impose laws on my body. Abortion is a Right, plain and simple. The right to abortion is the law, and it is a fundamental right to women's control over their own bodies. Using your logic, the next destination down the slippery slope would be to outlaw birth control as well.

Of course, your argument would be very different if the State mandated forced physical castration for men when women decided they didn't want any more children. Then, of course, keeping your nuts would be a Right.

So, unless you'd like to take over on the job of carrying a child to full term, I suggest that you move your moral high ground to a different country. Because I can guarantee you that the "choice" as you call it to have an abortion is not a cut and dry as you claim, nor is it ever easy. Because the same State that would propose to restrict women's access to abortion also forces them to marry to receive any form of welfare assistence. Oh and by the way, women's wages per dollar *still* haven't caught up with men's. Don't you dare presume to lecture me about "choice."

So, you want to outlaw abortion, I suggest you start with outlawing racism, poverty and sexism (and for that matter, homophobia) first.

[aquajet]

Question, what makes one murder and the other a "choice"?

The law distinguishes between the two contrived situations you presented. For a more in-depth response, read FoxyKaye's post.

[leekohler]

Aside from the fact that your initial scenario is directly out of the 1994 Right Wing Playbook designed to obfuscate the law, it's very simple: The state has no right to impose laws on my body. Abortion is a Right, plain and simple. The right to abortion is the law, and it is a fundamental right to women's control over their own bodies. Using your logic, the next destination down the slippery slope would be to outlaw birth control as well.

Of course, your argument would be very different if the State mandated forced physical castration for men when women decided they didn't want any more children. Then, of course, keeping your nuts would be a Right.

So, unless you'd like to take over on the job of carrying a child to full term, I suggest that you move your moral high ground to a different country. Because I can guarantee you that the "choice" as you call it to have an abortion is not a cut and dry as you claim, nor is it ever easy. Because the same State that would propose to restrict women's access to abortion also forces them to marry to receive any form of welfare assistence. Oh and by the way, women's wages per dollar *still* haven't caught up with men's. Don't you dare presume to lecture me about "choice."

So, you want to outlaw abortion, I suggest you start with outlawing racism, poverty and sexism (and for that matter, homophobia) first.

Damn! Foxykaye, looks like somebody pushed your buttons. ;)

[FoxyKaye]

Damn! Foxykaye, looks like somebody pushed your buttons. ;)
There's a few folks on MR that are quite good at it...:p

[IJ Reilly]

Anyway, if you want to take that route, a miscarriage is suicide or murder. Which is nonsense.

Involuntary homicide, at the very least!

[stubeeef]

Aside from the fact that your initial scenario is directly out of the 1994 Right Wing Playbook designed to obfuscate the law, it's very simple: The state has no right to impose laws on my body. Abortion is a Right, plain and simple. The right to abortion is the law, and it is a fundamental right to women's control over their own bodies. Using your logic, the next destination down the slippery slope would be to outlaw birth control as well.

Of course, your argument would be very different if the State mandated forced physical castration for men when women decided they didn't want any more children. Then, of course, keeping your nuts would be a Right.

So, unless you'd like to take over on the job of carrying a child to full term, I suggest that you move your moral high ground to a different country. Because I can guarantee you that the "choice" as you call it to have an abortion is not a cut and dry as you claim, nor is it ever easy. Because the same State that would propose to restrict women's access to abortion also forces them to marry to receive any form of welfare assistence. Oh and by the way, women's wages per dollar *still* haven't caught up with men's. Don't you dare presume to lecture me about "choice."

So, you want to outlaw abortion, I suggest you start with outlawing racism, poverty and sexism (and for that matter, homophobia) first.

Classic strawman.

[Sedulous]

This nation was founded by folks fleeing the oppression of religion.

I was unaware that one needs to be willing to move to enjoy the equal protections of the Constitution. Enlighten me.

Don't make Dubya finally come out and do what Bushco has been dreaming of... burn the Constitution! Theocracatic police-state for all!

Why is it so hard for "people of faith" to see their own hypocracy?

[FoxyKaye]

Classic strawman.
Classic Religious Right Victim Mentality.

We can go at this all day, if you wish.

[stubeeef]

Classic Religious Right Victim Mentality.

We can go at this all day, if you wish.

You did not address anything I said, you immediately jumped into a ranting diatribe about religion and how no one can legislate your body (see illegal drug use, suicide laws-including as a bomber, FDA testing rules.....).

I was mearly asking for help in reconciliing these seemingly opposite reasons for a similar result. You addressed them, not at all.

Yes, I make no apologies for my anti-abortion stance, I do accept the reason to save the mothers life, or if it threatens her life.
And by the way, I was the one to go under the knife after our 3 children were born, I accepted that for the pains my wife endured. And removing "nuts" has zero to do with anything, except I am ok with it for rapists and child molesters! But please keep yours, (I hope you don't have a cabnet full of mason jars of them:eek: ) I don't know of anyone that wants your uterus though (except a fetus).

Good night, and good luck.

[stubeeef]

Don't make Dubya finally come out and do what Bushco has been dreaming of... burn the Constitution! Theocracatic police-state for all!

Why is it so hard for "people of faith" to see their own hypocracy?

What a bunch of bunk!, They were not "fleeing the oppression of religion"! holy garbage.
Many were fleeing oppression, and wanted to practice their Christian beliefs and ceremonies that they were not allowed to do in Europe. Fleeing the oppresion of religion, hahahahaha:p

[skunk]

I was mearly asking for help in reconciliing these seemingly opposite reasons for a similar result. You addressed them, not at all.Oh, come on now! You weren't asking for help, you were posing a provocative question. My answer would be that if the foetus is at a viable age, the same rules should apply in each case, except in extreme circumstances, for example if there is a significant danger to the mother. If the foetus is not viable, the attacker should be done for assault or attempted murder of the mother, and the doctor should be allowed to get on with his legal abortion.

[stubeeef]

Oh, come on now! You weren't asking for help, you were posing a provocative question. My answer would be that if the foetus is at a viable age, the same rules should apply in each case, except in extreme circumstances, for example if there is a significant danger to the mother. If the foetus is not viable, the attacker should be done for assault or attempted murder of the mother, and the doctor should be allowed to get on with his legal abortion.

Seems folks get a bit testy when the line gets fine.

I think it is indeed a conundrum, when is it murder and when is it not. There are cases like the scott peterson one that call this into question. In the US a Viable fetus could have been aborted by "partial birth abortion" which I believe is now banned. The argument was that the baby was dead by anesthesia, a good bit of "it's ok, no pain" fuzzy math.

The Pain of Partial-Birth Abortion

During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. To learn more about the pain that partial-birth abortion inflicts on pre-mature human babies, and about the "anesthesia myth," click here.


http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/ (Warning Graphic)

The discussion is not to say I am right and you are wrong, but to bring in the fringe wierd parts, like this one. I am aware of the un adopted children in the US, but because they are not brought up in a tradional home, does that make them useless and unable to contribute to society? Do many 25yr old unadopted adults wish they had been aborted?

It is a crazy world, I don't have all the answers, and neither does anyone else here, I don't believe this is right, maybe because I am a Christian, or just because I don't think it is right.

I suggest that we at least limit this sort of stuff, that would be my Modest Proposal.

[FoxyKaye]

I was mearly asking for help in reconciliing these seemingly opposite reasons for a similar result. You addressed them, not at all.
OK here's your answer: After extensive lobbying of state governments, mostly by right wing organizations, the fetus has been granted legal "life" status.

However, the extermination of the life of a pregnant mother is deemed homocide of the fetus in certain circumstances because the underlying assumption of the law is that the mother intends to keep the fetus to full term and give birth. Since the choice to carry the fetus to full term is removed from the mother at the time she is murdered, we don't have an answer to the mother's intents for childbirth and therefore the law grants that intent as to keep the fetus until delivery.

In both circumstances, the fact that the fetus is part of a women's body is used to support the arguments - in the former circumstance, to undermine the women's personal liberty by deciding her intent (the the baby should be kept to full term), and in the second, making a decision about an unborn fetus when the mother is unavailable to do so. Since the mother in the second circumstance is deceased, there is no violation of personal liberty in deciding the intent of the pregnancy.
Yes, I make no apologies for my anti-abortion stance, I do accept the reason to save the mothers life, or if it threatens her life.
Very good then, I'm also going to applaud your support for opposing the death penalty, supporting universal pre-natal health care, supporting universal insurance for children, and supporting universal child care for single mothers and working families. It's also thrilling to see that you don't consider pregnancies that result from rape and incest as candidates for abortion. Thank goodness there's moral folks like you to keep the rest of us in line. I'm so sorry that the broader context of working women's lives is such an imposition on your legal system.

[stubeeef]

Very good then, I'm also going to applaud your support for opposing the death penalty, supporting universal pre-natal health care, supporting universal insurance for children, and supporting universal child care for single mothers and working families. It's also thrilling to see that you don't consider pregnancies that result from rape and incest as candidates for abortion. Thank goodness there's moral folks like you to keep the rest of us in line. I'm so sorry that the broader context of working women's lives is such an imposition on your legal system.

I detect sarcasm, I am very much against the death penalty and have said it loudly here.
I would embrace pre-natal and child health care, absolutely!
Listen miss kaye, I was raised by a single mother, my father died when I was in 3rd grade, I was raised in my grandparents home, don't give me a bunch of holier than though cr@p, I have lived it!

[leekohler]

But please keep yours, (I hope you don't have a cabnet full of mason jars of them:eek: ) I don't know of anyone that wants your uterus though (except a fetus).

Good night, and good luck.

Wow- nice stu. I'm disappointed. I thought you were above such things.

[FoxyKaye]

I am aware of the un adopted children in the US, but because they are not brought up in a tradional home, does that make them useless and unable to contribute to society? Do many 25yr old unadopted adults wish they had been aborted?
I'm glad you brought this up, because I would expect then to see you arguing for comprehensive reform of the child welfare system as well. Oh, and thank you for also supporting adoption by gay and lesbian parents, since these are certainly not considered "traditional" homes.

[stubeeef]

I'm glad you brought this up, because I would expect then to see you arguing for comprehensive reform of the child welfare system as well. Oh, and thank you for also supporting adoption by gay and lesbian parents, since these are certainly not considered "traditional" homes.

I was refering to the UN-adopted, those that spend their entire lives in a state home. Lordy you are so far off that it is impossible to address all of your misgivings.

[FoxyKaye]

I detect sarcasm, I am very much against the death penalty and have said it loudly here.
I would embrace pre-natal and child health care, absolutely!
Glad to hear it.
Listen miss kaye, I was raised by a single mother, my father died when I was in 3rd grade, I was raised in my grandparents home, don't give me a bunch of holier than though cr@p, I have lived it!
Well, I never thought we'd have anything in common, but what do you know. My father also kicked off when I was in 6th grade, I was also raised by a single mother, and we were dirt poor.
It is not nice to accuse people of the things you just said especially when they are a lie! I will await your apology!
None forthcoming - let's let the others on the thread decide about your implications, shall we?

[leekohler]

Were you not even a bit agast at her rant? When have I ever said the things she has invented, because we disagree on this I am automatically for the death penalty and call queer woman man-hating whatevers...

Please, if I have in the least offended you then she should have knocked you off your feet.

Yeah, I was. But did it deserve that response? You both could be a lot more civil.

[blackfox]

<sigh> sooner or later, with topics like these the madness descends...

Stu, I don't want to put words in your mouth - so I say this as a hypothetical:

Do you think the debate about abortion is between those who think it is wrong and feel that it is murder, and those who think it is not?

Because although I am pro-choice, I have serious problems with Abortion and do feel that it is wrong. For me, however, I see more wrong in what would happen if it was banned. That is an ethical position too.

I respect the fact that you believe how you do, but why would you want the government to legislate that? Why would you want them involved? As it stands now, abortions are merely an option among many - and no-one is forced down that path.

Again, I apologize if I assigned something to you that is not accurate.

[stubeeef]

Glad to hear it.

Well, I never thought we'd have anything in common, but what do you know. My father also kicked off when I was in 6th grade, I was also raised by a single mother, and we were dirt poor.

None forthcoming - let's let the others on the thread decide about your implications, shall we?

Who was poorer is a laugh, and my furniture was cardboard with tackpaper to decorate it, not kidding. It matters not in the least.
Point out where I called "queer woman, man hating...." anythings.
In fact you are saying that Christians for the death penalty, against abortion, pro-hate, and every other mis concieved prejudiced psycho babble.
your generalzations, hate, and prejudice are only exceeded by your huberous.

[stubeeef]

Do you think the debate about abortion is between those who think it is wrong and feel that it is murder, and those who think it is not?

Because although I am pro-choice, I have serious problems with Abortion and do feel that it is wrong. For me, however, I see more wrong in what would happen if it was banned. That is an ethical position too.

I respect the fact that you believe how you do, but why would you want the government to legislate that? Why would you want them involved? As it stands now, abortions are merely an option among many - and no-one is forced down that path.

Again, I apologize if I assigned something to you that is not accurate.

yes I do see it as between the two side you mention. I have a high school friend who is an athiest and against abortion, so I think of it as more a morality issue than religous.
I wish for the legislation to protect the child, like all protection that should be afforded.

PS thankyou for your level headedness. Goodnight, this needs to end

[bousozoku]

I understand that it's a difficult subject but insulting each other is not going anywhere worthwhile.

If you can't take a break on your own, I can close the thread.

[FoxyKaye]

Who was poorer is a laugh, and my furniture was cardboard with tackpaper to decorate it, not kidding. It matters not in the least.
Point out where I called "queer woman, man hating...." anythings.
In fact you are saying that Christians for the death penalty, against abortion, pro-hate, and every other mis concieved prejudiced psycho babble.
your generalzations, hate, and prejudice are only exceeded by your huberous.
Hey, you brought it up. And so where are the Christians who are challenging the Religious Right anyhow, or at least what you've outlined as my understanding of it? They've been awfully silent on a whole bunch of opportunities to support civil rights for lesbians and gays, protect the right to abortion and oppose the death penalty.

I did answer your earlier question, by the way.

I'm also perfectly happy to live with the consensus of others on the thread regarding the tone of our discussion. Infringement of abortion rights is a hella get-mad issue for me, and I'm certain it's reflected in my writing.

And for the record, hubris is defined by invading Iraq.

I'm going to dinner.

[Edit]:
If you can't take a break on your own, I can close the thread.
Please do, this is going nowhere.

[Sayhey]

Who was poorer is a laugh, and my furniture was cardboard with tackpaper to decorate it, not kidding. It matters not in the least.
Point out where I called "queer woman, man hating...." anythings.
In fact you are saying that Christians for the death penalty, against abortion, pro-hate, and every other mis concieved prejudiced psycho babble.
your generalzations, hate, and prejudice are only exceeded by your huberous.

It's "hubris" not "huberous" and it doesn't apply no matter how you spell it.

I think foxykaye made the point about hypocrisy among the the religious right fairly well. I've meet many religious people who are consistent in their view of protection of life and fight for social equality, but I've also seen too many fundamentalists who like to pick and choose where compassion is needed.

Stu, if you want to believe a microscopic collection of cells is the same as a human being, then I've got no problem with you living your life that way. Just keep your religious views out of our legal system.

[Sedulous]

What a bunch of bunk!, They were not "fleeing the oppression of religion"! holy garbage.
Many were fleeing oppression, and wanted to practice their Christian beliefs and ceremonies that they were not allowed to do in Europe. Fleeing the oppresion of religion, hahahahaha:p

Hey, Stubeef! Good to see you. I didn't write anything about the founding of the nation... My comment was seeking to only make fun of hyper-evangelic types that seem to prefer theocracy to freedom.

As far as I am concerned, until someone can give sound reasoning for a proposed law, it isn't worth consideration by the government.

If you'd like to debate when an embryo is a "person", I'd be happy to entertain. I am a developmental biologist actively doing research (Harvard Med / Oxford) and may have some interesting insights to offer.

[pdham]

Please do, this is going nowhere.

Actually it was going quite well until you guys got a little worked up.

I think we can all agree that, as has been said before, the pro-life / pro-choice issue is not black and white (see blackfox's last post). I think this can be a useful thread as we watch the political process ensue and discuss the finner points of any legislation.

On a more personal note. I really wish that the pro-life and pro-choice side could put their differences aside and work on instigating social change that would make abortions far less necessary. By that I mean a massive effort to promote adoption, universal pre-natal care and early-life care for children. I suppose that this is somewhat of a pipe-dream, see above conversation between opposing sides as illustration, but maybe we could at least recognize that need.

[pseudobrit]

On a more personal note. I really wish that the pro-life and pro-choice side could put their differences aside and work on instigating social change that would make abortions far less necessary. By that I mean a massive effort to promote adoption, universal pre-natal care and early-life care for children. I suppose that this is somewhat of a pipe-dream, see above conversation between opposing sides as illustration, but maybe we could at least recognize that need.

Not going to happen as long as the religious vote is co-opted by the anti-Christian conservatives via the abortion debate.

They'll forever vote in a bunch of wretched, greedy Satanic bastards as long as said bastards will pay lip service against reproductive rights.

[~Shard~]

If you can't take a break on your own, I can close the thread.
Please do, this is going nowhere.

To assist in the closing of this thread, allow me to invoke Godwin's Law:

Hitler was in favor of abortion.

Thanks, you've been a wonderful crowd... :cool:

[blackfox]

On a more personal note. I really wish that the pro-life and pro-choice side could put their differences aside and work on instigating social change that would make abortions far less necessary. By that I mean a massive effort to promote adoption, universal pre-natal care and early-life care for children. I suppose that this is somewhat of a pipe-dream, see above conversation between opposing sides as illustration, but maybe we could at least recognize that need.
I choose to go with a slightly less <cough>inflammmatory<cough> response than PseudoBrit here...

I would also love to see these things happen, and would happily adjust my opinions towards abortion in light of changed circumstances.

The fact that we do not have anything close to this right now, is an important part of my lesser-evil calculus on this issue.

speaking of adoption, I find it pretty ironic that many of the people who groups want to prohibit from having abortions (and thus making them have the child), would never have a chance in the world of adopting a child.

What do you suppose that means?

oh, I wouldn't mind if this thread stayed open a while - it always has the potential to be interesting.

Thanks for the contribution there Shard...;)

[~Shard~]

oh, I wouldn't mind if this thread stayed open a while - it always has the potential to be interesting.

Thanks for the contribution there Shard...;)

Hey, no worries, it's what I do... ;) I trust you also caught my earlier comment where I said that I wished I was female so that I could have an abortion? :cool:

[trebblekicked]

before this thread gets shut down, i wanted to throw this in:

men fight for financial freedom from certain unplanned pregnancies (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html).

[jelloshotsrule]

And so where are the Christians who are challenging the Religious Right anyhow, or at least what you've outlined as my understanding of it? They've been awfully silent on a whole bunch of opportunities to support civil rights for lesbians and gays, protect the right to abortion and oppose the death penalty.

i'm right here. and there's more of us than you think. not as many as i'd like, and not as vocal as i'd like. but it doesn't help when other progressives write all religious people off blindly.... tolerance?


and while i understand the problem that assigning a "life" status to a fetus/unborn baby can create in terms of abortion rights, i still am not sure that it is directly related all the time to instances of assault that result in a dead fetus/unborn child. in other words, don't you have a problem with a healthy, pregnant woman who intends to carry the child to term (her choice), but who is then assaulted in such a way that she's still alive, but the fetus/unborn child inside her dies? personally, i think that's horrible and is no better than imposing a choice to have the baby on the woman.

like i said, i can see the problem and grey area, but to act as though all those who want to protect the baby in cases of assault are just working to get abortion banned is narrow sighted.

trebble- that is a tough issue. on the one hand i feel that the guy has a responsibility to the child, and also has a part in it... and thus a say. however, if you give the guy any say whatsoever, you effectively take away all the say of the mother. you cannot force her to have the child if she doesn't want it but the father does. so again, i think it's a tough issue that isn't as black and white as either side wants you to believe.

[pseudobrit]

before this thread gets shut down, i wanted to throw this in:

men fight for financial freedom from certain unplanned pregnancies (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html).

Going nowhere.

Higher courts have ruled that engaging in the act of intercourse with a woman is tacit acknowlegement of the possibility for pregnancy.

I'll wager a dozen doughnuts the group funding the lawsuit is really an anti-abortion group disguised as a "men's advocacy" group and it's really just an attempt to allow a man to stop his girlfriend/one night stand/wife from gaining access to abortion.

After that foot's in the door, what's to stop the man from preventing or forcing the use of oral contraceptives by his paramour?

[mactastic]

Should the electric company face prosecution if their negligence in trimming trees causes a power outage that disrupts power to an in-vitro clinic with frozen embryos?

Should a husband who knows his wife is considering an abortion be jailed as an accomplice if she goes through with it?

If a woman exercises to vigorously and accidentally causes herself to miscarry, should she be jailed? (Ignorance is no excuse, right?)

Can an embryo be granted a SSN? Should it be? Can I claim an embryo as a dependent on my taxes? I mean, it's a person after all, right?

[MarkCollette]

Can I claim an embryo as a dependent on my taxes? I mean, it's a person after all, right?

Hmm, tax breaks... Maybe I should change my position after all :p

According to Canada Customs, when I fly to another country, I can only bring back 2 bottles of wine. So, if I screw my girlfriend, could she then bring back 4 bottles of wine, 2 for her and 2 for the fetus (plus 2 for me), and then just take the morning after pill when we get home? Suddenly this debate has become so much more meaningful :D

[zimv20]

how about fetal insurance?

[mactastic]

So none of our intrepid right-to-lifers want to tell us the logical distinctions that allow a fetus to be considered a person when it comes to charging someone with murder for assaulting a pregnant woman, and a doctor for performing an abortion; yet when it comes to a SSN or a tax break it's not a person?

Also, why would a murder be classified as a 'Class 5' felony, akin to getting busted with some weed? I thought a person would be worth more than that.

Any takers?

[pseudobrit]

yet when it comes to a SSN or a tax break it's not a person?

Can an embryo collect disability?

[zimv20]

hey, if we're gonna give embryos such legal status, then i want a couple hundred million tax deductions for my sperm.

[mactastic]

Sad. Four pages of back and forth, yet now no one wants to answer those questions.

[jelloshotsrule]

Should the electric company face prosecution if their negligence in trimming trees causes a power outage that disrupts power to an in-vitro clinic with frozen embryos?

Should a husband who knows his wife is considering an abortion be jailed as an accomplice if she goes through with it?

If a woman exercises to vigorously and accidentally causes herself to miscarry, should she be jailed? (Ignorance is no excuse, right?)

Can an embryo be granted a SSN? Should it be? Can I claim an embryo as a dependent on my taxes? I mean, it's a person after all, right?

1. probably, but not charged with any sort of homicide/murder. the embryos are valuable though. hate to equate them to property but they are theoretically set aside to have a baby later, so they do have value in that the destruction of them could keep someone from having their child later in life (if they're unable to now for whatever reason)

2. no

3. no

4. no, no, no.

[mactastic]

1. probably, but not charged with any sort of homicide/murder. the embryos are valuable though. hate to equate them to property but they are theoretically set aside to have a baby later, so they do have value in that the destruction of them could keep someone from having their child later in life (if they're unable to now for whatever reason)

2. no

3. no

4. no, no, no.
Doesn't count Jello... you didn't want to ban abortions to start with. Thanks for playing though. ;)

[solvs]

Apparently, this has actually hurt him in the polls (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/03/20/in_south_dakota_rounds_approval_plummets.html).
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds’ (R) job approval dropped to 58% from 72% last month, after he signed a bill outlawing most abortions in the state, according to a new SurveyUSA poll.

[jelloshotsrule]

Doesn't count Jello... you didn't want to ban abortions to start with. Thanks for playing though. ;)

BUT, i do see a grey area when it comes to NOT punishing someone who assaults a pregnant woman and results in the death of her baby/fetus/whateveryouwanttocallit by actions outside of HER choice.

i like TO capitalize certain WORDS

[pdham]

So none of our intrepid right-to-lifers want to tell us the logical distinctions that allow a fetus to be considered a person when it comes to charging someone with murder for assaulting a pregnant woman, and a doctor for performing an abortion; yet when it comes to a SSN or a tax break it's not a person?

Also, why would a murder be classified as a 'Class 5' felony, akin to getting busted with some weed? I thought a person would be worth more than that.

Any takers?

Ok I'll bite. Preface: I can't claim to speak for the right to life group as a whole, nor do I deny that hippocrasy abounds in the right to life group.

1) Why is it a murder for assaulter and doctor: I believe that a fetus is a life, plain and simple. My stance on pro-life has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with my desire to take away womens right, any more than people would think the law that disallows murder is taking away your rights. Obviously it would follow that a suitable punishment be had for killing a fetus. Now, I would argue that the assaulter was being malicious and the doctor certainly was not, so I don't think their punishments should be equal.

2) Fetus to get SSN: This seems pretty logical to me. A SSN is used as an administrative tool to keep track of us in this huge world of information. Like it or not you are just a number. Does a fetus need to perform any action, or have any action performed in their name, prior to birth that would require them to be tracked in our huge world of information? I can't think of anything. Plus the fetus seems to go where the mother goes so I am guessing all doctors records and the like use her SSN to track things. Now, in the case of a prearranged adoption prior to birth I am guessing an identifying number exclusive to the fetus could be helpful, although I am not sure how they currently operate that sort of think.

3) Fetus gets a tax break: Interesting idea. Since we can claim children as dependents because of their financial burden, it would seem to follow that we could claim a fetus for its financial burden, since the expenses certainly don't begin at birth. However, we only are pregnant for roughly 9 months, and those months could enter two parts of a year, so would you make that claim based on a number of months basis? Seems like it could be complicated, but it does seem like a logical idea (even if you aren't a right to lifer).

4) Why is killinga fetus only a class 5 felony?: I don't know, I can't pretend to speak to why our criminal code is the way it is, but like I said before I think the punishment for attacker and doctor would have to be different because of their motive and intent.

I will gladly field any other questions or comments, and I promise you I won't get into a circular arguement like virtually all the other right to lifers on this board.

Thanks
Paul

[jelloshotsrule]

1My stance on pro-life has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with my desire to take away womens right, any more than people would think the law that disallows murder is taking away your rights.

2...and I promise you I won't get into a circular arguement like virtually all the other right to lifers on this board.


1. thank you for saying that. as a person who was raised very pro life and now would probably be considered pro choice, i don't like many pro choice peoples' assumptions that pro lifers are these crazy women hating people. the fact is, you/they think it is a human life and as such, needs protection under the law. i would actually agree with the human life bit, but the problem i see is the ramifications of making it illegal.

likewise, many pro lifers see pro choice people as "baby killers" (sad, but true.) most pro choice people do not get some kick out of ending a pregnancy. rather, they see it as a right of the woman, as well as quite possibly a better option than birth in many cases. and most have a problem with it being used as a sort of birth control for irresponsible people.

2. like virtually all the other right to lifers in general, and also right to choicers.. ;)

[pdham]

. i would actually agree with the human life bit, but the problem i see is the ramifications of making it illegal.



And I tend to agree with the ramifications of making it illegal. That is why I so strongly feel both sides need to work on issues like universl prenatal care of mother and child as well as universal child health care. Also reduce the barriers and create a culture of adoption in this country. As a realistic pro-lifer I see the only possibility to meet my goals is to create a society that diminishes the need for most abortions, not to outlaw them with no further thought.

Don't worry I don't think you pro-choicers are baby killers...just uber-feminists :)

Paul

[jelloshotsrule]

As a realistic pro-lifer I see the only possibility to meet my goals is to create a society that diminishes the need for most abortions, not to outlaw them with no further though.

Don't worry I don't think you pro-choicers are baby killers...just uber-feminists :)



that is basically the argument that my brother made to my mom (very religious, pro life voter) in 2000 regarding why someone like (who else...) ralph nader would do more to diminish the societal "needs" for abortions (fighting poverty, educating, etc)... very important thing to think about i feel.

hah. i call my girlfriend and her pals feminazis. ;)

[MarkCollette]

BUT, i do see a grey area when it comes to NOT punishing someone who assaults a pregnant woman and results in the death of her baby/fetus/whateveryouwanttocallit by actions outside of HER choice.

i like TO capitalize certain WORDS

But, by counting the fetus as still part of her body, that assault can still be adequately punished with current laws, just like how if you steal a vital organ of mine, you get more severely punished than if you just punch me.

[mactastic]

Ok I'll bite. Preface: I can't claim to speak for the right to life group as a whole, nor do I deny that hippocrasy abounds in the right to life group.

1) Why is it a murder for assaulter and doctor: I believe that a fetus is a life, plain and simple. My stance on pro-life has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with my desire to take away womens right, any more than people would think the law that disallows murder is taking away your rights. Obviously it would follow that a suitable punishment be had for killing a fetus. Now, I would argue that the assaulter was being malicious and the doctor certainly was not, so I don't think their punishments should be equal.
Then how can you live with yourself, knowing that thousands of murders are committed in fertility clinics every day, a number that dwarfs the number of abortions in this country? Why do you suppose the so-called 'right to life' crowd isn't protesting fertility clinics? A life is a life right? Whether you "scramble it's brains" (to quote Mr. Garrison) or simply dump out a petri dish, a murder has been committed, has it not?

Also, would you view a husband (or boyfriend, or indeed any acquaintance) who knows their wife (girlfriend, friend etc.) is planning to murder someone as an accomplice to murder? Should someone like that be subject to accessory-to-murder charges if a mother talks about aborting a fetus around them and they do nothing to stop her before she does it?

Lastly, why the distinction you make between malicious and non-malicious murder? A doctor carefully plans out an abortion procedure. Would that not meet the legal description of premeditated murder? Why would a crime of passion murder be worse than a carefully planned and plotted murder?

2) Fetus to get SSN: This seems pretty logical to me. A SSN is used as an administrative tool to keep track of us in this huge world of information. Like it or not you are just a number. Does a fetus need to perform any action, or have any action performed in their name, prior to birth that would require them to be tracked in our huge world of information? I can't think of anything. Plus the fetus seems to go where the mother goes so I am guessing all doctors records and the like use her SSN to track things. Now, in the case of a prearranged adoption prior to birth I am guessing an identifying number exclusive to the fetus could be helpful, although I am not sure how they currently operate that sort of think.
I'll tell you why a fetus doesn't qualify for a SSN -- It's not a legal person.

3) Fetus gets a tax break: Interesting idea. Since we can claim children as dependents because of their financial burden, it would seem to follow that we could claim a fetus for its financial burden, since the expenses certainly don't begin at birth. However, we only are pregnant for roughly 9 months, and those months could enter two parts of a year, so would you make that claim based on a number of months basis? Seems like it could be complicated, but it does seem like a logical idea (even if you aren't a right to lifer).
And what would stop me from keeping about a hundred embryos frozen at a clinic to get the tax deduction? Once it's created, you can't kill it, and you can't force a woman to bear it. Bingo -- a permanent tax deduction. I'm sure the government would be more than happy to subsidize that for us. You think the Cayman Islands are a tax haven -- fertility clinics would be the new Cayman Islands.

4) Why is killinga fetus only a class 5 felony?: I don't know, I can't pretend to speak to why our criminal code is the way it is, but like I said before I think the punishment for attacker and doctor would have to be different because of their motive and intent.
Why is a crime of random violence worse than a premeditated murder to you? I can't see how you can unequivocally say 'abortion is murder' yet turn around and then say that one person who assaults a woman and accidentally kills her fetus (many pregnant women aren't showing) is worse than someone else who deliberately kills her fetus. It's just not logically consistent. A murder is a murder, no matter what the motive. And assuming abortion is murder, and a doctor sets out to deliberately perform an abortion, he's deciding to commit murder, correct?

I will gladly field any other questions or comments, and I promise you I won't get into a circular arguement like virtually all the other right to lifers on this board.

Thanks
Paul
I appreciate your candor, and your thoughts on this matter, and hopefully we can keep this from turning into the dreaded circular argument.

[Ugg]

Link
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12101999)

If South Dakota's abortion ban stands, it won't ban them from all parts of the state. The Oglala Sioux tribe president wants to open a women's clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation that will offer abortions only if House Bill 1215 becomes law.

Cecilia Fire Thunder, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe

"The best solution to abortion is to make sure that women have access to contraceptives, have access to family planning options, and that information needs to be out there at all times where all women of childbearing age have that information and use it."

For those reasons, Fire Thunder wants to open a women's clinic on Pine Ridge, providing women with birth control options and proper health care, and if 1215 passes the clinic would also provide abortions.

"We just want to make sure that something is done for women who make that decision. All we can do is provide that to them, no questions asked. It's their choice. It's between her and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that."

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long says providing an abortion on the Pine Ridge Reservation is not unlawful because state law doesn't apply to sovereign land.

"Roe vs. Wade is a federal law. Pine Ridge is a reservation that is under the jurisdiction of federal laws more than state laws."

But that doesn't mean just anyone can get an abortion. Long says providing and receiving abortions would be illegal if the person performing it and the woman were both non-Indian.

That last bit is pretty interesting and I can't imagine that it would stand up in court. To make it stand, I would think they'd have to ban all commerce by non-Indians on reservations.

[aquajet]

But that doesn't mean just anyone can get an abortion. Long says providing and receiving abortions would be illegal if the person performing it and the woman were both non-Indian.

That is the most bizarre thing I've heard today.

What do you want to bet that the next item on the South Dakota legislature's agenda is to pass a "law" that claims rights to the reservation?

[IJ Reilly]

That last bit is pretty interesting and I can't imagine that it would stand up in court. To make it stand, I would think they'd have to ban all commerce by non-Indians on reservations.

I imagine they are saying that at least one of the people involved has to be covered by tribal sovereignty.

[DakotaGuy]

Since I am the South Dakota boy here I thought that I would bring this back up. Well it came to vote by the people...

The people of our state overturned the law 56% to 44% yesterday. That is not bad for a small conservative state. In other news, our gay marriage amendment did pass however by a smaller margin then you would think...52% to 48%.

[Ugg]

Since I am the South Dakota boy here I thought that I would bring this back up. Well it came to vote by the people...

The people of our state overturned the law 56% to 44% yesterday. That is not bad for a small conservative state.

Glad to hear it!

Are there any plans to pursue it further? Or have South Dakotans had enough?

[DakotaGuy]

Glad to hear it!

Are there any plans to pursue it further? Or have South Dakotans had enough?

Well the "Yes on 6 for Life" Campaign vowes never to give up. However the campaign has also stated they WILL NOT support any law that has exceptions in it. Time will tell.

[KingYaba]

Hurray! More government! Just what conservatives want!

[solvs]

Hurray! More government! Just what conservatives want!

Well, it did lose.

Sorry to hear about Kinky. I rather liked him. I'm sure he'll find something to do. Or try again from within the "system".