South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 3 of 9
I don’t necessarily disagree with your characterization of abortion as the murdering of defenseless human beings, but the whole issue is often so esoteric. When does a fetus stop being part of the woman’s body and become an independent entity with rights all of its own? That is the question that is at the heart of the matter. Some argue that those rights begin at conception, but at conception the fetus is nothing more then a single celled organism, yet its merit as human is undeniably entwined completely within its potential as developing into a human being. Destroying that fetus might effectively destroy a human being. But should the human potential inherit in a single celled organism have rights that supercede or equal the rights of a fully realized human being? Then again, human offspring are essentially born underdeveloped and completely dependent upon the external support. So human offspring are also very much defined by their potential. Do the rights of a fully functioning adult human supercede the rights of naturally undeveloped human children? Few can argue that in this country today, we do not grant human children the same level of rights enjoyed by human adults, so the answer to that question would seem to be yes.
The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that the debate is overrun already, and needs to be ignored. ultimately there are some undeniable realities:
1. Foetus can't survive on it's own.
2. If you don't do anything to stop it, the foetus will become a human, so where life actually begins is irrelevant.
3. The world is overpopulated.
4. Poor people can't always afford to raise kids.
These all way on the issue, and people's positions. I think normally people's arguments come from pragmatic points of view:
Pro-choice pragmatism: Pregnancy can hinder your freedom, babies can hinder your economic situation.
Pro-life pragmatism: Youdon't want my grandchildren to be killed because your son marries some girl who thinks abortion is okay.
It's pretty simple, and then there are some folks who have a more faith-based position, which is where I fall. My position is essentially, don't f^&k with mother nature.
Objectively, I think there's no difference between abortion and this:
(This is a really disturbing story. Don't click on it if you're at all squeamish.)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/god-commanded-mother-to-sever-baby
s-arms/2006/02/21/1140284047884.html
If you read the the link address you will be spared clicking on the story. I know that those on the left probably think that's a reprehensible statement, but I just think it's objectively true. I used to not feel that way, I learned more about it an now I do. It's not a male/female thing. I've met many more female RTLers and more male pro-choicers overall.
Basically, the sentience issue falls apart as well. The foetus' brain starts developing on week three, and steadily develops physically until the child is 2 years old. Thus, the two year old has a physically fully developed brain, and is fully aware, but the 1 year old has only a partial brain, and is partially aware.
This is one of the peculiar things about humans. In most animals, the brain the animal is born with is the complete brain. Our slower brain build makes us more intelligent adults, and much stupider babies. A 6 week old kitten is far more intelligent and functional than a 6 week old baby. Some species of animal can outperform a 1 year old child within minutes of birth.
But given that, there is a period there, between 3 weeks into pregancy and 2 years after birth, in which the developing potentially fully aware human has a state of semi-awareness, in varying degrees.
Probably everyone thinks that the mother in the story should be taken out and shot, (and this is the sort of story that makes me really have problems with christians) but objectively, that's an RTL position. The baby is not a fully aware human being. (This is a really disturbing story.)
Regardless, it's not the issue we should be focusing our attention on. It's a distraction from the issues we can affect. Everyone in the world is going to get screwed if we play this game, and that is what it is there for, to keep us all dazzled. Everyone has their position, and great, but I've found in the past, this is one of the few issues which are so emotionally charged that no one is going to change their position.
Does everyone remember last election when the gay marriage thing kept cropping up, helping to kill Kerry? I did some reading about it, and came to the conclusion that is was not, as would seem logical, Bush stirring up the gays to activism to help Kerry collapse, but really gay rights groups acting up to try to get Kerry to support their single issue.
Here's what I came up with, as I understood it, to be the basic way this unfolded:
Bush started it with his anti-gay marriage stance, which had been going on since long before the election. He wanted to dole out a few doggy treats to the christian right, and he didn't want to give them an abortion ban, because that would end the debate. He gave them Terri Shaivo, and that was a disaster, a true Harriet Myers moment, because Bushes both, JEB and George, totally failed to swoop in and save the day.
But he also gave them a potential gay marriage ban, like the '96 bill. I don't think
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I say we start with your post.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that the debate is overrun already, and needs to be ignored.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia:
from cnn.com
link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.htmlQuote:
PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.
The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.
"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.
The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.
Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.
President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.
Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."
Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.
Whether you take the pro or con position on the abortion debate, this is an important developement in the abortion debate, so I thought I'd post in here to spread the word (if anyone hasn't heard already).
As a young woman whose views are generally liberal, usualy votes democrat, and does consider herself a feminist (though I don't affiliate with NOW or any other national groups) my first reaction to this article was: AHHH!!!
Other (perhaps more intelligent and well stated) thoughts?
"Objects in Space"
River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...
yes I'm aware of this and I don't know wether to laugh or cry, its sad, it seems were not moving foward in this country but backward. 1rst they try and teach creationism in schools, and now they are trying to take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Basically I see it as the government trying dumb us down more then we already are. makes me wonder whats next.
Its just to bad men can't get pregnant, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.
If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.
Attack me, not my opinion.
hmmm, drinking a bottle a vodka could potentially make the baby retarded. if your talking about the old fashion way of having an abortion , the coat hanger, and various concoctions of herbs was how it was done. Women have always found a way of terminating unwanted pregnancies, and we always will no government will ever stop that, this is about control, basically men wanting to control women, and the government enforing that control.
Most educated industrialized contries have low birth rates. its mostly the poor and uneducated who have more children then they need or can aford and those are the women who need to have access to abortions, rich and upper middle class have always found ways to get an abortion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, beheading them is a great idea. "A life for a life." Of course, I'm joking about that. I'm just wondering what the fuck happened to morality? It was replaced by selfishness. Nobody thinks about what they do anymore.
Attack me, not my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DreamTrove -- thanks for the political "shiny thing in front of your face" point.. makes a lot sense.
Bother....politicians. Can't live with 'em... can't shoot 'em. 
Quote:
this is about control, basically men wanting to control women, and the government enforing that control.
That's the party line, but like so many party lines, it's untrue. I mean really, have you ever spoken to someone on the other side of the issue? The pro-lifers I've talked with could care less about the woman, much less had any vested interest in "controlling" her.. their sole focus was on the kiddo inside, and not wanting it killed. And like DT said, there's at least as many chicks on the pro-life side.
So hey.. believe what you believe.. but make sure you believe it for real reasons.
Now.. as to abortion itself?
Like Firefly
it really reminds me of the Civil War era. Particularly the slavery debate that was so strong 1850's-1860's. You could take an abolitionist and a slaveholder, and ask them both about Freedom, and they'd both likely give a "mom and apple pie" speech to bring a tear to your eye. EVERYONE believed in the "inalienable rights to Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Happiness."The difference wasn't a belief or denial of freedom -- it was a difference in who they thought of was human, and thus who possessed those inalienable rights. Pro-slavery folks thought of black folks as something other than human, some lesser race.. and thus not deserving of basic human rights, any more than the mule or the horse next door in the barn.
Thankfully, we've come as a society to the point where we realize what a truly horrific idea that was.
Anyhow, the abortion debate is similar. Is a baby that ain't born yet human, and thus deserving of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? (Or even just Life?) ... or is it just a clump of cells, to be flushed out with no more thought than you'd take having a hair cut?
A human, or a mule? That's the question.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is my last thought on this subject.
If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.
But if you get pregnant by accident just because you were drunk and horny or just "wanted to have fun", you should not have the right to an abortion. You should just deal with it like a strong human being. So many people are so weak.
Attack me, not my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
This is my last thought on this subject.
If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.
Ah, but you see Jonus, that's where the trouble starts to creep in for you. At first, you called us all liberal whores and implied that we were immoral baby-killers. But now suddenly you add the caveat that rape is an exception. But as I am aware, there is no rape exception in the SD bill, nor is there in the eyes of many pro-lifer groups out there. There is no incest provision, nor is there a provision for interminable pregnancies (ie, birth defects in the womb so serious that the baby would be born stillborn or live for moments, things that are not covered in the health of the mother clause). How would you like to be a 13 year old incest victim having to fight the courts - in public no less - to get rid of a pregnancy? Would you be man enough (or woman enough, I'm just assuming maleness) to tell her to her face that she couldn't have one, and that she'd have to face a life as a ward of the court and probably lose her baby to DCFS as well?
You forget that there are more reasons than just "convenience" to getting an abortion, and even "convenience" abortions aren't often as convenient as you think they are. What say you to children of extreme poverty, who are doomed to grow up malnourished, mistreated, and fall through the cracks in the system? It's usually the pro-lifers (if you can call them that) that want to cut welfare programs, education, and other social mechanisms that would help those children. When that child turns to theft or drugs later down the road, the "pro-lifers" are the fastest to call for the death penalty.
And on a final note, when is a fetus a fetus? How far back must we go now? Some pharmacists are having trouble prescribing the morning after pill, which prevents conception. It's not even an abortion pill! When will the government hold our testicles (and ovaries, ladies) at gunpoint, telling us to only use them for baby-making?
Would I like to see fewer abortions? Certainly. Do I want government or religious control over me or my spouse?
no.7%'s 2c
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's always been the same amount of immorality and selfishness. This is the problem when people look back, they only ever see the good stuff that they want to see and they rarely see the bad. Back in the day our church leaders got us to burn witches and violently punish people who did things 'immoral' while doing these immoral things themselves, because they were untouchable and made the law.
We're no less moral than we have ever been, it's just that now it's more open and instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending it isn't happening we regulate it and deal with it as a society and a group, rather than just throw individuals aside so we can continue to ignore the situation as a whole. Frankly this is a whole lot better than the 'fingers in ears' solution, no matter how you cut it.
I don't take issue with you being anti-abortion, but I do take issue with the way you voice it and your choice of language. I'll tell you a story; a friend of mine got pregnant once and had an abortion. Immoral evil baby killing liberal whore you'd say, right? Well the actual story goes that her controlling manipulative abusive boyfriend didn't give her much choice over the use of contraception, nor did he give her much choice over having the abortion. Do you think it would have been better for her to have been forced to go to some backstreet butcher who could have killed her or made her infertile instead of the licensed clinic? A proposition which, BTW, would have meant my two god children wouldn't be alive today. Is their right to life lower than that other foetus which would have been aborted anyway?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME