South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 5 of 9
I don’t think that is true. To believe that, one must believe that banning abortions would result in more then 43 million deaths/aborted fetuses, over 30 years. Certainly, back alley abortions might increase, but the difficulty of getting an abortion would likely prevent many if not most abortions that might have occurred under legalized abortion. Not only is abortion legalized but we have special clinics set aside that make abortion not only legal but convenient. It’s counter intuitive to believe that the number of deaths/aborted fetuses would be higher by making abortion illegal.
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 Finn mac Cumhal:
Now. Now. Let’s be fair. It’s not really “baby”-murdering. It’s just “fetus”-murdering.
This seems to assume that there's a moral distinction between killing a fetus w/in the womb and killing a baby outside it. Not everyone agrees that there is such a distinction.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep. That’s true.
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 Finn mac Cumhal:
When does a fetus stop being part of the woman’s body and become an independent entity with rights all of its own?
My thought on the issue, for what it's worth, is that since the thing has fully unique DNA right from the get go, it's a fully distinct entity--a new human being, irrespective of its developmental stage. Being that that's the case, I don't see why the fact that it is inside a woman should be grounds for killing it.
My trouble with this issue is that the two sides aren't even arguing about the same thing. The left shouts, "Get your laws off my body!" They're concerned that the government not mandate what they can and cannot do in terms of medical procedures. The right shouts, "Abortion is murder!" They're concerned that the government is not protecting the rights of the innocent. These aren't the same issue! And since the two sides aren't even talking about the same thing, it's obvious (to me, anyway) that no progress is going to be made anytime soon. Regardless of what happens in South Dakota (and in possible subsequent Supreme Court brawls), about half the country is going to be very, very angry.
My concern on this board are those people who are not able to discuss the issue rationally. It's understandable, of course: things really start getting heated when the government is perceived alternatively as oppressive (laws-off-my-body) or immoral (abortion-is-murder). But those heated emotions can be kept in check, if you really work at it. Come on, folks! Let's at least keep this civilized. I'm looking at both sides here: "dumbass", "whore". These are your opinions, and you're welcome to them, but they do not make for a reasonable discussion. They make for flame wars. And pardon my unbridled optimism, but I think we can do better than this.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Finn my experience with abortion has been stated already. As I'm aware most backstreet abortions end in the mother either being dead (two deaths instead of one) or infertile. From my experience that means that two or three people would not be alive right now if abortions were illegal.
Frankly, that's enough for me.
Edit:
And yeah, I think making abortions illegal will ruin or end more lives than keeping them legal, I have no real empirical evidence to back this position up, but the opposition has no real empirical evidence to dispute it either. Though maybe saying 'the fact' was a poor choice of words, I should have said my opinion.
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
Quote:That’s fine, but you can’t use that argument to say that there would be more deaths/aborted fetuses if abortion were illegal. Just because back alley abortions may be more risky to the mother’s health, in general, does not mean that the mother will die all the time or even most of the time. And all the evidence, that I’ve seen, concerning the number of such abortions occurring prior to 1973 suggests that abortion occurred much less then it has during legalized abortion.
Originally posted by citizen:
Well Finn my experience with abortion has been stated already. As I'm aware most backstreet abortions end in the mother either being dead (two deaths instead of one) or infertile. From my experience that means that two or three people would not be alive right now, instead of one.
Frankly, that's enough for me.
Quote:Well, “whore” and “dumbass” aside, this has been pretty a civil debate as far as abortion debates go. But I do agree that such comments don’t really help the discussion or one's own argument.
Originally posted by Causal:
My concern on this board are those people who are not able to discuss the issue rationally. It's understandable, of course: things really start getting heated when the government is perceived alternatively as oppressive (laws-off-my-body) or immoral (abortion-is-murder). But those heated emotions can be kept in check, if you really work at it. Come on, folks! Let's at least keep this civilized. I'm looking at both sides here: "dumbass", "whore". These are your opinions, and you're welcome to them, but they do not make for a reasonable discussion. They make for flame wars. And pardon my unbridled optimism, but I think we can do better than this.
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 Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, “whore” and “dumbass” aside, this has been pretty a civil debate as far as abortion debates go. But I do agree that such comments don’t really help the discussion or one's own argument.
After some thought, I'll take the "dumbass" back, or at least change it to irresponsible. Here's the logic:
Putting aside the whole "life begins at X point" thing, criminalizing abortion as the SD law does forces pregnant women who have no desire to have children to have them. Their reasons for not wanting to bring a particular pregnancy to term might range from simple inconvenience, to economic or societal factors, to not wanting to bear the child of a rapist or relative, to not wanting to bear a child who will have severe physical problems, to not wanting a pregnancy which will cause physical problems for the woman, or possibly prevent further child-bearing.
Since the government of SD, acting for the people, requires all these types of pregnancies to produce a child, you'd hope they might have taken some action to deal with the results of these births. Shouldn't they provide for children who they force to be born into bad economic or family conditions. How about providing homes for children born due to rape, and all necessary counseling for the mother? Maybe pay the medical bills for children born with severe physical or mental problems which were diagnosed early in the pregnancy? Will they pay medical bills of women injured by dangerous pregnancies they were required to go through? I don't see anything in the SD legislation that takes responsibility for the imposition of their will in any of these cases.
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.
A little research into the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, who provided the recommendations for the bill, shows that(aside from the fact it was stacked with RTL members) it excluded any references to family planning or sex education from it's final report. Even the task force chairman, Dr. Marty Allison, an avowed RTLer, walked out of the final meeting, and stated,
"It got to the point at the end that part of the task force members, as well as the vast majority of our public audience, left the meeting because it just got so ridiculous. It was an embarrassing end, to tell you the truth. I was disappointed in the process...The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated"
Google "South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion" for more info.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
45-million mass-murdered Americans since Roe v Wade legalized genocide. How can America survive that? Jewish eugenics cult have really got their Death Camps crankin out the corpses. Reaverism is on the rise, like that cannibal abortion doc arrested for microwaving feti for lunch. I guess that's how to make room for 100-million illegal aliens... Do YOU want to murder YOUR children? Can you live with that? Why not sell them ALIVE for adoption, at $30,000 each? Why not cut taxes by 90%, like it was for previous generations, so wives can afford to stay home and raise the kids, rather than try to work a slave job for zero pay (by giving all wages to greedy govt)? Aren't these better options?
"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe
FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen-
Thanks.
Along with your position, there was an interesting panel discussion at my school that I was unable to attend titled "When Abortion Was Illegal".
But anyway, I found a link to one of the court cases that I based my statement off of
http://www3.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/hsbioethics/units/cases/unit
2_4.html
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it's interesting because a 12 year old died as a result of the half-siblings' mother not wanting the procedure performed.
Furthermore, the 7th point on this publication is an interesting read (as is the whole thing): http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Absolutely correct. Neither side wants a showdown. It's a great divisive issue for both parties. And yes, it was me that called it a distraction. At the moment, RTLers represent 51% of the country and Pro-Choicers 49% according to a recent poll I read. That's about as close to a 50-50 split as you're going to get. It's perfect for the purpose of dividing the country and setting us at each other throats. Once done, they can distract us with other issues. Since only two democrats in the history of the presidential election have actually gotten a majority of the vote, it's safe to assume that the democrats aren't playing for a majority. They're playing to lock in their 49%. They intend to win not by getting a majority, but by splitting the conservative vote, probably with a candidate like Pat Robertson.
7%: I don't think the GOP wants this to go before the Supremes and get Roe overturned.
I wish it weren't so, but alas, we're sheep. Look at what happened to McCain in 2000. Steve Forbes who was working for Cheney in PNAC, who in turn was working for Bush, virtually cloned McCain's platform, causing an even split. It was an obvious ploy, and it obvously worked. All the democrats would need to do is splinter off 5% or so of the christian right and it's in the bag.
I suspect Hillary is going to run DiFi in the primary to split Feingold's vote, and then someone like Robertson, maybe someone younger, in the general election. She seems pretty sure she can win, she's got a strategy. I suspect that Bush is going to make major strides in the next 2 years on abortion because Hillary wants him to, whether or not they are, as I suspect, working together. It's Ideal for Hillary if the abortion issue is in a precarious balance in '08, not just for the election, but for the political arena afterwords. No one knows this sentence is here. That way she gets all the democratic pro-choicers lined up behind her on her fight to restore abortion rigths, and meanwhile everyone ignores her war in Iran. Remember, when Bill Clinton went to war he did it very low key. We actually went to war four times, and everyone here can name them, but how many of the general public can? I imagine Hillary will be much the same. Subtely taking action in Iran with little or no reporting.
Clinton war was waking up one day and saying "what, we're at war? where was I?"
Bush war, like his dad's is "WE'RE GOING TO WAR-WAR-WAR-WAR!!! WE'RE GOING TO WAR-WAR-WAR-WAR !!!"
So, everyone keep busy with this abortion thing. Don't lose sight, it's very important. Very very important. Nothing's ever been so important. Remember: Narrow is the path.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME