S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:47 pm

It's show time! This is going to get interesting.

Beyond the academic exercise of determining the constitutionality of this law (and abortion in general), I am not sure how I feel about this. I have always seen merits on both sides of this debate. As a father, I can’t bare the thought of my daughter being aborted. On the other hand, I can’t imagine having to bring to term a fetus that is the result of rape or worse, incest.

As an academic exorcise, it will be fun to watch the show.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/ ... index.html

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:07 pm

South Dakota has people?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:44 pm

there is another state, Miss, or Missouri on of those states that starts with an \"M\" is in the process of passing an anti abortion law thats even tougher than S.D.

not to get into the pro or con debate, but most abortion cases have nothing to do with rape or incest, it is strictly an elective birth control measure, someone wanted unprotected sex and didnt like the results.

but it should be VERY interesting how the Supreme court handles this

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:16 pm

CUDA wrote:....not to get into the pro or con debate, but most abortion cases have nothing to do with rape or incest, it is strictly an elective birth control measure, someone wanted unprotected sex and didnt like the results.

but it should be VERY interesting how the Supreme court handles this

I don't know much about the rights and wrongs of abortion but consider this scenario, although hypothetical in my post, it actually happened.

Lets say there was this 13 year old girl who was truly innocent. A girl who was not yet into the boy thing and who could very well be your own young daughter.

She was left alone at home at the wrong time and a man with a nylon stocking over his face, climbs thru a window, finds her bedroom, and with his hand over her mouth, rapes her. She is told that if she talks he will come back another night and kill her parents.

She stays quiet for days, but the parents found out and rushed her to the hospital. I don't know what happened to her after that, but lets assume she is pregnant. If it was in S.D. today, would she have to have the baby? Or am I missing something.

Bettina

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:38 pm

If the bill stands, yes she would. But as it will likely be challenged at every turn, it won't take effect for at least a year or two (assuming it is upheld by the courts).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:36 pm

If this law stands, assuming the details of it prohibited her from getting an abortion under her circumstances, yes.
However she could go to another state where they haven't passed a similar law.

I seriously doubt this would pass in many states and although I probably can't give you a decent reason why this should be the case my gut tells me this is the way it should be, states should determine this.
Unless the federal government wants to step up to the plate and declare, specifically, when life begins then it seems like this is the way it should be under our constitution.

Fat chance of the congress having the guts to work out a definitive position, either pro or con, determining when life begins.
That's why it has to filter down to a smaller sample of representation, and in some states they will be just as unclear as at the congressional level and I'd suspect they would default to the status quo ie; no change in the law.

Weird, I could see a time when 30% of the states outlaw it but in federal hospitals in those states you could still get the abortion...probably see politicians at the federal level campaigning on the issue too! Make the taxpayers fund outreach programs where the poor can go to the local army base hospital and get an otherwise illegal abortion in an anti-abortion state....

It's a messy situation.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:02 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
CUDA wrote:....not to get into the pro or con debate, but most abortion cases have nothing to do with rape or incest, it is strictly an elective birth control measure, someone wanted unprotected sex and didnt like the results.

but it should be VERY interesting how the Supreme court handles this
I don't know much about the rights and wrongs of abortion but consider this scenario, although hypothetical in my post, it actually happened.

Lets say there was this 13 year old girl who was truly innocent. A girl who was not yet into the boy thing and who could very well be your own young daughter.

She was left alone at home at the wrong time and a man with a nylon stocking over his face, climbs thru a window, finds her bedroom, and with his hand over her mouth, rapes her. She is told that if she talks he will come back another night and kill her parents.

She stays quiet for days, but the parents found out and rushed her to the hospital. I don't know what happened to her after that, but lets assume she is pregnant. If it was in S.D. today, would she have to have the baby? Or am I missing something.

Bettina

consider this scenario, although hypothetical in my post, it actually happened. A woman in the third trimester of her pregnancy who is now carring a baby that could easily survive outside of the womb, gets into an argument with her significant other that ends either in Divorce or a permenant break up and no longer wants any memory of her relationship, so she goes to an abortion clinic and has her pregnancy terminated killing the baby, was this the result of rape or incest, or is this just delayed birth control.

all tho neither one of our senarios is the norm they do happen, abortion is all about the womans right for birth control without the moral concequences for her actions. one must realize that there is more than one party being effected here. if a woman gets pregnant married or not and chooses to have a baby against the will of the father then she has the right to legally make the father pay child support because of his poor jusgement of not wearing a condom. but lets now reverse the senario and yes I understand that it is the woman that carries the child and is not exactly the same thing. but why does the father not have the right to the child and make the woman pay child support since it is after all half his, and the birth control is as much her responsablilty as it is his. this is NOTHING about the womans right to choose, she made her choice when she chose to have unprotected sex as did the man, in all cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant there is a second beating heart in side of her. I cannot even go into the ways they perform abortion in this forum. it is purley NHB material.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:08 pm

probably see politicians at the federal level campaigning on the issue too!

did you watch the last 4 supreme court nominations???? they already are using it as a campaign issue, especially the Democrats, that seemed to be all Kennedy, Kerry, Biden and Pelosi( I think may have been Boxer) cared about they spoke of NOTHING else

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:32 pm

I seriously doubt this would pass in many states and although I probably can't give you a decent reason why this should be the case my gut tells me this is the way it should be, states should determine this.

Well, letting states determine this is basically still a win for the pro-choice side. An abortion is such a *huge* decision that no women would find driving a couple of hours to be a deterrent.

If conservatives are happy with this, then hell, lets make it policy. But in the end its just a good show to make them feel better about themselves with no real change.

In fact I would think pro-life people would really want this to not be a state issue, and remain a federal one.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:45 pm

Good for South Dakota.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:07 pm

CUDA wrote:
probably see politicians at the federal level campaigning on the issue too!
did you watch the last 4 supreme court nominations???? they already are using it as a campaign issue, especially the Democrats, that seemed to be all Kennedy, Kerry, Biden and Pelosi( I think may have been Boxer) cared about they spoke of NOTHING else

Cuda, I meant that they will be too spineless to take a position on abortion but once some states outlaw it they will rally to the aid of the poor people, say they are not capable of driving to a legal state and therefore the government must step in and provide them the means to get the abortion...
I can see a day when they are campaigning on that specific thing. That's what I meant, I'm well aware of the abortion issue as it's been danced around so far in politics.

Congress as a whole is too spineless to tackle the issue head on by defining when life begins so they can either call abortion murder...or take the other side and declare it the removal of tissue that isn't really a life.
If it was murder they would have the authority to stop a state from legalizing murder...and if it's not murder then how does the fed have any right to regulate medical procedure in such a micro-managing fashion?

It seems that it is either murder or it's a states right issue.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:17 am

Duper wrote:Good for South Dakota.

I don't know how in good conscience you can say such a thing. I guess there are some super conservatives that would oppose abortion and morning after pills for rape victims, but I can't see how it's justified.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:51 am

Topher wrote:
Duper wrote:Good for South Dakota.
I don't know how in good conscience you can say such a thing. I guess there are some super conservatives that would oppose abortion and morning after pills for rape victims, but I can't see how it's justified.

So, you'd be ok if abortion was only legal for rape victims? Otherwise, that is an empty argument

In 1995, there were well over 1 million abortions (http://www.cwfa.org/ru486/Appendix%20B_ ... .20.02.pdf). In 2004 there were ~200000 rapes (http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncvs2004.pdf). And the amount of rape victims that would get pregnant AND get an abortion is a fraction (I saw a number like 22000, but can't back that up).

Abortion is mostly about shirking responsibility, not about rape; people want to play without having to pay.

Once you go to clam heaven, you've already made your choice.

Then again, I guess abortion is funny.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:12 am

This is something I've been thinking about:

I have an interesting proposition for any Christians against abortion. Surely going to heaven (and whatever that necessarily requires) is the greatest good that one can achieve on earth. Unfortunately, last I checked, only about a third of the world is Christian (Protestants--remember that this includes the Catholics; Catholics--remember that this includes the Protestants; i.e. through whatever reasoning, most Christians agree that this gravely overrepresents the actual number of \"true Christians,\" so they would agree that in reality even fewer people in the world get to go to heaven.

So, let's face it, the given chances for any baby growing up on this planet and going to heaven is grim. In fact, the majority are going to burn for all of eternity in hell.

Fortunately, there's a way out. Most Christians agree that babies who are killed get a free ride into heaven. So doesn't it make sense to legalize all abortion such that 100% of all of these babies get to go to heaven? Granted, this would be at the possible expense of an earthly relationship with God and all that other fun stuff, but surely these things are not more important than one's very own salvation--whether one is going to heaven and avoiding burning in hell for all eternity? Which is the better scenario:
a) 100% of babies are saved and spend eternity in paradise. 33% are cheated out of an earthly relationship with God, et. al.
b) 33% of babies grow up to be saved and have earthly relationships with God, et. al. The remaining 67% burn in hell for all eternity.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:30 am

Will Robinson wrote:Fat chance of the congress having the guts to work out a definitive position, either pro or con, determining when life begins.

That's where the cookie crumbles.... Someone has to eventually determine "where life begins" and properly justify it if a clear distinction between murder and abortion is ever going to be made. Right now I don't see why justification for abortion can't be extrapolated logically to apply to killing people who are 20 years old.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:31 am

Jeff in all due respect that argument is as dumb as saying if you die in a Jihad you go straight to heaven with 100 virgins.
Thou shalt not kill. or murder depending on your translation.
By the logic your useing, whats the difference in letting the baby be born then putting it in a waste basket to starve to death? or giving it a lethal injection to kill it? is it not still an innocent child? just because it is now out of the womb we should not kill it? it will still goto heaven right? and at what point does it stop being that innocent child? 2? 6? 13? how do you make that determination. I think of the Irony of Lacey and Connor Peterson. Scott killed that unborn child and just because of the fact that the mother wanted it he was charged with murder, but if she had chosen at that date to end her pregnancy she would have been able to do so without question in most states.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:58 am

Damn Nirvana!
I'd forgotten just how dangerous it can be to click on one of your links while eating.
Oh well, it looks like my diet started earlier than I expected, in fact you almost aborted my breakfast!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:17 am

You know, if the Vatican didn't have Washington by the balls this would all work. How about they actually teach real sex ed in school so that girls know exactly what is out there for them.

Nobody likes abortion. But who has the right to tell another person what to do with their body, not I and definitely not the US govt. Outlaw abortion and you're going to see a lot more dead girls from botched surgerys in alleys, babies in dumpsters, and all of the above. You want to stop abortion? Teach kids at the right age the REAL deal and quit thinking your kids are innocent, they are not, we weren't when we were kids. You and your wife work 10 hours a day, they have time in there to do what they want. If it's sex, they will do it. You can't stop them, but you can teach them what to do in case something happens. Allow Plan B to be over the counter, HELP people instead of pointing a finger and throwing them to the wolves.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:08 am

Zurick, they do teach Real sex ed in schools. what they dont teach is responsability and concequences for one's actions

You and your wife work 10 hours a day

actually my wife has been a stay at home mom since my first child was born.in 1981
recently when my 18 year old daughter started having trouble with her room mate, her boy friend asked her to move in with him. she talked to me about it and said she was thinking about doing it. I never told her she couldnt. I didnt feel at her age I had that right, but I did let her know we still had room at home for her. she chose to come back home

life is about choices, we make hundrededs everyday, most of them do not effect other people, but some do. the CHOICE of unprotected sex can have a huge effect on many people. not to mention the loss life of the unborn child, who by the way is the only one in this whole debate who did NOT have a choice in the matter.

Outlaw abortion and you're going to see a lot more dead girls from botched surgerys in alleys,

this is a fear tactic used by the NOW gang we all know that this will not happen, dont buy into thier propaganda

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:37 am

I didn't mean you Cuda when I said you and your wife. And please with the sex ed, I had it, and they teach absolutely nothing, not a thing. And I'm sorry, but I don't think ruining the life of a baby is a good way to teach responsibility to kids. Should they not be having sex? Maybe, but when was the first time you did? It's not a fear tactic either Cuda, maybe if you lived in the big city you'd understand that. I could drive fifteen minutes and be in an area where that stuff happens way to frequently. Why? Because the girl didn't have the means or the knowledge of what to do. You can try Cuda, but you will not ever convince me otherwise, I don't feel it's my right to tell someone else what to do with their body. Hell, Congress can't even police themselves (Delay, Bahr), and they think they have the right? Please, find let's try to compromise and find some middle ground. You're republican Cuda, but I bet you still know what a compromise is.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:16 pm

Zuruck wrote:...I could drive fifteen minutes and be in an area where that stuff happens way to frequently. Why? Because the girl didn't have the means or the knowledge of what to do.....

The means to to aquire the knowledge starts at home and the school is a bad supplement at best even if they did teach all you would propose!
Don't count on the government to teach the children their values and morality and ethics or that area that's only fifteen minutes from your home will grow like cancer across the nation!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:41 pm

Yes I do understand what Compromise is and I do it all the time, I am against abortion, but I do agree that there are some instances where it should happen. but those instances are VERY VERY VERY rare. but even more than that I understand what personal and parental responsibility is. and for people to use Abortion as birth control is a total lack of both. as Will so perfectly stated, it starts at home, hell our public schools cant even teach kids the 3 R's correctly and you want to rely on them to teach birth control?!?!?! our public school system is abysmal and to rely on them to teach anything having to do with personal responsibility is short sighted.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think ruining the life of a baby is a good way to teach responsibility to kids

do you realise there are over 20 million families in this country that are just waiting for the possibility of adoption and would be more than willing to give those babies a good home. and are having to look over seas for adoption because there are so few of them available in this country. it is neccesary to kill these babies because of a lack of presonal responsibility instead?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:31 pm

In the scenario I posted, with the type of girl I posted, I'm surprised how many of you would still force this child to go thru a pregnancy she never even thought about, less wanted. A girl who was truly innocent and still plays with dolls. You people are as sick as the rapist.

I can understand an unwanted pregnancy because someone forgot to take a pill, or some other mistake. Thats different and I agree with the rest of you that she gets no abortion. She can carry the baby to term and give it up if she wants. However, this S.D. bill includes no exception for rape or incest and I find that repulsive.

If she were my daughter, I would leave the country if need be, get her an abortion, try to repair the mental damage as best I could, and remain out of the country rather than face a felony charge coming home.

No law would stop me from giving her a normal life far away from the Church that most likely kept pushing this bill. You can bet all your money on that.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:39 pm

Topher wrote:
Duper wrote:Good for South Dakota.
I don't know how in good conscience you can say such a thing. I guess there are some super conservatives that would oppose abortion and morning after pills for rape victims, but I can't see how it's justified.

I'm sure there are MANY people out there that are the result of rape that are glad to be alive. Adoption is a great option. Old and wornout argument Topher.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:44 pm

Bet51987 wrote: If she were my daughter, I would leave the country if need be, get her an abortion, try to repair the mental damage as best I could,

And what about the mental damage that you could cause her by forcing her to kill her child? Bettina there is no good solution in the case of a rape, the damage that is done is irreversable, so you now need to ask yourself, depending on the child and the parents. do you compound the damage by requiering her to have the child, or do you compound it by having her kill the child. your decision as a parent can be just as damaging and devistating as the Rape itself and as with the Rape itself it will mark her for the rest of her life.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:22 pm

Topher wrote:I guess there are some super conservatives that would oppose abortion and morning after pills for rape victims, but I can't see how it's justified.

Zuruck wrote:who has the right to tell another person what to do with their body, not I and definitely not the US govt. Outlaw abortion and you're going to see a lot more dead girls from botched surgerys in alleys, babies in dumpsters, and all of the above.

One of the major problems with the pro-choice pro-life debate is that both sides are talking about different things.

The pro-choice side, with a very few exceptions, simply ASSUMES that a fetus isn't a person, therefore it doesn't have any rights. SO, of course its the womans choice, and of course a rape/incest victim should be able to abort.
The pro-life side ASSUMES that the fetus IS a person, and therefore it IS protected by the constitution.

To illustrate this, lets just move both arguments a little later in time. And we'll take it even further than CUDA did.

A woman who has been raped has a 6 month old baby. Every time she looks at it, it reminds her of the horrible thing that happened. It even has it's fathers face. So she kills it. Is it murder?

The pro-life side says, "DUH, of course."
the pro-choice side says (usually), "well yes, but what has that got to do with abortion?"

Do you understand the problem here? To the pro-lifer, the fetus has just as much right to be protected from murder at 3 months of development as it does at 3 years. To the pro-choicer, the baby is a person, the fetus is not.

Lets go directly to Zuruck's statement. How would it sound if it went like this:

"Assassination is going to happen anyway, people WILL insist on knocking off other people who get in their way. That's their choice, not ours. But what happens when you make Assassination illegal is that it becomes dangerous. You have to go to dangerous places and talk to dangerous people who are likely to kill you if you don't pay your bill on time. We should legalize assassination so that it is safer to hire an assassin."

The pro-lifer says, "yes, thats the same issue as abortion."
The pro-choicer says, "what has it got to do with abortion?"

We can argue about legal semantics all day, but until we deal with the REAL issue, what is the definition of "human" and when do you become a citizen with full rights under the constitution, we will NEVER get ANYWHERE on this issue.

Now my party, the Libertarians, have an inconsistent position on the Abortion issue. They want to keep the government out of it. I find that view ridiculous. One of the VERY FEW areas where the government has every right to stick their nose in, is the issue of citizenship. WHO is a citizen, and who isn't? Who gets protected by the constitution, who doesn't? A lump of cancer cells is NOT a citizen, it has no rights and it's not murder to kill it. A baby after birth IS a citizen, kill it in Texas and we will fire up old sparky for you. BUT, there is this entire vague area between fertilization and birth where we have simply avoided making a legal line. WHAT makes you human and gives you human rights?

Many possible methods of defining personhood have been suggested.

1: To be a person, you have to be able to support life on your own.
This view is terrifying because its logical extension makes everyone on a life support machine a non-person with no rights.

2: To be a person, you must be "viable".
Meaning, you can be kept alive with machines, but do not require the DIRECT support of another persons metabolism. This could have some strange implications for organ transplant recipients, but my main objection to it is that technology keeps pushing the "viability" point of a fetus back further and further. We have every reason to believe that eventually a fertilized egg will be able to be brought to full maturity within the laboratory. How can our definition of personhood be dependent upon our level of technology? How can you say that a fetus in America is really a person with rights at one point, but a fetus in Africa of the same age is NOT a person. Of course, you could adjust Africa's standard of personhood to match OUR technological level, a level that is NOT available to them. But then what is the ethical difference between that and adjusting our standard of personhood by the technology we PROJECT we will have 20 years from now?

3: To be a person you must have taken your first breath.
If I understand correctly, this is the current standard in China. You can kill the kid 10 seconds before birth and its just a medical procedure, 10 seconds after it's murder. I find this view just too silly for serious consideration. How can you define personhood by breathing? It doesn't have anything to do with anything we normally connect to personhood. AND, it seems totally arbitrary. If you were going to pick breath, why not pick heartbeat, or walking, or defecation.

4: To be a person you only need to have the potential to be human.
By this standard the thousands and thousands of frozen fertilized ovum stored in medical facilities around the globe are all persons with full rights being imprisoned unjustly. Since the majority of impregnations miscarry without even the knowledge of the mother, the VAST majority of all USA citizens would have died a within just a few weeks of their existence. And stretch this just a TINY bit further and it becomes a crime to not fertilize an ovum. After all, put a sperm and an ovum into a test tube and you have a POTENTIAL human, even before they join. Or for another frightening interpretation, what about identical twins? During the early stages of cell division in an ovum, physical separation of the cells will result in multiple individuals. An 8 cell embryo is potentially 8 human beings. Are we murdering 7 unique individuals if we don't physically intervene and separate those cells?

This option ALSO runs into a difficulty in that it is inevitably linked to having a "Human" genetic code. In the past humanity has often excused slavery, genocide, etc. on the basis that some other race wasn't really "Human". What will we do with the genetic chimeras that are just around the corner. Geneticists have proven that "Gene therapy" is possible, that you can actually modify an adult humans genetic makeup in order to cure certain inherited diseases. Give it a few years to improve the technique and you will be hearing about athletes who are undergoing gene therapy in order to improve their performance. And there is NOTHING that says these modifications have to be adding new HUMAN DNA. Much (if not most) of the genetic engineering going on right now in plants and animals involves cross species transfer. Nothing but ethics stops similar experiments from being done with humans. And if you think ethics will stop us for long, check the news. Scientist in Feb 2001 managed to get human stem cells to implant themselves within a mouse brain. Let me repeat that, they created a mouse who's brain has several human brain cells in its matrix. They have long range plans to create a mouse with ONLY human brain cells (although they admit that will have to pass the ethics board). Now, of course, a mouse with human brain cells would probably NOT exhibit human intelligence, but what about the reverse? Its obviously not just a science fiction concept to imagine a human whose genetic makeup includes much DNA gathered from animals. So, if we define humanity as having our genetic code, is the mouse with the human brain a citizen, and is the athlete with horse muscle genes a piece of property owned by the company that made him?

5:To be a person you must have a soul
Interesting, but until we have a soul detector, not of much use to a government. Christians don't even agree among themselves about souls and when (or if) they are acquired.

6:To be a person you must have quality of life
In which case, why not round up all the disadvantaged children right now and shoot them. While there are people who will argue for this, it is so ethically reprehensible that I don't see how we can take it seriously. Back up a few hundred years and almost none of our ancestors had any quality of life (by our standards) at all.

There are, of course, other definitions, but almost all fall just as short and bring up just as many problems. And we really don't need to fuss over them, because WE ALREADY HAVE A LEGAL DEFINITION OF LIFE, PERSONHOOD, AND CITIZENSHIP.

Yes, plain and simple, proven, and in law. You are alive, a person, a human, and a protected citizen when you have a brain wave. If the brain wave stops, even if the body is still running, the law stops recognizing you as a person. It's pefectly legal at that point for the doctors to cut up your body for spare parts.

And this standard should be easy to apply to the other end of life. When a fetus develops a brain wave, it's a human, a person with rights and citizenship. A person who is protected from being murdered, except when it is directly endangering the life of another.

The fetus develops a brain wave at about 40 days. That's a number which doesn't make EITHER side happy, which is a good indication to me that it might be the right place to go.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:44 pm

Zuruck, it's not about what she's doing with her own body. It's about what she's doing with the body growing inside her.

I just don't get how anyone could still be struggling with that concept. It's such incredibly basic biology, even most 5 year olds understand it. \"There's a baby growing inside of mommy\", they say -- the thing inside of mommy is not a part of mommy, it's a distinct entity which is inside of her.

The question isn't about mommy's rights. It's about whether or not the thing growing inside her should be protected.

-----

Bettina, you're advocating that a child should be killed because of her father's behavior, and you have the nerve to call *us* sick?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:00 pm

Here's my compromise. Life and death begin and end with brain activity. There is no brain activity for five weeks after conception, five weeks, if you want an abortion, that is your time table. However, certain circumstances must be made, mother's life in limbo, that sort of thing. Sounds good to me, get rid of the third trimester things and we have a deal. Life does NOT begin at conception, it's a simple pile of cells beginning to mass.

On a side note, it's sick that people would not allow abortion in the case of rape or incest. That's absolutely friggin disgusting. I think SD and TX should mesh and become their own country, they're ruining mine.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:06 pm

I postulate that your definition of \"life\" is flawed. As it were such, then anything that did NOT exibit brain activity could be considered \"inanimate\". What about plant life? What about microscopic \"life forms\" that have no brains?

Dude, Think!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:07 pm

Ok, you're comparing a plant to a human being? We're talking about human beings...life begins and ends with the complete startup / shutdown of brain activity.

Idiot, THINK!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:10 pm

no, I'm challenging your definition of life. This is one of the first things that is done in a biology class.

p.s. name calling is really bad form.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:12 pm

Bet51987 wrote:However, this S.D. bill includes no exception for rape or incest and I find that repulsive.

I don’t believe that is entirely accurate. As I understand it, the bill allows Doctors to prescribe after-the-fact contraception (morning after pill or its equivalent) if no diagnosis of pregnancy has been made. This means that if the rape or incest victim comes in, the Doc can take measures that may prevent her from becoming pregnant.

This means however, that the woman has to report the incident and seek medical attention very soon (a few days) after the incident. I am not very current on my rape statistics, but I remember reading that a large percentage of rapes go unreported. I imagine that even fewer cases of incest are reported.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:18 pm

Zuruck wrote:Here's my compromise. Life and death begin and end with brain activity. There is no brain activity for five weeks after conception, five weeks, if you want an abortion, that is your time table. However, certain circumstances must be made, mother's life in limbo, that sort of thing. Sounds good to me, get rid of the third trimester things and we have a deal. Life does NOT begin at conception, it's a simple pile of cells beginning to mass.

On a side note, it's sick that people would not allow abortion in the case of rape or incest. That's absolutely friggin disgusting. I think SD and TX should mesh and become their own country, they're ruining mine.

Your one of the few here that make sense. Thank you.

Lothar wrote:Bettina, you're advocating that a child should be killed because of her father's behavior, and you have the nerve to call *us* sick?

He is not a father, he's a rapist... She is not a mother, she is a frightened child herself... she is not carrying a child, just a bunch of flesh... and yes, I have the nerve to call you sick, because I know when right is wrong. Stop looking at this with a church view, and look out into your neighborhood at the young girls playing games in the street. Then re-read my post.

Bettina

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:24 pm

Dedman wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:However, this S.D. bill includes no exception for rape or incest and I find that repulsive.
I don’t believe that is entirely accurate. As I understand it, the bill allows Doctors to prescribe after-the-fact contraception (morning after pill or its equivalent) if no diagnosis of pregnancy has been made. This means that if the rape or incest victim comes in, the Doc can take measures that may prevent her from becoming pregnant.

This means however, that the woman has to report the incident and seek medical attention very soon (a few days) after the incident. I am not very current on my rape statistics, but I remember reading that a large percentage of rapes go unreported. I imagine that even fewer cases of incest are reported.

This girl I mentioned waited two weeks before telling her parents...afraid the rapist was going to come back and kill them.

Show me a link about what you said. I would like to read that.

Bettina

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:37 pm

Zuruck wrote:Life and death begin and end with brain activity.

Change that to personhood or citizentship and you will get less objections. Which I'm pretty certain is what you meant.
A fertilized ovum is obviously a life. an independant life. Even a human life. Is it a person? That's a much more complicated question.

Bet51987 wrote:I can understand an unwanted pregnancy because someone forgot to take a pill, or some other mistake. Thats different and I agree with the rest of you that she gets no abortion. She can carry the baby to term and give it up if she wants.

Bet51987 wrote:He is not a father, he's a rapist... She is not a mother, she is a frightened child herself... she is not carrying a child, just a bunch of flesh...

Your position here doesn't seem consistant to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.
IF a fetus isn't a person, if its just a lump of flesh with the same rights as a wart or cancer, then why should you outlaw abortion for convieniance sake? That's like telling people they can't get a cancer removed without the governments permission.

But if a fetus is a person, then killing it because it's father is a rapist is exactly the same as killing a 3 year old child because it's father was a rapist. And I really don't believe you are advocating that the poor girl should be allowed to kill the child after it's born.

It's either or, and all or nothing. Either the fetus is a person, a BABY, which needs to be protected JUST as much as the rape victim needed it. OR, the fetus is "just a bunch of flesh", in which case a mother should be able to terminate her pregnancy at a whim and it's none of the governments business. And if you lean towards this position, where is the magic line when the "bunch of flesh" becomes a baby?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:53 pm

Zuruck's compromise is entirely reasonable. One reason I'd like this to become a state issue instead of federal is that I think that's the position most states would reach -- no abortions (except in "life of the mother" cases) after brain activity starts. Is the solution perfect? Nope. But it's not the horrible abomination that the current system is.

Bet51987 wrote:
Lothar wrote:Bettina, you're advocating that a child should be killed because of her father's behavior, and you have the nerve to call *us* sick?
He is not a father, he's a rapist... She is not a mother, she is a frightened child herself... she is not carrying a child, just a bunch of flesh...

That's what this all hinges on, isn't it?

At what point does that "bunch of flesh" become a child, the girl become a mother, and the rapist become a father? Zuruck's statement -- that it starts with brain activity -- is pretty reasonable. The position the Democratic party leadership holds -- that women have the "right" to abortion up until birth, and that we have to preserve that "right" in cases of rape -- is completely ludicrous. Anybody who argues that rape victims should be able to kill their 8.5-month-along child just because it came from rape is a sick, sick person.

I have the nerve to call you sick...

You say people are "as sick as the rapist" because they believe that "chunk of flesh" might be a human being? Something is seriously wrong with your definition of sick.

Whether or not they're *right*... they're acting according to an honorable principle. They're trying to protect people. Maybe their implementation is stupid -- maybe they should allow abortions up to 5 weeks or 12 weeks or whatever -- but to call them "as sick as the rapist" shows an utter lack of perspective.

look out into your neighborhood at the young girls playing games in the street.

I teach girls that age almost every day. I have a little sister that age. I've known girls who've been raped at age 13, 14, 15 and I've known a lot of women who got pregnant as a result of rape. (Most of them actually had their children, and love them very much!)

I've also seen the ultrasounds and fetal models of 8-week pregnancies, and Lennart Nilsson's beautiful photographs of very early pregnancies. So... yeah, look at those 13 year old girls in your neighborhood... and then look at the girls and boys 13 years 8 months younger in those photographs, and tell me it's OK to kill them.

Money! · Post by **Money!** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:06 pm

I'm with Zuruck on this one.

Adoption?
There are tons of people in foster homes. Cuda you say there are millions of families across America that want are happy to take a kid? This is blatant. You know how hard it is to get a kid from adoption? It takes a long time, for many reasons. It's not just like you go to a foster home one day and get a kid. This is why there are MANY young people in foster homes these days. Also, what parent wants a kid that is not young? Many foster homes rarely get kids taken after they are 4 or 5 years old because those kids are not shapable to their parents likings any more. So there are tons of people left behind in foster homes.

Abortion?
One point no one has brought up is thinking about the life of the mother and child after the baby is unwantingly had. Usually, when someone doesn't want a baby, they have a reason for it. If a young woman (maybe still in school) has a kid, and can't get it aborted, she's fucked both ways. If she drops out of school, she will not get an education and it will be much harder for her to provide for her baby. If she doesn't, she will have to leave the baby with other people or even worse, bring it to school, which means the baby won't get the attention and nourishment it needs from it's mother. If the man of the relationship is still there, his life could be ruined too if he has to drop out of school to provide. You say abortion is punishing the baby? NO, it is saving it from it's misery of being poor with an uneducated, weak provider.

I know there is alot said that I have not given my 2 cents into, but KEEP IT COMING, cuz I will. Abortion is the right way to go, and i'll stand behind it no matter what you come up with.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:18 pm

Thank god.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:19 pm

Lothar......Then are you willing to say that you will allow termination of this life within 35 days according to Zurick? Either you do or you don't.

No lengthy explanation. You have my scenario.

Bettina

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:51 pm

Bet51987 wrote:Lothar......Then are you willing to say that you will allow termination of this life within 35 days according to Zurick? Either you do or you don't.

I can respect those who think it's OK, but I'd prefer not to allow it. Since I don't consider it the main or most important issue, it would be an acceptable compromise to me.

Now, for a no lengthy explanation pair of questions for you:

1) why does it matter that the girl was a rape victim? (See Kilarin's post.)

2) Are you willing to say you wouldn't allow termination after 35 days, even in case of rape? (Or 40 days, 26 days, etc.)?

For Money!: why would abortion be OK but killing an infant wouldn't be? In either case, you're "saving it from it's misery of being poor with an uneducated, weak provider". Or would you say it's OK to kill a 10-year-old if its parents couldn't provide a good life? What about people killing Jews to save them from the misery of being Jews, or killing blacks to save them from the misery of being black, or killing gays to save them from the misery of being gay? (We all know, there are people out there who think like that!)

In other words... where do you draw the line, and why? When is it OK to kill someone to save them from an existance you'd consider miserable, and when is it not?

EDIT: or, consider the question asked another way: why is it OK to kill someone just because it would be difficult to care for them and they might not have as good of a life as you'd like them to have?

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: