South Dakota bans most abortions
 

So the news came down today across the newswire that South Dakota's governor signed a bill that would make most abortions illegal in that state save for abortions in which the woman's life/health is in perile.
Typically I'm not one to step up to the political plate but when it comes to a woman's choice over what she does I feel that it is her own decision to consider and not that of the government. If she does not wish to carry out a pregnancy then that is on her... and visa versa.

So at which point does a state have authority over the Supreme Court in regards to issues such as abortion? This is obviously going to go back to the US Supreme Court for review... but even at that point why is the government, whether at a state level or federal level telling a woman what she can or cannot do? Where do personal freedoms get voided out in the name of government control?

Just curious... I know this is a hot topic and is sure to get some folks fired up... then again, I am known as the topic killer to where no one will even reply. ^_^

My thoughts are that this is exactly the goal of the people who lobbied for this. The point of the law is to force the issue back to the Supreme Court, since its fairly obvious that's where its going to go.

Why would it matter? You could just go out of state to get your baby killed. It's not like your baby would come back to life if you travelled back into South Dakota, lol.

Maybe it's not so easy for someone to travel outside of the state if they wished to have this procedure done... why force them to go to another state or go to some back alley doctor?

Well, my first question is. Who regulates things like aboration or things related to children? The state or federal?

Cause certainaly if it's a state thing, they'll have to lobby to the states, not to the feds. Much like marriage(Marriage is based on states decision[Actually the votes of the people who reside in the states.].)

It's also my understanding that the bill doesn't make an exception to rape and incest either, which is fucking ludicrous.

I'll be glad when this gets brought up in the Supreme Court. However, I am concerned that since Bush has nominated a few conservative judges, things may not go so well for the rights to a medical treatment for half the population. :(

I don't know what kinds of info abortion clinics in the surrounding states require before hand, but I imagine that many women may be forced to change their addresses.

I'm just glad that this happened to a sparsely populated state filled with farms, so that way not many women will be affected by this.

Federal. It was already decided on a national level that a woman should have the right to an abortion in a case called Roe vs. Wade, back in 1973 I believe.

South Dakota's conservative voters and government are doing this because they hope that abortion will be made illegal on a national level. Which is just what this country needs. Babies being born to mothers that aren't ready, resulting in increased levels of poverty and everything else that follows from that, such as increased levels of crime. -__-

Yeah, the United States is a democracy, not a theocracy like Iran.

If this ever gets passed in the United States, I cannot see the law lasting a long time.

Just another case of the Religious Right screwing up what the country was founded on. At this rate, soon this country will be more restrictive than the middle east.

Dear South Dakota:
The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, not a how-to manual.

Truer words never spoken.

Interestingly enough, the United States wasn't founded on abortions. Abortions were highly frowned upon in the late 1700's. Know your own countries history, for god's sake.


The government should not have a say on abortions until the day it is comprised entirely of females.

This could be scary... there are at LEAST 11 states with legislation similar to this pending, which will pass the SECOND that this gets upheld (assuming it does). And I doubt that anybody can just leave the state for an abortion. If that were true, then terminally ill would flock to Oregon for euthanasia (keep in mind that you a) have to actually BE a citizen of Oregon to qualify, and b) you have to wait 6 months before getting the meds).

I also love how people who ban abortion think "It's illegal now, it won't happen!"

Bullshit. All that banning abortion does is pushing abortions into the hands of the back-alley quack.

I think you have said what I was thinking earlier... why have men making the rules over which they dictate what a woman can or cannot do? Allow the women to make the rules themselves... ^_^

That's actually one of the arguments against it. Poor women without a means of transportation or in abusive relationships might not be able to get away to an out of state clinic.

And Murdercrow, I don't believe most states require you to have permanent residence in the state to get an abortion. Otherwise it would make it awfully difficult for those rich out-of-state college girls that are supposedly getting these things done weekly.

I couldn't have said it any better. A man doesn't know what it is like to be a women, so he shoudn't have a say on anything pertaining to what she does with her body.

So if I said I was here to serve mankind, does that mean that you'd ask for fries with that? You know, what with that statement you quoted being able to be taken both ways and all that.

The quote is "To Serve Man", you dork. =(

I'm not particluarly fond of this legislation; children that the mother is willing to abort don't seem to be high on the priority list for her. The last thing we need is more unwanted children.

The US was founded on Freedoms, Freedom of Religion being one. The Religious Right feel it is their right to force everyone to follow their beliefs. Freedom of speech is going down the toilet, because of these religious idiots, and they want everyone who has sex to have a baby even if they don't want one, because they feel sex should only be for procreation, not fun. There is no reason for someone how doesn't want to have a baby, to have one. The freedoms of this country are slowly being destroyed by people who feel that everyone needs to follow their beliefs only. Hence, things this country was founded on being screwed up.

No one should have a say about it, not even females. You should have say for YOUR BODY. I don't care if a female president rallies and as well gets a bill going for pro-life, no aborations bill.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, has any say on what ANYONE should do with thier body.

Stop bashing religeon. Thier beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Second, this country is a democracy, thus being if you don't like it then lobby for it and fix it. Everyone has a say if they actually TRY to have a say.

They aren't forcing thier beliefs on anyone by expressing them and saying hey, we think aboration is bad and we want to prove it and have a vote on it.

You call that forcing? If thier forcing thier beliefs on you, then you are techincally forcing your morals and beliefs by saying FUCK YOU, I'm right, your wrong and your a fucktard.

That is how I see your arguement EUN.

I second.

Your right ends where my nose begins, dude. Just by saying that has no physical ramifications on you, but to pass a law and regulate has very real ramification's on the body of those who are being regulated, its not merely forcing a view on another person.

Dude, I am not saying they should or not but they have a right IN THIS COUNTRY, to try to get a law passed. Rather it's a good or bad law.

All I am saying is why should they be forced to shut up? That is forcing your views onto them, IMO.

Man, I remember when I was a kid and I first heard this, the first thing I thought was "I'd rather be alive and unwanted then dead and unwanted." Also, hasn't that line "Help prevent unwanted children by supporting abortion" kind of been debunked?

I think we're missing the point here. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about passing laws that majorly affect people, in this case women who aren't ready for a child.

With that being said, I couldn't disagree with you more.

The religious right has been expressing their disapproval of abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That's all fine and good, but in South Dakota, they've crossed the line by going beyond expressing their views and passing a law that forces their beliefs on the public body.

Yes, I said it. It forces the belief of the religious right that one "sin" doesn't make another "sin" right onto women who aren't ready- emotionally, financially, whatever, to have a child.

I follow what you're saying here, and in the context of free speech and debate, that makes sense. However, when it comes to the current situation, it doesn't work like that.

See, right now in every other state in the US, Canada and probably most of Europe, people who believe in pro-life have the choice not to get an abortion. And those that need an abortion also have have the choice to get an abortion. Everyone has a choice and almost everybody's happy, except the pro-lifers that complain about the people that get abortions.

But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion. The pro-lifers, the people who wouldn't have gotten an abortion in the first place, are happy because they've made it so everybody else in the state can't get an abortion. The people that need an abortion, such as victims of rape, incest and poverty, are screwed unless they can get an abortion in a surrounding state.

Basically, the law that a woman has the right to a medical procedure worked fine because it gave women the right to choose. But now in South Dakota, those that would have chose to have an abortion can't.

If you can't see that that's forcing one's belief on the entire public body, then I'm not sure what is.

True, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became the case if this is upheld.

So you are saying that youre ok with pro-lifers to privately believe whatever they want, but they cant ACT as if their view is true?

That doesnt sound like freedom to me.

Is it really forcing abortions on them if they're not going to use the procedure anyway?

To me it's kinda like with prohibition. I can't figure for the life of me figure out how those temperists would have their rights taken away by the drunken hordes when, you know, they don't drink alcohol and aren't being forced to.

I think the issue we're arguing over here is more democracy than abortion. I mean, if democracy is working, then the majority of people in whatever state are against abortion. Now, to make a generalization, most pro-lifers equate abortion with murder. So, from the perspective of the religious right, South Dakota just made murder illegal. Harder to argue against that.
I think the point Zio was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that all government, no matter what side or spin, authoritarian or anarchist, is, when it comes down to it, forcing your view on other people. That's what law is. And with anarchy, forcing absence of law is equally distressing for some. The point is, all sides of this argument are equally valid.

It really is easy. The government should outlaw any issue of questionable moral judgement. Enforcing your morals on someone else is as old as Christianity.

Plus, we're gonna need all the soldiers we can get.

And most pro-lifers are for the death penalty. So, like how can you be pro-life if you're for the death penalty?!

Thats cause babies=good, convicts=bad.

I call bullshit.

Abortion is as much a purely religious right issue as Pork is purely unkosher for Jews. The Abortion issue is a huge one in America because it crosses political camps, and impacts the moral views of even the non-religious. I myself have a hard time determining whether or not abortion really is murder, and simply default to the trust of the individual.

Abortion should also not be legislated when the government is purely female. That's horseshit. Women have had the right to vote coming near a century now, and the people they elect to legislative positions are the ones that they want representing them. If they elect some Dudley Doo Right who wants all legal abortions eradicated, then that's what they want to happen. Oddly enough, Women's Suffrage itself caused a huge division in the fairer sex, as wealthy and overbearing women felt that they'd lose more influence without being able to influence their husbands decisions.

While the driving force behind this is most certainly religious, legislation based on moral principles do not violate your freedom of religion, as morality transcends religious principles. Stop reaching out for strings in the dark, and debate about this like somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

That said, this is a fruitless venture. There is no way that this will get past the Lower Courts, and assuming that it does, I doubt the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case. Even with some Conservatives on the bench, that doesn't guarantee that they are looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or that they don't even consider the outcome of Roe v. Wade to be constitutionally sound.

Yeah I guess. It's still state sanctioned murder. Let's teach all those convicts that killing is wrong by killing them!

But somebody's gotta finish the war in Iraq.

I agree. Just playing devil's advocate.

Send the convicts to Iraq. In two hundred years, it'll be just like Australia.

We're kinda doing all that already. With the relaxed Army recruiting standards of allowing people with multiple felonies on their record join up.

I don't think they'll be up to snuffs though. So bring on the baby soldiers.

So they will go, vote and revoke it simple as that.

How is acting on thier beliefs bad? If it's such a bad law then it'll get reversed by the process of democracy.

Um, I'm Lutheran and I don't find aboration really a sin or anything. I'd think it's more of sin to abandon your child, have unwanted children or to be able NOT to care for your child in all needs.

But I am NOT discussing what I believe in.

I'm not pro-lifer and don't clump all pro-lifers all the same mainly cause not all the same. That is like saying all Muslims are terroists, which is wrong.(Sorry I coudln't think of a better analogy[sp?])


Well, they'll either find a way(rather legal or not) to get it done OR they will reverse the decision.

Good, I'm glad they actually acted on thier beliefs rather or not it was right. They actually stood up for what they believe in no matter what. I tip my hat to them really.

I could possibly understand rape or incest but if you are rather poor or any other condition and want sex. There is always something called a vesectomy or getting your tubes tied. There are always alternatives or even not having sex.

So? Then they'll work hard to get it that they'll have the choice again. Use the system, go for it.

Because silencing someone for what they believe is far worse and rather zealous IMO, especially if you believe in one thing and dare not listen to anyone else.


RR, that isn't what I am trying to say but I do agree with you trust me.

But then again, what about the abuse of it? I mean the gov't had thier hearts in the right place, just wrong laws and etc.

Perhaps but then again is every pro-lifer religeous? Probaly not. Is every pro-lifer zealous or even burning heart -insert whatever- more then likely not. Try not to clump people together please.


Wow, someone actually gets what I am talking about. Rather any side you play on, you are really forcing your views onto anyone but then again, you do have the freedom to get an abortation or not, you aren't forced to.

Trust me, I agree that the law is stupid and that abortation does help in certain terms but you guys are going about the wrong way by ATTACKING the people and not the idea.

You are right but I highly doubt that many did the coat hanger thing. I just think people blow that out of proporinate but it was true though, I don't doubt that, trust me on that one.

Agreed.

Don't worry; I'm certain you wouldn't care by the time you're dead.
Isn't this a pretty bad position to take, though? If you don't particularly care for whether somebody thought about if their actions are right, that'll leave you tipping hats to despicable actions that were made in the name of their beliefs.

Of course, that would've been an observation made as a wanted child.

Anther country's freedom fighters are anther country's terrorists.

So, Singularity is one hundred percent correct, is this what you're trying to say?

That's not my point, Zio. I'm attacking the idea of praising people based on their correlation of actions with their beliefs without regard for what's right. That essentially leads you down the path of praising suicide bombers because they're more concerned about their beliefs than in what's right.

So...if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and Roe is overturned the issue gets sent to where it belonged in the first place. States will be able to vote on abortion and democracy will work. Constitutionally, Roe is bad law. Its a stretch by anyones standards to find abortion addressed in the Constitution. Whats the big concern with putting this issue up for a vote of the people. If your side is the right side make a case and sell it to the majority of the people in your given state.

The "what ifs" can be taken to all kinds of extremes, with poor women, abused women, etc. The same what-ifs can apply to lots of other laws too. In texas I can shoot a burglar in my house..if I move to New Jersey, I can be arrested for the same thing. Different laws, different states.

I'll resay what I just said. Sucide bombers could be doing what they believe in. Rather it's right or wrong they are passion enough to risk thier lives for thier religeon or whatever.

And Brady knows what I am talking about but that is to a certain degree.

When you say that, I get the mental image of a con-man telling someone that their money is better off in his wallet.

I'm not going to say my childhood was bad, but I'm not going to say that it was peachy-doory good either. I've always been a survivor, and I've always looked out for my own interests. I'm proud to say that I had an extortion racket at my school at the age of seven. ^_^

So, are you praising people for killing other people, or what?
mission accomplished

Yes, Sing I am. Cause they are fighting for WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.

You have to see both sides of the fence, methinks.

If one person does something, almost everyone can see it as evil or wrong but to that person it might be right... but then again there are degrees. And I am saying that so you can't say some psyco or any other mental illness says some dog or some weird thing told them to do it, they believed and did it.

Rather it's stupid or not to you Sing but I'm sure as well if we were invaded there would be a lot of people driving thier cars or whatever into the enemy troops or even blowing them up to save their country, way of life and etc.

I'll concede the whole freedom fighters vs. terrorists analogy as it's quite true. That is a fine example of people standing up for what they believe, and an example of people standing up for what they believe in a situation where they believe themselves to be personally affected.

However, you can stand up for what you believe, and shout it from the belltower without passing laws which back up your side of the argument. No one is suggesting pro-lifers be silenced as has been inferred. What people have objected to in this thread are the tactics of using one's beliefs to pass blanket laws on others. Because you believe something means that everyone else *must* live by that belief, whether or not they share those views? Doesn't make much sense to me. Only way such a thing can possibly be justified is if it were something that affects you personally. This is not an issue that personally affects those passing the laws, so they could quite easily return to promoting their views instead of trying to get their views made into law.

Blindly acting to any extreme on a view is *not* something to be admired. There are times and causes that warrant stronger actions then others, but that doesn't mean that strong measures should be taken in every situation. If I decide that there should be not television broadcasts on Sundays, does it make sense to try to get a law passed on that? Of course not, it's my opinion, and one that is no more, or less valueable as that of someone who wants TV on Sunday. I can choose not to watch TV. Pro lifers can choose not to have an abortion.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for having conviction on matters that you take personally. But I am most certainly against the ever so popular 'by any means necessary' aproach that people are willing to on nigh any issue. There is a lack of perspective, and that's something that irks me.

True, but c'mon this is South Dakota here. There's only one abortion clinic in the whole state.

They could still have their abortions professionally done. Just go to Canada... because you only have to be conservative while you're still in America.

Technically... two... at least two Planned Parenthood locations that I could determinefrom their site... but a ton of them in Minnesota (who knew?). One on each side of the state. Now trying to track one down in North Dakota... that's a pain in the ass ^_~

But nothing says that you have to go to Planned Parenthood either... I know Kaiser will perform them as well (who kew? I know I didn't until I was reading through my benefits package one day)... so I'm sure there are other locations that perform this procedure as well.

Ahah! Well you now have bragging rights about the disinformation that the BBC spreads. If you can prove they're wrong anyway. :p

Yes, but Kaiser may not keep that terminated pregnancy on the 'down'lo' if you know what I mean. Planned Parenthood is pretty good about not telling anyone. Has a proven track record. It's almost as good as having a pregnancy terminated in another country.

Pug, if you don't like a law that was passed then you know what you can do to stop it or even reverse the law.

You can lobby or reverse any law you wish to... Atleast try to.

If I really wanted to, I could rally and reverse the decision about segregated schools.

They acted on thier beliefs, were organized, and started the ball on possibly banning it. Now that takes some guts to stand up(despite proscution and etc other things that will come.) and do something about a law that they don't think is right.

Pro-lifers think that allowing abortation is forcing wrong beliefs on everyone.

Pro-choice thinks that not allowing is.

Either way you slice it, someone's toes are going to get stepped on.

Quite a presumptuous statement dont you think? Once again, if pro-lifers cannot act upon thier own beliefs, then are they really free?

His point is that you're free to act in any way you want to. What you're not free to do is to deny or otherwise limit other people's decisions.

Pro-Lifers aren't having their babies forcefully aborted now are they? Well at least not in this country. I've heard they do that in China.

And that pretty much sums up everything, except the whole "baby soldiers" thing.

So what youre saying is that pro-lifers should become pro-choice? Isnt that (youre quote) the definition of pro-choice?

I'm not really saying anything. Merely trying to clarify what somebody else said. I just support the status quo. It pleases nobody. It doesn't have to. It works.

States are free to put whatever limits they deem necessary, yet they lack the power to outright ban them.

In a well run democracy, I don't see freedom as being as important, let alone more important, than the majority's opinion. It's pretty clear what the people of South Dakota want. If you're saying that your freedom is more important than the majority's decisions, why have any laws at all?

They can act upon their beliefs by not partaking in the procedure... that's what pro-choice is... having the choice whether or or not you wish to partake in something. If your religious or personal beliefs are that you should not partake in something then that is your choice to follow your belief. Enacting a law that places those beliefs for all to have to follow removes that choice to for an individual to decide.

So do a lot of laws. Why do we have a law against murder in general? That's just Christian Ten Commandments hogwash anway.

I think that might also come out of the "My rights end where yours begin."

Isn't that one of the reasons we're not a pure democracy?

We're not a pure democracy because when our country was founded, it was not practical. We remain a fake democracy because it's nearly impossible to change anything in this country, especially when the people in power are so comfortable.

Why are you assuming a law against abortion has religious foundations? I don't need religion to tell me not to terminate a pregnancy.

There you get into the whole moral and immoral (or amoral for some) discussion. Is it moral or immoral to kill another human? Various religions believe it is immoral and not just Christianity. Then again, various religions find it moral under certain circumstances... even when the rest of the world might, uhmmm, frown on it.

Listen, I can think gravity doesn't exist and the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.

Uh, you do realize that some women, even *gasp* secular women, are anti-abortion?

You want to get rid of the Supreme Court?

You would get preached at regardless. People preach about all sorts of things. That doesn't mean their only possible motivation is religion.

And don't forget that I said secular women. Not just women.

Anyone else notice how you don't hear about these morality topics during years where there isn't elections? I wonder why that is.

So, how does it feel to be manipulated as tools of a political agenda?

Maybe they should. I'm not arguing that.

You see, your mistake is labeling these people "the religious right" - a fringe movement that is a loud minority. I think this may be a flawed perception, though. Taken as a whole, I'm not convinced that our country supports abortion. And don't go showing me any polls, either. Most people who are against abortion probably never participate in those.

Well, on the basis of legality, it should be whatever the hell the majority thinks. Why is this so hard to swallow?

So, Minion doesn't believe in Rights, and we're all tools of a political agenda.

Wonderful.

Who said I don't believe in rights? Someone has to determine what our rights are. Who could possibly do this?

Cue arguement about the right to privacy ad tedium.

No, it works regardless. I see you're having trouble fathoming the idea that I am consistent in my beliefs, so you'll just have to take my word I guess. Or not.

Right, you only believe in the rights set by the majority, and that minority rights, the ones that secure our basic freedoms are secondary to the wishes of the majority, which can be construed in any manner, including one where the "Majority Opinion" isn't actually embraced by the majority (Bolsheviks).

If we don't want niggers in our town, then by God we should be able to vote on it.

Well not only that but why should only the pro-choice get to make the laws or voice thier opinions? I think people are thinking too shallow on this one.

Well, I also think everything should be legislated from the federal level. States are an outdated concept.

Make's you feel good now doesn't it? Honestly I doubt I'd have much trouble telling you which side will vote Republican and which side will vote Democrat. I doubt you would either.

Then you've just underminded our system of checks and balances. I couldn't think of a better way to kill the American Republic.

This is why abortion is a important issue. Not because of morality, religon, or rights. But because we're trying to maintain a balance of government.

Very good point. Dr. Henry Morgentaler first began the woman's right to choose here in Canada,

I agree with this, unwanted children are treated differently, some are loved because the parents accept it, others do not. Not only that, what the court and the anti-abortion group needs to understand is that not all abortions happen because the mother wants to, on the first ultrasound more can be determined about the baby besides the sex, life threatening disease and conditions to the baby can occur, which can result in a very poor quality of life or may even be a still born. In most cases it is not a easy decision to make.

Again what the Courts and anti-abortion groups also need to understand is that t the beginning of the pregnancy, the embryo is a group of cells, it is not a baby... like a egg is not a chicken and a blue print is not a building. It has the capability to become one, but not is you do not want to contribute the time.

Late term abortion is also another factor, here is a good artical that sums it up pretty good.

Wrestling with late term abortions

The hell are you talking about? We have an executive branch, a Congress and a Supreme Court all at the Federal level.

Checks and balances go beyond merely the different branches of government. The different levels of government also play a major role, as do the levels and types of law.

Yeah see, I don't know if that's necessary. We're not a conglomeration of independant states anymore. We're one country. The whole system is pretty ridiculous and seems to be completely unique to the US.

I work in the insurance industry and I can tell you firsthand that the difference in laws from state to state is just stupid. There's no reason for it and if insurance weren't so complicated, insurance companies wouldn't have to hire so many employees to deal with it and maybe it wouldn't cost so much.

Germany and Switzerland, to name two, both maintain similar federal systems.

And besides, if you're really so keen to practice something closer to actual democracy, a federalized system is a better place for it than a centralized one. The larger a population gets, the less ability there is to get 50%+1 to agree on something without concessions, which the more extreme elements of that majority aren't keen to see adpoted; this is a big reason why so many parliamentary governments need to call frequent elections.

In a federal system, the whole is also divided into smaller sovereignties, which can act independently of each other. This serves to both simplify matters for the central government and lets multiple solutions to a problem be adopted where there is disagreement as to what the right one is. This is excellent for such social issues as abortion, since there isn't a one size fits all solution. If the people of one state are aghast at the idea of aborting a child, they can outlaw the procedure in their state, while if the people in another state are aghast at the idea of denying a woman the right to choose whether she wants to keep the child or not, they can protect that right in their state.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the central government imposing a solution to social issues that will incense a large segment part of the population. That serves to poison discourse, discourage compromise on the issue, and make social issues that were of little importance before into issues of national import, whether they should be or not. Such is not in the best interests of the nation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I see happening with this system is extreme polarization, which degerates social issues into political battles that are more about staying in office than doing the right thing.

Oddly enough, the extreme polarization on the social issue of abortion, which has turned it into the kind of political battle you described, began when the central government imposed a solution on the country.

To protect said freedom?

I thought that was the entire point of America - to protect the individual's liberty.

This doesn't make sense for issues which the majority doesn't fully understand.

If you ask the majority at what stage after conception is too late to get an abortion, you'll get all manner of answers. If you ask the same question to medical experts, you'll get a much smaller variance in answers. It makes sense to me that on medical issues doctors might know better than farmers.

Another example, if you ask the majority if their taxes should be halved, or eliminated you are guaranteed to have them say yes more often than not. Does that mean it's wise? Of course not, it's because they are misinformed or ignorant of the issue.

Same goes for the abortion issue. A lot of people have opinions. These are founded on any number of things, influenced by people who misinform them (itentionally or not), or pull their opinion out of their ass and base it one nothing at all. This is true for all sides of the issue. So, does the majority picking a side mean that is what they really believe, considering how few likely understand the facets of the argument?

Double Post:
What horseshit. Being persecuted for being pro life? This isn't standing up against 'the man' or anything close to it. It's the relatively safe stance to take, you aren't going to be called a killer for it as opposed to being pro choice.

Also, despite every imaginable attempt to portray themselves as victims, pro lifers are not the ones potentially being put upon here. If 'allowing abortion was forcing beliefs on everyone' was really the case, those who didn't believe in having abortions would be forced to have one. See how retarded that argument is? No one is forcing the pro lifers to do anything they don't want to do, or trying to limit what they may do, or what they may say.

And another thing, your stance on passing laws is quite unique. Of course one can lobby for any law they wish, and that law may or may not be passed. But praising the passing of laws just for the hell of it seems odd. If you don't support it, then you shouldn't be too happy that it happens. And just waiting for it to get democricized out after a while is a pretty lame way to solve the issue. Maybe heading off things before they get passed would be more efficient, and cheaper than sitting back and applauding any and all changes made?

Bingo. Which is why everytime the State of Oregon brings precedents such as; "doctor assisted suicides of the terminally ill" or "legalization of medicinal marijuana", the Federal Government is on one side, and the State of Oregon stands on the other. And it always make's it to the Supreme Court.

One of the big reasons why social issues degrade into political battles is because of politicians actions, especially around election time. They typically appeal to people's ego. Quite effective too. If you believe you're in the right, you certainly won't harbor much sympathy for the other side's perspective. Or any other perspective. You are right, and everyone else is wrong. Which is the basis on which I called everybody 'tools of a political agenda'. Although I'm just as guilty as anyone in that regard.

Unfortunately abortion is a much bigger issue then that. Hence, I said morality, religion, and rights don't really have anything to do with it. Furthermore in cases that define our system's balance of power there is no 'right answer', except maintaining the status quo that's been established. Which is unlikely to change under ANY Supreme Court.

Nobody wins, nobody's happy. But the fight goes on... but only during election years.

A solution needed to be imposed regardless of the long term consequences. Still doesn't make it any less ironic.

Wait, so an abortion is free?

Also, the part about about abusive relationships, I don't get. So whoever (probably boyfriend/baby's daddy) is like eff u, you're not going out to get an abortion. If this were the case, I don't see how it would be any easier/harder to actually get one if they had to go down the block or the interstate BESIDES the factor of how much gas is going to be needed or how much the Greyhound is going to cost.

Either way when a few months pass and her stomach isn't any bigger, she's going to get "in trouble".

Feel free to make me look like an ass.

Indeed, this is true but all I am saying is that whenever someone tries to do something they belief such as pro-life situation where they TRY to get something done such as a law. It turns into that they are stupid, forcing thier beliefs and etc. Tis all I am saying.


You are reading too much into it. I mean standing up for your beliefs even if persecuted and mind you, it can be verbal abuse as well.

I never said being pro-choice means your a killer nor does being pro-life means your a religeious fanatic eitehr.

I could have swore I already said that I agree that no one is forcing ANYONE to get a aboration and that I already agree that the law is stupid.

I am TIPPING MY HAT TO THEM CAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING THE SYSTEM AND TRYING. Even though they are not going to win and I agree the law is stupid.



That is because someone actually wasn't lazy enough to do something. That is why I am praising it.

And if that happens then I'll be the one who rallies and tries to reverse the decision.


I don't live in South Dakota or else I would more then likely if the law became a law, then I'd be the one who would vote or even rally to get it reversed cause obviously it's a stupid law.

Like I have said, if anyone wanted to get one should be able to but those who don't, don't have to.

Simple as that.

All I am applauding to them is they actually weren't lazy, and sat back and said, fuck, I hate aborations but I'm going to sit here and do nothing.

If people want to retain thier rights to actually have them, then they will reverse and or prove that they acutally need it such as unwanted children being problems and any other thing. Yanno?

I think they're relatively inexpensive or clinics offer to do it for free if a person can't afford to pay for it.

I think the situation would be more that the woman wouldn't want the man to know she's pregnant and wouldn't want to have a child from the father (since he doesn't seem to be the fatherly type) but knows he wouldn't approve of it, so she wants to get it done secretly. If she had to disappear to another state, he might get a little suspicious of why she disappeared for a day or two without telling him. =\

Then again, I might just watch way to much Law & Order.

Here's the problem with the South Dakota law (I totally agree its unfair to rape & incest vicitims). Accidents happen. Contraceptives break or fail.

I'd say more but a lot has been said about the situation and I agree with some people's points.

But contraceptives are evil!

And you KNOW that if abortion is banned for most cases, then contraception will be next. Because if what is essentially one form of contraception is banned, why not the others?

Abortion isn't a contraceptive. An abortion is the terminating of a pregnancy, while contraceptive, a word that has conceive right in there, avoids the conception of a pregnancy.

Know your words, sucka!

The problem with the situation remains a complete revitilization of the religious right in the US.

Still, the Supreme Court would shoot this down should it reach it, there is a 5-4 pro Wade vote already, and that assumes both Bushies vote nay.

The Partial Birth bill is also coming up soon, although I'm not sure how that will fare as well.

Sadly... there are people out there in this world who actually believe it is a contreceptive.
"Oh baby... I hate having put that thing on... let's go bareback tonight!!"

Get knocked up and have an abortion... and they become regulars down at PP or other facilities. They just don't care... these are the same folks who typically are also getting the procedure done via the taxpayers in whatever state they happen to be in... a joy to hear.
Don't have $300 for an abortion? Let the taxpayers pay for it then... they won't mind.

People can still be against it and not be religious. Why does everyone still assume pro-life = religious views?

I highly doubt that Bush has any say on the manner and evne if he did, it'd be pretty hard to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court.

I thought they signed that bill? O.o;

What Adamgian is referring to here is John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the new Justices Bush appointed to the Court.

I think that we have also not discussed a major issue. Why has this decision been made solely for women to make. Should the man not have a say in this matter. If the man wants to have the kid then should he not be allowed to have the child even if the mother does not want the child. This is often overlooked and ignored. It does take two (in the natural way of reproduction) to make a baby. Therefore the decision should be made by both of them and if one doesn't agree then it should not be done. That is the most diplomatic answer.
I personally believe that abortion is wrong and should not be allowed except in the case that the mother's life is in danger. I am not going to stand in front of an abortion clinic and yell at women who go in there. I believe in making the right choice. The right choice is always life over death. There is no question that the infant is a human and therefore aborting the life is murder.

What you're getting into here, Gohan, is Male Reproductive Rights, which is an issue with enough material and philosophical bullshit to warrant its own seperate discussion. I know it does involve in many ways abortion, but it's not what is ultimately key to the issue, so please do keep it in a seperate thread.

EDIT: Removed the part concerning male reproductive rights, since it went off-topic.

EDIT 2: Yar har har har, my essay killed the topic. :edgarrock:

Those are your beliefs. Are you a woman? In such a case, let's have you get impregnated by rape or incest, and then we'll see if you still want to take the child to term.

Good for you.

Ahh, the meat of your argument. You obviously are a supporter of the species criterion for qualifications of personhood. *puts on professor's cap*

First off, the issue at heart is the status of the fetus (please refrain from using emotionally charged terms such as infant, baby, unborn child, etc. Using such terms is at best an appeal to emotion, something that has no place in logic). Is it a person or not? Only persons can have rights, which is rather obvious. Another issue is the conflict of rights: Assuming that the fetus IS a person, then does the rights of the mother supercede those of the fetus? (Rights as in fundamental rights: right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, self-defense, bodily autonomy, etc. Not that these rights, while they apply to every person, are not absolute)

Now, the right to life at its most essential, is the right to be entitled to the expectation that we would not be killed unjustly, and rescued from impending disaster provided that such rescue does not require unreasonable sacrifice.

Now, there are three proposals for the criterion of the conferral of moral personhood (i.e. having fundamental rights).

The first is the species criterion, the second is the potentiality criterion, and the third is a rather obscure one called actual possession.

First, let's talk about the species criterion, as it is what you cited in the defense of your belief that abortion is morally wrong. The species criterion is that all and only those individuals that are members of Homo Sapiens are moral persons, and have a right to life. Put in another way, only humans have souls, thus only humans are moral persons. Of course, since the soul cannot be observed it cannot logically exist. (Not to say that it DOESN'T exist, but that logic says that assuming that we have every method of detection available, since it cannot be observed, it cannot exist. There can be some unknown method that pops up with "Sup soul," later on)

Now, imagine that one day, aliens popped down for a cup of joe with the President. According to the species criterion, they have no rights because they are not human. It might be PRUDENT to treat them as if they do because otherwise they might decide that we're better meat than allies. However, if we were to argue that fetuses are not persons but it is prudent to treat them as such, then we're talking about something completely different from the species criterion, and indeed the entire right-to-life argument.

The second criterion is the potentiality criterion. In essence, it says that because a fetus is potentially qualified for the right to life, therefore a fetus actually has those rights.

There are two major flaws:

1) Potentiality has little actual meaning, as potential cannot be observed. For all we know, the fetus could turn out to be stillborn. Would it still have rights then?

2) The logical form of the argument is defective.

Now, for your benefit, here's some a bit of basic logic:

Around the area where I live, there's a place called something like Field of Dreams. In this, you basically pay to be taken on a tour of various expensive homes, ranging from contemporary to rustic. Now, on the surface, all these homes are different. If you were to get the blueprints for these homes, however, you'd notice something: they're all exactly the same in terms of blueprint. The logical form of an argument is essentially the blueprints of the home. Do you get my meaning?

Now then, all arguments are correct or incorrect based SOLELY on their logical form. Thus, if a logical form is correct, then every instance of that argument, no matter how absurd, is correct as well, and the opposite is true as well: if a logical form is false, then every instance of that argument, no matter how reasonable, is false as well. Either every instance of the argument is correct, or NO instance is correct.

Now that I've drilled that into your head, here's the logical form of the potentiality argument: because x is potentially qualified for y, therefore x actually has y.

So, to counter the potentiality argument, we have the Commander-in-Chief argument: because President Bush (before his first inauguration) is potentially qualified for the rights of the presidency, President Bush actually has the rights of the presidency.

Obviously, there are some federal agents who would like to tell you that this is false. And the logical form is the same, because x (Bush) is potentially qualified for y (the rights of the presidency), therefore x actually has y. Because x (a fetus) is potentially qualified for y (the right to life), therefore x actually has y.

The third argument, actual possession, is one that I'll mostly skim over. Essentially, it says that only those that actually possess the characteristics of personhood are moral persons.

Finally, as a closing, I'll discuss the actual right-to-life argument. In essence, this argument says: "Because the fetus is a potential person, it has the right to life, which right is paramount. All other rights are secondary."

First, it relies on a logically indefensible argument to claim that a fetus is a person. Even assuming that a fetus DOES have the right to life, however, there are still several ramifications for this argument that inevitably render it indefensible.

First, I recommend that you read J.J. Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," in which you'll find the Famous Violinist argument. In essence, this argument is a story: One day you wake up in a hospital, and find that you are hooked up to a dialysis machine. A nurse comes in and tells you that a famous violinist is dying from kidney failure and that you were the only one available until they can get a transplant done, which will be nine months, give or take a few. According to the right-to-life argument, you are morally obligated to stay hooked up to that violinist, even if you did not volunteer.

Personally, I've never much liked this argument, but it still warrants mention.

The second point of criticism is the Stranger-in-Peril argument. Let me tell you a story again:

You get out of class, and you decide to go to a nearby river with some buds, smoke some mwah mwah, drink beer, and discuss whatever you like to discuss. You get there, but before you can get nice and stoned, a stranger comes up and asks you, "Hey, is it safe to go into this river? I wanna swim some."

At this point, there are two situations with three conclusions.

The first is that you know that the river is dangerous, and that the guy will probably die if he goes into the river, but you smile and say "Go ahead, it's perfectly safe."

In such a case as this, you knowingly put a person in danger. As such, regardless of whether or not you believe that the right to life is paramount (supervenes all other rights), you are morally obligated to rescue him when he inevitably floats past you yelling "HELP HELP!"

The second situation is that you know the river is dangerous, and that the guy will probably die if you go into the river. You tell him this, and you tell him that there's no lifeguard nearby, and that you can't swim at all. The guy shrugs, and says "Awesome, I wanna challenge."

Now, here is where we get the divergence. According to the right-to-life argument, when that person inevitably floats past you yelling "HELP HELP!", you are morally obligated to rescue him, even if performing such an act is not only impossible for you to do, but will also result in your own death.

According to the right-to-choice, you warned him, you did all that you could reasonably do to prevent his death, and you have done nothing wrong.

Thus, the right-to-life argument would have the actual right to life become, "You have the right not to be killed unjustly, and the right to be rescued from impending disaster."

To conclude, the right-to-life argument is incredibly dangerous, because its very nature will force you to rescue a person, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, or how high the risk to yourself is. However, it's also incredibly attractive, because it's easier than the right-of-choice argument, as with the right-of-choice you have to make moral judgements for each individual case (life-threatening pregnancies, which are pretty much always morally permissible, rape/incest pregnancies, and everything else).