South Dakota bans most abortions

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

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?

To protect said freedom?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

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

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:

Originally Posted by Zio

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.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Minion

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Devo

Pro-life has been able to restrict the methods and timing of abotion. It's not like people are turning a deaf ear to their ideals.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

If you don't support it, then you shouldn't be too happy that it happens.

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

Quote:

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?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Legato

Wait, so an abortion is free?

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

Quote:

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".

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

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!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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!

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

I thought they signed that bill? O.o;

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

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.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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

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

Quote:

I personally believe that abortion is wrong and should not be allowed except in the case that the mother's life is in danger.

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.

Quote:

I am not going to stand in front of an abortion clinic and yell at women who go in there.

Good for you.

Quote:

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.

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).

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?