SD House Passes Abortion Ban

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Our society has a somewhat inconsistent stance on the status of a fetus...abortion in isolation considers a fetus nothing more then a parasite or cluster of cells that is a potential human being...because a woman's right to do what she wishes to her body is paramount to any moral or ethical considerations in terminating a pregnancy.

Now take the case of a pregnant woman who is murdered, or cases where a couple loses a fetus due to a miscarriage or other complications...that cluster of cells suddenly takes on the characteristics of a human being...the loss of the fetus is treated as the loss of child, with burial rites, etc. In the murder scenario, the murderer can actually be charged for killing the mother and the unborn child...both are recognized as individual human lives.

This inconsistency is what troubles me about abortion...take a fetus that is early enough in the pregnancy term for an abortion...as an unwanted pregnancy, it is not a human being, but as a wanted pregnancy, it is?

Good points. The reasons, as I see them, are the following.

In both cases (wanted and unwanted), the body responds to the loss of a pregnancy in the same manner as the loss of a child.** Those who are wanting the pregnancy deal with the grief that ensues, while those having an abortion do not. They ignore it or push it aside because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge that they have just willingly killed a child. The emotional disorders experienced afterwards may either be a result of them never having grieved and their body catches up with them, or they realize what they've done mentally and have a hard time coping.

**To me, this natural response to the loss of a pregnancy is telling regarding what the fetus actually is. Clearly, your body believes it to be a child. This is true even at the early stages where an ectopic pregnancy (one in which the 'fetus' implants in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus) might be discovered, which is very early indeed.

One significant question is whether spontaneous abortions (or 'miscarriages') produce grief mainly due to the 'loss of life' perspective, or due to the same process that produces feelings of grief and helplessness in couples (anecdotally, especially women) who are simply unable to have a child; so is it a 'death' or is it a reaction to the cruel taunting of mother nature?

I think charging someone for the 'pregnant' part of killing a pregnant person is acceptable only if the pregnancy was 1) known to the killer, and 2) can be shown to the same standard of proof required for conviction to have been a motivating factor in the killing. I do believe this places me in the minority on this issue.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: OhioState

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan
I really wish some of our politicians would have been aborted instead of allowing to bring their religious wrath upon us

Do you have to be religious to oppose abortion on moral grounds?

Nope it does not take a book to tell me that waiting until a baby is almost out THEN tapping a hole in its skull and suckin out the brain is a bad thing. Or killing one in any other matter .

Wow that's a huge leap in logic. Sucking the brain out of an almost-born baby is obviously bad therefore a single-celled zygote has all the rights of a baby human being, if by "killing one in any other matter" (sic) you mean abortion at any stage in pregnancy.

But to respond to Whhozyerdaddy, religious people have their reasons for protecting every embryo down to the smallest single fertilized egg cell. They believe the soul is incarnated at the time of fertilization. However, there is no room for "souls" in man's law. Medically speaking, higher brain functions are what make someone a sentient, human being. That's why we can pull the plug on brain-dead terminal patients. At that point, the body is just an empty shell. The person is never coming back.

What the anti-abortionists don't tell you is that over half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Heaven or purgatory must be crowded with all those souls of single-celled humans. They also don't like explaining about the souls of identical twins. See here for a discussion of the theology of twinning.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: OhioState

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan
I really wish some of our politicians would have been aborted instead of allowing to bring their religious wrath upon us

Do you have to be religious to oppose abortion on moral grounds?

Nope it does not take a book to tell me that waiting until a baby is almost out THEN tapping a hole in its skull and suckin out the brain is a bad thing. Or killing one in any other matter .

Wow that's a huge leap in logic. Sucking the brain out of an almost-born baby is obviously bad therefore a single-celled zygote has all the rights of a baby human being, if by "killing one in any other matter" (sic) you mean abortion at any stage in pregnancy.

But to respond to Whhozyerdaddy, religious people have their reasons for protecting every embryo down to the smallest single fertilized egg cell. They believe the soul is incarnated at the time of fertilization. However, there is no room for "souls" in man's law. Medically speaking, higher brain functions are what make someone a sentient, human being. That's why we can pull the plug on brain-dead terminal patients. At that point, the body is just an empty shell. The person is never coming back.

What the anti-abortionists don't tell you is that over half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Heaven or purgatory must be crowded with all those souls of single-celled humans. They also don't like explaining about the souls of identical twins. See here for a discussion of the theology of twinning.

Wow, interesting... Good read dwcal

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Our society has a somewhat inconsistent stance on the status of a fetus...abortion in isolation considers a fetus nothing more then a parasite or cluster of cells that is a potential human being...because a woman's right to do what she wishes to her body is paramount to any moral or ethical considerations in terminating a pregnancy.

Assume for a second that the fetus *is* alive, and *is* a human being. The mother still has rights over her own body, which includes terminating a fellow human beings life as it acts as a parasite. The mother is justified in this "murder", if you really want to call it that.

Now take the case of a pregnant woman who is murdered, or cases where a couple loses a fetus due to a miscarriage or other complications...that cluster of cells suddenly takes on the characteristics of a human being...the loss of the fetus is treated as the loss of child, with burial rites, etc. In the murder scenario, the murderer can actually be charged for killing the mother and the unborn child...both are recognized as individual human lives.

The murderer is charged because he is taking two lives, without the right that the mother has over her own body.

This inconsistency is what troubles me about abortion...take a fetus that is early enough in the pregnancy term for an abortion...as an unwanted pregnancy, it is not a human being, but as a wanted pregnancy, it is?

Abortion is a tragedy of modern medicine, but we can't wish it away just because we don't like it...there are mitigation strategies that would make the demand for abortions significantly reduced...it is a behavioral shift.

Thus, there is no inconsistency. As an unwanted *or* wanted pregnancy, the mother has the rights over her own body, and the right to terminate the fetus even if it is a human being. The murderer on the other hand is taking two lives with no rights in hand.

Mitigation is not necessary because abortion is wrong, it is necessary because even having the situation of choice to terminate or not is painful to all parties involved.

 

[jlmadyson]

Vote Due on South Dakota Bill Banning Nearly All Abortions

Vote in SD senate today.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Assume for a second that the fetus *is* alive, and *is* a human being. The mother still has rights over her own body, which includes terminating a fellow human beings life as it acts as a parasite. The mother is justified in this "murder", if you really want to call it that.

So let me get this straight...in this sccenario, the fetus is a parasite that the mother can terminate at will.

The murderer is charged because he is taking two lives, without the right that the mother has over her own body.

Yet in this scenario, if the fetus is nothing more then a parasite, how is the murderer taking two lives in killing a pregnant woman.

mother has the rights over her own body, and the right to terminate the fetus even if it is a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, then the mother has no right to terminate the pregnancy, even if that life resides in her body. By that logic, we should terminate any unwanted life that depends on an external life support system, or is incapable of sustaining itself.

Mitigation is not necessary because abortion is wrong, it is necessary because even having the situation of choice to terminate or not is painful to all parties involved.

Mitigation is necessary because abortion IS wrong, but unfortunately the Pandora's box is already open...abortion is a travesty of modern medicine, and the only solution to minimizing practice of this barbaric procedure is to ensure that women take the necessary precautions to NOT have unwanted pregnancies.

 

[GhostDoggy]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

Civil war? Why, because the poor can't afford condoms? Or the wealthy are too stupid to buy condoms? I see no reason for not acting responsible.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
One significant question is whether spontaneous abortions (or 'miscarriages') produce grief mainly due to the 'loss of life' perspective, or due to the same process that produces feelings of grief and helplessness in couples (anecdotally, especially women) who are simply unable to have a child; so is it a 'death' or is it a reaction to the cruel taunting of mother nature?

Good question. It's probably a combination of the two if I had to guess.

I think charging someone for the 'pregnant' part of killing a pregnant person is acceptable only if the pregnancy was 1) known to the killer, and 2) can be shown to the same standard of proof required for conviction to have been a motivating factor in the killing. I do believe this places me in the minority on this issue.

If I am driving a tank and run over a Tahoe, kill eight people, I can be prosecuted for killing eight people instead of just one because I killed eight people. It would never hold up in court that I only knew there was a driver so that I should only be charged with one murder. That said, it's entirely conflictory for us to have laws allowing abortion and, at the same time, punish someone else for the death of a fetus. Either it's a person and has rights or it's not. If the potential argument works for the purpose of crimes, then it must also work for the abortion debate or we have a logical discontinuity.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan
I really wish some of our politicians would have been aborted instead of allowing to bring their religious wrath upon us

Do you have to be religious to oppose abortion on moral grounds?

no.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Assume for a second that the fetus *is* alive, and *is* a human being. The mother still has rights over her own body, which includes terminating a fellow human beings life as it acts as a parasite. The mother is justified in this "murder", if you really want to call it that.

So let me get this straight...in this sccenario, the fetus is a parasite that the mother can terminate at will.

Yes.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The murderer is charged because he is taking two lives, without the right that the mother has over her own body.

Yet in this scenario, if the fetus is nothing more then a parasite, how is the murderer taking two lives in killing a pregnant woman.

Being a parasite doesn't stop it from being alive. No one is debating its right to life, the only question is whether its right to life supercedes the rights of the host. In my view, it does not... creating this dichotomy.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

mother has the rights over her own body, and the right to terminate the fetus even if it is a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, then the mother has no right to terminate the pregnancy, even if that life resides in her body. By that logic, we should terminate any unwanted life that depends on an external life support system...

And there are legal procedures out there for doing that. Persistent vegetative state, anyone?

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Mitigation is not necessary because abortion is wrong, it is necessary because even having the situation of choice to terminate or not is painful to all parties involved.

Mitigation is necessary because abortion IS wrong, but unfortunately the Pandora's box is already open...abortion is a travesty of modern medicine, and the only solution to minimizing practice of this barbaric procedure is to ensure that women take the necessary precautions to NOT have unwanted pregnancies.

I was tempted to agree with the latter part of your thought... but the fake drama of the first half totally turned me off to doing that.

Abortion is what it is - a lesser evil... at least for now.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I was tempted to agree with the latter part of your thought... but the fake drama of the first half totally turned me off to doing that.

The drama was not fake, as this is a passionate topic...however, it is also not a binary one...for those in the Pro-Choice camp, no amount of evidence, data or discussion will convince them that a fetus is a human being with equal legal protection to the mother...similarly, no amount of arguing will convince a Pro-Lifer that a fetus is nothing less then a viable human being, and that abortion amounts to nothing less then murder.

Taking spirituality and religion out of the equation, there is something wrong with a society that takes pregnancy considerations and pushes them to after the act of sex has already occurred...we must educate people and provide them with the resources to make informed and safe decisions with regards to their decision to engage in intercourse...pregnancy should be at the forefront of the discussion, not an afterthought.

An educated and enlightened society with regards to sexual intercourse will limit unwanted pregnancies and abortion to all but the rarest of cases...I doubt our society will ever reach this point.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I was tempted to agree with the latter part of your thought... but the fake drama of the first half totally turned me off to doing that.

The drama was not fake, as this is a passionate topic...however, it is also not a binary one...for those in the Pro-Choice camp, no amount of evidence, data or discussion will convince them that a fetus is a human being with equal legal protection to the mother...similarly, no amount of arguing will convince a Pro-Lifer that a fetus is nothing less then a viable human being, and that abortion amounts to nothing less then murder.

Taking spirituality and religion out of the equation, there is something wrong with a society that takes pregnancy considerations and pushes them to after the act of sex has already occurred...we must educate people and provide them with the resources to make informed and safe decisions with regards to their decision to engage in intercourse...pregnancy should be at the forefront of the discussion, not an afterthought.

An educated and enlightened society with regards to sexual intercourse will limit unwanted pregnancies and abortion to all but the rarest of cases...I doubt our society will ever reach this point.

The only problem with that is the head in the sand idea that relying on abstinence only sex-ed kind of limits the education part of it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The only problem with that is the head in the sand idea that relying on abstinence only sex-ed kind of limits the education part of it

This is where I am in total disagreement with the religious right...abstinence is not a viable form of sex education. Not to mention that teenagers are not the only group at risk for unwanted pregnancies...the demographics suggest that grown adults also demonstrate irresponsible sexual behavior...it is a cultural mindset that we need to change in Amerca.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The only problem with that is the head in the sand idea that relying on abstinence only sex-ed kind of limits the education part of it

This is where I am in total disagreement with the religious right...abstinence is not a viable form of sex education. Not to mention that teenagers are not the only group at risk for unwanted pregnancies...the demographics suggest that grown adults also demonstrate irresponsible sexual behavior...it is a cultural mindset that we need to change in Amerca.

That's refreshing to hear. Maybe there is some hope. :beer:

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's refreshing to hear. Maybe there is some hope

Not all of those who are uncomfortable with abortion subscribe to the Pro-Life ideology.

 

[maluckey]

Absitinence works, but most people aren't equpped with sufficient willpower to not jump at the opportunity to have sex when offered (by a suitable partner). That's where sex-education comes into play. You educate about proper contraceptives, and then maybe start a way to glamourize contraceptives as chic. Fashoinistas can start all manners of craziness over far less.

More extreme........Perhaps marriage is the answer? After marriage, sex acts fall to the point of non-existence

 

[jlmadyson]

South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban

(AP) Pierre, S.D. The South Dakota Senate has approved a bill intended to prompt a court battle that could overturn the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would ban nearly all abortions in the state. The measure now returns to the House -- which earlier passed a different version and now must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.

Supporters note that with the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to consider overturning the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. They say President Bush may have a chance to appoint a third new justice in the next year or two.

But opponents say the measure is too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women.

Headed for the governor?s desk I suppose. This may set off a firestorm for similar legislation throughout the states. The states' rights issue that Rehnquist and White discussed thirty-three years ago in their dissents, may just come to pass.

 

[Reckoner]

Good day for America, now if only other states would follow suit.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Good day for America, now if only other states would follow suit.

Yay! More governmental control over us good little sheepies!

What a joke.

 

[Pens1566]

Good day to be a coat-hanger manufacturer in SD.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Good day to be a coat-hanger manufacturer in SD.

I'm sure.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

civil war? not really.

while i am pro-choice, remember what happened when abortion was legalized back in the 70's? Did civil war occur back then? no.

it's just a shift in American values. we went to the left. now we're (unfortunately) shifting back to the religious right.

remember, it's the voters who elect these officials. lets see what happens at re-election time. (think of the Penn school board who voted for Intelligent design only to lose re-election that Nov. The town voted out eight of nine board members.

And judge ruled against intelligent design.)

Will Roe v Wade be overturned? With the current supreme court judges, maybe. but looking at the bright side if it was overturned: It will hopefully polarize people and get them to become involved and vote.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Looks like it is on to the Govenor and then to the courts for the next couple of rounds in this bill's life.

Full story on this bill

The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.

The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in a series of steps, but some abortion opponents want a court challenge that could wipe out abortion in one fell swoop.

"I've indicated I'm pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

 

[RU482]

prediction: crime rates hit record highs in 2024 SD

 

[umbrella39]

I dislike when States makes the rules for the people and their bodies. It should be a referendum. If the voters of SD approve it, then so be it. But screw politicians deciding privacy issues like this for the masses.