Abortion banned in South Dakota?

[Delirious]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060306/D8G68LQG3.html

This is more I feel more appropriate for opinions forum considering it's such a controversial topic.

Please tell me your thoughts on this (to me at least) major event?

 

[Flerbizky]

I believe in Freedom of Choice - For the women that is...

 

[Anderton Prime]

It should always be the woman's right to choose what she wants to do, though I wish more women would look into carrying their pregnancies through and giving up the babies for adoption.

 

[Keef]

I also believe that a woman should be able to choose if she wants to keep the, err, fetus. I refrained from saying "baby" because everyone thinks babies are cute and everyone loves babies. Why would you abort a baby? A fetus, though, that's a different story. I do think there should be a time limit--I don't think you should be able to abort a fetus that is, say, 8 months grown, if you can even do that. A fetus that far along is "aware", can hear, though not understand, and probably thinks in there, the womb. I sort of learned about that stuff in psychology, but nobody really knows if a fetus "knows" what's going on, though I'm possitive they can't comperehend a bit of it. A 1-year-old can't comprehend much in the way of complex ideas, though they have figured out that if you throw a blanket over top their toy it is, in fact, still there.
The ultimate way to get around the whole situation is, obviously, to not get in a situation where you may get pregnant. Some epeople can't figure this out. Did you know some chicks screw in 8th grade these days!? I'm a senior, 17, and I was astonished when I learned that a few years ago. That's what you call a whore. Those are the people who are going to make some bad decisions in their life.
I'm sure I've invited much controversy with my opinions, so start countercontroversisizing. It's not that hard to pronounce, really. All you have to do is try.

 

[xcsti]

It should always be the woman's right to choose what she wants to do, though I wish more women would look into carrying their pregnancies through and giving up the babies for adoption.

Very much agreed 👍

I don't think the government has the right to restrict this either, irregardless of the fact I disagree with their decision.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Did you know some chicks screw in 8th grade these days!? I'm a senior, 17, and I was astonished when I learned that a few years ago. That's what you call a whore. Those are the people who are going to make some bad decisions in their life.

Dude, I don't think a girl in Grade 8 can ever be considered a whore. Young kids are stupid and irresponsible, that goes without saying. A few are so misinformed they have sex to be popular or to get attention / affection that is lacking at home. A whore is a woman who sells her body to men for money.

 

[Danoff]

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

I don't believe the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable or helpless in their society. I believe the true test is how just that civilization is - to all of it's members, not just the helpless.

 

[Anderton Prime]

I thought you could tell what state a civilization was in by looking at its prisons...

 

[Delirious]

So the question arises...when is it okay to abort and when is it not okay? WHAT makes it okay to abort at one age and not okay to abort at another age?

 

[smellysocks12]

I think abortion is an option which should be kept open, but not getting pregnant is the better option. For rape victims or underage girls it should be possible without question. Any adult who uses abortion as a contraceptive should be forced to eat the fetus after getting an abortion.

 

[Danoff]

This is not an issue that will be decided democratically - or even by elected officials. The only way voters will have any say in this matter is if congress threatens a constitutional ammendment - which is very unlikely to happen in the short term.

This law was signed for one reason and one reason only - to check out the latest round of supreme court judges and see if the anti-abortion folks have enough judges to overturn what has been a decided issue in this country. The constitutionality of this law will go almost straight to the supreme court - which should refuse to even hear the case since this is a decided issue and south dekota does not have the authority to pass a law in violation of the constitution.

Instead, I think we're likely to have the case revisited - which will result in any of three things happening:

1) Abortion remains legal and it remains unconstitutional for a state to pass an anti-abortion law
2) Abortion becomes legal or illegal at the discretion of the state. In which case we can count on the red states to ban abortion and the blue states not to. Blue states will end up with lots of people coming over from red states for medical procedures.
3) Abortion becomes unconstitutional and is illegal in all states under conditions set by the supreme court.

That's the choice our supreme court will be left with if it decides to hear the case that will be inevitably brought against this law - which I still hope it will not do. The proper course of action for all lower courts will be to rule according to the previous supreme court ruling - which will mean that the law SHOULD be found unconstitutional by all lower courts. If the supreme court simply refuses to hear the case it will then remain overturned by the last court that heard the case.

 

[a6m5]

I think abortion is an option which should be kept open, but not getting pregnant is the better option. For rape victims or underage girls it should be possible without question. Any adult who uses abortion as a contraceptive should be forced to eat the fetus after getting an abortion.

I agree..... kind of. I'm against abortion in general, but in some cases(like the one's smelly posted), it has to be done. In normal cases, I wish the mother would just have the baby, then adopt the baby to good home.

This law was signed for one reason and one reason only - to check out the latest round of supreme court judges and see if the anti-abortion folks have enough judges to overturn what has been a decided issue in this country.

I didn't even think about that. They didn't waste any time, did they?

 

[Flerbizky]

So the question arises...when is it okay to abort and when is it not okay? WHAT makes it okay to abort at one age and not okay to abort at another age?

In DK, you can have abortions until the fetus is 12 weeks old. I think 97% of the abortions happens before you even get remotely close to the 12 week limit...

OT: Remember when Cartmans mother wanted an adoption ?.. In the 54 trimester ?..

 

[Danoff]

I agree..... kind of. I'm against abortion in general, but in some cases(like the one's smelly posted), it has to be done. In normal cases, I wish the mother would just have the baby, then adopt the baby to good home.

Sure, that would be great. Of course it's up to her.

I didn't even think about that. They didn't waste any time, did they?

Nope. And this issue isn't one that will go away any time soon. Let's say that someone does challenge this law (which is almost 100% certain), and let's say it does go to the supreme court (which is also almost 100% certain as both sides would appeal any ruling). And let's just say, hypothetically, that our supreme court did the right thing and refused to hear the case on the grounds that it was a decided issue.

Once a few more judges die off or retire, if they get replaced by judges that the pro-lifers think would give them a better chance, they'll be right back in court testing the system.

 

[Famine]

I don't believe the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable or helpless in their society. I believe the true test is how just that civilization is - to all of it's members, not just the helpless.

That and the fact that they aren't "persons".

Try claiming child benefit for your foetus when you're pregnant. Pass that bill, South Dakota.

 

[Flerbizky]

That and the fact that they aren't "persons".

Try claiming child benefit for your foetus when you're pregnant. Pass that bill, South Dakota.

I can just see the letter :

To Whomever it might concern**..

I very recently got pregnant and I do now know who the father is, also I am working minimum wages but haven't been able to lately since I'm so sick in the morning, and have also developed crawings for the weirdest food. But since I'm not allowed to have an abortion, I must request that I get child support immediatly...

Sincerely,
Sharon.

** Since we know nobody would give a flying **** in real life...

 

[Keef]

I don't think they're "persons" until they're born. When the little gooberschnotzel pops out. It's a mean way to say it, but it's kind of like that saying "out of sight, out of mind." I don't know when most abortions are performed, but it'd be a heck of a job wrenching out a third trimester fetus. Which would be messier, that, or a liver transplant?

 

[xcsti]

So the question arises...when is it okay to abort and when is it not okay? WHAT makes it okay to abort at one age and not okay to abort at another age?

The problem with this question is that there is no definite answers only opinions. Also that people's views change as they are presented with a different situation. Some racist backwater person may be extremely against abortion but should his daughter boink a person other then his preferred color he'd freak out and may demand one.

gooberschnotzel pops out

LOL

 

[Delirious]

Why not just have the baby and give it up for adoption? How many families are there that desperately want a child but cannot have one physically?

(My belief) The people who believe the mother has the choice, what choice does the fetus have? I think if he/she is born or unborn is irrelevant. It's still a living human being, even if it's developing and still inside a womb.

 

[xcsti]

(My belief) The people who believe the mother has the choice, what choice does the fetus have? I think if he/she is born or unborn is irrelevant. It's still a living human being, even if it's developing and still inside a womb.

The parents are supposed to weight the future of the fetus. It basically the only available means of representing the unborn baby. What if the mother did cocaine or some other hardcore teratogen (whatever that word is) without knowing that she was pregnant? She'd know that she is just going to bring up a baby that will live an unfortunate life. Would it be right for her to get rid of it? Meh, people do things everyday that aren't "right" but that doesn't make them illegal.

This following question is posed specifically for elijah but others can answer. What is the point of enforcement of earthly laws if god is the final judge or if eternal damnation follows after life for an individual? Why keep an decrepid murderor in jail for life when you know he will spend an eternity in hell, assuming he hasn't repenten and if he has, if he is forgivin in God's eyes why would we still punish him? What gives humans those rights?

 

[Famine]

(My belief) The people who believe the mother has the choice, what choice does the fetus have? I think if he/she is born or unborn is irrelevant. It's still a living human being, even if it's developing and still inside a womb.

As I said, try claiming child benefit for one.

It has no legal standing as a person.

 

[Jimmy Enslashay]

Why not just have the baby and give it up for adoption? How many families are there that desperately want a child but cannot have one physically?

(My belief) The people who believe the mother has the choice, what choice does the fetus have? I think if he/she is born or unborn is irrelevant. It's still a living human being, even if it's developing and still inside a womb.

As has been said previously, what about rape victims that have been forced into pregnancy? What choice did they have? Surely you wouldn't want to put someone who is unwillingly impregnated through the intense pain that is child-birth, especially if she isn't ready for such a thing.

 

[Delirious]

I believe in capital punishment, but for the murderer who is on his way to hell, give him a chance to talk to someone about his eternal life. Why waste our tax dollars on people for life sentences?

If it's a situation where it puts the baby and/or mother at risk, do some serious praying and i believe God will lead them in the right direction (if saved) to do what is best.

Famine, as far as your posts...whether or not the states will recognize the fetus as a legal child, it is still a living being. It is completely irrelevant what someone says if they think with their minds it's not a living child.

I have scripture to back this up, but that determines if you guys will even accept it as means for the topic debate. If you guys want it, i'll be more than glad to give the scriptures i use to back this up.

 

[Famine]

Of course we already have an extensive "abortion" thread in the Opinions forum...

 

[Anderton Prime]

Ahh, you beat me to it. I was thinking I had seen a thread about abortion, not quite as long and completely pointless as the Creation vs. Evolution thread, but still long and completely useless nevertheless.

 

[FoolKiller]

This following question is posed specifically for elijah but others can answer. What is the point of enforcement of earthly laws if god is the final judge or if eternal damnation follows after life for an individual? Why keep an decrepid murderor in jail for life when you know he will spend an eternity in hell, assuming he hasn't repenten and if he has, if he is forgivin in God's eyes why would we still punish him? What gives humans those rights?

I went back and reread Elijah's posts. He did not mention God once. He intelligently gave a reasoning behind his opinion without bringing his religious beliefs into it. He knows better than to do that here. You made the assumption that it was because of religion. He asked about the rights of the fetus/baby/child/unborn human/whatever you want to call it. Something which a non-religious person, who thinks that a fetus should be considered a living human, can also do. I also noticed that he kind of ignored your post, which I think was also a smart move on his part. Whether you were trying to bait him or attack his opinion on the assumption that it is based on something he did not say it was ignored.

I have scripture to back this up, but that determines if you guys will even accept it as means for the topic debate. If you guys want it, i'll be more than glad to give the scriptures i use to back this up.

But then he said this while I was typing.

Famine, you are correct that a pregnant mother cannot be given child support until the child is born. But she also doesn't NEED to purchase food and supplies for the child at that point either.

Now, I will counter your legal point with my own. Why is it that if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and the fetus isn't able to be saved it is TWO (1-2) counts of manslaughter? This is even if the woman was unaware that she was pregnant and the issue of whether she wanted the child or not is unknown. Heck, she can be on her way to an abortion clinic and it is stilol manslaughter.

So, why is it that it is not a living human but you still face the legal penalities of murder if you kill it unless you are a doctor?


The problem is that the law doesn't mesh well. If abortion is legal then if you cause a pregnant mother to lose a fetus it should be whatever assault charge would be given for cutting off someone's hand. After all, it is just part of her body, right?

 

[Danoff]

So, why is it that it is not a living human but you still face the legal penalities of murder if you kill it unless you are a doctor?

That's not the case. It's legally murder if you kill it without the mother's consent - I don't think you have to be a doctor. A more thorough answer will be provided inthe abortion thread.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you are correct that a pregnant mother cannot be given child support until the child is born. But she also doesn't NEED to purchase food and supplies for the child at that point either.

Since of course a pregnant woman, trying to feed what is, essentially, a parasitical organism while also retaining enough energy to keep herself alive, obviously doesn't need any more food than a normal woman? And is the first batch of nappies/formula/baby clothing/etc. magically teleported to her as soon as it pops out?

You do NEED to purchase food and supplies for the foetus before it is born.

Now, I will counter your legal point with my own. Why is it that if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and the fetus isn't able to be saved it is TWO (1-2) counts of manslaughter? This is even if the woman was unaware that she was pregnant and the issue of whether she wanted the child or not is unknown. Heck, she can be on her way to an abortion clinic and it is stilol manslaughter.

It isn't, in the UK.

 

[xcsti]

I went back and reread Elijah's posts. He did not mention God once. He intelligently gave a reasoning behind his opinion without bringing his religious beliefs into it. He knows better than to do that here. You made the assumption that it was because of religion. He asked about the rights of the fetus/baby/child/unborn human/whatever you want to call it. Something which a non-religious person, who thinks that a fetus should be considered a living human, can also do. I also noticed that he kind of ignored your post, which I think was also a smart move on his part. Whether you were trying to bait him or attack his opinion on the assumption that it is based on something he did not say it was ignored.

My question was obviously related and was spurn by the discussion but I kinda wish I had asked it in a way that seperated it from this discussion a bit more. I, as do you, understand that elijah is very religious and so I asked him what had come to my mind. I understand his view on the rights of a fetus but I believe that those rights turn into an unending debate as there will never be a consensus over what specific rights the fetus gets and when it is allowed to get them. Edit:Also in his last post he showed a willingness to examine the religious points. /edit

I'm not sure I would classify it as bait, it was intended to be a hard question and I would have responded had he put a more concrete answer in, but for me bait seems a bit too malicious of a term. I guess it was a sort of question that even had he tried to answer there would have been little room for anything. I think he could have discussed how jailing a criminal could prevent further sins from happening. He could have also taken the augustinian view that repentance is not a set of words but an personal action such as a long period of solitude (later applied to torture). I think that implies a religious function of the government but just because a government performs that role does not make it secular. I'm not sure how to apply legal rights to abortion though.

Basically I wanted a discussion and I think I've just had one with myself. It's Elijah's right to avoid my question if he wants to. The fact that the question is so hard to respond to kinda of shows the validity of it.

Oh and sorry for going soooooooo off topic.

 

[FoolKiller]

My question was obviously related and was spurn by the discussion but I kinda wish I had asked it in a way that seperated it from this discussion a bit more. I, as do you, understand that elijah is very religious and so I asked him what had come to my mind. I understand his view on the rights of a fetus but I believe that those rights turn into an unending debate as there will never be a consensus over what specific rights the fetus gets and when it is allowed to get them. Edit:Also in his last post he showed a willingness to examine the religious points. /edit

I'm not sure I would classify it as bait, it was intended to be a hard question and I would have responded had he put a more concrete answer in, but for me bait seems a bit too malicious of a term. I guess it was a sort of question that even had he tried to answer there would have been little room for anything. I think he could have discussed how jailing a criminal could prevent further sins from happening. He could have also taken the augustinian view that repentance is not a set of words but an personal action such as a long period of solitude (later applied to torture). I think that implies a religious function of the government but just because a government performs that role does not make it secular.

Basically I wanted a discussion and I think I've just had one with myself. It's Elijah's right to avoid my question if he wants to. The fact that the question is so hard to respond to kinda of shows the validity of it.

Oh and sorry for going soooooooo off topic.

I'm moving all my future abortion discussion to the original thread.

Xcsti, I wasn't attacking you for going off-topic, just debating Elijah from an angle that he had avoided, up to that point. I wasn't accusing you of baiting him, but was trying to cover all possibilities in what your purpose could have been. I probably should have edited that whole paragraph out once he brought religion up.