South Dakota Banned Abortion

Wasn't Poison was from Sioux Falls.

At any rate, I'm glad I don't have a uterus in South Dakota.

Don't laugh, but this is what the bill is titled...

Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act.

White male South Dakotan congressmen now have control of their women's uteruses. Nice.

Women do not know what is best for themselves.

There are a number of national corporations that call South Dakota their home. Their lobbying efforts have a big impact on the kind of regulation and laws South Dakota passes.

Boycott them. Boycott Citibank, Gateway computer, and Iams. And let them know why you're boycotting. Force them to force their legislators to re-think their ban on equal-rights for women.

Boycotting the travel industry is useless and only hurts the mom and pop industry. Besides, South Dakota doesn't have any real major destination points for vacationers

The law so clearly defies the Supreme Court that it will never take effect. I have no doubt that some judge or clerk is already drafting the injunction. It's an intentional political stunt and will have no effect whatsoever.

What do the courts look like, though? The law is all set to be challenged, at the state level, right? 3-5 years might see it before the SC.

I guess if one of the liberals on the SC left, and Bush appointed someone else, they could overturn Roe. I sincerely doubt they'd do it with this though. It's just too blatant. I really don't think this is going anywhere. If it happens, it will happen with more subtlety, I think. Who knows though.

I assume this has nothing whatsoever to do with overturning Roe, which is a huge moneymaker for the Republicans. This is about mobilizing the base for November and again in '08. It's just another wedge issue.

Not going to be any changes soon, but this will be interesting to watch. Are any other states on the verge of doing this?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake brings up an interesting question:

Let's try again:

It is not a strawman - and it does reveal new information. That information is that the fertilised cells have a lot less value as "living beings" than real children.

It is not a big step, then, to say that the quality of the mother's life is a lot more important than keeping a fertilised egg alive.

But only to those that support abortion.

In fact it is a requirement to value one life less than another in order to support abortion.

It doesn't really reveal this information anew (unless you are already blind to this fact)...it does accentuate it though, yes.

It is a strawman because it fabricates a scenario (choosing between saving two different lives) that doesn't reflect what abortion is really about (one person's "right" to purposefully an deliberately end the life of another because thir life is deemed to be of greater value or worth).

Let's have fun with these scenarios for a moment.

Suppose there is a burning building and you can only save the life of a newborn infant or the mother...which do you choose?

Are you seriously suggesting that these two scenerios have the same degree of dilema?

I would choose the infant, would you choose the pitri dish?

Why?

That's a good point. Even if this is really just a stunt, it might wake some people up a bit.

Easier to carry, greater chance of success in escape, longer life ahead of it than the mother, paternal urges. Few would fault me for my choice - both the mother infant are valid choices, with the slight edge to the infant.

If you chose the pitri dish, the world would condemn you as a monster (including most of the pro-life world).

When you said earlier that there was no new information in this you were wrong - the new information is that the pro-life crowd also believes that a child is much more valuble than a fertilised egg, they just have not been forced to choose before.

Sorry. You are.

The dilemma created forces one to make a value choice between two lives (as you did between the newborn and the mother)...oh and it still doesn't reflect the true choices in regard to abortion (well...except in the 1-2% of the cases where mom's life is in danger)...argue the extremes (and improbables) and make it sound/seem/feel/appear profound. What a load of crap. It is the "have you stopped beating your wife" question for the pro-abortion crowd. It creates what sounds like a compelling and insightful challenge/dilemma/conundrum. It really doesn't.

Can we have a self-imposed ban on the term "strawman"

It is the WORST, most over used phrase (by both sides) on this board, eclipsing even "moving the goalposts"

Seriously, get a new way to express yourselves, people.

Almost every thread in P.O. degenerates into people shouting "strawman! strawman!" at each other.

I don't think it's as bad as you say. The underpinning of many pro-life views, especially this SD abortion law (i.e., one that makes no exceptions), is that a fertilized egg is of the same value as any other human life. The hypothetical show how starkly wrong that feels - to pick up a jar and save 5 "people" and let a 2-year-old die is one that no moral human being could make, and yet it's the logical consequence of the "zygotes are people" view.

It forces you to make a choice, but that is not the point. The point is the way it feels a whole lot different to choose a zygote rather than a living child.

Your mother/child example puts this in even starker contrast - the mother/child choice (regardless of what you choose) is a whole lot easier than choosing the pitri dish over the child.

Anyway, you never answered the question - would you choose the pitri dish?

Is SD's banning of abortions going to stop abortions, and is that really the intent? Surely, lawmakers are aware that someone with an unwanted pregnancy will travel to the nearest state where abortions can be carried out legally and safely? That is, those who can affordto take the time off to travel, and the other expenses involved. This law looks to be a(nother) blast at poor, working class, minority and lesser educated women, who are more likely to get unitentionally pregnant than their wealthier counterparts, who can sidestep these laws with little hardship.

Is this kind of *stuff* standard procedure for "Christians" who run their lives on the principle on "unconditional love"? Oh wait a minute... wasn't that Jesus who taught that? Who? Or are the words of white male congressmen more relevant here?

Oh dear. More bogusness from the people who brought us... Ok, wrong thread...I won't say it

Strawman!! Hasty generalization!

We need fewer Crusades Christians and more Jesus impersonators.

Well, I'm not afraid of the implications to my belief system of treating the fire in the fertility clinic question seriously. But then I'm neither a Christian nor a coward.

• Evidently a two-year-old, having a central nervous system, memories, a personality, attached parents and a host of other unquantifiables that make up an undefined but generally accepted notion of what constitutes 'life', a notion not recognised by people who call themselves 'Pro Life' while refusing to engage with what 'life' really is, would be saved by anyone other than a Christian fundamentalist.
• Pointing the strawman finger here was a terribly effective way of running from a good point that merits discussion while 'keeping the high ground'.
• We must teach our sons that masturbation is murder.
• It is useless and utterly impossible to argue anything with people who will claim with a straight face that the planet is 6,000 years old, since 'evidence' and 'rationality' are their enemies.

edit: off topic rant on American Christian hypocrisy re. Guantanamo Bay.

If and when this law makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be ruled unconstitutional, and Roe will be upheld 9-0.

To quote the ever quotable Kinky Friedman,

I saw a short interview with one of the SD congress critters, and it seems that they know that it will be overturned by all the lower courts, but they are hoping that with two (and probably three by the time this makes its way through the lower courts) Bush appointees, that the supreme court will hear the case and overturn Roe vs Wade.

Personally, I don't think that the supreme court will hear the case: many judges who think that Roe vs. Wade was a wrong decision believe strongly in precedent, and have no desire to go back and overturn old decisions.

Of course it is.

The Repubs will use the issue to increase turnout at the polls while the Dems will shriek into a microphone about this at every available opportunity, thereby branding themselves the voice of negativity and unelectable.

The real question is why the Left keeps falling for the same stunt over and over.

Indeed.

You mean precedent, of course. Though I'm sure it's true how you've written it as well...

Americans overwhelmingly say they support Roe v. Wade and even more overwhelmingly reject the type of no-exceptions law passed in SD. If anything, it should have the opposite effect - people will start to see the possibility, even the remote one, that abortion could be made illegal. Republicans are really shooting themselves in the foot with this. Talking social conservative while not acting on it is their secret to success. This acts on it, which you're not supposed to do. Republican political operatives can't be pleased about this.

While I feel confident that the national operatives know the score on this kind of stuff and just want to use it as a wedge issue, the state level folksespecially the young ones like this guy, who the party has clearly not had time to groom through the typical process of school board elections, city council elections, mayoral elections, and then state-level elections (DO YOU HEAR THAT DEMOCRATS?! THAT'S HOW THEY DO IT!! BY THE TIME ONE OF THESE GUYS GETS TO THE NATIONAL HOUSE OR SENATE, THEY KNOW HOW TO DO THIS STUFF!! hint frakkin' hint)I suspect are a whole different animal and really see themselves as part of a moral crusade rather than a part of a well-oiled machine designed to keep wedge issues on ballots and in the courts to divide the country.

The worst thing for the Republicans would be if the Democrats dropped abortion as a plank and said "OK. You wanted it? You got it. No more abortions."

And for what it's worth...there's a Planned Parenthood clinic down the road from me here at the north end of the SLC metro area.

boom.

Hassan brought up Guantanamo Bay,

I believe what is going on there is an abuse of human life.

Abortion law in a given state is the topic of this thread.

I believe abortion is wrong in cases which do not threaten the life of the mother.

I believe one day "progressives" will realize that abortion in cases which do not threaten the life of the mother is not a "progressive" idea. Quite regressive in fact.

The way I view this subject of abortion is as follows:

If one can rationalize abortion for an assortment of reasons such as "mother not prepared to raise unwanted baby", etc. what then is to prevent this logic from spreading or appealing to parents of a 2 year old. How about this logic of (abort) applied by parents or the mother of a 6 month old? Can we just "abort" 2 year olds and or 6 month olds?

For some reason it is "civil" and "progressive" to raise (once born) your 2 year old or 6 month old but in cases of the unborn no responsibility need apply?

I find it very dishonest to watch those on the left or liberal or progressive leaning defend something which is not worthy of defense and then label it progressive.

I am just as perplexed to listen to some who support the abuse that is and takes place at Guantanamo Bay.

One day maybe people of integrity, true character and wisdom will stand up and leave their earthly ideology and party affiliation at the door and choose higher values.

I think we can look at history and see leaders who have done just that.

Jesus,

Gandhi,

Martin Luther King,

Rosa Parks and many others.

When we stand for the life and liberty of the unprotected minority we serve God.

Be Blessed and serve God. Stop selling out for man.

Fellows

Although I disagree with you about whether abortion should be legal, I hope that abortion will go away completely someday, because I hope no one gets pregnant unless they consciously make a decision to become pregnant. I think it will happen, maybe not 100%, but close. Abortions have been decreasing in the past decade or so, and I believe that with better birth control, and reduced poverty and better education, abortion won't be even necessary.

Anti-choice advocates talk a lot about responsibility, but I have yet to see a single one of them stand for teaching children and teenagers the actions and methods of birth-control that allow these individuals to exercise their responsibilities before conception.

Anti-choice advocates talk a lot about responsibility, but I have yet to hear a single one of them address the fact that it may be the most responsible thing for a mother to do to not bring a child into her world.

Anti-choice advocates talk a lot about responsibility, but I have yet to witness one offer a solution to the problems that tie very certain populations and people to the use of abortions.

Anti-choice advocates talk a lot about responsibility, but I have yet to feel that they actually care about the women who are forced to make the choice to abort.

You can talk about responsibility all you want, but to be honest, anti-choice advocates lack the same ethical convictions they claim women who abort lack.