South Dakota Banned Abortion - Page 2

I agree with you that actually getting Roe overturned would be a political disaster for the GOP. But that is true on a national scale or in certain states. Acting on it there is a big problem for them, acting on it in just South Dakota isn't so much. To most people this will still just be some headline about a backwater state for now and I don't think that it will scare the muddled middle. While it will at least raise the notion that this can happen, I think the reaction will still be fairly modest. Once we get to the next supreme court justice nomination or when another anti-choice justice brings us to the point where it actually is going to be overturned is when it will be clear to people that this is really happening.

Personally I think the democrats would be helped here if the four anti-choice judges pick this case up rather than letting the appeals court' probable decision to strike it down stand without comment. If one assumes that the donkey remains in the minority in the Senate. Four votes is enough for the court to take the case and if they were to reaffirm Roe at 5-4 that would reinforce the reality that when the next justice is picked that that person will almost single handedly determine the fate of Roe given that the ages and health of the individual justices make it very likely that a pro-choice justice will be the next to retire/die and probably in the not so distant future.

If a pro lifer really care about the fetus he or she should take a good realistic look at the what prevents unwanted pregnancies in the first place

-Abstinence is NOT a effective method. Its pure value-oriented rationality without ANY regards to its effectivity.
-Equality in the secondary social enviroment (aka the school system)
-Equality in life chances.
-Equality in the economical field.
-Less social segregated cities.

Then they should look at what make unwanted pregnancies wanted instead.

-Again equality in life chances.
-Again equality in the economical field.
-Cheap, available and high quality day nursery and kindergardens.

And if provided with that the pregnant women still don´t want or can have the child a good adoption system and available information about it from neutral persons.

I could go on. Free abortion is not the main reason to abortion. Free abortion is merely making what is happening legal and safe. Start there and you would save so many more fetuses(sp?) than trying to make abortions illegal.

And Fellowship: If you are right I hope I one day will see it the same way you do

I agree with you. BRussel.
I am prochoice, but I wish that abortion will go away.
BTW, making abortion illegal (like in the past) never prevented people to abort. In France there is less abortion now, than it was the case, when abortion was forbidden.

Not true,

Complete nonsense and lies

Fellowship

I agree. hardeeharhar mistakes the individuals for a certain strategy.

Lets try it another way and take "What camp do you belong to" out of it. I think everybodies goal are to reduce the number of abortions. Some wants to reduce them as much as possible, some to reduce them to zero. Let us instead discuss the best strategy of getting to either points.

There are several ways of reducing the number of abortions voluntarily via social actions. I listed some of them in my previous post. If people don´t with that statement they only have to look at the facts. So I assume we can leave those out of the debate (since we can agree on them).

Now there are at least four other ways you could try to reduce abortions.

The first is trying to influence the society and your surroundings with your views on abortion in general. I see nothing wrong in that. But thats a seperate mattr than the strategies noted below. There is no doubt in my mind that would reduce pregnancies as long as you don´t mix the signals with other value-oriented messages (again: ABSTINENCE DOESN´T LEAD TO FEWER PREGNANCIES).

The second is to inform the pregnant woman about the facts. Tell her what the procedure is and what exactly the state of the fetus is (easier access to and information about adoption I assume we all agree on so I will leave that out of it). I tend to agree that should be done. Everybody has the right to make an informed decision. But the problem here is the precedence. Some groups have used this, not to inform, but to scare (use pictures of fetuses on a different stage of the pregnancy, misinformation on techniques aso) and induce morals (comparing aborting to the Endlösung). If the goal is to avoid pregnancies such tactics cannot be the role of those who are set to inform. If you mix the two, the woman will be more reluctant to seek the information and if it is made a condition for abortion abortions will take place outside the system instead.

The third is to make abortions illegal. It might reduce the number of abortions but everything suggest it will not be that many. There are so many ways to abort pregnancies outside the doctors office, both mechanical and chemical ones. There are at least three downsides to this strategy: 1) Women will put themselves at the risk of backstreet abortionist and dangerous drugs 2) It will have a huge social loopside 3) The general criminalisation of persons and activity that will happen anyway. In my view the trade offs far outnumber the doubtful benefit.

The fourth is to stand outside abortion clinics and yell, sorry, give information about abortions via megaphones, misinforming plamflets and red paint. It has the exact same benefits and downsides as the above AND it further enlarges the gab between the two groups.

So from my view point the first two strategies could be pursued if you avoid the pitfalls noted and the last two are either counterproductive to the goal or the end doesn´t justify the means.

I think it would be productive to discuss it within the framework I have painted above or to acknowledge that ones stand is an emotional one, not strategic, without direct link to reducing number of abortions.

Nope. For one every one of those statements is true. And two, nice rebuttal.

Maybe you should then open your eyes and ears

At least someone can read... I have opened my eyes and ears, the problem isn't me, its the anti-choice advocates.

I have to side with hardeeharhar on this one.

Anti-choice advocates are predominantly Christian and are very active in preventing public schools from teaching methods of birth-control and providing access to it.

It is my experience (through my sister-in-law's social services career) that a majority of unwanted children thrown into the social services programs do not become productive, responsible adults.

It's is true that a majority of unwanted pregnancies happen to underpriveledged and poor people who do not have the means necessary for effective pre-natal care.

Most anti-choice advocates absolutely apply more value to the unborn fetus than the mother. The mother is merely a container for future life.

There is enough obvious empirical evidence out there to support all of these arguments. No one wants an abortion. No one wants to "support" abortion. But the realities of the real world often get in the way of idealism. To turn a blind eye to these realities is both foolish and disengenous.

I realize the following statement will make most anti-choice advocate's heads explode, but ... Pro-Choice does not equal Pro-Abortion.

If abortion was made illegal, will the anti-choice movement remain activists?. My guess is probably not; if abortions become illegal, the anti-choice movement will have achieved their primary aim of exerting power over people against which they have a moral issue. The likely probability that the abortion rate will remain consistent will be of far lesser concern to them when they get the law on their side.

Enough with the "anti-choice" moniker. It is a lie, plain and simple. And those that use it demonstrate their unwillingness to discuss the issue using anything other than demonizing labels and sound-bites.

People that oppose abortion are not "anti-choice". Quit deluding yourself with the caricature of the imagination you've created.

Major, sensitive and controversial issues like this one (and others) could be navigated with much more civility and grace if such labels are not used and there was a genuine attempt to understand differing points of view. The use of them can only serve the purpose of offending and insulting.

Umm... yeah. I mean, how can we rationally argue with people who call themselves 'Pro Life' without calling ourselves 'Pro Death'?

And how can anyone have a rational discussion with someone suggesting they are "anti-choice". That is my point.

Do you all want to discuss the issue or do you want to discuss eachother?

Well... Lessee... So called pro-life advocates want to remove the legality of the option and hence the choice of women to have abortions... Hence they are by their very movement's intention anti-choice which is far more descriptive than pro-life, which could for all intents and purposes be a subgroup at PETA...

So I will keep my Anti-Choice moniker because it suits the pro-life side...

That is simply not the "primary aim" of those that are opposed to abortion.

Those that oppose abortion believe that human life begins at conception and that abortion provides a legalized avenue to end a human life. It is really that simple.

Those that support abortion believe that the "thing" inside of a woman's womb is not a human life or believe that it is a human life of lesser relative value. They assert it to be "merely a clump of cells" with the same emphatic certainty of truth as do those who believe it is an early stage human life. These folks also believe that women should have the choice to "terminate her pregnancy".

Stop trying to win through demonization.

Now, as to the (direct) issues at hand:

1. Will this SD be overturned? Possibly...even probably...perhaps partially.

2. Does making abortion illegal stop abortion? Well, no, of course not, no more than making stealing illegal stops people stealing...making murder illegal stops people from killing...or making speeding illegal stops people from speeding.

3. Despite #2, should it be made illegal? Well...I happen to believe it should. Not because I feel the compulsion to "control women's bodies", but because I have the moral conviction that abortion is the ending of a human life...essentially murder. So the same reason that I think a lot of other things ought to be illegal (rape, stealing, etc.) It is wrong to end a human life in this manner. You can disagree. Fine.

4. What will be the political ramifications of this action? I have no idea. I have generally giving up trying to read the political tea leaves. I am often wrong at predicting such things.

5. Ultimately, I believe that this is a "heart matter"...in that until we live in a society in which children (ill-timed in their arrival or not) are valued above a "personal choice to control my own body", abortion will always have an unfortunate existence.

The problem is that the vast majority of people are NOT pro-abortion, but they firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. Hence Pro-Choice.

To me anyone who fights for the opposite is Anti-Choice. But if they want to call themselves Pro-Life, they need to square that with their belief in capital punishment and support for pre-emptive war.

And because they cannot reconcile those hypocritical stances, I refuse to use their self-branded "Pro-Life" moniker.

Maybe you should make this a poll?

Surely you realize that the word "choice" refers to a woman's right under the law to abort her fetus if she chooses. So perhaps you should argue that the term is merely imprecise, because it uses a fairly general term to describe a very specific thing. The most literal terms we can use are "pro abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights."

On the flip side of that sarcasm, do women actually know what's best for their children, although unborn?

I think they would know more than some religious nut with a Bible on his hand.

Ohh. Tragic in so many layers

Please be honest, what do you people expect from this discussion? Look at what the heading for this subforum is:


Is this civil? Is this factually informed? Is this even a discussion?

Why don´t you people get your hands dirty with tackling this issue instead of getting them dirty by stabbing eachother?

This debate has been politicized since day one... it is about appearences on both parts... Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, because groups of american's have an instant dislike of the term anti (see Chris's mind dump above)...

And I always thought that was a joke. Seriously.

That explains a lot[/general obervation][/cheap shot]

But seriously: Even if it was the signal is not to do the exact opposite.

Actually I'm going to have to disagree with you there to a degree. There ARE many anti-abortion advocates who hold that view. In fact, I would say that the most vocal ones do hold those views.

You can't call yourself pro-life if you are for the death penalty.

And since the "vocal ones" are a minority we can stop the hasty generalizations.

I agree. Now, since not everyone that opposes abortion supports the death penalty, another generalization can be discarded.

But that is really besides the point. The "anti-choice" thing a (not so) clever rhetorical device used to imply somthing far more broad. It isn't the "anti" that I have so much a problem with (though that can be used rather insideously as well). It would be fair to say "anti-abortion".

EDIT: Oops...some hand-eye coordination issues.

Actually, you can.

Rational people are able to distinguish between the death of an innocent, unborn child and that of a cold-blooded murderer who needs to be stopped.

It could be argued that setting such a penalty on willingly ending a human life is a Pro-life position.

(This post should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the death penalty.)

Just because you distinguish between the death of an "innocent" and that of a "murderer" (as if he isn't stopped by putting him in lockup...you make it sound like without the death penalty he is running amuck throughout society) doesn't change what I said. So, you are pro-life for some, pro-death for others. How is that pro-life?

Maybe you are pro-life*** with a few asterisks but at face value, you are not pro-life if you think any person should be put to death.

I would be worried if you didn´t agree with yourself...

He was agreeing with BR, not himself. But it still looked funny.

What is then?


That is fair enough. I acknowledge that, and they have a right to express that belief, to the same extent as those who believe that a woman, rather than big government, has the right to determine what she does with her body.


Nobody "supports abortion", as you allege; here's a classic instance of false framing. An abortion is a traumatic and potentially dangerous experience for a woman. The notion of "recreational abortions", or women having abortions "for the hell of it" is more than likely to be manufactured and bogus claptrap courtesy of the 'religious right' and their political cohorts.


People have the right to believe either that life begins at conception (that is one extreme), or when the just-born starts breathing independently (thats the other extreme).


Both sides are doing just that.


We will find out in due course.


There is the issue in a nutshell. Murder, stealing and speeding (etc) involve independent human beings, the victms, with lives, histories, feelings, thoughts, jobs, sons, daughters, the trappings of *life*. Regarding 91% of abortions in the US the termination involves an entirely different entity. That of course is not your belief, and what you believe is not my business, or anyone else's, just yours. Similarly, what I believe, after moral deliberation, is my business and mine only. It should not be a matter for lawmakers to determine, as this issue is a matter of personal spiritual/moral/religious interpretation. What is not fair, is for a section of the population to determine the law based on their personal belief, and insist on imposing that belief upon the other, thereby making the action-as-determined-by-their-choice, based on that personal belief, punishable by law. Here is the difference. We all know that an independent human is a life unto itself. Upon that fact we all agree, Regarding a clump of cells, it becomes a matter of personal opinion. Nobody is "right" or "wrong".

That same survey (apologies for quoting Fox, a fringe wacko news source, but they happen to be popular and mainstream), found that only 100 out of 1.6 million abortions that happened in the US in 2002 were 3rd trimester terminations, contary to the pro-life mandated "child killer" mantra. This type of abortion (the type that the anti-choice movement try to equate to all abortions in their emotionally charged campaigns) is extremely rare and usually done for emergency medical reasons.


As I mentioned, we are all entitled to our beliefs. However, if the anti-choice movement feels that strongly about terminating an entity which might not even qualify as an independent lifeform, where is the outcry against state sanctioned pre-meditated murder, euphemistically known as "capital punishment"? "Pro-life" surely means just that, ie human life, all human life, not just an arbitrary distinction between those who are murderable and those who are not. People who are murdered by the state are independent (and some are innocent) human beings; but the point at which they started their life (either at conception, or at birth, or at some time in between) is what is under dispute.


This issue has been heavily politicized, especially by the religious right. This is a problem for me because I do not agree that "big government" should be in the business of prying into, and exerting control over the health and reproductive issues of women, using threats of imprisonment for coercion.


There you go. Lets be practical about it, and keep abortion safe, legal and rare. A proven way to achieve this is to raise the standards of education, (especially amongst women) in this country. It has been shown that when the womenfolk of "lesser developed" nations get educated, the birthrate plummets. Here in the US, a better educated populace would translate into far less "unwanted pregnancies". It seems a shame that the anti-choice movement would prefer to expend their energy into punishment, rather than education. Here is where the power over others motive seems apparent.

What a shame that education at home appears to be a lesser priority than killing folks overseas for profit.

To save the lives we think are being ended prematurely.


If only the issue was so simple. That woman now has (according to my own belief) another human life that depends on it. We squawk if a woman drinks alcohol, takes crack, smokes or uses other similarly damaging substances if she is pregnant. Right?


I wasn' intending to "falsely frame" things. "Support the right to have an abotion" That better? Same difference really.


And it is a good thing that she has the option to engage in this? Now I am confused. I thought that people that support abortion rights are looking out for a woman's best interest.


Straw man (at least in this discussion). I didn't come anywhere in the vicinity of "recreational abortions".


Given that this is inconclusive, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution here? I mean, many abortion-rights supporters say..."well it ain't human until it has brain activity" (which is detectable at about 20 weeks these days). What happens if by some miracle of medical science we are able to detect it at say...4 or 5 weeks in the future. What do you say then? "Ooops! We fucked up. Our bad."


I try not to.


The problem is that all laws are, in fact, "legislated morality"...it is just that the one's (well most of them) we have now are agreed on by most people. This one is not. I would prefer that we erred on the side of caution in regard to human life.


Well...someone is "right" and someone is "wrong"...but we may not know with certainty at this time which is which. We do know with certainty that a human egg fertilized with a human sperm does result in a human being.





Well...if you believe that life begins at conception...it is a "child" well before the 3rd trimester. But, anyway...


I cannot speak for anyone but myself. You'll have to ask "them" I guess. And...still with the "anti-choice" thing? Coming close to getting on the ignore list.


I happen to agree...and in my view the arbitrary distinctions are being made by people that support abortion rights.


Tell me...do you think that the government should ever do anything about women that smoke, drink, do narctotics, etc, while pregnant?


Ummm...I never said that. The whole Clintonian "legal, safe and rare" has the panache of sounding wise and balanced. I disagree.


I believe that your perception of this is wrong.

Here is where the power over others motive seems apparent.


Trying to derail?

Unless, like the Catholics, you believe that fertility treatmentswhich create loads of fertilized eggs that are lost/discarded/not usedthen you need to amend that to say that it's only certain kinds of life in certain situations that you're interested in.

cf:

Good point.