Abortion bill passed in South Dakota

[CrystalTears]

South Dakota passes bill to ban nearly all abortions (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-23-sd-abortions_x.htm?csp=34)

That's just messed up right there.

[Skirmisher]

Lets send all those people from South Dakota to Iraq since they go for the religious fundamentalist thing so much.

[Tromp]

Can't blame just one party on this one because it seems both are supporting it.

I'm amazed how other people have such a desire to prevent an individuals ability to make their own decisions about what transpires in life.

We all know this is done in the name of religion which is based on faith that God exists.

It gives one pause.

Thank for posting the CT.

[Jorddyn]

That's seriously messed up.

I found this...

Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.
...particularly disturbing. Imagine what else you could do with the $1million.

It really seems to me that rather than tighter abortion control laws to stop the act, we should attempt to lessen the need. Educate the populace on methods and effectiveness. Offer low cost/no cost birth control to those who need it. Find a way to lessen the embarrassment factor - imagine living in a small town (which is most of South Dakota) where the only place to purchase birth control is somewhere that everyone knows you. It's not a big deal for married adults, perhaps, but I can imagine how a 16 year old girl would be petrified by the thought, or a single would fear getting labeled.

I'm really unsure how to eliminate the embarrassment factor in the short term. I think in the long term, education would lessen it significantly.

Jorddyn, just rambling

[Wezas]

Some senators, including Republicans, were concerned that the legislation did not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

At least some of the republicans have some sense.

And I can't believe a democrat is leading this crusade. I wonder if she held the same stance when she was running for office.

[Artha]

It's South Dakota, I'm sure the tens of people there are outraged.

[Miss X]

Wow. It's 2006 and this is still an issue? Jorddyn has pretty much covered my opinion. Put money into better sexual health education for young people. The number of people who believe the old myths like "you can't get pregnant the first time" are surprisingly alarming.

If we can lower the number of women having unwanted pregnancies then half the battle is won. Don't make abortion laws stricter though, I'm all for making it as easy and as stress free as possible for women.

[Warriorbird]

This is America. We've got Puritans here. Y'all kicked them out.

[Daniel]

I think that guy should give his $1 million to help disadvantages youth.

[DeV]

The bill includes no exception for rape or incest victims. Truly, one of the most fucked up aspects of this bill.

[xtc]

Good for South Dakota.

Rape and incest make up less than 4-6% of all abortions.

[CrystalTears]

If it's so little of a percentage, then allow it for those circumstances. To ban abortion for ALL circumstances regardless of rape or incest is just asking for problems. This is a really bad idea.

[DeV]

^ Exactly.

4-6% are only the reported numbers. We have no idea of the "actual" figures.

[Tromp]

Good for South Dakota.

Rape and incest make up less than 4-6% of all abortions.

I was wondering if you could explain to me what your rational is behind your support of banning abortion?

You are male or female?

[Ravenstorm]

To ban abortion for ALL circumstances regardless of rape or incest is just asking for problems. This is a really bad idea.

There's only one purpose to this law: to get a court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Once that's done, they'll appeal it up to the Supreme Court so Roberts and Alito can overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Raven

[Back]

South Dakota. Leading the way on taking two steps back. Way to go.

[Hulkein]

What's wrong with them? There's nothing wrong with killing babies so long as they're still in the womb.

[Warriorbird]

Right...yet killing civilians in war or criminals is okay... because you value life. Least my philosophy has some consistency. I can credit Latrin some for his, too.

[Hulkein]

<< yet killing civilians okay >>

Not okay, but sometimes it happens. We killed a lot of civilians saving Europe from Germany... I think it was the just thing to do.

Criminals? I'm not gung-ho for either side. Criminal's are a lot different than innocent life, but there are always mistakes made in the trial etc., so that makes me a little cautious.

[xtc]

I was wondering if you could explain to me what your rational is behind your support of banning abortion?

You are male or female?

I don't like murder. I am an Atheist most days.

[Wezas]

Originally Posted by Tromp
I was wondering if you could explain to me what your rational is behind your support of banning abortion?

You are male or female?
I don't like murder. I am an Atheist most days.

Notice how XTC avoided the question?

[xtc]

Notice how XTC avoided the question?

Because I won't engage in an argument about the validity of my opinion based on my gender.

[Wezas]

Because I won't engage in an argument about the validity of my opinion based on my gender.

Is that it? Or are you avoiding answering to the rumors that you are a woman?

[Tromp]

I don't like murder. I am an Atheist most days.

Key word in your sentence is "I". Murder is your perspective of it. So it is safe to assume you are a vegetarian and have never killed an ant or mosquito in your life.

[Hulkein]

That might be the dumbest retort to anything on these boards I've seen in a long time. Should've left the whole vegetarian and mosquito part out of it.

Congrats, Tromp.

PS. I don't consider killing retards murder, because it's my perspective!

[Tromp]

That might be the dumbest retort to anything on these boards I've seen in a long time. Should've left the whole vegetarian and mosquito part out of it.

Congrats, Tromp.

PS. I don't consider killing retards murder, because it's my perspective!

Next time I'll consult with you prior to posting ok?

[Jorddyn]

Good for South Dakota.


Wait until your 14 year old daughter comes home pregnant with a severely deformed baby.

Jorddyn

[Skirmisher]

Good for South Dakota.

Rape and incest make up less than 4-6% of all abortions.

So it's okay to force a woman to not only have to take the memory of the rape but then have no choice whatsoever in carrying the foul things child inside her for nine months. Way to remind her against her will of what happened every day beyond the normal nightmares.

I'm glad that that is such an easy decision for you to make.

[Warriorbird]

Gotta keep em barefoot and pregnant. Some folks also seem to crave the days of back alleys and coathangers.

[xtc]

Wait until your 14 year old daughter comes home pregnant with a severely deformed baby.

Jorddyn

and what % of abortions does this constitute?

[xtc]

So it's okay to force a woman to not only have to take the memory of the rape but then have no choice whatsoever in carrying the foul things child inside her for nine months. Way to remind her against her will of what happened every day beyond the normal nightmares.

I'm glad that that is such an easy decision for you to make.

Not at all. There are those women who get raped and have the courage to have the child anyway. People use the rare exceptions to keep the doors wide open for abortion, and then claim to be caring people, yet they think nothing of sucking a child out of its mother and killing it.

If you remember Roe's lawyer lied to the media about Roe being raped, the public's reaction to the case was based on a lie. Everytime this issue is discussed people bring up this issue, despite the fact that issues involivng the health of the mother, the health of the child and rape constitute only 4-6% of all abortions. The rest are abortions on demand, 48% of the women who get abortions are on their second abortion.

[CrystalTears]

WTF does it matter what percentage it is? If it's a health problem for the mother/baby, it should be taken into consideration. To say now that people have to have the child with no other alternative is just a selfish way of thinking.

I lean more towards pro-life than choice, but I realize and understand that abortion is a necessary evil, I just wish there were more regulations and education towards sex and pregnancy.

A right was given to mothers to choose. Taking it away is a step backward, and a bad step at that.

[xtc]

Key word in your sentence is "I". Murder is your perspective of it. So it is safe to assume you are a vegetarian and have never killed an ant or mosquito in your life.

I said "I don't like murder", that doesn't mean murder is my perspective. I think you should keep taking those E.S.L. lessons.

[Skirmisher]

and what % of abortions does this constitute?

It would constitute your daughters percentage.

A real person with real dreams and aspirations and a life as are ALL of those women.

All of them even those in what you see as a tiny unimportant percentage that you feel so comfortable in telling them how they have to live their lives for like a year assuming they even give the baby up for adoption.

I'm sure you will be glad to go to each ones home and tell them that becuase they are only X percent that you have decided how they will live for the next year.

[Ilvane]

I'll tell you XTC, be a rape victim who gets pregnant and see if that 4-6% doesn't matter..It would only mean 10 times the pain of the rape.

Put yourself in that woman's shoes..having the child of her rapist or her relative.

Go volunteer at a rape counseling place before you open your fat mouth and make stupid statements.

-A

[Sean of the Thread]

You guys are all so far off the fucking page here. (as usual) I'll discuss and tell you how it is regardless of what you think later (since what you think doesn't matter).

Right now I'm off to abort some brown baby boys into the toilet.. ttyl.

[Hulkein]

WTF does it matter what percentage it is?

It matters a lot when that number is extremely low and used to justify the practice for millions of others who would have healthy children.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'll tell you XTC, be a rape victim who gets pregnant and see if that 4-6% doesn't matter..It would only mean 10 times the pain of the rape.

Put yourself in that woman's shoes..having the child of her rapist or her relative.

Go volunteer at a rape counseling place before you open your fat mouth and make stupid statements.

-A


Maybe that rape child was Gods will and divine purpose? Who are you to say otherwise WOMAN!

[Jorddyn]

and what % of abortions does this constitute?

I think that is rather irrelevant to the 14 year old who is carrying a severely deformed baby.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

It matters a lot when that number is extremely low and used to justify the practice for millions of others who would have healthy children.

What I'm saying is that if the number is so low, as some put it, then allow it for the precious few. But that's not what's happening. If they want to put restrictions on abortion that's one thing. To completely deny it to everyone, regardless of health reasons, is the major problem here.

I wouldn't have one ever. Seriously. Even if I get raped and got pregnant from it. The child is innocent of the crime of what the rapist did. However that is my choice and don't expect every woman to be that bold. Women were given the choice. They are going against that right with this bill. It totally sucks.

[Wezas]

I'm just wondering where all these loose 14 year olds were when I as 14. I seriously missed out.

[Jorddyn]

48% of the women who get abortions are on their second abortion.

And this should tell you something.

Use education and accessability to birth control to lower the number of women who wind up with unwanted pregnancies, fund viable options for the women who do still get pregnant. You'll see that number drop dramatically.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

It matters a lot when that number is extremely low and used to justify the practice for millions of others who would have healthy children.

I'm not using it as justification. xtc is using the "low percentage" as a reason why those don't need to be allowed. I'm saying that is asinine.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

I'm just wondering where all these loose 14 year olds were when I as 14. I seriously missed out.

My best friend was pregnant, as were 4 other girls in my class Freshman year of high school, out of a class of 120. That's 5 pregnancies that I know of. What do you want to bet that there were at least a few abortions, as well?

Catholic school, sex education did not include birth control. I remember Jenny being shocked she was pregnant, because they only didn't use condoms a few times.

Jorddyn

[Wezas]

A low percentage (4.9%) are unemployed in the country right now.

Fuck them, they're a low percentage. Don't worry about creating new jobs for them.

[DeV]

I wouldn't have one ever. Seriously. Even if I get raped and got pregnant from it. The child is innocent of the crime of what the rapist did. However that is my choice and don't expect every woman to be that bold. Women were given the choice. They are going against that right with this bill. It totally sucks.I:clap:

[Jorddyn]

A low percentage (4.9%) are unemployed in the country right now.

Fuck them, they're a low percentage. Don't worry about creating new jobs for them.

:heart:

:worship:

[Sean of the Thread]

Until there is a federal ban on wire close hangers you all need to STFU.

Also available from my T-Shirt Shop.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/PRO.jpg

[Buckwheet]

Catholic school, sex education did not include birth control. I remember Jenny being shocked she was pregnant, because they only didn't use condoms a few times.

Jorddyn

Thats because the catholic church feels birth control is just as bad as abortion. They don't condone it and the only method they condone is the rythm method.

They feel, that having sex for pleasure is a sin. There is no excuse for the parents of soley catholic schooled children to blame anyone but them selved for being ignorant.

Not that it matters, but I went to catholic school, and I was asked to never come back.

[Jorddyn]

Thats because the catholic church feels birth control is just as bad as abortion. They don't condone it and the only method they condone is the rythm method.

They feel, that having sex for pleasure is a sin.

That and they needed to make sure that their numbers stayed up. It is much easier to grow the church when each couple has 6 or 8 children than when they only have 2.


There is no excuse for the parents of soley catholic schooled children to blame anyone but them selved for being ignorant.

I totally agree. Luckily, my mom worked in a public school in a neighboring town, saw how stupid kids were, and made damn sure that my brother and I not only understood birth control, but had ready access.

Jorddyn

[xtc]

People use the exception to keep the doors wide open for abortion. If you read the decision in Roe vs Wade, it doesn't read as allowing unrestricted access to abortion, yet that is what we have.

This law will be forced to have a provision in it that provides for the health of the mother and allows for abortion in the occurrence of rape. I think the left wing is harping on its lack of inclusion to remove the entire law. (I am not talking about people on this board).

You don't make policy on the basis of the minority which is what we have know and why have stated the statistics.

I am not against allowing abortion if the mother's life is in jeopardy or the girl has signs of being raped.

[Goldenranger]

If you read the decision in Roe vs Wade, it doesn't read as allowing unrestricted access to abortion, yet that is what we have.

Umm... no we don't, the states have and are allowed to under certain circumstances to regulate abortions. When states don't provide public funding for this medical procedure access is further limited for lower-income pregnant women. Read Casey v. PP of Southeastern PA...definitely some restrictions in there though some were thrown out.

[CrystalTears]

I am not against allowing abortion if the mother's life is in jeopardy or the girl has signs of being raped.

Did you even read the story?

[xtc]

Umm... no we don't, the states have and are allowed to under certain circumstances to regulate abortions. When states don't provide public funding for this medical procedure access is further limited for lower-income pregnant women. Read Casey v. PP of Southeastern PA...definitely some restrictions in there though some were thrown out.

What restrictions do we have? What, you are complaining because people can't pay for the abortions? It isn't bad enough these assholes can't stop at a pharmacy before having sex, now the state has to pay to kill their child?

[CrystalTears]

It isn't bad enough these assholes can't stop at a pharmacy before having sex, now the state has to pay to kill their child?

You know what they say about people who assume...

[Jorddyn]

You don't make policy on the basis of the minority which is what we have know and why have stated the statistics.


The hell you don't.

See: ADA, Civil Rights.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

It isn't bad enough these assholes can't stop at a pharmacy before having sex, now the state has to pay to kill their child?

Isn't it idiotic to not pay $250 for a procedure that will save the taxpayers the cost of raising, sheltering, and possibly incarcerating the future person?

Jorddyn

[Buckwheet]

My opinion matters little because you are trying to regulate for every situation that could come up, and you can not possibly regulate every circumstance. And it matters not because I am a male. It is not my place to tell anywoman what to do with their bodies, nor is my place to tell any man what they can do with their own body.

However, I would rather have the option available to everyone, and then allow whatever outside forces such as morales, family opinion, religon, and personal beliefs make up the minds for the people looking to get it done.

Then again, I am a very large advocate for personal acountability.

Individuals should be responsible for their action or inaction, and to regulate things like this you remove the ability for people to make up their own minds, you create a closed minded state, and it removes personal acountability from those people so that they then conform to your line of thinking.

Where there is room for debate there should be an option.

This is why when something that is percieved to be a crime, is commited you are allowed to be tried infront of a jury of your peers. Because there is room for the possibility that what occured is in fact not a crime.

[Warriorbird]

I support the death penalty. I'm pro choice. No cognitive dissonance here.

[xtc]

Did you even read the story?

Yep

"Some senators, including Republicans, were concerned that the legislation did not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest."

The bill has passed the Senate and is going to the Legislature which will mostly likely pass it.

The Governor vetoed a similar bill a few years ago.

I am sure Planned Abortion will fight this in the courts as they did two years ago.

[xtc]

Isn't it idiotic to not pay $250 for a procedure that will save the taxpayers the cost of raising, sheltering, and possibly incarcerating the future person?

Jorddyn

Adoption

[Buckwheet]

Adoption

How many have you adopted? If none, how many do you plan to adopt?

[Hulkein]

What I'm saying is that if the number is so low, as some put it, then allow it for the precious few.

While it's not a point in my current argument, I just want to say that you realize if the law had this clause, the majority here would still be against it.

They use the rape and deformity as a crutch, take that away and you'd get the same opposition just focused differently.

[Hulkein]

Catholic school, sex education did not include birth control. Jorddyn

It does now, just fyi. At least where I went.

[xtc]

How many have you adopted? If none, how many do you plan to adopt?

There is a dearth of babies available for adoption in the west. There are scores of qualified people who are on waiting lists just hoping for an adopted child.

[Sean]

The hell you don't.

See: ADA, Civil Rights.

Jorddyn

My job would be like 500x's easier if I didn't have to design all publicly accessed locations or spaces accessed by an elevator to meet ANSI.

[Sean]

There is a dearth of babies available for adoption in the west. There are scores of qualified people who are on waiting lists just hoping for an adopted child.

That'd be interesting if the waiting list wasn't that long because people are waiting for specific types of babies, mainly white babies.

[xtc]

It astounds me how some people can claim to be humanists and care for people yet they treat unborn children like refuse.

[Buckwheet]

My point to the question, which you didn't answer and didn't even acknowledge is that the people who are waiting for adoption want very specific qualities in their babies.

Why?

Because thats what they want.

The second point to me asking was to say that normal everyday people most of the time would rather go through the process of having their own children if they can.

While I am sure adopted children are loved and cared for very well, the problem is that in most cases they are the second or third option.

Which makes adoption a very imperfect solution.

[Sean]

Although in general I like you XTC I can't help but to keep laughing at your posts the last couple of days...

Everyone who disagrees with your point of view on the DP World docks management debate is a racist or an islamaphobe and now everyone who disagrees with your stance on abortion is anti humanist.

[Jorddyn]

Originally Posted by xtc


Originally Posted by Jorddyn
Isn't it idiotic to not pay $250 for a procedure that will save the taxpayers the cost of raising, sheltering, and possibly incarcerating the future person?

Jorddyn

Adoption

That goes back to my prior statement of making abortion a less attractive option. To say you can replace one with the other is ridiculous.


It astounds me how some people can claim to be humanists and care for people yet they treat unborn children like refuse.

It astounds me how people feel they can claim domain over a woman's body, and refuse to allow her to do with it as she sees fit.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

My point to the question, which you didn't answer and didn't even acknowledge is that the people who are waiting for adoption want very specific qualities in their babies.


He also ignored my statement that we do in fact make policy on the basis of the minority.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

It's easier to call us anti-humanists than to confront your questions, since they require some thought and isn't available on Google.

[DeV]

It astounds me how some people can claim to be humanists and care for people yet they treat unborn children like refuse.Don't be astounded, it's called reality. This society in general treats the unwanted that are actually born with as much viscious "humanity" as you like to call it, as they do the unborn. Children should not have to go hungry, live in poverty, or be forced to attend dillipated schools that offer less than mediocre education in overcrowded classrooms. The list is endless. Yet someone offers 1 million dollars to fight for the life of the unborn when there are just as many born that could use those funds ... like now. And we are the inhumane ones. Laughable.

[CrystalTears]

:offtopic: DeV, you make it really hard to concentrate on topics with that avatar. It's like... hypnotic.

Ahem.. anyway...

There really is more to abortion than refusal to have a child because they got knocked up from a roll in the hay.

[Jazuela]

When all those clinic-burning, doctor-murdering anti-abortionist fanatics open their homes to adopt every unwanted newborn in the country, I'll consider changing my opinion on my pro-choice stance. Until then, I will maintain my opinion that their right to an opinion stops two paces away from my body.

[Jorddyn]

There really is more to abortion than refusal to have a child because they got knocked up from a roll in the hay.

How dare you suggest this is a complex issue that a one-size-fits-all restriction cannot reasonably accomodate?!?

Jorddyn

[xtc]

Although in general I like you XTC I can't help but to keep laughing at your posts the last couple of days...

Everyone who disagrees with your point of view on the DP World docks management debate is a racist or an islamaphobe and now everyone who disagrees with your stance on abortion is anti humanist.

I said all this negative press was blowing the situation out of proportion and much of the resistance to DP World was Islamphobia. I didn't say any person here was Islamaphobic. As it turns out, DP World was never going to be responsible for the security at our ports they will only be managing them.

I didn't say everyone who disagrees agrees with me on this issue is not a humanist. I think many people on the pro-abortion side are only concerned with keeping abortion legal and see an unborn child as a mass of cells and aren't humanists. For the most part I think many of the people here who are concerned about this bill also care about the unborn child. Jordynn has talked about education and Crystal Tears seems concerned that a raped woman won't have access to abortion because of this bill. Both of them I believe are caring people who are also concerned with the high rates of abortion in America.

I will admit I took a hard contrary view on both issues. I knew the DP World thing was a lot of hype and I believe this bill won't stand as it is. The courts will either overturn the bill or include a provision for the rape of a woman. There is already a provision in this bill for the health of women.

I know the tack I took looks like I may not care about women. Nothing could be further from the truth. I try very hard to care for all humans even the ones I don't like. To me I must put the child first as it is defenceless and has no voice. I would be the first person to issue a harse sentence to a rapist.

P.S. Generally I like you too Tijay, you are my favourite young Republican!

[Hulkein]

Children should not have to go hungry, live in poverty, or be forced to attend dillipated schools that offer less than mediocre education in overcrowded classrooms.

They should also not have to be killed because someone else makes the decision that no life is better than the life you described.

[Jorddyn]

They should also not have to be killed because someone else makes the decision that no life is better than the life you described.

You're more than welcome to start carrying the unwanted children, then.

Jorddyn

[Skirmisher]

Grrrr....this thread so makes me wish the search feature were fixed so we could find the older abortion threads as I would just cut and paste my post on right to lifers and adoption, or the lack of it by the same.

Put your money where your mouth is XTC and get to adopting or stop not only telling a young woman that her body is to be forced to undergo tremendous stress and changes for a year or so and then forcing yet another unwanted, unplanned for child into this world.

[Sean]

And the discussion has now come full circle to the point where it's just like every other discussion on these boards about abortion. But I think we all knew where this would end up from the get go.

[xtc]

That goes back to my prior statement of making abortion a less attractive option. To say you can replace one with the other is ridiculous.

I agree that we should have sex education and access to prophylactics. We have made great leaps in this area yet abortion numbers are still staggeringly high.


It astounds me how people feel they can claim domain over a woman's body, and refuse to allow her to do with it as she sees fit.
Jorddyn

I guess this is the fundamental difference in our outlook. I don't believe a child is part of a woman's body. A woman's body may have the honour of being the home for that child for a short period of time but that child is a separate entity. It is the creation of the union of a man and a woman deserving of all the rights and liberties that you and I share.

[Skirmisher]

And the king has spoken....

[Sean of the Thread]

Isn't it idiotic to not pay $250 for a procedure that will save the taxpayers the cost of raising, sheltering, and possibly incarcerating the future person?

Jorddyn


250??? It's over 600.00 around here. Cost of operating a vacuum cleaner must be cheaper where you live.

[xtc]

Put your money where your mouth is XTC and get to adopting or stop not only telling a young woman that her body is to be forced to undergo tremendous stress and changes for a year or so and then forcing yet another unwanted, unplanned for child into this world.

I am a believer in personally responsibility. If you engage in sex you should prepare for the outcome.

As I have mentioned before there is a HUGE waiting list of people who have been approved to adopt children and not enough children to be adopted. If that list ever becomes low I will place my name on it.

[DeV]

A woman's body may have the honour of being the home for that child for a short period of time but that child is a separate entity. So bascially you're saying the woman is a human life support machine for that duration. She should relinquish all her faculties for the sustenance of the unborn fetus because it is no longer her body somehow?

[xtc]

So bascially you're saying the woman is a human life support machine for that duration. She should relinquish all her faculties for the sustenance of the unborn fetus because it is no longer her body somehow?

No, but I don't believe it gives her permission to kill her child.

[Sean of the Thread]

No, but I don't believe it gives her permission to kill her child.

I agree.

[xtc]

If this bill had a provision in it allowing for abortions for women who have signs of rape who here would support it? (It already has a provision for the health of the mother)

[Skirmisher]

I am a believer in personally responsibility. If you engage in sex you should prepare for the outcome.

As I have mentioned before there is a HUGE waiting list of people who have been approved to adopt children and not enough children to be adopted. If that list ever becomes low I will place my name on it.


So you have not and have no real plans to.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Buckwheet]

I bet you could put your name on the list, and if you set no restrictions have a child in very short order.

The reasons the list are so long is they want, nondrug, white, healthy babies.

If you want anything other then that I am sure you can get it. Place your order.

Again, your belief is your belief, there is no imperical data to say that a woman has an "honor" in having a child. Plenty of women who are capable of having their own children elect not to have children because they don't want to. If there was some proven fact that it was such an honor there would be some sort of geneticly forced mentality to make women start having children. Something more powerful then free will.

The argument needs to be based around pure fact otherwise the argument has no merit.

To clarify my point because it could be misunderstood..

It is fact that when a baby is born it is "alive". There by killing a baby at 30 seconds old is murder.

It is debated "fact" when life begins and where one could argue the abortion is then murder.

That is the points that need to be argued, not religous or personal beliefs.

[Sean]

I'm pretty sure most of the answers to most of the questions being asked by both sides here can be found in this thread http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=14536 including those on the topic of adoption vs abortion and it's feasability.

[Latrinsorm]

A right was given to *********mothers********* to choose.Sucks to be a dad, I guess.
What I'm saying is that if the number is so low, as some put it, then allow it for the precious few.I think the point of what xtc is saying abortions being ok for rape victims isn't a reason for abortion to be ok for everyone.
Put yourself in that woman's shoes..having the child of her rapist or her relative.Put yourself in that fetus' shoes..having no choice whether you ever live.

As an aside, I hope you're done with the groundless personal attacks, Ilvane. It's awfully detrimental to your position and just bad for you as a person to indulge in.
It is not my place to tell anywoman what to do with their bodies, nor is my place to tell any man what they can do with their own body.Ok so I want my baby to live and some chick I knocked up wants the baby to die. Yeah that philosophy works out pretty well.
However, I would rather have the option available to everyone, and then allow whatever outside forces such as morales, family opinion, religon, and personal beliefs make up the minds for the people looking to get it done.What about the people to whom it gets done?
It astounds me how people feel they can claim domain over a woman's body, and refuse to allow her to do with it as she sees fit.I didn't know women could create offspring via parthenogenesis. Damn public/Jesuit school education!!
It is debated "fact" when life begins and where one could argue the abortion is then murder.It is not debatable at all where life begins. What's debatable is where personhood (or human-ness, if you like) begins. If zygotes (and up) aren't people, we're just killing a particularly underdeveloped, mostly hairless primate. If they are, then further discussion is merited.

edit: Took something out.

[Buckwheet]

If you want it to live and she wants it to die, then its her decision. You don't have to go through the process of it being brought to maturity. Therefore, her rights I believe over the baby would trump your rights to it. However, I can see this changing if there becomes a way to remove the fetus and have it given to a surrogate mother or placed in a mechanical womb to be born and for you to have. I can then see you would have a valid claim over that. Either way what you have now done is changed the fetus to be considered property, something that belongs or is owned by someone, and you are trying to decide ownership and who has the rights to the item. How sad is that?

No, it is debatable when "life" occurs. It is being debated every day. I am not saying my point or view on the subject. The debate surrounds how we define life.

Your second rebuttal makes no sense.

What about the people to whom it gets done?

Are you reffering to the baby? If you are using the term person to classify cells or a undeveloped fetus, then you are classifying it wrongly. A person refers to their "personality" who they are and what they do and is directly connected to the definition of the word "life". Since I never stated at which point I feel someone is "alive" or a "person" I used the term person referring to the already existing fully thought processing human being making the decision to either abort or not abort.

To further expand on what I said.

Many people feel the term life means that the organism is a fully growing, reproducing, "aware" being. Which means they are able to react and adapt to their environment. Now, I am not saying this is my personal belief I am stating what many people argue. Lets now apply this definition to a 2 part cell that is to become a human. Does it match the classification of life? The answer is no, because it is is not aware. Again this is just logical thought process, has no bearing on persona feelings.

Now lets move to what many of the people feel defines the term "person". Many people feel the definition is a living body of a human being, with definable characters and features pertaning to ones self or or individual personality.

Now lets try and apply that definition to the 2 celled organism inside a womb. It doesn't work.

The cells have the potential of course of becoming that definition, however because they are not at that time it is wrong to classify that 2 celled organism as a "person".

I just want to reiterate, that many of the things I point out, may or may not be my personal opinions. I am stating them for pure discussion, and to point out that emotions and personal opinions boil down to the definitions of words and to the verbiage used in describing things.

I will also fully admit I am a scientist or a factual person first before a humanist. I believe in things that are concrete and proven to be true. That doesn't mean that there are things I believe in that have not or are almost impossible to prove. So it may seem that my statements are skewed in the direction of that. They probably are, but I try and keep things as even keel as possible.

The problem here is that nobody has concrete facts either way. All that comes of it is people go round and round and the resolution is the same. I came to the conclusion in one of the many ethics classes I took, that there is no definable answer at this time, and it will take hundres of years of evolving in understanding and intelligence that maybe a final solution and level of agreement will be decided upon. There are just some things right now that humans are simply unable to prove to a 100% satisfaction, and that is to answer "What is life". We may never fully answer it and I think that is one of the beautiful things about being human. There are just somethings that are not explainable, and this is one of those things right now.

[Jorddyn]

A woman's body may have the honour of being the home for that child for a short period of time but that child is a separate entity. It is the creation of the union of a man and a woman deserving of all the rights and liberties that you and I share.

First, for many women it is not an honor. It is not up to you to tell the woman how to feel. How honored do you suppose a woman is when she has 5 children to support and a jobless alcoholic husband? Should she leave and get a job? Most likely. Is it a feasible option for everyone? No. That's why one size fits all laws suck.


250??? It's over 600.00 around here. Cost of operating a vacuum cleaner must be cheaper where you live.

I have not had the ill fortune to need to price an abortion, so I was just throwing out a figure.



If this bill had a provision in it allowing for abortions for women who have signs of rape who here would support it? (It already has a provision for the health of the mother)

Not me.


Ok so I want my baby to live and some chick I knocked up wants the baby to die. Yeah that philosophy works out pretty well.

The woman does not want a child, and does not want to carry a pregnancy for 9 months, she doesn't want a baby to die. You want a baby to come of the pregnancy which she would be forced to sustain.

****
I guess my reason for being a pro-choice supporter is that I understand the myriad of reasons people have for choosing abortion.

I had a friend in our Catholic high school who had one our Senior year. If she had chosen not to, the school would have "strongly suggested" that she withdraw and move to public school. Had her parents found out she was pregnant, they likely would have kicked her out. Additionally, she would have given birth at the beginning of her Freshman year of college, for which she would be paying now that her parents had disowned her. She's now married to a wonderful man, has a daughter, and has a son due in approximately 2 weeks.

My great-grandfather's sister died from complications of a back alley abortion. She left behind 6 kids and an abusive, jobless husband who had threatened to kill her if she got pregnant again. The husband left, and didn't bother to attend the funeral. The 6 children were split up and bounced between relatives' homes.

On the flip side, my friend Jenny had a baby at 14. Her parents had told her to give it up for adoption or she had to move out. She had the child, decided she couldn't give him up for adoption, and kept him. Her parents relented and let her remain at home. She then moved out at 16, leaving the child with her parents. Her parents adopted the boy. He calls her "Jenny", he calls them "grandma" and "grandpa", and has never met his father. I haven't spoken with anyone in her family since they all moved out of my home town, but last I heard the boy was in a juvenile facility for the second time.

Each of those women had to make a choice that was between them, their doctor, and whatever faith they held. For anyone else to say they chose correctly or incorrectly is just blatantly arrogant. You cannot know all that goes into a woman's decision, and you cannot effectively write legislation to handle each situation.

Jorddyn

[Buckwheet]

The above post that hightlights some personal experiences, is exactly what I was talking about when I said the choice should be there, and you need to let personal belief dictate the outcome until the time that belief is not what we have, but fact.

[Jorddyn]

Now, on to what I think we as a society should do. I know I've stated it before, but I feel like expanding upon it, so humor me.

Educate. Educate. Educate some more. Educate children from an early age on where babies come from - enough of this stork bullshit. Educate them on how to prevent pregnancy - abstinence and birth control. Educate them on responsibility. Educate them on fetal development. Educate them on the fact that humans are sexual beings. Educate them on the emotional and physical repercussions of sex, including non-sex-sex (read: oral, etc).

Work to eliminate stereotypes (lofty goal, I do suppose). Remember that for every pregnant woman, there is a man who helped her get into that situation. Remember that for every pregnant woman, there are thousands of people who have sex every day who did nothing different, and were lucky enough to not wind up in the same situation. Remember that accidents do happen.

Remove the stigma from purchasing birth control. Allow easy access for all men and women. Keep in mind that both can help to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Provide birth control in schools, including low or no cost pills. Allow government funded - not mandated - sterilization/Norplant.

Stop asking people who have adopted and biological children "Which ones are yours?" I would say remove the pick-and-choose features of adoption, but I fear that would just lower the number of people willing to adopt.

When all of the above fails, and a woman does have an unplanned pregnancy, make sure she is informed of all of her options.

In my little fantasy land where all of the above have happened, I'll be more than willing to re-evaluate my stance.

Jorddyn

edited to fix spelling errors

[Buckwheet]

I wanted to add...

Low or free condoms and for christ sake get a pill/shot or something else for men.

It should not soley fall on the females of this world or country to be the only ones who have to go through that. Make it an even playing field.

I mean, the local drug store near my house just locked up their condoms in a glass case so you now have to go find a customer service person to page the manager on duty to unlock the case for you.

This is after they put in self checkout lanes and reported record numbers of sales in personal hygene products because people could go in at 2am if they were embarassed and pick the stuff up and check themselves out.

The number one shoplifted product in the US is hemeroid cream by old people followed shorty by condoms and pregnancy tests. Change this general demeanor and I think it will change a lot of things.

[Jazuela]

Science is pretty clear on the subject, xtc. A fetus is NOT a seperate entity from the mother, as much as you would like to believe it is. A fetus, in the first trimester of pregnancy, is a growth that leeches nutrients and oxygen through a tube called the umbilical cord. It is not capable of surviving if it is removed from the womb. It is not a person, at that point.

My opinion is that abortion on demand should be legal throughout the first trimester, regardless of why the woman wants the abortion. Under age 16 should require parental consent, because it's a medical procedure and all -other- medical procedures require parental consent for minors, and I agree with that 100%. Abortion in the second trimester should be based on the physical and mental health of the mother, and the physical health of the fetus. If the fetus is already horribly deformed (such as lacking a brain stem, which is rare but happens), then the doctors should be allowed, and even encouraged, to perform the abortion, with the mother's informed consent.

In 3rd trimester, it should be a much more seriously considered thing - if the mother's life is at risk, or if the baby is missing its brain stem or has a detached brain stem, then abortion should be *required.* Otherwise, a c-section or vaginal delivery should be performed, and if mom doesn't want the kid, then send it to an adoption agency.

[Hulkein]

It is not capable of surviving if it is removed from the womb. It is not a person, at that point.

Infants aren't capable of surviving by themselves, either.

If that's your definition of life, ok, but I'm going to have to disagree.

[CrystalTears]

t is not capable of surviving if it is removed from the womb. It is not a person, at that point.
Infants aren't capable of surviving by themselves, either.

If that's your definition of life, ok, but I'm going to have to disagree.

Neither are some sick, elderly and handicapped people. Guess they're not people either?

I just can't stand that kind of reasoning when deciding what is or isn't a person.

People will seem to never agree when that life becomes a person. For me when the egg meets the sperm and it forms a zygote, it's now a life. When you choose to end that life is up to each person to decide. Trying to justify when it is or isn't a person just to be okay with the procedure more doesn't jive well with me.

[Jorddyn]

Infants aren't capable of surviving by themselves, either.

If that's your definition of life, ok, but I'm going to have to disagree.

I won't argue that a fetus isn't alive. I think it is. However, I there is a very large distinction between the two. Infants are capable of surviving without being attached to a host body. Before a certain stage of development, fetuses aren't.

I will certainly admit the line where a fetus can be sustained without a host body is murky at best.

Jorddyn

[Buckwheet]

Again, when people bring up the comment about it being a person and the definitions come out, and then people make comments about "some" elderly people you need to be very careful in how you correlate the two.

What if you were that elderly person? Its a different topic, but if you weren't being pumped full of drugs, or on a vent, or anything like that you would be dead already. If we weren't so technologically advanced in prolonging life you would have died years ago.

I have a friend who works in a nursing home, there is a floor for people who are just rotting to death because of all the preservatives being pumped through their bodies.

So you can in no way compare dying the the being born. You just can't.

Would you say lying in a bed with no awareness of what is going on to you or around you is being "alive". Is that life?

The choice you get however to decide if you can just die is one of a faith based decision and a personal choice decision. Its the exact same type of decision people make when they choose to or not to abort.

I am not trying to change the subject, but old people and unborn people have different places in the life cycle. You have a multi-celled organism with the potential to become a person verus a full contributed to society 90 year old who is only alive because they take 10 medications, on permanent IVs, and get their food through a feeding tube. I truley hope people can tell the differance.

[DeV]

Either a fetus is a part of the woman's body or an individual life. I'm going with it being part of a woman's body.

Laws criminalzing abortion simply make them unsafe but do not eliminate them from occuring.

[Buckwheet]

Now to be totally crass...

Neither the fetus or whatever you call it is alive nor is the person without awareness rotting to death.

You become nothing when there is no olympics for you.

[Jorddyn]

Either a fetus is a part of the woman's body or an individual life. I'm going with it being part of a woman's body.

Laws criminalzing abortion simply make them unsafe but do not eliminate them from occuring.

They also provide beautiful fodder for disagreements between the parties, and a deciding factor for some voters.

Jorddyn, member of the baby-killing party! Vote for us!

[Latrinsorm]

Either way what you have now done is changed the fetus to be considered propertyI was extrapolating off your philosophy, bud. Any designation of the fetus as a thing was on your part.
To further expand on what I said."Many people feel" is a dramatic device, not a basis for a sound morality. In other words, I care about metaphysics, not opinions. Many people felt that humans with lots of pigment in their skin weren't fully people.
The problem here is that nobody has concrete facts either way. Let us assume this is true (for the sake of argument). If we don't know what we are terminating is a person or not, why would we assume the most destructive path?
The woman does not want a child, and does not want to carry a pregnancy for 9 months, she doesn't want a baby to die.I was making the hypothetical case where the woman *did* want the baby to die. I did not mean for others to infer that I was describing all abortions. I was merely pointing out that Buckwheet's philsophy was untenable.
Remember that for every pregnant woman, there is a man who helped her get into that situation.This is what I'm *pleading* with the "my body, my decision" crowd to realize.

I'm going to try and address a group of posts here.

Contrary to Buckwheet's assertions, I bet we can agree on some facts.
A healthy zygote is not dead.
Therefore, a healthy zygote is alive.
Postbirth human beings are people, in the sense that there is something more to them than being particularly slender apes that inherently affords them dignity.
Human beings are finite beings, therefore they have a beginning.
Somewhere between the beginning of a human being's existence (conception) and the end of it, they attain this status of personhood.
We can't prove either way if any being is a person or not. We generally trust that all of these beings we call "human" are persons, including babies.
Therefore, somewhere between conception and birth, humans become people.

How do those sit with people? (Jazuela, you're excused from this exercise.)

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/fetus.jpg

[Jorddyn]

I am not saying I disagree with everything you're saying here, but I think you're making some jumps.



A healthy zygote is not dead.
Therefore, a healthy zygote is alive.


Eh. My shoe isn't dead, either. Is it alive?



Human beings are finite beings, therefore they have a beginning.
Somewhere between the beginning of a human being's existence (conception) and the end of it, they attain this status of personhood.

You're making a leap here that because a human's life starts somewhere, it starts at conception. I agree that conception begins what can become human. However, to me a newly conceived zygote/fetus/whatever (I'm not arguing semantics) is no more a human being than a just-beginning-to-form acorn is an oak tree.


Jorddyn

[Sean]

I'm still waiting for latrin to compare a fetus to a puppy again... that was such.. a wonderful moment.

[Buckwheet]

I was extrapolating off your philosophy, bud. Any designation of the fetus as a thing was on your part

I am not your bud.

It is not "my" anything. You don't know me, don't presume to.

Either way you are taking what I said to be my personal feelings.

So either way. I will leave this conversation with you where it is right now.

No where.

[Back]

Is it safe to say that the anti-abortion crowd is also opposed to stem cell research and use?

[Goldenranger]

To XTC and other interested parties

Here is a list compiled by the ACLU, should be pretty comprehensive regarding state restrictions through 2003. Those crafty lawmakers though, they always love to find new ways to deny access. Admittedly not all of these restrictions are bad, but they can have heavy-handed enforcement by the states only in application to clinics or doctor's offices where abortions are performed.

This is a checklist of general categories of state abortion restrictions. Not every restriction exists in every state. Not every restriction applies to early medical abortion.

* Biased counseling laws. Several states have abortion-specific "informed consent" laws that require abortion providers to give patients state-prepared materials, to recite state-scripted information, or both, usually at least 24 hours before the abortion may be performed. Such laws generally apply to early medical abortion because of the broad definitions of abortion they incorporate.

* Parental involvement laws. State laws requiring the consent or notification of one or both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion generally apply to minors seeking a medical abortion. Again, providers must account for the waiting period attached to many parental involvement laws when determining a minor's eligibility for early medical abortion based on gestation. In addition, most states provide minors the option to petition a court for a waiver of the parental involvement requirement through a "judicial bypass process." This process can take several days or more.

* Reporting requirements. Virtually every state requires abortion providers to report certain information periodically to the state or to keep records of certain information for possible state inspection. The most prevalent reporting requirements compel an abortion provider to report each abortion that he or she performs.

* Physician-only laws. Most states have laws that prohibit anyone other than a licensed physician from performing an abortion. Not all physician-only laws prevent nonphysician practitioners from performing medical abortions, however. In Hawaii and Rhode Island, for example, physician-only laws apply only to surgical abortion.

* Laws governing dispensing authority. Many states grant certain nonphysicians authority to dispense certain medications. The states vary in the degree of independence they afford to such nonphysician providers. In addition, nonphysicians whose authority to dispense medication under state law is governed by a formulary must ensure that mifepristone and misoprostol are among the types of drugs they are permitted to dispense. Even where state law permits nonphysicians to dispense these medications, physician-only laws may directly conflict. Where there is a conflict between such a state practice act and a physician-only law, affected providers should seek guidance from attorneys expert in their state laws.

* Targeted regulation of abortion providers ("TRAP" laws). Many states require facilities where abortions are performed to adhere to burdensome regulations that are not imposed on other physicians' offices or outpatient clinics with comparable medical and surgical practices. Some of these regulations apply to facilities where first-trimester abortions are provided.

* Laws governing the examination of fetal tissue. Many states have laws that require the examination of fetal tissue following an abortion. Some laws require a pathologist's report, while others require the attending physician to examine the tissue.

* Laws governing the disposal of fetal tissue. Some states regulate how fetal tissue may be disposed of after an abortion.Some of these laws may apply to medical abortions only if the woman expels the fetal tissue at a medical facility rather than at home. Many of the disposal laws do not appear to pose unreasonable burdens in the medical abortion context (e.g., they permit a doctor to instruct a patient to flush the products of conception down the toilet).

* Public funding of medical abortion. Whether medical abortions are covered under government-funded programs depends on the scope of the state's abortion coverage generally. The federal Medicaid program currently funds abortions only in cases of rape or incest, or when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical condition. All states must provide at least this level of funding for their Medicaid patients. State policies in Mississippi and South Dakota are in violation of federal law because they cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment.

[Hulkein]

Neither are some sick, elderly and handicapped people. Guess they're not people either?

I just can't stand that kind of reasoning when deciding what is or isn't a person.

People will seem to never agree when that life becomes a person. For me when the egg meets the sperm and it forms a zygote, it's now a life. When you choose to end that life is up to each person to decide. Trying to justify when it is or isn't a person just to be okay with the procedure more doesn't jive well with me.

You completely agreed with me, just so you know.

[Hulkein]

Is it safe to say that the anti-abortion crowd is also opposed to stem cell research and use?

Yes, I am against stem cell research that destroys human life that would otherwise survive.

[Warriorbird]

Because we never want to destroy human life that would otherwise survive...except when we do...because some of us are hypocrites.

[CrystalTears]

Neither are some sick, elderly and handicapped people. Guess they're not people either?

I just can't stand that kind of reasoning when deciding what is or isn't a person.

People will seem to never agree when that life becomes a person. For me when the egg meets the sperm and it forms a zygote, it's now a life. When you choose to end that life is up to each person to decide. Trying to justify when it is or isn't a person just to be okay with the procedure more doesn't jive well with me.
You completely agreed with me, just so you know.
OMG no one understands me today. :cry: I know I was agreeing with you. I was just using your entire quote to further the point. :)


Is it safe to say that the anti-abortion crowd is also opposed to stem cell research and use?
Nope, because I am totally for preserving and furthering present lives.

[Warriorbird]

That's the thing that gets me...so...by that justification, is non procreative sex all wrong? When do you stop? Is some dude getting head from some chick genocide?

[Latrinsorm]

My shoe isn't dead, either.I define "dead" as "not alive". You appear to be defining it as "never alive", in which case there would be more categories, yes.
You're making a leap here that because a human's life starts somewhere, it starts at conception.We're agreed that it can't start before conception, judging from the rest of your post. Can we also agree that a zygote and the same zygote immediately following birth are genetically identical (save possible radiation damage and the like)?
Either way you are taking what I said to be my personal feelings.I thought I was delimiting which philosophy you had proposed (i.e. your philosophy) as compared to Jorddyn's or Jazuela's or mine. Here's what you said (again, as opposed to what (for instance) Tijay said):
It is not my place to tell anywoman what to do with their bodies, nor is my place to tell any man what they can do with their own body.Given that we're talking about abortion (as opposed to, say, getting a piercing), you've inherently given the fetus a proprietary characteristic. I pointed out that as it takes 2 people to make a fetus, noninterference becomes a contradictory philosophy. If it'll make you feel better, from now on I'll try to describe things you post as "your X that you may or may not believe in, support, or find pleasing". It seems awful redundant to me, but I suppose it could be worse.

[Warriorbird]

And? What makes it your right to determine what other people do with their bodies, Latrin?

(Note, mind you, that I'm not actually calling Latrin a hypocrite regarding this issue. I just disagree with him.)

[Latrinsorm]

As I've said before, I have no issue with the termination of a pregnancy when the fetus survives. Currently that is an extremely underused option for a number of obvious reasons. The primary concern is not a woman's freedom to end her pregnancy, just as in another case the primary concern would not be a person's freedom to close his or her hands into fists. The primary concern is the continuing physical existence of the fetus, just as in the other case the primary concern would be the continued physical existence of whoever's throat happened to be encircled by that person's hands. This is not to say that the woman's freedom (or her emotional state, or her family, or her career, or...) is negligible or irrelevant, it is simply not the primary concern.

Therefore, what you're asking is what makes it my right to tell people not to kill each other, the answer to which is self-evident.

[xtc]

To XTC and other interested parties

Here is a list compiled by the ACLU, should be pretty comprehensive regarding state restrictions through 2003. Those crafty lawmakers though, they always love to find new ways to deny access. Admittedly not all of these restrictions are bad, but they can have heavy-handed enforcement by the states only in application to clinics or doctor's offices where abortions are performed.

This is a checklist of general categories of state abortion restrictions. Not every restriction exists in every state. Not every restriction applies to early medical abortion.

* Biased counseling laws. Several states have abortion-specific "informed consent" laws that require abortion providers to give patients state-prepared materials, to recite state-scripted information, or both, usually at least 24 hours before the abortion may be performed. Such laws generally apply to early medical abortion because of the broad definitions of abortion they incorporate.

* Parental involvement laws. State laws requiring the consent or notification of one or both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion generally apply to minors seeking a medical abortion. Again, providers must account for the waiting period attached to many parental involvement laws when determining a minor's eligibility for early medical abortion based on gestation. In addition, most states provide minors the option to petition a court for a waiver of the parental involvement requirement through a "judicial bypass process." This process can take several days or more.

* Reporting requirements. Virtually every state requires abortion providers to report certain information periodically to the state or to keep records of certain information for possible state inspection. The most prevalent reporting requirements compel an abortion provider to report each abortion that he or she performs.

* Physician-only laws. Most states have laws that prohibit anyone other than a licensed physician from performing an abortion. Not all physician-only laws prevent nonphysician practitioners from performing medical abortions, however. In Hawaii and Rhode Island, for example, physician-only laws apply only to surgical abortion.

* Laws governing dispensing authority. Many states grant certain nonphysicians authority to dispense certain medications. The states vary in the degree of independence they afford to such nonphysician providers. In addition, nonphysicians whose authority to dispense medication under state law is governed by a formulary must ensure that mifepristone and misoprostol are among the types of drugs they are permitted to dispense. Even where state law permits nonphysicians to dispense these medications, physician-only laws may directly conflict. Where there is a conflict between such a state practice act and a physician-only law, affected providers should seek guidance from attorneys expert in their state laws.

* Targeted regulation of abortion providers ("TRAP" laws). Many states require facilities where abortions are performed to adhere to burdensome regulations that are not imposed on other physicians' offices or outpatient clinics with comparable medical and surgical practices. Some of these regulations apply to facilities where first-trimester abortions are provided.

* Laws governing the examination of fetal tissue. Many states have laws that require the examination of fetal tissue following an abortion. Some laws require a pathologist's report, while others require the attending physician to examine the tissue.

* Laws governing the disposal of fetal tissue. Some states regulate how fetal tissue may be disposed of after an abortion.Some of these laws may apply to medical abortions only if the woman expels the fetal tissue at a medical facility rather than at home. Many of the disposal laws do not appear to pose unreasonable burdens in the medical abortion context (e.g., they permit a doctor to instruct a patient to flush the products of conception down the toilet).

* Public funding of medical abortion. Whether medical abortions are covered under government-funded programs depends on the scope of the state's abortion coverage generally. The federal Medicaid program currently funds abortions only in cases of rape or incest, or when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical condition. All states must provide at least this level of funding for their Medicaid patients. State policies in Mississippi and South Dakota are in violation of federal law because they cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment.


These are you run of the mill medical regulations, not restrictions on abortions. With some states being able to flush the aborted child down the toilet, I would say even the medical regulations are loose. In some states minors don't have to inform their parents before having an abortion. If you remember the moveon.org crowd attacked Judge Alito for voting in favour of parental consent.

Anyway this discussion has spiraled out of control into an pro life vs pro abortion debate which I am not interested in pursuing.

To get back to the original topic it is my bet that this law won't stand in its current form. A provision for rape will end up being included or the law will be tossed by the courts.

[Sean]

I'm still curious where people think we're going to put and how we're going to sustain a decent quality of life for the +/- 700,000 infants yearly (latrins number from a previous thread) that would potentially result from banning abortion. The obvious answer being smuggle them into mexico as part of an international illegal immigrant restocking process.

[Miss X]

Yeah seriously... Abortion isn't the problem. Hell, abortion is the saving grace for a lot of young women and reduces the burden on the welfare system which in turn means paying less tax. If everyone is willing to pay more tax to provide the money needed to take care of all of these extra children then sure, tighten the abortion laws up.

The sad thing is, a lot of the anti-abortion campaigners haven't looked at the bigger picture.

[Back]

I feel like we are living in a second dark ages. So many people making decisions based on a belief system which is pure fantasy when science gives us a very clear picture of the reality of our world.

I was just reading an article on a federally funded christian road-show that encourages children to pledge abstinence. Their funding has been cut because of prosteletizing but that they were given the money in the first place is beyond ridiculous.

Lets throw democracy out the window too because Heaven isn't a democracy its ruled by an authoritarian autocratic dictator.

[Buckwheet]

Last comment from me on this.

You are talking about two different things, and you are trying to put way to much spin on it.

When you say you can tell someone to not choke someone else to death, how is that doing anything to killer's body? It is not causing bodily harm to them, it is not putting them into any physical change. They are just..choking someone to death.

On the flip side, someone who is a cutter and likes to cut themselves, unless I am a doctor, their parent, or in some way responsible for that person I have no "rights" to do anything to them. When I said right, I wasn't meaning feelings, I meant I have no legal authority granted to me to do anything about it.

If you want to get tatoos, or piercings, workout in the shower with a wetsuit on, take drugs, or anything that causes a physcial change to your being I can't do anything to stop you, because I have no right to do so, and anything I would say to you is based on my personal values and beliefs.

I can tell you how not to use your body, such as killing someone, or driving a car while you are drunk. I can't tell you to not drink.

I can't tell you to use a condom, I can't tell you to use birth control, I can't tell you to not have sex, I can't tell anyone what to do once they get pregnant. I have no legal rights to do so.

Does that make better sense now? I hope so.


As I've said before, I have no issue with the termination of a pregnancy when the fetus survives. Currently that is an extremely underused option for a number of obvious reasons. The primary concern is not a woman's freedom to end her pregnancy, just as in another case the primary concern would not be a person's freedom to close his or her hands into fists. The primary concern is the continuing physical existence of the fetus, just as in the other case the primary concern would be the continued physical existence of whoever's throat happened to be encircled by that person's hands. This is not to say that the woman's freedom (or her emotional state, or her family, or her career, or...) is negligible or irrelevant, it is simply not the primary concern.

Therefore, what you're asking is what makes it my right to tell people not to kill each other, the answer to which is self-evident.

[Hulkein]

I feel like we are living in a second dark ages. So many people making decisions based on a belief system which is pure fantasy when science gives us a very clear picture of the reality of our world.

I was just reading an article on a federally funded christian road-show that encourages children to pledge abstinence. Their funding has been cut because of prosteletizing but that they were given the money in the first place is beyond ridiculous.

Lets throw democracy out the window too because Heaven isn't a democracy its ruled by an authoritarian autocratic dictator.

Really has little to do with religion, for me.

[Jorddyn]

Can we also agree that a zygote and the same zygote immediately following birth are genetically identical (save possible radiation damage and the like)?

With some very large, very obvious, very important differences other than genes, yes. I do see where this is going, though. You'll argue that because the baby is genetically the same just after and before birth, there is no difference. Then, is there any genetic difference at 39 weeks compared to full term? 38 compared to 39? And so on and so forth.

Here's the thing. My beliefs have nothing to do with the genetics of the fetus. It has to do with the fetus being able to survive without a host body. It is why I believe that there should be no restrictions at all on early term abortions. It is also why I do not believe late term abortions should be perfomed, save for the safety of the mother or some large defect or some other important factor. However, since I know that I cannot possibly know every reason a woman will ever want/need a third trimester abortion, I don't think that attempting to legislate it.



Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

When you say you can tell someone to not choke someone else to death, how is that doing anything to killer's body?Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my hands? Now replace "hands" with "uterus" and "me/my" with "a woman/her" (and I guess "are you" with "am I" or "is the government"). It is true an abortion is a procedure that's much more complicated than strangulation in most cases, but if the woman chooses to undergo a more herbal type of (especially early) abortion, the examples are exactly analogous.
When I said right, I wasn't meaning feelings, I meant I have no legal authority granted to me to do anything about it.I think the only person arguing about legality is xtc, and then only to the extent of abortion's legality, not the character. What we're arguing about is what we *should* do as people (morality/ethics), not what we're *allowed* to do as citizens by our respective governments (legality). If we *should* allow abortions, then this law is necessarily invalid, end of discussion. If we *shouldn't*, then this law is the first step towards reversing an earlier necessarily invalid legal precedent (Roe v. Wade, or at least its ramifications).
It has to do with the fetus being able to survive without a host body.To further my understanding, allow me to ask you a hypothetical question: If it were the case that a mechanical uterus were invented so that even zygotes were capable of being healthily grown (someone help me come up with a better word there, please) to full term, would you be for requiring transplantation over abortions involving the death of the zygote/fetus? By which I mean, is it that the fetus cannot survive without external support, or is it that the nature of the only viable support fundamentally distinguishes fetuses from (for instance) Christopher Reeves?

[Warriorbird]

Therefore, what you're asking is what makes it my right to tell people not to kill each other, the answer to which is self-evident.

So...oral sex/non procreative sex really is murder then? With that said, what makes it your right to tell people not to kill each other? I'd ask the same question of someone protesting the Iraq War.

I consider Roe V. Wade a really terribly handled Supreme Court case. I think the issue should be left to the states, mind you, even if I'd hope they'd be civilized enough not to encourage back alleys and coathangers, I am aware that some of them want to set science back to the Dark Ages and deny the right of two people to formalize their commitment and love to each other. That's America though.

[CrystalTears]

WTF. Why do you keep on bringing up oral sex as being murder? If you want to say now that sperm is a fertilized egg, have fun, you'll be alone with that theory.

Again with the Iraq war. You really need to get over that.

[Warriorbird]

Because people seem to think that a fertilized egg is a person. I don't.

[CrystalTears]

Because people seem to think that a fertilized egg is a person. I don't.

Granted, but what does that have to do with oral sex being murder?

[Warriorbird]

Those are potentially people if they would have been inserted elsewhere, following that sort of thinking.

[CrystalTears]

Wow, in WB land, I murder a child a month.

Could we stay a wee bit focused here and not run on a tangent? :P

[Landrion]

So...oral sex/non procreative sex really is murder then? With that said, what makes it your right to tell people not to kill each other? I'd ask the same question of someone protesting the Iraq War.

I consider Roe V. Wade a really terribly handled Supreme Court case. I think the issue should be left to the states, mind you, even if I'd hope they'd be civilized enough not to encourage back alleys and coathangers, I am aware that some of them want to set science back to the Dark Ages and deny the right of two people to formalize their commitment and love to each other. That's America though.

Inconsistency between states would make whatever law a little easy to circumvent wouldnt it?

[Buckwheet]

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my hands?

I can tell you alot.

Get your hands off me.

Get your hands off my car.

Get your hands out of my face.

Get your hands off my wife.

Etc.

I can tell you a hell of a lot when its just "your hands".

I can't tell you, stick your hands in a meat grinder.

Yeah I broke my own statement about not commenting.

However this will be my last statement on this to you.

Its very obvious you are just proposing meaningless crap so far outside of what I was saying to further comments that are pretty far fetched.

[Latrinsorm]

Its very obvious you are just proposing meaningless crapWhere I come from it's called "reductio ad absurdum". I assume your initial premise (that you may or may not believe, support, or find pleasurable) is true and show that it leads to contradiction, or absurdity. Your initial position that you may or may not have supported, believed, or found pleasurable was (paraphrased for brevity) "a person's body is sacrosanct". I pointed out that we already have morals (and laws, for that matter) governing the use of one person's body on another by bringing up the example of what I can and cannot do with my hands (e.g. strangle people). You agree that I'm not allowed to do whatever I want to whomever I want with my hands, therefore a person's body is not sancrosanct. You can't have it both ways, as that would be a contradiction. Your only hope to get out of the contradiction is to argue that personhood is absent from human pre-children until birth (or the third trimester, depending on the particular position you're arguing for).

Warriorbird, you've made a bizarre equivocation between "potentially people" and "people" that's puzzling to watch. But yes, following the "sort of thinking" where words have no meaning, you can conclude just about anything. "Moon foment further upon cheese run disco is jump", for instance, or "oral sex/non procreative sex really is murder".

[Jorddyn]

The primary concern is not a woman's freedom to end her pregnancy, just as in another case the primary concern would not be a person's freedom to close his or her hands into fists. The primary concern is the continuing physical existence of the fetus, just as in the other case the primary concern would be the continued physical existence of whoever's throat happened to be encircled by that person's hands.

This is a horrible example.
1. Your hands are not physically bound to another person's neck, with said person leeching off you and your hands for life support.
2. You are free to remove your hands without the millions of people telling you you are doing wrong.
3. You are not required to do what is best for the person whose neck your hands are around for 9 months.



Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my hands? Now replace "hands" with "uterus" and "me/my" with "a woman/her" (and I guess "are you" with "am I" or "is the government"). It is true an abortion is a procedure that's much more complicated than strangulation in most cases, but if the woman chooses to undergo a more herbal type of (especially early) abortion, the examples are exactly analogous.

The hell it is. Your hands are not being forced submit to the will of the state and another being for 9 months. Your hands are not connected to something that will use you for blood flow, oxygen, and food for 9 months.

You know I like you, and think you're not un-intelligent, but you really seem to be pulling these analogies out of your ass.


To further my understanding, allow me to ask you a hypothetical question: If it were the case that a mechanical uterus were invented so that even zygotes were capable of being healthily grown (someone help me come up with a better word there, please) to full term, would you be for requiring transplantation over abortions involving the death of the zygote/fetus? By which I mean, is it that the fetus cannot survive without external support, or is it that the nature of the only viable support fundamentally distinguishes fetuses from (for instance) Christopher Reeves?

Requiring? No. Why not?
1. You are still requiring the woman to undergo a surgical procedure that she may not want.
2. You will still not eliminate abortions.
3. Who will pay for it? Perhaps a little cold, but a logical concern.
4. What happens if a woman falls down the stairs? Does she then have to prove that she did not fall down the stairs on purpose to end the pregnancy? Assuming the burden of proof is on the state, and the woman was planning on undergoing the fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever removal and implementation into mechanical womb the next day, does that still allow for reasonable doubt? How exactly do you prove intent without a video of the woman standing at the top of the stairs and stating "I am throwing myself down these stairs for the purpose of terminating this pregnancy"? What if a woman is very irregular and doesn't know she is pregnant, then does something that accidentally terminates the pregnancy (heavy drinking, whatever)? There are far far far too many variables to fit into a law of absolutes.

Jorddyn

[Hulkein]

Those are potentially people if they would have been inserted elsewhere, following that sort of thinking.

Not really the same though. The fertilized egg, left undistiburbed, will become a child. The sperm won't.

[Jorddyn]

Not really the same though. The fertilized egg, left undistiburbed, will become a child. The sperm won't.

Might, not will.

Depending, of course, on your definition of undisturbed.

Jorddyn

[Back]

So if there was a way to incubate all the sperm and eggs in this world outside of a woman's body to full person-hood should we do it? Because we can already get the zygote going in a petrie dish.

Remember, nature disposes of unused eggs and sperm.

[Latrinsorm]

This is a horrible example.Noted, though I contend it adequately fits the parameters of the philosophy I was challenging.
You are still requiring the woman to undergo a surgical procedure that she may not want.If people wanted to do what was right, we wouldn't need ethics. Surgery is a dangerous thing, yes, but there are many dangerous things we have to put ourselves at risk to for the good of all.
You will still not eliminate abortions.I would say we'd eliminated *that* abortion, which is a marked improvement over the previous situation.
Who will pay for it? Perhaps a little cold, but a logical concern.I've had this kind of clash with Melissa too. I prefer to find out what we *should* do first, then see how close we can get to doing it. Monetary concerns fall in the second category.
What happens if a woman falls down the stairs?I would be sad.
Does she then have to prove that she did not fall down the stairs on purpose to end the pregnancy?As your next statements point out, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country, so no, she doesn't have to prove anything. As to the rest: yes, making a good law will be difficult (maybe impossible). Making a good law is *always* difficult. That being said, how difficult the execution is of what should happen is irrelevant if we can't agree on what should happen in the first place.
So if there was a way to incubate all the sperm and eggs We're not talking about inducing fertilization, we're talking about moving and allowing to flourish a fertilized egg that for whatever reason would be terminated otherwise.

[Jorddyn]

If people wanted to do what was right, we wouldn't need ethics. Surgery is a dangerous thing, yes, but there are many dangerous things we have to put ourselves at risk to for the good of all.

We're discussing legislation, not ethics, or morality, or whatever other face you want to give it.

Jorddyn

[Hulkein]

Might, not will.

Depending, of course, on your definition of undisturbed.

Jorddyn

Yeah, again, for the most part. Yes, some of them die, there's really no reason to point that out, everyone knows this.

Sometimes it feels like people think they get awards for pointing something a third grader could.

Next time someone says that humans walk on two legs, I'll be sure to post that sometimes people are born with only one leg, or even none!!!!

[Jorddyn]

Yeah, again, for the most part. Yes, some of them die, there's really no reason to point that out, everyone knows this.

Sometimes it feels like people think they get awards for pointing something a third grader could.

Next time someone says that humans walk on two legs, I'll be sure to post that sometimes people are born with only one leg, or even none!!!!

Considering that up to 60 percent of fertilized eggs fail to become children, I felt it was a rather large point, and worth noting.

I'm not looking for awards, but I will accept large cash donations.

Jorddyn

[Hulkein]

Well, I didn't know the number was that high, but ok. The point remains that 0% of sperm by themselves will become children.

[Jorddyn]

Well, I didn't know the number was that high, but ok. The point remains that 0% of sperm by themselves will become children.

Very true, and good point.

Though a third grader should know that :D

Jorddyn

[Hulkein]

Haha, I got played.

[Skirmisher]

Big time.

[Latrinsorm]

We're discussing legislation, not ethics, or morality, or whatever other face you want to give it.We're discussing whether this particular legislation is right or not. Any such discussion is by definition a discussion of ethics.

[Jorddyn]

We're discussing whether this particular legislation is right or not. Any such discussion is by definition a discussion of ethics.

Is it ethical to sleep with your sister's boyfriend? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to lie to your parents about where you've been? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to spend the thousands you and your spouse have been saving for your children's college on new shoes? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to discriminate against those of a different race? Probably not. Is it legal? No, but it was until not so long ago.

Ethics is not the same as legality, nor should it be.

Jorddyn

[Sean of the Thread]

Is it ethical to sleep with your sister's boyfriend? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to lie to your parents about where you've been? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to spend the thousands you and your spouse have been saving for your children's college on new shoes? Probably not. Is it legal? Probably.

Is it ethical to discriminate against those of a different race? Probably not. Is it legal? No, but it was until not so long ago.

Ethics is not the same as legality, nor should it be.

Jorddyn

Terrible analogy x4.

[Tsa`ah]

Terrible analogy x4.

And it only took you 21 days to come up with that response.

[ElanthianSiren]

Amazing how you can read a thread and know with vague certainty what it will say.

This whole thing is just to try to force a repeal of roe. It will fail; Alito never said he would uphold Roe, but in his interviews, Roberts did. That leaves: Alito, Scalia, and Thomas likely voting to uphold the state's legislature.

Roberts has said Roe is settled law.
Kennedy will uphold Roe.
Souter will uphold Roe.
Ginsberg will uphold Roe.
Breyer will uphold Roe.
Stevens has repeatedly recently sided with abortion rights, so even if they lose Roberts, the law will still be struck down.

Wikipedia will give you a good look at the judicial philosophies in play.

-M
ps. I don't feel like arguing the morality of abortion with you all.

[Sean of the Thread]

And it only took you 21 days to come up with that response.


Not quite.. I just recently took her off ignore. Please try to limit your trolling posts to those that contain at least some small amount of wit.

[Caiylania]

Oh boy... jumping into this pool party doesn't look so fun but maybe I'll splash a few people :D

I like Jorddyn's point of "a fertilized acorn" is not an oak tree. But anyways...

Here is my point of view...

If my mother came to me and said "You know last year I almost murdered you because I was tired of having a kid but I couldn't afford the poison/gun/etc" I would be freaked out, horrified, etc...

I had a good mother, she made mistakes as we all do but she adored me and tried to do her best by me. She was also a very honest woman. We were discussing how life had turned out for us, and I asked her if she ever regretted having me. Her answer was NO. She gave everything up for me, she was a beautiful young woman who had everything in front of her when she ended up pregnant with me. So she had to weigh her choices.

She chose abortion. (I'm sure you've caught on that it didn't happen since I am typing this but keep reading) She went to the abortion clinic and made the appointment. She returned at the specified date and sat in the waiting room. They called her name she went up and started doing the paperwork.

Did she have a "OHMYGOD I can't do this moment?" no. Her credit card got declined. She didn't have the money, seems her paycheck was late.

Well, she hadn't found out about her pregnancy til she was two or three months along. So by time she got paid and was able to make another appt, she was to far along. She was unwilling to abort a baby at that point, to her way of thinking the pregnancy was far enough along for me to be considered 'a baby'. So she stuck with it and kept me.

When she told me this, I wasn't horrified. Here she was telling me that I owe my life to a declined credit card yet I didn't freak. I understood her situation, she was a single broke woman who thought a baby would make her life harder and keep her from meeting good men.

Well it did. Because of having me, she had to dish out for daycare, tons of medical bills ( i was a very sick child) and had a hard time finding a good man who wanted a woman with a child. She finally married a good man- when I was 22 years old.

I don't begrude what almost happened to me. Through my life she loved me, took care of me, and never made me feel guilty that her life was so different than it could have been. Nor was she ashamed of what she almost did.

So tired of early term being called murder. When does life begin? I do not presume to know when 'personhood' begins. However I feel I can be cynical when it comes to this, since I was almost one of those numbers. The Earth is plenty over burdened and women choosing to try to keep their lives manageable and not just add to the overburdened welfare systems, unemployment lines, etc... do not bother me. There is NO excuse for late term abortions. The baby already has to come out, its already capable of surviving on its own. (OK-excuse deformed/unviable babies from this)

If I am a vegatable, I will have a clause saying pull the plug. I am alive, breathing. I am no longer human. Early term to me is a being with no mind/thought of its own. As months go by they find more 'personality brain activity' perhaps that is what they should look for. But cynically speaking, early term abortions help keep existing women (and men) in a life where they have a better chance of Doing something with their lives.

I accept my mom would have had a better life if I hadn't come along when I did, and while I am grateful for being here and enjoy being alive (most of the time) the knowledge she almost aborted me does me no harm.

Human's make choices, are all women who chose this good people? are there women who abuse it? Of course. But there are people who abuse everything. Such are humans.

[Caiylania]

Just want to add... I would never have an abortion myself.. (can't make claims were it to come to rape, no idea nd do not want to know)

But I really try to look at the big picture. Yes millions of abortions happen, so do millions of murders.

Money that would go to supporting those kids in welfare, foster care, going through adoption... all that money could go to kids who EXIST here and now, suffering through home after home.

So all those people spending tons of cash to try and stop abortions- I whole heartedly agree they need to shut up and go spend their money on kids who exist NOW and NEED their help.

[Jorddyn]

Not quite.. I just recently took her off ignore.

I find this hysterical.

And my analogies were fine, thank you. They were simply to show that everything that is ethical needn't be legal, and everything that is legal certainly isn't ethical.

Jorddyn

[Wezas]

Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakota’s new abortion ban goes into effect. (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/25/news/top/news02.txt)

[Skirmisher]

The Indians riding to the rescue .

Ironic.

[Alfster]

The Indians riding to the rescue .

Ironic.

still raising that bar!

[Skirmisher]

Please stay on topic Alfster.

While I generally hate to delete posts, yours...not so much.

[Alfster]

living as close to a few indian reservations as I do, I can say I would not let anyone i cared about go there for any medical issues...or for any reason other than to gamble or drive through.

Adoption > abortion anyhow

that better?

[DeV]

Ironic.Quite interesting to say the least.