South Dakota congress bans Abortion accept when mother's life is endangered

[hipsterdufus]

Federal law trumps state law, this will be overthrown.

That said, I don't understand why SD made this a class 5 felony. If it's murder then the doctors and moms should get the death penalty right?

Also - most abortions are spontaneous. I would like to get a fundie or two on the witness stand and charge god with murder. It goes to reason that if god controls all, she is responsible for the vast number of abortions.

The other interesting part of this bill is that it is also a class 5 felony to take someone across state lines to have an abortion.

If a baby is conceived outside of S.D. wouldn't the law also hold that the baby is not from S.D.? If I'm from S.D., I would take the tax write-off from the moment of conception and see what happens.

What about a mom who has a non-related surgical procedure that unintentionally results in an abortion. Will we be sending that doctor to prison too?

 

[Captain America]

My desire is to see America cut abortion out because it is the right thing to do. Not because the government had to make them do what's right by law.

Gosh...what kind of a person would even consider snuffing out the life of a precious little person?

What has the world come to? Mothers killing their own babies...........

Well, in 30 or 40 years, old farts like me, with opinions like mine, will be long gone and then and the world can do what it wants without having to worry about my whining.:doh

 

[Cookie Parker]

My desire is to see America cut abortion out because it is the right thing to do. Not because the government had to make them do what's right by law.

Gosh...what kind of a person would even consider snuffing out the life of a precious little person?

What has the world come to? Mothers killing their own babies...........

What on earth are you trying to depict here? You have made an analogy of what women do when they have abortions that certainly gives away the fact you are a man and as such have no business with an opinion on what a women does with her life...that's right. Bush has cut out programs to go after dead beat dads...so guess what...the woman is the only one to decide for this fetus.

Research before you respond. You may just catch some compassion along the way...

 

[Deegan]

Good news, even some of those who have fought to have this law passed, are now seeing the error in their way............

"South Dakota has opted for a sweeping abortion ban and Mississippi may soon follow, but for now, few other states seem eager to join in an all-out challenge of Roe v. Wade. Instead, many legislatures continue to chip away at abortion access while awaiting the outcome of legal and electoral showdowns.
In Missouri, the anti-abortion governor and largest anti-abortion group have expressed tactical doubts about a new proposal to prohibit most abortions. In Georgia and Oklahoma, states where anti-abortion sentiment is high, lawmakers are debating bills that would add new hurdles for women seeking abortion but are not considering bans.

Even some anti-abortion activists elated by South Dakota's new law are unsure whether it will survive the legal challenges that could put it before the U.S. Supreme Court."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307...1KB_YEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

It would seem that most law makers believe this took the issue too far, and they all realize that they can not possibly ban all abortions, nor should they. Yet another reason the SC decision was a good idea, let's be rational, and change the things we can, i.e, setting a standard for the reasonable amount of time for which to get this done. This law does not have a chance, and this is why I always felt the scathing confirmation hearings were dead wrong, and a complete waste of time!

 

[Navy Pride]

Federal law trumps state law, this will be overthrown.

That said, I don't understand why SD made this a class 5 felony. If it's murder then the doctors and moms should get the death penalty right?

Also - most abortions are spontaneous. I would like to get a fundie or two on the witness stand and charge god with murder. It goes to reason that if god controls all, she is responsible for the vast number of abortions.

The other interesting part of this bill is that it is also a class 5 felony to take someone across state lines to have an abortion.

If a baby is conceived outside of S.D. wouldn't the law also hold that the baby is not from S.D.? If I'm from S.D., I would take the tax write-off from the moment of conception and see what happens.

What about a mom who has a non-related surgical procedure that unintentionally results in an abortion. Will we be sending that doctor to prison too?

We shall see....It will take a couple of years for this to work its ways through the courts......By that time hopefully we will have another conservative judge by then...........Right now it would probably be be 5-4 to uphold Roe but Kennedy is a devout Catholic and he might be the swing vote..........

I think that any doctor who knowingly breaks the law should be prosecuted to the full extent.............

I don't know about your other scenario......

 

[Captain America]

Research before you respond. You may just catch some compassion along the way...

If your definition of compassion is to suck the life out of an innocent unborn so some woman won't be inconvenienced, no thanks, I will just have to do without. Thanks just the same.:roll:

Look. I don't believe in convenience abortion. So I never had a hand in it. You do what you like. I have my conscience to live with and you have yours. I just can't be a part of all of that. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to shove my views down your throat. Live and let live I say. (Or in your case, you might say, live and let die.) Whatever blows your skirt up!

 

[steen]

HOW does it have no real bearing on abortions?!?! You claim only 1% of abortions are post viability. At 40,000,000 since Roe, that's 400,000 women who the court agreed could be "forced into slavery" according to your claim.

3rd trimester abortions, and even those after 20th week are heavily leaning toward medical necessity, so I don't see that as at all relevant to pro-life claims unless you guys now are going to say that you don't care about the woman's life or health and is willing to let her die for your theocratic dogma.

But the court disagrees with you. And as you so love to claim, the decision of the court is the law. So tough deal.

Absolutely. The law is what the law is. I find RvW to be unreasonably restrictive in its intrusion into the physician/patient relationship. Just so you know what kind of a fight you can expect if RvW is overturned.

That's one theory. Got any support for it?

Well, I don't have the statistics, but perhaps the Guttmaker institute has this specified out further on their "why women obtain abortions." That aside, I am calling on common sense for how unrealistic it seems for women going through pregnancies for many months with their unpleasant side-effects if they want to abort

And if that's the case, then you're in support of statutes that ban abortion after viability?

Nope. I am not in support of ANY statute that intrudes into the physician/patient relationship other than WRT health and safety.

I swear to god, its like repeating myself over and over. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herring. Strawman. Flawed argument. Apples and oranges. Whatever you want to call it, its a bad argument.

It is an argument to the pro-lifers insistence of forcing the woman to give of her bodily resources against her will. YOU don't want to be forced to do so, yet you insist that pregnant women MUST. I am merely pointing out how incredibly hypocritical you are. You might not like that argument, and you might try for the usual pro-life sophistry in worming out of acknowledging that this is exactly what you are doing, but that doesn't change the validity of my point, the point that pro-lifers always run cowardly from.

The court has ruled that states can restrict womens right to an abortion after viability. They have not ruled that they can take my blood if they need it. How is this so hard to understand?

They haven't ruled so because they haven't been asked to do so, because people are such hypocrites that they won't accept laws that might place burdens on themselves rather than only on pregnant women.

But if such a law was passed, why would that be any less constitutional than a law saying that the woman must provide bodily resources to save a life?

 

[steen]

If your definition of compassion is to suck the life out of an innocent unborn

It is not innocent in sucking out the woman's bodily resources against her will. It is no more "innocent" than a parasite.

 

[Captain America]

What can I say Steen? I guess I'm just a "breeder.":rofl

 

[FallingPianos]

It is not innocent in sucking out the woman's bodily resources against her will. It is no more "innocent" than a parasite.

how is this different from after the child is born?

raising a child is certainly a huge burden on the parents, taking a lot of time and energy.

thank goodness there are a lot more parents seeking to adopt, than infants up for adoption, but suppoing that weren't the case, do the parents have the right to abandon the infant after its born if no one wants it?

I just see the ethical difference between aborting a full term fetus because the mother chooses not to give up her bodily resouces, and abandoning a new born infant because the mother chooses not to give up her other resources to be a parent.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

To be honest with you I don't think its the federal gov. business to be in the welfare business...

And the various State governments?

... I think that churches and charitable organizations like Catholic Charitites and the Salvation Army should fill these needs...

Maybe they should, but they don't-- and I don't think they can. It's too big of a problem... and many churches are rather specific about who they are willing to extend their charity to.

I bet if it was possible if you could ask one of those kids in the womb would they rather be butchered or be born with all those needs you mentioned...

That's a false dichotomy. See, those deficiencies aren't necessary, and they're not inevitable. We can prevent them from occurring, whether we tolerate abortion or not.

It seems to me that your compassion for the unborn is only upheld until it costs you money.

You see my friend where there is life, there is hope... When you butcher in the womb there is no hope...

I don't think you realize just how cold a comfort "hope" really is-- especially when that's all you have.

 

[FallingPianos]

It seems to me that your compassion for the unborn is only upheld until it costs you money.

where do you think the term "compassionate conservative" came from?

it came from people that share that exact same philosophy.

 

[RightinNYC]

3rd trimester abortions, and even those after 20th week are heavily leaning toward medical necessity, so I don't see that as at all relevant to pro-life claims unless you guys now are going to say that you don't care about the woman's life or health and is willing to let her die for your theocratic dogma.

...and yet you manage to completely miss the argument, again. I'm not arguing about the merits of third trimester abortion, I'm simply pointing out that Roe does NOT support your own views. The most liberal court we've had in decades is somehow too conservative for you. And you consider yourself mainstream?

Absolutely. The law is what the law is. I find RvW to be unreasonably restrictive in its intrusion into the physician/patient relationship. Just so you know what kind of a fight you can expect if RvW is overturned.

1) You keep on talking about this physician/patient relationship as if its something sacred. It's not. Not at all. The "rights" granted to a physician/patient relationship are severely limited. If that physician wants to prescribe me heroin, he can't. If he wants to perform a crazy surgery on me, he can't. If he wants to take out my kidney so I can sell it, he can't. There are severe limits on what doctors can do, even in the auspices of a physician/patient relationship. Whether or not you agree with the limitation of the gov, you have to open your eyes and see that it's NOT farfetched nor unreasonable.

2) So you claim that the US would put up a huge fight if we tried to limit abortion further? So I guess we're not "the most backward western nation" in the world like you claimed before, are we? :lol: I notice you didn't have much to say on that topic.

Well, I don't have the statistics, but perhaps the Guttmaker institute has this specified out further on their "why women obtain abortions." That aside, I am calling on common sense for how unrealistic it seems for women going through pregnancies for many months with their unpleasant side-effects if they want to abort

So you wouldn't have a problem with a statute barring abortion after viability except for in cases of risk to the life of the mother?

Nope. I am not in support of ANY statute that intrudes into the physician/patient relationship other than WRT health and safety.

Guess you WOULD have a problem with it. Why permit it after viability, if the woman has 6 months to choose? Like you said, why would she want to carry it that long and then abort it?

It is an argument to the pro-lifers insistence of forcing the woman to give of her bodily resources against her will. YOU don't want to be forced to do so, yet you insist that pregnant women MUST. I am merely pointing out how incredibly hypocritical you are. You might not like that argument, and you might try for the usual pro-life sophistry in worming out of acknowledging that this is exactly what you are doing, but that doesn't change the validity of my point, the point that pro-lifers always run cowardly from.

And I'm merely pointing out how simplistic your logic is. I've explained to you time and time again how the two are not the same thing, and if you haven't picked it up yet, you're not going to, so I won't bother.

They haven't ruled so because they haven't been asked to do so, because people are such hypocrites that they won't accept laws that might place burdens on themselves rather than only on pregnant women.

And you don't think that's how they'd rule? :lol:

But if such a law was passed, why would that be any less constitutional than a law saying that the woman must provide bodily resources to save a life?

I've explained that over and over, but you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your own preconceived notions.

 

[FallingPianos]

I just see the ethical difference between aborting a full term fetus because the mother chooses not to give up her bodily resouces, and abandoning a new born infant because the mother chooses not to give up her other resources to be a parent.

gah, that was supposed to be "I just DON'T see..."

 

[steen]

how is this different from after the child is born?

After birth, she does have conmtrol over its use of her bodily resources.

hank goodness there are a lot more parents seeking to adopt, than infants up for adoption,

Ah, yes, Infants. Now, according to pro-lifers, the embryo is an "infant," right?

That aside, you seem to "forget" to mention how these parents-to-be are NOT adopting any of the non-infant older kids that are awaiting adoption. Hmm...

but suppoing that weren't the case, do the parents have the right to abandon the infant after its born if no one wants it?

If no one wanted it, there would be no law insisting on its preservation.

I just see the ethical difference between aborting a full term fetus because the mother chooses not to give up her bodily resouces, and abandoning a new born infant because the mother chooses not to give up her other resources to be a parent.

AH, but at that point, the mom can give it to dad or an adoptive couple, or in most states now simply give it to a police officer or hospital staff or similar through the "moses laws" in place.

 

[steen]

I'm simply pointing out that Roe does NOT support your own views. The most liberal court we've had in decades is somehow too conservative for you. And you consider yourself mainstream?

Do I? Where did I claim to be mainstream on this subject? I simply see the rest of you as being to extreme in the other direction. "Not being mainstream doesn't mean that I am wrong. Copernicus was not mainstream, but he was right. It was the "mainstream" church that prosecuted him for being right and not fitting their mainstream ignorance and extremism.

1) You keep on talking about this physician/patient relationship as if its something sacred. It's not. Not at all. The "rights" granted to a physician/patient relationship are severely limited. If that physician wants to prescribe me heroin, he can't. If he wants to perform a crazy surgery on me, he can't. If he wants to take out my kidney so I can sell it, he can't. There are severe limits on what doctors can do, even in the auspices of a physician/patient relationship.

Ah, but these are not "severe limitations" either, so that's a silly argument.

Whether or not you agree with the limitation of the gov, you have to open your eyes and see that it's NOT farfetched nor unreasonable.

Roe vs Wade is not unreasonable, no. I don't like it, but it is a compromise I can live with. Obviously pro-lifers cannot, and it is YOU who have to open your eyes and see that it's NOT farfetched nor unreasonable.

2) So you claim that the US would put up a huge fight if we tried to limit abortion further?

yes.

So I guess we're not "the most backward western nation" in the world like you claimed before, are we? :lol: I notice you didn't have much to say on that topic.

Politically we are.

So you wouldn't have a problem with a statute barring abortion after viability except for in cases of risk to the life of the mother?

yes, I would. Unless the woman's health also is included, it is not acceptable. I cannot accept your brand of morality that finds it fine and dandy if women are maimed for life as long as they don't die. That is unacceptable, this misogyny that pro-life spews.

Guess you WOULD have a problem with it. Why permit it after viability, if the woman has 6 months to choose? Like you said, why would she want to carry it that long and then abort it?

Due to medical complications or fetal demise/non-viability.

And I'm merely pointing out how simplistic your logic is. I've explained to you time and time again how the two are not the same thing, and if you haven't picked it up yet, you're not going to, so I won't bother.

I have picked up on your avoidance. That doesn't mean that my point is invalid, though. It specifically deals with being forced to give your bodily resources against your will. And that specifically is what the pro-lifers want to impose on the woman. It is highly relevant, but pro-life are merely to cowardly to admit that this is what they are doing in their incredible hypocrisy.

I've explained that over and over, but you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your own preconceived notions.

I've addressed that over and over, but you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your own preconceived notions.

 

[FallingPianos]

After birth, she does have conmtrol over its use of her bodily resources.

I was refering to the ethical delema, rather than other differences. how is it ethically different after the child is born?

yes, the child no longer has direct control over the mothers bodily resources. but it does demand a great deal of attention. in both cases, the parent(s) liberty is significantly taken away.

ethically speaking, what makes the direct control of her bodily resources during pregnancy different from the indirect control after birth?

Ah, yes, Infants. Now, according to pro-lifers, the embryo is an "infant," right?

well, i've heard pro-lifers call embryos "children", "unborn children" and "babies", but i've yet to see the term "infant" applied.

but anyway, I think you and I agree that an infant is a human from birth to approximately 1 year of age, so why debate about it?

That aside, you seem to "forget" to mention how these parents-to-be are NOT adopting any of the non-infant older kids that are awaiting adoption. Hmm...

no, I purposefully choose not to meantion that sad fact, because I was trying to make a comparison between full term fetuses and newborn infants.

If no one wanted it, there would be no law insisting on its preservation.

true enough.

but i'd still like to know whether you think its ethically acceptable for the mother to abandon her newborn infant if she couldnt find someone else to care for it.

I suppose I could expand that question by asking whether you believe the mother is ethically obligated to care for the newborn infant until she finds someone else to do it.

AH, but at that point, the mom can give it to dad

if the dad wants it. otherwise the state can make him pay child support

or an adoptive couple

yes, but that is a privilage, not a right. besides, my entire question was about the hypothetical case where she couldnt find someone to adopt.

in most states now simply give it to a police officer or hospital staff or similar through the "moses laws" in place.

Interesting. do you have more information about that? I've heard of such things, but I didn't know they were legal.

even if its legal, to you think its ethically right for the mother to do this?

I'm sure both of us could cite tons of unethical laws out there... heck we might even agree on some of them.

 

[Navy Pride]

And the various State governments?



Maybe they should, but they don't-- and I don't think they can. It's too big of a problem... and many churches are rather specific about who they are willing to extend their charity to.



That's a false dichotomy. See, those deficiencies aren't necessary, and they're not inevitable. We can prevent them from occurring, whether we tolerate abortion or not.

It seems to me that your compassion for the unborn is only upheld until it costs you money.



I don't think you realize just how cold a comfort "hope" really is-- especially when that's all you have.

There for the grace of God there you go.........If your mother had a bad hair day carrying you...........Think about it............

 

[steen]

ethically speaking, what makes the direct control of her bodily resources during pregnancy different from the indirect control after birth?

It no longer is direct and unavoidable.

well, i've heard pro-lifers call embryos "children", "unborn children" and "babies", but i've yet to see the term "infant" applied.

I have. many times.

but anyway, I think you and I agree that an infant is a human from birth to approximately 1 year of age, so why debate about it?

because it still is part of the pro-life dishonest, revisionist linguistic hyperbole and repetoir of emotional hysteria.

no, I purposefully choose not to meantion that sad fact, because I was trying to make a comparison between full term fetuses and newborn infants.

And ignoring how all of this will result in MORE abandoned throw-away kids rotting in fosterhomes and group homes until they turn 18 and then is abandoned to the street with a pat on the back and one extra set of clothes?

but i'd still like to know whether you think its ethically acceptable for the mother to abandon her newborn infant if she couldnt find someone else to care for it.

I suppose I could expand that question by asking whether you believe the mother is ethically obligated to care for the newborn infant until she finds someone else to do it.

If she had sought an abortion and this was denied, then absolutely. If she had carried the pregnancy to term without seeking an abortion, then she has agreed to care for the baby until she can find others to take over the duties to the baby.

if the dad wants it. otherwise the state can make him pay child support

An issue that can be worked on.

Interesting. do you have more information about that? I've heard of such things, but I didn't know they were legal.

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037507.cfm
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/search/view_pub.cfm?recno=48368&simple=1&criteria=Institutions&cb_website=1&rps=1&uberorgs=1&cb_express=1&calendar=1

even if its legal, to you think its ethically right for the mother to do this?

certainly. If she feels unable to care for the baby, then leaving it in care rather than in a dumpster is advantageous, right?

I'm sure both of us could cite tons of unethical laws out there... heck we might even agree on some of them.

Sure. Any law exploiting the poor for the sake of those with wealth, for one.

 

[steen]

There for the grace of God there you go.........If your mother had a bad hair day carrying you...........Think about it............

In which case we would never have existed and wouldn't know otherwise. No different than if mom had a headache that night. Gosh, NP, don't you have anything other than emotional hyperbole to hand out?

 

[FallingPianos]

I have. many times.

well, i'll take your word for it.

because it still is part of the pro-life dishonest, revisionist linguistic hyperbole and repetoir of emotional hysteria.

yes, im just saying that you're preaching to the choir.

but i'd still like to know whether you think its ethically acceptable for the mother to abandon her newborn infant if she couldnt find someone else to care for it.

I suppose I could expand that question by asking whether you believe the mother is ethically obligated to care for the newborn infant until she finds someone else to do it.

If she had sought an abortion and this was denied, then absolutely. If she had carried the pregnancy to term without seeking an abortion, then she has agreed to care for the baby until she can find others to take over the duties to the baby.

just to clarify, you are saying that if she sought and abortion and it was denied, then its absolutly ethically acceptable for her to abandon the newborn infant, and she absolutly is not ethically obligated to care for the newborn infant until someone else can be found.

did I get that right?

im just making sure, because you technically answered "yes" to both my questions, but my questions were phrased so that a yes meant the opposite thing in each.

 

[steen]

well, i'll take your word for it.



yes, im just saying that you're preaching to the choir.



just to clarify, you are saying that if she sought and abortion and it was denied, then its absolutly ethically acceptable for her to abandon the newborn infant, and she absolutly is not ethically obligated to care for the newborn infant until someone else can be found.

did I get that right?

Correct, under the parameter I specified.

im just making sure, because you technically answered "yes" to both my questions, but my questions were phrased so that a yes meant the opposite thing in each.

Ah. Yes to the first, no to the second. Still per the premise that she was denied an abortion.

 

[FallingPianos]

Ah. Yes to the first, no to the second. Still per the premise that she was denied an abortion.

ok.

what if she wanted an abortion, but for reasons beyond her control was unable to ask for one? like, if she lived in a rural area and could not afford to travel to get an abortion, or if she couldnt afford one and didnt know that a lot of places provide abortions on a sliding scale fee?

 

[steen]

ok.

what if she wanted an abortion, but for reasons beyond her control was unable to ask for one? like, if she lived in a rural area and could not afford to travel to get an abortion, or if she couldnt afford one and didnt know that a lot of places provide abortions on a sliding scale fee?

If society have been unable to provide her with appropriate medical services, then she has no duty to society to carry the burden of society's negligence.

 

[FallingPianos]

If society have been unable to provide her with appropriate medical services, then she has no duty to society to carry the burden of society's negligence.

but what about her "genetic descendant."?

does she have a duty to her genetic descendant?