NationStates Jolt Archive

Something foul indeed. If your against abortion DONT GET ONE! dont make everyone else not get one else, I would think this would come from a bible belt state, not from South Dakota. Supreme Court better do the right thing here.

I am against Rape, murder, and theft, but since I do not plan on commiting any of those I think they should be legal.

No. It keeps coming back because of morons who want to make slaves of women by preventing them from exercising their self-ownership rights.

If you take a DNA test on a fetus, I can assure it will not match the mother's.

>.> but we are talking about when a human is defined as a human.. not when it ends...

Are you saying a human is a human when major brain activity begins ? and what is major.. first brainwaves ? maybe more.. when brain activity is more developed.. when the sense are activated ? The brain is a complicated organ developing throughout the individuals lifespan... so what constitutes "major"

Major brain activity would be the point at which AT LEAST: there are coherent patterns of activity, and there is a relatively complete neural system.

That would make 'major brain activity' some time after the 20th-22nd week of gestation. No earlier.

If you take a DNA test on a fetus, I can assure it will not match the mother's.

Utterly irrelevent... and also, wrong. (Look up Mitochondrial DNA for the reasoning... it depends WHICH DNA you wish to test).

Actually the real bullshit is the Court taking that case in 1973. It was not a matter for the courts to decide. Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter.

Rubbish. Women have been aborting unwanted foetuses for millennia.

Rubbish. Women have been aborting unwanted foetuses for millennia.

People have made slaves one on another for millennia as well, but that's no excuse to continue the tradition heedlessly.

We've coveted our neighbors goods for millennia.

We've murdered our brothers for millennia.

We've started wars of conquests for millennia.

We've degraded others for our own benefit for millennia as well, and it's about time we stopped.

People have made slaves one on another for millennia as well, but that's no excuse to continue the tradition heedlessly.

We've coveted our neighbors goods for millennia.

We've murdered our brothers for millennia.

We've started wars of conquests for millennia.

We've degraded others for our own benefit for millennia as well, and it's about time we stopped.

I'm not sure what your point is... largely, I agree with your arguments here... but I'm not sure how they are related to the topic I was replying to:

The other poster said "Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter".

And, I pointed out that that bears almost no relation to truth.

How did we get onto war and slavery from there?

I'm not sure what your point is... largely, I agree with your arguments here... but I'm not sure how they are related to the topic I was replying to:

The other poster said "Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter".

And, I pointed out that that bears almost no relation to truth.

How did we get onto war and slavery from there?

"His" reference was to the legal question of the abortion issue (obviously from an American point of view) and not the societal question. You took that premise and moved it to a 'human condition' question in historical context. I was pointing out that you didn't really want to move it there for the debate weakness reasons I stated above. Additionally my post pointed out the invalidity of your post negating his point. (counting how many times I said post or points there to see if they ended up in the right places for me to say what I was trying to say ...1...2...3.. yup, okay ;) ) Thus, his point (right or wrong) still stands uncontested because you addressed a different issue.

referring to the very first post.

If this is just a case of a minority trying to impose its will on the majority, why not just allow it to come to a vote?

If it was just a minority, they wouldn't try to get it to where the public could vote on it.

i say good for south dakota because abortion is so wrong.when you get an abortion you are actually murdering a baby not just a substance inside your body.

Women have been aborting unwanted foetuses for millennia.
just because people have been doing it for a long time does not make it right

referring to the very first post.

If this is just a case of a minority trying to impose its will on the majority, why not just allow it to come to a vote?

If it was just a minority, they wouldn't try to get it to where the public could vote on it.


I honestly don't know if that is a correct assessment. My impression was that the bill is intended for the court, not to be enacted at this time. A public vote would delay the bill going to the courts for one or more years.

Additionally, there are (from the article) only about 800 abortions per year in South Dakota anyway, and some of them go to Minnesota to get abortions outside of the state (MN estimates that to be about only about 40 in 2004), thus it doesn't look like the pro-choice group needs to be a very big voting block in that state, I see no reason to assume that the popular vote for this bill in South Dakota would fail.

just because people have been doing it for a long time does not make it right

You are the second person to get that from it.

That isn't waht I said, or anything like it.

The OTHER poster said it was historically a "legislative matter".

I pointed out that is not so.

I made no moral judgements... I did not argue it's justification.

I just pointed out that, historically, it has NOT been "a legislative matter".

"His" reference was to the legal question of the abortion issue (obviously from an American point of view) and not the societal question. You took that premise and moved it to a 'human condition' question in historical context. I was pointing out that you didn't really want to move it there for the debate weakness reasons I stated above. Additionally my post pointed out the invalidity of your post negating his point. (counting how many times I said post or points there to see if they ended up in the right places for me to say what I was trying to say ...1...2...3.. yup, okay ;) ) Thus, his point (right or wrong) still stands uncontested because you addressed a different issue.

Not true.

All I addressed was the historical truth of his assertion that abortion has always been "a legislative matter".

Go back and re-read the posts.

I think it's a bad move.

It seems to me (though I'm not a pollster or pundit or the like) that the pro-life argument has gained a little traction in the US in the past few years. Keywords: it seems and A little. a lot of representatives over the past few years have been socially conservative in the US, which might skew my perception. And even if there were traction gained, it's still a minority opinion among the nation. This development is just too early, too direct, and too incoherent.

It reminds me a lot of the broohaha over gay rights a couple of years ago (it seems to have subsided at the moment), where gay rights advocates felt they had enough support to enact somewhat sweeping reforms. That too didn't work out well and created a backlash (at least, in Ohio, it did). This, too, is just a manifestation of impatience from a more extreme branches of a certain political persuasion (which I feel the South Dakota law to be).

I say the law is incoherent becuase it's not even a good anti-abortion law. It makes no allowance for rape or incest--allowances which a lot (perhaps the vast majority) of pro-lifers support. It's quite frankly idiotic. I mean, whether the supreme court will support the government's subduing of abortion is one thing. But the supreme court upholding this extremely narrow law is quite out of the question.

Not true.

All I addressed was the historical truth of his assertion that abortion has always been "a legislative matter".

Go back and re-read the posts.

Entirely true. You addressed the historical issue (as I said) and he addressed the american legal issue (as I already said as well), two entirely different issues, different topics on the abortion wheel of issues.

Sanctity of life, huh? Do you have the death penalty?

And you know what I find funny? Those who support the death penalty oppose abortion and those that support abortion hate the death penalty.

Both sides are hypocrits :D

Entirely true. You addressed the historical issue (as I said) and he addressed the american legal issue (as I already said as well), two entirely different issues, different topics on the abortion wheel of issues.

You really aren't seeing it are you.

Stop trying to score a point on this one... you are missing the point.

Even in America, his argument was not true. And, the American legal system is not the entirety of American history. He is making a claim that asserts something like that, and I am refuting it. Abortion has never been limited to the legislative system. That is why the other poster is 'wrong', and the whole point I am making.

And you know what I find funny? Those who support the death penalty oppose abortion and those that support abortion hate the death penalty.

Both sides are hypocrits :D

That's a sweeping generalisation, and one easily proved untrue.

I support choice, but I also support the death penalty.

And, that's the problem with generalisations.... your assertion is proved a lie, by one exception.

...
I say the law is incoherent becuase it's not even a good anti-abortion law. It makes no allowance for rape or incest--allowances which a lot (perhaps the vast majority) of pro-lifers support. It's quite frankly idiotic. I mean, whether the supreme court will support the government's subduing of abortion is one thing. But the supreme court upholding this extremely narrow law is quite out of the question.

My first impression when reading it was the same as yours. Now I'm having second thoughts.

I haven't read the bill yet but their reason for intentionally voting against adding rape or incest or even 'health of the mother' clauses (they seem to have voted against, not forgotten to include them) might be because I think they are taking a different angle of the argument of 'why not.'

They might be preparing to specifically argue that the 'first term' and viability definitions in Roe vs. Wade are now defunct. And if so, 'reasons' to end the life of the fetus cannot include 'heritage' or even health. Only self defense would justify killing another, and thus, their clause to not punish a doctor that kills a fetus in the treatment of the health of the mother. Slightly, but significantly, different from the standard 'abortion for health' we've all become accustomed to, clause. This time they are arguing, you treat the mother's illness for her defense, if the fetus then dies, it dies and you didn't perform an abortion by design but by necessity of defense...

I don't know, we'll see if I am interpreting their intentions for their argument correctly or not later, and I make no predictions if it's a winning argument or not.

This is an interesting debate going on here.

With that said, I will give my input.

First and foremost, abortion is about two main parties, the unborn and the mother. However, these are not the only two parties affected by the choice(s) made. We do not individually live in a vacuum, each of our lives and choices has an affect and effect on each other's lives, especially those that we come into contact with daily. To insist that the choice of abortion does not affect anyone else is inconsistent with daily practicality (the choice whether to have an abortion or not, affects the father, the parents of the couple, the friends, the coworkers, as well as the wellbeing of the mother and the unborn). Therefore I would begin by stating, the couple made the decision to have sex, and now there are some consequences that they have to deal with. Yes, it could change their lives and alter their future plans, but that is part of the consequences of their (rash?) decision. Though the solution of abortion seems like it is the only good option to keep the couples' lives in order, there are other options, namely adoption. Adoption is a viable solution, for there are many couples who are infertile, yet seeking to parent children. There are many organizations that are helpful for finding matches and working with all of the parties involved.

As far as the unborn baby goes, we must ask the hard question, what is the unborn? Therefore, let us ask some questions to logically answer this foundational question.

1) Some proponents state that the unborn is not a human at fetus stage. However, according to the Law of Biogenesis, living things produce after their own kind. How is it possible for human parents to produce offspring that is not human, but later becomes human? This does not coincide with the Law of Biogenesis.

2) Some would then state that it is not that the unborn are not human, it's just that the unborn are not a person. So then, what is the difference between being human and being a person? In fact, the main differences between the unborn and a "normal" born human being are the size, the level of development, the enviroment and then the dependency of the unborn. But just think, are these really a significant difference between an unborn and a "normal person"? Do these differences really distinguish the unborn from a perosn? Let's take a look at each difference and use every-day life analogies to determine if these differences matter.

a) Size, the unborn is smaller than us, or even normal babies: Think about this: are large people more human than small people? No, small people are just as human as larger people. The same can be said about the unborn, just because it is smaller, that does not make it less human than a larger "born baby", or toddler, or adult.

b) Level of development of the unborn: A four-year-old is not as developed as a forteen-year-old, much less a forty-year-old. Does this disqualify its personhood? No, we consider four-year-olds a person and count them as human lifes just like a fourteen or forty-year-old. The same can be said with the unborn, just becasue they are not as developed as a toddler or a teenage or an adult, does not disqualify their humanity or personhood.

c) Enviroment of the unborn: A child in an incubator in an Intensive Care Unit is not less human than a child outside the womb. Can we make the judgement call to say that the child in the incubator is less human than the healthy child? No, they are still born children that desrve a chance at life. Similarly, the unborn cannot be called less human because of this fact.

d) Dependency of the unborn: Some would say that because the unborn is dependent on the mother for life and sustenance, the child is not a human (but instead a parasite apparently to some on this thread). However, if viability is what makes us human, people on insulin are not human. We do not consider this to be true, thus why should we apply this to the case of the unborn.

In fact, we can't apply any of these differences to the case of the unborn. They are in fact just like us, because, hey , we were just like them at one point!

In essence, the unborn are worthy of the dignities bestowed on humanity and persons worldwide, the right to the chance at life.

These are just some thoughts in regards to the foundational issues raised by abortion.

Grace

Philocardiov

or even 'health of the mother' clauses (they seem to have voted against, not forgotten to include them)


This seems like a big problem for me... and one that I would have thought would have already killed the bill.

Cat-Tribes could probably put hand straight to it, but I'm sure there's a "Doe versus..." companion to "Roe versus Wade" that strongly opposes this angle

And you know what I find funny? Those who support the death penalty oppose abortion and those that support abortion hate the death penalty.

Both sides are hypocrits :D

Don't generalize. I support the death penalty but I think our legal system is to biased to use it fairly.

And actually, only one of the sides are hypocrits. The side opposing the death penalty know there is a human being involved that is much more likely to be executed if they are a minority or poor (90% of the people on death row could not afford an attorney, 55% are black). Over 100 people on death row have been found innocent as a result of DNA evidence. They support not killing PEOPLE who are not being treated fairly. With abortion, there is no person involved who is being killed and in some cases it is done in defense of a life.

Now, on the other side, they believe their are lives involved in both cases and they are well aware of the deficiencies of our legal system and they are perfectly willing to kill a disproportionate number of poor and minority criminals while claiming they are "pro-life".

If anti-death penalty people called themselves "pro-life" your point might not be ridiculous. Unfortunately, they don't and it is.

This is an interesting debate going on here.

With that said, I will give my input.

First and foremost, abortion is about two main parties, the unborn and the mother. However, these are not the only two parties affected by the choice(s) made. We do not individually live in a vacuum, each of our lives and choices has an affect and effect on each other's lives, especially those that we come into contact with daily. To insist that the choice of abortion does not affect anyone else is inconsistent with daily practicality (the choice whether to have an abortion or not, affects the father, the parents of the couple, the friends, the coworkers, as well as the wellbeing of the mother and the unborn). Therefore I would begin by stating, the couple made the decision to have sex, and now there are some consequences that they have to deal with. Yes, it could change their lives and alter their future plans, but that is part of the consequences of their (rash?) decision. Though the solution of abortion seems like it is the only good option to keep the couples' lives in order, there are other options, namely adoption. Adoption is a viable solution, for there are many couples who are infertile, yet seeking to parent children. There are many organizations that are helpful for finding matches and working with all of the parties involved.

As far as the unborn baby goes, we must ask the hard question, what is the unborn? Therefore, let us ask some questions to logically answer this foundational question.

1) Some proponents state that the unborn is not a human at fetus stage. However, according to the Law of Biogenesis, living things produce after their own kind. How is it possible for human parents to produce offspring that is not human, but later becomes human? This does not coincide with the Law of Biogenesis.

2) Some would then state that it is not that the unborn are not human, it's just that the unborn are not a person. So then, what is the difference between being human and being a person? In fact, the main differences between the unborn and a "normal" born human being are the size, the level of development, the enviroment and then the dependency of the unborn. But just think, are these really a significant difference between an unborn and a "normal person"? Do these differences really distinguish the unborn from a perosn? Let's take a look at each difference and use every-day life analogies to determine if these differences matter.

a) Size, the unborn is smaller than us, or even normal babies: Think about this: are large people more human than small people? No, small people are just as human as larger people. The same can be said about the unborn, just because it is smaller, that does not make it less human than a larger "born baby", or toddler, or adult.

b) Level of development of the unborn: A four-year-old is not as developed as a forteen-year-old, much less a forty-year-old. Does this disqualify its personhood? No, we consider four-year-olds a person and count them as human lifes just like a fourteen or forty-year-old. The same can be said with the unborn, just becasue they are not as developed as a toddler or a teenage or an adult, does not disqualify their humanity or personhood.

c) Enviroment of the unborn: A child in an incubator in an Intensive Care Unit is not less human than a child outside the womb. Can we make the judgement call to say that the child in the incubator is less human than the healthy child? No, they are still born children that desrve a chance at life. Similarly, the unborn cannot be called less human because of this fact.

d) Dependency of the unborn: Some would say that because the unborn is dependent on the mother for life and sustenance, the child is not a human (but instead a parasite apparently to some on this thread). However, if viability is what makes us human, people on insulin are not human. We do not consider this to be true, thus why should we apply this to the case of the unborn.

In fact, we can't apply any of these differences to the case of the unborn. They are in fact just like us, because, hey , we were just like them at one point!

In essence, the unborn are worthy of the dignities bestowed on humanity and persons worldwide, the right to the chance at life.

These are just some thoughts in regards to the foundational issues raised by abortion.

Grace

Philocardiov

You start with an assumption that is unsubstantiated and use it to confirm your position. With abortion there is one party unless you can objectively show otherwise.

And you know what I find funny? Those who support the death penalty oppose abortion and those that support abortion hate the death penalty.

Both sides are hypocrits :D

Either that or you just didn't bother to read their reasoning. You can pro-death and against abortion if you believe someone has to have done something wrong to be put to death.
You can be pro-choice and against the death penalty if you are against the termination of actual persons, but do not of potential future persons. Or if you do not believe abortion harms the embryo - since the embryo does not know the difference itself.

In other words: some people are indeed hypocrites. Many however just use reasoning different than yours. Perhaps you should listen to them from time to time.

As far as the unborn baby goes, we must ask the hard question, what is the unborn? Therefore, let us ask some questions to logically answer this foundational question.

I agree completely with this statement.


b) Level of development of the unborn: A four-year-old is not as developed as a forteen-year-old, much less a forty-year-old. Does this disqualify its personhood? No, we consider four-year-olds a person and count them as human lifes just like a fourteen or forty-year-old. The same can be said with the unborn, just becasue they are not as developed as a toddler or a teenage or an adult, does not disqualify their humanity or personhood.

Your argument does not invalidate your opponents reasoning. A four year old can feel things. It can hope, it can dream. An embryo cannot. From the embryos point of view there is no difference between being alive and death.
To me, that is an enormous difference.

In essence, the unborn are worthy of the dignities bestowed on humanity and persons worldwide, the right to the chance at life.

Question: do you believe humans have a right to be conceived ?
If not, explain to me from the embryos point of view what the difference between not being conceived and being aborted before the formation of a neural net is.

I recognize that these weren’t addressed at me, but please let me give it a shot anyway.

...
Your argument does not invalidate your opponents reasoning. A four year old can feel things. It can hope, it can dream. An embryo cannot. From the embryos point of view there is no difference between being alive and death.
To me, that is an enormous difference.

You ‘assign’ value to something that cannot really be known at this point. About when the fetus begins to ‘dream’ or become ‘human’ by the definition of the pro-choice side, but to assign a positive or a negative during the early weeks of development, about what a fetus is or is not, is likely (IMO) to end up less like a macro-physics question as most people try to answer it, and actually end up being more like a quantum physics answer. Like the proverbial quark is a cat in a box, it’s there if we don’t look but it’s gone if we open the box, or we can know how fast it’s moving but not tell you where it is, or we can tell you where it is but not tell you how fast it is going, but we can’t tell you both simultaneously. Similarly, if we stop the fetus and measure it and analyze it, we can determine exactly where (what) it is, but we didn’t tell you how fast it was growing (moving). But if we don’t open the box and instead wait, we can see how fast it is moving by the results of it's growth. The 'baby' (the humanity in this case) could be both there and not there, depending on if you try to measure it or not.


...
Question: do you believe humans have a right to be conceived ?
If not, explain to me from the embryos point of view what the difference between not being conceived and being aborted before the formation of a neural net is.

Does society have any obligation to our progeny? Do we have an obligation to the faceless and as yet not even conceived future citizens? Do we have an obligation to try and pay for our own social programs or can we just pass our debt onto the next generation, since they don’t exist yet they can’t have rights yet. And then, compound their problem by thinning their ranks so that the debt is larger for each of the ones that do get born, rather than having more of them to spread the debt out to?

Do we have an obligation to protect our natural resources, and environment, for generations that do not yet exist? Do we have any obligation to ensure for them as good a world as we can leave them?

I answer those questions as a Yes, myself. I think we do have an obligation to future generations, and as such, I fail to see how collectively they can have rights but as individuals they have none…

Does society have any obligation to our progeny?

If we want there to *be* any ? Yes.
But if we do not wish there to be any - no we do not.

I recognize that these weren’t addressed at me, but please let me give it a shot anyway.

You ‘assign’ value to something that cannot really be known at this point. About when the fetus begins to ‘dream’ or become ‘human’ by the definition of the pro-choice side, but to assign a positive or a negative during the early weeks of development, about what a fetus is or is not, is likely (IMO) to end up less like a macro-physics question as most people try to answer it, and actually end up being more like a quantum physics answer. Like the proverbial quark is a cat in a box, it’s there if we don’t look but it’s gone if we open the box, or we can know how fast it’s moving but not tell you where it is, or we can tell you where it is but not tell you how fast it is going, but we can’t tell you both simultaneously. Similarly, if we stop the fetus and measure it and analyze it, we can determine exactly where it is, but if we didn’t tell you how fast it was growing. But if we don’t open the box and instead wait, we can see how fast it is moving. The baby could be both there and not there, depending on if you try to measure it or not.

Um, this argument seems to ignore the fact that we have the ability to make the 'box' clear and actually looking at the fetus while it's still inside the womb. We can garner a lot of information about the development of the fetus at various points by examining it in this way. We can't be sure of brain activity begins (although, we're making strides in that direction) but we can be very certain that brain activity is not occuring at the time of almost all elective abortions.


Does society have any obligation to our progeny? Do we have an obligation to the faceless and as yet not even conceived future citizens? Do we have an obligation to try and pay for our own social programs or can we just pass our debt onto the next generation, since they don’t exist yet they can’t have rights yet. And then, compound their problem by thinning their ranks so that the debt is larger for each of the ones that do get born, rather than having more of them to spread the debt out to?

Do we have an obligation to protect our natural resources, and environment, for generations that do not yet exist? Do we have any obligation to ensure for them as good a world as we can leave them?

I answer those questions as a Yes, myself. I think we do have an obligation to future generations, and as such, I fail to see how collectively they can have rights but as individuals they have none…
This is the silliest argument I've ever heard. Can my grandson own my house? Why not? He has rights, doesn't he? Forget that he doesn't exist and may never exist.

The difference between the group and the individual is that while we can't be sure that a particular 'person' will ever come to exist, we can be certain that their will be future generations. Your argument is like suggesting that I can alot money for the children in school ten years from now, but that I'm being unfair if I'm not willing to give school books to some pregnant woman.

Acting on the future existence group that will undoubtedly exist is so unrelated to treating the possible future existence of something that has odds against it that one wonders how you didn't see it.

In the event of abortion, not only is the future existence against the odds, it's nearly impossible. If we're arguing about giving rights to potential then I think we can both agree that when a woman gets an abortion the potential no longer exists so there is no need to consider the rights of the nonexistent.

Which, by sending back to the legislative bodies to control, it could be an equally dividing decision in the public opinion as well, as recent Eminent domain ruling brought to mind.

Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use for the public good or necessity.

But if the property owner comes to a decision not to sell, the government exercises eminent domain and publishes notice of the hearing to take the property by force as required by law.

In some events, this ‘possession’ of the property is not permanent, such as…

Temporary Taking - Part or all of the property is appropriated for a limited period of time. The property owner retains title, and is compensated for any losses associated with the taking, and regains complete possession of the property at the conclusion of the taking. For example, it may be necessary for material transportation to have access through a portion of an adjacent property to complete a construction project, but then afterwards the property control can be returned to the original owner.

Easements and Rights of Way - It is also possible to bring an eminent domain action to obtain an easement or right of way. For example, a utility company may obtain an easement over private land install and maintain power lines. The property owner remains free to use the property for any purpose which does interfere with the right of way or easement.

In the same manner, denial of abortion rights by the state over the individual could conceivably be approved by the SCOTUS.

Cute, but human beings are not "property". Or did you miss the abolition of slavery?

Cute, but human beings are not "property". Or did you miss the abolition of slavery?

Privacy and property work together, in as much as they can be 'yours.'

Privacy and property work together, in as much as they can be 'yours.' Did you miss the part about eminent domain earlier in the thread?

Can the state assign you as a slave to another person? Can the state come to me and tell me that I have to perform service as a seeing eye person?

Privacy and property work together, in as much as they can be 'yours.'

We are talking about the body of a human being. The only way "eminent domain" could be applied here is if you were to say that the government temporarily takes possession of the woman's body and forces its use for the pregnancy. This is, in a word, slavery.

We are talking about the body of a human being. The only way "eminent domain" could be applied here is if you were to say that the government temporarily takes possession of the woman's body and forces its use for the pregnancy. This is, in a word, slavery.

Well, to be fair, technically the government can temporarily take control of a man's body and force its use for warmaking. We don't consider that slavery. We consider that conscription.

I would consider the difference being that the situation is extreme and the public interest has be dramatically compelling in that instance. I would say compelling has to be a little more then "I've arbitrarily decided that life begins at conception without actually understanding that several birth control methods prevent implantation and would be outlawed under the same notion."

We are talking about the body of a human being. The only way "eminent domain" could be applied here is if you were to say that the government temporarily takes possession of the woman's body and forces its use for the pregnancy. This is, in a word, slavery.

Yes. In as much as being forced to sell your property makes you nothing more than a serf to the duke of the land, being forced to not evict tenants equally makes you a slave. Simply because we don't like the words doesn't mean that they aren't enforceable.

Well, to be fair, technically the government can temporarily take control of a man's body and force its use for warmaking. We don't consider that slavery. We consider that conscription.


Some people do consider conscription to be slavery...

Yes. In as much as being forced to sell your property makes you nothing more than a serf to the duke of the land, being forced to not evict tenants equally makes you a slave. Simply because we don't like the words doesn't mean that they aren't enforceable.

So will the government be required to pay women for the use of their 'property'?

This is an interesting debate going on here.

With that said, I will give my input.

First and foremost, abortion is about two main parties, the unborn and the mother. However, these are not the only two parties affected by the choice(s) made. We do not individually live in a vacuum, each of our lives and choices has an affect and effect on each other's lives, especially those that we come into contact with daily. To insist that the choice of abortion does not affect anyone else is inconsistent with daily practicality (the choice whether to have an abortion or not, affects the father, the parents of the couple, the friends, the coworkers, as well as the wellbeing of the mother and the unborn). Therefore I would begin by stating, the couple made the decision to have sex, and now there are some consequences that they have to deal with. Yes, it could change their lives and alter their future plans, but that is part of the consequences of their (rash?) decision. Though the solution of abortion seems like it is the only good option to keep the couples' lives in order, there are other options, namely adoption. Adoption is a viable solution, for there are many couples who are infertile, yet seeking to parent children. There are many organizations that are helpful for finding matches and working with all of the parties involved.

Theoretically true, but in practice, not so much. The simple fact is that the adoption system is overwhelmed as is, with the number of potential parents vastly outstripped by the number of children. As such, if you are a blond-haired, blue-eyed white baby with the beautiful grin, then you're in like Flint. If you're anyone else, then you pretty much get stuck with a series of maladroit foster parents more interested in the monthly check the government sends them than you.

Furthermore, I realize that even foster parents sound compassionate to you, but you likely haven't ever been consigned to the system. From personal experience of both cases, I can tell you that being abandoned by your parents is far, far worse than actually losing one. One you can heal from in about eight months to a year to get back roughly to normal. The other pretty much scars you permananently. To be honest, I might well consider death to be more compassionate than being unloved.


As far as the unborn baby goes, we must ask the hard question, what is the unborn? Therefore, let us ask some questions to logically answer this foundational question.

1) Some proponents state that the unborn is not a human at fetus stage. However, according to the Law of Biogenesis, living things produce after their own kind. How is it possible for human parents to produce offspring that is not human, but later becomes human? This does not coincide with the Law of Biogenesis.

Not quite, because the whole concept of natural kinds is in dispute: chickens, for instance, can produce embryos with teeth, yet I don't think many people would say a chicken with teeth is of the same kind as a chicken with a beak. In essence, natural kinds don't fit well with the concept of mutation. Say rather that living things produce living things of a very similar genetic structure.

The problem, however, is that we don't base our concept of rights on similarity of genetic structure: a hangnail has my DNA, yet I don't accord a hangnail any rights if seperated from my body. Instead, we base our notion of rights on rationality: I as a person am rational by nature, therefore I have natural rights. A fetus is not yet rational through the first trimester, although it may be thereafter. This is precisely why Roe v. Wade allows unrestricted abortions only during the first trimester, with increasing strictness of law applied thereafter.


2) Some would then state that it is not that the unborn are not human, it's just that the unborn are not a person. So then, what is the difference between being human and being a person? In fact, the main differences between the unborn and a "normal" born human being are the size, the level of development, the enviroment and then the dependency of the unborn. But just think, are these really a significant difference between an unborn and a "normal person"? Do these differences really distinguish the unborn from a perosn? Let's take a look at each difference and use every-day life analogies to determine if these differences matter.

No, they aren't human, because humans are rational, and a fetus isn't. It may eventually, barring any unforseen chance, become rational, but we don't base our notion of rights on the potential for rationality, but on the actual state of having it. This is precisely why, despite the fact that barring any unforseen chance a six year-old someday will have the capacity to vote, we don't allow a six-year old to vote.

[
a) Size, the unborn is smaller than us, or even normal babies: Think about this: are large people more human than small people? No, small people are just as human as larger people. The same can be said about the unborn, just because it is smaller, that does not make it less human than a larger "born baby", or toddler, or adult.

b) Level of development of the unborn: A four-year-old is not as developed as a forteen-year-old, much less a forty-year-old. Does this disqualify its personhood? No, we consider four-year-olds a person and count them as human lifes just like a fourteen or forty-year-old. The same can be said with the unborn, just becasue they are not as developed as a toddler or a teenage or an adult, does not disqualify their humanity or personhood.

c) Enviroment of the unborn: A child in an incubator in an Intensive Care Unit is not less human than a child outside the womb. Can we make the judgement call to say that the child in the incubator is less human than the healthy child? No, they are still born children that desrve a chance at life. Similarly, the unborn cannot be called less human because of this fact.

d) Dependency of the unborn: Some would say that because the unborn is dependent on the mother for life and sustenance, the child is not a human (but instead a parasite apparently to some on this thread). However, if viability is what makes us human, people on insulin are not human. We do not consider this to be true, thus why should we apply this to the case of the unborn.

In fact, we can't apply any of these differences to the case of the unborn. They are in fact just like us, because, hey , we were just like them at one point!

In essence, the unborn are worthy of the dignities bestowed on humanity and persons worldwide, the right to the chance at life.

These are just some thoughts in regards to the foundational issues raised by abortion.

Grace

Philocardiov

No, they aren't, or at least, they aren't until they have the biological equipment necessary for reason, and that doesn't come about until the first trimester is over, a distinction already noted by law. After the first trimester, abortions are generally restricted on the basis of need, something that is also noted by law: we don't, for instance, punish a military commander who sacrifices a platoon to save a battalion, because we realize that however unpleasant that choice might be, it is sometimes necessary. In the same way, however unpleasant it might be to sacrifice a child for the mother's continued survival, it too is sometimes necessary.

I see this anti-abortion kick as just an attempt by the moral tyrants to feel superior to people not in their club.

The bible doesn't even say life begins at conception. Disagree? Find me a single quote that implies it. The classic position of the church was that life begins when the mother is aware of movement. The Pope once declared it began 40 days after conception, and the bible says 'The life is in the blood' -- and babies don't have blood until a couple weeks after conception.

This myth that destroying a just-conceived embryo -- a small collection of hardly differentiated cells -- is the same as killing a human being, is a lie perpetuated solely for the purpose of helping some people feel morally superior to other people.

What if a child is genetically screened and known, for a fact, to have Tay-Sachs disease? Those religious extremists can feel real great about themselves, as they watch the baby slowly and painfully degenerate and die before the age of two.

My position on when life begins? If it's not sentient, it's not human. And babies don't become sentient until the fetal stage. It's my capacity to think that makes me human -- not just my genes.

Well, to be fair, technically the government can temporarily take control of a man's body and force its use for warmaking. We don't consider that slavery. We consider that conscription.

The government doesn't take control of the man's body. They may take him into custody, but his body is still his own throughout the process, as is any soldier's. The soldier is free (if he is able) to make his own medical decisions , to eat what he likes (presuming it is available where he is), to drink when not on-duty, etc. This may be considered close to slavery, but it is not the same as taking actual control over the body of another.

Yes. In as much as being forced to sell your property makes you nothing more than a serf to the duke of the land, being forced to not evict tenants equally makes you a slave. Simply because we don't like the words doesn't mean that they aren't enforceable.

No, neither of those two things comes even close to slavery. Slavery is the ownership of another human being's body. In neither of those cases does the government claim ownership of your body - simply control over what you do with your land.

...
What if a child is genetically screened and known, for a fact, to have Tay-Sachs disease? Those religious extremists can feel real great about themselves, as they watch the baby slowly and painfully degenerate and die before the age of two.
...

Perhaps they will be genetically screened to see if it's a boy or girl, keep one abort the other. Perhaps they will be screened to see if it's more likely to be a Blonde/Blue or a brown/brown, keep one and abort the other. Perhaps someday we will be able to screen for left-handed right-handed tendencies and breed our own baseball teams, aborting the players we don't need. Perhaps we will be able to screen prospective mothers and fathers and resulting children combinations for heterosexuality or homosexuality, or conservative type mind tendencies or liberal leaning tendencies.

The point is, the mere existence of genetic screening implies that a future result is knowable. If it is 'measurable' to some degree it is thus knowable to some extent. If it can be measured and gauged, how can it then be claimed to not exist? If it doesn’t exist, then what did you measure?

...
No, neither of those two things comes even close to slavery. Slavery is the ownership of another human being's body. In neither of those cases does the government claim ownership of your body - simply control over what you do with your land.

You mean slave ownership, like having the very right to determine life or death for the person you own?

I'll refer that argument back to something in the OP and 'slavery' arguments in general.

Consider the pro-choice argument:

The whole difficulty is manufactured by a small religiously based minority trying to impose its morality on everybody else. The Evangelical congregation’s preachers draw huge crowds with their anti-choice sermons and propaganda, but theirs is not the only Christian view.

In the other camp, different denominations strongly support a person's right to freedom of choice. Who are the anti-choicers and their fanatic minions to impose their own views on so many other unwilling citizens?

The law does not say that a person must get an abortion. It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.

The anti-choice forces say that a fetus is a full human being with all the rights of everyone else. The Supreme Court says otherwise. In the (Roe vs. Wade) decision, the court clearly stated that fetus are not equal and that the unborn are not entitled to full civil rights. If the anti-choice forces are allowed to alter the Constitution or the courts to change, will any of our rights be safe? If they can take away the right to get an abortion, they can take away any right. It is a Pandora's box to change the Constitution or overturn established legal precedent.

Now consider the pro-choice argument from it’s original content (circa 1859):

The whole slavery question is just a matter of a small religiously based minority trying to impose its morality on everybody. The northern Congregationalist, Unitarian and Quaker preachers draw huge crowds with their anti-choice sermons, but theirs is not the only Christian view.

In the south, the Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist denominations strongly support a person's right to own slaves. Who are Henry Ward Beecher and his fellow agitators to impose their own views on so many other unwilling Christians?

The law does not say that a person must own slaves. It is a matter of choice. Those who believe slavery is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.

The anti-choice forces say that a slave is a full human being with all the rights of white people. The Supreme Court says otherwise. In the Dred Scott decision, the court clearly stated that Negroes are not equal and that slaves are not entitled to full civil rights. If the anti-choice forces are allowed to alter the Constitution to change Dred Scott, will any of our rights be safe? If they can take away the right to own slaves, they can take away any right. It is a Pandora's box to change the Constitution or overturn established legal precedent.

The point is, the mere existence of genetic screening implies that a future result is knowable. If it is 'measurable' to some degree it is thus knowable to some extent. If it can be measured and gauged, how can it then be claimed to not exist? If it doesn’t exist, then what did you measure?

You measured the potential. I can write a piece of computer code - lets say a horrible virus that would wipe out a great deal of infrastructure, but never run it. I can still say what it would have done, had I run it, because I can see what it codes for.

Does that mean that, by looking at the code, I must have already committed a terrorist action?


You mean slave ownership, like having the very right to determine life or death for the person you own?

I'll refer that argument back to something in the OP and 'slavery' arguments in general.

You mean the spurious argument that has nothing to do with reality as no one is suggesting that an embryo is a person that is owned?

You measured the potential. I can write a piece of computer code - lets say a horrible virus that would wipe out a great deal of infrastructure, but never run it. I can still say what it would have done, had I run it, because I can see what it codes for.

Does that mean that, by looking at the code, I must have already committed a terrorist action?

Yes. You are not allowed to sell the plans for a nuclear device, for example, to another foreign entity, and it could be declared illegal to write and own a virus designed to cripple the military defense systems making America vulnerable to an attack, even if you don't use it.

You mean the spurious argument that has nothing to do with reality as no one is suggesting that an embryo is a person that is owned?

I am suggesting it. And you call it 'spurious' only because you disagree, not because you think the mother doesn't have the right to choose life and death for it, because you do think the mother has the right to choose life or death for it because you say it is not fully human... the same as the slave argument was that the 'other' was less than a whole.

Roe v. Wade does need to be amended and I don't see any reason whatsoever for a Partial Birth Abortion. Heck, even congress voted for it overwhelmingly because it is a barbaric procedure.

To me abortion should only be done in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. That is my own personal belief.

I believe you mean an Intact D&X. "Partial Birth Abortion" isn't valid medical terminology.

And, by "should only be done", do you mean it should be illegal otherwise, or you just don't think it should be done?

Yes. You are not allowed to sell the plans for a nuclear device, for example, to another foreign entity, and it could be declared illegal to write and own a virus designed to cripple the military defense systems making America vulnerable to an attack, even if you don't use it.

...which doesn't answer my question. According to you, if I have written it, I have already used it, or I couldn't possibly know what it will do.

I am suggesting it.

You think an embryo is a person owned by the mother? That's a rather odd viewpoint.

And you call it 'spurious' only because you disagree, not because you think the mother doesn't have the right to choose life and death for it, because you do think the mother has the right to choose life or death for it because you say it is not fully human... the same as the slave argument was that the 'other' was less than a whole.

The mother doesn't "choose life or death for it." She chooses to stay pregnant or end her pregnancy. She chooses what her own body will or will not be used for. If a fetus has reached the point at which is it biologically alive, it's death is still not the purpose of an abortion - the removal of an unwanted growing object in the woman's body is.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see an objective definition of human person that includes embryos but does not include kidneys.

...which doesn't answer my question. According to you, if I have written it, I have already used it, or I couldn't possibly know what it will do.

No, you suggest I'm saying something I have not said. I said you can know what it is because in some form, it already does exists. In the case of the virus, you are reading code without running it. In the case of a fetus in the womb, you are measuring code that is actively already running.


You think an embryo is a person owned by the mother? That's a rather odd viewpoint.

I think the end result of the community standard as it is applied today, is that a mother can choose life of death for it. And therefore, it is the same as ownership of it. The bill in South Dakota appears to be arguing that the entity in the womb is it's own entity and therefore cannot be property of the mother...


The mother doesn't "choose life or death for it." She chooses to stay pregnant or end her pregnancy. She chooses what her own body will or will not be used for. If a fetus has reached the point at which is it biologically alive, it's death is still not the purpose of an abortion - the removal of an unwanted growing object in the woman's body is.

IMO, the end result is the same. Intent to kill is not a necessary ingredient to being guilty of negligent manslaughter, for example.


Meanwhile, I have yet to see an objective definition of human person that includes embryos but does not include kidneys.

Rather, we should not need to define a 'human,' for fear that someone might be left out, it is better to be inclusive rather than membership limiting in such matters. For fear we will fall short like our forefathers trying to limit it to only white, male, landowners...

You think an embryo is a person owned by the mother? That's a rather odd viewpoint.
An embryo is certainly owned by the mother. It's not a person, however. You're not allowed to own people in America, that would be slavery.


The mother doesn't "choose life or death for it." She chooses to stay pregnant or end her pregnancy. She chooses what her own body will or will not be used for.
I would say she chooses both.


If a fetus has reached the point at which is it biologically alive, it's death is still not the purpose of an abortion - the removal of an unwanted growing object in the woman's body is.
A fetus is always alive. It's alive when it's an embryo, a zygote, and two gametes. But you're right that causing its death is not the primary function of an abortion. It's not even a necessary function; you can abort a pregnancy where the fetus has already died.


Meanwhile, I have yet to see an objective definition of human person that includes embryos but does not include kidneys.
I don't think we'll find any objective definition of "person" that ever includes embryos, or kidneys, since neither are sentient beings.

The bill in South Dakota appears to be arguing that the entity in the womb is it's own entity and therefore cannot be property of the mother...

That sounds like a rather silly assertion.

A fetus is of course a separate entity. So is a tapeworm. So is a rock.

But what do you mean by "it's [sic] own entity"? By "it's", I'm assuming you mean "its", implying possession.

An object cannot possess itself. Only sentient beings are capable of ownership. A fetus is owned by the woman carrying it.

No, you suggest I'm saying something I have not said. I said you can know what it is because in some form, it already does exists. In the case of the virus, you are reading code without running it. In the case of a fetus in the womb, you are measuring code that is actively already running.

Not really. If you measure for a disease, for instance, the "code", as it were, may not already be running. All of your DNA is not being used all of the time, just like all of the code on my computer is not being used all the time.


Rather, we should not need to define a 'human,' for fear that someone might be left out, it is better to be inclusive rather than membership limiting in such matters. For fear we will fall short like our forefathers trying to limit it to only white, male, landowners...

But the logical conclusion of trying to be so inclusive is that organs must be counted as human beings. Thus, we cannot transplant a heart from person to person without first getting its permission....


I would say she chooses both.

If I choose to drive my car down the road, and the end result is that a bird that flies into my winshield dies, did I choose to kill a bird?

A fetus is always alive. It's alive when it's an embryo, a zygote, and two gametes.

Not really true. A fetus' cells are alive. An embryo's cells are alive. But a fetus, as an entity, cannot be considered to be alive, or, perhaps more clearly, a life, until it, as an entity, meets all the requirements therein.

My heart cells are alive, but my heart is not, in and of itself, a life.

I don't think we'll find any objective definition of "person" that ever includes embryos, or kidneys, since neither are sentient beings.

So person, by your definition, hinges on sentience. The same is not true for all who would seek to define it.

If I choose to drive my car down the road, and the end result is that a bird that flies into my winshield dies, did I choose to kill a bird?
It depends upon whether or not you were aware that your decision to drive your car down the road would end with a bird flying into your windshield.

If you were aware that driving your car would kill a bird, you chose both actions. If you were not aware, you only chose to drive your car, and the bird dying is what is called an "accident".


My heart cells are alive, but my heart is not, in and of itself, a life.
Your heart cells are alive. Your heart is alive. Whether or not your heart is "a life" is entirely dependent upon what we wish to define "a life" to be, but, honestly, "a life" is far too vague a term to be of any meaningful use in this discussion.


So person, by your definition, hinges on sentience. The same is not true for all who would seek to define it.
Of course it does. If there is some other internally logically consistent method of defining one, I'd love to hear it.

Some people think a zygote is a "person" because it has a "soul". These people are usually called religious, and such illogic is of very little relevence in a scientific debate.

Other people think that a pile of wombat feces is a "person" because New Jersey was founded by a giant purple spoon named Harold. These people are usually called insane. This carries about as much logical merit as religion, but is generally more amusing.

"No, they aren't human, because humans are rational, and a fetus isn't. It may eventually, barring any unforseen chance, become rational, but we don't base our notion of rights on the potential for rationality, but on the actual state of having it. This is precisely why, despite the fact that barring any unforseen chance a six year-old someday will have the capacity to vote, we don't allow a six-year old to vote."

Does this mean that we should allow a six-year old to be killed? Or how about a fully grown man with no mental capacity? Is he not human? Should be be allowed to kill him?

Your logic sucks, perhaps you also, should not be considered human.

Does this mean that we should allow a six-year old to be killed? Or how about a fully grown man with no mental capacity? Is he not human? Should be be allowed to kill him?

A six-year-old is, to my knowledge, a sentient being.

As for this fully-grown man with no mental capacity... NO mental capacity? Are you referring to a brain-dead body? Because, sure, theres's nothing wrong with killing a brain-dead body. As for him being human, I think that's implied when you used the word "man", but I see no way in which his species is relevent to this topic.

The government doesn't take control of the man's body. They may take him into custody, but his body is still his own throughout the process, as is any soldier's. The soldier is free (if he is able) to make his own medical decisions , to eat what he likes (presuming it is available where he is), to drink when not on-duty, etc. This may be considered close to slavery, but it is not the same as taking actual control over the body of another.

You don't want to go down this road. If I injure myself through negligence I can be charged with damage to government PROPERTY. Your life and body is not your own. You are charged with caring for yourself and conducting yourself according to government standards every hour of every day throughout your tour. Honestly, I've seen NJP for getting sunburned because the guy was able to do his duty. The government has as much control of your body as they do in a pregnancy. The major difference being that a pregnancy does not bestow them with the right to order you to stand on your head or shower with other men or whatnot like they can in the military (assuming we are still suggesting women are not allowed abortions).

No, neither of those two things comes even close to slavery. Slavery is the ownership of another human being's body. In neither of those cases does the government claim ownership of your body - simply control over what you do with your land.

This I agree with.

honestly, "a life" is far too vague a term to be of any meaningful use in this discussion.

On the contrary... that is arguably the very crux of the debate. And, if the anti-abotionist agenda fails to show that human living tissue is 'a life'... then their whole argument is invalid.

On the other hand, if they succeed in showing that human living tissue is 'a life'... they have to apply the same morality to cancer-treatment that they do to abortion.

Your logic sucks, perhaps you also, should not be considered human.

You might want to consider debating the issues, rather than venting aggression. And, if you can't debate the issue without becoming enraged, you might want to pick a different thread to debate in.

Nope it isn't illegal at all. The Court has no enforcement power.
So the Supreme Court's rulings are nothing more than a voluntary guide for states? If this is the case, then why does anyone care about Roe vs Wade being overturned? They should just get their individual states to ban abortion.

Of course, the greatest tool to preventing Murder. You come here and kill someone we'll kill you. But I am not sure if we have actually gotten a chance to use it yet. The last guy to be sentenced to death killed himself. I think we have sentenced four people to death and as of yet zero have been killed. Well, there were the two horse thieves who were hanged about........ 120 years ago?
Think about what the words "sanctity" and "life" mean. The death penalty is inconsistent with all but the most selective kinds of sanctity of life.

So the Supreme Court's rulings are nothing more than a voluntary guide for states? If this is the case, then why does anyone care about Roe vs Wade being overturned? They should just get their individual states to ban abortion.

The power of the courts is that it can make it so a law cannot be enforced, but it doesn't make it illegal for them to try. It does however open them up to suits.

You might want to consider debating the issues, rather than venting aggression. And, if you can't debate the issue without becoming enraged, you might want to pick a different thread to debate in.

*leaves*

On the contrary... that is arguably the very crux of the debate. And, if the anti-abotionist agenda fails to show that human living tissue is 'a life'... then their whole argument is invalid.

On the other hand, if they succeed in showing that human living tissue is 'a life'... they have to apply the same morality to cancer-treatment that they do to abortion.

Exactly. The fact that a fetus and a cancerous tumor are virtually physically the same, and the fact that if "a life" can be applied to one, it can be applied to the other, is what I meant by the term being too vague.

*leaves*

Yes... I know, it can be pretty infuriating sometimes.

I've yet to see you actually (admit to) wishing death on someone, though.. :)

Exactly. The fact that a fetus and a cancerous tumor are virtually physically the same, and the fact that if "a life" can be applied to one, it can be applied to the other, is what I meant by the term being too vague.

Yes... it is too vague, I agree... and that is WHY it is central to the debate.

If abortion is about 'saving a life', as some seem to claim... then the point on which the WHOLE debate hinges, is that 'vague' phrasing.

South Dakota is full of crap.

South Dakota is full of crap.

The entire problem summed up in six words.

"No, they aren't human, because humans are rational, and a fetus isn't. It may eventually, barring any unforseen chance, become rational, but we don't base our notion of rights on the potential for rationality, but on the actual state of having it. This is precisely why, despite the fact that barring any unforseen chance a six year-old someday will have the capacity to vote, we don't allow a six-year old to vote."

Does this mean that we should allow a six-year old to be killed? Or how about a fully grown man with no mental capacity? Is he not human? Should be be allowed to kill him?

Your logic sucks, perhaps you also, should not be considered human.

Well, that's a first. I've been called stupid and illogical before, but never inhuman.

To answer your question directly: no, a six-year old should not be killed merely for being six-years old. If you look at my post, you will find that I argue that a six-year old shouldn't be able to vote because he's six years old. In other words, a six-year old's rationality entitles him to the right to life, but not yet to the right to participation in the political process. By extension, a fetus' complete lack of rationality until after the first trimester means that it has no absolute right to life, because that right is concurrent with the presence of rationality. It has no more "right to life" than a piece of broccoli or a Tupperware container, because its about as rational as either of those objects.

As for a fully-grown man with no mental capacity, I would assume that he's dead already, because fully-grown men rarely survive for long without higher brain function, and most things that remove all higher brain function also remove life. If you are talking about being in a permanent vegetative state, then the most compassionate thing we could do is to remove him from life support. Moreover, society has no obligation to maintain his life in such a condition, any more than it has an obligation to keep a man alive who can only survive if he must consume something rare and difficult to find.

Finally, if my logic sucks, I can only confess that it isn't my fault, because I'm pretty much reciting exactly what Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle wrote in the Summa Theologica and Metaphysica. Perhaps I should find other people to cite than the founder of logic and the most rigorous Christian theologian ever.*shrug*

Your view of life is as shallow. By your view, it is a third party, who is able to decide whether someone has logic, and thus, deserves life. People like Hitler use viewpoints like yours. Have you ever read Mien Kampf? He basically says that Jews are not the perfect specimen; that they are not as smart, or physically able as Germans, and thus, should be killed.

Who makes you the judge of whether a person, of any size, deserves life? I bet most people would have judged Helen Keller for being what you would call "already dead." Everyone, Every person that is alive, even if that existance is fragile, deserves their chance at life. Spend some time with a person with a mental handicap, even if their brain is completely useless by our definitions, there is something there that makes them human. They still somehow know when they've been touched.

Oh, on another note, I have been throught the foster care system, I've seen its troubles, and I am hoping to adopt soon myself. Life, in any form, is the option I would take if I had to go through it again. If you want me to share my stories I can. It wasn't great times, but I wouldn't trade the life that I have because of it, I'd rather endure hardship.

Your view of life is as shallow. By your view, it is a third party, who is able to decide whether someone has logic, and thus, deserves life. People like Hitler use viewpoints like yours. Have you ever read Mien Kampf? He basically says that Jews are not the perfect specimen; that they are not as smart, or physically able as Germans, and thus, should be killed.

Who makes you the judge of whether a person, of any size, deserves life? I bet most people would have judged Helen Keller for being what you would call "already dead." Everyone, Every person that is alive, even if that existance is fragile, deserves their chance at life. Spend some time with a person with a mental handicap, even if their brain is completely useless by our definitions, there is something there that makes them human. They still somehow know when they've been touched.

Oh, on another note, I have been throught the foster care system, I've seen its troubles, and I am hoping to adopt soon myself. Life, in any form, is the option I would take if I had to go through it again. If you want me to share my stories I can. It wasn't great times, but I wouldn't trade the life that I have because of it, I'd rather endure hardship.

Sorry, but this is hollow rhetoric, and no substance... not to mention, largely.... well, rubbish.

1) Helen Keller was deaf, blind and mute... I've never encountered any testimony that she was "already dead", or any kind of equivalent.

2) All that stuff about "still somehow know when they've been touched" is balderdash. Not only that, but unprovable.

3) "People like Hitler use viewpoints like yours"... flawed on SO many levels. Not least being that MANY of Hitler's viewpoints are commonly held by most civilised people.

4) "but I wouldn't trade the life that I have because of it"... Of course you wouldn't... but you wouldn't CARE, if you already HAD been aborted, so the point is moot.

can't anyone relize that it's not the mothers deceision to abort the baby. even though its her body, its not her descision. its the baby's. the only decision that the woman had was not taking the birth control and not telling john doe to put on a condom before getting it on with him:fluffle: . the only time abortion should be legal is in rape cases.

can't anyone relize that it's not the mothers deceision to abort the baby. even though its her body, its not her descision. its the baby's. the only decision that the woman had was not taking the birth control and not telling john doe to put on a condom:fluffle: . the only time abortion should be legal is in rape cases.
Following your "logic", there should be no distinction between being raped and consensual sex because it's about the baby. Furthermore the baby can't decide anything. So it is the woman's choice. Plus the "baby" is just a parasite that happens to be human.

Following your "logic", there should be no distinction between being raped and consensual sex because it's about the baby. Furthermore the baby can't decide anything. So it is the woman's choice. Plus the "baby" is just a parasite that happens to be human.
I happen to think that the only viable alternative to this isssue of abortion is to permit the woman, who is the one who has to carry and give birth to a child, the final say. But to call a baby a "parasite" is ... words fail me. :(

Following your "logic", there should be no distinction between being raped and consensual sex because it's about the baby. Furthermore the baby can't decide anything. So it is the woman's choice. Plus the "baby" is just a parasite that happens to be human.

Harsh but true.

I happen to think that the only viable alternative to this isssue of abortion is to permit the woman, who is the one who has to carry and give birth to a child, the final say. But to call a baby a "parasite" is ... words fail me. :(

A baby is not a parasite, a fetus is. I know it sounds cold but it is the medical definition.

I'm not arguing either for or against abortion here, I just want to make one observation: When people use the argument, "It's her body she can do whatever she wants with it." keep in mind that the law does not recognise an individual's unfettered right to do as s/he pleases with his/her own body. Consuming cocaine or prostituting oneself involves doing what one pleases with one's own body, yet most countries (including most Western countries) do not permit this.

A baby is not a parasite, a fetus is. I know it sounds cold but it is the medical definition.
That's why I wrote "baby". Since it isn't a baby till it leaves the womb.

That's why I wrote "baby". Since it isn't a baby till it leaves the womb.
To me it is. Apparently it is in certain points of the law as well. Killing a pregnant woman in certain States is a double murder. Performing an illegal cescerian section and running off with the baby is kidnapping ( as well as assault and battery and lots of other things ). Abusing a pregnant woman to the point where her baby is born prematurely and dies as a result is murder.

The argument doesn't hold water. So far as I'm concerned the only argument for abortion which does hold water is that, as a practical matter it has to be the right of the one who is pregnant to make the final decision.

I'm not arguing either for or against abortion here, I just want to make one observation: When people use the argument, "It's her body she can do whatever she wants with it." keep in mind that the law does not recognise an individual's unfettered right to do as s/he pleases with his/her own body. Consuming cocaine or prostituting oneself involves doing what one pleases with one's own body, yet most countries (including most Western countries) do not permit this.

And many people including myself argue that those laws such as drug laws are hypocritical and should go. Your right to swing your fist goes as far as your neighbors nose. So if we follow that line of thinking I see no reason why drug use should be criminalized especially since we have alcohol and tobacco legal and they cause as much if not more damage of some of the "Hard" drugs.

To me it is. Apparently it is in certain points of the law as well. Killing a pregnant woman in certain States is a double murder. Performing an illegal cescerian section and running off with the baby is kidnapping ( as well as assault and battery and lots of other things ). Abusing a pregnant woman to the point where her baby is born prematurely and dies as a result is murder.

The argument doesn't hold water. So far as I'm concerned the only argument for abortion which does hold water is that, as a practical matter it has to be the right of the one who is pregnant to make the final decision.
Yeah, but in many states, you don't get the double murder/kidnapping/2 assaults for the price of 1 thing until the third trimester at which time the fetus has a chance of living outside the woman's body. Before that, there is no physical life involved except the woman's. The fetus is part of the woman's body so harm to her fetus is harm to her.

It may be reasonable to say that abusing a pregnant woman until she miscarries in the 7th or 8th month can be murder of one party and assault & batter on the other party. But maybe abusing a woman until she miscarries in the 4th or 5th month should be merely destruction of property as well as assault & battery and both of those committed against just one party. I strongly disapprove of laws that apply murder and kidnapping to non-viable fetuses. They are not persons yet, so they cannot be victims of crimes against persons.

Yeah, but in many states, you don't get the double murder/kidnapping/2 assaults for the price of 1 thing until the third trimester at which time the fetus has a chance of living outside the woman's body. Before that, there is no physical life involved except the woman's. The fetus is part of the woman's body so harm to her fetus is harm to her.

It may be reasonable to say that abusing a pregnant woman until she miscarries in the 7th or 8th month can be murder of one party and assault & batter on the other party. But maybe abusing a woman until she miscarries in the 4th or 5th month should be merely destruction of property as well as assault & battery and both of those committed against just one party. I strongly disapprove of laws that apply murder and kidnapping to non-viable fetuses. They are not persons yet, so they cannot be victims of crimes against persons.
That's actually how it is here in the Netherlands. I believe there aren't even made any distinctions between any of the trimesters. The pregnant woman is just seen as one person.

That's actually how it is here in the Netherlands. I believe there aren't even made any distinctions between any of the trimesters. The pregnant woman is just seen as one person.
It seems to make such obvious sense, but the abortion debate in the States is not really about the facts of pregnancy. It is a religious argument. US prosecutors often exploit the debate in order to ratchet up the charges against violent offenders by applying rights to fetuses affected by violence, even if they would not apply rights to fetuses under any other circumstances. That is cynical and only hurts the rest of the abortion rights issue.

If you take a DNA test on a fetus, I can assure it will not match the mother's.
Irrelevant. The fetus is inside the woman. It is HER WOMB. She has ownership of it and all the contents therein. If she decides to eliminate the fetus, it is her right and no one has the right to interfere.

It's called "self-ownership". You might want to look into it.

People have made slaves one on another for millennia as well, but that's no excuse to continue the tradition heedlessly.
Outlawing abortion makes slaves of women.

i say good for south dakota because abortion is so wrong.when you get an abortion you are actually murdering a baby not just a substance inside your body.
Murder requires that the fetus has rights. Please demonstrate that a fetus has rights.

And you know what I find funny? Those who support the death penalty oppose abortion and those that support abortion hate the death penalty.

Both sides are hypocrits :D
Ummm...no. Only one is. Y'see: a fetus has no rights. There is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being. There is no such thing as the right to be an parasite.

This is an interesting debate going on here.

With that said, I will give my input.

First and foremost, abortion is about two main parties, the unborn and the mother.
No, it's only about one: the mother. She is the only one with rights.

[snip]


1) Some proponents state that the unborn is not a human at fetus stage. However, according to the Law of Biogenesis,
There is no such law.

None.

If there is, please find me a college-level biology textbook which states that there is such a thing.

But you won't be able to, as there is no such law.

[snip the rest, since it presumes that the fetus has rights, when in fact it does not]

Cute, but human beings are not "property".
Yes they are, insofar as each person is his or her own property.

Irrelevant. The fetus is inside the woman. It is HER WOMB. She has ownership of it and all the contents therein. If she decides to eliminate the fetus, it is her right and no one has the right to interfere.

It's called "self-ownership". You might want to look into it.

Well, technically, if the fetus was a live being and able to sustain its own life outside the woman's body, there would be no problem. The fact is, those anti-choice proponents think that, because the fetus needs the woman's body to grow and live, the woman should be forced to provide access to her womb for the fetus.

It's kinda like saying: "Hey, dude, you have two perfectly healthy kidneys. That other guy needs one, so I guess we'll just take it from you to give it to him."

This makes absolutely no sense. You can't force someone to throw away his body parts, even if it's to save somebody else who absolutely needs them to live.

You can try to convince that person to be generous and freely give blood or organs to save another's life, but you can't force it. Abortion is much the same: I think it's acceptable to try and propose the woman the alternative of birth and then adoption for the baby, but never should anyone other than that woman make the decisions regarding her own body.

Can the state assign you as a slave to another person? Can the state come to me and tell me that I have to perform service as a seeing eye person?
The state has, in many places and times, compelled people to serve in the military.

Well, technically, if the fetus was a live being and able to sustain its own life outside the woman's body, there would be no problem. The fact is, those anti-choice proponents think that, because the fetus needs the woman's body to grow and live, the woman should be forced to provide access to her womb for the fetus.
They believe the fetus has rights, specifically: property rights of the womb. They wish to have the woman be merely a vessel to carry the child, i.e. be a slave.



You can try to convince that person to be generous and freely give blood or organs to save another's life, but you can't force it. Abortion is much the same: I think it's acceptable to try and propose the woman the alternative of birth and then adoption for the baby, but never should anyone other than that woman make the decisions regarding her own body.
Mainly because it's her body--her property. No one else's.

Early-pregancy and emergency situation abortions need to stay legal.

I'm all for banning abortions (but only for women whose lives aren't being threatened, of course) in the later stages of pregnancy, though.

The government doesn't take control of the man's body. They may take him into custody, but his body is still his own throughout the process, as is any soldier's. The soldier is free (if he is able) to make his own medical decisions , to eat what he likes (presuming it is available where he is), to drink when not on-duty, etc. This may be considered close to slavery, but it is not the same as taking actual control over the body of another.
The man is forced (against his will) to serve in the military or be jailed.

How in the world is that NOT slavery?

They believe the fetus has rights, specifically: property rights of the womb. They wish to have the woman be merely a vessel to carry the child, i.e. be a slave.



Mainly because it's her body--her property. No one else's.

Basically, yes.

Forcing someone to do something s/he doesn't want with his/her body amounts to slavery. But I guess, in a way, this is worse than slavery: slavery implies that another human being is your superior and has ownership of your body in your stead. But in this case, it's not even a human being who has rights of ownership to the woman's body: an unborn clump of cells is seen as having superior rights over a woman.

I guess this tells much about anti-abortionnists view of women.

Murder requires that the fetus has rights. Please demonstrate that a fetus has rights.

Ummm...no. Only one is. Y'see: a fetus has no rights. There is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being. There is no such thing as the right to be an parasite.


If all they need is ‘rights,’ then the South Dakota bill will succeed because it grants them rights. I don’t know if it will actually end up being that easy though.

Right’s are arbitrary, rights and obligations to someone else can change and be redefined. Rights can be given to a group that hadn’t had them before, it’s happened periodically throughout American history. How many groups were excluded from ‘rights’ two hundred years ago, and how many of those groups have been given rights they didn’t have before granted to them since then?

Some day in the future, students learning history might view the granting of the ‘right to life’ in hindsight as simply yet another group being recognized as having rights they should have had all along. The fact that they don’t have rights now is not a valid argument. Lots of groups didn’t have rights, like African Americans being called three quarters of a human, constitutionally upheld by the SCOTUS, at one time. But they have since then been rightly granted recognition.

I think this law is a step in the right direction, however since it doesn't include cases for rape and incest, im against it. Make a law that allows for those curcumstances, and Im all for it.

Early-pregancy and emergency situation abortions need to stay legal.

I'm all for banning abortions (but only for women whose lives aren't being threatened, of course) in the later stages of pregnancy, though.

Well, I also have a tendency to agree with that. My reasoning is simple: it's simply much more humane this way. In the early stages of pregancy, it's only about a clump of cells, and clumps of cell can't feel pain, and have no nervous system at all.

A 6-month fetus is already well on his way to becoming a baby.

I would consider it simple common sense for a woman NOT to wait until the last damn minute to figure out if she wants to keep the baby or not.

But the time limit on pregnancies for abortions needs to be reasonable: after all, in the case of accidental pregnancies, the woman can sometimes be several months pregnant before she notices it. We must make sure those woman aren't "left behind" and forced into delivering to term a baby they never wanted.

If all they need is ‘rights,’ then the South Dakota bill will succeed because it grants them rights.
Rights cannot be granted. Only PERMISSION is granted. Rights are not.


Right’s are arbitrary, rights and obligations to someone else can change and be redefined.
Rights aren't arbitrary.


Rights can be given to a group that hadn’t had them before,
No. They can merely be not stepped on anymore.


Some day in the future, students learning history might view the granting of the ‘right to life’ in hindsight as simply yet another group being recognized as having rights they should have had all along.
No, they won't. They will understand that it merely enslaves the woman.

If the fetus has rights, the woman has none. It's that simple.

Rights cannot be granted. Only PERMISSION is granted. Rights are not.

Rights aren't arbitrary.

...

Which rights are you talking about? Based on what? Outside of the law, with what authorities do I claim 'rights' exist if it is something outside of the law?

Which rights are you talking about?
Property rights. Self-ownership.


Based on what?
Hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals (which later are normally protected by laws).


Outside of the law, with what authorities do I claim 'rights' exist if it is something outside of the law?
http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_property_rights.html

Also, have a read (if you can find it in your local library) of his chapter on rights in his The Libertarian Idea.

I hate planned Parenthood. All they do is sit back and make a shit load of money for performing a procedure done by crappy doctors and than try and lie there way through the red tape. Than they call in the feminists who support planned parenthood 100% because planned parenthood is "Pro-Choice". Planned parenthood isn't pro-choice they are pro-money. There "Counselors" are told to coerce girls, teens, and young adults into having an abortion (which can cost you some good money). But the thing that pisses me off the most is in the begining of this post the article reads

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

When has planned parenthood ever cared about the safety and the health of women? They don't deal with the cases a women's life is in danger, the hospital does. And they cause millions of women every year to suffer through a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder called PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome)

"Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is characterized by severe depression, guilt, eating disorders, anxiety, anger, lower self-esteem, addictions, anniversary grief, etc., following a woman's abortion. While abortion advocates claim there's no such thing as PAS, PAS counselors say they have witnessed severe psychological trauma in women, regardless of the number of abortions they have had.

After a woman undergoes an abortion, despite her feelings prior to the operation, she often suffers from mental and emotional distress. The events and behavioral problems that occur as a result of these feelings are considered symptoms of Post Abortion Syndrome. Some of the events these women encounter, from the most frequent to infrequent, are:

- preoccupation with the aborted child
- flashbacks of the abortion experience
- feelings of "craziness"
- nightmares related to the abortion
- perceived visitation from the aborted child
- hallucinations related to the abortion"-Lovingly ripped off from www.postabortionsyndrome.com

You may try and believe that PAS doesn't exist, but it does.

In 2001, the U.S. Senate passed legislation funding PAS research by the National Institutes of Health.
The Senate is starting to recognize a growing problem. It's a strange day when the government sees something happening before the people of America do.

Property rights. Self-ownership.

Hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals (which later are normally protected by laws).

http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_property_rights.html

Also, have a read (if you can find it in your local library) of his chapter on rights in his The Libertarian Idea.

Ah, I see now. If the anti-choice side decides that they actually want to "win," according to the libertarian code of 'might makes right,' then they will simply have to build a bigger army than the groups that wants to have abortion-choice and dictate by force their will over the others.

IMO, that is not an objective goal worth striving for. Thankfully, we (Americans anyway) do not live in an anarchy, but a constitutional republic which allows us to moderate change forced by the ebb and flow of popular opinion through the political processes granted in it. So far so good.

Tell me when that anarchy non-government system gets started, we'll all have to choose which team we'll have to join then for our protection.

I think this law is a step in the right direction, however since it doesn't include cases for rape and incest, im against it. Make a law that allows for those curcumstances, and Im all for it.

It also doesn't make allowance for risk of harm to the 'mother'... which is, surely, the MOST important 'reason' for abortion?

Not to mention, without that clause, there is theoretically law ON THE BOOKS (Doe versus Bolton, I believe) that SHOULD have ALREADY killed the Bill.

I believe that the choice to have an abortion is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

This law also requires that abortion would be illegal even if the woman was raped by a stranger or a family member, or to protect the mother's health. I guess that would mean that once the woman was pregnant, there would be no further need for blood tests or even an amniocentesis? This all seems very bizarre to me.

I do believe that if such laws become acceptable by the SCOTUS then there will be even greater division in an already divided country.

"Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is characterized by severe depression, guilt, eating disorders, anxiety, anger, lower self-esteem, addictions, anniversary grief, etc., following a woman's abortion. While abortion advocates claim there's no such thing as PAS, PAS counselors say they have witnessed severe psychological trauma in women, regardless of the number of abortions they have had.

After a woman undergoes an abortion, despite her feelings prior to the operation, she often suffers from mental and emotional distress. The events and behavioral problems that occur as a result of these feelings are considered symptoms of Post Abortion Syndrome. Some of the events these women encounter, from the most frequent to infrequent, are:

- preoccupation with the aborted child
- flashbacks of the abortion experience
- feelings of "craziness"
- nightmares related to the abortion
- perceived visitation from the aborted child
- hallucinations related to the abortion"-Lovingly ripped off from www.postabortionsyndrome.com

You may try and believe that PAS doesn't exist, but it does.

You know, after browsing through that page and its links, I’m highly dubious. The page carries a very pro-life tone and links to religious pages. Hardly an unbiased source if you ask me.

Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time finding such a source myself. Most pages discussing PAS seems to be either pro-life or pro-choice. The best I can find is this (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000054E4.htm):

Assessments of the physical effects of abortion, and assessments of the relationship between abortion and a woman's emotional state, must be approached differently. The key to assessing the emotional impact of abortion on a woman's emotional state is context-dependence. Where a discussion is to be had of women's emotional responses to abortion, attention must be focused on the social and personal situation in which abortion takes place. It therefore to makes no sense to contend that abortion has a particular, uniform mental health outcome.

Unfortunately, in much discussion of women's feelings about abortion, there is a general failure to contextualise the decision to abort a pregnancy. Many reports do not consider age, marital status, wantedness of pregnancy, gestational age, previous reproductive history, or sociocultural setting. These and other characteristics can have a substantial effect on a woman's motivation and may also influence the risk of negative psychological consequences.

The most extreme example of a de-contextualised approach to the relationship between abortion and emotion is the claim made by opponents of abortion that women suffer from 'Post Abortion Syndrome'. In this approach, rather than paying attention to the context in which abortion decisions are made, a woman's emotions after an abortion are pathologised as a form of mental illness.

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) was initially described by Rue in 1981, in United States Congressional Testimony, as a variant of post-traumatic stress disorder. He claimed that psychological stressors were capable of causing post-traumatic-stress disorder and that: 'Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a specific type of post-traumatic stress disorder' (5). Subsequently, anti-abortion organisations in Britain adopted Rue's approach, and PAS has become a feature of anti-abortion arguments in British debate (6).

According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a disabling condition '...following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury' (7). Likely stressors cited by APA as examples of PTSD include military combat, violent personal assault, terrorist attack, and being held hostage. Notwithstanding the substantial difficulties associated with the PTSD diagnosis in general (8), it is quite a stretch to claim abortion as a stressor likely to induce PTSD.

One criterion for PTSD is experiencing '...an event that is outside the range of usual human experience and that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone' (9). Considering that around a third of British women will have an abortion at some point it can hardly be said that the abortion experience is outside the range of usual human experience. There has been no reported increase in public or private mental health services for women attributing their current psychological problems to abortion.

Many empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the emotional aftermath of abortion, and there is not space here to detail them all. In one example, reported in 1995 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, information was obtained about 13,261 British women, through volunteer GPs. This included age, marital status, social status and previous psychiatric and obstetric history. As a result, four comparison groups were obtained, of 6151 women who did not request abortion, 6410 who obtained an abortion, 379 who requested the operation but were refused and 37 who requested the abortion and changed their minds.

In this study, GPs were asked to record diagnoses of women they saw by grouping psychological or psychiatric disorders into three categories: major mental illness (including puerperal psychosis, schizophrenia, and manic depression), minor mental illness (depression, anxiety or other emotional disorders) and deliberate self-harm (drug overdoes, self cutting). Key findings reported were that in women with no past psychiatric histories there was no significant difference between comparison groups in rates of psychiatric illness; that women with a previous history of psychosis were more likely to experience a psychotic illness than those with no such history; and that termination of pregnancy did not appear to increase the risk (10).

In another, recent piece of research, Russo and Zierk reported findings from a US based 1992 study, which found that the wellbeing of 773 women, interviewed annually in a national sample of 5295 women, was unrelated to their abortion experience eight years earlier. The study considered many factors that can influence a woman's emotional wellbeing, including education, employment, income, the presence of a spouse, and the number of children. Higher self-esteem was associated with having a higher income, more years of education, and fewer children.

Women who had experienced an abortion in fact had a statistically significant higher global self-esteem rating than women who had never had an abortion. This difference was even greater when comparing aborting women with women delivering unwanted pregnancies (who had the lowest self-esteem). Women who had experienced repeat abortions did not differ in self-esteem from women who had never had an abortion. In all, the evidence confirmed earlier findings that factors other than the abortion experience itself determine postabortion emotional status. Some women continually reconstruct and reinterpret past events in the light of subsequent experience and can be pressured into feeling guilt and shame long afterwards (11).

In the light of the substantial amount of evidence against the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome, it is perhaps surprising that the claim for PAS retains any credibility. In part the continued debate about whether or not there is such a syndrome can be explained by the confusing degree of variation in the 'symptoms' that are said to be associated with the putative condition. As already noted, Rue claimed that PAS is a form of PTSD. As such it would constitute a severe psychiatric disorder. Yet if its occurrence could be measured on this basis, it would be found to be non-existent.

However, proponents of PAS tend to shift in their writings from a definition of the PAS 'symptoms' where the proposed comparison with PTSD is made clear, to a much broader collection of 'symptoms' that could perhaps more accurately be described as negative feelings (12). Rue has listed a wide range of feelings, and forms of behavior that he argues might be evident in women who have had an abortion. These include feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, sadness, sorrow, lowered self-esteem, distrust, regret, relationship disruption, communication impairment and/or restriction and self condemnation.

Associating this broad range of 'symptoms' with a diagnosis of PAS opens the door to claims that that large numbers of women may suffer from the syndrome. As the 'diagnostic criteria' for PAS become broader, it is easier to claim that many women may suffer from the 'syndrome'. A link between mild and severe psychological responses is generated: all become less serious versions of the same response. Feelings a woman might have after abortion, such as sadness or regret, are seen as a less serious version of a psychiatric disorder.

If an accurate assessment of the psychological effects of abortion is to be made, an approach which combines psychiatric illness with negative feeling is unacceptable. As Stotland argued in a 1992 Commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a symptom or a feeling is not equivalent to a disease (13). Some women who undergo abortion experience feelings of sadness, regret and loss, but this does not mean they are suffering from an illness.

In sum, for the vast majority of women, an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings and relief. The time of greatest stress is likely to be before the abortion decision is made.

Evidence from the research literature suggests that, in the aggregate, legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy does not pose a psychological hazard for most women. They tend to cope successfully and go on with their lives. There is no credible evidence for the existence of a post-abortion syndrome.

Bold emphasis is from the original article.

It depends upon whether or not you were aware that your decision to drive your car down the road would end with a bird flying into your windshield.

If you were aware that driving your car would kill a bird, you chose both actions. If you were not aware, you only chose to drive your car, and the bird dying is what is called an "accident".

Even if I was aware, it could be an accident. I might have really needed to get somewhere that day, and I hated it that the bird had to die, but damn, it did.

Your heart cells are alive. Your heart is alive. Whether or not your heart is "a life" is entirely dependent upon what we wish to define "a life" to be, but, honestly, "a life" is far too vague a term to be of any meaningful use in this discussion.

It is the very heart of the discussion of whether or not an embryo/fetus should be protected. If it is not a life, just like a human being is a life, it is not a human being - not a human person - and thus should receive all the legal protection of a tumor or heart.

That's actually how it is here in the Netherlands. I believe there aren't even made any distinctions between any of the trimesters. The pregnant woman is just seen as one person.
That would never work here in America. In my experience, most women, and almost all men consider the baby en utero as being a separate person. They talk to it, they play music for it, they sing to it, they buy it things, they redesign a room for it, even sometimes buy a new house in anticipation, etc.

Ah, I see now. If the anti-choice side decides that they actually want to "win," according to the libertarian code of 'might makes right,'
Blatant lie.

Please try again without the lie.

Your view of life is as shallow. By your view, it is a third party, who is able to decide whether someone has logic, and thus, deserves life. People like Hitler use viewpoints like yours. Have you ever read Mien Kampf? He basically says that Jews are not the perfect specimen; that they are not as smart, or physically able as Germans, and thus, should be killed.

Actually, it is your point of view that would lead to things like this. You think you can say, "X is a person because I think it is. No, I can't support that logically, it just is." This is logically no different from saying, "X is not a person because I do not think it is. No, I can't support that logically, it just is." Thus, your logic is *exactly* like saying, "Jews aren't human, because I say they aren't."

We, on the other hand, are looking for an objectively and logically defined marker for life - so that no subjective "I said so," gets put into law. Hitler could not objectively demonstrate that the Jews were in any way inferior, much less that they were inhuman - he just said so and people took his word. You want us to do the same for your definition - take it on nothing more than, "I said so."

Who makes you the judge of whether a person, of any size, deserves life?

Nothing. Now define person.

I bet most people would have judged Helen Keller for being what you would call "already dead."

That doesn't even make sense. Hellen Keller was a perfectly rational person and she met all the requirements of life. The only difference between her and any other person around her was that disease had made her deaf and blind.

Everyone, Every person that is alive, even if that existance is fragile, deserves their chance at life. Spend some time with a person with a mental handicap, even if their brain is completely useless by our definitions, there is something there that makes them human. They still somehow know when they've been touched.

You know a mentally handicapped person with a completely useless brain? You do realize that a completely useless brain would equate to brain death and thus the body would not know when it has been touched?

The man is forced (against his will) to serve in the military or be jailed.

How in the world is that NOT slavery?

Is it slavery that, if I steal from you, I go to jail? Is it slavery that I must either drive slow (unwillingly) or get fined or put in jail?

I think this law is a step in the right direction, however since it doesn't include cases for rape and incest, im against it. Make a law that allows for those curcumstances, and Im all for it

It doesn't make those exceptions because the only logical way to make those exceptions is to state that a woman doesn't have the right to have sex. You cannot logically say, "The embryo is a life, but a woman can kill it so long as she isn't a dirty whore who chose to have sex."

I hate planned Parenthood. All they do is sit back and make a shit load of money for performing a procedure done by crappy doctors and than try and lie there way through the red tape. Than they call in the feminists who support planned parenthood 100% because planned parenthood is "Pro-Choice". Planned parenthood isn't pro-choice they are pro-money. There "Counselors" are told to coerce girls, teens, and young adults into having an abortion (which can cost you some good money).

I call bullshit. I've been to PP - and not for an abortion. Abortion is hardly the sum total of all that they do and those that I have talked to who have gone there for unexpected pregnancies have not been coerced into anything. Their options were *all* explained and they made their own decisions. The, "I was coerced," line sounds like an excuse from women who made a difficult decision, and then wanted to lay the blame for its adverse effects on others.


Not to mention, without that clause, there is theoretically law ON THE BOOKS (Doe versus Bolton, I believe) that SHOULD have ALREADY killed the Bill.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The setting of precedent in the court does not automatically wipe out a law. Any legislature can still pass laws that break the guidelines set by the courts, and they stand until challenged in a court of law or until the legislature changes them in anticipation of such a challenge.

I hate planned Parenthood. All they do is sit back and make a shit load of money for performing a procedure done by crappy doctors and than try and lie there way through the red tape. Than they call in the feminists who support planned parenthood 100% because planned parenthood is "Pro-Choice". Planned parenthood isn't pro-choice they are pro-money. There "Counselors" are told to coerce girls, teens, and young adults into having an abortion (which can cost you some good money). But the thing that pisses me off the most is in the begining of this post the article reads

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

When has planned parenthood ever cared about the safety and the health of women? They don't deal with the cases a women's life is in danger, the hospital does. And they cause millions of women every year to suffer through a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder called PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome)

gee if you hate PP so much maybe you should be out there fighting for broader abortion rights. in many places PP is the only provider of early term abortions. those crappy doctors are the only ones trained to do abortions.

if all obgyns offered abortion services and all hospitals and womens clinics were required to do abortions, then PP wouldnt be an issue now would it?

and perhaps you should stop getting your info from anti-abortion groups. drop into a planned parenthood office on your own some time and see what its like and what they'll tell you.

Is it slavery that, if I steal from you, I go to jail? Is it slavery that I must either drive slow (unwillingly) or get fined or put in jail?

No except for the fact that you steal and break the speed limit voluntarily. So that doesn't hold water.

Actually, it is your point of view that would lead to things like this. You think you can say, "X is a person because I think it is. No, I can't support that logically, it just is." This is logically no different from saying, "X is not a person because I do not think it is. No, I can't support that logically, it just is." Thus, your logic is *exactly* like saying, "Jews aren't human, because I say they aren't."

We, on the other hand, are looking for an objectively and logically defined marker for life - so that no subjective "I said so," gets put into law. Hitler could not objectively demonstrate that the Jews were in any way inferior, much less that they were inhuman - he just said so and people took his word. You want us to do the same for your definition - take it on nothing more than, "I said so."

Your analogy is untraceably contradictory and makes no sense by saying the opposite things. Your analogy says: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill them." And, "the anti-choice side says, it IS human you can't kill it." Not at all similar.

The analogy only works if you say: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." And likewise, "Pro-Choice side says, so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." Those are the same. That's an analogy, they have to amount to the same thing in the end. Both resulting in the same action.

If you want an analogy for the WWII equivalent of the pro-life side it could be equated with something along the people that tried the hide individuals Jews in their attics and basements and cubbyholes trying to protect them from being discovered by the Nazi troops rounding up the citizens from the ghettos to send them off to the concentration camps.

Your analogy is untraceably contradictory and makes no sense by saying the opposite things. Your analogy says: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill them." And, "the anti-choice side says, it IS human you can't kill it." Not at all similar.

The analogy only works if you say: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." And likewise, "Pro-Choice side says, so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." Those are the same. That's an analogy, they have to amount to the same thing in the end. Both resulting in the same action.

If you want an analogy for the WWII equivalent of the pro-life side it could be equated with something along the people that tried the hide individuals Jews in their attics and basements and cubbyholes trying to protect them from being discovered by the Nazi troops rounding up the citizens from the ghettos to send them off to the concentration camps.
You should read more closely. It's not about the killing part, it's about the because I said so part.

You should read more closely. It's not about the killing part, it's about the because I said so part.


Then it is like, Hitler says the Jews are a parasite on the German People, like a fetus is a parasite in the womb of it's mother, thus, it is okay to to kill them both because "I said so."

As to the "I say so," stuff, both sides say: Because I say so, thus that doesn't work either, an analogy that doesn't differentiate anyone from anyone else is pointless and useless.

Ro vs. Wade was wrongly decided. The right to privacy was a loose interpretation of the freedom from propoerty search without warrant. The right to end a pregnancy was a loose interpretation of right to privacy.


The Fourth Ammendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." =/= Right to abortion.

Let this issue be decided democratically.

That would never work here in America. In my experience, most women, and almost all men consider the baby en utero as being a separate person. They talk to it, they play music for it, they sing to it, they buy it things, they redesign a room for it, even sometimes buy a new house in anticipation, etc.

Unless the fetus is unwanted and unplanned for...

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The setting of precedent in the court does not automatically wipe out a law. Any legislature can still pass laws that break the guidelines set by the courts, and they stand until challenged in a court of law or until the legislature changes them in anticipation of such a challenge.

I get that Doe v's Bolton isn't some kind of magic seal that prevents new law being opened... but it is being conspicuously absent in the debate. Surely, the 'right' order would be to revoke that precedent, before rolling out new law that ignores it?

And, if that were not done... how is it that no one is volunteering the precedent to question the current bill? After all... shouldn't precedent be a force in the shaping of new law, UNTIL that precedent is 'removed'?

Ro vs. Wade was wrongly decided. The right to privacy was a loose interpretation of the freedom from propoerty search without warrant. The right to end a pregnancy was a loose interpretation of right to privacy.


The Fourth Ammendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." =/= Right to abortion.

Let this issue be decided democratically.

You realise, of course, that 'deciding' the issue democratically' is almost a direct contrast to citing the constitution?

Either, you believe the issue is a Consititution issue, OR you believe it is up to 'the people'.

Regarding 'deciding the issue democratically'.... why? Why should the majority of the nation be able to decide what a woman does inside her own body? Would you not OPPOSE a 'democratic law' that dictated IF you were allowed to empty your bowels or bladder?

Your analogy is untraceably contradictory and makes no sense by saying the opposite things. Your analogy says: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill them." And, "the anti-choice side says, it IS human you can't kill it." Not at all similar.

The analogy only works if you say: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." And likewise, "Pro-Choice side says, so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill it." Those are the same. That's an analogy, they have to amount to the same thing in the end. Both resulting in the same action.

If you want an analogy for the WWII equivalent of the pro-life side it could be equated with something along the people that tried the hide individuals Jews in their attics and basements and cubbyholes trying to protect them from being discovered by the Nazi troops rounding up the citizens from the ghettos to send them off to the concentration camps.

Actually... the Nazi Party itself, since you are debating the subject, is, in many ways, a good parallel.

After all, the Nazi Party WAS 'pro-life'... for the Aryan 'people'.

Your view of life is as shallow. By your view, it is a third party, who is able to decide whether someone has logic, and thus, deserves life. People like Hitler use viewpoints like yours. Have you ever read Mien Kampf? He basically says that Jews are not the perfect specimen; that they are not as smart, or physically able as Germans, and thus, should be killed.

Who makes you the judge of whether a person, of any size, deserves life? I bet most people would have judged Helen Keller for being what you would call "already dead." Everyone, Every person that is alive, even if that existance is fragile, deserves their chance at life. Spend some time with a person with a mental handicap, even if their brain is completely useless by our definitions, there is something there that makes them human. They still somehow know when they've been touched.

Oh, on another note, I have been throught the foster care system, I've seen its troubles, and I am hoping to adopt soon myself. Life, in any form, is the option I would take if I had to go through it again. If you want me to share my stories I can. It wasn't great times, but I wouldn't trade the life that I have because of it, I'd rather endure hardship.

Well, until now, I would say that I am to judge in the same way any person is to judge: I am a rational being capable of making reasoned inferences about what is true and untrue about the world. Same as you, I would think.

Now, as for Helen Keller and Jews and the mentally handicapped, again you completely misinterpret what I said. Helen Keller had no use of her eyes and ears. The Jews were mistakenly assumed to have reduced capacity of their brain. The mentally handicapped really do have reduced mental capacity. If you look at what I said, I never said anything connecting "reduced capacity" or "blind and dumb" to "no need to respect fundamental human rights", which is what your argument requires. I connected "no rationality" with "no need to respect fundamental human rights". Helen Keller might have been blind and dumb, but her ability to connect hand signs with actual physical objects implies rationality. By extension, even if I were to agree with Hitler (which I do not) that Jews as a race have reduced mental faculties, it still does not follow that I should not respect their fundamental human rights. This whole line of thinking is essentially one long non-sequitur combined with an ad hominem attack.

I do believe that someone with no rational thought processes has no fundamental human rights, but I would think this would be trivially true: it's the same reason I don't attribute human rights to a stick of celery or a cat. If you read Aquinas and Christian scholastics, you'll note essentially the same line of thinking. A cat should not be unnecessarily hurt or injured, but it is of a fundamentally different kind of mentality, one incapable of using reason. Because of that, a cat or a stick of celery cannot be judged as coeval with a human being. Well, a six-week old fetus or a person in a permanent vegetative state is essentially in the same state as a stick of celery or a cat. As such, neither I nor Aquinas necessarily want to see them injured unnecessarily, but at the same time they shouldn't necessarily be treated with full-human rights, either.

Let me put it this way, in an example Christian Scholastics actually used. Suppose for instance that a man was still alive, but could only be kept so by consuming something rare and expensive. They used the example of starling eggs. If this were the case, do people as good Christians have an obligation to keep them alive by hunting down and providing those eggs? The answer was no: they are placing a burden upon society that cannot reasonably be met, and should not reasonably be expected. To carry that same example over today, I would say that it's fair to compare starling eggs with the modern life-support system required to keep a person in a permanent vegetative state alive. And mind you, the Christian scholastics were assuming that the man had rationality, whereas the man in that state does not. So I'm actually being far more generous than theologians deem necessary to be a good Christian.

I get that Doe v's Bolton isn't some kind of magic seal that prevents new law being opened... but it is being conspicuously absent in the debate. Surely, the 'right' order would be to revoke that precedent, before rolling out new law that ignores it?

I don't know about that. Doe's role isn't so much in safeguarding abortion rights overall as it is in rendering statutory restrictions on the practice meaningless with its expanded definition of health and absolute reliance on the abortionist's judgment of the situation.

If anything, Doe is being challenged by currently disputed Intact D&X ("Partial Birth Abortion") bans wherein the legislature includes a finding/declaration that the procedure is never medically necessary.

It's a challenge that's almost certain to fail, but in the greater scheme of things, it's not that important; if Roe is overturned, Doe loses pretty much all its legal force.

And, if that were not done... how is it that no one is volunteering the precedent to question the current bill? After all... shouldn't precedent be a force in the shaping of new law, UNTIL that precedent is 'removed'?

Not really. Precedent is a force in the *judicial* branch of government, but even there, its role is to be taken into account and then either applied, or (if there is sufficient stated reason) rejected.

It has no role in the *legislative* branch, save for projections of potential judicial review.

As I understand it now that the law has been passed anyone can appeal it through a low level court, and it will then, eventually, be carried up to the Supreme Court. This process could take about two years. Will the law remain in effect until the SC makes its descision or will it be repealed until then?

As I understand it now that the law has been passed anyone can appeal it through a low level court, and it will then, eventually, be carried up to the Supreme Court. This process could take about two years. Will the law remain in effect until the SC makes its descision or will it be repealed until then?
it should be set aside until it makes its way through the court system since it is completely outside current supreme court rulings

As I understand it now that the law has been passed anyone can appeal it through a low level court, and it will then, eventually, be carried up to the Supreme Court. This process could take about two years. Will the law remain in effect until the SC makes its descision or will it be repealed until then?

As I understand it, it will be law until a judge, very likely citing Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, strikes down the law. Then it remains off the books or unimplemented until one or the other side decides to let the matter stand. So essentially, until the Supreme Court either affirms or overturns the original decision of the lower court judge, or if the Supreme Court fails to hear the case, the same applies to the highest state court.

Thanks. :)

Ro vs. Wade was wrongly decided. The right to privacy was a loose interpretation of the freedom from propoerty search without warrant. The right to end a pregnancy was a loose interpretation of right to privacy.


The Fourth Ammendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." =/= Right to abortion.

Let this issue be decided democratically.

Your premises are wrong. The right to privacy and the right to abortion are based in the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I suggest you actually read Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 US 479 (1965), before making any further foolish assertions about the right to privacy.

I suggest you actually try reading Roe v. Wade (http://www.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113), 410 US 113 (1973). and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 US 833 (1992), before making any further foolish assertions about the right to abortion.

Finally, as to your hand-waving about democracy, that is why we have a Cosntitution. These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

As I understand it, it will be law until a judge, very likely citing Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, strikes down the law. Then it remains off the books or unimplemented until one or the other side decides to let the matter stand. So essentially, until the Supreme Court either affirms or overturns the original decision of the lower court judge, or if the Supreme Court fails to hear the case, the same applies to the highest state court.

This is basically correct. The law is unlikely to ever actually take effect because it will undoubtedly be stayed by a state or federal court immediately.

Assuming a federal district court hears the issue first, it would rule on the law. Given existing precedent, it would most certainly overturn the law.

Then the case can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They can affirm or reverse the lower court. (Again, they are likely to affirm. Even if they reverse, they may put a stay on the law.)

The Supreme Court can then be appealed to, but the Supreme Court need not hear the appeal. Only a tiny fraction of cases appealed to the Supreme Court are granted review. (If SCOTUS doesn't review, then the Court of Appeals decision is the last word on the subject.)

You guys sure have a fucked up system if you can't even agree on what the law says.:D

I hate planned Parenthood. All they do is sit back and make a shit load of money for performing a procedure done by crappy doctors and than try and lie there way through the red tape. Than they call in the feminists who support planned parenthood 100% because planned parenthood is "Pro-Choice". Planned parenthood isn't pro-choice they are pro-money. There "Counselors" are told to coerce girls, teens, and young adults into having an abortion (which can cost you some good money). But the thing that pisses me off the most is in the begining of this post the article reads

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

When has planned parenthood ever cared about the safety and the health of women? They don't deal with the cases a women's life is in danger, the hospital does. And they cause millions of women every year to suffer through a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder called PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome)

"Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is characterized by severe depression, guilt, eating disorders, anxiety, anger, lower self-esteem, addictions, anniversary grief, etc., following a woman's abortion. While abortion advocates claim there's no such thing as PAS, PAS counselors say they have witnessed severe psychological trauma in women, regardless of the number of abortions they have had.

After a woman undergoes an abortion, despite her feelings prior to the operation, she often suffers from mental and emotional distress. The events and behavioral problems that occur as a result of these feelings are considered symptoms of Post Abortion Syndrome. Some of the events these women encounter, from the most frequent to infrequent, are:

- preoccupation with the aborted child
- flashbacks of the abortion experience
- feelings of "craziness"
- nightmares related to the abortion
- perceived visitation from the aborted child
- hallucinations related to the abortion"-Lovingly ripped off from www.postabortionsyndrome.com

You may try and believe that PAS doesn't exist, but it does.

In 2001, the U.S. Senate passed legislation funding PAS research by the National Institutes of Health.
The Senate is starting to recognize a growing problem. It's a strange day when the government sees something happening before the people of America do.

And so far the National Institutes of Health have reported that PAS is non-existent.

As does the AMA, the APA, and the Surgeon General.

If millions of women each year suffer from PAS, it is remarkable that they hide it so well.

It is a condition invented by the anti-choice lobby. Studies show that, although some women experience adverse psychological effects after abortion, fewer do than suffer adverse psychological effects after childbirth. It is not a reason to have an abortion, but abortion is demonstrably safer than childbirth.

This is basically correct. The law is unlikely to ever actually take effect because it will undoubtedly be stayed by a state or federal court immediately.

Assuming a federal district court hears the issue first, it would rule on the law. Given existing precedent, it would most certainly overturn the law.

Then the case can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They can affirm or reverse the lower court. (Again, they are likely to affirm. Even if they reverse, they may put a stay on the law.)

The Supreme Court can then be appealed to, but the Supreme Court need not hear the appeal. Only a tiny fraction of cases appealed to the Supreme Court are granted review. (If SCOTUS doesn't review, then the Court of Appeals decision is the last word on the subject.)

I was under the impression that since this is a state law, it will progress through the state rather than Federal Circuit. If true, it means it will go to the State Supreme Court and then to the Supreme Court rather than the 8th. Of course, I'm not sure whether the fact that the state law is in conflict with federal law means state or federal appelate courts have jurisdiction.

Is it slavery that, if I steal from you, I go to jail?
Blatantly false analogy. Please try again. This time: THINK!

Ro vs. Wade was wrongly decided. The right to privacy was a loose interpretation of the freedom from propoerty search without warrant.
AFAIK, it was based on the 9th Amendment.


Let this issue be decided democratically.
NO! You do not ever, under any fucking circumstances, put rights to a vote. For then they are not rights: they are permissions.

That would never work here in America. In my experience, most women, and almost all men consider the baby en utero as being a separate person. They talk to it, they play music for it, they sing to it, they buy it things, they redesign a room for it, even sometimes buy a new house in anticipation, etc.
They are play-acting in anticipation of something they hope will happen. Singing to your fetus is just like singing to your plants. It doesn't mean that you will grant either the fetus or the plants legal rights. A lot of those eager, hopeful couples would still choose to abort that longed-for fetus if it turned out the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life due to some unforeseen condition.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

I don't think so.

Even as a pro choice supporter. I like this.

I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I strongly support the bill. That's a life inside of you, fool! That's a life! If you choose to have sex with someone you don't really care about, or if you aren't ready for a kid, you shouldn't be doing it! Look, there's no shame in giving the child up if you aren't able to support it--in doing so, you're releasing the child from poverty, and that's an hororable thing to do. Where's the problem? Here in Houston, we have a program that allows a woman to take her newborn to any fire station and leave it in their care, no questions asked. That's far, far better than killing your child.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.


Only it's not, and people only beleive it to be because they don't know the difference between a living human being, and a thoughtless, feelingless, inhuman fetus.

I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I strongly support the bill. That's a life inside of you, fool! That's a life! If you choose to have sex with someone you don't really care about, or if you aren't ready for a kid, you shouldn't be doing it! Look, there's no shame in giving the child up if you aren't able to support it--in doing so, you're releasing the child from poverty, and that's an hororable thing to do. Where's the problem? Here in Houston, we have a program that allows a woman to take her newborn to any fire station and leave it in their care, no questions asked. That's far, far better than killing your child.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
All right, here we go again. List of questions pertaining to your point of view:

1. If I get raped, should I be forced to carry my rapist's child?

2. If I and my husband used birth control because we didn't want to have children, but the birth control failed, should we both be forced to have a child we specifically did not want to have?

3. If I have a medical condition that puts me at high risk of death if I try to carry a pregnancy to term, and my birth control fails, should I be forced to risk death against my will?

4. If I am pregnant and wanted to be pregnant but suffer an illness or injury (like in a car accident) that damages me so much that my body can't support *both* me and my fetus, should both of us be forced to die rather than allow me to abort my pregnancy?

Think it through, friend. The abortion debate is a lot less shallow than your post.

Only it's not, and people only beleive it to be because they don't know the difference between a living human being, and a thoughtless, feelingless, inhuman fetus.

No, the invent a spirit which takes the place of both. That way you can take the value away from actual human life and make completely biased subjective valuations of somebody else's life without feeling guilty about it.

I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I strongly support the bill. That's a life inside of you, fool! That's a life! If you choose to have sex with someone you don't really care about, or if you aren't ready for a kid, you shouldn't be doing it! Look, there's no shame in giving the child up if you aren't able to support it--in doing so, you're releasing the child from poverty, and that's an hororable thing to do. Where's the problem? Here in Houston, we have a program that allows a woman to take her newborn to any fire station and leave it in their care, no questions asked. That's far, far better than killing your child.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

so you feel that the fertilized egg should be declared a legal person so that the destructon of this "person" would qualify as murder? or would it be a bit later ....say at implantation... or maybe a bit later yet...when the mother feels the baby move.... or perhaps when the fetus would life if removed from the mother...oh no that would obviously be too late for you...

so at what point do you want the states hands in your pants? the state has a vested interest in keeping track of "persons" and making sure of their health and welfare.

SOOO the state would need to find out as soon as that egg is fertilized. why? because if the woman goes out to have a drink she might kill this newly made person. its not like she KNOWS she is carrying a person.

really, in order for the state to keep track of potential people, you should have to register EVERY TIME you have sex so that the state can check on the welfare of that potential person you might have just created. every woman of child bearing potential would need to be kept track of and her sex habits monitored.

its not like now when a fetus isnt a person until it is born. THEN its easy for the state to see that the baby is still alive. if there is doubt, the mother can be required to produce the living baby. if a fertilized egg is a person, the state is going to have to be much more invasive in order to confirm the health of this precious baby.

the pill, the iud, the morning after pill will all have to be banned, they prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg (or whatever its called just before it implants). only methods that prevent the meeting of sperm and egg can be used. the rate of unwanted pregnancy increases drastically.

Muravyets: I'm not going to disagree with your assertation that my post was shallow. You're right, it was. I may disagree with you regarding a particular topic, but 99.999% of the time I'm willing to accept the fact that an opposing argument has some sort of merit, even if it's only in the eyes of the person holding that particular opinion. I consider myself open-minded, but I simply cannot see the merit of killing your unborn child, especially not when there are people willing to give your child a chance to live. Allow me to answer your first two questions:


1. If I get raped, should I be forced to carry my rapist's child?
Rape is a terrible, horrible thing I sincerely hope no woman ever has to go through. I have seen the effects of rape: I believe "shattered" is the best way to describe the psyche of a woman who has been violated. There are two victims, though: the woman, and her unborn child. The woman will ultimately live through a rape... but what about her child? Is it not better to carry the child--however grossly conceived--and give it to a willing couple, rather than flushing it away? You've countered a terrible rape with joy in the heart of a childless couple.

2. If I and my husband used birth control because we didn't want to have children, but the birth control failed, should we both be forced to have a child we specifically did not want to have?
My litte sister had this happen to her: her boyfriend was using protection, but it failed. She's only 23, and when she found out she was pregnant she freaked out--I mean, she went crazy. She didn't know what to do. Her boyfriend certainly didn't expect a kid, but he remembered he was a man and married her back in October. Now she's seven months along and thankful she didn't kill little Dennis Michael. And so is he.

I cannot fairly answer your last two questions because, while I am completely against abortion, I am not in the shoes of the people in those situations. Which life do you value the most, yours or your baby's? How do you choose? How can you chose?

I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I strongly support the bill. That's a life inside of you, fool! That's a life! If you choose to have sex with someone you don't really care about, or if you aren't ready for a kid, you shouldn't be doing it!
Perhaps, but that's no reason to force a woman to carry something inside her that she doesn't want.

If abortion is murder, please prove that a fetus has rights. That's the ONLY way you can make that claim.

Muravyets: I'm not going to disagree with your assertation that my post was shallow. You're right, it was. I may disagree with you regarding a particular topic, but 99.999% of the time I'm willing to accept the fact that an opposing argument has some sort of merit, even if it's only in the eyes of the person holding that particular opinion. I consider myself open-minded, but I simply cannot see the merit of killing your unborn child, especially not when there are people willing to give your child a chance to live. Allow me to answer your first two questions:



Rape is a terrible, horrible thing I sincerely hope no woman ever has to go through. I have seen the effects of rape: I believe "shattered" is the best way to describe the psyche of a woman who has been violated. There are two victims, though: the woman, and her unborn child. The woman will ultimately live through a rape... but what about her child? Is it not better to carry the child--however grossly conceived--and give it to a willing couple, rather than flushing it away? You've countered a terrible rape with joy in the heart of a childless couple.


My litte sister had this happen to her: her boyfriend was using protection, but it failed. She's only 23, and when she found out she was pregnant she freaked out--I mean, she went crazy. She didn't know what to do. Her boyfriend certainly didn't expect a kid, but he remembered he was a man and married her back in October. Now she's seven months along and thankful she didn't kill little Dennis Michael. And so is he.

I cannot fairly answer your last two questions because, while I am completely against abortion, I am not in the shoes of the people in those situations. Which life do you value the most, yours or your baby's? How do you choose? How can you chose?
So your answer to my first question is yes, the woman should be forced to carry the child of her rapist, even if she doesn't want to. I cannot under any circumstances agree with that view but I'm not going to try to argue you out of it except to point out that it shows what I consider to be an extreme lack of compassion for the victims of rape.

As for the second question, I'm happy for your little sister, but a personal anecdote serves only to illustrate a point, not to carry a line of argument. Your sister's experience is not the world's experience. If you are going to argue in favor of a law that will affect all people, you need to look beyond your own personal circle.

And because of that, I want to encourage you to try and imagine the circumstances of my other two questions because these are circumstances that occur and are affected by the abortion debate.

Also try to imagine the circumstances of a sick or injured woman who must consider not only herself and her fetus, but also other children of hers who already exist and will become orphans if she dies. Or the circumstances of a poor family who can feed the two children they already have and planned but not a third child they were trying to prevent with birth control. Or the circumstances of a woman who isn't as lucky as your sister and does not have a man who will step up and do right by her. Or a woman who is of a race that is out of fashion for adoption (because, you know, there are so many takers for black children in the US).

And there's one more point I'd like you to consider: In your first post, which I guess you're now disavowing, you characterized abortion as the self-centered choice of heartless women who don't care about their children. But if, as you encourage, women come to care enough about children to carry them for 9 months and then give birth to them -- taking on all the risks and costs of that, too -- what makes you think those same women will be heartless enough to just give up those children to strangers and never think of them again? You can't have it both ways. Women either care or they don't. You can't denounce them for aborting their pregnancies but praise them for abandoning their children.

Finally, you ask "How can you choose?", implying that you think it should be impossible for a woman to value her own life over her fetus's. I would counter that with "How can you choose?", meaning how can you presume to choose what I should do with my body and my life? Because we're not discussing personal choices here. We are discussing a law which would prohibit my personal choice and strip me of any right of self-determination.

Ummm...no. Only one is. Y'see: a fetus has no rights. There is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being. There is no such thing as the right to be an parasite.

:rolleyes:

My personal belief is: if it was ur fault, it was ur fault. Obviously if u were raped it is not your fault. Birth the child and put it up for adoption if it was ur fault. If it wasn't it is her choice what to do with her body.

Rights cannot be granted. Only PERMISSION is granted. Rights are not.

Tell that to the US Supreme Court! They made abortion a right. So yes you can.

Rights aren't arbitrary.

Actually they are. Rights can be taken away at anytime you know.

If the fetus has rights, the woman has none. It's that simple.

Are you dunce?

Property rights. Self-ownership.

These rights can be taken away.

My personal belief is: if it was ur fault, it was ur fault. Obviously if u were raped it is not your fault. Birth the child and put it up for adoption if it was ur fault. If it wasn't it is her choice what to do with her body.
so a baby is a punishment for a woman not living her life to your requirements?

we all have our own standards, the question is would you want yours to be law?-

I don't think so.

Even as a pro choice supporter. I like this.

*dies of a heart attack*

My personal belief is: if it was ur fault, it was ur fault. Obviousely if u were raped it is not your fault. Birth the child and put it up for adoption if it was ur fault. If it wasn't it is her choice what to do with her body.
So, if a woman has consensual sex, that's her fault somehow? It's her fault if she's not a virgin? Because any woman who has consensual sex is clearly a guilty whore?

Is it her fault if her husband's condom breaks or one of his little spermies gets past her spermicide or if one of her birth control pills is a dud? Does that make her a whore whose fault it is she got pregnant?

And what does that make pregnancy then -- a punishment for -- what? -- being female? Or just for being a non-virginal whore? Baby as punishment -- yeah, that's valuing human life, all right.

I'm sorry for all the bolding, but, come on, man, seriously -- this same-old "filthy whore" argument makes my brain boil.

So your answer to my first question is yes, the woman should be forced to carry the child of her rapist, even if she doesn't want to. I cannot under any circumstances agree with that view but I'm not going to try to argue you out of it except to point out that it shows what I consider to be an extreme lack of compassion for the victims of rape.

As for the second question, I'm happy for your little sister, but a personal anecdote serves only to illustrate a point, not to carry a line of argument. Your sister's experience is not the world's experience. If you are going to argue in favor of a law that will affect all people, you need to look beyond your own personal circle.

And because of that, I want to encourage you to try and imagine the circumstances of my other two questions because these are circumstances that occur and are affected by the abortion debate.

Also try to imagine the circumstances of a sick or injured woman who must consider not only herself and her fetus, but also other children of hers who already exist and will become orphans if she dies. Or the circumstances of a poor family who can feed the two children they already have and planned but not a third child they were trying to prevent with birth control. Or the circumstances of a woman who isn't as lucky as your sister and does not have a man who will step up and do right by her. Or a woman who is of a race that is out of fashion for adoption (because, you know, there are so many takers for black children in the US).

And there's one more point I'd like you to consider: In your first post, which I guess you're now disavowing, you characterized abortion as the self-centered choice of heartless women who don't care about their children. But if, as you encourage, women come to care enough about children to carry them for 9 months and then give birth to them -- taking on all the risks and costs of that, too -- what makes you think those same women will be heartless enough to just give up those children to strangers and never think of them again? You can't have it both ways. Women either care or they don't. You can't denounce them for aborting their pregnancies but praise them for abandoning their children.

Finally, you ask "How can you choose?", implying that you think it should be impossible for a woman to value her own life over her fetus's. I would counter that with "How can you choose?", meaning how can you presume to choose what I should do with my body and my life? Because we're not discussing personal choices here. We are discussing a law which would prohibit my personal choice and strip me of any right of self-determination.
very well put!

Your analogy is untraceably contradictory and makes no sense by saying the opposite things.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an analysis of a thought process. If all it takes for something to be true and absolute is, "I said so," then that goes for any definition. If someone can say, "An embryo is a person, because I said so," I can say, "Only a white, Christian male is a person, because I said so."

If we don't look for an objective definition that applies to all human persons - and to nothing that is not a human person, then any subjective "I said so," must be given equal merit.

Your analogy says: "Hitler says so-and-so are not human, because I said so, thus it is okay to kill them." And, "the anti-choice side says, it IS human you can't kill it." Not at all similar.

Actually, the thought process is *exactly* the same. Either way it is, "I said so, therefore it is."

Blatantly false analogy. Please try again. This time: THINK!

Not really. In either case, I can either choose to follow the law or choose not to follow it. If I choose not to follow it, there are consequences (ie. jail). One is certainly more extreme than the other, but to say that, "Do this or go to jail," is equal to slavery means that all laws that would result in jail if broken are equal to slavery.

:rolleyes:
And you had a point?

Not really.
Yes really. The salient point is not specifically "do this or go to jail", but the fact of conscription is FORCED SERVICE/LABOR that has penalties if compliance is not met.

That, by any rational definition, is slavery. You must have some weird, non-rational definition of slavery that you are operating under.

These rights can be taken away.
They can only be infringed upon--never can they be taken away.

Tell that to the US Supreme Court!
Ok.


They made abortion a right.
No, they did not.


Actually they (rights) are [arbitrary]. Rights can be taken away at anytime you know.
No, they can only be infringed upon. Please do learn what a right is.



Are you dunce?
You seem to be missing an article in that sentence.

Yes really. The salient point is not specifically "do this or go to jail", but the fact of conscription is FORCED SERVICE/LABOR that has penalties if compliance is not met.

Not in the post I was replying to. The point of that post was, "Do it or you go to jail" = slavery.

( It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.)


This argument is horrible...lets say i believe in mass human sacrifice to my god Sqallah, if you believe its wrong leave me alone because you have no right to prevent me from doing what i believe in. or i could believe in killing people as part of my religion mabye even killing you, now how do you have the right to stop me from doing what i believe?

( It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.)


This argument is horrible...lets say i believe in mass human sacrifice to my god Sqallah, if you believe its wrong leave me alone because you have no right to prevent me from doing what i believe in. or i could believe in killing people as part of my religion mabye even killing you, now how do you have the right to stop me from doing what i believe?
Ummmm "mass human sacrifice to your god Sqallah" has never been legal, and likely never will be. Also, murdering humans in the US is kinda illegal. :rolleyes:

However, abortion in the US is legal at the present time.

( It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.)


This argument is horrible...lets say i believe in mass human sacrifice to my god Sqallah, if you believe its wrong leave me alone because you have no right to prevent me from doing what i believe in. or i could believe in killing people as part of my religion mabye even killing you, now how do you have the right to stop me from doing what i believe?

Because I do not believe in your religion. You are however free to murder other Sqallahrites as far as I am concerned (or to be murdered by them).

...I simply cannot see the merit of killing your unborn child, especially not when there are people willing to give your child a chance to live. Allow me to answer your first two questions:


An 'appeal to emotion' is not a logical argument, my friend. If you abort the conceptus at the first moment you can AFTER it is 'conceived', you are 'killing' nothing... because we are just talking about a ball of cells, without even any 'specialisation'. Fully a third of concepta fail to implant anyway... they just drop right through, so to speak.

You use words like 'kill', 'murder' and 'child' because they speak to the emotion you feel about the issue... but they are not 'logical' terms, and, for the most part, cannot be PROVED to relate.

Example: Murder is a specific crime where one person illegally kills another person. Abortion, being legal, is not 'murder', because it fails to meet the requirements OF murder.


The woman will ultimately live through a rape... but what about her child?


Who says the woman will 'live through a rape'? Some do not survive their attack... some die of injuries sustained... and some cannot live with it.

You make ungrounded assumptions.


Is it not better to carry the child--however grossly conceived--and give it to a willing couple, rather than flushing it away?


You might see it that way.. in which case you should not have an abortion, should you ever get pregnant.

But you are also missing a lot of factors.

First - some religious persons believe that 'the sins of the father, is visited upon the sons'... or similar thoughts. Thus, those people might believe that there is some good karmic/scriptural reason NOT to bring that 'child' into the world.

Second - Children given into adoption almost always want to find their parents at a later date. Many rape victims would rather NOT have a reminder of their violation turning up on their doorstep seventeen years down the line, especially with all the USUAL questions that accompany such things... like 'why didn't you marry my dad'....

Third - You dismiss the WHOLE 'pregnancy' issue. A woman might not WANT the offspring of her rapist growing inside her.... and it takes a while. She's going to have a LONG time to remember how someone stole her life away, and implanted this 'thing' inside her.

I wonder how many people would consider the 'feelings' of the gestating alien in the Alien movies.

There's a saying somewhere, about how if 'men got pregnant, abortion would be sacrament' (I might be brutally paraphrasing it)... but it IS true. It is easy for men to sit on the sidelines saying 'abortion should be illegal'... but they don't have to spend nine months feeling something unwanted growing inside their stomachs. Except cancers, maybe... and we don't force the average guy to 'carry it full term'.


You've countered a terrible rape with joy in the heart of a childless couple.


Except for the fact that there are ALREADY way more children awaiting adoption, than there are potential adoptive parents.

...but he remembered he was a man


Nothing to do with it. Also... I suspect you are being flippant, unless your sister really has a boyfriend so 'attention deficient' that he occassionally forgets his own gender.

Parental responsibility is not male specific, and 'getting married' is not the 'man' thing to do. Indeed... since MANY men marry their pregnant girlfriends because of PARENTAL pressure, it is the absolute opposite of what are considered 'manly' characteristics.

...and married her back in October. Now she's seven months along


Being married is irrelevent. If the child is unwanted, it is unwanted. Unless, of course, your sister DELIBERATELY got pregnant to force her boyfriend to marry her? Then it might be relevent...

...and thankful she didn't kill little Dennis Michael. And so is he.


Another appeal to emotion. At the point most women abort, the jury is still WAY out on whether a ball of cells is 'a life'... and very few people 'name' their potential offspring in the first 16 weeks.


I cannot fairly answer your last two questions because, while I am completely against abortion, I am not in the shoes of the people in those situations. Which life do you value the most, yours or your baby's? How do you choose? How can you chose?

You are right. We cannot make those decisions. Which is why the decision NEEDS to rest with the woman who wants the abortion.

I do not 'favour' abortion... but it is sure as hell not MY decision to say another person can't have one. And, though I personally dislike abortion, I would ACTIVELY resist any group that tries to impose THEIR morality on another group of people.

No, they can only be infringed upon. Please do learn what a right is.


You might want to heed your own advice.

What we call 'rights' are nothing more than conveniences of our societies.

There are NO 'fundamental human rights'.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

Well, if you don't like it, move; if enough people vote with their feet, the only people left in the state will be worthless envagelicals and their ignorant junta of poorly educated pieces of white trash, and their banjo orchestra.

Well, if you don't like it, move; if enough people vote with their feet, the only people left in the state will be worthless envagelicals and their ignorant junta of poorly educated pieces of white trash, and their banjo orchestra.

The problems with that idea....

These are often the same people that would refuse their children any form of 'sex education', that teach that the Bible says a woman should submit to a man, that oppose contraception, and that oppose the right to abort.

Take out the rational elements, they'd breed us into extinction in just a few years...

Also - without us 'missionaries for reality', who would save all the pretty young things from that 'evil-agenda' society?

Nothing to do with it. Also... I suspect you are being flippant, unless your sister really has a boyfriend so 'attention deficient' that he occassionally forgets his own gender.

Parental responsibility is not male specific, and 'getting married' is not the 'man' thing to do. Indeed... since MANY men marry their pregnant girlfriends because of PARENTAL pressure, it is the absolute opposite of what are considered 'manly' characteristics.

Being married is irrelevent. If the child is unwanted, it is unwanted. Unless, of course, your sister DELIBERATELY got pregnant to force her boyfriend to marry her? Then it might be relevent...

So many people seem to think, "Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy? Just get married!" as if making a decision like that because of an accident is really the best thing to do. I would say that getting married solely because of a coming child is the height of irresponsibility, certainly not a responsible action.

My personal belief is: if it was ur fault, it was ur fault. Obviously if u were raped it is not your fault. Birth the child and put it up for adoption if it was ur fault. If it wasn't it is her choice what to do with her body.

Well I'm convinced... :rolleyes:

So many people seem to think, "Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy? Just get married!" as if making a decision like that because of an accident is really the best thing to do. I would say that getting married solely because of a coming child is the height of irresponsibility, certainly not a responsible action.

I entirely agree. My daughter is actually my wife's daughter from a previous 'marriage'. She was conceived 'out-of-wedlock' (which is SO important, nowadays), and my wife's parents made them get married.

So - for first year of her life, my daughter had a 'father' who was a drunk, drug-addled slacker, who didn't support his family, was frequently not there, and would pull shitty tricks like eating all the babyfood while he was stoned.

Eventually, my wife realised she couldn't 'fix it', and managed to get a divorce from him.

Now, my seven year old daughter has 'two dads'. One that she knows is a drug-addict, who has admitted he doesn't love her, and who didn't take care of her (or her mom)... and me.

There are just not strong enough terms for how much I oppose the 'getting married because you got pregnant' ideal.

They can only be infringed upon--never can they be taken away.

Oh My God!

You really are ignorant aren't you?

Anything can be taken away my friend. There are ways to take them away.

I suggest you go look at what King George III did prior to the colonists getting fed up and tossing him from this country. Or better yet, read the Declaration of Independence. It lists the rights that were taken away from the colonists.

No, they did not.

Yes they did.

No, they can only be infringed upon. Please do learn what a right is.

I actually suggest you learn what a right is as well as learn a few things. I do know what a right is and I know damn well that the rights we have can be taken away. Its happened before.


You seem to be missing an article in that sentence.

:rolleyes:

You might want to heed your own advice.

What we call 'rights' are nothing more than conveniences of our societies.

There are NO 'fundamental human rights'.

*tears up the Declaration of Human Rights as well as all the other Human Right Treaties that are out there*

*tears up the Declaration of Human Rights as well as all the other Human Right Treaties that are out there*

If those rights were really "fundamental" such treaties would not be needed.
*gets out glue and puts them back together*

*tears up the Declaration of Human Rights as well as all the other Human Right Treaties that are out there*

That's kind of the point, though.... the 'declaration' of human rights is what makes them 'rights'.

Try explaining how man has a right to live unmolested, while you are being eaten by a tiger....

Oh My God!

You really are ignorant aren't you?

Anything can be taken away my friend. There are ways to take them away.

I suggest you go look at what King George III did prior to the colonists getting fed up and tossing him from this country. Or better yet, read the Declaration of Independence. It lists the rights that were taken away from the colonists.

Which colonists tossed him from which country?

Would this be the same (Mad) King George who thought 'America' was a small island, off the coast of France...?

If those rights were really "fundamental" such treaties would not be needed.
*gets out glue and puts them back together*

And if other rights were not fundamental then what's the purpose of the Declaration of Independence or even more important, the Constitution of the United States?

Which colonists tossed him from which country?

Would this be the same (Mad) King George who thought 'America' was a small island, off the coast of France...?

Why do you think they called him Mad King George :D

( It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.)


The problem with this logic is that it only works in apliance to abortion. What if you apply it to other crimes. For example, I think stealing is wrong and I will not participate in it, but the state has no right to prevent others from doing so. That logic doesnt work. I will admit there are other arguements in favour of abortion but that isnt one.

The problem with this logic is that it only works in apliance to abortion. What if you apply it to other crimes. For example, I think stealing is wrong and I will not participate in it, but the state has no right to prevent others from doing so. That logic doesnt work. I will admit there are other arguements in favour of abortion but that isnt one.

That's only a valid dismissal of the argument if you consider abortion a crime.

The problem with this logic is that it only works in apliance to abortion. What if you apply it to other crimes. For example, I think stealing is wrong and I will not participate in it, but the state has no right to prevent others from doing so. That logic doesnt work.

It does when the state no longer considers it a crime to steal from other thieves. If it in other words allows both sets of morals to exist, but makes sure the thief does not bother the non-thieves.

That's only a valid dismissal of the argument if you consider abortion a crime.

Yes but then you can argue "Thats only a valid dismissal if you consider steeling a crime". Basicly if people believe this is something worthy of outlawing. The arguement "let us do what we want and you do what you want" doesnt work in a society where there are already laws for things. It only works if you are prepared to let anything and everything slide.

The problem with this logic is that it only works in apliance to abortion. What if you apply it to other crimes. For example, I think stealing is wrong and I will not participate in it, but the state has no right to prevent others from doing so. That logic doesnt work. I will admit there are other arguements in favour of abortion but that isnt one.

As pointed out, your 'logic' relies on it being a 'crime'.

How about if I wanted to eat Black Pudding (for those not versed in English cuisine, a type of sausage made with pig blood).

My neighbour might not agree with me eating pig blood for religious reasons (Witness, for example)... but should THEY be allowed to determine whether or not I do it?

The logic is - if they don't want to eat pig blood, they don't have to.

Yes but then you can argue "Thats only a valid dismissal if you consider steeling a crime". Basicly if people believe this is something worthy of outlawing. The arguement "let us do what we want and you do what you want" doesnt work in a society where there are already laws for things. It only works if you are prepared to let anything and everything slide.

But the law allows abortion.

Indeed, for most of the history of mankind, what has gone on inside a woman's uterus has been her concern.

The law says that abortion is not a crime.

(Indeed, the law says that certain types of 'stealing' are not criminal, also... for example, 'confiscation' of property).

As pointed out, your 'logic' relies on it being a 'crime'.

How about if I wanted to eat Black Pudding (for those not versed in English cuisine, a type of sausage made with pig blood).

My neighbour might not agree with me eating pig blood for religious reasons (Witness, for example)... but should THEY be allowed to determine whether or not I do it?

The logic is - if they don't want to eat pig blood, they don't have to.


But our neighbors do outlaw foods in America. Dog meat, Horse meat...

The collected willpower of the people to regulate their own society reaches every aspect of it, in every society. Now mind you, I'm not talking 'should' or 'should nots' I'm saying that they 'do' have this affect, irregardless of should or should not.

The same will eventually happen with Abortion, one way or the other. It took a hundred years and huge civil war and then another fifty years to even begin to end slavery… And we’re still not done.

Yes but then you can argue "Thats only a valid dismissal if you consider steeling a crime". Basicly if people believe this is something worthy of outlawing. The arguement "let us do what we want and you do what you want" doesnt work in a society where there are already laws for things. It only works if you are prepared to let anything and everything slide.

Stealing affects people other than the ones doing the stealing. Specifically the person being stolen from. Abortion affects only the person having the abortion, and no one else. The argument "live and let live" most certainly does work in society. As long as it doesn't detrimentally affect anyone else, you are free to engage in what you wish.

Stealing affects people other than the ones doing the stealing. Specifically the person being stolen from. Abortion affects only the person having the abortion, and no one else. The argument "live and let live" most certainly does work in society. As long as it doesn't detrimentally affect anyone else, you are free to engage in what you wish.

That doesn't apply here, half of the people say two people are involved in an abortion, leaving one wounded and one dead. The other half of society says that only one person is affected. Both sides agree with the slogan philosophy of 'live and let live,' but to the anti-choice side this means that we must let the fetus live as well.

That doesn't apply here, half of the people say two people are involved in an abortion, leaving one wounded and one dead. The other half of society says that only one person is affected. The philosophy of 'live and let live' to the other side agrees with as well but in that aspect then, let live means that the fetus lives as well.

Regardless of what half of the people say, only one person is involved in an abortion. A fetus enjoys no legal standing.

Passing the anti-abortion laws will be good for the economy. We'll need a lot more prisons. Will need to hire a lot more law-enforcement. Will need a lot of people to keep track of who's pregnant and where they're going, etc. Probably turn into a bigger industry than the anti-drug business.

2) Small time or organized crime starting up an illegal abortion industry within South Dakota.
And later, when all those unwanted kids are 13-30, there'll be a crimewave. Yay pro-life!

Regardless of what half of the people say, only one person is involved in an abortion. A fetus enjoys no legal standing.

Solved simply enough then. All the anti-choice side has to do is pass laws and amendments that grant the pre-born legal status and recognition.

Solved simply enough then. All the anti-choice side has to do is pass laws and amendments that grant the pre-born legal status and recognition.

And begin prosecuting miscarriages as negligent homicide. Big Brother will be busy monitoring 145 million uteruses.

And later, when all those unwanted kids are 13-30, there'll be a crimewave. Yay pro-life!

That was one of the arguments against ending slavery too. The pro-slavery ‘warning’ was, “what will they all do? They will end up being criminals and outcasts and plague on the rest of us, civilized society will suffer if we grant them freedom...”

It wasn't a good argument then, it's not a good argument now.

And begin prosecuting miscarriages as negligent homicide. Big Brother will be busy monitoring 145 million uteruses.

We prosecute manslaughter when there is neglect involved, like drunk driving. But we don't prosecute for simple accidents, unless recklessness is involved.

BTW: Are you suggesting, by your negative aspect, that we shouldn't prosecute mothers for babies that suffer from extreme alcohol fetal syndrome and crack-babies? I believe they should be prosecuted myself, flagrant disregard for the well being of another, and so on and so forth.

Solved simply enough then. All the anti-choice side has to do is pass laws and amendments that grant the pre-born legal status and recognition.

I say the fetus has a right not to be terminated as long as it sends a letter to the SCOTUS stating its desire to be born.

*nods sagely*

Solved simply enough then. All the anti-choice side has to do is pass laws and amendments that grant the pre-born legal status and recognition.

Considering about 50% of all fertilised eggs are naturally rejected by the female body -an abortion by "divine design" if you wish - I see some practical problems arising from recognising them as persons.

We prosecute manslaughter when there is neglect involved, like drunk driving. But we don't prosecute for simple accidents, unless recklessness is involved.

Reckless endangerment, then. A woman gets pregnant. Before she's aware, she goes out and parties, and in the process, miscarries. She should go to jail for the death of that unborn child.

I say the fetus has a right not to be terminated as long as it sends a letter to the SCOTUS stating its desire to be born.

*nods sagely*

The anti-choice side would all, immediatly, flood the congress halls with letters, 'opinions of the previously fetus,' citizens.


Like a veteran of a war is still a qualified witness in congress even if they are not currently still active in the armed forces... The post-fetus citizens could willingly write letters.

That or we could grant a stay on abortion to collect data, say, ten years, and then see how many letters we get from nine year olds...

Reckless endangerment, then. A woman gets pregnant. Before she's aware, she goes out and parties, and in the process, miscarries. She should go to jail for the death of that unborn child.

'If' that is the punishment called for... Yes. Two things would need to be involved though, the criminality of an act and the punishment code applied. Misdemeanor or felony, citation or warrant for their arrest. There are many differing levels of illegality.

Considering about 50% of all fertilised eggs are naturally rejected by the female body -an abortion by "divine design" if you wish - I see some practical problems arising from recognising them as persons.

100% of all post-fetus persons naturally die by "divine design" if you wish, or not. There is no practical problems arising from recognizing people that we know will die eventually.

'If' that is the punishment called for... Yes. Two things would need to be involved though, the criminality of an act and the punishment code applied. Misdemeanor or felony, citation or warrant for their arrest. There are many differing levels of illegality.

Well what's the punishment if you accidentally strike someone with your car and kill them? I imagine it would be roughly the same for accidentally terminating your pregnancy.

100% of all post-fetus persons naturally die by "divine design" if you wish, or not. There is no practical problems arising from recognizing people that we know will die eventually.

Sure there is - you need to keep records. To do that special enforcement agencies will have to check the panties, tampax etc. of every fertile woman in the country each day. They will also have to let their toilets be connected to special reservoirs to search the contents.

After all, there may be a person in there...

100% of all post-fetus persons naturally die by "divine design" if you wish, or not. There is no practical problems arising from recognizing people that we know will die eventually.

Well there needs to be some sort of oversight set up to investigate each such instance to determine whether it was accidental or purposeful, and to prosecute accordingly.

Well what's the punishment if you accidentally strike someone with your car and kill them? I imagine it would be roughly the same for accidentally terminating your pregnancy.

If you fail to yield as a crosswalk and it results in the death of someone, for example, you deserve to go to jail, IMO. If your tire blows out during a legally held NASCAR race and your tire jumps and rolls into the crowd killing a dozen people, the driver doesn't go to jail. Circumstances determine results.

If you fail to yield as a crosswalk and it results in the death of someone, for example, you deserve to go to jail, IMO. If your tire blows out during a legally held NASCAR race and your tire jumps and rolls into the crowd killing a dozen people, the driver doesn't go to jail. Circumstances determine results.

So if it occurs naturally, the woman should not be punished, but if the woman consumes a lot of alcohol or something similar 2 weeks into the pregnancy and that kills the unborn child, she should be punished.

Sure there is - you need to keep records. To do that special enforcement agencies will have to check the panties, tampax etc. of every fertile woman in the country each day. They will also have to let their toilets be connected to special reservoirs to search the contents.

After all, there may be a person in there...

You confuse 'could,' with, 'will need to.' We 'could' have an ambulance at every street corner waiting because there 'might' be an accident there. But it's cost prohibited, so we don't. We do, however, keep mobile ambulances available because we recognize that accidents 'will' happen. It is illegal, in America, to search without a warrant, but that does not mean that it must be legal to keep contraband because it is too expensive and intrusive to continuously search everyone’s home everywhere because there 'might be' contraband there.

So if it occurs naturally, the woman should not be punished, but if the woman consumes a lot of alcohol or something similar 2 weeks into the pregnancy and that kills the unborn child, she should be punished.

That's not for me to determine. "Circumstances determine results."

You confuse 'could,' with, 'will need to.' We 'could' have an ambulance at every street corner waiting because there 'might' be an accident there. But it's cost prohibited, so we don't. We do, however, keep mobile ambulances available because we recognize that accidents 'will' happen. It is illegal, in America, to search without a warrant, but that does not mean that it must be legal to keep contraband because it is too expensive and intrusive to continuously search everyone’s home everywhere because there 'might be' contraband there.

But every time someone is killed there IS an investigation to determine the cause of death and if there is foul play involved. If we afford fetuses the same rights as actual people, then each instance of a miscarriage will HAVE to be investigated to determine the exact circumstances.

And later, when all those unwanted kids are 13-30, there'll be a crimewave. Yay pro-life!

Care to back up this statement?

That's not for me to determine.

Don't dodge the question. I am posing it to you. If it were for you to determine, what would you decide?

But every time someone is killed there IS an investigation to determine the cause of death and if there is foul play involved. If we afford fetuses the same rights as actual people, then each instance of a miscarriage will HAVE to be investigated to determine the exact circumstances.

Again, there seems to be some confusion between 'must' and 'could be.' The, will HAVE to be investigated, assertion is in error. If someone called the police department after a car accident that was previously determined to be just that, an accident, and said, so-and-so really did it on purpose, they 'might' choose to do a more thorough investigation, if they give it any credence.

If some law enforcement agency had reason to suspect and had the desire to investigate a crime being committed by an individual, they could then do so. But to assert that 'every' American is investigated every year because they 'might' cheat on the taxes, is not accurate.

Don't dodge the question. I am posing it to you. If it were for you to determine, what would you decide?

It's not in the least a dodge. You give insufficient data to make a determination. Circumstances determine results.

One of the problems with issues like abortion is that it quickly becomes over-complicated when under debate: someone says that A is right because of B; someone else says that B does not support A, because of C and D; another person argues that C doesn't work because of E, and that the case of B is an exception for D, because of F...

The other problem is that people also often attempt to justify their argument through a set of "principles" that is narrow in scope; that is, they rant about what an individual may presently want, but fail to consider the long-term implications upon the many.

Having said all that, I now present my argument for the justification in banning abortion:

Regardless of whether an early-stage fetus possesses intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness, the simple fact of the matter is that it is human; it is a separate entity all its own, possessing a genetic code that is unique, and, when left to grow and develop, will obtain the afore-mentioned intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness.
To allow abortion is also to define the human fetus as otherwise; and if it is not an entity that is entitled to its own inherent rights, it is property. By that logic, it is conceivable for fetuses to be subject to the same sort of legislation that is applicable to real estate, bananas, and contraband. The implications of this are limitless, and none of them are pleasurable to peruse.
The legalization of abortion is also the legalized termination of a life before it is "born." Does this not open the way to enacting similar legistlation regarding our children's children, grandchildren, and so on? Is it truly a "right" thing to end the life of someone who will not be born in 50 years, because they cannot choose to end their own life in our present time?

I do believe that those of you who scoffed at the original poster's statements should go back and review what he said; even if the point the author was trying to make with it has no relation to what I have said above, I'm sure it now reads in a different light from before.

Again, there seems to be some confusion between 'must' and 'could be.' The, will HAVE to be investigated, assertion is in error. If someone called the police department after a car accident that was previously determined to be just that, an accident, and said, so-and-so really did it on purpose, they 'might' choose to do a more thorough investigation, if they give it any credence.

If some law enforcement agency had reason to suspect and had the desire to investigate a crime being committed by an individual, they could then do so. But to assert that 'every' American is investigated every year because they 'might' cheat on the taxes, is not accurate.

Miscarriages would always need to be investigated. They aren't like a car accident, where eyewitness testimony can corroborate the guilty party's assertions. The woman is the only one who knows what occured, and is also going to be the biggest suspect. If you killed a person, then called the cops and said "I just killed a person, but it was an accident", do you think they'd take your word for it, or investigate the death?

And tax evasion does not even remotely compare to murder, which is what you're looking to turn abortion (and miscarriages) into. All suspicious deaths are investigated, and in deaths where the one person who is responsible for the death is also the one who potentially has the most to gain, a criminal investigation would be necessary.

One of the problems with issues like abortion is that it quickly becomes over-complicated when under debate: someone says that A is right because of B; someone else says that B does not support A, because of C and D; another person argues that C doesn't work because of E, and that the case of B is an exception for D, because of F...

The other problem is that people also often attempt to justify their argument through a set of "principles" that is narrow in scope; that is, they rant about what an individual may presently want, but fail to consider the long-term implications upon the many.

Having said all that, I now present my argument for the justification in banning abortion:

Regardless of whether an early-stage fetus possesses intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness, the simple fact of the matter is that it is human; it is a separate entity all its own, possessing a genetic code that is unique, and, when left to grow and develop, will obtain the afore-mentioned intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness.
To allow abortion is also to define the human fetus as otherwise; and if it is not an entity that is entitled to its own inherent rights, it is property. By that logic, it is conceivable for fetuses to be subject to the same sort of legislation that is applicable to real estate, bananas, and contraband. The implications of this are limitless, and none of them are pleasurable to peruse.
The legalization of abortion is also the legalized termination of a life before it is "born." Does this not open the way to enacting similar legistlation regarding our children's children, grandchildren, and so on? Is it truly a "right" thing to end the life of someone who will not be born in 50 years, because they cannot choose to end their own life in our present time?

I do believe that those of you who scoffed at the original poster's statements should go back and review what he said; even if the point the author was trying to make with it has no relation to what I have said above, I'm sure it now reads in a different light from before.

The argument from potential has been rebutted time and time again, I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

Also, I don't understand what you're saying here: "The legalization of abortion is also the legalized termination of a life before it is "born." Does this not open the way to enacting similar legistlation regarding our children's children, grandchildren, and so on? Is it truly a "right" thing to end the life of someone who will not be born in 50 years, because they cannot choose to end their own life in [I]our present time"

It's not in the least a dodge. You give insufficient data to make a determination. Circumstances determine results.

A woman, unaware of her pregnancy, takes certain actions that ultimately lead to the termination of the pregnancy. What punishment, if any, does she receive?

Care to back up this statement?

Because growing up in a poor background as an unwanted child makes you much more likely to turn to crime. Statistics show that abortion lowers the crime rate.

Because growing up in a poor background as an unwanted child makes you much more likely to turn to crime. Statistics show that abortion lowers the crime rate.

May I see proof of that please?

Stealing affects people other than the ones doing the stealing. Specifically the person being stolen from. Abortion affects only the person having the abortion, and no one else. The argument "live and let live" most certainly does work in society. As long as it doesn't detrimentally affect anyone else, you are free to engage in what you wish.

You detrementally affect the embryo. And however much we argue, it can never be emperically decided when it is and is not a person. Therfore abortion should be outlawed simply because the consequences if it is a person are far worse than if it isnt.

Miscarriages would always need to be investigated. They aren't like a car accident, where eyewitness testimony can corroborate the guilty party's assertions. The woman is the only one who knows what occured, and is also going to be the biggest suspect. If you killed a person, then called the cops and said "I just killed a person, but it was an accident", do you think they'd take your word for it, or investigate the death?

And tax evasion does not even remotely compare to murder, which is what you're looking to turn abortion (and miscarriages) into. All suspicious deaths are investigated, and in deaths where the one person who is responsible for the death is also the one who potentially has the most to gain, a criminal investigation would be necessary.

Child with broken arm. Emergency room doctor is convinced it was a bicycle accident, nothing more, right or wrong, there is no further investigation involved. Child with third broken arm in a single year, doctor sends medical report to the appropriate child protection agency to investigate.

Miscarriage under a month, unless a complaint is made to the authorities, there would be no one to file a complaint.

Miscarriage at 6 months, for example, occurring from an otherwise healthy pregnancy with ultrasounds and regular medical supervision showing no problems, might draw an investigation. Circumstances...


BTW: it is not being turned into murder, in this thread anyway. The South Dakota bill does not make abortion a murder, it makes it an illegal medical practice, apparently only the medical professional faces prosecution, $5000 fine and/or 5 years jail time (if memory serves, without re-reading the article) there was no penalty assigned to the would-be mother.

May I see proof of that please?

Corn, please, the adults are having a conversation here.

I definitely support South Dakota's decision since it is the first time an anti-abortion bill this wide spread has left a clause that abortions can be done when the woman's health is at risk, which is the only plausable argument for abortion that there is, and the only reason one should ever consider doing one.

Of course women have a right over their own body just like men do, but since the fetus is a separate organism from a woman she can not have any rights over it (no person can own another person). The woman's immune system would kill the fetus if there weren't protective mechanisms inplace, which supports that a fetus is a separate organism. Also, a fetus can be grown outside a womans body (in a cow even) showing that a woman isn't even needed to actually carry the baby.

Sheesh pro-choicers get outa the fricken stone age and start living in the
21st century. Abortion is just as archaic a practice as slavery and hundreds of years from now people are going to be laughing at the pro-choice arguments that were made, just like we laugh at pro-slavery arguments nowdays. I do appreciate any counter arguments that are civilized so have at me :)

p.s. There are cases where a minor girl has been forced by her parents to have an abortion(I work in a hospital). This doesn't seem like a choice to me :headbang:

Corn, please, the adults are having a conversation here.

Nice flamebait.

Nice flamebait.

My apologies. Were you going to add anything of relevance to this discussion? Or were you going to bring it to a screeching halt with your little three word dismissals of entire posts and your demands for proof that you never reciprocate?

My apologies. Were you going to add anything of relevance to this discussion? Or were you going to bring it to a screeching halt with your little three word dismissals of entire posts and your demands for proof that you never reciprocate?

Someone made a statement that abortion lowers the crime rate. I would love to see proof of it.

Someone made a statement that abortion lowers the crime rate. I would love to see proof of it.

www.google.com

Give it a shot. But until the moment when you provide proof when asked to back up one of your ridiculous arguments, in this thread or another, you don't get to interrupt a thread with demands of proof, hypocrite. Now go use your playing dumb tactic in another thread.

www.google.com

Give it a shot. But until the moment when you provide proof when asked to back up one of your ridiculous arguments, in this thread or another, you don't get to interrupt a thread with demands of proof, hypocrite. Now go use your playing dumb tactic in another thread.

It is the job of the person who made an assertation to provide proof of it.

It is the job of the person who made an assertation to provide proof of it.

Normally, but until Corneliu follows that de facto rule of debating, then he doesn't get to make other people follow it.

Normally, but until Corneliu follows that de facto rule of debating, then he doesn't get to make other people follow it.

I normally do try to back it up. However, he's the one that has to back it up, not me.

Of course women have a right over their own body just like men do, but since the fetus is a separate organism from a woman she can not have any rights over it (no person can own another person).

Your definition of "organism" is debateable. In the stages where abortion is legal we are talking about a clump of cells. This clump of cells does not care if it is killed or not - since it is incapable of caring.

Since it doesn't make any difference from the foetus' point of view if it was never conceived or aborted it has no position in this issue.
The opinion of the mother who carries it inside her therefor is the determining factor.

I normally do try to back it up. However, he's the one that has to back it up, not me.

I will, just as soon as you clarify this. On page 7 you stated:

And guess what is in this bill? A health of the mother clause in it! Abortions shall be legal unless the health of the mother is at stake.

That is what the bill states.

Which I then showed to be a downright lie:

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

You then vanished for a while before reappearing, spouting the same old tired rhetoric. This is an appalling breach of etiquette; if you're going to change your position then admit it openly.

Clarify this and then I may find the time to dig out the report for you.

Normally, but until Corneliu follows that de facto rule of debating, then he doesn't get to make other people follow it.

Exactly. :)

I definitely support South Dakota's decision since it is the first time an anti-abortion bill this wide spread has left a clause that abortions can be done when the woman's health is at risk, which is the only plausable argument for abortion that there is, and the only reason one should ever consider doing one.

Of course women have a right over their own body just like men do, but since the fetus is a separate organism from a woman she can not have any rights over it (no person can own another person). The woman's immune system would kill the fetus if there weren't protective mechanisms inplace, which supports that a fetus is a separate organism. Also, a fetus can be grown outside a womans body (in a cow even) showing that a woman isn't even needed to actually carry the baby.

Sheesh pro-choicers get outa the fricken stone age and start living in the
21st century. Abortion is just as archaic a practice as slavery and hundreds of years from now people are going to be laughing at the pro-choice arguments that were made, just like we laugh at pro-slavery arguments nowdays. I do appreciate any counter arguments that are civilized so have at me :)

p.s. There are cases where a minor girl has been forced by her parents to have an abortion(I work in a hospital). This doesn't seem like a choice to me :headbang:

Did you even read the article?

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

I now expect you to oppose the bill, as you admit that a woman has a right to an abortion if her health is at risk. This bill doens't allow for this and so you must oppose it or be revealed as a hypocrite.

You detrementally affect the embryo. And however much we argue, it can never be emperically decided when it is and is not a person. Therfore abortion should be outlawed simply because the consequences if it is a person are far worse than if it isnt.

But science can decide when it becomes conscious and when higher brain activity commences. Until this point it isn't truly alive and so there are no consequences if it is aborted.

Child with broken arm. Emergency room doctor is convinced it was a bicycle accident, nothing more, right or wrong, there is no further investigation involved. Child with third broken arm in a single year, doctor sends medical report to the appropriate child protection agency to investigate.

Miscarriage under a month, unless a complaint is made to the authorities, there would be no one to file a complaint.

Miscarriage at 6 months, for example, occurring from an otherwise healthy pregnancy with ultrasounds and regular medical supervision showing no problems, might draw an investigation. Circumstances...


BTW: it is not being turned into murder, in this thread anyway. The South Dakota bill does not make abortion a murder, it makes it an illegal medical practice, apparently only the medical professional faces prosecution, $5000 fine and/or 5 years jail time (if memory serves, without re-reading the article) there was no penalty assigned to the would-be mother.
declaring a fertilzed egg a PERSON changes everything. the state has not just a right but a DUTY to protect all persons.

to ignore lack of inplantation or spontaneous abortion or doing whatever a woman might do to terminate or prevent an early pregnancy is to condone murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, grave bodily harm and who knows what else.

the state would have a vested interest in everyone's sex life. only those past menopause and those can show sterility would be exempt. imagine how many PEOPLE are dying because the negligent parents cant be bothered to take folic acid!

if the fertilized egg or the early pregnancy isnt worth bothering with by the state then there is no reason to not allow a woman to get an abortion. its her business after all. and the fate of that pregnancy is unimportant whether it dies naturally or medically.

*snip*

The bill I looked at was 2 years old.

But science can decide when it becomes conscious and when higher brain activity commences. Until this point it isn't truly alive and so there are no consequences if it is aborted.

Actually, there is a heart rate and an ultra sound can see the heart beating.

But science can decide when it becomes conscious and when higher brain activity commences. Until this point it isn't truly alive and so there are no consequences if it is aborted.

No. Science can offer an opinon. It cannot prove that it is a person then or not. Nor can it confirm or not confirm the existance of a soul. It can say "we have determined that higher brain functions are present at this point" not that those brain funcitons objectively create personhood.

declaring a fertilzed egg a PERSON changes everything. the state has not just a right but a DUTY to protect all persons.

to ignore lack of inplantation or spontaneous abortion or doing whatever a woman might do to terminate or prevent an early pregnancy is to condone murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, grave bodily harm and who knows what else.

the state would have a vested interest in everyone's sex life. only those past menopause and those can show sterility would be exempt. imagine how many PEOPLE are dying because the negligent parents cant be bothered to take folic acid!

if the fertilized egg or the early pregnancy isnt worth bothering with by the state then there is no reason to not allow a woman to get an abortion. its her business after all. and the fate of that pregnancy is unimportant whether it dies naturally or medically.

What's more every woman on the pill or with an IUD will become a murderer by default. Who says pro-lifers are just anti-people having sex? :rolleyes:

The bill I looked at was 2 years old.

But you were supporting abortion if the mother's life was in danger originally, shouldn't you be opposing this bill now?

But you were supporting abortion if the mother's life was in danger originally, shouldn't you be opposing this bill now?

I'm doing a little thing called research before I decide if I'm for it or not

BTW: it is not being turned into murder, in this thread anyway. The South Dakota bill does not make abortion a murder, it makes it an illegal medical practice, apparently only the medical professional faces prosecution, $5000 fine and/or 5 years jail time (if memory serves, without re-reading the article) there was no penalty assigned to the would-be mother.

what other rational reason is there to disallow a woman from having an abortion other than that she is killing her "baby" (meaning a person) which makes it some kind of manslaughter

well that and the irrational desire to punish women for having the nerve to decide their own reproduction.

do we NEED more people? no.

are we worried about the health of women getting abortions? no

why ELSE would it matter if a woman removed an embryo from her body? wouldnt it be her business alone?

No. Science can offer an opinon. It cannot prove that it is a person then or not. Nor can it confirm or not confirm the existance of a soul.

99% of organised religons agree that a baby's soul goes straight to heaven so if the soul exists we're doing it a favour: if it lived it might become an atheist and go to hell.

Infinite gain cancels out any ammount of finite gain from living.

No. Science can offer an opinon. It cannot prove that it is a person then or not. Nor can it confirm or not confirm the existance of a soul.

Science can tell us if the foetus is capable of actually experiencing anything from a biological point of view. The development of the organs that make this possible takes place well after the period abortion was considered legal.
Something which can not experience anything can not be a person either.

Science can indeed not tell us if it has a soul. But "soul" is a religious concept of which we in reality know nothing whatsoever. Guesswork does not make a good basis for ethics.

Actually, there is a heart rate and an ultra sound can see the heart beating.

And? Without a brain or even synapses it cannot feel pain or be conscious at any level, ergo: it is not a person.

What's more every woman on the pill or with an IUD will become a murderer by default. Who says pro-lifers are just anti-people having sex? :rolleyes:
and THEN youre back to the GOOD OLD DAYS that my mother and mother in law lived through

the one where you either "deny your husband sex" from fear of getting pregnant again or you end up with far more children than you want. my mother in law had 5 children in 6 years because she was unwilling to deny her husband sex. its very difficult to have a loving sex life when you constantly fear getting pregnant.

But our neighbors do outlaw foods in America. Dog meat, Horse meat...

The collected willpower of the people to regulate their own society reaches every aspect of it, in every society. Now mind you, I'm not talking 'should' or 'should nots' I'm saying that they 'do' have this affect, irregardless of should or should not.

The same will eventually happen with Abortion, one way or the other. It took a hundred years and huge civil war and then another fifty years to even begin to end slavery… And we’re still not done.

First - I'm not sure about dogs... but I'm pretty sure at least SOME of the states (I'm thinking Texas, since last year) have allowed trade in horse meat.

Also - you might be confusing the legality of TRADING dog or horse meat, with the legality of eating it.

But, anyway... you ARE arguing 'shoulds' when you are arguing about abortion.. you were arguing about whether abortion 'should' be legal.

Personally, I'd say, if people want to eat dog, "let them eat dog"... just so long as they don't do OTHER illegal things, like STEALING the dogs. And, if a woamn wants an abortion, I'd say let her do that, too.

I'm doing a little thing called research before I decide if I'm for it or not

What exactly are you researching? At the very least you should be against it for the same reason you are against Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage.

and THEN youre back to the GOOD OLD DAYS that my mother and mother in law lived through

the one where you either "deny your husband sex" from fear of getting pregnant again or you end up with far more children than you want. my mother in law had 5 children in 6 years because she was unwilling to deny her husband sex. its very difficult to have a loving sex life when you constantly fear getting pregnant.

Obviously it's the women's fault. If you didn't want to go through all of that you shouldn't have eaten the apple and gotten us all kicked out of Eden should you?

*nods in righteous sagicity*

And? Without a brain or even synapses it cannot feel pain or be conscious at any level, ergo: it is not a person.

A baby's heart starts to beat at 7 weeks.

Between the 4th week and the 10th week, the organs begin to develope and function.

By week ten, they are developed and functioning and will continue to grow throughout the rest of the pregnancy.

Solved simply enough then. All the anti-choice side has to do is pass laws and amendments that grant the pre-born legal status and recognition.

Why would we do that? Immediately you did that, you would remove the right of a mother to have an abortion EVEN WHERE it was medically necessary. Not only that, but you could actually start to do such ridiculous things as legislating whether or not the 'mother-to-be' was allowed to... drive a car, drink coffee... eat at McDonalds.

You cannot, in any civilised way, have a situation where two people claim one 'body'... and that is exactly what you would have, if you granted a foetus 'person' status.

Another thought you might not have considered... the population of America would sky-rocket, since ALL a couple would have to do would be to have sex while they were on holiday in the States... if they conceived, with the 'recognition' you suggest, it would be only fair to grant that newly conceived foetus the same rights you grant to a child born in the US... i.e. automatic citizenship.

A baby's heart starts to beat at 7 weeks.

Between the 4th week and the 10th week, the organs begin to develope and function.

By week ten, they are developed and functioning and will continue to grow throughout the rest of the pregnancy.

And? Without a brain or even synapses it cannot feel pain or be conscious at any level, ergo: it is not a person. The synapses aren't in place until well into the third trimester.

Obviously it's the women's fault. If you didn't want to go through all of that you shouldn't have eaten the apple and gotten us all kicked out of Eden should you?

*nods in righteous sagicity*

some days i hate that bitch

And? Without a brain or even synapses it cannot feel pain or be conscious at any level, ergo: it is not a person. The synapses aren't in place until well into the third trimester.

I am surprised you didn't ask him to back up his claim.