NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Abortion is an intensely personal decision and should be a very private one. The nationwide debate over it has, however, brought the intense divisions it generates to almost every state. South Dakota, normally a State of very friendly and mutually supportive people, has been hit especially hard, largely because of a new law banning all abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. ( I apologize in advance for posting the entire article, but the issue is too important, and the article too illuminating to do otherwise. )


Ripples From Law Banning Abortion
Spread Through South Dakota (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/us/16dakota.html?th&emc=th)


Published: April 16, 2006
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Plenty of places would wish to find themselves at the center of a national philosophical debate, but this is South Dakota.

In the two months since the State Legislature set off a political and legal war by passing the most sweeping abortion ban in the country, residents have seemed awkward and uneasy in their spot at the leading edge of the country's clash over abortion.

Some say that they are stunned to find South Dakota, the fifth least populous state, at the center of any such thing and that they are put off by the thought of outsiders arriving here with fancy advertising campaigns. And although they have seen nasty political skirmishes before, as recently as the 2004 defeat of Senator Tom Daschle, they say they are uncomfortable with the prospect of such a personal matter becoming fodder for so much public debate.

Political war, after all, is not cordial, and most South Dakotans are.

Outside the Minnehaha County administration building here on a blustery morning, Elizabeth M. Hulscher approached anyone who came her way, asking them to sign a petition that would put the abortion ban on hold and send it to the ballot for the state's voters to consider in November.

"I have been waiting for the chance to sign this," one woman told her. A man in a suit stopped, too, and politely agreed to sign. Only after he left did Ms. Hulscher, 43, notice that he had written something other than his name: "No abortions. I pray for you."

Another woman pushing a stroller smiled but declined to sign. With that, Ms. Hulscher set aside her clipboard to hold the door open for her.

Effects of the ban seem to be emerging all around, with fallen poll numbers for the governor who signed the law and growing ranks of candidates who want to replace the state's lawmakers. Ordinary people, too, said they had found themselves tangling unpleasantly with their closest friends over a question they had never really discussed much outside their homes. Some said they feared that as the fight over the ballot measure intensified, it would bring only more painful division.

Toni L. Popham, 48, grew emotional as she wondered aloud what her acquaintances near Watertown, 100 miles north of Sioux Falls, might think if she agreed to gather signatures in the beauty shop she owns. "Some of my clients may not like it," Ms. Popham said on a recent evening, tears suddenly filling her eyes. "I guess this is the time to stand up, but I don't know what people will think."

The sponsors of the bill, which outlaws abortions except when a woman's life is in jeopardy, intended it to set up a direct challenge — the first in more than a decade — to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision making abortion legal.

For now, though, the fight is taking place not in the courts but on the mainly quiet streets of places like Sioux Falls, the state's biggest city, with more than 130,000 residents, and Estelline, a corn and soybean town of about 700. Rather than filing a lawsuit immediately, opponents of the abortion ban have called on a state provision dating to 1898 that allows voters to reconsider a law passed by the Legislature if enough signatures are gathered.

As opponents of the ban went to gather signatures outside public buildings, at bowling leagues and in coffee shops, those who favor it said they were setting out across the state as well, on a bus they had dubbed "the Fleet for Little Feet," complete with an ultrasound machine and plastic models of a growing fetus. The leader of the largest Indian reservation here, meanwhile, has pledged to open an abortion clinic on tribal land if the state ban stands.

Reeling from all the attention, some here said they were still confused about how South Dakota had become the focus of such a fundamental fight. Many said they had been swamped with phone calls and e-mail messages (some supportive; others not) from relatives and friends in other states, and only then recognized the significance of what was happening.

The political ripples are already being felt. After signing the bill in March, Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican seeking re-election in November, saw his job approval ratings drop to 58 percent from 72 percent in the next month, according to a Survey USA poll. Mr. Rounds faces two Democratic challengers, whose campaigns, political analysts say, have been energized by the abortion decision.

And many more candidates than usual filed to run for the Legislature, all 105 seats of which are on the ballot this fall, said Chris Nelson, the secretary of state. Democrats, the minority in both legislative chambers, have challengers in most of the races, a fact that some here tie directly to the abortion fight.

"Frankly, we had been anticipating a ho-hum election year," said Robert Burns, a political scientist at South Dakota State University in Brookings. "But this issue is spilling over in the House race, into the governor's race, and into many of the legislative races."

South Dakota Abortion Law (pdf) Along a commercial strip in Sioux Falls, a nondescript building houses Planned Parenthood, the only abortion clinic in the state. In 2004, the last year for which state health records are available, 814 abortions were performed in South Dakota, or about half as many as were performed in this state a quarter century ago. In 1982, for instance, the state reported 1,693 abortions.

For now, the clinic, which has long flown doctors in from Minnesota because it is difficult to find South Dakota doctors willing to perform abortions, is still open. The new law does not go into effect until July 1, but it will be put on hold if opponents can gather signatures from at least 16,728 of the state's 486,000 registered voters by June 19.

"From our standpoint, the opportunity for South Dakota to loudly proclaim that the Legislature has overreached is very important," said Sarah Stoesz, the president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. If the ballot effort fails, Planned Parenthood officials said, the organization will file a lawsuit in federal court to block the ban, which would set off the legal challenge the ban's authors still hope for.

Less than two miles from the Planned Parenthood clinic, between a taco shop and a carwash, another bland building houses Alpha Health Services, whose sign promises "Free pregnancy tests, abortion information and S.T.D. testing."

Once an abortion clinic, this is now home to the projects of Leslee J. Unruh, one of the most vocal leaders of the effort to ban abortion here. Ms. Unruh, who said she had had an abortion in the late 1970's and regretted it deeply, said 6,000 women came here each year for ultrasound tests, counseling and other assistance.

"The people have already spoken," Ms. Unruh said of the Legislature's vote.

She said the voting patterns here would be simple: "Our polls are, we will win. Our people are not going to be taken in by all the lies."

But a woman from Rapid City, on the state's western edge, drove alone for more than five hours in March to have an abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic. The woman, who is in her 30's and said she feared for her safety if her name was used in this article, went to the clinic the very day Governor Rounds signed the ban.

Had the law been in effect, she said, she still would have found a way — legal or not — to have an abortion. "Once that type of decision is made, it's going to be done," she said. "Are we really going to go that route?"

The division in the United States over the abortion issue is extraordinary. The issue is so polarised, and (from a bystanders point of view) there doesn't seem to be any middle ground at all.

I'm not surprised people are uncomfortable being at the centre of it all - I would guess that many of them have views, but would generally keep it to themselves.

Is the issue in America really a 50/50 split, or a disagreement between two very vocal minorities?

Isn't this like really old "news" by now? Didn't we go through several threads about this when it was still new?

In Europe, most countries legalised abortion through legislation or referenda, which gave the decisions the legitimacy of majority support. In America, abortion was legalised by an appointed panel of judges.

The European approach neutralised the debate; the American way institutionalised it. (The Right Nation, John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, 2005)

i like that they are going to put it to a vote. that way we can say that south dakota really is (or isnt) that anti-abortion.

On another note, I hear coathanger sales are up 200% in South Dakota.

The division in the United States over the abortion issue is extraordinary. The issue is so polarised, and (from a bystanders point of view) there doesn't seem to be any middle ground at all.

I'm not surprised people are uncomfortable being at the centre of it all - I would guess that many of them have views, but would generally keep it to themselves.

Is the issue in America really a 50/50 split, or a disagreement between two very vocal minorities?
There actually don't seem to be many who are "neutral" on this issue. You either believe that abortion is the murder of an unborn child, or you believe that abortion is necessary for women to have control over their own bodies.

The issue is framed very starkly by both sides, and debate is almost always highly acrimonious. :(

In Europe, most countries legalised abortion through legislation or referenda, which gave the decisions the legitimacy of majority support. In America, abortion was legalised by an appointed panel of judges.

The European approach neutralised the debate; the American way institutionalised it. (The Right Nation, John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, 2005)
Irrelevant.

i like that they are going to put it to a vote. that way we can say that south dakota really is (or isnt) that anti-abortion.
Agreed. I like that SD has a referendum law. More states should have such laws.

Isn't this like really old "news" by now? Didn't we go through several threads about this when it was still new?
No, it's not old news, and frankly, it's not always going to be a US-only issue, either. You might want to be a little more concerned about it, because the militant US anti-abortion faction is also the militant US anti-gay faction and is also the militant US religion faction which is not concerned with the fate of just the USA but sends its missionaries into every country they can in the hope of starting battles just like this one -- not just poverty centers in Africa and South America, but also liberal, secular countries like Sweden, which they see as awash in sin that they are on a mission to wipe clean.

I assume you would oppose these people's actions in your own country, and, that being the case, you should be rooting for Planned Parenthood and US abortion rights supporters to defeat this latest attempt before it gets out of backwater, podunk South Dakota. Otherwise, five or so years after abortion is outlawed in the US, this old news is going to be new news in Sweden.

... backwater, podunk South Dakota ...
Excuse me??? :p

I learned a couple of things from this article.

1. That the people of South Dakota are really out of touch. I'd say most Americans are, but are they really that surprised at the national effect this thing is having? Did they really think it was just about their own little communities?

2. That, indeed, most people are not neutral about abortion, and it seems that more and more are somewhat surprised at how strongly they feel about it. When push comes to shove, people are not opting out of this battle but are taking sides even at the risk of losing friends and family over it. This is a scary thing. I hope it will make the silent majority in the rest of the country pay attention. If the national polls are right, and the majority of Americans do not want the law changed, then, they need to start saying so now, with the upcoming elections.

3. That the old wisdom of "let sleeping dogs lie" is real good advice. Everybody has an opinion about abortion, but the majority have shown that they will only voice those opinions if asked. If they are not asked, they won't go poking about in other people's private affairs any more than they'd want outsiders poking around in theirs. The vocal minorities are tearing this country apart completely unnecessarily, in my opinion.

And, 4. That the SD Republicans got cocky. Were they so confident that they had the "hearts and minds" that they thought they could do anything they liked?

As for whether there can be middle ground, we already have the middle ground solution: A system that allows those who want abortions to get them and those who don't want them to avoid them, and that allows those who want people to stop asking for abortion to persuade them through free speech. The anti-abortion rights crowd has knocked us off that middle ground. If they want a fight, it seems they are likely to get it.

Excuse me??? :p
You heard me, hillbilly. :p

No, it's not old news,

It is very old "news." This was news two months ago, when we had threads about it.

and frankly, it's not always going to be a US-only issue, either. You might want to be a little more concerned about it, because the militant US anti-abortion faction is also the militant US anti-gay faction and is also the militant US religion faction which is not concerned with the fate of just the USA

I frankly could not give a shit what the yanks decide to do.

but sends its missionaries into every country they can in the hope of starting battles just like this one -- not just poverty centers in Africa and South America, but also liberal, secular countries like Sweden, which they see as awash in sin that they are on a mission to wipe clean.

They're welcome to try. They will fail miserably. Being an anti-abortionist is political suicide here - not even the Christian Democrats are touching the issue, because they know they will be hanging themselves by their own entrails. The abortion "debate" is so 1950s...

I assume you would oppose these people's actions in your own country, and, that being the case, you should be rooting for Planned Parenthood and US abortion rights supporters to defeat this latest attempt before it gets out of backwater, podunk South Dakota.

You'd think so, but in a deep dark place inside me, I hope the opposition to this law fails. If the US want to make themselves more of a hell hole than they already are, then I will enjoy the Schadenfreude.

Otherwise, five or so years after abortion is outlawed in the US, this old news is going to be new news in Sweden.

Bwahaha!

They're welcome to try. They will fail miserably. Being an anti-abortionist is political suicide here - not even the Christian Democrats are touching the issue, because they know they will be hanging themselves by their own entrails. The abortion "debate" is so 1950s...

In the UK the only debate is should abortions be available up to the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy (or somewhere around there).

It is very old "news." This was news two months ago, when we had threads about it.



I frankly could not give a shit what the yanks decide to do.



They're welcome to try. They will fail miserably. Being an anti-abortionist is political suicide here - not even the Christian Democrats are touching the issue, because they know they will be hanging themselves by their own entrails. The abortion "debate" is so 1950s...



You'd think so, but in a deep dark place inside me, I hope the opposition to this law fails. If the US want to make themselves more of a hell hole than they already are, then I will enjoy the Schadenfreude.



Bwahaha!
Enjoy the view from your ivory tower. You are a fool to think this way. After all, aren't the Scandanavian countries already becoming infested with neo-fascist bigots, and haven't such groups historically aligned themselves with so-called Christian groups to give themselves some claim to public legitimacy? Do you think that's not going on the US right now? Your Euro-centricity sounds a lot like the leftist liberals of the 1920-30s who thought the original fascists were just a malcontented flash in the pan. That attitude worked out real well for the gay community back then, didn't it? But why should you care now anymore than they did then what happens to some bunch of Americans, or how the Muslism and Christians bash each other, or anything that other people might do to each other? How could it possibly ever touch you?

Well, if your Schadenfreude dreams come true, then we'll see if your confidence in Swedish politics is well founded, or if it will be my turn to laugh insultingly at your problems. I'll make a note to myself to catch up with you then. In the meantime, I'll be busy with something that's important to us.

You heard me, hillbilly. :p
Boy ... ah gone slap you three ways: hard, fast, and continuously! :D

In the UK the only debate is should abortions be available up to the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy (or somewhere around there).
Are you saying that there is argument in favor of banning abortions before then? Isn't that then a debate about banning abortion? In other words, isn't that the exact same thing as SD is arguing about, only not as dramatic -- yet?

Boy ... ah gone slap you three ways: hard, fast, and continuously! :D
You arms are too short to box with a New Yorker, daddy-o. ;)

You arms are too short to box with a New Yorker, daddy-o. ;)
LOL! NOT! I may be old, but I'm treaterous! :D

Are you saying that there is argument in favor of banning abortions before then? Isn't that then a debate about banning abortion? In other words, isn't that the exact same thing as SD is arguing about, only not as dramatic -- yet?

The discussion is taking place because of advances in health care, foetuses are becoming viable earlier in the pregnancy.

In the UK the only debate is should abortions be available up to the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy (or somewhere around there).

There was a minor discussion a few years ago here about the limit being at week 22 (up to 18 week it's the woman's choice, 19-22 one needs a permit from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare [Socialstyrelsen] and one must have "extraordinary reasons" for them to grant one) as the life of the premature can be saved at 23 weeks, and the reliable limit is creeping into 22. It fizzled out, but never was the question raised if abortion should be banned.

The discussion is taking place because of advances in health care, foetuses are becoming viable earlier in the pregnancy.
Well, there you go. It's a debate about someone other than a woman deciding how a woman's body shall get used and by whom and for what. It's a debate about taking control of pregnancy away from the women who get pregnant. And it's a debate about whether to give fetuses rights that trump the rights of women. In other words, the exact same argument we're having in the States.

Unless, the British debate is about how to pay to keep first trimester fetuses alive outside a woman's body so that fetuses can be given rights without taking any away from women. Are you that far ahead of us in medicine? If so, I'm moving to your country, boyo.

EDIT: Oh, and if medical advances can do that, then that would render abortion unneccesary, and why should there be any need to ban a procedure no one will be seeking anyway?

Enjoy the view from your ivory tower.

It's not a pleasant view, but it is interesting.

You are a fool to think this way.

And you are an overreacting pipsqueak. Take it down a notch.

After all, aren't the Scandanavian countries already becoming infested with neo-fascist bigots, and haven't such groups historically aligned themselves with so-called Christian groups to give themselves some claim to public legitimacy?

No.

Do you think that's not going on the US right now? Your Euro-centricity sounds a lot like the leftist liberals of the 1920-30s who thought the original fascists were just a malcontented flash in the pan.

Wow, you do have a knack for pulling hyperbole out of your ass, I see. Almost Godwinned yourself there.

That attitude worked out real well for the gay community back then, didn't it? But why should you care now any more than they did then what happens to some bunch of Americans,

Exactly, why should I care about USians? After all, they are only USians. I care more about Poles than I do them, and I have very little sentiment for Poland...

or how the Muslism and Christians bash each other, or anything that other people might do to each other? How could it possibly ever touch you?

Is this a particularly feeble attempt at a red-herring, or are you just not good at disguising fallacies?

Well, if your Schadenfreude dreams come true, then we'll see if your confidence in Swedish politics is well founded, or if it will be my turn to laugh insultingly at your problems.

Don't hold your breath.

I'll make a note to myself to catch up with you then. In the meantime, I'll be busy with something that's important to us.

I'd wish you best of luck, but that would be phony of me.

It's not a pleasant view, but it is interesting.



And you are an overreacting pipsqueak. Take it down a notch.



No.



Wow, you do have a knack for pulling hyperbole out of your ass, I see. Almost Godwinned yourself there.



Exactly, why should I care about USians? After all, they are only USians. I care more about Poles than I do them, and I have very little sentiment for Poland...



Is this a particularly feeble attempt at a red-herring, or are you just not good at disguising fallacies?



Don't hold your breath.



I'd wish you best of luck, but that would be phony of me.
Heh, praise from the master as far as hyperbole goes. I've been reading your material for some time. I'm a big fan of the Fass Airy Dismissal(tm), the Fass Gay Hijack(tm), and the Fass Bunker Buster National Put-Down(tm) which is the big punch you usually open with.

But you're stretching a bit here. I'm not even close to a Godwin. It is not out of line in the context of my point to compare what you are saying to the classic example of the failure of European liberals to recognize the danger of the extremist populist movements that culminated in fascism. My point is that, in my opinion, everyone who is interested in preserving or expanding civil liberties anywhere, for anyone -- even just for themselves -- should be concerned with the abortion debate in the US, because it is a debate that is happening in other countries as well, and it is an issue latched onto by groups that wish to restrict liberties for many groups, not just women, and who have an international focus, not just a local one.

But there is no law that says this has to matter to you. I've made my point. You've rejected it. You call me a pipsqueak. I call you shallow. Looks like we're even. We USians will continue to debate this on NSG, and I suppose you will continue come into the threads to complain about their existence rather than just stay out of them. If you want to play a side game, then I suppose you and I can also continue to play minor-insult-tennis between ourselves, or we can not do that. I leave it up to you.

"The people have already spoken," Ms. Unruh said of the Legislature's vote.
No, the LEGISLATURE has spoke, NOT THE PEOPLE. Were the people allowed to vote for this law? NO. The LEGISLATURE was allowed to vote. I don't think that exactly counts as the PEOPLE speaking. Oh, but Naliitr, surely the legislature speaks for the people! Yes, but ever think that maybe this legislature was elected BEFORE the abortion issue came to South Dakota? Ever think the people want a new voice? After all, the approval rate of the govenor has dropped. The amount of people vying for spots in the South Dakotan law making administration has increased. These people actually want to be heard, and I say they should be heard.

Isn't this like really old "news" by now? Didn't we go through several threads about this when it was still new?
Not about this aspect. This is dealing with the local politics of South Dakota, which is a particularly conservative section of the US. The thing that's been really surprising is that this move, which seemed from the outside to be a no-lose for the Republicans, has cost them a bit in the polls. It probably won't swing the state, but it's possible that this could put a scare into Republicans and make them back off in other, less-conservative states. Regardless, though, it's showing that local Democrats are going to fight, that they're not going to roll over on this.

No, the LEGISLATURE has spoke, NOT THE PEOPLE. Were the people allowed to vote for this law? NO. The LEGISLATURE was allowed to vote. I don't think that exactly counts as the PEOPLE speaking. Oh, but Naliitr, surely the legislature speaks for the people! Yes, but ever think that maybe this legislature was elected BEFORE the abortion issue came to South Dakota? Ever think the people want a new voice? After all, the approval rate of the govenor has dropped. The amount of people vying for spots in the South Dakotan law making administration has increased. These people actually want to be heard, and I say they should be heard.

Last I'd heard this law would be put on hold if enough signatures could be found to put abortion on the ballot for a referendum. The people of South Dakota will be heard in November.

Anyway, an elected legislature is about as legitimate as it can get in a representative democracy. If South Dakotans don't want this law they'll either put it on the ballot or elect a legislature who will remove it. Just be patient, this is an election year after all.

Irrelevant.
It has everything to do with the unique ferocity of the abortion debate in America.

Enjoy the view from your ivory tower. You are a fool to think this way. After all, aren't the Scandanavian countries already becoming infested with neo-fascist bigots, and haven't such groups historically aligned themselves with so-called Christian groups to give themselves some claim to public legitimacy?
Actually in places like Sweden and the UK, Christians tend to be a force on the left, urging the government to help the poor.

Well, there you go. It's a debate about someone other than a woman deciding how a woman's body shall get used and by whom and for what. It's a debate about taking control of pregnancy away from the women who get pregnant. And it's a debate about whether to give fetuses rights that trump the rights of women. In other words, the exact same argument we're having in the States.
Why do Americans have to make every political debate as melodramatic as possible? Arguing everything in wildly emotive terms is what is making your country's politics so uncivilised.

Why do Americans have to make ever political debate as melodramatic as possible?

Well they've got to do something with their free time, haven't they?

Save time by driving, spend it by compaining about the women and children!

It has everything to do with the unique ferocity of the abortion debate in America.

Actually in places like Sweden and the UK, Christians tend to be a force on the left, urging the government to help the poor.
I'm not worried about your local Christians. We have left-of-center and liberal Christians here, too, though you'd hardly know it. I'm talking about the very-rightwing Christian churches that do evangelize internationally. These would be foreign Christians coming into your countries, which they do, just like they do in Africa, South America, and other regions. I'm not proposing some kind of conspiracy or anything. Gobal evangelism is part of their program, and so is political involvement. They make no secret of it -- why should they? It's perfectly legal and ordinary. The problem, from my point of view is not that they are international religious groups. The problem is the politics they espouse and the misleading ways they go about it. If you take a good look at the foreign missionary groups in your country and even at some international faith-based social agencies, you will see that many of them are associated with the same churches that are generating annoying headlines out of the US. Their counterparts in Canada seem to be trying already to start the same political confrontations there.

If your left and liberal Christians can do a better job than ours have of stopping the political debate from being religion-ized the way it has been here, then more power to you and them. After all, you've all been more secular than us for a long time, so you may succeed where we are failing. But I'm telling you that the radical religious right takes a very long-term view and uses indirect, and sometimes outright deceitful, means to get its issues on the ballots and to exploit local social problems to garner support for them. And if you think they are not looking at liberal, secular countries in Europe and bitching about the downfall of western civilization turning away from god and how something has to be done about it, you are mistaken.

Why do Americans have to make every political debate as melodramatic as possible? Arguing everything in wildly emotive terms is what is making your country's politics so uncivilised.
What's wrong with a little melodrama? You watch our tv shows, don't you? Don't hear you crabbing about American melodrama during primetime. :p

An abortion thread, and a thread by Eutrusca falling to the second page in such a short time is an anomoly. There's something very wrong with the world.

An abortion thread, and a thread by Eutrusca falling to the second page in such a short time is an anomoly. There's something very wrong with the world.
Two possibilties:

1) It's Easter, and all the anti-choicers are in church like they should be; or

2) Maybe you're right and this is a dying issue -- without major changes in US law happening -- and I can relax and be happy.

These would be foreign Christians coming into your countries, which they do, just like they do in Africa, South America, and other regions. I'm not proposing some kind of conspiracy or anything. Gobal evangelism is part of their program, and so is political involvement. They make no secret of it -- why should they? It's perfectly legal and ordinary. The problem, from my point of view is not that they are international religious groups. The problem is the politics they espouse and the misleading ways they go about it. If you take a good look at the foreign missionary groups in your country and even at some international faith-based social agencies, you will see that many of them are associated with the same churches that are generating annoying headlines out of the US.
Proof please.

But I'm telling you that the radical religious right takes a very long-term view and uses indirect, and sometimes outright deceitful, means to get its issues on the ballots and to exploit local social problems to garner support for them. And if you think they are not looking at liberal, secular countries in Europe and bitching about the downfall of western civilization turning away from god and how something has to be done about it, you are mistaken.
I'd like some proof before I get worried over nothing. Most of the religious right are probably so ignorant of anything beyond the US borders that they wouldn't bother with what happens in Europe, besides some vague grumbling about secularism.

What's wrong with a a fucking shitload of [edited!] melodrama?
It is making your country's politics so uncivilised.

Two possibilties:

1) It's Easter, and all the anti-choicers are in church like they should be; or

Rhetoric like this could be construed as trying to turn the debate into Christians vs. non-Christians/atheists. I would advise against it.

Well, there you go. It's a debate about someone other than a woman deciding how a woman's body shall get used and by whom and for what. It's a debate about taking control of pregnancy away from the women who get pregnant. And it's a debate about whether to give fetuses rights that trump the rights of women. In other words, the exact same argument we're having in the States.

Even in the US, there is a limit on the point at which a woman can no longer get an elective abortion. The debate you are replying about just seems to be a question of when that should be. Are you opposed to all regulations on abortion, even when the fetus is viable? I never got that impression in any other thread.

Even in the US, there is a limit on the point at which a woman can no longer get an elective abortion. The debate you are replying about just seems to be a question of when that should be. Are you opposed to all regulations on abortion, even when the fetus is viable? I never got that impression in any other thread.
I am on record in several abortion threads as accepting a ban on elective third trimester abortions, i.e. unless there is medical necessity. But you yourself have spent many, many hours per abortion thread arguing against anti-choice advocates who try to conflate the different kinds of abortion procedures with each other and apply "partial birth abortion" propaganda to all abortion procedures, including early term abortions. You have argued tirelessly to expose such misleading tactics.

I'm not even talking about abortion here, Dem. I'm talking about anti-choice factions and the ways in which they try to frame their argument and direct the public debate. I am saying that this debate is not confined to the US only and will continue to expand if pro-choice factions outside the US do not see what is happening here and take steps to prevent it in their own countries. What am I really trying to say here? Just this: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Am I the only person who has seen the headlines and news reports about religious groups getting into the politics of abortion and gay rights in Canada and the UK? Am I the only person who notices the same anti-choice/anti-gay marriage talking points being floated in those countries as in the US? I know they're the exact same phrases because they're all English-speaking countries -- no translations to account for.

Some of our Euro correspondents in this thread are quick to criticize Americans as being unaware of anything outside their own borders, but are they really completely unaware of the reactions of radical rightwing leaders in the US, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and others, against the decisions on gay marriage in other countries, and their complaints about the supposed "secularization" of Europe, as if this is a new thing? As ridiculous as such leaders are (and should be), they are still close to the current US political leadership, and they sway tens of thousands -- in some cases, hundreds of thousands -- of believers, most of whom pump vast sums of money into political campaigns and international missionary programs run by their churches, and all of whom are looked upon as an influential voting block by the current US government.

Yes, they should have nothing at all to say about what goes on in other countries, and they should have no influence on those countries' policies at all, but my point is that they think they should, and they will do and are doing what they think will give them that influence in other countries, the same way they got it in the US.

If people think I'm being paranoid, let them dismiss me. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

Rhetoric like this could be construed as trying to turn the debate into Christians vs. non-Christians/atheists. I would advise against it.
It could be construed that way by people who can't recognize sarcasm, certainly.

Two thoughts...

1 - When I read SD (standing for South Dakota), I was reading it as STD
2 - To support abortion, there was a study done that says that the fetus can't feel pain... Study: Fetuses can't feel pain (http://www.physorg.com/news64202288.html)

My point?

SD needs to introduce MANDATORY birth control unless you want kids and leave abortion alone because the fetus can't feel a damn thing; it's still in Eden.

Proof please.


I'd like some proof before I get worried over nothing. Most of the religious right are probably so ignorant of anything beyond the US borders that they wouldn't bother with what happens in Europe, besides some vague grumbling about secularism.


It is making your country's politics so uncivilised.
I was going to go look up all the websites of groups like Mission Alive and Action International Ministries, and also track down the related websites showing their US and foreign political activities, but I decided not to for two reasons:

1) I'd rather not continue taking this thread away from its topic, and

2) Your remarks about American ignorance and provincialism seem just as ignorant and provincial to me. You seem pretty invested with this idea that Americans are only interested in the weather up their own asses, so I don't even know why you would come into a thread with "South Dakota" in its title, or why you care about anything I might have to say about anything, since I'm an American. As for whether my country's politics or rhetoric are uncivlized, what do you care if they have nothing to do with you or your country?

Let's just draw the bottom line on this argument right here: You think I'm wrong. The end.

Their counterparts in Canada seem to be trying already to start the same political confrontations there.

Yeah, but so far they're failing miserably. It might be noted that, even though a conservative government was recently elected here, that conservative party had to pretty much abandon anything resembling social conservatism (anti-abortion, anti-gay stances, for example) before it had a shot atbeing elected.

And even after mellowing out quite a bit on those ultra-right social issues, they were only handed a minority government, and they're being closely watched by the public.

The abortion debate is done and over with in Canada. It has been for decades. Nobody's interested in digging up that poor, beaten-to-death old horse's grave just to give its corpse another couple of whacks.

<snip
Originally Posted by Muravyets
What's wrong with a a fucking shitload of [edited!] melodrama?
It is making your country's politics so uncivilised.
Oh, and btw, cute trick to characterize my words without acknowledging what I actually said. Not the least bit melodramatic of you. Whatever. :rolleyes:

Even in the US, there is a limit on the point at which a woman can no longer get an elective abortion. The debate you are replying about just seems to be a question of when that should be. Are you opposed to all regulations on abortion, even when the fetus is viable? I never got that impression in any other thread.
Heck, if I'm not mistaken, such regulations are everywhere. It's one thing to let a woman terminate a pregnancy after 2 weeks, when it's only a clump of cells in her womb, but it's quite another to dispose of a perfectly healthy, completely formed baby 3 days before its birth.

I personally support restrictions that take into account the formation of the central nervous system and brain activity. When the nervous system is formed, and brain waves are emitted, that means we can assume the fetus(baby by this stage) is able to feel pain.

It's reasonable to think a woman has plenty of time to make up her mind whether to bring her pregancy to term or not before this happens.

Yeah, but so far they're failing miserably. It might be noted that, even though a conservative government was recently elected here, that conservative party had to pretty much abandon anything resembling social conservatism (anti-abortion, anti-gay stances, for example) before it had a shot atbeing elected.

And even after mellowing out quite a bit on those ultra-right social issues, they were only handed a minority government, and they're being closely watched by the public.

The abortion debate is done and over with in Canada. It has been for decades. Nobody's interested in digging up that poor, beaten-to-death old horse's grave just to give its corpse another couple of whacks.
Good. Excellent. Glad to hear it.

Did you know that, in the US, we've been playing political/social tug-of-war with what we now call the religious right for nearly 100 years? It seems they just don't like to give up. But if you're confident that nobody in Canada wiill ever try to revive this dead horse or any other dead horses ever again, then bully for Canada.

I stated my opinion, and that's all it is -- an opinion. I think other countries should be concerned about the US anti-abortion movement. You disagree. There's not much more to be said about it, is there?

Good. Excellent. Glad to hear it.

Did you know that, in the US, we've been playing political/social tug-of-war with what we now call the religious right for nearly 100 years? It seems they just don't like to give up. But if you're confident that nobody in Canada wiill ever try to revive this dead horse or any other dead horses ever again, then bully for Canada.

Yeah, I'm aware of it. I feel your pain, and am more than slightly annoyed with the amount of ignorance being shown by that small, but oh so vocal minority. What concerns me, though, is that the "small and vocal minority" seems to be going more and more mainstream, and gaining in popularity... Well, they're playing on people's fear and prejudice, so I guess it's bound to have results. The only way to counter this is through education.

I can't guarantee that Canada will never revive any dead horses, but then again, I live in Québec, which can be easily be said to be the most progressive, liberal province of Canada. Add to that a generous independantist proportion, and if the rest of Canada someday decides to be unreasonable and go back to anti-abortion, pro-death penalty or anti-gay marriage stances, and we're likely to tell them to go fuck off. Economic right is fine by us; social right is just plain loony.

I stated my opinion, and that's all it is -- an opinion. I think other countries should be concerned about the US anti-abortion movement. You disagree. There's not much more to be said about it, is there?
You mistake my meaning. I'm not unconcerned with the growing anti-abortion stance in the US of A. Far from it. In fact, it's downright frightening how the self-declared land of freedom and liberty is less and less free. I think taking back from women the liberty to control their body would be a dangerous precedent.

Heck, if I'm not mistaken, such regulations are everywhere. It's one thing to let a woman terminate a pregnancy after 2 weeks, when it's only a clump of cells in her womb, but it's quite another to dispose of a perfectly healthy, completely formed baby 3 days before its birth.

I personally support restrictions that take into account the formation of the central nervous system and brain activity. When the nervous system is formed, and brain waves are emitted, that means we can assume the fetus(baby by this stage) is able to feel pain.

It's reasonable to think a woman has plenty of time to make up her mind whether to bring her pregancy to term or not before this happens.
Are you aware that the idea of women "choosing" to "dispose of a perfectly healthy, completely formed baby 3 days before its birth" is a myth promulgated by the anti-choice movement as part of their campaign against so-called "partial birth abortions"?

We all know the facts:

1) Women do have plenty of time to make up their minds and do make up their minds within the first trimester of pregnancy.

2) I know of no country that does not have laws restricting later abortions, and I do not believe there are any doctors whose professional ethics permit them to perform an elective abortion later than the first trimester.

3) Therefore, third trimester abortions are not only very rare but also extremely likely to be medically necessary -- i.e. not a matter of choice.

I feel as if I'm responding to an anti-choicer's post, even though I know you are an outspoken supporter of women's rights including the right to choose. Has this particular anti-choice talking point so permeated the debate that I'm hearing it even from you now?

I am on record in several abortion threads as accepting a ban on elective third trimester abortions, i.e. unless there is medical necessity.

*snip*

I know all that. I was referring to this line of discussion:


In the UK the only debate is should abortions be available up to the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy (or somewhere around there).
Are you saying that there is argument in favor of banning abortions before then? Isn't that then a debate about banning abortion? In other words, isn't that the exact same thing as SD is arguing about, only not as dramatic -- yet?

I think you misunderstood whta Random said here. I think what was being said is that the only argument still around in UK is whether abortions should cease to be allowed electively after 16 or 18 weeks. In other words, no one (significant anyways) is arguing that elective abortions should not be allowed at early time points. They simply disagree on the point at which abortions should no longer be allowed electively.

Part of the problem here is that both sides, pro abortion and anti abortion, are using every which way to try to garner a fight. Ive seen a lot of people bashing the "militant Christians" for this fight, but ive seen very little accusing the Militant Liberals about the same thing. Abortion has never had the support of the United States people, a simple fact proven that every attempt to legislate it to make it legal in Congress has failed. Every attempt to restrict it passes, then is immediately assaulted in the Courts, where a single judge overrides the will of the people. This is not how democracy works.

The problem i see is four fold:

1) Everybody has their opinions formed already, no one is willing to listen to the other side

2) Both sides see it as their moral duty to win at all costs, there can be no compromising or retreat they feel

3) Both sides cheapen the debate. The Anti Abortion side calls people baby killers and calls the women who get abortions Sluts and Whores. The Pro Abortion side calls the otherside facists who would keep Women in the kitchen and reverse almost 100 years of social progress for women. Neither of these two views add to the debate at all, and none of those steriotypes fit 95% of the people on either side.

4) Both sides make rigged polls to show that their side is the majority opinion. It takes me an hour sometimes to figure out what the question is asking, and that comes from an Ivy League Undergraduate. Both sides are trying to trick you.

The closest i can tell from the polls are thus:
1) A good majority (over 70%) oppose Partial Birth Abortions
2) A fair majority (approximately 60%) oppose a total ban on Abortions
3) a small majority (about 53-55% usually) would support a ban on abortions except in the case of Rape, Incest, or danger to the mother's health (and we dont mean emotional trauma of childbirth)

As someone in the US who opposes Abortions, I have to state that, yes i AM religious. That doesnt mean i go around blowing up abortion clinics, nor do i thump the bible. I leave evangelizing to my Priest, as its his job and his life's work. However, I dont need the Church to tell me its murder, I came to the same conclusion long before i ever looked up that up Dogmatically.

But I need to point out there is another little bit of this debate which get almost 0 attention, which i feel needs to be addressed. The woman who originally was in the Roe v. Wade Case, Miss Roe aka Norma McCorvey, now opposes Abortions. She said the emotional and mental trauma of getting an abortion done was excruciating, and she didnt mean immediately after. She has looked back for the last 30 years and regrets her decision. She has even gone so far as to convert to Christianity, though her opinion of her abortion was solitified well before she did that. According to a study she pushed for, about 70% of women have emotional and mental trauma because of their choice to abort a fetus. However this is the ONLY study ive ever heard on this subject, and i think it should be studied in much more detail before any decisions are made either way.

Id like to close with a compromise which i feel would benefit the US: Ban Abortions except in the cases of Rape, Incest, or Danger to the mother's health. At the same time, since it really is not religion's place to judge people on their private actions, give tax subsidies for people to get perscription Birth Control freely, especially for the poor in america. The rich can pay for it themselves, they have the money. Pretty much, its about forcing people to be responsible, as Sex is not a form of entertainment, it is our species' tool for reproduction. You can have and are encouraged to use whatever methods you choose to use (or not use) to prevent a pregnancy, and the Feds will help you do that if you are poor or middle class, however once the pregnancy actually occurs, you have to realize you made a choice and you are stuck with the effects of making that choice.

Are you aware that the idea of women "choosing" to "dispose of a perfectly healthy, completely formed baby 3 days before its birth" is a myth promulgated by the anti-choice movement as part of their campaign against so-called "partial birth abortions"?

Yes, I was aware of the anti-choice movements using that as a myth to scare people off abortions. But my point was : here in Canada the time restriction on abortions make this kind of thing impossible; that a law can prevent such an abuse of the procedure happening without banning totally abortions.


We all know the facts:

1) Women do have plenty of time to make up their minds and do make up their minds within the first trimester of pregnancy.

2) I know of no country that does not have laws restricting later abortions, and I do not believe there are any doctors whose professional ethics permit them to perform an elective abortion later than the first trimester.

3) Therefore, third trimester abortions are not only very rare but also extremely likely to be medically necessary -- i.e. not a matter of choice.

I feel as if I'm responding to an anti-choicer's post, even though I know you are an outspoken supporter of women's rights including the right to choose. Has this particular anti-choice talking point so permeated the debate that I'm hearing it even from you now?
Again, perhaps this is a result of poor wording on my part, but you're essentially only repeating what I said/meant earlier. I'm for intelligent, abuse-preventing legislation(no last trimester abortions, except in life-threatening circumstances) and women's total freedom of choice in the first trimester.

Again, you're looking at a feminist man. I've always said women are both intelligent and responsible enough to decide whether or not they want an abortion without us men trying to tell them what to do.

Part of the problem here is that both sides, pro abortion and anti abortion,

Those aren't the "sides" I am afraid. The "sides" are those in favor of making abortion illegal, and those who are opposed. One can be opposed to abortion and still not support making it illegal.

The closest i can tell from the polls are thus:
1) A good majority (over 70%) oppose Partial Birth Abortions

Largely because of the inaccurate propoganda surraounding them. D&X is not an elective procedure. Considering when it is used, it can't be - at least not in this country. It is performed for medical reasons only. Once people know that, they don't seem as quick to condemn....

But I need to point out there is another little bit of this debate which get almost 0 attention, which i feel needs to be addressed. The woman who originally was in the Roe v. Wade Case, Miss Roe aka Norma McCorvey, now opposes Abortions. She said the emotional and mental trauma of getting an abortion done was excruciating, and she didnt mean immediately after. She has looked back for the last 30 years and regrets her decision.

Um....maybe nobody ever told you... Miss Roe never had an abortion. The case took long enough that she never got the chance. She gave birth. Thus, she has never experienced any emotional and mental trauma due to an abortion, since she didn't actually get one.

Those aren't the "sides" I am afraid. The "sides" are those in favor of making abortion illegal, and those who are opposed. One can be opposed to abortion and still not support making it illegal.

Good point. Abortions being legal forces no woman opposed to abortion to get one. On the other hand, abortions being illegal forces those women who would have wanted to have one to bear that unwanted child.

I know all that. I was referring to this line of discussion:



I think you misunderstood whta Random said here. I think what was being said is that the only argument still around in UK is whether abortions should cease to be allowed electively after 16 or 18 weeks. In other words, no one (significant anyways) is arguing that elective abortions should not be allowed at early time points. They simply disagree on the point at which abortions should no longer be allowed electively.
I think you missed a further point I made later in that post (or it may have been another post). The poster mentioned medical advancements in the UK that lead to fetuses being viable earlier and earlier. I asked if this meant that a fetus could be kept alive outside a woman's body before the last weeks of the third trimester -- i.e. born very premature but viable and thus able to be kept alive.

Because if not, if the woman must remain pregnant against her will because of concerns about the fetus, then my question about whether fetuses are being granted rights that trump the rights of women stands.

Arguments that focus on the feelings of the fetus while taking focus off the rights of women to control their own medical decisions, and arguments that equate viability with ability to feel pain (an ability that cannot be measured, btw), are staples of the anti-choice movement. Medical advancements that can keep a prematurely born fetus from dying would make abortion unnecessary and render the debate moot. If medicine cannot do that, then these fetuses are not viable, and we have to ask ourselves just what is being claimed and why.

Let's put this into some context: We've already established that women are perfectly able to decide for or against an elective abortion well within the first trimester. Put the medical necessity threshold at 16 weeks, 20 weeks, or 22 weeks, and it will make little difference to the vast majority of women who have already made their decision in the first 2-3 weeks or less.

Now go debate with some anti-choicers and see how they will use that "fetal pain" point. The standard practice is first to insist that it is scientifically proven that fetuses feel pain and react to it and then, in debate, to start pushing the presumed start time for pain reactions earlier and earlier until, virtually, we could say it starts when the gleam in daddy's eye turns into a tear at the mere thought of junior getting aborted.

My bottom line on this is, if we are not talking about medical advancements that allow fetuses to be born and continue to live outside their mother's bodies, then all we are really talking about is a technicality of interest only to doctors, hospitals and insurers (for one reason) and the anti-choice movement (for a different reason).

I know you already know all this. I'm just trying to clarify what my objection to that post was.

Yes, I was aware of the anti-choice movements using that as a myth to scare people off abortions. But my point was : here in Canada the time restriction on abortions make this kind of thing impossible; that a law can prevent such an abuse of the procedure happening without banning totally abortions.


Again, perhaps this is a result of poor wording on my part, but you're essentially only repeating what I said/meant earlier. I'm for intelligent, abuse-preventing legislation(no last trimester abortions, except in life-threatening circumstances) and women's total freedom of choice in the first trimester.

Again, you're looking at a feminist man. I've always said women are both intelligent and responsible enough to decide whether or not they want an abortion without us men trying to tell them what to do.
I know this.

In the US we have the exact same kind of preventative laws you have in Canada, fully in place and functioning for decades, yet we still have this fight on our hands, complete with claims of abuses that not only do not exist, but could already be punished if they did. What is the motivation of a movement to claim that they are fighting to stop something that doesn't happen and to gain legal protections they already have? I say that late term abortion is a red herring, and their motivation is to start from an extreme position that everyone agrees with and then try to finesse the agreement (or the appearance of it at least) into broader and broader areas by erasing the distinction between early term elective abortions and late term non-elective abortions through misleading use of terms. And if they will pursue -- and succeed with -- this tactic here, what makes anyone think they won't try it anywhere else, too?

Those aren't the "sides" I am afraid. The "sides" are those in favor of making abortion illegal, and those who are opposed. One can be opposed to abortion and still not support making it illegal.

I cant imagine how you can say there are no sides, then go and list the sides from a different prospective. You are right however, i should not have used "anti abortion and pro abortion" I should have used "pro life and pro choice", however i did not want to cheapen my post to propogandist labels.



Largely because of the inaccurate propoganda surraounding them. D&X is not an elective procedure. Considering when it is used, it can't be - at least not in this country. It is performed for medical reasons only. Once people know that, they don't seem as quick to condemn....

Funny, i always knew that partial birth abortions were only for medical purposes. Ive never met anybody who thought otherwise, but who knows, maybe living in NYC has given me a biased perspective. Everybody who ive ever heard condemn it condemned it because of the cruelty of how the prodedure is done. Come on, we do Lethal injection for convicted criminals, yet we spill the brains of a baby (and yes in this case it IS a baby since its already left the womb) onto the floor?



Um....maybe nobody ever told you... Miss Roe never had an abortion. The case took long enough that she never got the chance. She gave birth. Thus, she has never experienced any emotional and mental trauma due to an abortion, since she didn't actually get one.

*shrugs* then CNN and Miss Roe herself is wrong, cant argue with that one really.





i also find it rather sad that you nor anybody else on the "pro choice" side gave any word whatsoever to the proposed compromise. That is exactly the additude i was talking about in my post.

I cant imagine how you can say there are no sides, then go and list the sides from a different prospective.

I never said there are no "sides". I said that what you listed were not the "sides" of the debate.

An analogy would be if we were arguing over whether or not to make alcohol illegal, and you came into the thread and characterized it as a "drinker" vs. "non-drinker" thread. One can be a non-drinker and still not want to make alcohol illegal.

Funny, i always knew that partial birth abortions were only for medical purposes. Ive never met anybody who thought otherwise, but who knows, maybe living in NYC has given me a biased perspective. Everybody who ive ever heard condemn it condemned it because of the cruelty of how the prodedure is done. Come on, we do Lethal injection for convicted criminals, yet we spill the brains of a baby (and yes in this case it IS a baby since its already left the womb) onto the floor?

There are no brains spilling on the floor in D&X, nor is the procedure carried out on a fetus that has already left the womb, although it certainly does leave the womb during the process. If a woman were already in delivery (which is the only way the fetus would have already left the womb), then some sort of delivery would be carried out, not an abortion. It appears that you actually do not know how the procedure is actually carried out.

Meanwhile, at late stages, D&X is pretty much the only safe form of abortion. Chemical forms are no longer safe or effective. Suction and curretage is also ineffective at this date. When it comes right down to it, at a certain point, birth or D&X are the only options.

*shrugs* then CNN and Miss Roe herself is wrong, cant argue with that one really.

If she said that she aborted the pregnancy disputed in Roe v. Wade, she outright lied. She had already given birth months before the case ever reached the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt that CNN got that one wrong - it is much more likely that you misread it.

You are correct that she now argues that abortion is procedure that causes undue mental harm to the mother, but she cannot argue that from personal experience, unless there was another abortion beyond the one she argued that she wanted to have.

i also find it rather sad that you nor anybody else on the "pro choice" side gave any word whatsoever to the proposed compromise. That is exactly the additude i was talking about in my post.

People propose that compromise all the time. It basically boils down to, "Women shouldn't have sex. Therefore, if they didn't mean to have sex or are in extreme danger, it's ok for them to have an abortion."

There is no logical reason whatsoever, other than, "Women should be chaste and not have sex," to allow abortion in the case of rape, but not in the case that the woman simply does not want to be pregnant.

Edit: The reason no one addressed your "compromise" is that the same idea is put forth in every debate on this. It has already been examined, and found wanting.

You have but to cross the border into central South Dakota to see pro-life billboards. On a trip from Bismarck to Mobridge I saw no fewer than 10, and that's only about 75 miles in. Western SD is too concerned with tourism to put those billboards up, and the folks in Pierre (like the teachers I met at Riggs HS) seem to oppose the governor's approval of the recent legislation. You can't slag a whole state, I guess, is my point.

I never said there are no "sides". I said that what you listed were not the "sides" of the debate.

An analogy would be if we were arguing over whether or not to make alcohol illegal, and you came into the thread and characterized it as a "drinker" vs. "non-drinker" thread. One can be a non-drinker and still not want to make alcohol illegal.

My apologies on that, i misread what you said



There are no brains spilling on the floor in D&X, nor is the procedure carried out on a fetus that has already left the womb, although it certainly does leave the womb during the process. If a woman were already in delivery (which is the only way the fetus would have already left the womb), then some sort of delivery would be carried out, not an abortion. It appears that you actually do not know how the procedure is actually carried out.

Meanwhile, at late stages, D&X is pretty much the only safe form of abortion. Chemical forms are no longer safe or effective. Suction and curretage is also ineffective at this date. When it comes right down to it, at a certain point, birth or D&X are the only options.

Then do explain how partial birth abortions occur please, if you seem to know so much about it.



If she said that she aborted the pregnancy disputed in Roe v. Wade, she outright lied. She had already given birth months before the case ever reached the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt that CNN got that one wrong - it is much more likely that you misread it.

I will try to find the article, im pretty sure i didnt misread it, as ive read it 5 times, and ive shown the article to many many people. About 20 cant miss something like that

You are correct that she now argues that abortion is procedure that causes undue mental harm to the mother, but she cannot argue that from personal experience, unless there was another abortion beyond the one she argued that she wanted to have.

Hows that for a reason to make abortions illegal then?



People propose that compromise all the time. It basically boils down to, "Women shouldn't have sex. Therefore, if they didn't mean to have sex or are in extreme danger, it's ok for them to have an abortion."

There is no logical reason whatsoever, other than, "Women should be chaste and not have sex," to allow abortion in the case of rape, but not in the case that the woman simply does not want to be pregnant.

i never said anything about women shouldnt have sex. infact i said exactly the opposite. Women have the right to freely choose to have sex if they want. However, choosing to have sex is also choosing to risk pregnancy. It is a choice for them. Just like choosing to use a chainsaw risks you dismembering yourself, or choosing to drive risks you getting into a car crash (maybe through your own fault, maybe someone elses).

Then do explain how partial birth abortions occur please, if you seem to know so much about it.

First of all, the technical term is dilation and extraction, not "partial birth abortion". The latter is a propoganda term created by the anti-choice crowd.

It is essentially a variation on dilation and evacuation (another abortion procedure) that is safer at later time points, because it removes the fetus intact. Essentially, the cervix is dilated and the feet of the fetus are grasped and pulled into the birth canal. An incision is then made in the head, and a suction tube inserted. This is done so that the fetus can be removed intact, instead of having the head crushed or otherwise dismembering the fetus.

Dilation and evacuation, which is most often used in 2nd trimester abortions, actually sounds much more brutal when you think about it. In that procedure, the cervix is dilated, and then forceps are used to pull the fetus into smaller pieces. The head is often crushed so that it can fit through the cervix.

These things sound awful, yes. But, in the end, if an abortion must be carried out, there is no other way to do it.

Edit: Have you ever seen a liver transplant? I have. Brutal stuff. First they burn several cuts into the person's chest. Smells awful. Then they take out the liver - a huge organ. Anywhere they encounter bleeding, they either burn it (the abdominal cavity is almost completely black at the end of the surgery) or tie cords around it. Once they finally get the organ out, they take one from a dead person and stuff it in there. They jerry-rig a few vascular connections, since the vascular connections in one person are not the same as another. When they think they've got it, they allow the person's blood to flow through those vessels again, and into the dead person's liver, which has chemicals in it that can cause all sorts of systemic problems in the short-term. Then they check for bleeding again - often, more burning.

Hows that for a reason to make abortions illegal then?

It isn't. Carrying to term and giving a child up for adoption causes mental stress. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy at all causes mental stress. Having the child and struggling to take care of it causes mental stress. A woman who makes any of these choices may regret it or question it later. But it is her choice to make.

i never said anything about women shouldnt have sex. infact i said exactly the opposite. Women have the right to freely choose to have sex if they want. However, choosing to have sex is also choosing to risk pregnancy. It is a choice for them. Just like choosing to use a chainsaw risks you dismembering yourself, or choosing to drive risks you getting into a car crash (maybe through your own fault, maybe someone elses).

If someone is dismembered, they can seek medical attention to rectify the problem. If someone is in a car crash, they can seek medical attention for any injuries. These are not good comparisons to make if your intention is to support a ban on abortion, as the logical next step is, "If a woman becomes accidentally pregnant, she can seek medical attention to rectify the mistake."
Accepting the risk of getting pregnant is not the same thing as consenting to the pregnancy itself, any more than accepting the risk of being in a car accident is the same as consenting to the car accident.

Edit: One could also argue that being alive is accepting the risk that you might be raped, considering that rape is a crime that can occur to anyone.

*shrugs* then CNN and Miss Roe herself is wrong, cant argue with that one really.


However, McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption.



http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/

I know this.

In the US we have the exact same kind of preventative laws you have in Canada, fully in place and functioning for decades, yet we still have this fight on our hands, complete with claims of abuses that not only do not exist, but could already be punished if they did. What is the motivation of a movement to claim that they are fighting to stop something that doesn't happen and to gain legal protections they already have? I say that late term abortion is a red herring, and their motivation is to start from an extreme position that everyone agrees with and then try to finesse the agreement (or the appearance of it at least) into broader and broader areas by erasing the distinction between early term elective abortions and late term non-elective abortions through misleading use of terms. And if they will pursue -- and succeed with -- this tactic here, what makes anyone think they won't try it anywhere else, too?

Again, the answer against such a threat can only be education. Let's face it, most of the adamantly opposed to abortions being legal don't even have a fucking clue what they're talking about. The lack of knowledge about the current laws, the lack of knowledge about the real abortion practices, and enough propaganda and falsehoods about red herrings suchs as late-term abortion are your problems.

I'm always amazed at how some preachers or religious leaders without even a high school diploma can just go on TV or radio-waves, spouting nonsense in all impunity, making it sound like scientific facts. Anybody having attended a basic biology class knows those guys are talking out of their asses, but nobody seems to bother to tell them.

Again, the answer against such a threat can only be education. Let's face it, most of the adamantly opposed to abortions being legal don't even have a fucking clue what they're talking about. The lack of knowledge about the current laws, the lack of knowledge about the real abortion practices, and enough propaganda and falsehoods about red herrings suchs as late-term abortion are your problems.

I'm always amazed at how some preachers or religious leaders without even a high school diploma can just go on TV or radio-waves, spouting nonsense in all impunity, making it sound like scientific facts. Anybody having attended a basic biology class knows those guys are talking out of their asses, but nobody seems to bother to tell them.
Finally, you and I are back on the same page of agreement. :) And we'll no doubt also agree that the US anti-choice faction should also be condemned for wanting to restrict access to birth control and for trying to replace sex education with abstinence programs in schools, on the grounds that telling people about sex is bad for society. I guess they are also aware that simple facts can knock their arguments right off the table.

As for what people should know -- because most of us have taken those basic biology classes, after all -- sometimes people are ignorant because they never learned the truth, and sometimes they choose to be ignorant for one reason or another. You can educate the first group, but not the second. That's why, no matter how much we educate people, we will never be free of the Robertsons of the world, and they will never lack for an audience. Hence that old saying that the price of freedom is vigilence.

<snip>

Id like to close with a compromise which i feel would benefit the US: Ban Abortions except in the cases of Rape, Incest, or Danger to the mother's health. At the same time, since it really is not religion's place to judge people on their private actions, give tax subsidies for people to get perscription Birth Control freely, especially for the poor in america. The rich can pay for it themselves, they have the money. Pretty much, its about forcing people to be responsible, as Sex is not a form of entertainment, it is our species' tool for reproduction. You can have and are encouraged to use whatever methods you choose to use (or not use) to prevent a pregnancy, and the Feds will help you do that if you are poor or middle class, however once the pregnancy actually occurs, you have to realize you made a choice and you are stuck with the effects of making that choice.
A few problems with this:

1) It's just a variation on the moralistic "women shouldn't have sex" argument. I agree that it is not religion's job to judge people's private actions -- at least not those of people who don't follow the religion in question (whichever it may be) -- but by that same token, it's not your job to declare the proper use of sex for our species. Regardless of how it is framed, this argument still tries to dictate what people do in their private lives.

2) It is based on the fallacy that that abortion is a decision of convenience. For the majority of women, it is a decision of necessity, not convenience.

3) I would love to see subsidies for the poor to have access to birth control, as well as pre-natal care and day care for the children they do choose to have, but I have run into many anti-choicers who are also anti-birth control. This is an issue that would have to be reconciled within the anti-choice movement before anything can be done about it.

It could be construed that way by people who can't recognize sarcasm, certainly.
You have to be prepared for that. It looks like you're getting out the long knives for the abortion debate/battle. It would be advisable to make sure not to point those knives at Christians in general, for it would lose public sympathy for your cause.


Let's just draw the bottom line on this argument right here: You think I'm wrong. The end.
I don't think you're wrong. I just don't know if you're right, or just paranoid. That's why I ask for proof.

Also, Americans are insular. They have less regard for multilateral institutions than Europeans. About 85% of US 18-year olds didn't know where Iraq was before the second Iraq War, and 41% of couldn't name a single country in Asia. My source is Bill Bryson, and Michael Moore has said the same thing.

Oh, and btw, cute trick to characterize my words without acknowledging what I actually said. Not the least bit melodramatic of you.
I did acknowledge that I edited the quote. US political mudslinging ("debate") isn't a "little" melodramatic, it's insanely so.

I stated my opinion, and that's all it is -- an opinion. I think other countries should be concerned about the US anti-abortion movement. You disagree. There's not much more to be said about it, is there?
Surely your opinion must be supported by some facts?

Pretty much, its about forcing people to be responsible, as Sex is not a form of entertainment, it is our species' tool for reproduction. You can have and are encouraged to use whatever methods you choose to use (or not use) to prevent a pregnancy, and the Feds will help you do that if you are poor or middle class, however once the pregnancy actually occurs, you have to realize you made a choice and you are stuck with the effects of making that choice.
Saying that legal abortion is a cop out from responsibility is like saying that buying meat in a shop instead of hunting it yourself it is a cop out from responsibility.

I live in a country where abortions are illegal, and there are too many welfare mothers who would be out working if they had had abortions. Many of them raise unwanted children who end up as criminals. Outlawing abortion causes more problems than it solves.

Also, what's with the "rape exception"? It's impractical. Usually the case will take so long to get to court and get proven that the baby will have been born before this theoretical clearance for abortion could be granted.

And if they will pursue -- and succeed with -- this tactic here, what makes anyone think they won't try it anywhere else, too?
Because "they" (Americans against legal abortion) don't live anywhere else.

Id like to close with a compromise which i feel would benefit the US: Ban Abortions except in the cases of Rape, Incest, or Danger to the mother's health. At the same time, since it really is not religion's place to judge people on their private actions, give tax subsidies for people to get perscription Birth Control freely, especially for the poor in america. The rich can pay for it themselves, they have the money. Pretty much, its about forcing people to be responsible, as Sex is not a form of entertainment, it is our species' tool for reproduction. You can have and are encouraged to use whatever methods you choose to use (or not use) to prevent a pregnancy, and the Feds will help you do that if you are poor or middle class, however once the pregnancy actually occurs, you have to realize you made a choice and you are stuck with the effects of making that choice.

Well, see, that compromise wouldn't really work because it would breed left-wing people out, especially with the current sex education plan you have in America.

Although as a gay man, I'm certainly amused by your views on sex.

Guess my guy and I were trying to make a baby without even realizing it.

You have to be prepared for that. It looks like you're getting out the long knives for the abortion debate/battle. It would be advisable to make sure not to point those knives at Christians in general, for it would lose public sympathy for your cause.


I don't think you're wrong. I just don't know if you're right, or just paranoid. That's why I ask for proof.

Also, Americans are insular. They have less regard for multilateral institutions than Europeans. About 85% of US 18-year olds didn't know where Iraq was before the second Iraq War, and 41% of couldn't name a single country in Asia. My source is Bill Bryson, and Michael Moore has said the same thing.


I did acknowledge that I edited the quote. US political mudslinging ("debate") isn't a "little" melodramatic, it's insanely so.


Surely your opinion must be supported by some facts?


<snip>


Because "they" (Americans against legal abortion) don't live anywhere else.
I'm not going to pursue this because it's off topic, which as you will note is about something happening within the US, so our presumed insularity should not be an obstacle to our debating it. I'll just point out there are no travel restrictions on Americans, whether they are for or against abortion. Someday, we'll meet in a thread where recent statistics about religiosity/fundamentalism in the US and in other countries is the topic, and then we'll revisit this. Okay? In the meantime, I'd rather back away from any statements that you take exception to and stick with the South Dakota/US abortion issue.

Guess my guy and I were trying to make a baby without even realizing it.
Yeah, those damn breeders say it'll never work...

But I say we keep trying until it does! :D Either we prove them wrong, or have lots and lots of fun in the process!

Yeah, those damn breeders say it'll never work...

But I say we keep trying until it does! :D Either we prove them wrong, or have lots and lots of fun in the process!
Yup. And while they get saddled with two, three, four kids, we still have none; we can travel the world, buy large homes, drive the newest cars, and spend large amounts of money on ourselves, rather than sproglets!

Yup. And while they get saddled with two, three, four kids, we still have none; we can travel the world, buy large homes, drive the newest cars, and spend large amounts of money on ourselves, rather than sproglets!
And still manage to spoil our nephews and nieces silly when they come visit, making things unbearable for our poor brethren. Just to get all the fun stuff playing with kids, while avoiding all that troublesome responsibility and discipline. How evil of us :D

And still manage to spoil our nephews and nieces silly when they come visit, making things unbearable for our poor brethren. Just to get all the fun stuff playing with kids, while avoiding all that troublesome responsibility and discipline. How evil of us :D
Of course! But you see, we can't actually play with kids... because then they'll catch gay. It's the trade-off, I guess.

For the record, I still plan on having my own. *grin* Not naturally, mind. *shudder*

The way it's gonna be is when the time comes, I'm going to see if I can't find a friend willing to be the mother of the children of my partner and I. The kids will be half-siblings, biologically, that way, and it'll cut down on legal hassles when they get older.

personally i am pro-choice. i really don't think anyone should tell me what i can and cannot do with my body. that being said (and by the way can i just say the people here are awesome.. i didn't read the whole thread BUT i haven't seen any name calling.. thats freaking awesome)
i just really want to goto a pro-life rally or anywhere where they are standing in front of the clinic calling people names and generally being mean.. walk up to the front with a sign and hold it towards the protesters the sign will say "Thou shalt not judge" very simply
they sit there and call the women and doctors names and tell them they are going to hell.. and other bad things (now this does go on both sides.. but (tho i have no figures to back this.. it's an assumption) i do believe that the pro-lifers are more religious) they spout scripture saying thou shalt not kill.. but they forget about human decency.. they are violating their own laws by saying those things.. maybe they'd just ignore me.. but my little dream has them all one by one looking at the sign and hanging their head in shame for the things they have said


ok thats my rant.. flame if you wish. i just want people to stop being so damned mean to others. and if you are going to live by a set of tennants and try to enforce them upon others.. you yourself need to abide by all of them all of the time.. you can't pick and choose when it suits you

I'm not going to pursue this because it's off topic, which as you will note is about something happening within the US, so our presumed insularity should not be an obstacle to our debating it. I'll just point out there are no travel restrictions on Americans, whether they are for or against abortion. Someday, we'll meet in a thread where recent statistics about religiosity/fundamentalism in the US and in other countries is the topic, and then we'll revisit this. Okay? In the meantime, I'd rather back away from any statements that you take exception to and stick with the South Dakota/US abortion issue.
How about you answer the parts of the post which are relevant to the topic then?