New South Dakota Abortion Law

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,297
146
Slates Take


Doesn't sound like they thought this one out very well. When lawmakers start trying to define biology terms I guess this is what you get:

Fetal Separation

Starting this week, under orders from the state attorney general and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, medical providers in South Dakota must present a scripted statement to women who seek abortions. The script, dictated by the legislature three years ago, declares that any abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Until now, I wasn't aware that the fetus?a term that, according to the South Dakota law, includes "the implanted embryo"?was a whole, separate, living human being. I thought it was ... you know ... implanted. I mean, I'm just a guy, not really an expert or anything. But, um, placenta? Umbilical cord? Do those terms ring a bell? And that's not even getting to the tricky stuff, like the role of maternal RNA in directing embryonic growth or all the work done by the womb to facilitate the embryo's attachment and nourishment.

I have to say, it's a relief to learn that the embryo is so complete and independent. I mean, it solves the whole problem. Here's this woman who just wants to be separated from her embryo. And lo and behold, it's already separate! No need to agonize. Just detach it and let it grow. It's separate, it's whole, it's living. Cancel the abortion. Perform a separation instead.

Sure, some cranky district attorney might take you to court, claiming your separation was really an abortion. Make sure you countersue for legal costs, because you've got a slam-dunk case. The law under which you're being prosecuted doesn't just declare that embryos and fetuses are separate. It also defines abortion as "the use of any means to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus."

How can South Dakota claim that you should know separation will kill the fetus, when South Dakota has insisted on informing you, prior to the procedure, that the fetus is already whole and separate?

Don't give me some medical-school mumbo jumbo about obstetrics. The legislature mooted all that blather when it superimposed its judgment. Fetuses are whole and separate. Therefore, being a law-abiding citizen, you have no reason to believe that separation will cause fetal death. Therefore, under the law's terms, separation is not abortion. No need to bother with the onerous paperwork and liability threats the legislature has assigned exclusively to abortion. You're not in the abortion business anymore.

Look, I don't like abortions. Fortunately, neither do the women who ask for them. Most abortions happen because women get pregnant when they're not ready. Prevent the pregnancy, and you prevent the abortion. So, here's a word of advice to legislators like those in South Dakota: Stop withholding birth control and stop lying to women about their bodies. You can't even keep your lies straight. That's how you ended up telling doctors to tell women that separation will kill a separate human being. See you in court.


Any thoughts?

Oops I know I know P&N that way <==
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
I suspect they were intending 'separate' to mean that the fetus is its own organism, not that they were meaning that it was separate from the mother for care & nourishment.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

They need to focus on legislation to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies such as free condoms, free birth control, etc. That, alone, would save the government billions in welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

They need to focus on legislation to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies such as free condoms, free birth control, etc. That, alone, would save the government billions in welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

What so we kill a child because no one will adopt it?? I think not. And there is no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies except thru abstinence.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

They need to focus on legislation to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies such as free condoms, free birth control, etc. That, alone, would save the government billions in welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

What so we kill a child because no one will adopt it?? I think not. And there is no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies except thru abstinence.

Obviously, birth control beyond abstience is not 100% effective, but it's close and when used properly among a large group, it would drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies.

It's funny how it seems like the "pro-life" people only give a sh1t about you before you're born or when you're a vegetable on your death bed. Anything in between, bah, who gives a sh1t?

One last comment: being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. No one wanting to adopt children just goes to show that people don't care about you once you're born. So we go back to the birth control argument: providing birth control and teaching the people who are inevitably going to have sex anyway will at least limit the number of unwanted babies being born and the number of abortions that might be performed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,719
47,408
136
Our government won't focus on birth control because our society as a whole is batshit insane about sex. Must be our Puritanical roots. I for one will never understand the US anti-sex movement. (and don't fool yourself, that's what it is)
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,679
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.


However I do agree with this:
They need to focus on legislation to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies such as free condoms, free birth control, etc. That, alone, would save the government billions in welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

I believe that instead of spending all this money on pro or anti abortion propaganda the funds should all be pooled into family planning and things of that nature which would eliminate the need for abortions, and thus the debate, in the first place.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Our government won't focus on birth control because our society as a whole is batshit insane about sex. Must be our Puritanical roots. I for one will never understand the US anti-sex movement. (and don't fool yourself, that's what it is)

Authoritarianism depends on repression and the first thing that gets repressed is natural joy. Self hate is antithetical to it. Authoritarianism does not appeal to people who have real self love and experience life fully.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

They need to focus on legislation to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies such as free condoms, free birth control, etc. That, alone, would save the government billions in welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

What so we kill a child because no one will adopt it?? I think not. And there is no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies except thru abstinence.

Obviously, birth control beyond abstience is not 100% effective, but it's close and when used properly among a large group, it would drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies.

It's funny how it seems like the "pro-life" people only give a sh1t about you before you're born or when you're a vegetable on your death bed. Anything in between, bah, who gives a sh1t?

One last comment: being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. No one wanting to adopt children just goes to show that people don't care about you once you're born. So we go back to the birth control argument: providing birth control and teaching the people who are inevitably going to have sex anyway will at least limit the number of unwanted babies being born and the number of abortions that might be performed.

I think your missing a fundamental point of pro-life and that is the need to protect those who are helpless. A child in the womb is helpless. A person in a coma is helpless and needs to be protected to the point where there are no further medical options left.

I am not against sex eduction, but I take exception to the notion that people cannot control their sexual impulses implied in your statement that "people are inevitably going to have sex". Yes, inevitably most will. But we are humans, not animals and we can control our emotions and physical desires if we choose.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
I am all for spending more time and money when it comes to educating and making the prevention of unwanted pregnancies much easier and much cheaper. That's the most important thing to do. Unfortunately, there are currently too many people in power who are against both abortion and BC at the same time or they are simply not willing to put their money where their mouth is.

However, I am also all for allowing women to easily get an abortion. I don't like abortions, but the way I see it is that it is a choice where I need to choose the lesser of two evils. On one hand, my views involve allowing the killing of an unborn fetus. On the other hand, the opposite view results in many more unwanted babies that are born under the wings of irresponsible parents. Parents who do not want their kids usually do a very poor job raising those kids. Kids who have not been raised well have an exponentially greater chance of growing up being irresponsible and making very bad decisions including not taking the proper precautions when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies when they start having sex. The problem potentially multiplies itself in the process and it produces other problems such as more people that are lazy leechers of the government and even criminals.

Now, making abortion easily accessible to women without pressure is often a moral issue for many and logically it suggests to some that women will continuously use it as a form of birth control which I am certain happens to a degree. However, I do not think it happens often enough to make it less accessible considering the consequences of doing so. I also believe it will happen a lot less if BC was available for free or extremely cheap.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,055
12,245
136
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0


Fetuses of the world (or at least South Dakota) unite!

The next thing you know, they'll take away your voting rights.

I think people would be happier and healthier if they were never born.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

You really think being pro-choice is an "abortions for all" stance? Pro-choice is just saying, "It's not my place to decide how someone else uses their body." With the right education and birth control in place, abortion rates would go down anyway.

I think it's ridiculous that these small government types (like yourself) want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

Also, can a pre-cognitive fetus really be called a human being? What defines a human being, a blob of cells that resembles a fish and has no mental capacity of its own (since that does look like a lot of adults these days....)?
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

You really think being pro-choice is an "abortions for all" stance? Pro-choice is just saying, "It's not my place to decide how someone else uses their body." With the right education and birth control in place, abortion rates would go down anyway.

I think it's ridiculous that these small government types (like yourself) want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

Also, can a pre-cognitive fetus really be called a human being? What defines a human being, a blob of cells that resembles a fish and has no mental capacity of its own (since that does look like a lot of adults these days....)?

A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

You really think being pro-choice is an "abortions for all" stance? Pro-choice is just saying, "It's not my place to decide how someone else uses their body." With the right education and birth control in place, abortion rates would go down anyway.

I think it's ridiculous that these small government types (like yourself) want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

Also, can a pre-cognitive fetus really be called a human being? What defines a human being, a blob of cells that resembles a fish and has no mental capacity of its own (since that does look like a lot of adults these days....)?

A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.
 

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

The world would be better if people kept to their own business. So it offends your sensibilities. Cry me a river.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

You really think being pro-choice is an "abortions for all" stance? Pro-choice is just saying, "It's not my place to decide how someone else uses their body." With the right education and birth control in place, abortion rates would go down anyway.

I think it's ridiculous that these small government types (like yourself) want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

Also, can a pre-cognitive fetus really be called a human being? What defines a human being, a blob of cells that resembles a fish and has no mental capacity of its own (since that does look like a lot of adults these days....)?

A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.

Um, Hello? That's what has been happening ever since Roe V. Wade. The majority was massively opposed but the minority pushed it UPON ALL OF THE USA. Now, a STATE, one of 50 in the union, wants to use it's majority vote to change the law in it's own state, not the whole nation.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
So the 2006 ballot measure to ban abortion in SD failed in a huge landslide, so their lawmakers come back with this? :roll:
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
I hope it passes. Roe V Wade was a BAD law either way. It should be up to the states for things like this anyway. If you want the option to murder an unborn, partially born baby, don't move to SD.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

You really think being pro-choice is an "abortions for all" stance? Pro-choice is just saying, "It's not my place to decide how someone else uses their body." With the right education and birth control in place, abortion rates would go down anyway.

I think it's ridiculous that these small government types (like yourself) want a government so small that it can fit in a woman's uterus.

Also, can a pre-cognitive fetus really be called a human being? What defines a human being, a blob of cells that resembles a fish and has no mental capacity of its own (since that does look like a lot of adults these days....)?

A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.

Um, Hello? That's what has been happening ever since Roe V. Wade. The majority was massively opposed but the minority pushed it UPON ALL OF THE USA. Now, a STATE, one of 50 in the union, wants to use it's majority vote to change the law in it's own state, not the whole nation.
Tough shit, Federal Law takes precedent.