New South Dakota Abortion Law

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
wow.

just


wow.

:thumbsup:

Clearly this thread proves that we need more abortions. :laugh:

Damn you - made me choke on the coke I was drinking laughing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I swear, some people would argue that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

You asked for it: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Ugh. I'm going to kill myself.

But aren't you pro-life? 😉

😛


Seriously, the abortion issue revolves around the oldest and most basic beliefs of liberalism. One so old and so sacred that it should be shared by liberals and liberal conservatives alike. Which is when John Locke established the most basic aspect of property by saying that every man's soul and body belongs to himself and should be left to himself.
The agenda of the pro-life crowd runs contrary to this, as its premise is that, from the point of conception (which is always cast as the 'sin' of sex) until the moment of birth, a woman's body belongs to the state because of her obligation, not to the fetus, but to the greater good of the collective which that fetus is expected to serve.


Look, I respect where you're coming from. I personally am strongly opposed to abortion on a moral level. But I will not allow my personal moral outrage to justify the wrongful stealing by the state of that most basic of property, an individual's own body.
Perhaps you could say that I balance my moralities and find the latter immorality to be worse. I assume you're opposed to communism, right? Where it is argued that the state should have the right to deny you the fruits of your labor for the greater good? Can you see how these 2 issues are similar?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Vic

That's because, despite his occasional soaring rhetoric, he's not an actual conservative but one of those same religious authoritarian types who fought against Locke, Jefferson, et al as they established that a person's body and soul does not belong to state and church, among other basic human rights.
The 'pro-life' agenda is part of a movement whose goal is nothing less but to re-enslave humanity to theocracy.

"The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1800

Oops. Looks like you glossed over my previous post a few pages back, but I'll quote it for you:

Originally posted by: Hellokeith

Making abortion illegal only makes abortion illegal. Enforcement and legal repercussions are a completely different matter. Laws are in place to discourage unwanted behaviors, and we don't prosecute people until after a crime. I honestly don't see how liberals jump to the ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion that women will be bound up and turned into helpless baby factories, except only to incite fictitious fear in uninformed women.

Pro-abortion people argue till their mouths are foamy for bodily rights choices, while there is an unborn child's body in there about to be physically destroyed, and not given a choice in the matter. What of the child's bodily rights? What of its choice to live? I haven't read any medical journals where an unborn child was asked if it wanted to die and it responded in the positive.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

That's because, despite his occasional soaring rhetoric, he's not an actual conservative but one of those same religious authoritarian types who fought against Locke, Jefferson, et al as they established that a person's body and soul does not belong to state and church, among other basic human rights.
The 'pro-life' agenda is part of a movement whose goal is nothing less but to re-enslave humanity to theocracy.

"The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1800

Oops. Looks like you glossed over my previous post a few pages back, but I'll quote it for you:

Originally posted by: Hellokeith

Making abortion illegal only makes abortion illegal. Enforcement and legal repercussions are a completely different matter. Laws are in place to discourage unwanted behaviors, and we don't prosecute people until after a crime. I honestly don't see how liberals jump to the ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion that women will be bound up and turned into helpless baby factories, except only to incite fictitious fear in uninformed women.

Pro-abortion people argue till their mouths are foamy for bodily rights choices, while there is an unborn child's body in there about to be physically destroyed, and not given a choice in the matter. What of the child's bodily rights? What of its choice to live? I haven't read any medical journals where an unborn child was asked if it wanted to die and it responded in the positive.

First, let's get one thing straight. Pro-abortion and pro-choice and two different things. One can be pro-choice and simply choose to never have an abortion themselves because they believe it is wrong, but completely understand and respect others who choose to do the opposite because they value both their right to make the choice as well as the rights of others to make their own choice.

Secondly, according to law, there is no child when an abortion takes place. There is only a fetus and a fetus does not have rights. Now, whether or not you agree with the law is something else. Lots of people do not agree with certain laws, rights, and freedoms.

 

[Genx87]

I agree with Vic's arguments of rights of ones own body. But it can easily and should be applied to the child within as well. And like I have said, at this point I would be happy with outlawing partial birth abortions. That is simply disgusting on all levels. I really cant believe we as a nation allow such an immoral procedure. Something straight out of a nazi fantasy book. Yeah I invoked goodwins law, sue me. :laugh:

 

[seemingly random]

Probably stepping in it here but since there seems to be a gathering of pro-lifers here I'd like to get an opinion on other 'lifes'. There is much talk about the life of an unborn child (ignoring debatable terminology for now) but what about the life of the already born. One obvious example is a soldier. Do you try with the same extreme measures to save his life? How about people how die in car wrecks? Should cars be outlawed? I won't even go into the condemned prisoner subject.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Probably stepping in it here but since there seems to be a gathering of pro-lifers here I'd like to get an opinion on other 'lifes'. There is much talk about the life of an unborn child (ignoring debatable terminology for now) but what about the life of the already born. One obvious example is a soldier. Do you try with the same extreme measures to save his life? How about people how die in car wrecks? Should cars be outlawed? I won't even go into the condemned prisoner subject.

No, I don't go to the same extreme measures to save a soldier's life. But certainly you can see the difference between a soldier killed in the line of duty and a child killed by its own parents.

One is a result of war, the other is horrifying.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree with Vic's arguments of rights of ones own body. But it can easily and should be applied to the child within as well. And like I have said, at this point I would be happy with outlawing partial birth abortions. That is simply disgusting on all levels. I really cant believe we as a nation allow such an immoral procedure. Something straight out of a nazi fantasy book. Yeah I invoked goodwins law, sue me. :laugh:

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue in favor of late-term abortions.

OTOH, an argument in favor of 1st trimester abortions is that more than half of all conceived fetuses are naturally aborted/miscarried in the first tri anyway.

To hellokeith, I'm sure God forgot to ask 'the unborn child' if it wanted to die in those cases... :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Probably stepping in it here but since there seems to be a gathering of pro-lifers here I'd like to get an opinion on other 'lifes'. There is much talk about the life of an unborn child (ignoring debatable terminology for now) but what about the life of the already born. One obvious example is a soldier. Do you try with the same extreme measures to save his life? How about people how die in car wrecks? Should cars be outlawed? I won't even go into the condemned prisoner subject.

No, I don't go to the same extreme measures to save a soldier's life. But certainly you can see the difference between a soldier killed in the line of duty and a child killed by its own parents.

One is a result of war, the other is horrifying.

War is also horrifying, according to every single first-hand account I've ever read of it. Including from many people who heroism and patriotism is beyond all questioning.

There is also the compelling argument that war is the act of parents killing their own children. 'With your shield or on it," and all that. It is certainly making one's children into sacrificial lambs, no doubt of that IMO.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Probably stepping in it here but since there seems to be a gathering of pro-lifers here I'd like to get an opinion on other 'lifes'. There is much talk about the life of an unborn child (ignoring debatable terminology for now) but what about the life of the already born. One obvious example is a soldier. Do you try with the same extreme measures to save his life? How about people how die in car wrecks? Should cars be outlawed? I won't even go into the condemned prisoner subject.

No, I don't go to the same extreme measures to save a soldier's life. But certainly you can see the difference between a soldier killed in the line of duty and a child killed by its own parents.

One is a result of war, the other is horrifying.

War is not horrifying??? If even 1/10 of the stories are true, there's nothing that can be compared to it.

A parent who sends off his kid to war could be interpreted as contributing to voluntary manslaughter. A couple of years ago, some father was bragging that he had lost more than one son in iraq. I suppose that's a parents right. Which is worse - the kid coming home in a body bag or alive in a physical and/or emotional mess?

How about killing abortion doctors? Ok with that too?

And I notice that religion has been carefully kept hidden in this thread but suppose that it's lurking there somewhere. So if someone is pro-life because of religion, the argument automatically becomes weaker.

Sorry, but I'm just looking for some consistency - whether I agree with it or not.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Making abortion illegal only makes abortion illegal. Enforcement and legal repercussions are a completely different matter. Laws are in place to discourage unwanted behaviors, and we don't prosecute people until after a crime. I honestly don't see how liberals jump to the ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion that women will be bound up and turned into helpless baby factories, except only to incite fictitious fear in uninformed women.

[/quote]

Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jonks

Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

Nothing personal eskimo, but I'd be interested in seeing this research.

It doesn't seem to make sense. One would think law has some deterrant effect against crime. I mean, were abortions as high in 1972 as they were after Roe v. Wade?

 

[seemingly random]

Although none of us remember it, I think some have heard of the results of prohibition in the 1920s. It was the law and very effective, eh?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jonks

Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

Nothing personal eskimo, but I'd be interested in seeing this research.

It doesn't seem to make sense. One would think law has some deterrant effect against crime. I mean, were abortions as high in 1972 as they were after Roe v. Wade?

No problem. here's the NY Times article.

The full text of the study
And the major applicable quote in the conclusion:

Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively (panel 1). The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: jonks

Confused...if abortion is illegal, where exactly does a woman go to get an abortion for which she can later be arrested?

The same as with any other existing illegal medical action: she doesn't go do it.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

>90% of attempted abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

100% of completed abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

Unsafe in this context means fatal, which of course is medically much worse than an infection.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree with Vic's arguments of rights of ones own body. But it can easily and should be applied to the child within as well. And like I have said, at this point I would be happy with outlawing partial birth abortions. That is simply disgusting on all levels. I really cant believe we as a nation allow such an immoral procedure. Something straight out of a nazi fantasy book. Yeah I invoked goodwins law, sue me. :laugh:

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue in favor of late-term abortions.

OTOH, an argument in favor of 1st trimester abortions is that more than half of all conceived fetuses are naturally aborted/miscarried in the first tri anyway.

To hellokeith, I'm sure God forgot to ask 'the unborn child' if it wanted to die in those cases... :roll:

Okay, I'll argue for it, it's her body.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

>90% of attempted abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

100% of completed abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

Unsafe in this context means fatal, which of course is medically much worse than an infection.

So? Did you not read the second sentence of my post?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Did you not read the second sentence of my post?

We cannot stop murder, so we might as well make it legal? Are you honestly trying to argue that? I guess some Natural Born Killers might agree with you, but I feel pretty confident even the far left isn't calling for the penitentiary gates to be opened à la carte.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Back in olden times, before artificial insemination, I guess we don't know where pregnancy came from. Gosh, the abortion debate must've been pretty easy to decide back then.

No, sex didn't cause pregnancy any more than it does today. Even then, it was uterine implantation of a fertilized zygote that caused pregnancy, not sex.

I can't believe you are arguing this. Pregnancy is caused by fertilizing an egg. Traditionally, this means sex.

No, this means fertilization, which sex does not always lead to.

I swear, some people would argue that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

In base 3, 2+2 equals 11. 🙂

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Pro-abortion...

A point of order: I am not "pro-abortion." I am pro-choice. I am fully supportive of any policy which reduces the number of abortions demanded by women, that does not simultaneously rob them of their fundamental rights. In this regard, I am quite truthfully anti-abortion, and it is disingenuous to describe me otherwise.

people argue till their mouths are foamy for bodily rights choices, while there is an unborn child's body in there about to be physically destroyed, and not given a choice in the matter.

What of the child's bodily rights? What of its choice to live? I haven't read any medical journals where an unborn child was asked if it wanted to die and it responded in the positive.

That is because no person, born or unborn, has the right to choose to occupy the body of another person, forcibly extract its very nourishment from that person's body, and to return the favor with injections of hormones and waste. That type of arrangement requires the explicit consent of the person whose right not to have that happen to them would be compromised.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Funny you should ask that. Research into the issue shows that abortion rates don't actually increase or decrease depending on if it is illegal or not. So... women will still be getting them. My guess would be to look for back alley doctor's offices, or perhaps hospital ERs after the women fall victim to infection or some other awful thing due to unsafe and unsanitary procedures that will be forced upon them.

>90% of attempted abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

100% of completed abortions are unsafe for the unborn child.

Unsafe in this context means fatal, which of course is medically much worse than an infection.

Unborn "child?" I reject the tendentious, absolutist, black and white notion that fetus = child. A late-term fetus? Certainly. A fetus in the first trimester? Certainly not. And you, of course, believe that even a just-implanted ovum is a "baby", too.

I reject your terminology, and your so-called argument is therefore meaningless.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Pro-abortion people argue till their mouths are foamy for bodily rights choices, while there is an unborn child's body in there about to be physically destroyed, and not given a choice in the matter. What of the child's bodily rights? What of its choice to live? I haven't read any medical journals where an unborn child was asked if it wanted to die and it responded in the positive.

Oh, goody. We have a solution. All women seeking abortion will ask very clearly, and at least five times: "Do you have any objection to my aborting you?" If the fetus doesn't say no, the women proceeds with the abortion.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Also, attachment occurs 6 days after conception. I and many others will gladly compromise and agree with you that human life begins at attachment, if we can get that in writing (aka legislation).

Where human life begins is irrelevant. Where human personhood begins is what's important. You, of course, are incapable of understanding the distinction.