New South Dakota Abortion Law

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
It seems crazy to me that people actually argue for forcing someone to bring a child that they don't want into the world. That's certainly going to turn out great for the child, the parent, and the world. :confused:
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. There is no difference between aborting a 8 1/2 week old fetus and an 8 1/2 month old fetus. Both are 100% human. If you are in support of abortion, you must support it up until the first neonatal breath, else we get into an argument again about when human life begins which has already been universally agreed upon by geneticists and doctors alike.


Originally posted by: shira
Where human personhood begins is what's important. You, of course, are incapable of understanding the distinction.

Ah, we are finally getting somewhere. Because it doesn't really matter if the unborn child is human, since it doesn't have legalrights, so we can just conveniently do whatever we like to it. I recall a very similar group of humans just a few hundred years ago who had no rights - slaves - and how now slavery is near universally accepted in this country as barbaric and unconstitutional.

If this country lasts another 200 hundred years, I do believe abortion will be looked back upon people of that time as 1000x worse than slavery ever was.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
...
If this country lasts another 200 hundred years, I do believe abortion will be looked back upon people of that time as 1000x worse than slavery ever was.
I hope the need for abortion becomes non-existent. But until there is better birth control, better people who don't rape, responsible people who take the birth control and better predictive capabilities for genetic malfunctions, it won't.

---

What do the pro-lifers think of assisted suicide - for those who have pain that neither you nor I can fathom, etc? Are you concerned about all life or just fetuses? The question arose from a previous poster who said it would be a tough decision whether to save his wife or fetus. For those who actively campaign against abortion, what have you done about providing for the babies born who are unwanted or have parents incapable of caring for them? And please don't just say "pay taxes, so the state can take care of them".
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. There is no difference between aborting a 8 1/2 week old fetus and an 8 1/2 month old fetus. Both are 100% human. If you are in support of abortion, you must support it up until the first neonatal breath, else we get into an argument again about when human life begins which has already been universally agreed upon by geneticists and doctors alike.
Human life does not begin at conception, as has already been covered in this thread. At no point in the reproductive process are any of the constituent cells not human or not alive, so there can be no such beginnings.

Moreover, being human and alive does not automatically entitle something with the rights of a person. HeLa cell cultures, cancerous tumors and blood samples are all human and alive, and yet they're flushed down drains every day.


Originally posted by: shira
Where human personhood begins is what's important. You, of course, are incapable of understanding the distinction.

Ah, we are finally getting somewhere. Because it doesn't really matter if the unborn child is human, since it doesn't have legalrights, so we can just conveniently do whatever we like to it.
That certainly isn't true, and it demonstrates a profound ignorance of the pertinent issues. Only a pregnant mother can decide to terminate her pregnancy, and there are provisions in the law for causing the unlawful death of a fetus (distinct from persons, incidentally).

I recall a very similar group of humans just a few hundred years ago who had no rights - slaves - and how now slavery is near universally accepted in this country as barbaric and unconstitutional.
Slaves were persons, still, under the law, and they in fact had some rights. This is all irrelevant, of course, to the issue of abortion.

Somehow I don't think that matters to you.

 

Stiganator

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2001
2,489
0
76
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Some people might want them for any number of reasons. Their body, their decision.Pretty simple. It is quite obvious that a fetus is not self sufficient until at least 30ish weeks and even then we're probably talking 50% survival. A baby is alive when they can survive with reasonable care, all other cases involve them being kept alive.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Where human life begins is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. There is no difference between aborting a 8 1/2 week old fetus and an 8 1/2 month old fetus. Both are 100% human. If you are in support of abortion, you must support it up until the first neonatal breath, else we get into an argument again about when human life begins which has already been universally agreed upon by geneticists and doctors alike.

You're arguing in circles and are not responding to what I've stated: There's a BIG difference between aborting a 8 1/2-week-old fetus (which is NOT a person) and a 8 1/2-month old fetus (which IS a person). This isn't some arbitrary cheapening of humanity. It's the difference between mere protoplasm on the one hand and the emotions, needs, responsiveness, awareness, and everything else on the other hand that makes human life a person.

Thus, it's absolute nonsense that I "must support" abortion for an 8 1/2-month-old fetus. That would be true only in your wacko universe, where people can't tell the differences between zygotes and full- or late-term babies.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: 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.

Your response is perplexing, and here's why.

Originally posted by: hellokeith
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]

See? You want all abortion illegal. Meaning any woman who gets pregnant loses any option other than full gestation. Rape, broken condom, alcohol/drug induced related decisions, 12 year-olds sexually experimenting, and yes, simply unplanned and inconvenient pregnancies. Women will, in effect, become helpless baby factories any time a male successfully deposits his seed in her.

So tell me again, how is life for women under your utopia where all pregnancies must be borne out the full nine months, a "ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion" to which "liberals" jump? It's not only a logical conclusion, but seems to me the only possible result of such a regime, excepting of course those women who seek illegal abortions to avoid becoming such a factory, many of whom will subject themselves to dangerous, unsanitary, and often fatal conditions.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.

Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.

Actually history shows it is.

Men have always determined what is to happen to women.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.

Yes, fortunately people like you are in power who will continue to speak out of 2 sides of their mouths- exploitation for some, protection of rights for others. Try a complete non-exploitation platform. It is unheard of in our politics. That is one reason why there is such division in the nation.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive and gets herself pregnant, just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.
Fortunately it's not up to those like you to determine.

Yes, fortunately people like you are in power who will continue to speak out of 2 sides of their mouths- exploitation for some, protection of rights for others. Try a complete non-exploitation platform. It is unheard of in our politics. That is one reason why there is such division in the nation.
Blah, blah, blah.:roll:

 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive.
No, she doesn't. What a silly idea. Contraceptives have failure rates, y'know.

and gets herself pregnant,
She doesn't get herself pregnant. The zygote implants itself into her uterine wall, and in fact to accomplish that it must subvert her immune defenses that would otherwise protect her.

just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.

For shit's sake you're comparing having sex to committing a crime -- don't you see how divorced from reality your thinking is?

Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. I've already cited precedent in this thread to establish that.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The U.S. Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, consistently refer to the rights of "people" and "persons," never to the rights of "human life."

Since the United States is a not a theocracy, those of you who claim that a fetus has rights solely based on its status as "human life" really have no foundation for your argument. It's clear that you realize this because you so obviously slip terms like "child" and "baby" into your rhetoric, as if they're interchangeable with "human life." They are not, and unless you can demonstrate that "human life" = "person," your anti-abortion arguments are stillborn.

Thus, if your purpose is to outlaw all abortions, the burden of proof is on you to establish that a human life is a person at conception. The fact that you never even make such an attempt just demonstrates how lacking in substance your arguments really are - all dogma, no cogency.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.

She gives up these rights when she doesn't use a contraceptive.
No, she doesn't. What a silly idea. Contraceptives have failure rates, y'know.

and gets herself pregnant,
She doesn't get herself pregnant. The zygote implants itself into her uterine wall, and in fact to accomplish that it must subvert her immune defenses that would otherwise protect her.

just like when a criminal commits a crime, they lose various rights also. Rights are not a guaranteed thing. They are dependent upon your actions.

For shit's sake you're comparing having sex to committing a crime -- don't you see how divorced from reality your thinking is?

Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. I've already cited precedent in this thread to establish that.

Is the woman responsible for having sex which causes conception? Yes. Is she responsible for what happens if the measures she takes fail? Yes. What is the responsible thing to do when her tricks fail her and she ends up pregnant? Take a life or allow the life to live?

When you gamble and lose, you have to pay the bookie. Same thing with contraceptives b/c those are a gamble too. Just b/c your gamble doesn't pay off doesn't mean you aren't responsible for getting pregnant. In reference to pregnancy, the most responsible position is abstinence b/c that is the only fail safe way to avoid pregnancy aside from rape- but getting raped isnt a choice.

And to think that I was comparing the act of sex and getting preganat with crime is a willful attmept to discredit the entire argument, and is utterly absurd as you know, and is dishonest of you as well. Seeing that you need me to hold your hand through that analogy: rights are not a guaranteed thing- what we do determines that status of our rights.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: shira
The U.S. Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, consistently refer to the rights of "people" and "persons," never to the rights of "human life."

Since the United States is a not a theocracy, those of you who claim that a fetus has rights solely based on its status as "human life" really have no foundation for your argument. It's clear that you realize this because you so obviously slip terms like "child" and "baby" into your rhetoric, as if they're interchangeable with "human life." They are not, and unless you can demonstrate that "human life" = "person," your anti-abortion arguments are stillborn.

Thus, if your purpose is to outlaw all abortions, the burden of proof is on you to establish that a human life is a person at conception. The fact that you never even make such an attempt just demonstrates how lacking in substance your arguments really are - all dogma, no cogency.

ACtually, "life" is good enough for me. I merely refer to a fetus as a life. And you have no ability to disprove that it isn't a life b/c we dont even know what life is at this point. Better to err on the side of greater good.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: spittledip
Is the woman responsible for having sex which causes conception? Yes. Is she responsible for what happens if the measures she takes fail? Yes. What is the responsible thing to do when her tricks fail her and she ends up pregnant? Take a life or allow the life to live?
Why is your spectrum of "responsible" actions so narrow? A woman also has an obligation to her own present and future, to her happiness and sense of well-being. Taking a morning-after pill or getting an abortion at six-weeks is not the same as strangling a baby in its crib. Obviously YOU think they're the same, but there's no accounting for psychosis.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs.
Get this "spread her legs" nonsense. You COULD have said, ". . . when she and her boyfriend made love." But "spread her legs" so much more accurately portrays the kind of sluts we're dealing with, doesn't it? Only dirty sluts "spread their legs" as they succumb to the evil temptation of sex. Ride her good, cowboy, and pay the price, whore!!!

I have a clue for you: Sex with someone you love, even if you're not married to them, can feel REALLY good. And it can feel really good even if you don't love them.

What? You have a problem with sex merely for pleasure? You think people should restrain themselves? How come? How many things do YOU do merely for enjoyment that entail risk? Ever ride your bicycle? Ever go swimming? Ever eat a cheesburger? How come sex should be any different?

It shouldn't be and it isn't. I think it's great that men and women (or men and men or women and women) have sex for pleasure. Hope they use contraception. Hope the contraception works. But if something goes wrong and a pregnancy results and she doesn't want want the baby or want to carry it to term? Well, that's what abortions are for.

Just eats you up, doesn't it?

 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: spittledip

Is the woman responsible for having sex which causes conception? Yes.
No. You are obviously very confused about the nature of liability. Sex isn't negligent, so there can be no duty to convey.

Is she responsible for what happens if the measures she takes fail? Yes.
Responsible to who?

What is the responsible thing to do when her tricks fail her and she ends up pregnant? Take a life or allow the life to live?
You can have your own opinion about what the right thing to do is, but the law cannot compel her to remain an involuntary incubator when she has committed neither a crime nor a tort.

When you gamble and lose, you have to pay the bookie.
Ah, so pregnancy is punishment to you. That explains a lot.

Same thing with contraceptives b/c those are a gamble too. Just b/c your gamble doesn't pay off doesn't mean you aren't responsible for getting pregnant. In reference to pregnancy, the most responsible position is abstinence b/c that is the only fail safe way to avoid pregnancy aside from rape- but getting raped isnt a choice.
You really enjoy speaking from your posterior, I see. Perhaps you should read back through the thread so I don't have to demonstrate again the facts that refute you.

And to think that I was comparing the act of sex and getting preganat with crime is a willful attmept to discredit the entire argument, and is utterly absurd as you know, and is dishonest of you as well.
No, you compared getting pregnant to committing a crime. That is a fact.

Seeing that you need me to hold your hand through that analogy: rights are not a guaranteed thing- what we do determines that status of our rights.
Actually, rights are guaranteed until they are waived, either implicitly or explicitly. As has already been established, waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit, and sex is not that.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: shira
The U.S. Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, consistently refer to the rights of "people" and "persons," never to the rights of "human life."

Since the United States is a not a theocracy, those of you who claim that a fetus has rights solely based on its status as "human life" really have no foundation for your argument. It's clear that you realize this because you so obviously slip terms like "child" and "baby" into your rhetoric, as if they're interchangeable with "human life." They are not, and unless you can demonstrate that "human life" = "person," your anti-abortion arguments are stillborn.

Thus, if your purpose is to outlaw all abortions, the burden of proof is on you to establish that a human life is a person at conception. The fact that you never even make such an attempt just demonstrates how lacking in substance your arguments really are - all dogma, no cogency.

ACtually, "life" is good enough for me. I merely refer to a fetus as a life. And you have no ability to disprove that it isn't a life b/c we dont even know what life is at this point. Better to err on the side of greater good.

You won't get any argument from me that a fetus is "life" or even "human life." But you obviously missed my point. "Human life" doesn't have rights under the Constitution. Only people have rights. Thus, a fetus doesn't have rights until it's a person. Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at conception.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at conception.

Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at 8 months 4 weeks 1 day, while still in the womb.
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
68
91
<sigh> Too bad the lunatic jesus freaks can't mind their own business and let other adults make their own decisions about their own lives, isn't it? I guess that's one of the many drawbacks to being weak-minded - you are driven to push your simplistic views onto others, whatever the cost may be.

JESUS! PRAISE JESUS!!!!
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: shira
Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at conception.

Please demonstrate to us that a fetus is a person at 8 months 4 weeks 1 day, while still in the womb.

It's clear that fetuses at full- or near-term are fully viable. We know that even very premature babies - as early as the end of the second trimester - can be viable with proper medical care. Viability is one standard of "personhood," and I have no problem accepting that fetuses at 6 months are persons. Thus, I think a very strong case can be made that abortions of 6+-month fetuses should be performed under only the very gravest of circumstances (for example, the life of the mother is in imminent danger and a C-section is out of the question).

Over to you, Chet. Your turn to justify to us that a zygote is a person.