New South Dakota Abortion Law

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: shira

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.

You are interested in the law, I am interested in morality. The 2 are not the same. The law would have you define someone under legalistic terms as a person. I don't care about that. I do not want to be guilty of taking a life, whether it is a "person" under the law or not. If you are ok with taking human life as long as it is not a "person," well, that is blood on your hands. I would rather keep my hands as blood free as possible, especially if it comes to human life and uncertainties such as these.

Would I exchange one life for another if it was in my control? Of course. I would much rather have my wife survive than a life I do not know. That is very reasonable. But, just b/c I do not know it does not make it value-less as a life. However, in life, decisions must be made, and i must say that type of decision is one that is very easy to make for me.

i appreciate that you speak reasonably and without insult.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

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.

What can I say to a person who doesn't know mercy and only lives on the edge of the law, using it and twisting it to justify his life? Twist the words of others to mke it fit your purposes,what is the use of talking to you? It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a liar b/c one can answer them, and one's words take on new meanings in their hands. You must be a lawyer or something. I can even smell the stench of death over the internet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

What can I say to a person who doesn't know mercy and only lives on the edge of the law, using it and twisting it to justify his life?

I have no idea, but until you find that person, you have been invited to answer several questions by me. Care to?

Twist the words of others to mke it fit your purposes,what is the use of talking to you?

I haven't twisted anything. Your words are there for anyone else to read.

It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a liar b/c one can answer them, and one's words take on new meanings in their hands.

If I have lied you have every opportunity to point out the untruth with clarity and precision. Please, show us all where I have lied.

You must be a lawyer or something. I can even smell the stench of death over the internet.

In short, you cannot argue against the facts, but you do not like them, regardless, and must fall back on personal attacks and emotional arguments while avoiding having to confront the facts.

I think it's pretty clear whose position is the more reasonable, and it isn't yours.

 

[seemingly random]

For those who say they treasure the life of an unknown being: think about how you felt when rumsfield let loose the initial shock and awe on march 19, 2003 in baghdad. Did it make you feel good that the tyrant was finely getting his due? that unknown people were dying on tv - maybe not explicitly seen, but dying nevertheless in the bombardment.

And as far as describing things legally, I don't see anyone having a problem with the way courts settle liability claims for injury and premature death.

 

[zinfamous]

meh. once South Dakota starts running into the overcrowding issues that the rest of the educated world faces, then they'll stop caring about this anti-abortion, ant-freedom nonsense.

I just drove through that state a week ago. The western part is quite gorgeous....but the billboards....oh man. Are they still allowed to vote over there?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: shira

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.

Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

As long as the exception for the mother's health/life is correctly worded in the law, I'm sure most people would support this.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

As long as the exception for the mother's health/life is correctly worded in the law, I'm sure most people would support this.

Careful.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

As long as the exception for the mother's health/life is correctly worded in the law, I'm sure most people would support this.

Careful.

The only thing I'd be worried about something like this is that anti-choice people would keep wanting to move the bar closer and closer to conception.

On a side note, we could probably solve our energy problems by wrapping some copper wires and big magnets around liberal thinkers like JS Mill Jeremy Bentham - they're probably rolling in their graves as people try to prevent you from controlling your own body.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shira

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.

Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

There will always be cases that none of us can anticipate that will break the rule. So "100%" for ANY statute is never an option. Let's just say that I'd be in favor of such a ban in 99+% of such cases.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just so we are being clear, based on your definition of viability you are 100% in favor of a federal (i.e. national) ban of all 3rd term, late term, and partial birth abortions, with the only exception being for mother's health when Caesarean is not an option?

As long as the exception for the mother's health/life is correctly worded in the law, I'm sure most people would support this.

Careful.

The only thing I'd be worried about something like this is that anti-choice people would keep wanting to move the bar closer and closer to conception.

Need to heed the old saying "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile"...

On a side note, we could probably solve our energy problems by wrapping some copper wires and big magnets around liberal thinkers like JS Mill Jeremy Bentham - they're probably rolling in their graves as people try to prevent you from controlling your own body.

:laugh:

 

[DomS]

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.

My point is that it's murder though. You're ending the life of someone else, without their consent or will, just because it's inside someone else.

 

[DomS]

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.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: DomS

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.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

Being in the minority does not make you wrong. Believing that coagulated cells in a uterus constitute a human being does make you wrong.

If the mother takes a plan B pill the day after unprotected sex she is not murdering any one. The sperm and the egg have not even had the chance to meet. If you believe Plan B to be murder are also saying Condoms are murder.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: DomS

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.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

Being in the minority does not make you wrong. Believing that coagulated cells in a uterus constitute a human being does make you wrong.

If the mother takes a plan B pill the day after unprotected sex she is not murdering any one. The sperm and the egg have not even had the chance to meet. If you believe Plan B to be murder are also saying Condoms are murder.

I'm pretty sure he meant after conception. Condoms aren't murder because conception hasn't happened yet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

Except that you are not right, not even close.

 

[DomS]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

Except that you are not right, not even close.

so when does life begin, according to you? Until a few years ago you could get abortions that would murder the baby inside you at points during the pregnancy during which OTHER women were delivering prematurely and the babies survived....you can't say 'well at X number of days it was ok to have an abortion because it's not a real life....even though at X number of days babies have been born and lived'

and as for the belief that the minority of individuals support abortion:

A similar poll in January 2006 surveyed people in the United States about U.S. opinion on abortion; 33% said that abortion should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases", 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now", 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life" , and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted.

That's 55% that think it should either never be used, or only as an extraordinary measure in extreme circumstances.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you advocate that the minority should be able to dictate to the majority? You Moral Interventionists are whack.

Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child. So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

Except that you are not right, not even close.

so when does life begin, according to you?

When the baby draws it's first breath.

I'm not a proponent of abortion I just don't believe that we have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I'm OK with outlawing late term abortions with the exception where the Mothers life is in jeopardy or that the baby will be born severly handicapped if the parents choose to do so.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DomS
and as for the belief that the minority of individuals support abortion:

A similar poll in January 2006 surveyed people in the United States about U.S. opinion on abortion; 33% said that abortion should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases", 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now", 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life" , and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted.

That's 55% that think it should either never be used, or only as an extraordinary measure in extreme circumstances.

Link please? According to the results of every independent poll or study I've ever seen, a strong majority of people are in favor of abortion being a legal choice in the first trimester for rape/incest, to preserve the life of the mother or if the fetus suffers a life threatening illness.

In fact, Gallup year after year reports that the % of people in favor of allowing abortion to save the life of the mother hovers at around 75%. And 72% are in favor of first trimester abortions when caused by rape/incest, which pretty clearly demonstrates that people don't think abortion is murder. If they did, it wouldn't matter whether the child was the product of a rape, but clearly people are able to make this simple distinction.

Note the table of opinions over the years at the bottom, and how "legal under certain circumstances" is usually well over 50%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/852...dy-Over-Past-Year.aspx

Combine the "legal under any circumstance" with "legal under certain circumstances" and you'll find about 75% are in favor of what you feel is murder.

Originally posted by: DomS
My point is that it's murder though. You're ending the life of someone else, without their consent or will, just because it's inside someone else.

Well I suppose we'll see if your opinion changes at all after your father rapes you and gets you pregnant.

 

[jonks]

dp

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DomS

so when does life begin, according to you? Until a few years ago you could get abortions that would murder the baby inside you at points during the pregnancy during which OTHER women were delivering prematurely and the babies survived....you can't say 'well at X number of days it was ok to have an abortion because it's not a real life....even though at X number of days babies have been born and lived'

and as for the belief that the minority of individuals support abortion:

A similar poll in January 2006 surveyed people in the United States about U.S. opinion on abortion; 33% said that abortion should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases", 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now", 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life" , and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted.

That's 55% that think it should either never be used, or only as an extraordinary measure in extreme circumstances.

You are going to need to cite your source before I believe any of those statistics. That source better do a good job explaining how they took their survey too. Some of those numbers I might at least consider believing, but I highly doubt that 22% of people in the United States are against a woman getting an abortion in the case of rape or incest. That's 66.2 million people in the United States out of 301 million or 1 out of 5 people believe that. No way.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I highly doubt that 22% of people in the United States are against a woman getting an abortion in the case of rape or incest. That's 66.2 million people in the United States out of 301 million or 1 out of 5 people believe that. No way.

That part is actually pretty close.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

Roughly 20% of people are against any and all abortions. Don't think of it as "number of people against abortion in cases of rape or incest". Think of it as "number of people who are against abortion under any circumstance." They don't care why the woman is pregnant, they just believe that the baby is not at fault and killing it is wrong. I understand their argument, even if I disagree with it.

The entire argument about making an allowance for abortions in cases of rape/incest really highlights the hypocrisy of a large segment of the anti-abortion movement. If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent life, then it should be irrelevent if the life was the result of a rape or incest. The child is not at fault in either case, so "allowing" its murder because the circumstances of its inception are a little disturbing is pretty illogical. I have more respect for those in the 20% who are against all abortion (at least they are consistent), than those who think it should be illegal except for rape/incest.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DomS
Umm....if the minority is RIGHT, then yes. Heck, even our government usually does things that the majority of people don't want, and more often than not things turn out fine. In this case the ever growing minority is against murdering an unborn child.

1.) Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been "murder" in the positive law of the United States.

2.) There is no such animal as an "unborn child," any more than you and I are "undied corpses." Children are born, fetuses are not.

So yes, the minority should be able to dictate. Just because you don't LIKE that the minority is right, doesn't make them WRONG.

You are welcome to feel however justified in your opinion as you like, but do not take that feeling of moral justification to mean that there is any legal basis for your position.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Except that you are not right, not even close.

so when does life begin, according to you?

Life, if it began at all, probably did so some several hundred million years ago, and has been diversifying itself since. The conception of a zygote is not any "life-beginning" because there was no "life-stopping" that preceded it. The sperm and egg were both themselves alive before they fused, and they continued to be alive as a zygote afterwards.

The relevant issue is when personhood begins, because it is a person that is the object of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States. Historically, a person is human, born, and alive.

Until a few years ago you could get abortions that would murder the baby inside you at points during the pregnancy during which OTHER women were delivering prematurely and the babies survived....you can't say 'well at X number of days it was ok to have an abortion because it's not a real life....even though at X number of days babies have been born and lived'

In the most rigorous sense, it is irrelevant. No person has the right to continue occupying the body of another person against the host's will.

In practice, however, it can be reasonably argued that the fetus has earned some "squatters rights" in the later stages of pregnancy. My position is that 3rd trimester abortions should only be permissable at the behest of a qualified physician and perhaps even requiring the approval of a medical review board, which allows plenty of time for a mother to decide that she does not want to be pregnant yet would permit late-term abortions in cases which it was actually a necessity.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: DomS
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.

Actually, currently you (or, more correctly, the woman who is directly affected) DOES have the right to end that life.