South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

Convict on 24/2/2006 at 17:18

Your definition needs to be consistent is all Jennie.

What do you mean by life support Jennie? Do you mean only medical life support systems in hospitals or does life support mean "Of or relating to the methods, equipment, or conditions needed to sustain life"? If life support includes methods and conditions needed to sustain life, then a mother providing breast milk for her born offspring is life support and a mother providing nutrition in the womb to her offspring is life support.

I'm not sure of the legalities, but aren't mothers legally meant to provide life support (breatfeeding or bottlefeeding and food) for children, otherwise they commit a crime?

Tony on 24/2/2006 at 17:30

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

I mean, for crying out loud, they're are talking about 5-year jail sentences for doctors who perform abortions. How is that a worthwhile viewpoint? How can a reasonable person respond to that kind of tardery with anything other than insults and fury?

Five years? ... A love tap. I advocate the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion, just as I do for all murderers. Furiously insult away.

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

I feel it is fundamentally erroneous to see a foetus as an independent being until the moment at which it becomes an independent being.

Question: is that moment birth, or the beginning of teen-age rebellion? Do you really call a baby which cannot survive without the care of another human an independent being? Or are you really saying that it's okay to abort offspring until they are independent beings?

Convict on 24/2/2006 at 17:37

Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim

I'd go with that definition of human to start with, if there are difficulties with it I'm open to having my mind changed.

By admitting that your definition of human/person can be changed, then you admit that the definition of human/person is arbitrary.

paloalto on 24/2/2006 at 18:16

Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim

I'd go with that definition of human to start with, if there are difficulties with it I'm open to having my mind changed.

You are confusing life support with providing food, shelter, and care. You are also confusing history with legal requirements.

The emotional trauma that women gor through after an abortion reveals the fact that we are not talking about losing tissue here.As a women friend of mine said that she had 'killed her baby'.Would you invest such emotion in losing finger? The language of abortion is all very clinical as being pregnant is now a medical condition.We do it coldly,cleanly,professionally.

Morte on 24/2/2006 at 18:48

Quote Posted by Convict

By admitting that your definition of human/person can be changed, then you admit that the definition of human/person is arbitrary.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

What I find really curious about the 'life begins at conception' people (pope brigade aside) is why they're not all up in arms and screaming genocide over fertility clinics. Just think, they have hundreds of fertilized eggs per patient, and most of them wind up immolated. Where's the outrage?

SD on 24/2/2006 at 19:01

Quote Posted by Convict

By admitting that your definition of human/person can be changed, then you admit that the definition of human/person is arbitrary.

Of course it's arbitrary, who ever said it wasn't?

Quote Posted by Tony

Five years? ... A love tap. I advocate the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion, just as I do for all murderers. Furiously insult away.

I'm not going to insult you. I just feel pity for you, as I pity all who are mentally ill and incapable of rational thought.

Quote:

is that moment birth(?)

Naturally, as that's the moment when the foetus becomes independent from the mother. Until that point, it makes sense from both a legal and moral standpoint to treat it as a part of the woman. I appreciate that sense plays little part in your opinions, so I'm not expecting you to agree with me.

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

The social conservatives have driven the national agenda for the last 25 years now. Let's give them what they want. Let them pass whatever fucktarded laws they want, abolish labor protection, social welfare, anything approaching a progressive program. I live in a liberal state, we can handle ourselves. Let them kick every facet of government out of their economy and drag every government agency into their bedroom and we'll check back in 30 years.

I'd be inclined to agree with you too, but the thing is, these people would still claim success even when the whole thing came crashing down around them. These people are dangerously deluded.... they're still saying that Margaret Thatcher's government was a time of unprecedented joy and prosperity for the UK, when in actual fact, it was abject misery for most of us. It's not the conservatives that suffer under conservative policies, it's everybody else.

Quote Posted by paloalto

Well, chemicals are powerful things, as is the social convention that brainwashes our womenfolk into believing that a ball of cells constitutes a "baby" - but even then, not all women get that emotional about abortions.

Uncia on 24/2/2006 at 19:02

I'm curious why life doesn't begin before conception. It seems rather arbitrary to say "well, this organism that would not survive on its own is not a living/human being at THIS point... but here, right here where we need it to be for our arguments, this organism that would not survive on its own IS."
Or does your soul get infused when your DNA combines?

Myoldnamebroke on 24/2/2006 at 19:32

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Surely it'd make more sense to use the point past which the baby could survive (given the full magicks of medical science) if prematurely born? I find it odd that you'd argue for aborting a baby a week before its nine months were up.

------

It seems to me a bit like this: not having an abortion (obvious health disclaimers yada yada) would be the 'good' thing to do, the morally right thing to do, altruistic, self-sacrifce etc etc, but that the state doesn't often make people do nice things for other people. Even if the foetus is a person, are we legally obligated to put ourselves out to save them? Or is it incorrect to characterise abortion as a passive act? That is to say: when you get an abortion, are you letting them die or killing them?

fett on 24/2/2006 at 19:32

Thanks a million to demagogue and RBJ - your posts have clarified a lot of things for me on this issue. I think I understand Roe v. Wade better than I ever have now.

Strangely (!), I share RBJ's sentiment here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The thing is that the states, and people, who are most irrationally for overturning Roe and restricting abortion in all of its forms are essentially our nation's trailer park. I'm of half a mind to say "let them get what they want" so that A) They'll shut the fuck up about it, B) no longer have the power to drive the debate, and C) can't get traction for their other fucktarded ideas about running the country. They can have their abstinence education and no abortions and limited social programs, and see where that leads them in a couple of decades.

and AM:

Quote:

Hell, I consider myself a moderately social conservative and I'm sick to death of hearing about it. Mainly because I can't find anyone who represents a middle ground that resonates with me. Yes, I'm pro-life, but the representatives for that position in the political/religious arena seem absolutely alien and frightening to me - as does their frame of reference for their position. Not only on abortion, but everything from prayer in school, to the evolution debate, to legalization of marijuana.

Speaking of marijuana (maybe this is apples and oranges) but smoking weed is illegal in all 50 states. Yet, I've been surrounded by casual and heavy marijuana use all my life, both in public and private settings, and have found repeatedly that law enforcement winks at marijuana use (if not possession). Phoibition might be another example of the religious right saying, "X is ebil" and the American public saying, "Oh yeah? Fuck you, we're going to do what we want." Will the same thing not also be true of abortion if it is outlawed? The religious right thinks they have problems NOW? They have no problems compared to the shit storm they'll bring upon themselves if this thing stands. The peripheral issues to consider boggle my mind, not to mention that it will finally reveal to the world exactly what scumble said:

Quote:

These babies must be born!" and fuck all effort to make abortion seem less appealing in a practical sense. That's the trouble - most people jumping on the pro-life bandwagon just seem to want something to get angry about, without being actually interested in helping women who find themselves in a difficult position.

I can tell you, no one in the pro-life camp has looked far enough down the road past the Holy Grail of overturning Roe v. Wade to ask, "Uh....now what do we do with all these unwanted babies and single moms...?" That's when everyone will get to see what's what.

Gingerbread Man on 24/2/2006 at 19:36

But surely when contraception and abortion are outlawed it'll be a lot easier to force the "No sex before marriage, and even then only for the purposes of procreation" angle.