South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

Gingerbread Man on 23/2/2006 at 19:13

Inline Image:

http://www.ttlg.com/gbm/strontWeb.jpg

Next week: We learn the subtle difference between "Retorting" and "Retarting"

Preview phrase: "I be an retarting."

Starrfall on 23/2/2006 at 19:13

Quote Posted by fett

That's easy. I support a conservative position and am a member of TTLG. Even though I'm not currently arguing my position. ;)

Oh right. I HATE YOU.

SE: that's what most of the articles seem to be saying. The only real exception seems to be this: "The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life." It's kind of a weird way to word it, but I think they want it to mean that if the mother is having lung surgery or something and complications kill the fetus, the doctor won't go to jail.

One thing I'd worry about with a stricter abortion ban would be an increase in abandoned newborns. I don't think it would be huge or anything, but I think some of those rape/incest cases where there's a higher degree of shame for the mother might keep some of them for even wanting to have to talk to someone about adoption - they might be happier ditching the baby and pretending none of it ever happened.

Headphones on 23/2/2006 at 19:15

Abortion is something that DEMANDS an "innate apprehension," in fett's words, whatever your politics. It doesn't need cavalier, juvenile tubthumping.

If StD's conclusions are right, he's not showing us his working out. Iccchhh. I don't normally post shit like this, but his capering leaves a bad taste, dig!

jprobs on 23/2/2006 at 19:19

Quote Posted by fett

It's safe to say that this is not the typical or majority pro-life stance. I'm kind of curious as to why those conditions were voted down as well, since historically, the pro-life movement has made concessions for such things.

Sorry for 2 posts in a row, but this one is easy... They are trying to force the issue back into the Supreme Court, now that there are 2 new "Conservative" judges in place.

Kind of like the nationalized health care issue will rear it's ugly head as soon as the democrats regain power.

SD on 23/2/2006 at 19:21

Quote Posted by Headphones

Abortion is something that DEMANDS an "innate apprehension," in fett's words, whatever your politics. It doesn't need cavalier, juvenile tubthumping.

Okay, look. Nobody likes abortion - that's a given. But it is by far and away the lesser of two evils. Which is why I will not countenance the opinions of people who are opposed to abortion as a concept. I'm perfectly happy to argue about how far into a term we should allow abortions, or in what circumstances, but so far as the actual legality goes... well, history has shown us what a world without abortion is like. In this day and age I just can't believe that people are arguing in favour of a ban on abortion, and that reasonable, rational people are taking those views seriously.

I loathe and detest people who try and push their own petty morals onto other people. You're lucky that I'm using a word as minor as "idiot" to refer to people who are dangerously inconsiderate of other people's rights.

fett on 23/2/2006 at 19:22

In large part, when you're dealing with the pro-life crowd, you're dealing with religious nuts. Therefore, the foundation for their position is the moral/ethical issue. They're going to argue that a rape or incest victim isn't responsible for the pregnancy since it was a sexual assault, whereas the majority of women who get abortions are pregnant because they were sexually irresponsible/promiscuous and didn't use birth control. There's almost a bit of punishment mentality, which doesn't take into account that you're punishing an unwanted kid probably more than the mom. It's quite a bit unfocused IMO. Some of the more intelligent ones have started rallying around the 'life begins at conception' issue which is obviously more tenable than 'the Bible says so' - but the pro-choice side seems to be more focused on the life and well-being of the mother than the conception question, so the pro-life argument doesn't even resonate very well with the opposition.

Quote:

well, history has shown us what a world without abortion is like.

Ok - THANK YOU. Because I confess ignorance on this issue. HOW has history shown us? What happens? What are the implications right now if we return to that state of affairs?

fett on 23/2/2006 at 19:28

Quote:

Oh right. I HATE YOU.

I'm not saying that. I know you want me.:ebil:

I just think it's interesting how it's almost impossible to discuss the legal ramifications of abortion without derailing immediately into how stupid the pro-life position is. I was hoping to elevate the conversation above the last 12 abortion threads....

EDIT: Bah...fucking double post.

SD on 23/2/2006 at 19:33

Quote Posted by fett

I was hoping to elevate the conversation above the last 12 abortion threads....

Proof that pro-lifers are unable to learn from history.

Quote:

I confess ignorance on this issue. HOW has history shown us? What happens? What are the implications right now if we return to that state of affairs?

There's about half a dozen reasons in this thread alone. You want more? Read another of these desperately pointless abortion threads that pop up with depressing regularity.

fett on 23/2/2006 at 19:39

Quote:

Proof that pro-lifers are unable to learn from history.

Does it occur to you in the least that YOU are the reason we're so off topic? I give up. You simply can't carry on a normal conversation. I don't care about your position on the issue, I'm legitimately intersted in what you guys know about the implications of the ruling. Incidentally, you do nothing to strengthen or persuade anyone to your way of thinking, you only betray a desperation to be right. Whatever - you're out.

Anyone else?

Briareos H on 23/2/2006 at 19:40

The only important question "when does life begin ?" has never been answered precisely, and can't be. The debate is endless.
As a consequence, with a lack of serious scientific certainty, the law should focus on what would be statistically better for the mother and / or the future newborn - and that would be abortion in many cases.

This law looks like a dumb political move and a moral step backwards.