South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

SubJeff on 23/2/2006 at 20:40

I didn't think it was a "there must be more to life" thing though. It surely is for some people but for others it is about explaining things, shit or not. My religious beliefs, for example, stem from many different things and not one of them is "there must be more to life than this".

jprobs - I seriously doubt that is what happened. Testing cannot give 100% certainty either way (and it depends on what tests you do) but you can say that the risk of a child having Down's is X or Y, and I'm sure they will have been told that the chance was high. As to how deformed is deformed - that is up to the parents. Some might consider Down's too deformed for them, others might think failure to develop limbs is too much. It's not useful to look at the degree of the abnormality, but rather what you do, or are forced to do, when you decide that there is one.

MsLedd on 23/2/2006 at 20:41

Quote Posted by jprobs

How deformed is deformed? How retarded is retarded? Who is going to make that call?

jstnomega on 23/2/2006 at 20:55

Quote Posted by fett

Since I don't understand the llegalities of this, I have a few questions (RBJ?)

1) How likely is this to actually stand up?

2) States can make abortion law automously from the Federal govt., but what is the relationship between what has happened in South Dakota and Roe v. Wade (a federal case?) - I'm not very clear on the implications here.

I just don't see the U.S. going backwards from Roe v. Wade, but what kind of precedent does this South Dakota ruling set?

IOW, what trumps what? Something about the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution - I think, maybe.

If RBJ doesn't chime in, maybe Al Gore can report re what trumps what.

Gestalt on 23/2/2006 at 20:56

I think Christianity might allow for the shared soul explanation. I think the language involved in marriage ceremonies indicates the two participants' souls are supposed to become one, meaning that the idea of sharing a soul isn't really a foreign one to Christian theology.

Don't ask me what would happen when one twin got married or something. I don't think you could use this line of reasoning to explain twins without opening up a lot of other questions.

Strangeblue on 23/2/2006 at 21:14

nope. Sorry. There may be a "combining of souls" at marriage, but the soul, itself, is indivisible in Christian doctrine. It cannot be split. This is part of the reason for the clause in the marriage vows that states "what God hath brought together let no Man tear asunder." Some Christians account for twinning as an intention of the Creator, who slipped another soul into the cells and THAT causes the twinning.

But there is a small branch of the Pro-Life movement who maintain that the soul is not in place until after the twinning branch is past. They still feel it's wrong to destroy God's work by abortion before Day 12 or 14, but they don't think that would be murder--just spitting in God's face.

Now, am I the only person here who is aware that Roe v Wade did not uphold the legalization of abortion? Roe v Wade supported the woman's right to recieve an abortion where it was legal without requiring permission or notification of the male involved? It was about consent not the legality of abortion, itself. Abortion is legal where the states allow it. States rights, remember? South Dakota is within its rights to enact an abortion ban, if it choses. What it cannot do is demand that women get the father's permission if they have a legal abortion. That's all.

TheGreatGodPan on 23/2/2006 at 21:15

I don't understand the "rape and incest abortions are okay" position either. I'd only be okay with abortion under the same circumstances as I would for killing an innocent adult: to save another life. I don't get Stronts' "back to the stone-age/learn from history" stuff. The deaths from back-alley abortions were minimal around the time of legalization, and just as medical operations have continued to get better and better I would expect the death-rate to be lower now than it was then. As for the abortion results in unwanted children thing, killing children because they are (or likely will be) unwanted strikes me as horrific, and the connection between the two seems rather (http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm) iffy.

Wyclef on 23/2/2006 at 21:22

Hey dudes, is it just me, or is Christianity contradictorily at once a sort of Foucauldian disciplinary discourse and a locus of resistance to commodification? Let's discuss :cool:

Gingerbread Man on 23/2/2006 at 21:23

Quote Posted by Strangeblue

Some Christians account for twinning as an intention of the Creator, who slipped another soul into the cells and THAT causes the twinning.

Ahaaa... now that's an angle I hadn't anticipated. That allows things to remain cogent, yeah.

Wyclef on 23/2/2006 at 21:25

Right-o. Let me know when we discover other natural phenomena that cannot be explained mechanistically, possibly originating in the pineal gland

Tony on 23/2/2006 at 21:31

I'll abstain from Bible thumping and spare you all a lot of wasted breath, but there is one thing I'd like to know. What in the world is STD talking about when he goes on about history being so terrible because abortion wasn't allowed?