South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

fett on 23/2/2006 at 21:39

Ok - thanks Blue - at least I'm learning something here.

GBM: I agree - the dichotomy between the two can't really be reconciled. Both don't really exist in historical christian doctrine, but I'm far more schooled on what the early church believed than I am in the current state of affairs. I certainly don't place myself inside the camp you speak of anymore since I'm trying to reconcile much of this myself from a purely philisophical standpoint to try and understand the religion itself.

Tony: I don't know what he's talking about either, but I want to know about this for the sake of the argument, not because I disagree with it. I know more about the 1st and 2nd centuries than I do about the 19th and 20th, so I'm a little out of my depth here. :p

Tony on 23/2/2006 at 21:51

Well, if you want an argument, then I'll put in my inestimable, honest opinion.

Abortion is murder.

I'll come back tomorrow and see what becomes of it.

Gingerbread Man on 23/2/2006 at 21:56

I'm satisfied with the "God put two souls in there, that's why the zygote split" defence for the moment.

I'm never about denigrating or mocking -- not unless the beliefs are riddled with gaping holes in their internal logic... and even then I really only denigrate and mock the feeblemindedness of someone who was willing to swallow such an obviously flawed rationale for something, whether that something be reasonable or not.

I don't suppose that my own understanding of the universe and its contents is whole, nor do I believe that my reasons for believing things are necessarily strong enough to withstand scrutiny from someone who is better at logic / epistemology than I am. I just like to make sure that all the alternative explanations are at least as consistent and plausible on their face as mine seem to be to me, that's all. There's nothing so disappointing to me in the world as seeing intelligent people fall for fairy tales that someone with ulterior motives has frightened them into believing is true, so I try to find out where a purely rational argument (with whatever premises, provided they're coherent and not fallacious per se) might manage to come to the same conclusion.

That's not to say that people believing things for the wrong reasons makes it alright, mind you. You could believe in an absolute and objective Truth, but if you believe it due to an absurd and stupid rationale then it's not really much better than believing in something absurd and stupid.

Or something. I am bad at English.

Anyway, that's enough of my peculiar derail for the time being, I think.

scumble on 23/2/2006 at 22:20

Right then, I'll put in a slightly different view.

I have to say that I have a bit of a different personal view on abortion lately, and I will admit that it has been influenced a great deal by the fact that I have a baby of my own. I think abortion is a very unpleasant thing, essentially, because ultimately a child is denied a future, because no one really knows what any individual life will amount to. Even the child of a drug addicted whore can potentially contribute to the world.

However, I don't believe in abortion bans for the reasons pointed out by Wyclef - there is always a way out, like the boats hanging out off the coast of Brazil. Banning abortion does not actually stop abortion. If you want to stop abortion, promote better forms of birth control. Figure out ways that unwanted children can be adopted to parents who can't have children.
Don't ensure that the whole thing is pushed underground. You just hand over control to scumbags with coathangers.

Jakeyboy on 23/2/2006 at 22:24

Similar to the drug problems of the world, handing things to an illegal market will cause more problems that it will solve.

Scots Taffer on 23/2/2006 at 23:10

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Okay, look. Nobody likes abortion - that's a given. But it is by far and away the lesser of two evils.

Even when the evils can be as simple as people not taking proper precautions when having sex or a woman who chooses to fuck for her livelihood?
But of course, these concepts are as alien to you as being able to respect the opinions of others. tot

As to GBMs discussion of "unknowable god" versus "god who picks and chooses", I know that the twin question has been more or less answered as I would have said it but I still have a comment with regards to abortion.

The manner with which I rationalise abortion under extreme circumstances such as rape, incest, etc - I think that technically it is still murder of a life, however I do believe that the mental state of the person can be taken into consideration.

For example, suicide is forbidden in Catholicism, however there are many theologians who argue that in a distressed mental state that the person is not responsible for their actions and that God would realise this.

I more or less apply a similar theological position with abortion.

Uncia on 23/2/2006 at 23:28

Quote Posted by Tony

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?

Probably <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Unsafe_abortion">this</A>.

<bockquote><i>"The World Health Organization estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world annually and that 68,000 of these result in death. Complications of unsafe abortion are said to account, globally, for approximately 13% of all maternal mortalities, with regional estimates including 12% in Asia, 25% in Latin America, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa."</i></blockquote>

fett on 23/2/2006 at 23:28

Quote:

There's nothing so disappointing to me in the world as seeing intelligent people fall for fairy tales that someone with ulterior motives has frightened them into believing is true, so I try to find out where a purely rational argument (with whatever premises, provided they're coherent and not fallacious per se) might manage to come to the same conclusion.

To further derail my own thread, I have to say that this is my main distress with mainstream Chrisitanity. My fascination lies more with the Bible as an ancient document and the Judaism from which christianity sprang. I have honestly been encouarged to see in many quarters of christianity a renewed interest in philosophy and intellect over spiritual emotionalism and dogmatic views on history and ethics. I think there are 'christians' out there who are honestly searching for truth, just as much as the there are agnostics doing so on the other side of the fence. I'm interested in dialouge with both camps.

Quote:

Even when the evils can be as simple as people not taking proper precautions when having sex or a woman who chooses to fuck for her livelihood?

And here, you've hit upon the core issue for the pro-choice crowd, Scots. While many of them just don't want people to have EBIL SEX, I really think the majority isn't so much interested in people's sex lives as much as they want to see some accountability and responsibility when there are life and death (pregnancy) consequences. Removing the abortion option would make a lot of folks be more serious about birth control, and I think that's the point for the pro-choice crowd.

My other axe to grind with christianity here is that if they're going to support anti-abortion laws, I want to see an equal amount of them making their homes available for unwanted children and single pregnant women. There are serious financial issues to be sorted out with unwanted pregnancies and they need to put their dollars where their dogma is if they want mine or anyone else's attention.

Unica: Any stats for America? And I gather that these are current statistics, which only proves that medical care is piss-poor in some parts of the world. What are we talking about *historically* that was worse than the current situation?

I hope RBJ and some others weigh in here on the original topic.

Uncia on 24/2/2006 at 00:11

Uniwha? ;)

However hamfistedly presented I'm pretty sure StD just meant that before abortion was legal a large number of women died or suffered permenant consequences brought upon by amateur abortion methods that were used up until then. And that, should abortion be taken away (and said women don't just drive to another state where it is legal, which they likely will) the same problems will almost certainly crop back up. If they really, really want to abort their child, they will, it's just a question of whether or not they're risking their lives to do so or not.

Now, for my contribution to the thread. If, due to the ban, they don't have an abortion (legal or illegal) and carry the child to term I don't imagine a majority of them or their children will really live ideal lives. Single parenting, underaged pregnancy, inability to finish schooling, all of these can have severe consequences. I doubt any woman would take something like abortion flippantly; and if they don't then it just may be better that they judge if it's necessary or not, not some broad-sweeping ban.
So. Final question. Do you believe that women are not responsible enough to decide on their own whether or not they should carry a child to term?

SD on 24/2/2006 at 00:16

Quote Posted by Tony

Well, if you want an argument, then I'll put in my inestimable, honest opinion.

Abortion is murder.

Haha. Of course, it isn't murder for a whole host of reasons. You can only murder human beings, for one thing.

Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer

How dare you lecture me about respecting the opinions of others when you're perfectly willing to impose your own morality on women who want abortions.

Quote Posted by fett

Any stats for America? And I gather that these are current statistics, which only proves that medical care is piss-poor in some parts of the world.

Medical care is piss-poor in the USA if you can't afford it, too. The one inalienable truth about banning abortion is that women will die. I don't know whether it will be two or two dozen or two thousand, but does it really matter? The men who made them pregnant won't be harmed though, so I guess that's okay.

I have a few questions for all those anti-choicers:

1) How can you justify telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?
2) How can you justify forcing women who want to end an unwanted pregnancy to become criminals and to put their health in the hands of some backstreet butcher?
3) If you guys are so anti-abortion, then why are your people typically the same ones who try to make contraception as difficult as possible to obtain (for example, preventing it being available in schools or shops)?

Quote Posted by Uncia

If they really, really want to abort their child, they will, it's just a question of whether or not they're risking their lives to do so or not.

Nail hit firmly on head. The inability of the anti-choice crowd to recognise this glaringly obvious fact is one of the reasons why I feel justified in labelling them all idiots.