South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

Convict on 24/2/2006 at 08:16

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

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?

Firstly I wonder what you mean by this since the feotus is not a part of a woman's body. :confused:

And secondly does the pro-life camp call the pro-choice camp "pro-abortion"?

Gingerbread Man on 24/2/2006 at 09:35

No, they tend to stick to things like "murderers" and "baby-killers" and "hell-bound butchers" or something.

Howard A Treesong on 24/2/2006 at 09:48

It's barbaric, not even to make exceptions when the woman's life is in danger or she was raped. The law only allows the Doctor not to be charged if the foetus dies as a result of saving the woman's life, he's not allowed to actively make an abortion to save her life.

I think it's really frightening the way America is going, christian fundamentalism is clearly getting out of hand, some of the government's movements recently have been curtailing human rights and there's increasing abstinance-only sex-education, the rise of creationism and religion in schools.

scumble on 24/2/2006 at 09:57

Is this a forum or a platform for repetitive inane rants?

Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim

To me a person must have a functioning cortex. There's good evidence from EEG's that a fetus' cortex is not organized until about the 26th week.

I can well believe that may be the case, but I think the causal issues have some importance. The fact that one may not be killing a sentient being does not negate the fact that a fetus will become a sentient human, and no-one knows how their lives will turn out. I suppose it's a call I wouldn't be willing to make, unless there were some severe birth defects involved (like you say with the downs issue). The mere fact that the future cannot be seen is enough for me.

Quote:

Having an abortion is a responsible decision for many women, particularly those who are so irresponsible as to get pregnant unintentionally. Not likely to be good parents are they? Let's get away completely from these "irresponsible" arguments.

Still, I wouldn't call an abortion a "solution", more like a tragedy. I think it's more accurate to say that a woman is responsible for the potential life she cancelled. No one else can take on that responsibility. This is just simple logic - it's a gamble that no chance of a life (at some point inconvenient for a woman) is better than allowing a child a chance at life, with someone at least.

I have to say that the pro-life bandwagon still looks like a bunch of idiots to me - again, instead of trying to use coercion to drive abortion underground, why not promote better birth control? Better systems for adopting "unwanted" children?

Quote Posted by fett

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.

I think Robin Williams demonstrated this very well in one of his stand up routines years ago - "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.

Force is not the solution though. You may think some people would get more fastidious about birth control, but there is no getting away from

Quote Posted by Wyclef

The daughters of South Dakota's well-to-do will find discreet and legal abortion services in Minnesota and Wisconsin, while poor black Mississipian women will be, as always, shit out of luck.

Shit out of luck, or making use of a coathanger and ending up bleeding to death. There is plenty of evidence from countries where abortion is illegal to show what the effects are. One swaps one undesirable situation for another.

Renzatic on 24/2/2006 at 10:10

Creationism isn't on the rise in schools, and when you hear about religion in schools it's usually in the context of prayer groups and whatnot.

I live in the Bible Belt, you can't throw a rock around here without hitting 10 churches, yet creationism isn't offered on any local high school curriculums, nor are there any other religious agendas being taught. There are the occasional odd cases, such as that little creationist/evolutionist spat in Alabama for instance, but generally it's the exception rather than the rule.

jprobs on 24/2/2006 at 11:11

Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man

No, they tend to stick to things like "murderers" and "baby-killers" and "hell-bound butchers" or something.

...While the pro-choice people tend to use language like, " Bible-Thumpers, Christian Fundamentalist, religious zealots, backwards"... all of which have also appeared in this thread.

again, I am not pro-life, but stones get thrown both ways on this issue. As appears in the next post:

Quote Posted by Howard A Treesong

I think it's really frightening the way America is going, christian fundamentalism is clearly getting out of hand, some of the government's movements recently have been curtailing human rights and there's increasing abstinance-only sex-education, the rise of creationism and religion in schools.

Sorry, I live here and I do not see this. Abstinance-onle sex education?? Hardly.
The rise of creationism and religion in schools? Find me real world evidence of this. I'd be willing to bet that in all the public high schools in the city I live in (and there are many) that not one has eeked one word about GOD or creationism. Stuff that appears to be big talk among political hacks does not trickle down to the real world.

SD on 24/2/2006 at 11:39

Quote Posted by Howard A Treesong

I think it's really frightening the way America is going

Frightening is exactly the word for it. Thank Jebus there is someone else in this thread who is able to see that rather than resorting to "witty" one-liners or tired old Photoshop macros.

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?

Quote Posted by Convict

the feotus is not a part of a woman's body

Here I think is the crucial point of difference between pro and anti-choice viewpoints. I feel it is fundamentally erroneous to see a foetus as an independent being until the moment at which it becomes an independent being.

PS it's foetus or fetus but never feotus

Howard A Treesong on 24/2/2006 at 13:37

Quote Posted by jprobs

Sorry, I live here and I do not see this. Abstinance-onle sex education?? Hardly.

(http://womensissues.about.com/od/healthsexuality/i/isabstinenceonl.htm)

In particular this part,

Quote:

The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) began in 1981 and was designed to prevent teen pregnancy by promoting self-discipline and chastity. The program received $11 million in federal funds that year and $19 million in 2000. In 1996 the federal government added a provision to the welfare-reform law to establish a federal entitlement program for abstinence-only sexual education. The program distributed $50 million per year for five years into the states. Since that time funding for these programs has increased nearly 3000%.

Massive increased expenditure by the Bush administration.

And again the inefficiency of the increased education is highlighted here.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html)

----------------------------

Quote:

The rise of creationism and religion in schools? Find me real world evidence of this. I'd be willing to bet that in all the public high schools in the city I live in (and there are many) that not one has eeked one word about GOD or creationism. Stuff that appears to be big talk among political hacks does not trickle down to the real world.

(http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/stats.htm)

Of interest, of people surveyed,

Quote:

Teaching creationism ALONG WITH evolution in public schools - 68% favour, 29% oppose and 3% were unsure.

Teaching creationism INSTEAD OF evolution in public schools 40% favour, 55% oppose and 5% were unsure.

Amazingly there's a survey done there where a large number of people wouldn't vote for a president because he was gay (I mean WTF?!), and even more if he was an athiest!! But that's another matter entirely.

And again here,
(http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=168)

Quote:

The survey shows that most Americans are dismayed by that point-of-view. About six out of every ten adults (59%) favor teaching creationism while less than four out of ten (38%) do not want it added to the public school curriculum content.

And finally this is worth checking.
(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL)

God two thirds of the way down the page to the heading "Recent actions in the teaching of evolution", which reveals the advancing undermining of scientific literature, particularly of evolution, in your schools.

Convict on 24/2/2006 at 14:36

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Not to yourself, but to the gallery, I point out that the foetus is genetically distinct from the mother (which has been pointed out in *THAT* abortion thread).

Also, seeing as this thread has been derailed into a "WTF ARE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS DOING RUNNING AMERICA!?!?!" thread*, I'd like to quote the (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OZW1WJYRDCZC3QFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/24/npreg24.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/24/ixhome.html) Telegraph (UK):

Quote:

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said the Government needed to learn from America, where the promotion of sexual abstinence and chastity made a great contribution to a sustained reduction in teenage pregnancy rates.

*certain to happen once every 2 pages on commchat.

jprobs on 24/2/2006 at 15:43

Quote Posted by Howard A Treesong

God two thirds of the way down the page to the heading "Recent actions in the teaching of evolution", which reveals the advancing undermining of scientific literature, particularly of evolution, in your schools.

You are quoting the San francisco Chronicle.... You may as well be quoting Kruschev.

You can find all the statistical data you want, being reported in an agenda driven press.

I was speaking to real world. Ask a high school student in the US if god and creationism is taught in his public high school. Also, ask if he has has the REQUIRED sex ed course. I had it starting in 1983 at the age of 13... While Reagan was in the white house. And it didn't have jack to do with "chastity".
Oh, and I grew up in a small midwestern town of about 4000 people.