Widgets Magazine
Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 209

Thread: Abortion Ban in SD

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Jack Guest

    Default Abortion Ban in SD

    This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

    .D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
    By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


    Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
    The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
    Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
    Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
    "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
    The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
    The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
    South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
    Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
    Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
    Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
    The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
    About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    There's a book I've had recommended to me by many at my school that makes an excellent case for the decrease in crime over the last 30-40 years being attributable to abortion.

    -- I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that we see less crime when there's more abortion. How many more sociopaths would be in society today had mothers given born to unwanted and unloved children?

  3. #3
    Patrick Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    -- I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that we see less crime when there's more abortion. How many more sociopaths would be in society today had mothers given born to unwanted and unloved children?
    I think your last statement is debateable. Mental illness is caused by both environmental and genetic factors, probably the latter playing a larger role. I've seen many great people come out of broken homes and change their world for the better. The list of folks like that is too long to list here.

    Even so, I think this is really moot point when it comes to the religious aspect behind all of this. Religious folks are more concerned with the morality of the act of abortion.

    I think the issue here again, depends on where you define the start of life. Midtowner, you define the start of life closer to the time of birth, so it makes sense for you to have no problems with abortion. Folks like myself see the start of life at the point of conception.
    I think we could probably argue this all day, as we've done in the past.


    This is just an issue we'll have to allow our court system to work out.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    I personally define the start of life as when a fetus becomes viable outside of the womb -- that's the definitive point where the life inside the woman is no longer her own. As far as I can tell as far as the entire gestation process, it's the only definitive point that means anything where these arguments are concerned, and as best as I know, that's the only middle ground to be had.

    I don't like the middle ground because it's easy to compromise. I like it because it seems more reasonable than the abortion is always wrong vs. abortion is right all the time arguments.

    As to abandonment leading to mental disease -- I attended a training as a volunteer for Oklahoma Lawyers for Children. Part of that training involved discussion on how these kids due to their parents negligence end up as the sociopaths that will later plague society. Perhaps not bringing these people into society is best.

  5. #5
    Keith Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

    .D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
    By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


    Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
    The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
    Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
    Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
    "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
    The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
    The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
    South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
    Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
    Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
    Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
    The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
    About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.
    Sounds good to me. They need to overturn Roe Vs. Wade.

    Just think...if your mother aborted you, you would not be posting on OKCTalk.

    Life starts at conception...period.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    How does life start at conception? I'm glad you could clear that up for us and solve the entire debate there Keith.

    Someone should probably also notify the Supreme Court since we solved it here on OKCTalk..

    Does Todd get a medal or something now?

    'cuz he should.

  7. Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Yay I love it when they take away women's rights. Whoo hoo!

  8. #8
    OkieBear Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by bandnerd
    Yay I love it when they take away women's rights. Whoo hoo!
    The fact is that overturning Roe v. Wade will not overturn abortion. It will just send the issue back to the legislature of each state, which have to answer to the people of that state.

  9. Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Yay I love it when they regulate morality. HURRAH.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Sweet, you're framing the argument incorrectly, or at least you're showing your lack of understanding of the other side of it. They don't see it as legislating morality, they see it as legislating against murder.

    Of course, it's interesting to me exactly how they arrive at that conclusion. From what I gather, most of them jump straight to the assumption that there is a life at conception without any further examination.

    I don't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human, there is no more consciousness in those early stages folllowing conception than there was before. Abortion in those early term pregnancies is no more murder in my reasoning than it is when a woman has her period.

    But to be clear sweetdaisy, I think we can all accept that murder is both illegal AND immoral. The fundamental question here is whether or not it's murder. You can't have an argument if you disagree on what you're arguing about

  11. #11

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    The fundamental question is: What is it? And since there is a debate on who/what it is, then we should not kill it. That is how we treat all other situations when we're not sure what something is. For example, hunters don't shoot at a rustling bush until they know what it is. Demolition crews don't implode a building without knowing for sure that nobody was in there. Why do we treat the preborn child any different?

    The few arguments in this thread so far lending support to abortion were that the crime rate went down since abortion was legalized. And that may be so, but to attribute it to abortion seems somewhat of a stretch. Besides, if the crime rate does go down when those who didn't get much love are terminated, then perhaps our next move as a society would be to euthenize adoption centers and orphanages.

    We can personally define anything, but science says a human becomes a human when it gets its own DNA. That point is conception. To argue that a human becomes a human at any other time goes against science.

    If a human becomes a human when it is viable outside of the womb, that means at conception. Test tube babies are never in the womb, therefore a conceptus' viability is immediate. The truth is, a baby at 9 months will die outside the womb just as surely as a conceptus will unless it gets aid from someone.

    The argument that bringing a baby into a potentially bad environment makes it OK to end its life is a philosophical point that doesn't hold water. Nobody can know for sure what the environment of the baby will be one day, one month or one year after it's born. There are so many variables. Heaven forbid the government get involved with decisions like that. Besides, some of the most inspirational people of all time, the ones we look up to, were the down-and-outers. My philosophical viewpoint is this: the chance at a great life is worth the risk of a bad one, let alone not even having a chance.

    Someone said they didn't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human. That is including a lot of people who are in comas, are mentally retarded or have learning disabilities. Do we have the right to "abort" them.

    Someone said that overturning Roe v. Wade removes the rights of women. Hold on a second... women don't have the right to kill a toddler. Where is their anger? I don't have the right to kill the dude across the street who always listens to his music too loud? Where's our freedom?! Duh, it's not an issue of freedom. This illustrates my main point: What is it?

    Also, to assume that the baby inside a woman is "her body" is another scientific ridiculousity. The DNA of the two are completely different. If a mother is carrying a baby boy, does that mean that the woman has a *****? Of course not! And lastly, if you put a conceptus from a black couple into the womb of a white woman, that baby would be black. That alone should prove that the preborn baby is not a part of the mother's body.

    So, it all comes down to: What is it? Just like in scenarios where the certainty of life is in question, we don't kill it. However, if it is a life, then there's no excuse good enough to kill it.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    The fundamental question is: What is it? And since there is a debate on who/what it is, then we should not kill it. That is how we treat all other situations when we're not sure what something is. For example, hunters don't shoot at a rustling bush until they know what it is. Demolition crews don't implode a building without knowing for sure that nobody was in there. Why do we treat the preborn child any different?
    You're missing the same point that the above poster I responded to missed (only you're missing it from the other side) -- or at least with these examples. You shift your argument towards the bottom. As to these, there is a vast gulf of difference between a fetus and a human being. One is capable of consciousness, the other is not. One can survive without aid, the other cannot. You get into these points more later, so I'll address them as I find them.

    The few arguments in this thread so far lending support to abortion were that the crime rate went down since abortion was legalized. And that may be so, but to attribute it to abortion seems somewhat of a stretch. Besides, if the crime rate does go down when those who didn't get much love are terminated, then perhaps our next move as a society would be to euthenize adoption centers and orphanages.
    Like I said, I'm not prepared to defend that allegation just yet. Give me some time to get my hands on the book for some Spring Break reading (I hear it's an excellent read) and I'll be fully prepared to address this issue. In the meantime, I'm taking a rain check. I find it a perfectly reasonable argument given what I know about the DHS/foster sytem (I trained as a volunteer for DHS last weekend) -- go ahead, ask me stuff

    We can personally define anything, but science says a human becomes a human when it gets its own DNA. That point is conception. To argue that a human becomes a human at any other time goes against science.
    Actually, that's a clever little shift of the facts -- lets keep these things in their own little capsules. What you are trying to do here is say that because something has human DNA, it must be human in the sense that it is alive.

    This doesn't workin in our analysis here. The question is not whether it's human (which is of course a PART of what is requisite for there to be murder). The question here is whether it's alive. That's assuming that you believe that something must be both human and alive for it to be murdered. The law (our society's codified and generally agreed upon philosophy) is in general agreeance with this except for some anomolies like the Lacy/Connor Peterson statutes around the country.

    Just be aware that the way you frame your argument here is essentially irresponsive to the question, at least for my purposes. Since what we're arguing is philosophy and not fact, there are no right answers, just a lot of people who think the other people are wrong

    If a human becomes a human when it is viable outside of the womb, that means at conception. Test tube babies are never in the womb, therefore a conceptus' viability is immediate.
    And no one has ever told me that the loss of a test tube baby was murder. I have never heard that a test tube baby could be viable outside the womb. Test tube babies are conceived outside the womb and then implanted. Thus, they are still not viable (as in they will never be human beings) until they have had a symbiotic relationship with a uterus.

    The truth is, a baby at 9 months will die outside the womb just as surely as a conceptus will unless it gets aid from someone.
    Absent proper care, this is true. That's not the argument though. At the point of viability, at least for my own purposes, a fetus can survive outside the womb with the latest in medical technology. This still (if memory serves) places the point of viability somewhere around 21-24 weeks. I'd set the marker as low as 21 even though the chances of survival are slim there.

    The argument that bringing a baby into a potentially bad environment makes it OK to end its life is a philosophical point that doesn't hold water. Nobody can know for sure what the environment of the baby will be one day, one month or one year after it's born. There are so many variables.
    Here's where you're wrong. We already know that mom does not want a baby. This does usually not bode well. So you would propose that we damage the life of the mother and the child by protecting a life which under my analysis never existed.

    Heaven forbid the government get involved with decisions like that. Besides, some of the most inspirational people of all time, the ones we look up to, were the down-and-outers. My philosophical viewpoint is this: the chance at a great life is worth the risk of a bad one, let alone not even having a chance.
    Yes, heaven forbid. Conservatives generally are against the intervention of the state in personal affairs. I guess you're not conservative? I've seen you claim as much.. here, I tend to think that you're not.

    Someone said they didn't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human. That is including a lot of people who are in comas, are mentally retarded or have learning disabilities. Do we have the right to "abort" them.
    MR is different from comatose. And as far as the comatose, we do have the right to yank the feeding tube/cease other life support measures if the brain activity dictates that the patient is braindead. Terry Shiavo anyone?

    MR simply refers to individuals who are conscious, but have lower than average intelligence. You're not even talking about the same thing.

    Someone said that overturning Roe v. Wade removes the rights of women. Hold on a second... women don't have the right to kill a toddler. Where is their anger?
    Killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Not even remotely similar in my analysis (in yours, it's admittedly a different story). Thus, no anger.

    I don't have the right to kill the dude across the street who always listens to his music too loud? Where's our freedom?! Duh, it's not an issue of freedom. This illustrates my main point: What is it?
    Again, you misinterpret the real contraversy here. See above.

    Also, to assume that the baby inside a woman is "her body" is another scientific ridiculousity.
    That's a stupendeferousical word there.

    The DNA of the two are completely different. If a mother is carrying a baby boy, does that mean that the woman has a *****? Of course not! And lastly, if you put a conceptus from a black couple into the womb of a white woman, that baby would be black. That alone should prove that the preborn baby is not a part of the mother's body.
    Actually, this does mean that the mother has a *****. It's just inside her womb. You intend to prove that because you can transplant an organ, it means that there is life? If you die, but in doing so donate your organs, does that mean that you are still legally alive? Please don't let anyone with an agenda for murder hear about this loophole you've discovered.

    So, it all comes down to: What is it? Just like in scenarios where the certainty of life is in question, we don't kill it. However, if it is a life, then there's no excuse good enough to kill it.
    Thus the philosophical debate rages on!

  13. #13

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    As to these, there is a vast gulf of difference between a fetus and a human being. One is capable of consciousness, the other is not. One can survive without aid, the other cannot.
    So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?

    Since what we're arguing is philosophy and not fact, there are no right answers, just a lot of people who think the other people are wrong
    There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong. I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception. Prove to me that it is not. If it comes to opinion as to who is and is not alive, then there are a lot of other concerns for those among us, let alone the preborn. Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.

    And no one has ever told me that the loss of a test tube baby was murder.
    I would consider that murder. In fact, that is why organizations like "Project Snowflake" exist. See: http://www.humanitas.org/news/news06232005.shtml

    I have never heard that a test tube baby could be viable outside the womb. Test tube babies are conceived outside the womb and then implanted. Thus, they are still not viable (as in they will never be human beings) until they have had a symbiotic relationship with a uterus.
    I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?

    Absent proper care, this is true. That's not the argument though. At the point of viability, at least for my own purposes, a fetus can survive outside the womb with the latest in medical technology. This still (if memory serves) places the point of viability somewhere around 21-24 weeks. I'd set the marker as low as 21 even though the chances of survival are slim there.
    So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?

    Here's where you're wrong. We already know that mom does not want a baby. This does usually not bode well.
    I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.

    So you would propose that we damage the life of the mother and the child by protecting a life which under my analysis never existed.
    If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.

    Conservatives generally are against the intervention of the state in personal affairs. I guess you're not conservative? I've seen you claim as much.. here, I tend to think that you're not.
    My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.

    MR is different from comatose. And as far as the comatose, we do have the right to yank the feeding tube/cease other life support measures if the brain activity dictates that the patient is braindead. Terry Shiavo anyone?
    The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.

    Killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two entirely different things.
    How so? Logically, there are only a few differences: size, level of development, degree of dependency and location. Accepting any of these differences have ramifications that must logically be applied to those outside the womb.

    That's a stupendeferousical word there.
    Heh heh, thanks.

    Actually, this does mean that the mother has a *****. It's just inside her womb. You intend to prove that because you can transplant an organ, it means that there is life?
    No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.

    If you die, but in doing so donate your organs, does that mean that you are still legally alive? Please don't let anyone with an agenda for murder hear about this loophole you've discovered.
    Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.

    It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?

    Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?
    No Luke, consciousness matters to a lesser degree (but it is a consideration). The tipping point on my scales is the point at which the fetus becomes viable without parasitic reliance on the mother. It is at that point that we're talking about two distinct lives -- not one that is reliant on the other to exist. If the mother simply wishes to have the thing in her body removed, and it has no chance of living otherwise, that really can't be murder. When you take something out that could otherwise survive, we're on ethically shaky ground.

    I don't support the D&E procedure for that reason.

    There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong.
    No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one. These designations are completely arbitrary and unscientific. Medicine has even struggled with the question as to when the real time of death for a patient is -- is it when they're braindead? Is it when the heart stops? These aren't scientifically answerable questions -- they're judgment calls.

    I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception.
    No proof could possibly be given that you are either right or wrong. What is "alive" and what is "human" is open to debate.

    Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.
    I believe that suggestion takes its roots in cognitive ability. It's an interesting theory, it merits discussion, but I don't think these doctors were ever specifically advocating that we euthanize infants.

    I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?
    You're talking about nurturing, I'm talking about the possibility of an organism to sustain itself even with all available technology at its disposal. Your objection is founded on an entirely different proposition than what it is that you're trying to refute.

    So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?
    Show me the technology, and we have a new debate. For now, the magic number (questionably) seems to be 21 weeks. You can't suggest that we curtail the rights of a woman to have an abortion now because of technology that may come in 20 years or may never come. Whether she has the abortion now or not, this future event is irrelevant to the situation at hand. As far as I'm concerned and for the same reasons, so is the argument you're proposing.

    I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.
    I'm arguing it's not. We're also both arguing opinion. What is human, and what is alive are again open to interpretation.

    If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.
    I'll consider this answered above.

    My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.
    This is an emotional appeal that attempts to distort the argument. You first have to prove that we're talking about children. We're not. You are, but I'm not. I just don't buy the premise you're proposing.

    The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.
    The law already has a method of dealing with invalids such as Terry Schiavo. It's okay to remove them from life support. If it would make you feel better, we could simply remove a fetus' life support and see how it does... You're arguing with a lot of 'perhapses.' It's not a slippery slope argument at all. I'm not saying if X, then Y. I'm saying simply X.

    Refer to the above fallacy paradigm

    I'm not prepared to give scientific fact as to the actual mental capacity of a 21 week old fetus. My guess is that you aren't there yet either.

    No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.
    You say they're two seperate beings, I'm saying that if one part of a being is completely dependent on the other that your argument that they are 'seperate' is impossible to prevail on.

    Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.
    Body parts are as dependent on their host as a fetus is. What occurs in the future is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. Your same logic could be applied to a sperm or an egg. It doesn't appear to be a rational opinion to me. We apparently disagree on that point though and I'm perfectly willing to accept that.

    It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?
    I'd simply say that it's not a human life. It's certainly not a fish. It's not even a life until that magic point at which it is viable.

    Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up.
    My pleasure.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one.
    My fundamental argument is a scientific one, not a moral one. The "thing" inside a woman at conception is a human being. That is a scientific reality. There has been no legitimate scientist to step forward to say that it is not a human being. To argue that the offspring of two human beings is anything but a human defies logic.

    [Side thought: I would wager money that the majority of people who are pro-choice would have serious issues with me removing the embryos of a recently conceived seal.]

  16. Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    I've noticed a lot of the time that most anti-abortionists are men. Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

    I know I digress from the real conversation here, but I often feel like men just don't "get it" because it doesn't happen to them!

    I'm not saying that partial-birth abortion is okay, or even abortion past a certain time...but to abort within the first month or two to me is not murder because the child is barely anything at that point.

    I understand there will always be those who won't understand my point of view or my beliefs, but they step all over them regardless. If we as a nation decide abortion should be illegal, how many women are going to start travelling to Mexico and get it done down there, risking their lives and infection?

    Why do we in America seem to be on such a moral high horse when so much of the world has accepted this? I'm not saying that women and men shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but why do we feel the need to be "better" than everyone else when it comes to this issue?

    What if the woman's life is at risk--can we not abort then? Do we value the life of a child that may or may not survive over the life of the woman? How can we make that judgement call?

    Sorry, it's early and I'm rambling...guess I'll bring up the issue in my newspaper class since it seems this may go on for awhile. Might make for an interesting story if we ask students about their views. Teenagers often have a very different perception of the world.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by bandnerd
    Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!
    The same emotional argument could be used to excuse beating women. "Women just don't understand how it is to be a man and have to put up with a nagging, demanding woman in the house."

    Obviously, I'm being facetious. But, I hope you grasp the point. It really doesn't matter what type of emotion is involved or what type of excuses there are. There is no right to beat up women.

    By the same token, we would all agree that it doesn't matter what type of situation a woman is in. She has no right to take the life of an inconvenient toddler. Likewise, since the baby inside her womb is a life deserving protection, it doesn't matter what the argument is. It is not ok to kill a human being.

    I know I digress from the real conversation here, but I often feel like men just don't "get it" because it doesn't happen to them!
    "Again, women just don't understand how hard it is for men to live with a woman." (facetious)

    I'm not saying that partial-birth abortion is okay, or even abortion past a certain time...but to abort within the first month or two to me is not murder because the child is barely anything at that point.
    Just because a 4 year old girl has a more undeveloped reporoductive system than a 21 year old co-ed doesn't make the 4 year old any more worthy of death. Of course not. The level of development is beside the point. From the moment of conception, it is a living human being in an early stage of life.

    I understand there will always be those who won't understand my point of view or my beliefs, but they step all over them regardless.
    Likewise.

    If we as a nation decide abortion should be illegal, how many women are going to start travelling to Mexico and get it done down there, risking their lives and infection?
    Using this logic, we should pass laws to make it easier for robbers to get to a safe in a bank. After all, we don't want them to get hurt. Of course not. Stealing is a crime that needs to be prevented. And if, as I contend, the baby inside a woman is a human being, then there is no good excuse to kill it.

    Why do we in America seem to be on such a moral high horse when so much of the world has accepted this?
    Consensus doesn't make an issue moral. There was a time in American history when the majority of people thought Blacks were not equal with others. There was a time when women couldn't even vote. The majority, we see now, was morally wrong. I have no doubt that one day we will see abortion in the same light.

    What if the woman's life is at risk--can we not abort then? Do we value the life of a child that may or may not survive over the life of the woman? How can we make that judgement call?
    This is a very real, very tough scenario. There is no good answer in this situation. In my opinion, the husband and wife should talk about it and come to a conclusion. It would be immeasurably difficult to follow through with either decision.

  18. #18
    Jack Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by bandnerd
    I've noticed a lot of the time that most anti-abortionists are men. Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!
    So you'd rather kill the baby? Wow, that's class. Murdering babies and all.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Also, from a legal perspective, think about SD's idiotic premise. Their premise here is that the Supreme Court will allow a single state legislature to overturn a long-standing precedent.

    SD is assuming that Alito and Roberts will allow this to happen.

    The Supreme Court will not overrule itself without a reason. The only reason I see here is that they are being asked to say that a State Legisluature can trump the Supreme Court. Morality aside, this won't happen.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    Morality aside, this won't happen.
    This is precisely why it is an inevitability.

  21. #21
    OkieBear Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    I think Luke's main point, in a nutshell, is that since we don't know when life begins (science pushes the viability point closer to conception every day), maybe we should err on the side of life. Since overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal, it will just start the debate in each state, I think it will be a good thing (if it ever happens).

    Mid, I think justifying abortion because it may lower crime is a dangerous slope to walk down. The next logical step would be to run genetic tests to see if the baby has a genetic makeup that will make it more likely to commit crimes, and abort it if it does. Imagine the ramifications of that scenario.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Okie, we know the point of viability.. as I said, it's as early as 21 months. That's the only standard that really makes sense.

    Your second point assumes a slippery slope. Assuming a fallacy in your argument doesn't work.

  23. #23
    OkieBear Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    Okie, we know the point of viability.. as I said, it's as early as 21 months. That's the only standard that really makes sense.

    Your second point assumes a slippery slope. Assuming a fallacy in your argument doesn't work.
    I assume you meant 21 weeks. Otherwise the point of viability would be somewhere in the 7th trimester, or when the "fetus" was out of the womb for a year. In fact, fetal viability is different in different parts of the world and is largely dependent on technology and medical care; therefore, it may become earlier as technology and medical science advance.

    As for your second point, I know I'm not as smart as you are, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. I was assuming a slippery slope, which is the whole point. So tell me where the argument doesn't work?

  24. #24
    MadMonk Guest

    Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    I believe that abortion in any case is the killing of another innocent human being. The argument of when one becomes human is dependent on our ability to keep it alive outside the womb? Eventually, with advances in medical science I imagine that gestation will be possible completely outside the womb. What then?

    Midtowner, could you look one of those disavantaged children you have experience with in the eyes and tell them that they really shouldn't be alive because someone wrote a book and decided that they will be a burdon on society? Every life has worth. Every life deserves a chance. Yes, even those conceieved in a terrible way. Its not the baby's fault that it was conceived. Is it fair to the mother? Not really. However, is it fair to a woman that she is burdoned with a monthly cycle and men aren't? Again, no. Not everything in life is - or can be made - fair. This is just the way things are. Killing an innocent human will not change it and cannot be justified in my eyes.

  25. Default Re: Abortion Ban in SD

    This is such a loaded debate.

    Can't we just sterilize and practice preventative measures? Like the women who have ten kids who are all in foster care and keep getting taken away at birth because they are drug addicted? Or the child abuser who kills a child and then gets pregnant a month later..

    I know that is a simplistic idea with the 'rights' of women being infringed upon but it would appease both sides of the argument. .

    You know, it's interesting.. Logically, I believe a woman should have the right to choose.. but on a side personal note.. when I first wanted children, I suffered quite a few miscarriages - even though logically I felt they were just the size of a grain of sand or not babies yet, I still grieved as if I had lost a full-term baby. So, I see the point of some anti abortionists yet can't fathom carrying a baby that was conceived because of rape...

    Another issue is using abortion as birth control.. again - preventative measures. Give the kids access to it early on.. I know abstinence is taught but obviously that's not working.

    Okay, now we have another mess to debate - carry on.
    " You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. SPINOFF TOPIC: Abortion
    By Winterhawk in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-27-2005, 05:52 PM
  2. Roe vs. Wade
    By Patrick in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2004, 07:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO