Abortion Ban in SD

[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.

[Midtowner]

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?

[Patrick]

-- 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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Keith]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[bandnerd]

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

[OkieBear]

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.

[sweetdaisy]

Yay I love it when they regulate morality. HURRAH.

[Midtowner]

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

[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?

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.

[Midtowner]

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!

[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!

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[OkieBear]

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.

[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.

[MadMonk]

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.

[Karried]

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.

[OkieBear]

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?

[Midtowner]

It was weeks. Multitasking is not working as well this morning as it usually does

The abortion debate should be limited to the United States. Medical technology is pretty uniform accross the country.

A slippery slope is a fallacy. A fallacy is a logical argument that is by definition faulty. The slippery slope structural paradigm would state that if X happens, then Y happens, then Z must happen. The faulty part is that only X can happen -- Y need not necessarily follow.

In the instant case, you state that if we accept the argument that abortion lowers crime rates, that it will necessarily follow that we abort children with unacceptable genes. I'm saying that this assumption is illogical and even silly. I'm not trying to belittle anyone but your argument requires this massive leap of faith in that Y will necessarily follow X. X can certainly happen by itself. Y would only arise after a completely different ethical debate and for entirely different reasons.

[OkieBear]

The abortion debate should be limited to the United States. Medical technology is pretty uniform accross the country.

A slippery slope is a fallacy. A fallacy is a logical argument that is by definition faulty. The slippery slope structural paradigm would state that if X happens, then Y happens, then Z must happen. The faulty part is that only X can happen -- Y need not necessarily follow.

In the instant case, you state that if we accept the argument that abortion lowers crime rates, that it will necessarily follow that we abort children with unacceptable genes. I'm saying that this assumption is illogical and even silly. I'm not trying to belittle anyone but your argument requires this massive leap of faith in that Y will necessarily follow X. X can certainly happen by itself. Y would only arise after a completely different ethical debate and for entirely different reasons.

Yes, medical technology is pretty uniform across the country. But it is advancing rapidly, so the viability time will likely grow closer to the conception date in the future. That was the point of my argument.

Secondly, I grew up in Wisconsin so I'm aware of slippery slopes. Sometimes you make it across without slipping, but sometimes you don't. My point was that if you rationalize abortion by saying it lowers the crime rate, then you are leaving the door open, as we learn more about the genetic code, to the possibility of people rationalizing abortion based strictly on someone's genes. It may not happen, but it is sure a possibility.

[Midtowner]

Okie, we're not talking about the future, we're talking about now. As technology advances, our laws and ethics should adapt. Until then, there are no people in the building being demolished (to borrow Luke's scenario).

As to secondly, the rationale may bear some similar marks, but it is in no way "the same." You're talking about two entirely different acts and two entirely different moral questions.

It's an interesting discussion, but it's not the same discussion.

[OkieBear]

Okie, we're not talking about the future, we're talking about now. As technology advances, our laws and ethics should adapt. Until then, there are no people in the building being demolished (to borrow Luke's scenario).

I'm bringing up the future because we don't know what medical science will learn, so we don't know when life begins. We can surmise, based on limited current knowledge, that "life" begins at 21 weeks, but we don't know for sure. Medical science didn't used to know that babies in the womb could feel pain. Now they do. So, I stand by my position that, if we are going to err, we should err on the side of life.

[Midtowner]

The standard can shift as technology advances. The primary criterion that I'm using is the viability outside teh womb. As that shifts, so does the standard.

At the moment, however, it's 21 or so weeks.

[bandnerd]

How can we possibly legislate for things we don't even know or that may happen in the future? I mean, are we going to start making driving laws for hovercrafts?