South Dakota Moves To Legalize Murder...

Submitted by: zombunny 6 years ago in
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

of abortion providers. Is this what ""pro life"" means?
There are 217 comments:
Male 2,850
@MattPrince

That would suggest, then, that it is possible to see when activity first starts in the brain, and build an abortion policy around it.

@Angilion

Ah, I didn`t realise that about the technicality, so I`ll conceed my point to you on that.

The other point remains, though: that the majority abort very early, well before the 20 weeks needed for brain activity to start that MattPrince has uncovered.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@musuko - apologies about the name fu - its my shotgun keyboard technique.

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

Source from ECG of premature babies
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Besides, think about it for a moment. In England and Wales, is it really plausible that 200,000 pregnancies per year pose a severe level of medical threat to the woman? Obviously not. However, every pregnancy causes some physical harm to the woman, so every abortion can be said to be preventing harm to the woman. It`s a technicality that has become routine.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"The overwhelming majority of abortions (95% in 2004 for England and Wales) were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman."

So the figures suggest that not only are women not aborting for casual reasons (95% aren`t, according to the above)[..] [/quote]

Absolutely wrong, though your conclusion is understandable because you don`t know UK law.

Note the word "statutory". When abortion was first legalised in the UK, it was done so on that basis - that it was a medical procedure done because pregnancy was a risk to the mental or physical health of the mother.

It is simply rote formula to comply with an old law and it means nothing at all. No matter how casually abortion is taken, it`ll still go down on the records as being a necessary medical procedure to reduce risk to the mental and physical health of the woman.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s based on the medical fact that if your heart stops beating you are dead[/quote]

Your knowledge of medicine is at least a couple of centuries out of date.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`ve proposed a compromise here several times now, That life begins when the heart starts beating. It`s based on the medical fact that if your heart stops beating you are dead, and I believe it to be a rational and easily verifiable limit.[/quote]

That would put the timing at 4-5 weeks after conception.

Are you advocating that abortion be outlawed at that point?

You`re shifting from "person" to "life". Is that a deliberate change of definition or are you just being sloppy?
0
Reply
Male 8,530
LastJuggalo-"I don`t think this will pass, but if it does, I`m jumping the border to Canada."

You DO realize that South Dakota does not share a border with Canada, right? And that this change in the law would only be in effect in South Dakota, right? (of course, over half of the other states have similar laws..so there`s a very good chance you are already under such a law).
0
Reply
Female 212
I don`t think this will pass, but if it does, I`m jumping the border to Canada.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Hello retard who posted this.

It is the same law already in 25 states. It applies to self-defense if a woman gets murdered you can still defend her fetus.

What a steaming pile of drat this post was.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
OK Sigon, I can tell by your spelling we`re not in the same intellectual league. Not trying to put myself on a pedestal just explaining it`s difficult for me as a living, breathing, English speaking human to have an intelligent conversation with someone who can`t spell simple words. Typos are one thing but you can`t spell "catheter, defecate, intravenous" or even "receive". How can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who completely ignores spell check?
Many of our societal problems can be blamed on unintelligent people having the right to vote.
0
Reply
Female 728
Babies do not gain episodic memories until about two years of age. That means that they do not retain memories of their personal experiences, though they may retain memories of facts and interpretations of the world. I think that episodic memory is important in rational self-awareness, which is what I consider to be the threshold for determining whether something is human (though that definition may have to change if we ever encounter rational extraterrestrial life). This is why I do not consider fetuses to be human life, but simply life. If you object to my particular use of the term `human`, I`ll put it another way: I believe that rational entities are more worthy of consideration than non-rational entities. Humans above a certain age are rational entities, those below a certain age are non-rational entities. I do not believe that non-rational entities should be killed simply as a matter of convenience, but I believe that the life of a rational entity should be valued more highly.
0
Reply
Male 129
@madest ok, then by your definition, anyone who needs to use a cathader to deficate is not human, anyone on life support that recieve nutients intraveiniously is no longer human...Anyone in an Iron Lung....not human

Please think before you post...
0
Reply
Male 129
As a Pro-Lifer, I find it disturbing that "radical" pro-lifers would resort to Murder of others to promote their views...Isn`t that what the whole point is? There is no such thing as "Justified Homocide" unless it is in self defense or the defense of another...

Personally I like the Law they are looking to pass in Ohio where if a Heatbeat is detected then the abortion would be illegal. There is no way a Pro-Choice person can disregard a fetus as a person if there is a heart beat...none that is rational anyways
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You may call it a "chicken egg" Gerry, but most modern english speaking humans simply say "egg". Unless they`re in a store that sells multiple egg types where the descriptor would come into play. A fetus is not human until it breathes, eats and poos like a human.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
[quote]An egg is not a chicken.[/quote]

It`s not? Then why is it called a `Chicken Egg` ?
0
Reply
Male 309
This has nothing to do with abortion. The bill says it would be considered "justifiable homicide" to kill somebody, who, for instance, is trying to stab a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill the baby.

Typical nonsense from a tabloid like Mother Jones, though.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@ revlcal, You should play their game. How about starting a proposition where the citizens of SD get to murder their representatives that continuously waste taxpayer money on this nonsense?

@CJ, You show a depth of ignorance unmatched when you say stupid crap like: [quote]A fetus is a human life, it may be young and not fully developed but it`s still a human being.[/quote]

An egg is not a chicken.
0
Reply
Male 25
I am a South Dakotan and I do not approve of this. We`ve taken to the booths about abortion repeatedly, and each time it is kept legal. The `representatives` who try to shoehorn morality into the backdoor of an amendment are flagrantly thumbing their noses at the democratic process and showing contempt for the will of the people.

Drat this poo, I`m moving to Arizona. They seem more reasonable there.
0
Reply
Male 573
Rightwingers at it again.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
The human brain does not function at a capacity that suggests consciousness or self-awareness until several months AFTER birth (the mirror test is a good rule of thumb). However this fact does not justify infanticide because the child is not physically dependent on the mother and can be cared for by anybody. Abortion, however, is justified because a woman should not be forced to maintain that physical dependency that cannot be taken by another.
Even if you can`t give up things on the moral aspect, you can`t ignore the legal aspect as well. Keeping abortion rights legal makes it straightforward for women with situations in which most people agree that abortion is permissible (e.g. rape or health risk to mother). If abortions are made illegal, even with exceptions made for special cases, those special cases will have to go through a great deal of red tape and possibly risk their lives.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MeGrendel

"If we go by that criteria, it really would be legal to kill many adults, includinig the majority of politicians."

I think we can all get behind this idea. :D
0
Reply
Male 8,530
Musuko42-"It stands to reason, then, that when the brain starts to function, the person is alive."

If we go by that criteria, it really would be legal to kill many adults, includinig the majority of politicians.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MattPrince

"Musoko"

Why do so many people have a blind spot for spelling my name?

"so you`d argue for abortion up to about 26 weeks."

Perhaps, if someone could show me the science demonstrating that that`s when the brain starts to function at a level that suggests consciousness.

"Though you could argue that there is no real "human being" till much later when that higher brain function has absorbed some useful information and a concept of self is developing."

That sounds uncannily like the soul discussion in the corporate meeting room in The Meaning Of Life.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Musoko - so you`d argue for abortion up to about 26 weeks. Though you could argue that there is no real "human being" till much later when that higher brain function has absorbed some useful information and a concept of self is developing.

0
Reply
Male 2,850
@shappy

"im seeing some good ideas here, but we all know nothing is going to happen unless you give those ideas to someone who can do something about it."

I don`t think anything needs to be done, at least not here.

According to Wikipedia:

"In 2004, there were 185,415 abortions in England and Wales. 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less and 1.6% (or 2,914 abortions) occurred after 20 weeks."

"The overwhelming majority of abortions (95% in 2004 for England and Wales) were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman."

So the figures suggest that not only are women not aborting for casual reasons (95% aren`t, according to the above), but they`re also not aborting late: only 1.6% after 20 weeks.

It remains to be seen (ie, we need to ask the scientists), when the foetus`s higher brain functions activate.
0
Reply
Male 756
im seeing some good ideas here, but we all know nothing is going to happen unless you give those ideas to someone who can do something about it.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"That life begins when the heart starts beating."

You have a good approach, but you`ve picked the wrong organ.

It`s the brain, not the heart, that`s important.

Just look at the opposite end of the human life; death. When the brain ceases to function, the person is dead.

It stands to reason, then, that when the brain starts to function, the person is alive.

I suggest a modification of your proposal: develop some kind of device/test that can determine whether higher brain function has begun in the foetus, and use that as a basis for whether or not the abortion is allowed.

Because in my view, before that brain has switched on, it`s no different from turning off the life support for someone whose brain has switched off: you`re killing a body, but not a person; as the person has either yet to arrive, or has already gone.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Crakr - no it`s not. In the early stages a human fetus is almost identical to a fish fetus.. A product of our evolutionary descent.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion [quote]The second problem is that is implies a possible legal precedent for defining a foetus as a person.[/quote]


And just what exactly is wrong with that ?

A fetus is a human life, it may be young and not fully developed but it`s still a human being.

Science is already developing an artificial womb, The Japanese have already experimented on one with goats. It`s only a matter of time before the `It`s the woman`s body` argument is no longer valid. The sooner we define the start of human life (legally) the less controversy and potential for abuse there will be later.

I`ve proposed a compromise here several times now, That life begins when the heart starts beating. It`s based on the medical fact that if your heart stops beating you are dead, and I believe it to be a rational and easily verifiable limit.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Hoist by my own petard
0
Reply
Male 2,220
"Tits are pretty and chirp pleasantly, but I`m not much of an ornithologist."

Nor apparently are the RSPB - one of those tits was a parrotbill.

However in keeping with the tradition a "pair of great tits":-


0
Reply
Male 192
@ Angilion "The second problem is that is implies a possible legal precedent for defining a foetus as a person." we already have that. I am agenst all abortions myself due to to me its a person at conception, but our laws say it is not and its ok to kill it. However, is it not funny that if a woman, while walking into an abortion clinic, gets shot or hit or whatever and the baby dies, the attacker gets arrested for murder. Just a question i have always had that no one can give me an answer that makes sense. When murder is murder just before killing is not murder???
0
Reply
Male 1,116
I really don`t give a sh*t what some backwards, insignificant state like South Dakota does.
0
Reply
Female 87
Angilion is the most irrational person on here. I suspect he`s a woman.
0
Reply
Male 422
Ok, so after coming back from work, I see that the fire I started has grown 8 pages larger. Hmmm, DOWN WITH ABORTION! UP WITH JESUS!
0
Reply
Female 3,598
"ABORTIONS FOR ALL!!"
-BOOOOOO!!!!
"ok,... ABORTIONS FOR NONE!!!"
-BOOOOOOOOO!!!!
"hmm...ABORTIONS FOR SOME, MINIATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR OTHERS!!!!!!!"
-YAY!!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 196
Mother Jones isn`t even close to a non-biased news source. Grain of salt? Try a whole truckload.
0
Reply
Male 260
NO. This would only apply if abortion were illegal. It isn`t. I am totally pro-choice, but this scandal is inaccurate.
0
Reply
Male 451
I guess they will be supporting honor killings too.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Its so easy for us to discuss about what is right and wrong about abortions, we werent aborted after all
0
Reply
Male 39,902
Everyone will get a turn! Let`s not shove! Be Patient!

Who`s next?



0
Reply
Male 72
Gerry, as much as i disagree with a lot of what your saying the whole "my views are my own" raised my respect for you no end :) i think a lot of people disagree with everything the other side says for the sake of it, good to see a reasoned person on the boards :)
0
Reply
Male 40,739
[quote]most pro-lifer`s are republicans and most of them support war and the death penalty...
do I even need to point out the problem here?[/quote]

Yes @jamie76 you DO!
While you`re at it: Most pro-abortionists oppose the death penalty, what`s up with THAT eh?

This is the most useless arguement in the abortionist`s handbook, yet they continue to flog that dead horse. Sad really.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
jamie 76- [quote]"most pro-lifer`s are republicans and most of them support war and the death penalty..." [/quote]

I`m Pro-life and I do not support the death penalty.
I am repubican and I Do support gay marriage.
As for war, it depends on the war. Give me a cause I back and yes, I would support it.

Not sure how you can mix all those topics together, but just to let you know, some people think and make up their own minds instead of following party lines or letting sound bites on TV make up thier minds for them.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
"If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."

It`s right there in the article people! Obviously the OP didn`t bother to ACTAULLY READ what was submitted...
0
Reply
Male 8,530
jamie 76-"most pro-lifer`s are republicans and most of them support war and the death penalty...

do I even need to point out the problem here?"

There is no problem. They are not comparable nor similar.

Lets make is simple:

Pro-lifer`s support the right to a fetus to live, as they believe it to be an innocent little child who deserves the chance at life. These beliefs are in no way related to, nor comparable with, beliefs of war and capital punishment.

People who support wars do so because they believe their cause/country is worth fighting for. These beliefs are in no way related to, nor comparable with, of a fetus or the death penalty.

People who support the death penalty because they believe some people have forfeited their right to life through violent and/or treasonous. (plus, there is zero recidivism in the death penalty) These beliefs are in no way related to, nor comparable with, beliefs on abortion or war.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I start from the same basis as green batman, but my conclusions are different. I conclude that personal autonomy is the trump card, so I have to agree with abortion on demand at any time up to birth. I really don`t like that, but it`s what follows from my premises so I go with it. Although I`m a bit ambivalent about the idea of a "viable independent life" time limit, i.e. about 24 weeks in.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]HOW THE F*** DOES A LAW LIKE THIS GET SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED?[/quote]

Because the actual law (as opposed to some reports of it) is about clarifying the right to use force to defend others.

A hypothetical example:

Your mother is pregant and you`re walking with her and someone attacks her with the express intention of kicking her repeatedly in the guts to induce a miscarriage. That wouldn`t kill her, so her life is not in danger. Under existing law, you are on uncertain legal ground if you killed the attacker because the existing law on justifiable homicide talks about defending people`s lives. The proposed change to the law would extend it to cover defence in a scenario like this.

The first problem is that the law, like many laws, is unclear in its meaning and could be abused as a result. The second problem is that is implies a possible legal precedent for defining a foetus as a person.
0
Reply
Female 728
@Angillon: I failed to account for defense of another, but I believe that is a legally sound defense of murder, so I agree that it would be justifiable, if it is done to prevent harm to the mother. If it is done to a doctor at an abortion clinic, however, there is little danger to the mother and the life of the doctor is worth more than the life of the fetus. I believe that rational entities are worth more than non-rational entities, though I don`t think that non-rational entities should be killed frivolously.
0
Reply
Female 728
I think it`s a little silly that people can`t agree on a fetus being a life. It is a life, it is simply parasitic at that stage. The question should be whether it is a human life. I am inclined to say that a fetus is not yet fully human, which is why I think that it is acceptable in certain cases to have an abortion. Where it is dangerous to the mother, where the child is likely to have debilitating birth defects, or where it is a product of rape, I think it is permissible to have an abortion. In any other case, it is an unjustifiable destruction of a life. I don`t think that any life, human or not, should be destroyed without good cause.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Partly because some forms of danger to the fetus are also dangerous to the mother[/quote]

All of them are, to varying extents, but even if you stick with "some", then that blows your argument that the only person who can legally kill in defence of a foetus is the person pregnant with it. Someone else could legally kill on the grounds that it was necessary for defence of the person who`s pregnant.

Say, for example, you`re walking along with a friend/relative/lover who`s pregnant and some nutjob with a knife and a warped mind is going to stab her in the guts with it to kill the foetus. You`re yards away (getting something from the boot of your car, whatever) and you probably couldn`t take the attacker hand to hand anyway. But you can shoot them. You do so and kill them. Reasonable force? I think so.
0
Reply
Male 2,344
most pro-lifer`s are republicans and most of them support war and the death penalty...

do I even need to point out the problem here?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]This isn`t right at all. I believe these arguments and would have an abortion but I would still find it upsetting because it`s a huge life decision. A part of me would always wonder what would have happened and so on.[/quote]

Then you don`t believe your own arguments. How can you be traumatised over a meaningless bundle of cells that`s no different to a sperm or unfertilised egg? You probably lose thousands of eggs every month - why aren`t you equally traumatised about those? If you believe your own arguments, you should be. If you aren`t, then you don`t believe your own arguments. So why should anyone else?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I think my second point still stands though.[/quote]

I don`t. The "bundle of cells" refers is clearly meant to trivialise it.

It`s technically true, but it`s equally true for you, me and everyone else. Strictly speaking, we`re all bundles of cells. So if defining something as a bundle of cells makes killing it not murder, then it is not murder to kill anyone.

So I think your second point fails and you`re still contradicting yourself for advocacy reasons.
0
Reply
Female 728
As much as I think abortion is terrible, I think the only time it should be legally permissible to kill another in defense of a fetus is if it is your own. Partly because some forms of danger to the fetus are also dangerous to the mother and partly because an imminent threat to the fetus would likely trigger an instinctual protectiveness that might make the mother dangerous. Essentially, I think it would be a sort of temporary insanity, which is often recognized as a valid legal defense.
0
Reply
Female 23
Also with regards to "Anyone who believes the usual pro-abortion arguments shouldn`t find it at all traumatic in the slightest - it`s just a bundle of cells, it`s no different to sperm or an unfertilised egg, etc, etc."

This isn`t right at all. I believe these arguments and would have an abortion but I would still find it upsetting because it`s a huge life decision. A part of me would always wonder what would have happened and so on.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote">I like tits and basketball.[/quote">

I`m not all that much for basketball. I can appreciate the skill involved, but it doesn`t really interest me so I couldn`t say that I like it.

Tits are pretty and chirp pleasantly, but I`m not much of an ornithologist.

Tits are colourful

OK, it`s an obvious joke but it`s old enough to be considered a tradition.
0
Reply
Female 23
Apologies, I didn`t see your reply. I think my second point still stands though.
0
Reply
Female 23
Angilion you ignored my point so here it is again: The `bundle of cells` argument simply refers to the fact that aborting a fetus might not be regarded in the same light as taking a human life as it could be considered to not yet be a fully formed human. As reganon said: even that opinion comes down to belief.

While some people might use this argument to show that abortion is trivial, not all of us do. I would simply call on this argument to counteract `abortion is murder` claims. Maybe the best way to solve your point is by differentiating between what is `trivial` and what is `acceptable`. Abortion is acceptable (to some) because the fetus is just a bundle of cells and not yet a human - this is not at all the same as its being trivial.
0
Reply
Male 1,598
Ignoring anything about whether or not abortion is okay...

HOW THE F*** DOES A LAW LIKE THIS GET SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED?
0
Reply
Male 8,530
zombunny-"If you can`t read between the lines and realize that, that`s too bad."

Understand one thing. Law is not written to be `read between the lines`. Law is written to be enforced as written. (we have a law that it is illegal to tie your pet alligator to a parking meter..it can not be read to include any other animal or structure).

Granted, this law is not as clear as it could be (what legaleze is?). But at the same time, this law does not grant Justifiable Homicide status on the killing of any abortion provider (unless, of course, the abortion provider is attempting to murder someone outside of his chosen vocation) . If it did, the reported would not have had to include the disclaimer `IN THEORY". Law is not theory. Law is law.

`IN THEORY` covers alot of ground. You are a female. `IN THEORY` you could be a prostitute. Best odds says you aren`t..but there`s that `theory` to contend with.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]don`t lump us all in together[/quote]

How about extending the same concept to women in general, rather than ordering them to be traumatised when you think they should be?

Some women find abortion traumatic. Some don`t. Different women are different. At least, I think they are.

Anyone who believes the usual pro-abortion arguments shouldn`t find it at all traumatic in the slightest - it`s just a bundle of cells, it`s no different to sperm or an unfertilised egg, etc, etc.

It`s the fundamental dishonesty and emotional manipulation that`s normal for abortion availability advocates that annoys me. Wildly varying definitions to suit whatever works best at a given time, contradicting themselves and demanding that everyone believes the same contradictions...it`s nasty.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Hm, so what if the kid that is prevented from being aborted grows up to be a doctor that does abortions? Think on that!
0
Reply
Male 2,229
This like throwing womens rights, whole and total, out with the bath water. What the F, what`s next mandatory church service?

Who let the lunatics out to run the government?
0
Reply
Male 18
@Gerry1of1
"What about right to LIFE, liberty, and persuit of happiness? "

Rights are for people.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, I don`t think any pro-choice advocate is claiming that having an abortion is a trivial decision though?[/quote]

Yes they are, every single time they use a "bundle of cells" type of argument.

If it`s just a bundle of cells, getting rid of it is as trivial as, for example, blowing your nose.

If it`s not that trivial, it`s not just a bundle of cells.

You can`t reasonably have it both ways. Most abortion advocates demand to have it both ways and demand that everyone believes those two mutually contradictory arguments simultaneously, for the emotional impact.

It`s fundamentally dishonest and manipulative and I refuse to do it.
0
Reply
Male 18
The concept of this law is fu¢king disgusting. Anyone who thinks that a fetus in the first or second trimesters can be considered a person does not have a thorough understanding of fetal development. The third trimester is debatable, but irrelevant since no one performs abortions except when medically necessary during that trimester.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote">And where are these so-called lunch break abortions taking place?[/quote">

Marie Stopes clinics started them about 10 years ago, but no doubt they`re widely available now.

[quote">You do realize that an abortion can`t be performed in 30 minutes? It required numerous medical consultations, prescription filling, and aftercare, not to mention the procedure itself.[/quote">

Not in the UK, it doesn`t. You can go in, get an abortion and be walking out again in under an hour. A good team can do at least 4 abortions per hour and that includes moving from one to the next and re-prepping for each one.


Newspaper report from 1997, shortly after lunchtime abortions became available

The Independent is a reliable paper, not a gutter press tabloid.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
MeGrendel [quote]"Okay, for those who have not bothered to read the bill. This is the bill..." [/quote]

Please do not confuse the issue with facts.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman`s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one. [/quote]

Americans are stupid. This "bill" is closer to Sharia law then what you would expect from a normal, developed country. I`m disgusted to live within 150km of such idiocy.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
MeGrendel, I have read it and I still stand by what I said. This bill is designed to allow for the murder of abortion providers. If you can`t read between the lines and realize that, that`s too bad. Your age suggests that you should know better than to be so naive.
0
Reply
Female 23
Angilion, I don`t think any pro-choice advocate is claiming that having an abortion is a trivial decision though? Of course it`s not trivial, you`re making the choice between bringing a child into the world or not. It`s just about giving people the right to make that choice, hopefully based on the right reasons. (Some may choose to use abortion frequently while I personally don`t think it`s a decision to be taken lightly. But to quote zombunny, don`t lump us all in together.)
The `bundle of cells` argument simply refers to the fact that aborting a fetus might not be regarded in the same light as taking a human life as it could be considered to not yet be a fully formed human. As reganon said: even that opinion comes down to belief as we can never know the conscious state of a fetus etc - I just happen to agree with it.
0
Reply
Male 8,530
Part II:

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, OR THE UNBORN CHILD OF ANY SUCH ENUMERATED PERSON, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
0
Reply
Male 8,530
Okay, for those who have not bothered to read the bill.

This is the bill (presented in two parts). It is just to ammend (add) the capitalized lines to two existing S.D. sections.

For an act entitled, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
Be it encacted by the legislature of the State of South Dakota:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, OR TO HARM THE UNBORN CHILD OF SUCH PERSON IN A MANNER AND TO A DEGREE LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE UNBORN CHILD, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Abortion is legal in America. That`s why SD is attempting this nonsense. They have more hope of seceding than legalizing murder. South Dakota is the petulant child in the playground that doesn`t like the rules of the game so they pop the ball.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@Reignblazer, I like tits too. Not basketball though.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
And as Capahar pointed out, the fact that an abortion may be simple to perform does not mean that it`s an easy decision to make. A pregnant woman can also have an OB/GYN appointment on her lunch break. Does that make her decision to have a child a trivial, meaningless one?
0
Reply
Male 2,332
I like tits and basketball.
0
Reply
Male 58
@Gerry1of1
"What about right to LIFE, liberty, and persuit of happiness? "
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is written in the Declaration of Independence not the constitution. The right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law would be the constitutional basis you were looking for.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@Angilion, I never said it was just a bundle of cells that is easy to throw away. I don`t lump every anti choice person in with the rest I`ve already heard from, so I`d appreciate if you extended the same courtesy to me. I`m not talking about what Reaganom or anyone else said. I addressed you directly. The quote I was responding to was
"There are places that do lunch break abortions so you don`t have to interrupt your normal working day. Agonising? Traumatic? Obviously not."
0
Reply
Male 505
"You should be talking to Reganom and all the other abortion advocates who refer to it as getting rid of a bundle of cells, i.e. a trivial thing. "

Considering it is only my view on what a foetus is to me at an early stage, and that everyone has their own personal opinion as to when a foetus goes from being a few cells to a child.

That is only my opinion on a small stage in the pregnancy, the stage that i agree with pro choice.
0
Reply
Male 65
as a pro-lifer i think this is wrong. i think murder is wrong...period. whether it be a grown man or a fetus...its wrong everywhere. silly south dakota....
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, the ease with which an abortion can be performed does not in any way reflect how easy the decision is to have one. Surely the argument is simply that the bundle of cells is not yet a baby. Obviously women are aware that the bundle of cells has the potential to become a baby which is why the decision is traumatic.[/quote]

Apart from the fact that (a) it can`t be traumatic if it`s as trivial as most abortion advocates say it is and (b) it very obviously isn`t always traumatic. Newsflash - different women are different! Wow, who would have thought it?

You`re all just trying to have your cake and eat it, using contradictory arguments on a wholly emotional basis to silence any dissent. I refuse to be that dishonest.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Trivializing the difficult decision making process a woman goes through when faced with an unwanted pregnancy shows your ignorance of the subject quite clearly.[/quote]

You should be talking to Reganom and all the other abortion advocates who refer to it as getting rid of a bundle of cells, i.e. a trivial thing.

Which I didn`t do.

You are showing your ignorance of who is making which argument.

If you are a normal advocate of legalised abortion, you will also be showing your ignorance of honesty because you`ll be using the same arguments as Reganom.

Either it`s trivial or it isn`t. Make your choice and stop talking bollocks at me for refusing to be dishonest.
0
Reply
Female 23
Angilion, the ease with which an abortion can be performed does not in any way reflect how easy the decision is to have one. Surely the argument is simply that the bundle of cells is not yet a baby. Obviously women are aware that the bundle of cells has the potential to become a baby which is why the decision is traumatic.

DJ: I got caught up in the joy of cooking alright? I cleaned it up in my lunch break and went straight back to work anyways, no point crying over spilt milk now.
0
Reply
Male 505
"There`s a very simple way to resolve that way in which you imply men are better off than women. Make abortion impossible, then women would be equally as free of choices as men are.

Is that what you really want? Or did you just want to complain irrationally?"

It`s irrational for me to assume as a man that i won`t be able to understand how abortion will feel emotionally to a woman? Really? If you feel that i implied men are better off than women then i apologise, that wasn`t my intention.

However though, i feel, no man can understand what going through an abortion is like for a woman. On the simple basis that at the moment, a mana can`t get pregnant.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I think you misunderstand the language of the bill. This means that any parent (mother or father) can resist the abortion, ie: if the mother attempts to have an abortion and the father is opposed, he has the right to murder the doctor to prevent the abortion from happening. Nowhere in the bill does it specifically say that the mother or both parents must be the ones resisting.[/quote]

Nowhere in the bill does it say that a father has the right to murder the doctor to prevent an abortion from happening.

The language of the bill is, according to some people, unclear. I haven`t read it, so I don`t know for sure. I don`t trust media reports that are so clearly promoting a particular interpretation.

It`s not unusual for laws to be unclear and abused as a result. For example, "anti-terrorism" laws have been used in the UK to monitor when people put their bins out for collection and fine those who did it too early, because the law was unclear.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
[quote]"Abortion is a legal, constitutionally protected act"[/quote]


Is it?
Roe/Wade based it`s logic in the premise that you cannot ban abortions solely for `moral` reasons as morals are a choice, not a natural law. So in theory, you could ban them for other reasons, not just moral.

What about right to LIFE, liberty, and persuit of happiness?

Interpretations of the Constitution are as contradictory as the Bible.
0
Reply
Male 382
Then it is your own fault for baking. you should have known there was going to be a cake coming when you cracked the eggs...
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@Angilion,

Trivializing the difficult decision making process a woman goes through when faced with an unwanted pregnancy shows your ignorance of the subject quite clearly.

And where are these so-called lunch break abortions taking place? You do realize that an abortion can`t be performed in 30 minutes? It required numerous medical consultations, prescription filling, and aftercare, not to mention the procedure itself.
0
Reply
Female 23
But what if I realised halfway through that I was too hungry to eat the cake! I actually have personal experience of this, I made cookies yesterday and, after eating one, realised I didn`t want them. It was a really difficult decision but I ended up having to throw them away - a decision that will probably live with me forever or until I next want cookies.

(I don`t understand.. I said I was joking and everything..)
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]a traumatic choice one which you will never have to be in a position to make[/quote]

There`s a very simple way to resolve that way in which you imply men are better off than women. Make abortion impossible, then women would be equally as free of choices as men are.

Is that what you really want? Or did you just want to complain irrationally?
0
Reply
Male 382
And let`s not start with throwing out food with the starving in China and all....
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]but to place abortion (a traumatic choice one which you will never have to be in a position to make) as a similarity to using a condom is foolish, and i think disrespectful to any woman who has has to make that agonising choice.[/quote]

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

If abortion is just getting rid of a meaningless bundle of cells, it couldn`t possibly be a traumatic and agonising choice, can it?

I know it`s normal for abortion advocates to swap definitions back and forth to suit whatever they want to believe at that instant, to silence dissent and to sway people with irrational arguments, but it isn`t necessary. You can`t really claim the moral high ground when you stoop that low to do it.

There are places that do lunch break abortions so you don`t have to interrupt your normal working day. Agonising? Traumatic? Obviously not.
0
Reply
Male 382
I would think you idiotic if you threw out a cake after mixing all the ingredients, placing in the cake pan, preheating the oven and starting the cooking process.

We are not arguing about vasectomies and hysterectomies.
0
Reply
Female 23
"The only thing stopping my semen from becoming more than "my lil` swimmers" is the fact that they don`t find an egg. Doesn`t stop me from finishing in a condom.../tissue"

Exactly! That`s like saying I shouldn`t throw my flour and eggs out because they might become a cake.

At the end of the day matters of belief cannot be reduced to logic. The point is that you should have the choice to keep the baby if you believe it is the right thing to do and abort it if you believe it is not. If you believe in God then you must acknowledge it is his responsibility to judge people and that individual`s choice to run that risk if they choose. I`m not anti-religion but I don`t believe in its use to decide the fate of others, especially if they don`t share those religious beliefs.

(By the by I was joking and not comparing a baby to a cake before anyone tells me I`m going to hell. It seems it`s necessary to clarify that round these parts)
0
Reply
Female 2,525
I would not bring a child into this world unless I knew I could do everything in my power to give him or her the life they deserved. I don`t leave that up to chance.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Reganom:

The "bundle of cells" argument is a specious and wholly emotional argument. If you want to look at it that way, we`re all a bundle of cells. Just bigger or smaller bundles of cells.

There are more honest arguments in favour of legal abortion.
0
Reply
Male 382
But that is life.. None of us are promised anything. From the day I was born, I had no promises.. But I had a chance.
0
Reply
Female 412
I knew America was stagnate, I didn`t realise there were actually states going backwards. ><
0
Reply
Male 505
"There is 0 chance of health and happiness if dead"

Also there is no chance of: Beatings, rape, verbal abuse, sexual abuse etc. etc.
0
Reply
Male 382
The difference here is that the bundle of cells are already moving towards that potential. you are actually having to use interrupt nature to stop it.
0
Reply
Male 382
There is 0 chance of health and happiness if dead. At least if alive the child has a chance.
0
Reply
Male 505
"I would agree with you if it stayed a bundle of cells, but it doesn`t. The only thing that keeps it from being alive is the abortion."

The only thing stopping my semen from becoming more than "my lil` swimmers" is the fact that they don`t find an egg. Doesn`t stop me from finishing in a condom.../tissue

Potential doesn`t mean that at the time it`s not more. There are many things that can also stop a bundle of cells from going further.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
So DJ, you only care that the child is allowed to live, not that it is allowed to live a happy, healthy life in which it is loved and well cared for?
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@MeGrendel,

I think you misunderstand the language of the bill. This means that any parent (mother or father) can resist the abortion, ie: if the mother attempts to have an abortion and the father is opposed, he has the right to murder the doctor to prevent the abortion from happening. Nowhere in the bill does it specifically say that the mother or both parents must be the ones resisting.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Reagonom, what should I call it then. Please educate me so I will not offend some poor traumatized woman... "

Abortion. Also did you mean for "some poor traumatised woman..." to come across as sarcastic/snarky? If not apologies, if so however...
0
Reply
Male 382
Honest answer Zom.. Yes, I would rather that happen than my child be dead.
0
Reply
Male 382
No, I would want my parents or sister to raise it.. hell I can`t afford it. :)
0
Reply
Male 382
"It is a bundle of cells"

I would agree with you if it stayed a bundle of cells, but it doesn`t. The only thing that keeps it from being alive is the abortion.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Reganom put it better than I did :) "

Of course i did, my profile picture gives me powers beyond belief :P /sarcasm

Thanks though =]
0
Reply
Female 2,525
So DJ, you would rather spend life in prison and have your child raised by a woman who did not want him/her and possibly is incapable of providing proper care for them, rather than allow her to have an abortion?
0
Reply
Male 382
Reagonom, what should I call it then. Please educate me so I will not offend some poor traumatized woman...

0
Reply
Male 505
"IF THE MOTHER WERE RESISTING"

"or to harm the unborn child of such person"

Wrong. I have a father, i am his child, i was also HIS unborn child for a while 22 years ago.

0
Reply
Male 505
"I would go to jail to protect my child. It is the right thing to do."

Yes it is the right thing to do to protect a child. When does a foetus become a child though? For you it`s at conception it seems, but for many its a bundle of cells.
0
Reply
Male 8,530
Debates about abortion aside: This report is a serious case of irresponsible reporting.

Notice the author’s use of the disclaimer, ‘could IN THEORY allow…to kill anyone who tried to provide..an abortion”.

The actually bill: “Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child,..”

So, the homicide would only be justifiable IF THE MOTHER WERE RESISTING. If the mother has requested an abortion, no one can claim she was resisting.

Only an irrational person, on EITHER side of the issue, could use this law to come to the conclusion this idiot reporter is trying to foster.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Let`s move Mt. Rushmore to some state that won`t be an insult to it.
0
Reply
Female 23
Reganom put it better than I did :)
0
Reply
Female 23
Yes there are a ton of ways to avoid pregnancy but, shocker, they`re not all 100% effective. And yes, a fair few people will have got pregnant because they didn`t use contraception but this is hopefully a mistake you only make once. Just to emphasise, and please understand this, I am not promoting abortion as a quick and easy solution that allows people to continuously have sex without protection, get pregnant and abort the fetus - I should imagine that would be incredibly unhealthy at the very least, various moral and religious arguments notwithstanding.

Yeah fine, if you believe in abstinence then that`s fair enough but I think it`s outdated and unrealistic in this day and age. Better sex education and, as you say, free contraception are much more efficient.
0
Reply
Male 505
"If they are doing it to not have a baby, then that is what it is. Calling it anything else is sugar coating it..."

Whilst yes birth control includes abortions, but to place abortion (a traumatic choice one which you will never have to be in a position to make) as a similarity to using a condom is foolish, and i think disrespectful to any woman who has has to make that agonising choice.
0
Reply
Male 382
Legally? No. But your question seems to imply the legal = right.

I would go to jail to protect my child. It is the right thing to do.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
I`ve gone along with the debate for fun, but in reality I do not advocate killing the doctors.

Kidnap the women and hold them until after the birth.

[sarcasm] Much better option. [/sarcasm]
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Also @Gerry, and anyone else who wants to respond,

What about the legality of abortion? Abortion is a legal, constitutionally protected act. Should you be able to prevent a woman from exercising her legal right because you disagree with it? Your comparison to the murder of a pregnant woman makes sense to an extent, but murder of a pregnant woman is clearly illegal. Abortion is not.
0
Reply
Male 382
If they are doing it to not have a baby, then that is what it is. Calling it anything else is sugar coating it...
0
Reply
Male 382
Zom.. Sorry to hijack it but I love children so much. It hurts me to see them thrown away, a lot of times over lifestyle...
0
Reply
Male 505
"There is NO REASON abortion should be viable as birth control"

It`s not birth control. To me you`re implying that abortion is some quick and easy way of not worrying about pregnancy, which actually disgusts me. The vast majority of woman don`t just pop on down and get an abortion, it`s a traumatic decision and most likely the most difficult one they`ve faced. To try and trivialise what they`ve gone through as "birth control" like slipping on a condom is wrong.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Interesting way to look at it, Gerry. Thanks for responding.

It`s strange how it`s so easy for people to get worked up and create a long circular debate over black and white issues such as pro choice vs. anti choice, but when it comes to thinking about the subtle, less politically and religiouly charges issues that go along with it such as this, no one seems willing to touch it. Note how quickly this thread turned into a debate over choice, when the article is about something else.
0
Reply
Male 382
yes I can blame them.. you know the consequences of sex before you do it. There are a TON of ways to avoid pregnancy and most are FREE if you go to the Health Department. There is NO REASON abortion should be viable as birth control. And there is no arguement that is going to make me think it is OK...
0
Reply
Male 39,902
@DJDoubleb

got me laughing! THANKS
0
Reply
Male 382
I fully stand with Gerry on this issue. Beside him that is.. not in front..
0
Reply
Male 1,610
@Zombunny

Killin` doctors is bad, mmmmkay. You shouldn`t kill doctors.
0
Reply
Female 23
@DJ I don`t doubt that and I am not saying, by any means, that people with no money shouldn`t be allowed to have children! The key word is *choice*. Your parents chose to have you and that worked out well. Good. But you can hardly blame someone who does have that choice for wanting to wait until they are better prepared, mentally and financially, to have a child.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Stop taking what I say out of context. At no point did I say that right to kill doctors who perform abortions is justified. Please, please, pay more attention to detail"

I`m not. I didn`t say that you considered it justified. You bring religion in saying that it is a sin to have an abortion yet this whole post is about the murder of abortionists. That would make religion in this debate irrelevant at best, don`t you think?
0
Reply
Male 1,312
Are you kidding me? So much I want to say but I`m not even getting into this.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
ZomBunny`s question:
[quote]"do you think that it is the proper place of a relative (mother, father, sibling, etc) or sexual partner (the father of the fetus/baby/whatever) to take the life of a doctor providing an abortion for a woman who has made that choice? Should they be able to intervene and decide whether or not she is allowed to abort her pregnancy, if she has made a decision they disagree with? " [/quote]

If a man is about to kill a pregnant woman, does the father/brother/husband have an obligation to defend her AND the child?

I think yes, he does.

In the case of abortion, someone is attempting to kill a man`s child. The same obligation is there.

Me personally, I would hope that I never am stupid enough to make a child with someone who has so little morality.

0
Reply
Female 2,525
Does anyone want to respond to the question I posted earlier or are we ignoring that? I`d be interested in hearing some opinions.
0
Reply
Female 3,696
......*FACEINTOWALL*
0
Reply
Male 382
Capahar, please note that I lived most of my life below the poverty line. My parents really struggled at times. But that life.. it was good. I loved my childhood. And even at it`s worst it was better than no life at all.
0
Reply
Male 382
"find me the christians who follow the belief of not wearing clothes of mixed cloth."

It is true that Deuteronomy 22:11 specifies the prohibition of wearing clothing made of linen and wool woven together, because the interweaving of linen and wool was used in fabrics used to construct the tabernacle itself as well as in the manufatcure of the priests graments. Exodus 26:1 specifies that both types of spun tread were to be used for the tent cloths of the tabernacle.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica says: The clothing of the priests was notably exempt from the prohibition of sha´atnez [a garment of two sorts of thread, NW]. Exodus 28:6, 8, 15 and 39:29 prescribe that various pieces be made of linen and colored wool interwoven. . . . This suggests that the general prohibition was grounded on the taboo character of such a mixture, pertaining exclusively to the realm of the sacred. Read more: What`s the deal with God not allowing people to wear clothes made of two
0
Reply
Male 422
@Pychgeek
"the Bible is NOT valid. i don`t read it, i don`t agree with it, i don`t give a poo about it. it was written by MAN, not god."

Then you are not a Methodist. Plain and simple. Methodists primary source for Christian doctrine is the Bible. No Bible, No Methodist.

@Reganom
"but abortion is looked at as a very serious sin in the Christian faith"

As is homosexuality, and murder...If you consider this is about the murder of the abortionists then religion doesn`t really have a reason to be in this discussion."

Stop taking what I say out of context. At no point did I say that right to kill doctors who perform abortions is justified. Please, please, pay more attention to detail.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
PsychGeek - [quote]" you`re forgetting about the SEMEN that was used to create this baby. "[/quote]

I am not forgetting him. I placed him responsible to protect the child.

YOU are pushing him out of the picture
[quote]"the fetus is in HER stomach, not the man`s."[/quote]
With that statement you seem to imply that a man should not have any say so or opinion about this.

well, we do.

And the lesbian thing was sarcasm. Next time I`ll put [sarcasm] brackets around it.
0
Reply
Male 40
I think it`s awesome because then the doctor (or someone on THEIR behalf) can claim self-defense and kill the killers. Round and round we go, wheeee!

What they`re doing is legalizing an infinite loop!
0
Reply
Female 23
I completely agree with Psych, I think it`s a hard thing for men to understand and I don`t think religion should be dragged into the debate either. I know that I couldn`t possibly afford to care for a baby at this stage in my life and I`d rather bring a baby into the world when I have a stable job and home to bring it up in. This doesn`t mean to say that deciding to get an abortion wouldn`t be the hardest choice I`d ever have to make - I don`t believe it`s a throwaway decision for the majority of women. But for me it wouldn`t be based on lofty deliberations over `sin` and right and wrong but for the sheer practical reason that I`d rather have a baby when I can give it the best life possible.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
the Bible is NOT valid. i don`t read it, i don`t agree with it, i don`t give a poo about it. it was written by MAN, not god.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ:

READ what i say. men DO have a choice in the matter, but ultimately the decision falls to the woman. however, he needs to take responsibility for his part in the conception and not label her as a horrible person and huge sinner for having an abortion.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
what the? lied to by the title
0
Reply
Male 422
@Psychgeek

I clearly said that I wasn`t calling you a sinner. That`s a little outside my jurisdiction, but I was just trying to inform you on the Church`s view of abortion in case you did not know. Also, I`m pretty sure the Bible is a valid source of God`s thoughts seeing as your religion is based off of it.
0
Reply
Male 505
"I just said your theology is off. "

To you...Belief is personal, find me the christians who follow the belief of not wearing clothes of mixed cloth. You can believe in the biblical God without taking the bible as fact.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ:

he threw faith into the equation and used that smoke screen to say "abortion is a sin" as a blanket statement, meaning ALL abortion. all i said was that if i was raped, i`d get an abortion.
0
Reply
Male 382
So men don`t have a choice in the matter, but they should get the blame when an abortion happens? you can`t have it both ways....
0
Reply
Male 39,902
"A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body."

Bull poo.

She cannot sell a kidney.
She cannot ingest or smoke banned chemicals.
She cannot rent her body to men for sexual favors.

No one, neither man nor woman, has unlimited rights, not even to their own body.
That arguement is a smoke screen.
{see earlier post on smoke screens}
0
Reply
Male 382
I am not judging you. Where have I said that you were a bad person, that you are less than I, or made any derogatory statement about you or any punishment you might or should receive.. I just said your theology is off.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Gerry:

your argument is invalid and frankly ridiculous on so many levels. first of all, the whole "go lesbian" thing is absurd and doesn`t have a place in this conversation. secondly, you`re forgetting about the SEMEN that was used to create this baby.

you want to play at being adults, then realize the father helped to create the life that`s now in question. stop putting the blame JUST on the mother. she has more of a say in what happens, but she didn`t make the kid on her own.
0
Reply
Male 382
Psy.. why do you keep throwing rape out there.. I don`t think any of us are arguing against it in that situation...
0
Reply
Female 1,798
AMEN, Reganom!!! :D :D
0
Reply
Male 39,902
PsychGeek

Heterosexual sex is designed to make babies.
If you want to play at being adults then face up
to the concequences.

If you don`t want to risk making a baby but want an orgasm you should go lesbian.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
no, but apparently you`re ignoring the whole idea of "don`t judge others, leave that up to God". isn`t that also something Jesus preached? don`t judge women who have abortions, you have no place in the matter.
0
Reply
Male 505
"but abortion is looked at as a very serious sin in the Christian faith"

As is homosexuality, and murder...If you consider this is about the murder of the abortionists then religion doesn`t really have a reason to be in this discussion.
0
Reply
Male 382
"stop thinking you can speak for God, you have no idea what he really thinks about abortion. "

Yes I do.. He says it very clearly. Do you want me to quote the HUNDREDS of scripture where he speaks of his love of children, he blessing of the womb, or his blessing of man through children, his cursing of people by closing their womb? To say anything other is ignoring the bible. Do you always ignore the parts you don`t agree with?
0
Reply
Male 39,902
abortion "rights" is mostly smoke screen which prevent people from focusing on the only real issue.
Is it a baby or is it just superfluous tissue?

If it`s just a growth then no problem removing it.
If it`s a child obviously you can`t kill it for convenience.

Who knows for sure? Science or theologeans?
No one can conclusively say when it becomes a person.

Where children are concerned,
I err on the side of caution.

Let the baby live.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Gerry:

of course you`ll say that, you wouldn`t ever have to experience the types of things women go through when they`re pregnant. you have a choice in the matter, but not as much as the mother--the fetus is in HER stomach, not the man`s. sorry.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Lblax:

i said I`m a Christian, but i didn`t say i`m a strong one. if i were raped and got pregnant as a result, damn right i`d have an abortion. i dont` give a flying fig what YOUR opinion of God`s thoughts on abortion are. i dont` count the bible as a valid source because it`s not. so hush about the religion aspect, it`s been beaten to death and i`m sick of it.
0
Reply
Male 382
Gerry... High Five!
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ: i KNEW i shouldn`t have told you my religion, because now you`re going to run the tired, old "God hates abortion" argument that everyone with no valid scientific argument makes.

stop thinking you can speak for God, you have no idea what he really thinks about abortion. anything in the bible can be misinterpreted to support your position, and frankly it has no place in a scientific argument regarding abortion. you want to talk about religion? talk about it with someone else, i`m not making any further comments about it.
0
Reply
Male 382
The point I was making is in reference to "It is OK to abort, it has no rights because it is not life".

It is not life but it will be. unless you get in the way and destroy it, it will be.

0
Reply
Male 422
@Psychgeek and Reganom

Didn`t I just say that cases involving rape and incest become complicated, but there are still other choices? At no point did I say that it had no place in the discussion. In fact, I opened the topic up for discussion.

Also, Psychgeek, I`m not trying to preach to the choir here, but abortion is looked at as a very serious sin in the Christian faith. Now I`m not calling you a sinner, just letting you know.
0
Reply
Male 39,902
zombunny - [quote]"Leave it to a man, someone who will never experience an unwanted pregnancy, to make such an ignorant blanket statement."[/quote]

Men are involved. It`s their children being killed.
One could argue it`s his duty as a father to protect the child.
Of course, it`s also the mother`s job...wanted or not.

0
Reply
Male 382
Psych.. do not kid yourself into think that abortion is OK with God. If you are going to claim Christianity on this subject, at least claim you are a Christian standing opposed to God`s word on the subject of abortion. This one is very clear in the bible, if you believe it to be God`s word.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ:

your point makes absolutely no sense.......
0
Reply
Male 382
In my mind it is not so much, "what it is" as much as "what it will be" that is the question.

If it is not yet a life, then why abort it? It`s just a bundle of cells... nothing to be afraid of, right?
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Lblax: I am a Methodist, a Christian. I am also a woman who believes that all women have the right to choose.

You can never, EVER understand what a woman goes through emotionally, physically, and spiritually when she`s pregnant. that`s not meant to be a slam against men, it`s just a fact.

so before you make comments on how abortion should be illegal, think about this: you will never know what it`s like to give birth to a child, and you`ll never know what it`s like to lose that life to abortion, no matter the reason.
0
Reply
Male 505
Lblaxplaya20:

Something is rare then it has no place in the discussion?


0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Lblax:

try saying that when your daughter comes home traumatized from being raped. if a pregnancy occurs from that, no matter how small the chances, would you force her to carry it for 9 months?
0
Reply
Male 422
@Psychgeek

What religon, if any, do you belong to? Just curious
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Here`s some suggested reading for those of you who oppose abortion rights.

However, I`d like to take this discussion in a different direction for a moment, if I may. Whether you support choice or not, do you think that it is the proper place of a relative (mother, father, sibling, etc) or sexual partner (the father of the fetus/baby/whatever) to take the life of a doctor providing an abortion for a woman who has made that choice? Should they be able to intervene and decide whether or not she is allowed to abort her pregnancy, if she has made a decision they disagree with?
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ:

nope, I agree. though it depends on when during fetal development he`s talking about. at first conception, a fetus is not even a fetus. it`s a bundle of cells, still in the process of initial replication. it`s called a "zygote" at this stage. whether or not you call that bundle of cells "life" is up to you.
0
Reply
Female 240
I think that there is a very good chance that if I was a man, I would be pro-life.
But as a woman I could not be more pro-choice. I believe you really do have to be a woman to understand, and make a clear decision on which you support
0
Reply
Male 422
@Psychgeek and Reganom

Do you realize that abortions due to rape and incest make up less than 1% of all abortions? I agree the situation gets complicated in those cases, those VERY RARE cases, but even then the woman still has choices other than abortion.

0
Reply
Male 748
South Dakota is screwed up.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Norris:

and removing the ovaries of a woman who has an abortion is also just? you really are twisted if you believe that logic. thank god my life and future isn`t in your hands.
0
Reply
Male 382
a mish mash of genetic goo?

are you mentally handicapped?

0
Reply
Male 2,422
A fetus is merely a mish-mash of genetic goo. A doctor is a fully sentient being with hopes, fears, and loves and a knowledge of what it actually means to be alive. It`s a pretty clear choice for me.
0
Reply
Male 382
Psych:

"by following your twisted logic, men who abandon one child should have their testicles cut off. good one, Einstein."

I like it... It should be done that way.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
@Phych
Yes, that sounds like a reasonable punishment for men who abandon their children.

0
Reply
Male 382
I am the father of a 7 year old girl as well. I didn`t want her either. I now am happily expecting my 5th child.

I accepted that the child was my responsibility because I did not take precautions and now I am so glad I did not. There is no reason for there to be a need for a choice. You can choose before hand.

I do not agree with this law, but I could not look my maker in the eye knowing I destroyed a life.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ DJ:

then he should have made that clear before he made such a blanket statement regarding unprotected sexual encounters.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
What gets me is do these wackos that bomb these clinics realize planned parenthood clinics also provide other things besides abortion like birth control and STD testing/treatments.
0
Reply
Male 505
Lblaxplaya20:

It`s so awesome that protected sex prevents all pregnancy...Oh sorry, what was that? Oh it`s not perfect...well wow.

Oh and with regards to safe haven, what if the mother doesn`t want to be pregnant with the rapists child?
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Norris:

that is perhaps the STUPIDEST thing i have EVER heard someone say on this site.

by following your twisted logic, men who abandon one child should have their testicles cut off. good one, Einstein.
0
Reply
Male 382
PsychGeek you are using the exception not the rule. I think Lblax means only when abortion is being used as reactive birth control.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@DJDoubleb,

Funny you should ask. Actually, I have a seven year old daughter who was the result of an unplanned pregnancy when I was 15 years old. I love her to death and I chose to keep her, but I`m glad I had a choice.
0
Reply
Male 787
Really?
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Lblaxplaya20:

not have unprotected sex if you can`t face the consequences, eh? so does that mean victims of rape and incest are responsible for their pregnancies because they spread their legs? do they have to face the consequences of their rapists` actions? is it fair to them to carry around this child for 9 months because they were raped? be reminded every single day of that traumatic event?

think before you speak.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
I can`t believe this hick state is my neighbor.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
They have to get Jesus off of death row somehow.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
This is how it all starts...
0
Reply
Male 382
Zom, do you have ANY children, unwanted or not?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
It`s like fu<king for virginity.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@Norris,

So people who don`t want to get pregnant just shouldn`t have sexual relationships?
0
Reply
Female 193
do people really act like such crazy rednecks?
0
Reply
Male 422
@Zombunny

There are numerous ways for women to take care of unwanted pregnancies without the use of abortion. There`s a program in the U.S. called Safe Babies, Safe Place, Safe Haven that allows mothers who are unable to raise a child to leave the infant at a hospital where it is a guaranteed a safe shelter.
Another option would be to not have unprotected sex if you can`t face the consequences.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
LOL .. I just love the Onion news..... whaa ...Oh.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
@zombunny
Dont have sex, cant get pregnant...unless your biblical lol...

Personally I think abortion should be legal and fine, just if they decide to do it, aside from rape, incest, etc..the ovaries should be removed as well.

Murder your first baby, dont get another :P
0
Reply
Female 2,525
"Pro Choice: When a stuck up women cares too much about herself to respect the sacredness of human life."

Leave it to a man, someone who will never experience an unwanted pregnancy, to make such an ignorant blanket statement.
0
Reply
Male 335
This is incredible.
0
Reply
Male 422
@Hiromi

Pro Choice: When a stuck up women cares too much about herself to respect the sacredness of human life.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
I`m so sorry for all of the normal folks in the U.S. that have to carry the stigma that this sort of stuff place on you and your country.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
""They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, `I can`t climb that mountain`? This is where we`re getting to.""

I think that`s the idea :l
0
Reply
Female 1,148
Pro Life: When fetuses become more important than full grown women.
0
Reply
Male 4,680

0
Reply
Male 536
Wow... just wow.
0
Reply
Male 6,693
What is wrong with these people ?
0
Reply
Male 880
Holy drating poo batman.

Can we pass a bill allowing justifiable homicide to be acceptable on anyone who finds this bills reasonable?
0
Reply
Female 311
THAT`S IT!!! I`m moving to Europe!
0
Reply
Female 158
Dear South Dakota.
F**k you.
Signed, World.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
wait what?

[quote]*music in background[/quote]

[quote]its the end of the world as we know it, its the end....[/quote]
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Link: South Dakota Moves To Legalize Murder... [Rate Link] - of abortion providers. Is this what ``pro life`` means?
0
Reply