S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

[Osborn F Enready]

I disagree with you here Morgan. A fetus has no rights, unless the mother wishes to keep the fetus until it becomes a child. The mother is the right holder, until that fetus is delivered into the world.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I disagree with you here Morgan. A fetus has no rights, unless the mother wishes to keep the fetus until it becomes a child. The mother is the right holder, until that fetus is delivered into the world.

Why?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp I consider a fetus to be a potential person but not a creature with rights and certainly not one with rights that are greater than its human host.

Its rights aren't greater than the human host -- that's why this bill allows for abortions if the mother's life is threatened.

[Osborn F Enready]

Morgan said: Why?

I say:
Come on Morgan.

First of all, whose body is the fetus in? The mothers. Any surgery to protect the child while still in the mothers body would be invasive surgery, and it would require the conscent of the mother. What if the mother couldn't get an abortion, and she chose then just to starve herself until the fetus died? Is that more humane, for ANYONE?

A fetus only has rights if the mother wishes to keep the child. If she chooses to keep the child, and someone injures her while pregnant, and it affects the child, she can sue for damages. However, if she WILLFULLY signs the papers to contract a PRIVATE doctor to do a PRIVATE surgery on HER body, how would anyone intervene unless privacy is violated? Under what authority? At whose behest? Based on what?

A child is a born, living human. A fetus is a dependent organ, that resides within the mother. That organ is connected to her, and fully dependent on her until born, and that line is severed. At that point the child has limited rights, but the mother and or parents, retain the remainder of those rights OF THE CHILD until it becomes 18.


So tell me. In a Libertarian government, how would, who would attempt to intervene here, and based on what?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready First of all, whose body is the fetus in? The mothers. Any surgery to protect the child while still in the mothers body would be invasive surgery, and it would require the conscent of the mother.

Perhaps that is the law as it stands now, but we're arguing about what the law should be, right? We have laws that protect children from abusive parents, we have laws that give doctors discretion to overrule parental consent. It seems like that principle could be easily extended to cover an unborn child.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What if the mother couldn't get an abortion, and she chose then just to starve herself until the fetus died? Is that more humane, for ANYONE?

But now you're making an argument based on what's humane. That's different from an argument based on rights.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready A fetus only has rights if the mother wishes to keep the child.

But this is exactly the point that's being contended.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready However, if she WILLFULLY signs the papers to contract a PRIVATE doctor to do a PRIVATE surgery on HER body, how would anyone intervene unless privacy is violated? Under what authority? At whose behest? Based on what?

Based on the idea that it's not her body at all, but a seperate, sovereign human being.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready A child is a born, living human. A fetus is a dependent organ, that resides within the mother.

And children aren't dependent on their parents?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That organ is connected to her, and fully dependent on her until born, and that line is severed.

And the newborn baby goes out into the world to fend for its own?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready At that point the child has limited rights, but the mother and or parents, retain the remainder of those rights OF THE CHILD until it becomes 18.

Which is also an arbitrary dividing line.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So tell me. In a Libertarian government, how would, who would attempt to intervene here, and based on what?

That depends entirely on whether a fetus has rights or not. Libertarian theory has nothing to say on this topic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Any attempt to save a fetus from a mother who has become impregnated, for WHATEVER reason, is cruel and unusual punishment.

You can't cut her open and remove the fetus without her approval, CAN YOU?!?!?

You can't FORCE HER TO CONCEIVE, like some kind of birth machine, CAN YOU?!?!?!?

You know full well that if a person has their mind set against something, hell nor highwater are going to stop them.

So now we take (what we THINK the child would want, since we can't speak to a fetus) as more important than what a right holding, fully independent mother wants, using the understandning of HER LIFE?!?!?

What if the state forces the mother to conceive? They can't force the child on her, since she would then be a PROVABLY unfit mother. So does the state take care of, feed, house and clothe the child? Educate them?

This is madness, in my opinion, and it overlooks the most obvious core essential rights of the mother.

What if the parent ACTIVELY sought all forms of birth control, and they all failed? Is it right to condemn them to a life raising a child they don't want, can't afford, don't love?

These people are projecting their "beliefs" onto an unborn fetus, and saddling people with lives of raising children they didn't want, can't support or educate, and can't raise well.
The only people being hurt here are the mothers who are going to be FORCED to conceive against their will, if they are STUPID enough to be honest with their doctor, which will no longer be a TRUSTED bond.

No way.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Its rights aren't greater than the human host -- that's why this bill allows for abortions if the mother's life is threatened.

Well isn't that gracious of you? Deciding that the state will spare a woman's life. How munificent.

For a thousand years of so it has generally been considered that anything before the quickening is not the business of the state or the church. I do like the traditional in at least this one case. Even beyond the first trimester the woman's choice regarding her body still should be paramount, regardless of the opinions of priests or politicians.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What if the state forces the mother to conceive? They can't force the child on her, since she would then be a PROVABLY unfit mother. So does the state take care of, feed, house and clothe the child? Educate them? This is madness, in my opinion, and it overlooks the most obvious core essential rights of the mother.

I agree that it's madness. What I disagree with is that you can make the argument based on the "rights" of the mother.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp For a thousand years of so it has generally been considered that anything before the quickening is not the business of the state or the church. I do like the traditional in at least this one case. Even beyond the first trimester the woman's choice regarding her body still should be paramount, regardless of the opinions of priests or politicians.

I don't disagree with you here. I think I robust argument in favor of abortion can be made based on utility.

[PatrickHenry]

Back to the news story. I say good for South Dakota to assert a State's authority against the Supreme Court's lawmaking.

[Sandy]

Am I reading here that woman should not have the final word on whether she should be forced into spending 18 years 24/7 to raise an unwanted child? Women are proving themselves to be wonderful athletes, wonderful business women (54% of our CEOs are women) and of course great professors of many subjects.

My own mother had studied the piano for 15 years and ended up on the staff at USC in the music department. He found herself pregnant the same day she received a notice that she was to do a tour of Europe for at least a year. Her husband gave her permission to abort the fetus so she could do the tour. When she returned home she got pregnant and I was born 9 months later. Is this so wrong?

When I was in high school a classmate of mine was chosen for the Olympics as a diving participant. She found herself in trouble and flew to the South of France and nobody but her Mom and Dad.. Is this so wrong?

You men have been celebrating special events in your lives but tend to look down at any female who wants to do the same thing. This was all prior to Roe v Wade. What the religious right seems to forget it that it is a choice and no woman is aborted against her will. Could it be that these most Christian men might have to take the responsibility for their sperm? I suggest that if they would all have vasectomies, the problems would go away.

Another problem that I would like to see addressed is where in the hell would all these unwanted babies go? Supposedly there have been nearly 40 million abortions done in America since R v Wade. This means that more people than live in California would have to be spaced out in America. Who will feed these unwanted kids? How could we even think of educating them? Or would they find themselves in dumpsters across the country?

At this time, we find a lot of grandparents taking care of their unwanted grandkids. I live in an adults only community and many of my neighbors have had to sell their homes and buy into places that take children. Is that acceptable to you guys? Many of us have worked all the way through our kid's childhoods and should not have to repeat ourselves every new generation.

I want legislation written that if a woman is denied an abortion, she will have to name the fetus's father and nail him too. Abortions will go on and the women will die just as they did in the 40s, 50s and 60s.

[ericsp23]

When I started this thread I had hoped that the discussion would be about the consequences of this specific law being passed and upheld. I did not particuarly want to start another thread on whether or not abortion should be allowed. I guess it was naive of me to expect this though.

I will try to start things off in a new dircetion (I probably should have done this in the initial post). Lets say for the sake of argument that this bill is passed into law and is upheld by the Supreme Court. What happens next? Remember that abortion was illegal at one time in history, and that the Supreme Court decided, based on what at the time were considered valid and pragmatic reasons, to overturn the laws that made it illegal. We have gotten so tied up in the debate over morality and at what point a fetus can be considered a life that we have lost sight of this fact. So how is South Dakota going to deal with the original issues that persuaded the Supreme Court to strike down anti-abortion laws.
For example, what will happen when a young girl is raped and impregnated by her attacker? How is the state going to explain to her and her family that they are going to force her to compound her trauma by carrying the child to term? And to traumatize her and her family even further by forcing them to make the decision as to whether or not to keep the child? How will they deal with the inevitable public backlash against such a draconian law? Undoubtedly the decision to abort the fetus in this circumstance would also be traumatic, but at least it would be over at that point and she and her family could begin to work towards healing without any other distractions.
And then there is the old issue of coat hanger abortions. As has been stated previously in this thread, this law will not stop abortions, it will just drive them undergound where they cannot be regulated. Again, how are you going to deal with the inevitable public backlash when women die trying to end their pregnancies?

Since the pro-life movement is so intent on forcing this onto everyone and they seem to now have the resources to be able to do it, I'm tempted to just sit back and watch the consequences rather than try to fight it. Because I do not think that in the long term a law such as this will stand. Lets give everyone a small glimpse of what life would be like under the rule of people who would force their morality on everyone. I have a feeling that is the only way we are going to kill the beast of the religious right, or at least put it to bed for a few decades until it raises its ugly head again. I just hate to think of all of the lives that will have to be destroyed in the process.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ericsp23 Since the pro-life movement is so intent on forcing this onto everyone and they seem to now have the resources to be able to do it, I'm tempted to just sit back and watch the consequences rather than try to fight it. Because I do not think that in the long term a law such as this will stand. Lets give everyone a small glimpse of what life would be like under the rule of people who would force their morality on everyone. I have a feeling that is the only way we are going to kill the beast of the religious right, or at least put it to bed for a few decades until it raises its ugly head again. I just hate to think of all of the lives that will have to be destroyed in the process.

Well, the best of all possible worlds is that South Dakota seceeds. I suppose that's too much to hope for, though.

[Chilly]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Isnt masturbation a form of abortion? SPERM ARE ALIVE!!!!

Only if you're an earthworm or a certain type of lizard - it takes both sperm and egg. If you want to send me a PM, I can explain the birds and the bees to you, but if you want pics, that'll cost extra.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ericsp23 I just hate to think of all of the lives that will have to be destroyed in the process.

You ran off topic again, ericsp, in spite of your intention not to do so.

So I will also stray onto the OTHER relevant issues here.

The lives destroyed in the process include, so far, millions of unborn children. Many liberals and libertarians refuse to consider them human beings. I think they are human.

Pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of the sex act. It can be prevented easily. Abortion is a cruel, heartless and dehumanizing form of birth control, unworthy of a civilized society.

If my daughter were impregnated in a rape, I would want her to carry my grandchild to term and if she was unable to rear the child, I would be honored to do so. I recognize that pregnancy is uncomfortable and can be a setback to career goals, but it isn't terminal. Abortion ends a person's life. An innocent person.

I want ALL my grandchildren...

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick Henry said: The lives destroyed in the process include, so far, millions of unborn children. Many liberals and libertarians refuse to consider them human beings. I think they are human.

I say:
Its not that I don't think they have the potential to be individual beings, but when they are a fetus, they are not. I am not saying they aren't human, in the technical sense. I am saying that they are "unreachable", they have no ability to communicate with coherance and they are in the earliest stages of development. Is there a living person today that can remember things that happened in their first month of life outside the womb, LET ALONE inside the womb? Have they been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct in their memories? So why should WE as a society, try to PROJECT our beliefs onto a part of a right holding womans body, regarding the start of a life created by two individuals, in a private juncture with no coercion and of complete free will, KNOWING that those two, or one person will be SADDLED with raising, educating, providing for, housing, nourishing that child, in a market as bizarre and unbalanced as we have today? Does the mother have ANY say in the matter, and if so, what and why? Why does a non-communicable entity have precendence over a living, breathing, coherant, rational rights holding citizen, based on a persons, or societies belief system?!?!?

Patrick Henry said: Pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of the sex act. It can be prevented easily.

I say:
That is simply not true Patrick, and I think you know that while we can TRY OUR BEST to prevent it, it cannot be effectively guaranteed 100%. Without risking permanent damage from surgery, birth control aids are the only reasonable method. Birth control has a very high success rate, but there is a rate of failure also. Those failures must be addressed also, since those are lives affected by the decision of a silly law like this. Why should the court penalize a woman, or couple who honestly made every effort to prevent unwanted birth, when a simple failure of the product is to blame? On what grounds is the argument made? Who is forced to take custody of the child, since the parents are unwilling?

Patrick Henry said: Abortion is a cruel, heartless and dehumanizing form of birth control, unworthy of a civilized society.

I say:
I disagree. It is the only sensible last resort for preventing unwanted birth, until a method of birth control without risk of permanent damage that is 100% effective is invented. I am not some advocate of abortion, and I don't think it is something any woman would ever want to have to consider. BUT, if she does have to consider it, it is better to allow the safe, sterile legal procedure option than the back alley abortion, or the final stage abuse cases. If Christians really valued life, they would understand that and lay the dogma to the side.

Patrick Henry said: If my daughter were impregnated in a rape, I would want her to carry my grandchild to term and if she was unable to rear the child, I would be honored to do so. I recognize that pregnancy is uncomfortable and can be a setback to career goals, but it isn't terminal. Abortion ends a person's life. An innocent person.

I say:
To me, that is morbid. No offense Pat, but I find that really sick.

To think you would put the pressure of encouraging your daughter to carry a rape baby to birth, and then raising it, is really scary to me. I am not saying there is no potential for the child, since every child delivered to the world has equal chances based on their health, but how could a person be expected to be reminded of something so vile on a daily basis, is just beyond me.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Yawn. Haven't we done this before? Rights exist only in individuals. The Constitution limits the power of the state to violate individual rights. Specifically, abortion rights are protected under the privacy rights enumerated by the Fifth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments among others. I know that you prefer to use state legislation to deny women of their right to choose. You have made that clear in the past. Funny, when I was growing up in Texas I heard the same arguments against equal rights for black folks. It was a matter for the states, the old red neck segs used to say.

Yes, Yawn. The constitution can be so tedious when you simply want to give the rights of the people over to the federal government.

8th amendment? Cruel and unusual punishment?

5th Amendment? I think you mean the 4th.

Might want to check that again.

Why is the federal government better equiped to handle this?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Yes, Yawn. The constitution can be so tedious when you simply want to give the rights of the people over to the federal government. 8th amendment? Cruel and unusual punishment? 5th Amendment? I think you mean the 4th. Might want to check that again. Why is the federal government better equiped to handle this?

No, the Constitution is interesting. The repeated drone from the religious right is what gets tedious. Why is the Federal government better equipped? The Supreme Court's job is to judge constitutional standards. That may soon be meaningless when King George packs the court with his puppets, but until such time, the Court has done its job.

And I did misquote the applicable amendments. From the Roe ruling: " She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. "

ROE v. WADE

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Patrick Henry said: The lives destroyed in the process include, so far, millions of unborn children. Many liberals and libertarians refuse to consider them human beings. I think they are human. I say: Its not that I don't think they have the potential to be individual beings, but when they are a fetus, they are not. I am not saying they aren't human, in the technical sense. I am saying that they are "unreachable", they have no ability to communicate with coherance and they are in the earliest stages of development. Is there a living person today that can remember things that happened in their first month of life outside the womb, LET ALONE inside the womb? Have they been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct in their memories? So why should WE as a society, try to PROJECT our beliefs onto a part of a right holding womans body, regarding the start of a life created by two individuals, in a private juncture with no coercion and of complete free will, KNOWING that those two, or one person will be SADDLED with raising, educating, providing for, housing, nourishing that child, in a market as bizarre and unbalanced as we have today? Does the mother have ANY say in the matter, and if so, what and why? Why does a non-communicable entity have precendence over a living, breathing, coherant, rational rights holding citizen, based on a persons, or societies belief system?!?!?

So you would euthanize your dad if he couldn't communicate? You wouldn't hope he could be cured/come out of his coma?

The mother can avoid becoming pregnant. The baby can't defend herself. Yet you would enable the one who didn't make reasonable choices against the one who had no choices to make?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Patrick Henry said: Pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of the sex act. It can be prevented easily. I say: That is simply not true Patrick, and I think you know that while we can TRY OUR BEST to prevent it, it cannot be effectively guaranteed 100%. Without risking permanent damage from surgery, birth control aids are the only reasonable method. Birth control has a very high success rate, but there is a rate of failure also. Those failures must be addressed also, since those are lives affected by the decision of a silly law like this. Why should the court penalize a woman, or couple who honestly made every effort to prevent unwanted birth, when a simple failure of the product is to blame? On what grounds is the argument made? Who is forced to take custody of the child, since the parents are unwilling?

Failure of the product? Heh. Don't piss on my leg and tel me it's rainin, Osborn. People use abortion as a primary means of B/C or are careless with their precautions, figuring that they can always abort. Surely you are not saying that 40 million abortions were product failures?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Patrick Henry said: Abortion is a cruel, heartless and dehumanizing form of birth control, unworthy of a civilized society. I say: I disagree. It is the only sensible last resort for preventing unwanted birth, until a method of birth control without risk of permanent damage that is 100% effective is invented. I am not some advocate of abortion, and I don't think it is something any woman would ever want to have to consider. BUT, if she does have to consider it, it is better to allow the safe, sterile legal procedure option than the back alley abortion, or the final stage abuse cases. If Christians really valued life, they would understand that and lay the dogma to the side.

Man, I am not in favor of backroom abortion butchery. If it was really "safe, legal and rare", I would have less problems with it. But the "privacy" argument in favor of killing a baby is pretty hollow. I think the States should have the say-so on this one, not the nine Federalist dipsticks in that fancy courthouse in Washington.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Patrick Henry said: If my daughter were impregnated in a rape, I would want her to carry my grandchild to term and if she was unable to rear the child, I would be honored to do so. I recognize that pregnancy is uncomfortable and can be a setback to career goals, but it isn't terminal. Abortion ends a person's life. An innocent person. I say: To me, that is morbid. No offense Pat, but I find that really sick. To think you would put the pressure of encouraging your daughter to carry a rape baby to birth, and then raising it, is really scary to me. I am not saying there is no potential for the child, since every child delivered to the world has equal chances based on their health, but how could a person be expected to be reminded of something so vile on a daily basis, is just beyond me.

No offense taken, Osborn. We're just arguing here and this ain't personal, really. You and I are friends and compadres on many issues and I value your friendship. If you don't have any kids yet, maybe you don't know that feeling of wanting your descendants to live. But regardless of the source of the impregnating sperm, my daughter's child is MY grandchild. Any and all children are loveable, and especially those with your own DNA. Rapists are despicable, but their children aren't.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Is there a living person today that can remember things that happened in their first month of life outside the womb, LET ALONE inside the womb? Have they been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct in their memories?

Does it matter? When you're talking about killing a potentially conscious being, wouldn't you want to err on the side of life?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why does a non-communicable entity have precendence over a living, breathing, coherant, rational rights holding citizen, based on a persons, or societies belief system?!?!?

Again, no one is trying to give fetuses precedence -- that's why the bill allows abortion if the mother's life is threatened.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It is the only sensible last resort for preventing unwanted birth, until a method of birth control without risk of permanent damage that is 100% effective is invented.

It's already been invented. We call it abstinence.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If Christians really valued life, they would understand that and lay the dogma to the side.

How did the topic of Christians come up?