S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

[ammorgan03]

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.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It's already been invented. We call it abstinence.

So in other words you're saying that because my husband and I don't want another baby until our first is 2-3 years old we should abstain from sex until then? Surely you can't expect all married people to abstain from sex until they are ready to have their next child.

If we were to have an unplanned pregnancy, abortion is not an option for me. I don't believe in abortion as a form of b/c. Now in the case of a rape that is a different story.

[ammorgan03]

Quote by: Patrick Henry 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.

Imagine your 8 year old daughter comes home and tells you that she has just had a guy attempt to rape her. Say your daughter was already menstruating and was able to get pregnant. Say the guy managed to get her pregnant. You'd really make your 8 year old daughter go through a pregnancy and have a baby that she's not ready for and will remind her every day that she was raped at 8?

I could just see your daughter later resenting you for making her carry a pregnancy to term that was a product of rape and reminds her of the rape each and every day.

[Boetie]

The reason the courts gave the woman the power to make her body her own business in the first three months of pregnancy is because it was a compromise.

The court rather than giving anyone authority on when a fetus becomes a person, gave that determination to the woman for those first three months.

The religious people, I have to admit, sure now how to play dirty. Something I don't think their Big Cheese in the sky would approve of.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ammorgan03 Imagine your 8 year old daughter comes home and tells you that she has just had a guy attempt to rape her. Say your daughter was already menstruating and was able to get pregnant. Say the guy managed to get her pregnant. You'd really make your 8 year old daughter go through a pregnancy and have a baby that she's not ready for and will remind her every day that she was raped at 8? I could just see your daughter later resenting you for making her carry a pregnancy to term that was a product of rape and reminds her of the rape each and every day.

You want to draw the line at an eight-year old rape victim? OK...I'll give you that one...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ammorgan03 So in other words you're saying that because my husband and I don't want another baby until our first is 2-3 years old we should abstain from sex until then?

How in the heck do you get that from what I said?

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Sorry, there's no "right" to have an abortion.

Under a system of liberty, which the USA was supposed to be, all rights are retained by the people where contrary powers were not granted to either the federal or state governments (see 10th Amendment).

So, abortion, smoking pot, and choosing to only hire certain people in one's business are all rights retained by the people due to the fact that the federal and state governments were never granted powers to rule on those issues.

Post offices and alcohol manufacturing (Article I, Section 8; and, 21st Amendment) are examples of individual rights that are not available to the individual because powers were granted to the federal government. Abortion is not in that same class of rights.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner Under a system of liberty, which the USA was supposed to be, all rights are retained by the people where contrary powers were not granted to either the federal or state governments (see 10th Amendment).

Yes, and this includes crimes such as murder and rape. What's your point?

Quote by: zynner So, abortion, smoking pot, and choosing to only hire certain people in one's business are all rights retained by the people due to the fact that the federal and state governments were never granted powers to rule on those issues.

States have any and all powers that aren't prohibited to them by the Federal or state constitutions.

Quote by: zynner Post offices and alcohol manufacturing (Article I, Section 8; and, 21st Amendment) are examples of individual rights that are not available to the individual because powers were granted to the federal government.

Wrong -- read the Constitution. Nowhere does it prohibit private individuals from operating postal services.

[leftcider]

Quote by: zynner Post offices and alcohol manufacturing (Article I, Section 8; and, 21st Amendment) are examples of individual rights that are not available to the individual because powers were granted to the federal government. Abortion is not in that same class of rights. ~ zynner

The 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) returned regulating alcohol to the states, which were legally entitled to regulate alcohol productioin (within limits of the due process rights of the federal Constitution) before the 18th (Prohibition) amendment was passed.

Any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states. Before the 14th amendment, the states did not even have to respect by the rights explicitly granted to individuals in the federal Bill of Rights. Fortunately, that changed with the passage of the 14th amendment, where federal citizenship for all was established and thus protection of federally granted Constitutional Rights.

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was not considered to be an issue under federal jurisdiction or a Constitutional Right, so it was left up to the states to decide the issue. Before the Roe decision was handed down, the trend was that increasingly states opted to allow for more legalized abortions. It has been construed to be a Constitutional Right, but only somewhat--- after Roe, numerous court cases allowed it to be subject to much more regulation than say your 1st Amendment rights are.

[zynner]

Quote by: leftcider The 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) returned regulating alcohol to the states, which were legally entitled to regulate alcohol productioin (within limits of the due process rights of the federal Constitution) before the 18th (Prohibition) amendment was passed.

Yes, I was thinking transportation, but wrote manufacturing.

the states did not even have to respect by the rights explicitly granted to individuals in the federal Bill of Rights.

No rights were granted in the first 10 amendments. Only federal powers were restricted.

Fortunately, that changed with the passage of the 14th amendment, where federal citizenship for all was established and thus protection of federally granted Constitutional Rights.

The 14th is also restrictive, as to the states.

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was not considered to be an issue under federal jurisdiction or a Constitutional Right, so it was left up to the states to decide the issue.

Nothing has changed except for bad case law by the Supremes. The Constitution certainly did not add in abortion as a matter of federal subject matter jurisdiction, as it does for treason, bribery, counterfeit, and alcohol transportation (or manufacturing) with the 18th Amendment (before repeal).

Before the Roe decision was handed down, the trend was that increasingly states opted to allow for more legalized abortions.

Good evidence that the feds have no business in it -- unless the Constitution is SPECIFICALLY amended to provide such power by the feds. Usurpation of power is still wrong, even if done by the Judicial Branch.

It has been construed to be a Constitutional Right, but only somewhat--- after Roe, numerous court cases allowed it to be subject to much more regulation than say your 1st Amendment rights are.

Two questions for you, leftcider.

The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Question #1: What do the words, "Congress shall make NO LAW" mean?

Question #2: What do the words, "The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States" mean?

~ zynner

[underbear1]

I said when Alito got approved that the Operation Rescue types would plot the earliest case to overthrow Roe.........and they will overturn Roe!
So those poser pro-choice Republicans, and chicken sh*t Democrats who wouldn't filibuster, prepare for a third feminist tsunami which is going to run your asses out of DC on a rail!

[underbear1]

Lets give a big cheer for millions of MORE unwanted children on the planet!

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Why?

No person -- or potential person, such as a fetus -- has a right to exist as a parasite of another person.

Either each person owns his/her own body, or not. If not, then I might as well make you my slave. You would have no "right" to object, since you've already agreed on the principle that I can own you.

A just society is one which recognizes the right of self-ownership. There is no other option.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner No person -- or potential person, such as a fetus -- has a right to exist as a parasite of another person.

So parents have no obligation to take care of their children? They can kill their child any time they want?

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick said: So you would euthanize your dad if he couldn't communicate?

I say:
Obviously not, unless he had expressed those wishes before he was in the coma, or paralysis. I have communicated with my father, and I know his wishes, and his wishes are my wishes, since it is not my position to affect what he wants for himself, if he is not within power to do such. I view it as my responsibility to do what he couldn't do, if the previously discussed situation would arise. To me it is a matter of respect, and dignity of the individual.

Patrick said: You wouldn't hope he could be cured/come out of his coma?

I say:
Not if he had communicated to me before that he wouldn't want to be kept alive under those exact conditions. I PERSONALLY, would always "hope", regardless of odds, reality or any other physical limitation, but it is reality, and his wishes that would dictate the outcome. I would not assume hope is the best answer, for anyone, anything or any position.

Patrick said: 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?

I say:
The mother AND father can TRY to prevent pregnancy. I can show you documented proof of how the manufacturers SHOW their products are reliable to a PERCENTAGE, near 100. There is still many that make up that remaining percentage, not to mention user error. You also have to understand there are famillies, and communities that preach abstinence, and only teach abstinence, and reality through history has shown that human choice will STILL provide a percentage of pregnancies that are unwanted. There are those who have sex before knowing what sex is, or before they have ever been taught about it through proper channels.

1 Unwanted pregnancy is too many, to the one woman and man affected by it, if their rights are removed from the process, in bias of a PROJECTED ASSUMPTION of value on that "assumed" life(which could still abort through natural process, up until delivered.) The law can not ignore the rights of the mother, since she is the host body. Her willingness to nourish and hydrate her own body is subjective to the individual, and is based that individuals DESIRE to birth or not birth that child.

This is societal bigotry based on belief, being applied through law that is questionable at best, in its constitutionality. This is forcing the creation of counter-culture, and increasing rebellion, and shows that it is directly in contradiction with the purpose of the society to begin with. This shows the clear delineation at which society should realize it is overstepping its common threads application, and not intervene into the lives of the individual at the federal, or state level. If communes, church groups, or belief groups wish to live in communities that support a certain ideal of this caliber, they should be allowed to find a state in the union in which they can practice without the influence of law in this area, as it is an individual view of life before birth that dictates the beliefs of man in this area, and can not be applied as generically, to as many people as is being attempted, without rebellion of unjust means and proportions.

No matter what, a fetus is uncommunicable to this extent, and any value of life is a PROJECTION of value by society, that is DIRECTLY affecting an individual, through a tentacle of the law. This is criminal.

Patrick said: 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?

I say:
Read my last answer. It would be incorrect and unfair to attribute those 40 million abortions to ANY one thing in causation, AND YOU KNOW IT!

There are a myriad of cultural influences, commercial influences and individual influences that contribute to the PROBLEM. First you have to acknowledge though, that it IS, and WILL BE a PROBLEM. Since we know it will be here for as long as we can logically predict, we had better figure out the way to solve it with clean, safe and as little government interferance as possible.

I personally have had condoms break more times than I can recall. I have feared in horror as my ex-wife noticed she had mistakenly taken the wrong pill thinking it was her birth control pill. I have waited for pregnancy test results in anguish wondering how a stupid little pill, and a small layer of latex can be all that stops this process from happening in a society that has put people on the moon, invented plastic, has access to the brightest minds in the world?

The point remains that the equation
mankind + desire * human error \ cultural teaching * religious mantra \ propaganda = unwanted births

As long as there is man and desire, there will be unwanted births.

Would it be better to control desire and mankind from a central government, or allow man to best decide his own fate individually?

Is it better to take women who have unwanted pregnancies and lock them up under 24hour watch to make sure they birth babies by making sure they are force fed if they resist, drugged to sleep, drugged to stay happy (so as not to negatively affect the pre-natal attitude of the child), and then give them their rights back once the state claims their child at birth?

This is 1984, all in itself.

People are outraged at chickens being hooked up to feeding machines, being fed genetically altered food to overproduce, but some have no whim as the State or Federal court decide to treat women in the exact same way if they admit that a birth is not wanted, and she is seeking abortion!

Madness.

Patrick said: 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.

I say:
I think it should be between a woman, maybe a man, and a doctor whom (she/they) consult. I see no basis for involvement of any courts, or politicians, or government.

Patrick said: 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.

I say:
I understand, and can make room in my world for your opinions Pat. Frankly I think it is none of my business. But you and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.

The difference is, my side allows room for your side, through private means. Your side wants to remove my sides options all-together. This leaves no common ground on this issue.

Do you see the reason I say this has no place in law, of any kind?

I personally view rape as the ultimate violation of the rights of the individual, woman or man. Women have the added horror of the possibility of conception from this traumatic, degrading, demoralizing victimization. To me, keeping a rape child would be a constant reminder, almost an ironic celebration of that barbaric, unhuman act. A constant memory that can't be erased, thanks to a reminder of life.

Is life a sentence, or a gift in this case? A sentence in my opinion.

To put all peoples value of life of the unborn on the same pedestal, is a grave mistake for society, and could lead to its undoing.

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So parents have no obligation to take care of their children? They can kill their child any time they want?

The child having been born, the mother has decided she wants to care for it, or allow someone else to adopt it. That's a decision she gets to decide, not you nor me.

~ zynner

[Osborn F Enready]

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

I say:
YES it matters! People kill conscious beings everyday man is on earth, and they always have and they always will, from food to brothers of the same species. Every single one of those MURDERS is justified through some form of denial based on a logical conclusion. We kill people for crime, we kill people for war, we kill people in defense of our rights, we kill all species for food if necessity dictates.
THIS IS MAN.

Now, you are trying to make the logical argument that a non-communicable, questionably conscious being is more important than the rights of the individual who hosts that DEPENDENT life, BASED on some selective, subjective value your particluar flavor of beliefs happens to place on UNBORN life?

I don't think you can give me an honest, right respecting method of enforcement for ANY situation that occurs on a daily basis RIGHT NOW, let alone what would come up under such pervasive new laws! The impact of this law, will come through enforcment, so what means of enforcement, and at what level of privacy will the encroachment stop? Why there? Why are the mothers rights subjective to societies beliefs at all?

I am perplexed by your position here Morgan. I would appreciate a logical, concise explanation if not just out of curiousity at how you arrive there with your libertarian position in so many other areas.

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

I say:
Threatened in what ways? Economicly? Market potential of the mother to earn income? Costs of birth, raising the child to adult age considering education costs and life costs? How do you measure mental threat, to being subjected to society in what you can do with your own body? How do you measure the threat of being FORCED into producing a child that was ACTIVELY TRIED THROUGH ALL REASONABLE MEANS to be prevented?

This is opening pandoras box in legal precedence, and future rights violations, and I can't see how this could do ANYTHING benenficial to society, do you?

Morgan said: It's already been invented. We call it abstinence.

I say:
Yes, many areas of the country have been showing its failure for years, and help contribute to the number of abortions every year. Abstinence is a failure, ignores human desire and individuality, and doesn't acknowledge the results due to counter-culture and rebellion.

Abstinence has proven itself a failure as practiced, in almost all cases, regarding society.

Morgan said: How did the topic of Christians come up?

I say:
Because abstinence came up, and Christians are the majority of the illogical still clinging to this broken theory of birth control.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner The child having been born, the mother has decided she wants to care for it, or allow someone else to adopt it. That's a decision she gets to decide, not you nor me.

And why is that? Again, you have yet to make the case for this so-called "right" of the mother.

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman And why is that? Again, you have yet to make the case for this so-called "right" of the mother.

Self-ownership.

Either each of us owns ourself, or not. There is no gray area here.

I could get into philosophical "why" of self-ownership, why it must be valid and why it must be honored in order to live in a just society, but I don't have time right now. Some people simply start with self-ownership as self-evident. It actually goes deeper than that and can be proven.

But starting there is a good place for discussion. Do you own yourself or not? If you say no, then you have justified slavery. If you are anti-slavery then why? Self-ownership is your answer, whether you realize it or not. There is no other way to morally denounce slavery.

Self-ownerhip also implies responsibility within the context of a society, since my swinging arms might hit you in the face, violating your self-ownership.

A woman has self-ownership of her body. If she decides to have a child, she has given self-ownership rights to that child, and has also entered into an agreement to care for it. It''s her choice.

Anything else means you accept slavery as valid, and then anything is valid -- all the way to Hitler and Stalin.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't think you can give me an honest, right respecting method of enforcement for ANY situation that occurs on a daily basis RIGHT NOW, let alone what would come up under such pervasive new laws!

Method of enforcement is a totally different subject.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The impact of this law, will come through enforcment, so what means of enforcement, and at what level of privacy will the encroachment stop?

This is another conversation entirely. But notice here that you are turning your argument back again to one based on utility, not rights.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why are the mothers rights subjective to societies beliefs at all?

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we legalize murder and theft? After all, it's just one of society's "beliefs" that these things are wrong.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am perplexed by your position here Morgan. I would appreciate a logical, concise explanation if not just out of curiousity at how you arrive there with your libertarian position in so many other areas.

What position are you referrring to? The position that there is no "right to an abortion"? It seems to be that the burden of proof falls upon whoever makes a claim to a right.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Threatened in what ways? Economicly? Market potential of the mother to earn income? Costs of birth, raising the child to adult age considering education costs and life costs? How do you measure mental threat, to being subjected to society in what you can do with your own body?

You're talking apples an oranges. You can't compare one person's quality of life to another person's right to life itself.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How do you measure the threat of being FORCED into producing a child that was ACTIVELY TRIED THROUGH ALL REASONABLE MEANS to be prevented?

Ah, so I guess abstinence isn't "reasonable"...
:rolleyes:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This is opening pandoras box in legal precedence, and future rights violations, and I can't see how this could do ANYTHING benenficial to society, do you?

No, I don't. But again you revert to an argument of utility, not rights.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes, many areas of the country have been showing its failure for years, and help contribute to the number of abortions every year. Abstinence is a failure, ignores human desire and individuality, and doesn't acknowledge the results due to counter-culture and rebellion.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I can make exactly the same argument about, for example, liberty. I could just as easily say that liberty and the free market are "failures" because people tend not to go along with them

It seems to me that you want rights without responsibility. Well guess what, they go hand in hand.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner A woman has self-ownership of her body. If she decides to have a child, she has given self-ownership rights to that child, and has also entered into an agreement to care for it. It''s her choice.

And as I've already said, that choice happens when the women decides to have sex.

And as I've also already said, a fetus is not "part of a woman's body". It is a seperate being.