S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

[zynner]

It's her body. It's her choice what's in it.

It's also her responsiblity -- only -- because it's her body.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner It's her body. It's her choice what's in it. It's also her responsiblity -- only -- because it's her body.

My point exactly -- it is a woman's choice to concieve a child, and her responsibility to care for that child once it is concieved.

Actually it is the choice/responsibility of both parents, not just the woman.

[Osborn F Enready]

Morgan said: Method of enforcement is a totally different subject.

I say:
How can it be? You are advocating a law, and that laws only changes will be through public obsevance and the THREAT of enforcement that is imposed by the law.

Before one passes a law should not the logical path of enforcement be plotted and the boundaries laid?

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

I say:
How do you deduce that? It is the same conversation, it is about rights, because rights will be DIRECTLY affected by the passage of the law through ENFORCEMENT of that law and the boundaries set up to guide those practices.

If it is not a part of the same debate, IS THERE ANY WONDER why the methods of law passage now are failing us? How can you possibly pass a law when the only conceivable means of enforcement are to violate the inalienable rights of the individual?

Morgan said: 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.

I say:
Don't be silly Morgan. Murder and Theft are two common threads that bind this society of individuals. Where we draw the lines as to what is considered murder and theft is the degree of tuning and compromise. Look at slavery, and how "murder" wasn't applied to a white master killing a black slave if he "owned" the slave. There was no question of rights, only a question of OWNERSHIP of those rights. Slaves had rights, as do all men, they just didn't act on them, nor had they ever been forced to act on them before slavery, at least against more than an individual, or an opposing tribe. It took tremendous self sacrifice for blacks to unite against slavery, and demand their equal rights, but none-the-less it WAS necessary to change public perception, introspection, and overall conscensus. Blacks were living, speaking, reasoning, communicable, citizens and they envoked their rights through action utilizing those abilities. A fetus has none of those, nor has it the independent ability to do any such thing. We as a society, have recognized that to be a citizen of the United States, entitled to your recognized citizens rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you must be a BORN or NATURALIZED citizen of the United States.

Why born? Because you are a independent, living, breathing, self sustaining individual. A baby needs to be fed, as does any birthed child, but the baby is a self entity, with no physical connection to another human. A SELF SUSTAINING ENTITY.

Why naturalized? Because we demand as a nation, a person must be rational, perceive and respect the rights of the individual, and understand and comply with our system of government.

The parent assumes the role that naturalization tests confirm, which is how to be a responsible individual within the law of the United States of America, as a role of a good citizen, and parent.

An individual is a human being, in its birthed and independent form, singular. A mother is TWO individuals, one independent, one dependent. Who has MORE rights? Who has ANY rights, if it must be only one?

If that individual who is the host, refuses to birth the child, to what length will the law FORCE that mother to conceive? At what point is the law, brought into the equation? When the mother seeks advice on an abortion, seeks a doctor to perform the abortion, or confesses she doesn't want the child? If the mother has no rights in the eyes of the state, how could the father have ANY say in the matter, as in past law?

Morgan said: 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.

I say:
I am saying any woman has the right to NOT deliver a child as much as DELIVER a child, and it is mainly at her discretion, with some consideration being given to the father within reason if applicable.
I want to know on what basis the government could attempt to intervene, constitutionally, and the logical path that will have to be taken for enforcement and treatment of those who refuse to comply.

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

I say:
It is not that simple. That one person who supposedly has this choice, really has NO choice were it not for society. Nature made no room for a fetus to make a choice, therefore it is natural for abortions to occur at the discretion of the mother, if at the discretion of ANY. If anything, you could say that nature has stacked the deck AGAINST birth of healthy babies, before society existed to help prevent it. So there is one valid use for society, regarding birth, because it helps provide a stable enviroment to feasibly raise, educate and produce a responsible, individual, and citizen. On the other hand, society when left to encroach to much, could degrade the rights of the individual, the reasons for value on life in the first place, and the freedom to use life as something beneficial to oneself, AS WELL as society. Society could be allowed to infringe in law to the point that the barely contained fringe element is provoked into reducing its value on life to nothing, since the encroachment of liberty at that level may be their breaking point that pushes them into rebellion and bloodletting. A very realistic possibility, as time has shown.

Rights were the common thread of our society, rights of the individual and the limits with which government can disrupt the life of the individual. Rights were based on God and the natural world, a combination of religion and reality. It found a common ground between two extremes, and allowed both to co-exist and benefit each other. That bond is only beneficial until one side deems it no longer so, and refuses to comply with the system anymore.

This law you are advocating support of, in my opinion, drives that wedge of seperation much further, and further muddies the view of the common threads which join us, and rightfully so.

Also, the mothers quality of life is directly dependent on two things, the economic position of her skills in that society at the moment of birth, and the ability to birth or not birth itself. The fetuses right to life is based on projected assumption.

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

I say:
Given human history, I would say no, it is not reasonable as THE ONLY means of birth control education, nor is it practicable due to individual perception and disagreement with the overall concept by a LARGE portion of the world population, as well as the nations.

It would simply be illogical, and work against the intended goal, and I believe the facts done on the subject, if you have reviewed them, speak that for themselves.

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

I say:
I see you typing that, but no illustration of exactly why you say that. I have shown how it is only logical that if a new law comes to exist, new methods of enforcement will have to be created. Is it not plainly evident that these questions must be addressed and planned for before a new law is passed? Come on!

[Osborn F Enready]

Morgan said: 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.

I say:
And you would be right to some degree. They are not total success and that is for sure, or we would not have people without rights, without justice, or without responsibility. There is a margin of error, and failure in every measure this large. The thing is, TO TROUBLE shoot all logical scenarios before hand, and try to judge which would be most BENEFICIAL before enacting the law.

This law is going to serve NO good purpose but to clear some peoples conscience, while it will harm many who get directly held to it.

Doesn't make sense to me, in any way, shape or form.

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

I say:
I agree. And we as a RESPONSIBLE society, should limit unwanted pregnancies through ALL MEANS POSSIBLE, which means competent education about birth control methods, education about sex, education about abortion and an agreement that 1 unwanted birth is too many.

I don't see forcing people endure an endless cycle of birthing due to a lack of ability to control base instinctual urges that ALL people have MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY, and that we can yet learn how to control to a level that would eliminate unwanted pregnancy.

Responsibility takes place BEFORE and AFTER an action. You can be just as negligent in failing to prepare before a child is conceived, as you can in failure to take care of a child once born.

I think it is WRONG to force a child to be raised in poverty, with no means to education, with no love from its biological parents. When you condemn a child to state raising, you are inflicting a certain level of detachment, and that is due to the very things you abhor as a libertarian in government, or so I thought. Either the state, a charity, or the parents have to raise the kids who are wanted. Unwanted kids automatically lose the parents, so that leaves the state, or charity. I am against the state raising kids. That leaves charity. Charity is already overburdened with existing lives problems, why burden them with unwanted children too, at the behest of the state or fed no less?

I don't see it.

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman My point exactly -- it is a woman's choice to concieve a child, and her responsibility to care for that child once it is concieved.

Why?

Actually it is the choice/responsibility of both parents, not just the woman.

Why?

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner Why?

Why are parents responsible for raising their children? Are you contending that point?

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Why are parents responsible for raising their children? Are you contending that point?

You evaded the questions.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How can it be? You are advocating a law, and that laws only changes will be through public obsevance and the THREAT of enforcement that is imposed by the law.

Advocating a law? What law do you think I am advocating?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How do you deduce that? It is the same conversation, it is about rights, because rights will be DIRECTLY affected by the passage of the law through ENFORCEMENT of that law and the boundaries set up to guide those practices.

I wasn't discussing the implications of the passage of this bill. I was contending the claim that it would somehow be illegal or immoral to outlaw abortion. In the enforcement of any law, you can go overboard and start violating people's rights. I don't see what your point is.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How can you possibly pass a law when the only conceivable means of enforcement are to violate the inalienable rights of the individual?

Why would you say that? What rights do you think would have to be violated?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Blacks were living, speaking, reasoning, communicable, citizens and they envoked their rights through action utilizing those abilities. A fetus has none of those, nor has it the independent ability to do any such thing.

I know plenty of living, adult humans who I would say lack the ability to reason and communicate. Does that mean they should not be afforded rights as well?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We as a society, have recognized that to be a citizen of the United States, entitled to your recognized citizens rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you must be a BORN or NATURALIZED citizen of the United States.

I wasn't discussing the contents of the Constitution. As you yourself are so fond of remarking, our rights are inherent in us, and aren't granted to us by either society or by a piece of paper.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why born? Because you are a independent, living, breathing, self sustaining individual. A baby needs to be fed, as does any birthed child, but the baby is a self entity, with no physical connection to another human. A SELF SUSTAINING ENTITY.

I fail to see how a newborn baby is self-sustaining. It still requires nourishment and protection from its parents. For that matter, with today's technology, we can easily remove a child from the womb before is is born and keep it alive with the same sort of care.

Your designation of birth as the cutoff line for rights strikes me as totally arbitrary.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready An individual is a human being, in its birthed and independent form, singular. A mother is TWO individuals, one independent, one dependent. Who has MORE rights? Who has ANY rights, if it must be only one?

As I've pointed out, any child, born or not, is dependent on its parents for survival.

My point is not to try to dictate what rights, if any, an unborn child has. My point is that there is nothing inherently immoral about outlawing abortion, any more than there is in outlawing the murder of a newborn baby.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If that individual who is the host, refuses to birth the child, to what length will the law FORCE that mother to conceive? At what point is the law, brought into the equation? When the mother seeks advice on an abortion, seeks a doctor to perform the abortion, or confesses she doesn't want the child?

These aren't questions that I concern myself with, because I am not endorsing any sort of law. I would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but I am not in favor of a ban on abortion.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am saying any woman has the right to NOT deliver a child as much as DELIVER a child, and it is mainly at her discretion, with some consideration being given to the father within reason if applicable.

Now you've brought up an interesting point. Can you make an argument for a right to produce children? I don't think that you can.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I want to know on what basis the government could attempt to intervene, constitutionally,

That would depend on the constitution of the State in question.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It is not that simple. That one person who supposedly has this choice, really has NO choice were it not for society.

What choice are you referring to? No choice is required. We're talking about a "right to life". Last I checked, it wasn't legal to murder someone just because they were asleep or unconscious.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Given human history, I would say no, it is not reasonable as THE ONLY means of birth control education, nor is it practicable due to individual perception and disagreement with the overall concept by a LARGE portion of the world population, as well as the nations.

I wasn't discussing birth control education, or societal perception. I am not advocating abstinence as the only way to prevent unwanted births. I am merely pointing out that when a couple engages in the act of intercourse, they are choosing to take the risk of having a child. And if a child is conceived, they are therefore responsible for the existence of that child. Arguments such as "it is a parasite" or "my rights take precedence" do not hold water, because the parents have consented to the creation of the child.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I see you typing that, but no illustration of exactly why you say that. I have shown how it is only logical that if a new law comes to exist, new methods of enforcement will have to be created. Is it not plainly evident that these questions must be addressed and planned for before a new law is passed?

Of course that is evident. I was referring to what you said about "benefit to society". The question of a benefit to society is not one of rights -- it is one of utility.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: This law is going to serve NO good purpose but to clear some peoples conscience, while it will harm many who get directly held to it.

What purpose the law serves, in and of itself, depends in part on how it is presented. If it is presented by frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundies who are crying about God's wrath and the downfall of society, then you are probably right. However, if it is presented as a reasonable common-sense measure, it could serve to sober up those who think abortion is their "right" and who have been using abortion as their primary method of birth control.

But as I said, I think bans on abortion are a bad idea.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner You evaded the questions.

I certainly did. I have no interest in making a case for the obligations of parents to raise their children, rather than kill them. Either you take that as a given, or we have nothing to discuss.

[Osborn F Enready]

Morgan Freeman said: I would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but I am not in favor of a ban on abortion. and: What purpose the law serves, in and of itself, depends in part on how it is presented. If it is presented by frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundies who are crying about God's wrath and the downfall of society, then you are probably right. However, if it is presented as a reasonable common-sense measure, it could serve to sober up those who think abortion is their "right" and who have been using abortion as their primary method of birth control. But as I said, I think bans on abortion are a bad idea.

I say:
I apologize, I understood you to be taking exactly the stance you just denounced.

I have never supported birth control as a "primary means" of birth control, only a legal and valid option of the mother. Any person can abuse any right, by many ways. Abusers should be scrutinized, or held accountable in SOME manner, though I see it as a VERY slippery slope that is best left untread.

HOWEVER, I would ONLY consider an abuser someone who had more than three abortions.

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I certainly did. I have no interest in making a case for the obligations of parents to raise their children, rather than kill them. Either you take that as a given, or we have nothing to discuss.

I'm not interested in any discussion where I answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine.

~ zynner

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: zynner I'm not interested in any discussion where I answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine.

Fine, here is my answer:

If there is such a thing as parental obligation, then that concept logically extends to conception, not birth.

I've never met anyone who thinks there is no such thing as parental obligation, though, so that seems a moot point.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready HOWEVER, I would ONLY consider an abuser someone who had more than three abortions.

My girlfriend volunteers at a Planned Parenthood, and from what she tells me, those kind of "abusers" are the place's bread and butter.

[Osborn F Enready]

Morgan said: My girlfriend volunteers at a Planned Parenthood, and from what she tells me, those kind of "abusers" are the place's bread and butter.

I say:
That is odd, or shows a great reflection of how areas are greatly different.

When I was 18, my girl-friend soon to be wife was 15 going on 16. We were sexually active, and most of the people my age who were, got birth control products from planned parenthood. She was on birth control pills, and I received condoms. She never got pregnant while we were together, though there were MANY close calls, due to failure of the one product or another, or both.

All areas are different, and I know ALL of the research I have read on the subject, showed that areas without access to a full variety of birth control, and those who relied mainly on the education of abstinence as opposed to birth control, had a LARGE number more % wise of unwanted births.

The question is, is planned parenthood helping, or hurting? I would say helping, if they provide education and access to birth control products.

A woman that has more than 3 abortions over 10 years, is obviously having some problem in one area or another, and it should be looked at, but how can this be done with respect to rights of the individual?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The question is, is planned parenthood helping, or hurting? I would say helping, if they provide education and access to birth control products.

They do, but here in Washington they recieve a large amount of funding from the State. In a sense, the State is subsidizing abortion, especially because these places tend to generate their own market.

[Osborn F Enready]

I still say more choices is better than less.

I don't want the state supporting either, but if it has to do one or the other for the time being, I say let it be on the side of more choice.

[underbear1]

Here's the simplist way to decide the abortion issue once and for all. Since it is a woman's body, directly effected by these laws, we should simply have a ballot initiative Nationally that only adult women can vote upon. Want to bet that Roe wouldn't be overturned?

[Chris]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Isnt masturbation a form of abortion? Do you think the the fat white rich men who reign over the peasants of SD, will propose a ban against Male Masturbation? Why not? Doesnt life begin with sperm in equality with ovum? Edit to add: SPERM ARE ALIVE!!!!

And you also forgot...

Ban Periods! Down with Tampons!

[Osborn F Enready]

Underbear said: Here's the simplist way to decide the abortion issue once and for all. Since it is a woman's body, directly effected by these laws, we should simply have a ballot initiative Nationally that only adult women can vote upon. Want to bet that Roe wouldn't be overturned?

I say:
I would have not ONE problem with that. Remove Washington on this issue entirely, and leave it up to the women of America.