S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

[Apeman81]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

If Christians really valued life, they would understand that and lay the dogma to the side.

How did the topic of Christians come up?

[ammorgan03]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.