South Dakota's Anti-Aborion Laws [Archive]

Aesop

02-23-2006, 09:41 AM

Here we go folks. Remember to play nice. :)

On Wednesday the state senate of South Dakota voted to outlaw abortion completely excepting only those cases where the abortion would directly save the life of the mother. This is the first direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in about 15 years and it seems likely the the govenor of the state, Mike Rounds, will sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk because he is very definitely anti-abortion.

Now I just don't get it. I never have and I doubt I ever will, but I don't understand why anyone thinks they have a right to tell somebody else what to do with his or her life. I mean I don't plan to stop dripping candle wax on my wife's breasts and I'd resent the hell out of somebody who thought they could tell me to do so. Abortion is certainly a more important issue, but I think the basic freedom is the same. I could never approve an abortion if the decision was left to me, but what gives me-or anyone else-the right to decide that for a stranger? What do you all think? Is this a blow for morality or a reduction of the freedoms the United States is supposed to stand for?

chromedome11

02-23-2006, 08:16 PM

Ozme52

02-23-2006, 10:34 PM

My problem with this issue (and to me) the closely related issue of the death penalty, is both parties are conflicted and/or hypocritical.

One ostensibly supports abortion, which the other says is murder, and they in turn support the death sentence, which the former says is murder.

Grrr.
---------------------------------------------------------
So if I'm pro-choice AND I support the death sentence... (and I suspect I'm actually in the silent majority on these issues....)

am I a Demblican or a Republicrat?

And more importantly, what's my mascot? Do I get twice as much head or twice as much tail?

Aesop

02-24-2006, 05:32 AM

Abortion, as you will find, Aesop, is a very emotional and divisive subject. You say you just don't get it, that a woman should be able to control her own body. Anti-abortionists believe abortion is murder. The two sides will never find common ground.

On a more pragmatic basis, if you support a woman's right to choose, you need to elect more Democrats. It's as simple as that.

To elect more Democrats, the Democratic party is going to have to re-evaluate its policies. Rather than playing the victim card ("Bush stole the election"), they need to return to the party of Bill Clinton. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid".

The problem with the Democratic party is most of their policies don't work. They create dependency which leads to more poverty, not less. Only when the Democratic party honestly asks itself "What will get us elected?", and then implements the answers, will abortion remain a woman's right.

Now that I've hijacked your thread, I'll get off my soapbox.

lol I don't mind a little thread hijacking now and then. You're right about the pragmatical issue, the trouble for me is that I also agree with you about a number of the democratic party's policies so I have to appeal to the nature of everybody and not support one group or another.

I do understand that many people consider it flat-out murder and will never be able to see it as anything else, but if people are using that-presumably out of compassion-reason to stay against abortion then where is their compassion to the victims of rape or incest? And-generally speaking-the people who are against abortion are also against welfare programs and other services the government provides for those children that the pro-life folks say have to live. Personally I just can't see that as anything but cruel. You have to live, but after you're born you're on your own even though mommy didn't want you.

And here's the biggest thing. Logically this can't be stopped. It can be outlawed but it can't be stopped so by outlawing it we would be putting our women's lives into the hands of incompetents with coat hangers and I just can't see that as the better way to go.

Aesop

02-24-2006, 05:34 AM

Sklaventreiber

03-24-2006, 09:21 AM

...

And here's the biggest thing. Logically this can't be stopped. It can be outlawed but it can't be stopped so by outlawing it we would be putting our women's lives into the hands of incompetents with coat hangers and I just can't see that as the better way to go.

Kind of like other laws that have outlawed certain practices, in particular the world's oldest profession...

Sklaventreiber

03-24-2006, 09:29 AM

To let you know up front I'm a democrat, I don't vote straight party tickets, cause that's stupid, I have some serious socialist leanings in certain areas, and some conservative leanings in others.

1. I believe that what is done with a fetus is the right of the woman carrying it, to choose what she does with it. To me that is Black and White.

2. I believe in the Death penalty. You do the crime you suffer the penalty. There are those who are introducign legislation to make child molestation a death penalty crime. I agree.

3. I believe we should all be allowed to carry concealed weapons, as long as we can legally obtain the weapon.

4. I believe the republicans are wrong to reduce taxes if by doing so makes education suffer, only affects the rich, and puts a larger burden on the poor.

5. The War in Iraq is a necessary evil, but the efforts to bring bin Laden to justice have been ignored for to long.

6...

I could go on and on...but then I would be high jacking the posting...

South Dakota is wrong and I suspect that the issue will be fought all the way to the supreme court over and over...

fantassy

03-24-2006, 11:03 AM

South Dakota is wrong and I suspect that the issue will be fought all the way to the supreme court over and over...[/QUOTE]

That is exactly why SD passed such a radical statute. They believe the Supreme Court has changed and want to test the new members as quickly as possible. Although everybody agrees that this court will chip away at Roe, this is being sent up as a test case to see if they annihilate it in one fell swoop.

fantassy

Sklaventreiber

03-24-2006, 11:08 AM

South Dakota is wrong and I suspect that the issue will be fought all the way to the supreme court over and over...

That is exactly why SD passed such a radical statute. They believe the Supreme Court has changed and want to test the new members as quickly as possible. Although everybody agrees that this court will chip away at Roe, this is being sent up as a test case to see if they annihilate it in one fell swoop.

fantassy[/QUOTE]

Damn republicans...

I've had my fill of the so called republican mandate. I'm tired of having this kind of stuff shoved down my throat...

I'm also tired of government that is not listening to the majority...

Which I suspect is the case here...

vistana

03-27-2006, 04:54 PM

Just as an update to this - first, watch this news piece (http://www.dailymotion.com/search/abortion/video/68538) about the ban (a few weeks old by now), which includes a definition by a Republican senator on 'how bad' someone would need to be raped for him to consider an exemption to the ban, and then try Googling 'sexist asshat'.
If you support the cause, aid the google bombing. Bill Napoli is a sexist asshat (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/mbrdt128.htm).

Then, more recently the chief of a sioux reservation in SD has declared that she will set up a Planned Parenthood clinic on Reservation land where the state government has absolutely no authority.
Link to the story (http://www.indianz.com/News/2006/013061.asp).

Sklaventreiber

03-27-2006, 05:24 PM

vistana

03-27-2006, 06:42 PM

Yeah. That woman gets serious kudos.

mkemse

06-01-2006, 12:26 PM

As Far as Abortion rights go, to me this is a VERY PERSONAL issue which should be left bewtween the Husband, Wife and Doctor, the Governemtn has no more right telling a Women how do deal with her Repoductive System, then they do saying on Thursday all Men 21 or over MUST wear Blue Shirts and Green Jeans, the government must become far less intrusive into everyones lives
Let a Husband, Wife a Doctor determine the issue of abortion not the goverment.
Also, if they apss a Consitutional Ammendent, dictating that a Marriage is the Union of 1 Woman & 1 Man, and the Same Sex Marriage are not legal and make it a Federal Crime, 1st. the Constiution is NOT designed for this, it is not a ducumant to be played with at the whim of Senators and Legislators in WAshington, even the Constution guarantesss that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, thus it is not the goverments place to dictate in a Society that offers us Freedom, of Choice, Freedom Of Expression ect. ect it is notthe goernments right to dictate to anyone inthis conutry who one may or may not marry
Let the Govemrnet deal with issues such as The Ecomony before we are all paying $15.00 to gfill up our cars, inflation, so i can still buy brea for $1.00 aloaf not $9.00, Terrorism, The Drug Issues, Homelessness, the fact that we have to many in this country, the Richest inthe Wolrd I may ad, let them deal with an come up with solutions to these and leave the issue of Abortion to families and their Doctors and Sam Sex Marriage to those involved
If we ammend the Constution evertime some cries about it, we will ruin what this important docuent was ment to do, GOVERN the people, nottell them they have to have a baby, or that if he loves him they can't marry
If Congress needs to ammend the Contution or reverse Roe vWade, our Senators and Resprentatives HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME on their hands

_ID_

06-01-2006, 12:47 PM

I see both sides of the fence. On the one hand, you at one point were a fetus, and therefore had the potential to be aborted. Think of it from the fetus side. When you do that, not only are you bringing in the "abortion is murder" side of things, you bring into it "when does life begin" debate. On the flip side of that, if your prochoice, and think the woman should be able to decide for herself. At what age can the female decide to do this, since the age of concent in many places differs very much, your probably going to end up matching a womans choice of abortion to the age of concent. If we follow the radical pedophilic group in the Netherlands, that age is 12. If you follow the laws that US Military members must adhere to, that age is 18. Many US States put the age at 16. I feel it should be 18+ in all cases, you get to make adult choices when your legally an adult.

Beyond even the party pollitics of it all. You come down to simply how much freedom will you allow a person. We have all kinds of laws that tell us to do things we think are just too intrusive. For instance, where I grew up at (Pocotello, Idaho USA) they have a law that says you must smile (look it up on google). Is this intrusive, you bet it is. We also have laws that restrict how fast we drive. German Autobahns have many sections of road that have no such limitation, believing that if you desire to risk your own life by going 200mph, thats your choice.

So it simply comes down to us deciding how intrusive we are going to let the government be.

I don't play party politics. I vote for the cannidate that says they will do those things that I feel are in my best interest (unfortunately they usually dont do that).

So now the question becomes, how do we get them to legislate in the way we desire?

fantassy

06-01-2006, 02:49 PM

I feel it should be 18+ in all cases, you get to make adult choices when your legally an adult.

You raise an interesting, very complex issue of age of consent. I assume you feel that the parents of a girl age 16 should be the only one's allowed to consent for her? How do address the connundrum of who will raise and support the child of a 17 year old girl who was forced to have the baby against her will? The girl's parents don't have any legal obligation to support the baby. What about when the girl is 18, unable to support herself or the now 2 year old child she didn't want because she was forced to stop her education because of a decision her parents made. The 18 year old IS legally obligated to support this child. I'm also assuming you wouldn't allow the 16 year old to consent to adoption without parental consent either? So basically the 16 year old is forced to raise a baby she doesn't want for 2 years and we're going to criminally sanction her if she abuses or neglects that baby. That doesn't seem right to me. I have to go with the argument that if a girl is old enough to consent to having sex she is old enough to consent to having an abortion, which is where I believe the age of 16 is derived. But, as I said, it is a very difficult, complex issue.

So now the question becomes, how do we get them to legislate in the way we desire?

Ok, I'm going to give you my cynical response to this question - the only way to influence legislators is through money or publicity, which is why I get soooo angry over the media's abdication of their responsibility to investigate and report on the government. Instead, every TV station reports the same fluff.

fantassy

cheeseburger

06-01-2006, 04:27 PM

Let me give you a few common examples of when an abortion is used, and what I think about it in that particular case:

1) Just... because. Parent is over 18 years of age, and just doesn't want the responsibility.

2) The parent is under the age of 18, and doesn't want the responsibility.

3) Rape/incest

4) Giving birth poses a significant health risk to the mother.

I think these 4 cases pretty much outline when an abortion is used. The first two are overwhelmingly more common then the second two; and kind of perplexingly they are also the ones that I would be against.

Should people put a blanket ban on abortion? Of course not. In some countries in Africa, abortions are illegal, and in many cases the mother dies giving birth, when an abortion would have saved her life. Not cool.

On the other hand, abortions that fall into the first two categories are debatable. Is the baby 'alive' at some point during the pregnancy? At what point? Would it be murder to kill the baby?

While I can't (and actually don't want to) answer any of those questions, what I can say is this: you have to be accountable for what you do.

Its that simple. You have sex with someone, you get pregnant, you have a baby. No easy way out.

The third and fourth cases cloud the issue. The percentage of abortions that actually fall into those categories are minimal. The majority of people that have abortions are in the first two categories, and when someone says they are against abortion, they mean they are against the frivolous use of abortions.

As usual, you can't expect anything to really develop on this issue, since all the politicians are too chicken to actually have an opinion on it. Ask any presidential hopeful of 2008, directly, "do you support abortion" and they'll give you a mountain of bull.

So who cares? Do what you want, its a free country.

Alex Bragi

06-01-2006, 07:05 PM

"My body, my choice"—the catch cry of the women pro abortionists. I used to agree 100% with that, however, the more I think about it, the more this god-like attitude that implies if you created the life you have the right to destroy it, kind of irks me

Why stop with destroying unwanted foetuses? Why not do away with the elderly and the terminally ill also, if they threaten to be an inconvenience on us socially and economically? If no one wants to claim responsibility, why not 'abort' them too?

A silly comparison? Maybe, a foetus is after all, in most cases, a potentially long and healthy life, the elderly or terminally ill certainly aren't.

Please, I do realise and understand that there will always be circumstances where abortion is the only option, as cheeseburger has already pointed out, but I just can't help feeling that it's becoming all too acceptable in our society. I guess, to me, overly liberal attitudes towards abortion sometimes have me feeling like a little like we're on the verge of becoming Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", and that bothers me.

So, Aesop, getting off my soapbox and back to your original question.

I think while South Dakota senate could have perhaps been a little more flexible, I'm not against their ruling in principle—not at all.

fantassy

06-01-2006, 08:29 PM

Its that simple. You have sex with someone, you get pregnant, you have a baby. No easy way out. . . .when someone says they are against abortion, they mean they are against the "frivolous use of abortions".

The abortion issue may be many things, but it is not "simple." When a poor 16 year old daughter of a drug addicted mother, who has struggled her entire young life to keep clean and earn a scholarship to college to get out of the mess in which she is raised, seeks the love and affection from her boyfriend which was lacking in her home and accidentally gets pregnant, would that be a "frivolous use of abortion?" Wouldn't society, the girl and the girl's future children be better off if she were able to create a future for herself? And of course only the woman is forced to pay this strict price you propose to exact. The males who get women pregnant ARE allowed to take "the easy way out." They are not forced to give up their futures.

fantassy

Aesop

06-01-2006, 08:33 PM

Just a friendly reminder to keep it calm everybody. We're all friends here. :)

_ID_

06-01-2006, 11:05 PM

You raise an interesting, very complex issue of age of consent. I assume you feel that the parents of a girl age 16 should be the only one's allowed to consent for her? How do address the connundrum of who will raise and support the child of a 17 year old girl who was forced to have the baby against her will? The girl's parents don't have any legal obligation to support the baby. What about when the girl is 18, unable to support herself or the now 2 year old child she didn't want because she was forced to stop her education because of a decision her parents made. The 18 year old IS legally obligated to support this child. I'm also assuming you wouldn't allow the 16 year old to consent to adoption without parental consent either? So basically the 16 year old is forced to raise a baby she doesn't want for 2 years and we're going to criminally sanction her if she abuses or neglects that baby. That doesn't seem right to me. I have to go with the argument that if a girl is old enough to consent to having sex she is old enough to consent to having an abortion, which is where I believe the age of 16 is derived. But, as I said, it is a very difficult, complex issue.

Ok, I'm going to give you my cynical response to this question - the only way to influence legislators is through money or publicity, which is why I get soooo angry over the media's abdication of their responsibility to investigate and report on the government. Instead, every TV station reports the same fluff.

fantassy

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

As far as your cynical response, my question was retorical.

Thanks for the imput though, you also brough very good points.

fantassy

06-01-2006, 11:41 PM

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

No, I think you conveyed your pro-choice leanings. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I think we did differ on the age of consent issue, but there are many nuances to that issue. For example, although I personally take the extreme view of allowing minors to be able to consent to abortions, I understand the contradiction that presents since those same minors cannot consent to surgeries or even dental work without parental consent.

I enjoy discussing/arguing these tough issues. I think taking a position in debates like this (whether it be a deeply held position or merely a position assumed for the sake of argument) forces one to clarify one's own thoughts.

Thanks for the mental stimulation.

fantassy

cheeseburger

06-03-2006, 07:01 PM

When a poor 16 year old daughter of a drug addicted mother, who has struggled her entire young life to keep clean and earn a scholarship to college to get out of the mess in which she is raised, seeks the love and affection from her boyfriend which was lacking in her home and accidentally gets pregnant, would that be a "frivolous use of abortion?"

While I don't actually have statistics on this, from what little I know this case is in the grave minority. When deciding things on a general basis, one usually looks at the more general use of abortions, which as far as I know are largley frivolous.

About this specific case, to my knowledge there are several things that aren't quite as you say they are. First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

However, the 16 year old's life is far from over. After delivering the baby, there are plenty of kind, loving, mature people that are more than willing to adopt. In most cases the young adult chooses to hold on to her baby; again this is a choice she made, she lives with the consequences.

In my mind, this is one of the biggest problems in this society: we don't expect to be held accountable for what we do.

Finally, I am sure there are some cases where, really, the girl had few options, got pregnant, etc. There are very, very few cases like this. In these limited cases, I would say sure, have an abortion. The problem is, the majority of teen pregnancies aren't as clear cut as you portray them.

I enjoy discussing/arguing these tough issues. I think taking a position in debates like this (whether it be a deeply held position or merely a position assumed for the sake of argument) forces one to clarify one's own thoughts.
I agree entirely.

Silke

06-03-2006, 07:41 PM

First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

Phew, that's a hard stance you take there, Cheeseburger. Of course, nobody has to have sex (unless we're talking about rape and that's a different story altogether) but have you never been young and done something you later regretted? It happens all the time and thank God most of us get lucky and walk away with a black eye and hopefully a lesson learned.

Now, you really want to hold minors fully responsible and force them to go through their pregnancy and have a baby? They wouldn't even be judged that hard when committing a crime! They're young and made a mistake and they'll have to pay for it anyway...or do you think it's an easy decision to live with when you have an abortion? I don't think so.

Yes, nature drew a line for us...and if you really want to follow this line of thought, you'd have to question laws that don't allow teenagers under a certain age line to have sex with partners that are older - nature would speak against that if girls start getting their period at 11, 12 yrs of age they can have sex and get pregnant and according to 'nature' there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, no matter how old their partner is. Nature doesn't put up moral or ethical lines, society does.

I do agree with you, though, when you say that in general we should grow up and be held accountable for the choices we make...when we're adults and the protection time is over. Being held accountable - to me - is about really thinking every option through carefully, gathering information, getting counselling or advice from people who know what those options will lead to, probing their conscience. And THEN make a decision and live with it. I don't think people will make that decision easily that way...be it pro or contra abortion.

Just my thoughts on this...

_ID_

06-04-2006, 06:53 AM

This thread is taking on an age of consent debate. What percent of abortions are of those of girls under the age of 18? If you look on the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) website you will see the ages of abortions by age in the past 27 years. In 2000 the percentage of abortions by girls under 19 years of age was 18.8. To me that low of a percentage is not a reason to base your abortion laws on if your forcing someone who is young to be responsible for their actions. Additionally the laws can and most likely would be written to account for minors who were pregnant, starting at the youngest age a girl could get pregnant to the time of adulthood. My guess is they would use a graduated scale that went by age to determine if the girl needed the concent of the parent to get an abortion or not.

Now as far as making someone responsible for their actions. Women over the age of 25 made up 48.4 percent of abortions in 2000. I feel that if your not smart enough to go to the doctor get birth control, or require your partner to use a condom by the age of 25, then yes, you should be held accountable for your actions. Does that mean I feel women over 25 shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. No, it means I think it should be finacially difficult for a woman to have an abortion if she is over 25. Make her show her past year tax return, and require a 10% of total years income to conduct the proceedure. This would eliminate the whole process being something the rich and powerfull could do, and the poor could not. Thereby not forcing poor people into a situation they were trying to avoid in the first place.

V/R
ID

Alex Bragi

06-04-2006, 07:52 AM

What about the society we life in? We see and hear sex everywhere. You just can't avoid it.

I think we don't necessarily need to preach abstinence from sex to kids, but to discuss it openly and honestly--benefits of monogamy taught from an early age, along with correct and consistent use of condoms and other birth controls.

Recently it was discovered that some teens believed drinking Mountain Dew soda would reduced a male's sperm count--every teen needs all the facts.

vistana

06-04-2006, 11:04 AM

About this specific case, to my knowledge there are several things that aren't quite as you say they are. First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

What about the person who does take responsibility, uses multiple forms of birth control. That drops your odds of getting pregnant to a much smaller number. Are they not taking responsibility?
That's my current situtation, and if I get pregnant I will get an abortion.
I am careful when I have sex, I take every reasonable precaution and am certainly not paranoid enough to abstain in order to avoid the chance of pregnancy. If I do conceive I will still take every step to avoid pregnancy. I don't believe I could responsibly carry a child to term, even given that I wouldn't raise it myself, and I feel that dealing with a full term of pregnancy is a greater consequence than an unlikely birth control failure deserves.

Also, some of these arguments, 'what about the 16 year old girl' sound eerily similar to the case used by Bill Napoli to describe someone who might be worthy of an abortion which garnered him near-universal outrage and the title Sexist Asshat (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=sexist+asshat&btnG=Search) -
"...a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Who are you/we to judge which specific circumstances deserve the right to have an abortion? A poor 16 year old college student, what about a mother of 4 on welfare? Is she badly enough off to deserve it? A dancer who would lose her livelihood for at least several months? A financially supported but mentally instable woman?
If we start drawing lines like that, who gets to decide?

vistana

06-04-2006, 11:05 AM

whoops...double post.

cheeseburger

06-04-2006, 01:01 PM

As IDCrewDawg points out, something like 20% of abortions are done by people under the age of 18, and some 50% are done by people over the age of 25. Thanks for getting this information into the discussion.

To me, these numbers mean this: the majority of abortions are done as a way to escape responsibility. If you are over 25, there is no excuse for not using birth control; weather that is a condom or a pill. If you did somehow screw up, there exists the 'morning after' pill. These people need to realize that their actions will have repercussions on other peoples lives (for starters, their babies), and they need to accept responsibility. This is what you should base an 'abortion law' on. the majority. Not the 2% case of incest, or whatever.

However, speaking now only about the case of teenage pregnancies, I feel very strongly that these kids need to be accountable.

Yes, kids do make mistakes. And when they do, you need to discipline them. Why? For their own good. So that later they won't make those mistakes. If you're 12 and you steal a candy bar, you get scolded. If you're 30 and you steal, you get thrown in jail. Better to learn while you're young, wouldn't you agree?

To me thats the whole point. You need to tell kids that, even if they don't understand it, if they do ___ they will face the consequences. Then maybe, when they grow up, they'll realize that yeah, mommy was right. Even if you don't get punished, doing ___ is bad. And meanwhile, they never did ___ because they knew they would get punished if they did.

Returning to abortion, if a kid gets pregnant, goes to an abortion clinic, gets an abortion without telling her parents, she won't know she's done something bad! Heck, it was fun!

On the other hand, if she goes through with the pregnancy, she might put 2 and 2 together and realize that sex isn't something you kid around with. Is it wrong to 'kill' a fetus? Are you even killing a fetus? I dunno. Who cares? Better to not even have this discussion, to get pregnant if and when you're ready.

And sure, society is significantly more lax and open about sex. Is this good? I dunno. I really don't know if its 'better' this way, or worse. Again, who cares? As long as you realize that sex is 2 minutes of fun, and then (potentially) a lifetime of trouble, you're on the right track.

So no, I'm not against abortion. You need it; there are times when not doing an abortion are bad. But keep it for those times when you actually need it.

I can go on and on like this, but I think you get the point?

_ID_

06-04-2006, 02:12 PM

"...a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

This case is of the rarest, and we all know this case would warrent an abortion. What we are getting at is if your going to have sex, and vistana you have said you are going to. Then you are risking pregenancy, even though you are using condom's and birthcontrol, the chance of getting pregnant using these methods is so incredibly low that it barely warrents concern, yet, it is still there. Since your taking this risk, and know you are taking this risk. Then in my view, if you get pregnant, you should be held accountable for this action. As the male, if I were to get a girl pregnant, and she was using all the same things, I know I would be responsible for the care of this child, equally as much as you, yes you have to carry it, but we both must live with it. Your alternatives would be to give it up for adoption, or abort it. To me the adoption option would be the better of the two for all concerned, especially for the growing human being in your womb.

Just cause you say you wouldnt take good enough care of your body during pregnancy, and you don't want to be bothered with the whole process doesn't mean it's the best option. This opinion of yours that you stated is actually the number one reason for abortions today. Also listed on the CDC website I mentioned earlier. To me, this is lazy and irresponsible. Which is why I felt that if someone such as yourself wanted the option of abortion, I would want it to be financially difficult for you to do so. We all know that having a child is going to be finacially difficult, why shouldn't not having one be also?

V/R
ID

Silke

06-04-2006, 03:47 PM

Cheeseburger -

Yes, kids do make mistakes. And when they do, you need to discipline them. Why? For their own good. So that later they won't make those mistakes. If you're 12 and you steal a candy bar, you get scolded. If you're 30 and you steal, you get thrown in jail. Better to learn while you're young, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I do think you have to discipline kids when they fuck up, but I also think that the measures should be more carefully thought out. I don't want to see a kid stealing a candy bar to go to jail, either.

Returning to abortion, if a kid gets pregnant, goes to an abortion clinic, gets an abortion without telling her parents, she won't know she's done something bad! Heck, it was fun!

See, that's what I meant when I said that we shouldn't make the decision for or against abortion too easy. I don't want children to go to a clinic without talking to anyone about this, it's irresponsible and I agree that they might not learn a great deal from that.

IDCrewDawg -

Then in my view, if you get pregnant, you should be held accountable for this action. As the male, if I were to get a girl pregnant, and she was using all the same things, I know I would be responsible for the care of this child, equally as much as you, yes you have to carry it, but we both must live with it.

Oh, please...I still think that it's not comparable and reality teaches us the same thing, right? First of all...pregnancy is ALL on the woman and it's not an easy time to go through. So yeah, I'm with the people who want to place the decision for or against abortion in the hands of the woman. And second...it usually is the woman who has to take care of the child once it's there - the men who don't want to be involved have the option to leave and pay, the women usually don't.

I know there's a lot of responsible men out there, but usually those are not the ones that are involved when the question of abortion is in the room. So, please, don't take this as a general beating on men, it was never meant that way.

Silke

Warbaby1943

06-04-2006, 04:36 PM

After reading this entire thread that I just found today I feel I must comment on something I observed.

But first let me say over my life time I have gone both ways on the abortion issue. When I was much younger I felt very strongly one way. Then as I aged I began seeing things from another angle. I'll leave it at because most all my comments have already been stated in this thread.

My observation is this. I found it very interesting that nowhere did I see it mentioned about the male, who did the impregnating, getting a voice in the decision to abort. I also have strong feelings on that but I'll not comment further. I also know in some instances he may not be able to be found but I won't go there now either.

Warbaby1943

06-04-2006, 04:46 PM

I apologize if I do a double post but the one I just did did not show up.

I read the entire thread and want to comment on an observation I made.

First let me say that over my lifetime I have been on both sides of the abortion issue. When I was much younger I felt very strongly in favor of abortions but as I aged I became opposed to them as a means of birth control.

My observation. I found it very interesting to note that nowhere in this thread did I see any comments about the male who did the impregnating having a voice in the decision to abort. I know there will be instances where he won't be able to be found but I don't think that will be the majority of the cases. I'm wondering why this aspect has been ignored.

cheeseburger

06-04-2006, 06:44 PM

Yes, I do think you have to discipline kids when they fuck up, but I also think that the measures should be more carefully thought out. I don't want to see a kid stealing a candy bar to go to jail, either.

I never implied that people (should) go to jail for stealing candy. Society is far more leniant on child misbehavior than it is on adult misbehavior, and rightly so. But if no one teaches kids some rather basic right-from-wrong-ness, how will they know?

See, that's what I meant when I said that we shouldn't make the decision for or against abortion too easy. I don't want children to go to a clinic without talking to anyone about this, it's irresponsible and I agree that they might not learn a great deal from that.

In an adult situation, if a parent (i'd say about 99% of the time the male) does not wish to be a part of the childs life, then there exist ways of forcing the parent (through a court of law) to pay child support. The mechanisms are all there; I just find it incredibly... horrid? (if thats the right word) that it ever comes to that.

The fact that its females, not males, that have to endure pregnancies is, for better or worse, a biological fact. You can't change it, and if you look back far enough, has had a huge impact on society.

However, if the male in a relationship decides that he isn't going to care for the child, there are mechanisms for forcing him to pay some minimal child support (through a court of law). I find it horrible that it ever comes to that, but as you said there are ways of evening things out somewhat.

Teen pregnancies are just completely... stupid. In every way. Not only does it ruin the life of the mother, but the child is going to have a difficult life; it doesn't say much positive about the father either. (Although the father gets off significantly better, through no doing of his own really). The best way to describe them is sad. And utterly retarded. There is no easy way to deal with them since the problem is about so much more than just abortions.

And Warbaby1943 mentioned that the male has no say in wether an abortion should be done. In the case where the male is a present, and active participant, he should have a big say in if an abortion can be carried out. I don't know enough about the law (and I suspect it differs in states) as to the fathers legal rights with respect to abortions, but good point. If the father dissapears, then who cares what he thinks?

Aesop

06-07-2006, 06:20 AM

Okay I finally have some time to reply to this topic.

"My body, my choice"—the catch cry of the women pro abortionists. I used to agree 100% with that, however, the more I think about it, the more this god-like attitude that implies if you created the life you have the right to destroy it, kind of irks me

I get that Alex, but what gives me the right to play God on you? If my wife got pregnant again (please no, please God no ;) ) I would do everything in my power to convince her to have the baby if she didn't want to. I wouldn't try to force her though. How can I? I don't have to go through the potentially life-threatening pregnancy, she does, and if I can't force my wife; how can I possibly say you have to do it?

I just can't help feeling that it's becoming all too acceptable in our society. I guess, to me, overly liberal attitudes towards abortion sometimes have me feeling like a little like we're on the verge of becoming Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", and that bothers me.

I have to disagree. Individual choice is what keeps us from becoming Alphas and Betas.

Yes, kids do make mistakes. And when they do, you need to discipline them. Why? For their own good. So that later they won't make those mistakes. If you're 12 and you steal a candy bar, you get scolded. If you're 30 and you steal, you get thrown in jail. Better to learn while you're young, wouldn't you agree?

To me thats the whole point. You need to tell kids that, even if they don't understand it, if they do ___ they will face the consequences. Then maybe, when they grow up, they'll realize that yeah, mommy was right. Even if you don't get punished, doing ___ is bad. And meanwhile, they never did ___ because they knew they would get punished if they did.

Returning to abortion, if a kid gets pregnant, goes to an abortion clinic, gets an abortion without telling her parents, she won't know she's done something bad! Heck, it was fun!

I'm sorry cheeseburger, but I have to say I think comparing having a child to discipline your teen is...hell I don't know the right word. I mean I'm trying to picture myself telling my daughter, "No, you are going to have that child and you're going to like it! That's your punishment for fucking. Now go to your room and think about what you did." I really don't think that's the way to go.

Even if I did think that was okay; what kind of life would that be for the child? At some point don't you think the kid would realize that Mommy thinks of him/her as a punishment and not the joy a child should be? Also that's my child having that kid. What am I supposed to do? Throw her out on her ass and make her take care of it herself? No way I'm doing that, so now I'm raising her kid too because she's finishing school and going to college if she wants. I take care of my own. So where's the punishment? Sure I know there are parents out there who would chuck the kid out in the street and tell 'em they deserve it, but what kind of lesson does that teach? That people only care when you don't fuck up? I dunno if that's wise.

One last thing: I've held the hand of three women who have had abortions (not my children, just very close friends who's boyfriends couldn't be bothered) and none of them said to me later, "Heck, that was fun!"

Alex Bragi

06-07-2006, 07:57 AM

I have to disagree. Individual choice is what keeps us from becoming Alphas and Betas.

I reiterate, I understand and respect that every case is 'individual', but I'm sorry, I still can't help feeling it's often very much "Big Mother" deciding what's best for everyone concerned--including the father.

You know what else? It seems like a kind of ambivalent hypocrisy, to me, that to end a life at say two to six months gestation is an 'abortion', but once that same life has popped out of his or her mother's womb, two or three months later, to take that same life all of a sudden becomes 'murder'.

I suppose that's the crux of the abortion arguement; when does life become life?

Aesop

06-07-2006, 08:10 AM

I suppose that's the crux of the abortion arguement; when does life become life?

I agree, and since I don't feel qualified to answer that I can't see forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else.

I guess my stand here is the same as it is in many places, "What business is it of mine?"

Weena

06-07-2006, 09:47 AM

this news piece about the ban (a few weeks old by now), which includes a definition by a Republican senator on 'how bad' someone would need to be raped for him to consider an exemption to the ban

:wow_nbs:

Oh my gosh........I cant believe that someone would actually think that they have the right to decide 'how bad' a rape was to an individual. That is truly a delusive outlook.

vistana

06-09-2006, 11:23 AM

This case is of the rarest, and we all know this case would warrent an abortion.
I know that that's a rare case, which is kind of the point. There are people in this thread arguing for abortion rights for people who are already badly enough off to justify it, but not the regular people who do it for convenience. My question was, who gets to decide who is worthy of getting an abortion? The guy I quoted above has been attacked by any number of people for just that reason. Google 'sexist asshat' and he's at the top of the page.

What we are getting at is if your going to have sex, and vistana you have said you are going to. Then you are risking pregenancy, even though you are using condom's and birthcontrol, the chance of getting pregnant using these methods is so incredibly low that it barely warrents concern, yet, it is still there. Since your taking this risk, and know you are taking this risk. Then in my view, if you get pregnant, you should be held accountable for this action.

If I walk outside and get mugged should I be held accountable, since I knew there was a risk when I left the house? Most rapes are committed by people you know. Should I avoid being alone with male friends because the risk is there and by taking that risk I'm assuming responsibility if anything happens?
By that logic we should be held responsible for accidents during any activity that carries a risk (aka everything).

Just cause you say you wouldnt take good enough care of your body during pregnancy, and you don't want to be bothered with the whole process doesn't mean it's the best option. This opinion of yours that you stated is actually the number one reason for abortions today. Also listed on the CDC website I mentioned earlier. To me, this is lazy and irresponsible. Which is why I felt that if someone such as yourself wanted the option of abortion, I would want it to be financially difficult for you to do so. We all know that having a child is going to be finacially difficult, why shouldn't not having one be also?

V/R
ID

As for your argument for making it financially difficult to have an abortion, how is that ever a good idea? Having a child is expensive, so not having a child should also be expensive? That leaves someone in quite a bind for what may have been an accident they had no control over. Going that route is an excellent way to make people turn to other methods, you'd get back-alley abortions and coat-hangers again.
Or was your argument to only penalize those who would abort because they are 'lazy and irresponsible' and not the ones who actually deserve an abortion?
If that's the case, we're right back at the 'who gets to decide' argument.

_ID_

06-09-2006, 02:08 PM

who gets to decide'

Even the Anti-abortion activists think that if someone gets raped, that having an abortion will be warranted. You already know the answer to your question. What I was suggesting was to make it difficult for those that are willing to take a calculated risk in getting pregnant.

V/R
ID

vistana

06-12-2006, 11:04 AM

Even the Anti-abortion activists think that if someone gets raped, that having an abortion will be warranted. You already know the answer to your question. What I was suggesting was to make it difficult for those that are willing to take a calculated risk in getting pregnant.

V/R
ID

I wasn't aware that pro-lifers as a group necessarily supported abortion in the case of rape. From what I've seen there seems to be a fairly wide-spread stance of 'only if it's necessary to save the mother's life'. Earlier in this thread I posted a quote by a US Senator in South Dakota who stated that only a special class of rape victims, the virginal religious girl, would be deserving of an abortion, since she'd be more traumatised than say an atheist middle-aged divorcee.
The law passed in South Dakota, which was what this thread started out discussing does not have a provision for cases of rape, only for cases where the mother's life would be endangered by carrying the fetus to term (i'm pretty sure, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

And no, I don't already know the answer to my question.
Are you proposing that abortion be a financial burden on anyone who became pregnant through consensual sex? Because like I said, that could put poorer women in quite the bind. Can't afford to have a kid, can't afford to not have a kid. They'd be forced into either abstinence (I think unlikely) or black-market abortions. Which I'm sure would spring up if this scenario were to take place.
I'm fairly certain that teen and unexpected pregnancies are more common among lower income brackets (again, I don't have a specific source on this, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong), and a system like this would only make the problem worse.
Wealthy families would have much less of a problem paying the fees, which would create an unfair system where sex has fewer consequences the more money you have.
Or would there be a sliding scale to make sure that everybody had a suitably puishiing fee? i'd love to see somebody try to implement that!

i really don't see how you could make that a practical system at all. And I don't see how it's a good idea at all either.

mkemse

06-12-2006, 06:38 PM

I do not recall the State, my apologies for that, but in the last few months, 1 state did pass an Anti-Abortion bill that includes NO ABORTIONS even if the life ofthe mother is at risk, rape or incest, but the bill was passed as a test for the Supreme Court to see if they would over-turn R v W
The fact anyway still remains that abortion is a private familt decision between a husband, wife and their doctor and the governemnt, be it local, state or federal simply has no right interferring with this type of personal descion, the goverment has no right to control the reproductive system of any female in this country (with the possible exception of say an 18 year old say still living with her family) and even then it should be a FAMILY & Medical descion, NOT a goverment descion

heycarrieanne

06-25-2006, 03:39 PM

I am very pro-choice, but I think that abortion should be the very last option a woman should use. That being said, I find it very interesting that the so-called "pro-life" people want to force women of all ages to have babies whether they want to or not, then they turn their back on these babies and do not want to help the mother support them. And these same pro-life folks do not want to teach children about birth control, only abstinence. (These are also the same people who allow their 12 year-old daughters to dress up looking like hookers from the Avenue aka Paris Hilton!) High school and apparently some middle school kids are going to fuck -- teach them right from wrong at home and tell them not to have sex until they are older. But also tell them that IF they make the choice to have sex, they should be responsible about it. There is nothing romantic about being knocked up at 15 and having a kid at 16 and missing out on high school and college.

When I was student teaching I saw pregnant girls in high school and it was just wrong because a popular junior girl walking the hallways pregnant just gives a freshman girl the idea of how to be cool. I think the pregnant girl and the guy who knocked up her up should be in a special school away from other students and learning how to be parents along with their regular school work. Teach them skills so they can support themselves when they graduate. Without an education, you will never get ahead, especially if you drop out because you had two kids before you were 17!!

{{climbing down from soapbox}}

Alex Bragi

06-26-2006, 01:48 AM

I am very pro-choice, but I think that abortion should be the very last option a woman should use. That being said, I find it very interesting that the so-called "pro-life" people want to force women of all ages to have babies whether they want to or not, then they turn their back on these babies and do not want to help the mother support them. And these same pro-life folks do not want to teach children about birth control, only abstinence. (These are also the same people who allow their 12 year-old daughters to dress up looking like hookers from the Avenue aka Paris Hilton!) High school and apparently some middle school kids are going to fuck -- teach them right from wrong at home and tell them not to have sex until they are older. But also tell them that IF they make the choice to have sex, they should be responsible about it. There is nothing romantic about being knocked up at 15 and having a kid at 16 and missing out on high school and college.

Woh! You've made some very broad and sweeping statements there about pro-choicers. I certainly tend towards being one, yet very little, if any, of what you say here applies to me. I think there will always be varying degrees within any moral philosophy, therefore we can't assume everyone is the same, regardless of what 'labels' we tag them with.

I have various reason's for my feelings. Most are private, but I can tell you a good friend of mine's mother gave birth to her just two months short of her seventeen birthday, and you know, I'm kind of glad she did.

Warbaby1943

06-26-2006, 08:18 PM

I have various reason's for my feelings. Most are private, but I can tell you a good friend of mine's mother gave birth to her just two months short of her seventeen birthday, and you know, I'm kind of glad she did.
I think there are exceptions to every rule but over all I think most would agree that 16 is way too young to be having children. At 16 they are still a child themselves. That doesn't mean I believe that abortion should be used as a means of birth control.

heycarrieanne

06-27-2006, 01:55 PM

Actually Alex, I made a lot of broad statements about pro-life people, not pro-choice people. I just believe that a woman knows what is best for her and it should be HER decision to make, she should not be forced into having a baby before she is ready to handle the responsibility for taking care of another human being. I can barely take care of my cat, I cannot imagine being a parent!

Alex Bragi

06-27-2006, 07:19 PM

Sorry, that was my error, I meant to type 'pro-lifers' which is what I tend to be.

heycarrieanne

06-28-2006, 09:52 AM

Alex Bragi

06-28-2006, 08:54 PM

While my soapbox is still out, I will say how offended I am (in general--not anyone in specific here) by the use of the term "pro-life." Just because someone believes a woman has the right to choose, does that make them "pro-death"? No, it does not. I personally believe that abortion is the absolute last choice a woman should make, but it is HER choice! I do believe that birth control needs to be taught and explained in schools so that they are informed--boys as well as girls.

Well, since I choose to call myself a "pro-lifer" (of sorts) this may possibly directed at me, so 'll answer here.

I'm sorry you feel 'offended', heycarrieanne. That certainly has not been my intention in use of that word.

I don't live in the States, but here in Australia, I have never heard the expression "pro-death' used in conjuction with abortion.

I wish to make it clear that I believe my opinions are just that. I release not everyone shares my "opinions", and particularly on this topic, but that's life (please, excuse that dreadful pun).

I reiterate, I have my reasons for said opinions, but no wish to share them here.

I would also like to reiterate a part of one of my previous posts to this thread: "Please, I do realise and understand that there will always be circumstances where abortion is the only option, as cheeseburger has already pointed out, but I just can't help feeling that it's becoming all too acceptable in our society."

From my point of view, this has been an interesting thread and I've appreciated the respectful and insightful way it's been dealt with it on both sides.

Warbaby1943

06-28-2006, 09:06 PM

Well, since I choose to call myself a "pro-lifer" (of sorts) this may possibly directed at me, so 'll answer here.

I'm sorry you feel 'offended', heycarrieanne. That certainly has not been my intention in use of that word.

I don't live in the States, but here in Australia, I have never heard the expression "pro-death' used in conjuction with abortion.

I wish to make it clear that I believe my opinions are just that. I release not everyone shares my "opinions", and particularly on this topic, but that's life (please, excuse that dreadful pun).

I reiterate, I have my reasons for said opinions, but no wish to share them here.

I would also like to reiterate a part of one of my previous posts to this thread: "Please, I do realise and understand that there will always be circumstances where abortion is the only option, as cheeseburger has already pointed out, but I just can't help feeling that it's becoming all too acceptable in our society."

From my point of view, this has been an interesting thread and I've appreciated the respectful and insightful way it's been dealt with it on both sides.
Alex,
I agree with everything you say that is defined in this post. Don't know beyond what I read but I do leave room for rape and incest to be able to play the abortion card. That is it in my opinion.

_ID_

06-29-2006, 10:54 AM

Sorry about not responding sooner, I was not at a loction I was able to access the internet.

When I indicated that it should be finacially difficult, I ment difficult. Not impossible. For instance, a woman who is on welfare, no income other than that. Her abortion would be far less expensive than say the college teen who has daddies money to take care of things. I think women should have to think about what they are doing rather than gamble with getting pregnant and dealing with it when it happens. Rape victims are another case entirely, and I feel that their abortion case would not require any funding at all. Rather be supplemented by the government, same as if she had the baby, and ended up on welfare because she couldnt get an abortion.

V/R
ID

Warbaby1943

06-29-2006, 11:35 AM

When I indicated that it should be finacially difficult, I ment difficult. Not impossible. For instance, a woman who is on welfare, no income other than that. Her abortion would be far less expensive than say the college teen who has daddies money to take care of things.
V/R
ID
Do you really believe a girl's father should be responsible for his college student's abortion? I'm sure many daddies would help but they should not be forced to do so. When do adults become adults and be responsible for their own actions?

heycarrieanne

06-30-2006, 09:26 AM

I didn't mean you, Alex! Everyone is entitled to their views and I respect that. But I also believe that one group of people should not be allowed to force their beliefs on another group. Part of the problem is that the various anti-abortion groups (is that better than pro-lifers?) tend to put out publications that lie. The numbers of abortions are not nearly as high as what they make them out to be. Many clinics are not just used for abortions, they are also used by women for annual check-ups and other gyn issues. The anti-abortion groups track these numbers and say that anyone who walks into a clinic that performs abortions is having an abortion, when in fact, they are not.

This is such a hot topic, I almost hate to discuss it. But, that being said -- how could anyone believe that a 14-year-old girl who has been raped should be forced to have that baby!

_ID_

06-30-2006, 10:12 AM

Do you really believe a girl's father should be responsible for his college student's abortion? When do adults become adults and be responsible for their own actions?

I didnt say they were responsible, I said they took care of things. Pay for the car, pay for the credit card, pay for the books... and so on. And when she gets into trouble, they pay for that too. This would be considered an income for the girl, and if reported on taxes correctly would reflect in the amount the girl was required to finance to have the abortion.

I never said my idea was perfect either, was just an idea, a suggestion. Able to be changed added to, or taken away to optimize it. So if you see fault with what I have suggested. Thats fine, but don't critizise without having a solution.

V/R
ID

heycarrieanne

06-30-2006, 02:28 PM

My aunt still talks about a girl she knew in high school whose parents sent her TWICE to Europe for abortions! And about her best friend who thought she was pregnant (this was in the early 1970s) and her sister's friend told her that if she took a whole pack of birth control pills, she would miscarry. It worked but ... she also could have died from complications. My aunt, a good Catholic girl, said she is glad that abortion is legal because of all the girls who died getting butchered from back-alley abortionists.

Warbaby1943

06-30-2006, 08:53 PM

I didnt say they were responsible, I said they took care of things. Pay for the car, pay for the credit card, pay for the books... and so on. And when she gets into trouble, they pay for that too. This would be considered an income for the girl, and if reported on taxes correctly would reflect in the amount the girl was required to finance to have the abortion.

I never said my idea was perfect either, was just an idea, a suggestion. Able to be changed added to, or taken away to optimize it. So if you see fault with what I have suggested. Thats fine, but don't critizise without having a solution.

V/R
ID
Sorry you took my comment as criticism. It was only an observation from what I read in your post. Truly not criticizing your ideas. I only know I for one wouldn't want to be held responsible for my kids fucking up. Especially if if they were of the age of reasoning.