South Dakota Passes Abortion Ban

[Democratic Hawk]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

It bans abortion in all cases except for "to save the life of the woman". Now the question is, if the woman has a 40% chance of dying from the pregnancy, would she be allowed to have an abortion? That's not clear. Welcome to John McCain's America.

[Democratic Hawk]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

It bans abortion in all cases except for "to save the life of the woman". Now the question is, if the woman has a 40% chance of dying from the pregnancy, would she be allowed to have an abortion? That's not clear. Welcome to John McCain's America.

The thing is if the woman has been raped and she has an abortion, it could be saving the life of the woman

Dave

[Ebowed]

The thing is if the woman has been raped and she has an abortion, it could be saving the life of the woman

Dave

Then it falls under "life of the mother."

[MODU]

Alcon-- if pro-lifers want a reduction in the number of abortions why havent the (pro-lifers) supported contraceptive access/education and social welfare programs that statistical cross country comparisons and surveys of women who got abortions show would reduce the abortion rate significantly?

We have supported such actions in the past, yet there has been very little "give" on the other side of the spectrum.  We want abstinence being taught as the one true sure-fire way to not get pregnant, yet that message is constantly lost in the discussion.  We want the enforcement of laws regarding underage sex enforced when it is discovered, but it falls on deaf ears.  We want parental notification for minors seeking abortions, but all we get are lawsuits.  If the other side can't give, why should we accept the liberalization of America in regards to sex and abortion?  If pushing for legislation to get some of our desires met, then that's what it will take.

Now like I said earlier, this bill is too harsh.  A true (sane) bill will be as follows:

- abortions due to risk to the mothers health can be provided at any time.
- abortions due to rape or incest can be done up through the 6th month
- abortions due to "oopsies" should be done before the end of the 3rd month, and primarily through the use of medication resulting in a miscarriage

Personally, I think in addition to the "oopsies" point, the couples (since it takes two to tango) need to complete a preventative sex course (like defensive driving courses) online to reinforce the proper use of contraceptives and how to take responsibility for their actions.  Repeat offenders would have some kind of penalty placed upon them (which I haven't quite figured out yet).

[Beet]

Alcon-- if pro-lifers want a reduction in the number of abortions why havent the (pro-lifers) supported contraceptive access/education and social welfare programs that statistical cross country comparisons and surveys of women who got abortions show would reduce the abortion rate significantly?

We have supported such actions in the past, yet there has been very little "give" on the other side of the spectrum.  We want abstinence being taught as the one true sure-fire way to not get pregnant, yet that message is constantly lost in the discussion.  We want the enforcement of laws regarding underage sex enforced when it is discovered, but it falls on deaf ears.  We want parental notification for minors seeking abortions, but all we get are lawsuits.  If the other side can't give, why should we accept the liberalization of America in regards to sex and abortion?  If pushing for legislation to get some of our desires met, then that's what it will take.

Now like I said earlier, this bill is too harsh.  A true (sane) bill will be as follows:

- abortions due to risk to the mothers health can be provided at any time.
- abortions due to rape or incest can be done up through the 6th month
- abortions due to "oopsies" should be done before the end of the 3rd month, and primarily through the use of medication resulting in a miscarriage

Personally, I think in addition to the "oopsies" point, the couples (since it takes two to tango) need to complete a preventative sex course (like defensive driving courses) online to reinforce the proper use of contraceptives and how to take responsibility for their actions.  Repeat offenders would have some kind of penalty placed upon them (which I haven't quite figured out yet).

The point is if 'pro-lifers' were really sincere about what they said, they shouldn't even look at those policies as a 'trade'... they should support them of their own accord for they would prevent thousands of abortions. Many pro-lifers like Ebowed here are sincere and I respect that. But these in general do not represent "the movement."

[MODU]

The point is if 'pro-lifers' were really sincere about what they said, they shouldn't even look at those policies as a 'trade'... they should support them of their own accord for they would prevent thousands of abortions.

Unfortunately, that is an unrealistic view on the issue, since most of those things already exist across the country, yet abortions still keep on happening.  Why?  Because people keep on getting pregnant.  I find the case that people are "uneducated" to be weak at the least.  Most schools have active sex-ed courses these days, and you can't help but hear an ad for Trojans on the radio/tv during commercial breaks.  The problem is people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and use sanctioned murdering of fetuses abortion as a quick fix for their actions.

So yes, we are sincere.  I think we've given enough.  Now it's the pro-murder pro-choicers turn to pony up.

[Democratic Hawk]

The thing is if the woman has been raped and she has an abortion, it could be saving the life of the woman

Dave

Then it falls under "life of the mother."

But would it? We can, maybe, see that but will others? For that reason, I think this ban is too vague and, therefore, should cite incidences of rape as, specfic, grounds for allowing abortion. It's an atrocious way for a life to be conceived

Dave

[Beet]

The point is if 'pro-lifers' were really sincere about what they said, they shouldn't even look at those policies as a 'trade'... they should support them of their own accord for they would prevent thousands of abortions.

Unfortunately, that is an unrealistic view on the issue, since most of those things already exist across the country, yet abortions still keep on happening.  Why?  Because people keep on getting pregnant.  I find the case that people are "uneducated" to be weak at the least.  Most schools have active sex-ed courses these days,

And the teen pregnancy/abortion rate plummetted faster than any other demographic in the 1990s.

On the other hand, abortions among the very poor surged in the 2000s after welfare reform and the recession. Today a much larger proportion of abortions are done by poor single mothers than before 1996.

There is still no subsidized child care in the US as there is in Canada & every other developed nation. There is still no paid maternity leave like there is in every other developed nation. There is also much more wealth inequality--not as much as Brazil but much more than the Netherlands. The net result is that the cost of having a child is much higher, and more people feel the need to get abortions. Access to contraception is limited. The GOP still fights to keep the morning after pill which is the most effective one by far for the inevitable segment of the population that will be irresponsible, off the shelves.

Again, the point is, for genuine pro-lifers it shouldn't be a matter of "give". They should support these policies of their own accord, if "saving the lives of the unborn children" are so important to them. That slogan is generally bullsh!t if I ever heard it (except when uttered by a few sincere pro-lifers like Ebowed, but there are a lot fewer of them then those who claim to be 'pro-life').

Well I have some work to do, gtg for now.

[MODU]

There is still no subsidized child care in the US as there is in Canada & every other developed nation. There is still no paid maternity leave like there is in every other developed nation. There is also much more wealth inequality--not as much as Brazil but much more than the Netherlands. The net result is that the cost of having a child is much higher, and more people feel the need to get abortions. Access to contraception is limited. The GOP still fights to keep the morning after pill which is the most effective one by far for the inevitable segment of the population that will be irresponsible, off the shelves.

The government should not pay women for being pregnant.  The government did not tell the people to engage in sex, so they should not be responsible to pay for people's actions.  Now, many companies do offer paid/reduce pay time off for maternity leave.  Additionally, most companies (not sure if it is part of the employee rights act) allow the fathers to take time off as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hahaha . . . no, what you are asking is just as equal to saying "Don't have sex if you don't want a kid."  Both are unrealistic.  You forget, some of the pro-lifers are "extreme," thinking that even the aspect of using birth control pills "kill" life.  Fortunately, they are a minority in our group, not the majority. 

[Alcon]

Alcon-- if pro-lifers want a reduction in the number of abortions why havent the Republicans supported contraceptive access/education and social welfare programs that statistical cross country comparisons and surveys of women who got abortions show would reduce the abortion rate significantly? Why have they exclusively focused on prohibitive laws? Doesn't that show that they care more about the curtailment of rights and the control of sexual activity than the actual number of abortions performed?

I don't think it shows that they are that perverse.  Rather, I think it shows that they have perverse thinking about what is important.  Abortion is a much louder war drum when they're saving the infants than when they are passing out condoms.

And they should be publicly faulted for this whenever possible.

[A18]

I obviously do not support government handouts in order to encourage people not to commit murder.

[??????????]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

Yes, its not permitted in those very rare cases. I love it how liberals try to use some very rare possibility to defend the murder of babies.

[Beet]

I obviously do not support government handouts in order to encourage people not to commit murder.

That's fine if that's your position. You are perfectly free to keep supporting the party that spends $500 billion on high tech missiles and other weapons to kill Iraqi civilians, and not a penny on child care or social welfare that would prevent abortions from occuring, all the while claiming to believe that abortion is "murder".

But dont expect many to believe them.

[A18]

I don't see what the one thing has to do with the other.

[Beet]

I don't see what the one thing has to do with the other.

There are 3 things going on in the above post and I dont know which 2 you were referring to, but it doesn't really matter all that much for the points I was making.

[A18]

You had a point?

[Beet]

You had a point?

The point is, actions speak louder than words.

[A18]

Maybe, or maybe not, depending on the situation, but you seem to be claiming hypocrisy is at work.

[Beet]

Maybe, or maybe not, depending on the situation, but you seem to be claiming hypocrisy is at work.

I think there is a certain degree of hypocrisy when politicians take positions based on extreme accusations ('murder') and then show an exclusively distorted kind of concern with the substantive thing they claim to be so opposed to.

[Democratic Hawk]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

Yes, its not permitted in those very rare cases. I love it how liberals try to use some very rare possibility to defend the murder of babies.

Wasn't aware I was a liberal as such . I just think a life being conceived as a result of rape is utterly abhorant. Not exactly the best start in life. Not to mention the mother's psychological health - and, possibly, her life - being at risk. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to permit terminations in such instances

Dave

[nini2287]

Rasmussen:  South Dakotans split over abortion ban.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/South%20Dakota%20February.htm

Favor 45
Oppose 45

[Schmitz in 1972]

God Bless South Dakota.

[??????????]

Am I correct in thinking that this ban would not even permit abortions in cases of rape or incest?

Dave

Yes, its not permitted in those very rare cases. I love it how liberals try to use some very rare possibility to defend the murder of babies.

Wasn't aware I was a liberal as such . I just think a life being conceived as a result of rape is utterly abhorant. Not exactly the best start in life. Not to mention the mother's psychological health - and, possibly, her life - being at risk. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to permit terminations in such instances

Dave

Quit using the term "termination", the appropriate term is murder.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rasmussen:  South Dakotans split over abortion ban.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/South%20Dakota%20February.htm

Favor 45
Oppose 45

That closely matches the 48-48 pro-choice "pro-life" split in the latest SUSA.