This will be an intriguing question that should be asked in the 2008 election: Do you support the imprisonment of doctors for up to five years for the alleged “crime” of performing an abortion, as South Dakota’s legislature demands?
Because I’m pretty sure every possible Democratic nominee (Clinton, Edwards, Warner, etc.) could answer that question in the negative and not lose any support, whereas I can’t think of a Republican (Allen, McCain, Frist, etc.) who wouldn’t lose support from the base or from moderate voters depending on how they answered.
Most sane people don’t believe in locking up doctors for performing medical procedures.
. I wish I could agree with you, but the “representatives” who voted for this felt that they could support it by: , “23 to 12″, e.g about 2 to 1 and the polls have consistantly been that: the population has been split: 1/3 for Abortion based on a woman’s choice/needs, 1/3 for more Abortion limitations, and 1/3 for no abortion, see: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm , etc.
.
. If 2/3-rds of the population want more restrictions on abortion, then I wonder if it is a winning strategy to make “full choice abortion” a litmas test for Democrats.
.
. My guess is that the Democrats should say that Abortion for Woman’s life or physical health is a necessary position and should be a national, constitutionally protected right, but that a representative could be a Democrat, depending on his/her principals and constituates, even if they feel that the society is involved in the abortion decision when it is not required for the life or physical health of the mother.
No, I don’t support “the imprisonment of doctors for up to five years” for murdering an unborn child. Rather, I support putting the woman who has the abortion and the quack doctor child murderer who performs it in prison for the rest of their lives.
Don’t Like Rape? Fine, Don’t commit it. And if God hates rape so much, he’ll deal with that too. Who are we to judge?
Damn straight! And when that woman gives birth to that unwanted child, I say we give it a loving home and free education. Or if she keeps it, lets give her a living wage and health care.
Oh wait. Then we wouldn’t have “welfare reform”.
Here’s an idea: Don’t like abortion. DON’T HAVE ONE. Don’t tell the rest of the world what to do. Let’s not assume that every single pregenancy was wanted, planned or even a good idea. There are cases where in abortion may be nessesary. I certainly don’t want the doctor to stop giving my wife a potentilly life saving treatment because puritans in the statehouse think she doesn’t know what’s best for herself. And you know what? If God does hate abortion, that’s his call. Let HIM deal with it. I’m not egocentric enough to claim I know exactly what God wants.
Does the name Jack Kevorkian mean anything to you?
Goody for you D, and you can join the list of Republican candidates who won’t be getting my vote. You’re not running? What good are you then? Get back to your cave! Aren’t you supposed to be breeding?
While the polls keep showing a majority of Americans favoring legal abortion, with the exception of some very blue states, state legislators will enact laws to prohibit all abortion under any circumstances. With the appointment of Alito it seems likely that Roe will be struck down meaning that South Dakota’s law will be enforceable. I would like to think that voters and women in particular did not believe this would happen when Dumbya allegedly got enough votes to win the presidency in 2004. If that is the case than Alito will be very bad news for Republicans. I am not convinced however that women feel strongly about keeping the government’s hands off their bodies. While they might think that abortion should be legal, few are passionate enough about it to overcome an otherwise Republican vote. Another variation of whats wrong with Kansas. I hope I am wrong, but if not OW’s musing is just more wishful thinking.
Don’t like teenage pregnancy? Ensure it doesn’t happen. How? Well abstinence isn’t very successful. Education can be. Oh, wait, education costs money.
As Quaker says, this is about ESSSS EEEEEEGods EXXXXXX,
and the fear of loss of control over the womenfolk.
Frame is right. The life (sperm) comes from the man. So if they
are so hell bent on making life sacred, let’s throw every teen male
in the slammer because you know they are daily jerking off (Ian?)
and all those lives being lost…..is …….just…..unthinkable.
And:
Black is White. Up is Down. Democrats and Republicans confusing their proper roles in OW’s universe.
Every sperm is sacred. Doctors who perform vasectomies should be put in jail and the men who undergo the procedure should be given a very stern talking too. While we’re at it, pharmacists and other retailers who sell any form of contraception should be fined and anyone who has sex for pleasure should be pilloried. Let’s bring back Puritan justice for all those who refuse to breed at every opportunity. It’s the only way to get America back on track.
Calling them on it
To some extent, I understand and agree with the intent of Oliver and Atrios’ Modest Proposal about abortion. But I think the problem is that it dwells into the realm of rhetoric and avoids the reality of these blatantly unconstitutional…
From OW’s citation:
Uh oh.
And, as I have said before: If need be, let us allow “day after” pills for tape victims, incest victims, and incompetent pregnant women, represented by by comment POA’s.
Otherwise, the willful, arbitrary and capricious termination of pregnancies might be coming to an end in South Dakota.
And, BFB, I’m sure you’ve voted for so many republican candidates in the past, that your principled change of heart will turn the tide in any number of elections. I’ll call Ken Mehlman, and let him know the Republicans are now doomed.
I’m pretty sure the kid is affected, pretty negatively I might add.
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others, absolutely. The problem is abortion infringes upon certain unalienable rights.
I thought you were all about standing up for “the little guy” and protecting the people against the powerful.
“It s a veritable holocaust by tissue paper.”
Frame,
You make light of a serious subject. Can you imagine hundreds of
millions of lives going down the crapper each and every day of
the year?. It boggles the mind.
“”In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat who is the bill’s main sponsor. ”
Hard to call it a “Republican” war on women’s rights when the refernced South Dakota bill was sponsored by a Democrat.
MDS;
So you are saying this law is stupid and regressive?
Lets be clear. Whats being discussed here is twofold: abortion and the the concept of federalism. reasonable, moral, intelligent people disagree about abortion and indeed no one has ever satifactorily resolved when life begins. On the other point though, should South Dakota not be able to make decisions that it feels, via its democratically elected representatives, are in the best interest of South Dakotans? People are different and have different values. Thats the genius of federalism.
Dugger, Don’t be a divisive polarizer, agree with me!
Farris,
That’s different and you know damn well why. Abortion is a personal decision between you, your significant other and the diety of your choice. Rape is an act forced on someone else. We can (and do) have laws that limit your rights if they effect others. That’s why I can own a gun, but can’t shoot it wildly in the air. The aboortion effects no one but the family having it. Your rights are not infringed if Martha down the street has one. This is simply government (Republican, Democrat, I could care less who’d doing it) passing laws based on morality. Besides, I thought you were against government telling individuals what to do?
“… all those lives being lost& ..is & & .just& ..unthinkable …”
It’s a veritable holocaust by tissue paper.
Oky doky, there are a few nutty Dems and a few sane Republicans in South Dakota. Dollars to donuts, Sen. Bartling voted for Bush in 2004. The principle still holds–the percentage of Democrats who support this nationwide is likely less than 5%, the percentage of Republicans who support it is likely in the 40% range. And those 5% of Democrats who would support the South Dakota legislation are either 1) already voting Republican or 2) already quite aware that their party is pro-choice.
For Republicans, about half the party is strongly pro-life, and a third of the party is libertarian-pro-choice. This is a cleaving issue for them. Let’s nail them to the wall with it.
Rather, I support putting the woman who has the abortion and the quack doctor child murderer who performs it in prison for the rest of their lives.
I would pay $1 million to have the next Republican candidate for president say that on live tv in prime time. Because we need all the help we can get to win an election, and that would just about do it.
Just to further support JWG’s refutation of Mr. Willis, I will pretend that jkfecke hasn’t already commented, and note:
SD House: Yea: 41 R, 6 D Nay: 9 R, 13 D
SD Senate: Yea: 17 R, 6 D Nay: 8 R, 4 D
Governor signing bill into law: R
I would say that this conclusively proves, as JWG asserts, that Mr. Willis has it completely backwards, and Republicans are the national pro-choice party. Clearly, any likely Democratic ‘08 Presidential contender will have to repudiate reproductive choice, because there are anti-choice Democrats in the South Dakota Senate!
Or perhaps JWG was suggesting that Senator Bartling and Senator Adelstein are seeking their respective parties’ Presidential nomination; I’m not quite clear on his actual point. Regardless, since seventeen Republican members of the South Dakota legislature voted against this draconian ban, choice is a political loser nationally for Democrats. Take that, Mr. Willis!
“Incompetent pregnant women,” Frank? What could you possibly mean by this?
“protecting the people against the powerful”
I think the point of contention here is the word “people” Save: See Dugger on the eternal question of when life begins. I see the issue as protecting the rights of women against the encroachment of state and/or federal governments (see Semantic) and idiots like Frank who view women with unwanted pregancies as “incompetents.”
Howdy,
Long-time reader, first time commenter.
Just for argument’s sake, can someone who isnt doing this form work check to see just how many places there are in SD where you can legally obtain an abortion?
Somehow, Im betting that using the preferred GOP counting method, you won’t get past all ten fingers. I may yet be wrong on that, but probably not by much.
But the issue is more than just “protecting the rights of women” as at some point (and we can all disagree as to when that point occurs) there is another life that is to be protected. Some may feel that the point when a second life is to be offered protection occurs at birth, and others may feel it is at conception. Most, I imagine, feel it falls somewhere in between.
That is the double-edged sword of Roe v. Wade that gets ignored in the equation. In Roe, the Court acknowledges that at least in the third trimester the unborn deserve protection by the states. So while South Dakota’s Democrat-sponsored legislation clearly goes too far, at some point supporters of Roe v. Wade have to acknowledge that some restrictions on abortion are lawful.
Semant,
Agree that states can’t supersede the constitution. I believe that perhaps the whole point of the SD initiative is to put the issue before the Supreme Court to reaffirm or deny the abortion issue. And I betcha the supremes strike the SD law.
Dugger
Our distinguished host wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure that you would. And the price of the Democrats’ victory? Just another four (or many more) years of 1,300,000 children per year being slaughtered.
I believe that an unborn child is a living human being, and ought to be treated as one. That is why I believe that the appropriate punishment for murder should obtain for abortion.
What’s that you say? Not everybody believes that an unborn child is a living human being? Yup, that’s true. And in 1850, not everybody believed that black slaves were really human beings, either. Thank God that enough people decided to impose their beliefs on those who disagreed.
frameone: Sometimes your ignorance is staggering… Perhaps you’ve never heard of profoundly mentally retarded (pc translation: developmentally disabled) women, or mentally ill women being raped by strangers, acquaintances, and even relatives?
Of course not…
Oh, yeah. Thanks for not calling me a moron. Who knows, maybe someday, you’ll actually think of me as a real live person — I should live so long.
Long post, but Elroy, from Elroy.net puts it well…
“All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother’s womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:
Is it alive?
Is it human?
Is it a person?
Is it physically independent?
Does it have human rights?
Is abortion murder?
Let’s take a look at each of these questions. We’ll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we’ll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.
1. Is it alive?
Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn’t do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it’s alive. It’s a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It’s alive.
Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. “Life begins at conception” they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.
But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.
A single-cell ameoba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameoba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.
And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.
2. Is it human?
Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn’t human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.
And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, “an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development.” And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.
Don’t believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it’s the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don’t say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It’s not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it’s simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that’s not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)
Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.
And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.
3. Is it a person?
No. It’s merely a potential person.
Webster’s Dictionary lists a person as “being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.” Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else’s. In other words, if you’re human, you must be a person.
Of course we’ve already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn’t make the difference since two twins are not one person. It’s quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)
There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.
The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is ‘consciousness.’ It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.
The problem is that consciousness normally doesn’t occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn’t occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn’t obtained consciousness either.
Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn’t a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the “problem” we create if we say a human doesn’t become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.
But they are wrong. Their “logic” is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn’t make it any less true.
And in reality, the Pro Choice defender’s fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist’s argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.
It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.
4. Is it physically independent?
No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother’s life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother’s body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.
Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can’t, if we follow their logic, claim it’s okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.
What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist’s argument above. That’s social dependence; that’s where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.
Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she’s been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.
Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?
This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist’s own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.
This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it’s not an existing person who is living off the woman’s body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.
To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That’s 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.
Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.
Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman’s physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.
This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?
5. Does it have human rights?
Yes and No.
A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.
If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.
Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying “The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal.” This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn’t belie the fact that indeed “location” makes all the difference in the world.
It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don’t have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a “right to life” to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother’s right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another’s right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.
Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue….
6. Is abortion murder?
No. Absolutely not.
It’s not murder if it’s not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it’s not murder to end the life of any child before he/she reaches consciousness, but we don’t know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it’s completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.
Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we’ve clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.
But that doesn’t stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It’s the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.
It’s even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it’s not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It’s hard enough as it is. Women certainly don’t need others telling them it’s a murder.
It’s not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body. “
The South supported enslaving black fetuses?
AJP, they were considered not “persons”. The phrase “3/5ths” comes to mind.
[...] 21; No, That s Not The Right Question Speaking about Roe v. Wade, Atrios/OW gives anti-choicers an easy pass on a more potent point. Do [...]
If every sperm is sacred my self-indulgences over the past 37 years have been a holocaust of mega-proportions. I can’t begin to think of how many Spermatazoan-Americans have been needlessly massacred as I was hell-bent on acquiring hirsute palms and fading eyesight.
I am thinking of a sign my friend has on her desk: I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Why engage anti-choice people at all? They are just nutbuckets. Instead, do what we can to stop them and don’t give any quarter.
I’m contributing today to NARAL and renewing my membership in Planned Parenthood.
And, of course, there is this interesting, and mostly overlooked (by pro - abortion folks) question, as well as by our prolix friend above: From whence comes this “women’s right”?
Dugger,
I’ll have you know I wash pretty regularly, thank you just the same.
Anyway, the article indicated that PP has only one office in the whole state.
If that’s the case, just how many other providers are potentially being put out of business here.
Isnt this kind of like complaining about a lack of outdoor swimming pools in Greenland?
smartfruit,
Even though I sense you are one of the great ‘unwashed’, welcome aboard (and I’m at work).
Dugger
Thanks for posting that other person’s post. I could have saved you a lot of trouble. He speaks with a pretense of certainty about issues that many people are debating about.
Back when Roe v Wade was pending, James Buckley (brother of Bill) Senator from New York, suggested this example: A naked man falls from an airplane onto an iceberg in Alaska, and becomes unconscious. He can’t survive independently, and he has no consciousness — why rescue him?
Dana implements my favorite abortion argument:
“What s that you say? Not everybody believes that an unborn child is a living human being? Yup, that s true. And in 1850, not everybody believed that black slaves were really human beings, either. Thank God that enough people decided to impose their beliefs on those who disagreed.”
This can be used for any argument du jure…
“What s that you say? Not everybody believes that killing an animal is murder? Yup, that s true. And in 1850, not everybody believed that black slaves were really human beings, either. Thank God that enough people decided to impose their beliefs on those who disagreed.”
This “everyone eventually is thought of a human” argument is fun, but it doesn’t really “prove” anything except personal belief.
Thanks JWG and Frank.
OK then,
Since I understand the principle for pro-choicers (and although I am generally liberal, I am not a pro-choicer) to not allow one state to outlaw abortion, I guess Im still not getting the reason to be upset about having something go from being substanitally difficult to obtain to impossible as being a good battle to pick.
The bill seems to only score points for rabid pro-lifers who at this point, despite having a majority of SCOTUS justices, still don’t win many battles on this issue. Congrats to them on this BTW, in a battle that takes hundreds of thousands of lives, you have saved 2 future South Dakotans. While some may become Tom Daschle, most will become youp-erize versions of the Duke boys. Nice pick-up.
If the NY state legislature wants to outlaw abortion, I can see where the pro-choicers would want to fight.
Just my $0.02
Also, Dugger is the voice of reason in this thread.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/south_dakota.html
In 2000, there were 2 abortion providers in South Dakota. This represents a 100% increase from 1996, when there was 1 abortion provider.
PP indicates there are two clinics: Rapid City (west side of state) and Souix Falls (east side of state).
Simple, smartfruit: It’s called precedent. As far as the Supreme Court goes, one state is as good as another. As South Dakota goes, so goes the nation?
If abortion is an “absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body” as concluded by the post meatloaf quotes, then all who are pro-choice should:
1) support unconditional abortion up to the moment of birth;
2) seek to overturn Roe v. Wade and the increasing restrictions on abortion it allows through the second and third trimesters; and of course
3) support a woman’s right to use drugs of any kind; and
4) unconditionally support prostitution.
Well, after reading the article, there is still a huge issue for passage, that being the Gov, who while a repub, vetoed a similar bill a couple of years ago.
Supposing it passes and we go to the court round, Im wondering, even given their inclinations, how the SCOTUS is going to gin up ruling in favor of keeping this and overturning Roe v. Wade.
While they claim to be strick constructionalists, they have to overcome the precedent issue, meaning until they can deem any fetus sustainable life, they are stuck with the 4th amendment restrictions that caused Roe v. Wade in the first place.
The 4th amendment indicates that the people’s right to be secure in their person…shall not be violated, which essentially equates a 3-week old fetus with snot.
Its a morally repugnant way to look at life, but clearly the government isnt the place to go looking for moral leadership anyway.
Just look at our past presidents:
Clinton, should not require explanation.
Bush the elder: Made one campaign promise and couldnt keep it.
Ron Reagan and his shotgun-bride Nancy (repubs often forget that Ron was running around on his wife quite a bit when he impregnated Nancy).
Ford: Its one thing to promise in his VP confirmation hearing not to pardon Nixon and then do it anyway, but he still defends the magic-bullet theory on Kennedy.
Nixon: no explanation should be required
Johnson: where do you start?
Kennedy: well known skirt-chaser
You should be getting the gist of this by now.
I don’t think the morality of the Presidents enters into this, smartfruit, at least, not any more than the general morality of the average American, who seems to be buying the “it’s just a hunk of flesh” argument.
The scariest thing about this whole thing, as we were accidentaly reminded of by Dugger, is that there is not a certainty that there is no “living thing” in the womb; much evidence says there is. Yet, there is no problem with the idea that we now, via the Supreme Court’s nebulous description of a women’s right to privacy (it was even described as “a penumbra” literally, “dim light”; the outer filamentary region of a sunspot. perihelion), as superceding the very strong possibility that life is being destroyed.
That alone is seriously wrong, in my view. It is surely the symptom of a serious disease, that can’t progress without having more horrifying consequences (see above, (meatloaf / elroy) ‘The problem is that consciousness normally doesn t occur until months, even years, after a baby is born.’ — I see the mentally retarded and the insane marching into the “showers“).
What do you see, lefties? Happily childless women, and cheerful, “wanted babies”? Yeah, riiiight.
You know what I was just thinking? Have you seen the headline, “Abortions up, child abuse down”? Me, neither.
Supposedly, abortions are supposed to reduce the number of unwanted children, yet child abuse statistics continually rise. Makes you wonder, eh?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you, Bushwacked. After all, look at it in reverse: You are opposed to the death of 30 to 40 thousand Iraqis in a war, while a million and a half children die each year, many of them so somen can fit into bathing suits, or avoid taking time off from work, or they simply want to continue to f*ck, and when their contraceptive fails, they want the option of tearing a fetus limb from limb.
Guess which one I think is the more repulsive?
“Yeah, I m sure that you would. And the price of the Democrats victory? Just another four (or many more) years of 1,300,000 children per year being slaughtered.”
.
How many were slaughtered in Iraq? How many are being killed right now be terrorists and warring factions, all started by this war to supposedly liberate them. They certainly had no choice.
It is still amazing how so-called conservatives insist on more government control of someone’s body to protect life, yet at the same time support an unnecessary war that inevitably kills thousands of innocent life and take no actions to protest against it. It just doesn’t make sense. Never has and never will.
Shorter Frank: I don’t want dirty sluts (all women in Frank’s eyes) making decisions about their bodies so I’m going to pretend that they don’t take their choices seriously.
shorter fastcheck: I have no mind, so I’m talking out of my ass.
Factcheck made a good point; why is there still this double standard that women who have abortions are selfish hedonists, but no mention of the men who impregnate them?
You are opposed to the death of 30 to 40 thousand Iraqis in a war, while a million and a half children die each year, many of them so somen can fit into bathing suits, or avoid taking time off from work, or they simply want to continue to f*ck, and when their contraceptive fails, they want the option of tearing a fetus limb from limb.
Wrong Frank. I personally do not believe in abortion. I would prefer that neither happened. Thats the difference. The proponents of the war in Iraq who are also opposed to abortion have a basic conflict in morality because both result in the death of innocent life.
But I also do not believe that the government should be ban it. How do a small group of legislators, mostly males, arrive at the conclusion that they know more than the woman who bears either the responsibility of childbirth or make the decision to terminate it? In most cases its not as simple as just a mere inconvenience. You know better than that.
Fastcheck didn’t make any point at all… We can call the men who impregnate them anything we want, we can tar and feather them, burn them at the stake, but it’s the women who gets pregnant, and, because she is able to leave the man who impregnated her out of the decision, she just might, It has certainly been known to happen, epecially in situations where the father and the mother are not married.
In any case, it is the woman who is able to carry the baby to term. She can’t turn to the man after a few months, and say, “You take over.”
Besides, isn’t it the whole point of the so - called “freedom of choice” issue that the women has exclusive rights to her own womb?
I never said all women who have abortions are all anything… I was merely suggesting that in order for there to be over 1 million abortions (where less than 10% of the total are because of rape, incest, or a life and death situation for the mother), a great many of them had to be at the personal whim and whimsy of the mother. Can I prove that? No, but it is strongly implied.
Can you prove that no men come forward and say, “I want you to have this baby, and I will marry you”? No, but I’ll bet it happens - a lot.
Well, how do you justify the difference?
“You want all cops to be ex - cons, because only they know about crime. Maybe only arsonists should be firemen? How about if pedophiles teach elementary school? They just love little children& ”
Furthermore, by your reasoning, you seem to be comparing women having to make a decision that affects their life, their loved ones and the unborn child to ex-cons, arsonists and pedophiles. That’s sorta painting with a very broad brush isn’t it?
oh no, Bushwacked, you’re not getting away with that trick! You know exactly what I mean. Do you have any idea how many gynecologists are men? Maybe they should all quit, because they couldn’t possibly know anything about women.
I wonder how many men are abortionists?
Do you really think that only women are capable of making a judgement about having an abortion?
Not their father, boyfriend, or husband?
Not a priest, a male therapist, or a male school guidance counselor?
What nonsense!
“In most cases”? How do you know? By your logic, men don’t know anything about it.
And, you’re trying to use the chickenhawk argument on this issue. You want all cops to be ex - cons, because only they know about crime. Maybe only arsonists should be firemen? How about if pedophiles teach elementary school? They just love little children…
No tricks Frank, just a simple question that you haven’t answered, yet.
How do you justify the difference between opposing abortion on the basis of protecting innocent life on one hand and supporting a unnecessary war that has caused the death of innocent life on the other?
Furthermore, I guess you are misinterpreting what I am trying to say regarding the second part. Yes the woman, her husband, the doctor and her church, if she attends one, all know better what is right for them personally, than a group of men (or women) hundreds or thousands of miles away, who probably dont even know their names. To think that government is the supreme judge on this is neither wise or conservative for that matter.
I believe I did answer that question: a) I don’t believe the war is (or was) unneccessary. b) all wars (”necessary” or otherwise), cause the loss of innocent lives.
Abortions are conscious acts carried out by an individual (the mother is, of course, responsible — the doctor only an actor.). They are directed at an innocent individual — the life in the womb. They are not the collateral effects of attempting to defang military targets.
I’m a conservative, so I don’t believe the “government” is the supreme judge on anything — but the community is. In fact, I wouldn’t even buy your construction that “her husband, the doctor and her church, if she attends one, all know better what is right for them personally”, unless you insert he word “might” between “one,” and “all”.
The Constitution has had within it since its ratification, a long overlooked amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Either the states or the people
Not one parent, not one gender, not one race, not one religion, not one ideology — the states or the people. Period
“Do you really think that only women are capable of making a judgement about having an abortion?”
Frank, it doesn’t matter what judgement a woman’s priest, father, husband, doctor whatever might make about her getting an abortion. She has the ultimately authority over her own body.
frameone: In 250 words or less, without obscenity, profanity, or insult, could you expound on the idea that, despite the fact that the government controls the drugs we take, the food we eat, takes a stab at controlling the air we breathe and the water we drink, reserves to itself the right to draft men into the Armed Services, can knock down people’s homes for a Marina, is considering mandatory confinement / counseling and / or chemical castration for sexual predators, a women’ womb is somehow her own private domain, possessing more immunity than a diplomatic mission (diplomatic immunity doesn’t apply to murder)?
That’s one argument I’ve never heard a pro - abortion person answer.
Reply awaitng moderation. Wait for it Frank.
Frank –
Can the federal government force you to give up a kidney for someone in need of one? Should it be able to?
Most of the rest of your response is a litany of idiotic non-sequitors. The government does not control the food we it. It regulates the safety of the food put on the market because we decided a long time ago that buyer beware was not a good idea in a mass marketplace. Same goes with the drugs made available to us. The government does not control the air we breathe or the water we drink, it attmepts to protect us from polluted air and water for the sake of the common good (which apparently you don’t believe in).
The government does reserve the right to draft its citizens in defense of its country but only in times of national emergency. The government recognizes the extremely coersive nature of the draft which is why we have an all volunteer army. The punishment of prison is entirely based on the extreme force that the government can exert over the body and is only exercised after due process rights are granted as spelled out in the Constitution. I don’t agree with court mandated sterlization or castration and do not believe the government should have the right to force someone to be sterlized or castrated. Emminent domain is another issue entirely and the government is required to compensate a person for the loss of private property.
In other words, the human body is the object and means of the most intrusive forms of state coersive power. It is through the body that the government exercises its most extreme rights over its citizens, whether it’s to put the state’s life above the life of an individual citizen’s, through war, or to punish citizens, through prison and execution. Which is why the government’s ability to exercise this control, in our society at least, is so carefully regulated and controlled with a series of checks and balances in place to avoid or limit abuse. We do this because our founders recognized the role and vulnerability of the body within and to the exercise of state power.
A woman’s right to abortion is based on the fundamental limits placed on the state’s right to command or control the bodies of its citizens.
The short answer is this:
The federal government cannot force you to give up a kidney for someone in need of one. Should it be able to?
Here’s 154 words on the subject:
Most of your response is a litany of idiotic non-sequitors (oops) … In other words, the human body is the object and means of the most intrusive forms of state coersive power. It is through the body that the government exercises its most extreme rights over its citizens, whether it s to put the state s life above the life of an individual citizen s, through war, or to punish citizens, through prison and execution. Which is why the government s ability to exercise this control, in our society at least, is so carefully regulated and controlled with a series of checks and balances in place to avoid or limit abuse. We do this because our founders recognized the role and vulnerability of the body within and to the exercise of state power. A woman s right to abortion is based on the fundamental limits placed on the state s right to command or control the bodies of its citizens.
Couldn’t resist, eh? F*ck you.
Don’t you feel better? I speak your language.
Who’s got the fourth grade mentality now, monkey?
“Couldn t resist, eh? F*ck you.”
I take it you’ve abidicated on the point in question?
bfb, when are you going to make a real comment on this blog?
frameone: Your point about the kidney would be relevant if 1) Women were being forced to have abortions, or 2) Forced to have children.
You might also consider the idea of responsibilty: The sex act can quite often result in pregnancy. Why should that be the point where we allow women to be autonomous and independent? Shouldn’t be living with the consequences of their actions, as we all do?
Fire away!
“Your point about the kidney would be relevant …”
Having explained how it is relevant can I now expect you to answer the larger points I raised about state power and the body?
“Your point about the kidney would be relevant if 1) Women were being forced to have abortions, or 2) Forced to have children.”
You know here’s an interesting point. When abortions are legal women have a choice to have a child or have an abortion. When abortions are illegal, women are, for all intents and purposes, forced to have children if they get pregnant. Naturally, you’ll say that women aren’t forced to have sex but they should be forced to accept the consquences of having sex. But men aren’t forced to accept the consequences of having sex, are they? Why not?
Men accepted the consequences either when they marry or when they pay child support…
Perhaps you have men bear the children? I’m not sure we have the tecnology (or the biologicl prerequisites) to do that.
And while, I certainly wouldn’t want to tell women when to have sex, it is still true that behavior has consequences, or maybe I should say inevitable outcomes.
My wife and I tried for thirteen months to have our first child; other, first time and that’s it. That’s how it is. The “solution” to that is not to macerate the fetus.
“Men accepted the consequences either when they marry or when they pay child support& ”
Ya, Frank but men can also split during the pregnancy and never face any consequences under the law. Can the state force a man to marry a woman that he gets pregnant? And no, Frank, you don’t have men bear children. You give women the choice to make their own decisions about their own bodies. If they discover too late that sex with some loser was a bad decision, there is no moral reason why she should be forced to live with that decision while he isn’t.
So far you haven’t given a single intelligible answer to any of my comments. I’m understand now why it’s possible for you to say this: “That s one argument I ve never heard a pro - abortion person answer.” You just don’t WANT to hear it.
[...] 7 Feb 2006
Good Idea
Posted by tgirsch under Politics (edit this)
One-upping Oliver Willis), Publius thinks that the pro- [...]
Maybe there should be a Forced Childbirth Amendment to the US Constitution, to fully embrace the anti-choice doctrine. I am certain women across the land would be grateful for such an amendment in order to have their uteruses under the benevolent custody of our government.