South Dakota Passes Bill Banning All Abortions Except If Woman Is In Danger Of Dying

[Nienna]

You asked me if I advocate legalizing prostitution.

As far as abortion, I said it will happen legal or not, and I think the numbers will be the same, just not reported.

I doubt the number would be the same. If abortions were illegal, the stigma and fear for safety would act as a deterrent for some (otherwise ambivalent) women's wish to obtain one.

But, even assuming the numbers WERE the same, does it follow that the practice should be legal? If we are going to give something the legitimizing stamp of lawfulness, shouldn't it be the child's right to live, as opposed to the mother's "right" to comfort?

 

[manu1959]

people will fly to california for their abortions and human death penalty executions and fly to nevada for their prostitutes.....

 

[dilloduck]

You asked me if I advocate legalizing prostitution.

As far as abortion, I said it will happen legal or not, and I think the numbers will be the same, just not reported.

Laws never stop anyone from doing anything---they just create consequences to think about before engaging in the behavior that the law is regulating. Harsher consequences at least make people think twice or maybe three times before comitting the crime. Hesitation may just stop some of them from proceding.

 

[Bonnie]

I doubt the number would be the same. If abortions were illegal, the stigma and fear for safety would act as a deterrent for some (otherwise ambivalent) women's wish to obtain one.

But, even assuming the numbers WERE the same, does it follow that the practice should be legal? If we are going to give something the legitimizing stamp of lawfulness, shouldn't it be the child's right to live, as opposed to the mother's "right" to comfort?

That really is it in a nutshell. Making something legal under the assumption that "people will do it anyway" is a very poor excuse to legalize murder. True people will do it anyway but someone needs to stand up for what is wrong and that includes a government which conducts itself according to the constitution and under the auspice of fairness and humanity.

 

[Mr. P]

Laws never stop anyone from doing anything---they just create consequences to think about before engaging in the behavior that the law is regulating. Harsher consequences at least make people think twice or maybe three times before comitting the crime. Hesitation may just stop some of them from proceding.

Yeah consequences, it works for prostitution and drugs too..Guess yer right.

Folks it ain't going away, no matter what the SCOTUS does.
Will it be reduced? I don't know, as I said those numbers will not be reported, but you can sleep will just thinking they are, I guess.

As Mariner said in another thread, this is a social problem, not a legal one.
We've all heard it, "you can't legislate morality"...It's true, accept it and deal with it.

 

[Nienna]

Yeah consequences, it works for prostitution and drugs too..Guess yer right.

Folks it ain't going away, no matter what the SCOTUS does.
Will it be reduced? I don't know, as I said those numbers will not be reported, but you can sleep will just thinking they are, I guess.

As Mariner said in another thread, this is a social problem, not a legal one.
We've all heard it, "you can't legislate morality"...It's true, accept it and deal with it.

While it's true that you can't legislate morality, it's also true that all our laws have a moral basis. One action is preferred over another; intrinsic in the hierarchy of preference is our judgment of "right" versus "wrong."

Under your reasoning above, why should anything be illegal? People will always do wrong things. However, some things, such as the right to be alive, are held so dear that they deserve whatever protection or deterrent legislation can afford.

 

[Mr. P]

While it's true that you can't legislate morality, it's also true that all our laws have a moral basis. One action is preferred over another; intrinsic in the hierarchy of preference is our judgment of "right" versus "wrong."

Under your reasoning above, why should anything be illegal? People will always do wrong things. However, some things, such as the right to be alive, are held so dear that they deserve whatever protection or deterrent legislation can afford.

We are on two differant pages, mom. I'm not arguing for or against abortion, I think you are.

I'm saying you're not going to stop it, and the numbers of them will probably be about the same, that's all.

 

[Nienna]

We are on two differant pages, mom. I'm not arguing for or against abortion, I think you are.

I'm saying you're not going to stop it, and the numbers of them will probably be about the same, that's all.

Over 1.3 million abortions are performed annually in the U.S. I really can't believe that anywhere near that number were performed illegally before Roe. As stated before, the stigma of illegality and the fear of poorly performed procedures surely acted as deterrents for many women who may have considered it.

If back-alley abortions were so dangerous as the liberals made them seem, surely over a million of them could not have been performed without injury which would have necessitated hospital treatment.

 

[Working Man]

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Don't worry, when the pendulum swings the other way, Hillary will find a bigger hole,,, loop, furlined, or otherwise,, and get the ban overturned..

YOU WILL NOT WIN ALL YOU ANTI ABORTION FOLKS>> CAUSE in the long run, the women will vote the conservative/bible toters out..
Even many of the ones that voted for Bush.

Don't get me wrong, you all have a right to voice yor opinions.. BUt, the fact of the matter is,, those with a vagina don't like others tellings them what to do with it, and they vote..

 

[Mariner]

"Of course I have a "right" to my own body. But I don't have a "right" to kill someone else, someone who is innocent as far as human innocence can go.

That is why abortion should be restricted, to protect the baby's right to live."

But it's a little more complicated than that. The "baby's" health depends on the mom making a certain set of choices, e.g. stopping medications, stopping smoking, taking vitamins. If the mom doesn't want to do those things, how (in a free society) are you going to force her to do them?

Concerning the South Dakota law--it's too extreme. It's awful to imagine forcing a woman to carry her rapist's--or father's--baby to term. Imagine the rapist seeking parental rights after he gets out of jail?! What happens when the child wants to meet his father?

As for back-alley statistics--by their nature, we can't know the numbers. We do know enormous numbers of women did get sick and even die. That was the impetus behind Roe v. Wade. Why not just look at the contemporary situation in South America, where abortion may be legalized because of the severity of back-alley complications?

I think it would be far more productive to debate ways to help young people (boys and girls) to make better choices about sex and birth control. My wife's a school nurse in Cambridge, and has these conversations with teens all the time. There are major issues of self-esteem, hope for the future, etc. in kids who recklessly have unprotected sex and end up pregnant. My wife (who is Catholic) has a "Born Again Virgins" club for teens who have agreed to abstain. But she is strongly pro-contraception and good sex-education, because she is all too aware of the myths around pregnancy and STDs in the younger population. The current conservative tactic of opposing teaching real info about pregnancy and sex, and opposing providing contraception, seems guaranteed to help spread STDs and to increase teen pregnancy--and therefore abortion--rates.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

"Of course I have a "right" to my own body. But I don't have a "right" to kill someone else, someone who is innocent as far as human innocence can go.

That is why abortion should be restricted, to protect the baby's right to live."

But it's a little more complicated than that. The "baby's" health depends on the mom making a certain set of choices, e.g. stopping medications, stopping smoking, taking vitamins. If the mom doesn't want to do those things, how (in a free society) are you going to force her to do them?

Concerning the South Dakota law--it's too extreme. It's awful to imagine forcing a woman to carry her rapist's--or father's--baby to term. Imagine the rapist seeking parental rights after he gets out of jail?! What happens when the child wants to meet his father?

As for back-alley statistics--by their nature, we can't know the numbers. We do know enormous numbers of women did get sick and even die. That was the impetus behind Roe v. Wade. Why not just look at the contemporary situation in South America, where abortion may be legalized because of the severity of back-alley complications?

I think it would be far more productive to debate ways to help young people (boys and girls) to make better choices about sex and birth control. My wife's a school nurse in Cambridge, and has these conversations with teens all the time. There are major issues of self-esteem, hope for the future, etc. in kids who recklessly have unprotected sex and end up pregnant. My wife (who is Catholic) has a "Born Again Virgins" club for teens who have agreed to abstain. But she is strongly pro-contraception and good sex-education, because she is all too aware of the myths around pregnancy and STDs in the younger population. The current conservative tactic of opposing teaching real info about pregnancy and sex, and opposing providing contraception, seems guaranteed to help spread STDs and to increase teen pregnancy--and therefore abortion--rates.

Mariner.

Armed robbery and kidnapping are quite dangerous too---if we could just give the perps whatever cash they needed -poof--problem solved !

 

[Mariner]

you going to persuade the average teenager who is having unprotected sex to stop?

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

you going to persuade the average teenager who is having unprotected sex to stop?

Mariner.

By informing them of the consequences should the sex result in disease or pregnancy.

 

[GotZoom]

you going to persuade the average teenager who is having unprotected sex to stop?

Mariner.

The same way you persuade them to do their best, work hard in school, be honest, not steal, show up on time, follow traffic laws, not beat people up, etc.

 

[Shattered]

The same way you persuade them to do their best, work hard in school, be honest, not steal, show up on time, follow traffic laws, not beat people up, etc.

Parental responsibility? Say it ain't so...

 

[GotZoom]

Parental responsibility? Say it ain't so...

Shhhhhh......you know parents can't be held responsible for their kids actions and upbringing! This is the 2000s.....kids have rights..they can do what they want.

 

[acludem]

The most likely scenario with this law is that it will be thrown out by the federal court, that decision will be upheld by the Court of Appeals, and then SCOTUS will simply refuse to hear the case because the lower courts agree and the precedent is already set. Sorry to all you anti-choice types, but that really is what likely will happen.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

The most likely scenario with this law is that it will be thrown out by the federal court, that decision will be upheld by the Court of Appeals, and then SCOTUS will simply refuse to hear the case because the lower courts agree and the precedent is already set. Sorry to all you anti-choice types, but that really is what likely will happen.

acludem

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that at least 4 justices will vote to hear the case.

And what specifically do you not like about federalism?

 

[Abbey Normal]

The most likely scenario with this law is that it will be thrown out by the federal court, that decision will be upheld by the Court of Appeals, and then SCOTUS will simply refuse to hear the case because the lower courts agree and the precedent is already set. Sorry to all you anti-choice types, but that really is what likely will happen.

acludem

Still using the misleading, misogynistic and sanitized term "anti-choice" to describe those who are against abortion? I thought this was already obvious, but I'll state it anyway. We are all in favor of choice; the choice to refrain from sex if you are not ready to have a child. Or to use highly-effective contraception every time, and if it fails, carry that baby to term. Once that woman conceives, like it or not, there are two people involved, and the abortion crowd doesn't care that this revered "choice" is denied to he/she who has the most to lose- the one whose life is about to be snuffed out.

We are not the anti-choice types. We are the anti-abortion types. The anti-snuffing out an innocent life types. Take your pick, but at least call it what it is.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that at least 4 justices will vote to hear the case.

And what specifically do you not like about federalism?[/QUOTE]

You know Jeff I was going to ask him the same but then realized it's not worth the effort.

Because the true answer lies in the fact that it's not federalism he dislikes, it's really the ban on abortion he loathes.