South Dakota set to Ban Abortion
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
Beau
Well-known member
I'm not trying to stir things up; merely honestly asking the following question:
Frequently we hear rape/incest used as a basis for abortion; but does anyone have statistics on how frequently rape or incenst is the cause/reason for an abortion? I would have to hope that % of the total is very, very small.
Frequently we hear rape/incest used as a basis for abortion; but does anyone have statistics on how frequently rape or incenst is the cause/reason for an abortion? I would have to hope that % of the total is very, very small.
jomi822
Banned
BigVrunga said:
excellent point.
Now people will have to go to the clinic across the border to get the abortion done, superb job law makers. Any law that takes away personal choice i am against, and abortion is a choice that is as personal as choices get. Others may not support abortion but it is nobodys right to take that decision away from the mother. Think of yourself in a accidentally pregnant teen's position, imagine yourself as the surprise father. i prefer the mother have a choice over the packet of undeveloped non conscious soulless flesh.
the percentage of abortions tha are rape related is 2% i do not know if that figure includes incest.
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
great points.
i just do not see how people can ban ALL abortions? i can see banning ALL late term abortions (with the exception of a dying mother), but other than that it makes no sense.
i just do not see how people can ban ALL abortions? i can see banning ALL late term abortions (with the exception of a dying mother), but other than that it makes no sense.
The Experiment
Board Supporter
This ban is fucking stupid. Women who want abortions will just drive to Minnesota. Most of the abortions are done in Sioux Falls, which is maybe 45-60 minutes away from Minnesota. Minnesota definitely won't ban abortion any time soon, neither will Iowa.
Its just another "pat themselves on the back" for "religious morality." Even though they have the death penalty.
Its just another "pat themselves on the back" for "religious morality." Even though they have the death penalty.
Beau
Well-known member
I'm going to guess this won't be too well received; but here goes:
I believe life really does begin at conception; were that not the case - there would be nothing to "develop", nothing would exist other than (in this case) two separate elements (sperm and egg) and absent their combination, there would be no affect. On this basis, after conception - if allowed to run its normal course - I think we would all accept that the developing matter would eventually develop into a human being (absent such things as miscarriage).
The ability for the developing fetus to feel pain is another question; and I certainly can't/won't say.
My point, fundamentally, is that something triggers the beginning of the life cycle and I can't find a good argument to say that the triggering event is other than the point at which sperm and egg combine. Thus, life can commence absent the ability to experience discernable (to us) pain. A question becomes "under what conditions do we have the right to terminate a "life", even if it isn't one capable of feeling pain, living independently of its maternal source, etc."?
The point we all (I believe) would agree upon: After-the-fact birth control via abortion is far more complicated, expensive and (can be more) emotionally damaging than is preventative birth control. In other words, I doubt many would opt for this as an optimal method of birth control (sounds like the old "ounce of prevention" mind set). Due to its downsides (at least as I see them), the effects of abortion should be seriously contemplated, and in advance. I've read about many woman that claim to have a post traumatic stress-like reaction years later.
I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed. I am saying that I wouldn't want anyone I cared about to have to undergo one. My wife was adopted, and what may have been seen as a blob of tissue to one - ultimately became a wife and mother to others.
I'm not preaching - rather pointing out (as with everything) there is a lot more to be considered and there are very few easy solutions that exist.
Lastly, just to make it clear - I also believe in the death penalty under certain conditions.
I believe life really does begin at conception; were that not the case - there would be nothing to "develop", nothing would exist other than (in this case) two separate elements (sperm and egg) and absent their combination, there would be no affect. On this basis, after conception - if allowed to run its normal course - I think we would all accept that the developing matter would eventually develop into a human being (absent such things as miscarriage).
The ability for the developing fetus to feel pain is another question; and I certainly can't/won't say.
My point, fundamentally, is that something triggers the beginning of the life cycle and I can't find a good argument to say that the triggering event is other than the point at which sperm and egg combine. Thus, life can commence absent the ability to experience discernable (to us) pain. A question becomes "under what conditions do we have the right to terminate a "life", even if it isn't one capable of feeling pain, living independently of its maternal source, etc."?
The point we all (I believe) would agree upon: After-the-fact birth control via abortion is far more complicated, expensive and (can be more) emotionally damaging than is preventative birth control. In other words, I doubt many would opt for this as an optimal method of birth control (sounds like the old "ounce of prevention" mind set). Due to its downsides (at least as I see them), the effects of abortion should be seriously contemplated, and in advance. I've read about many woman that claim to have a post traumatic stress-like reaction years later.
I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed. I am saying that I wouldn't want anyone I cared about to have to undergo one. My wife was adopted, and what may have been seen as a blob of tissue to one - ultimately became a wife and mother to others.
I'm not preaching - rather pointing out (as with everything) there is a lot more to be considered and there are very few easy solutions that exist.
Lastly, just to make it clear - I also believe in the death penalty under certain conditions.
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
The Experiment said:
exactly.
brogers
Member
BigVrunga said:
Maybe they'll pat themselves on the back for outlawing killing unborn babies.
The number of people that try to justify the murder of the completely innocent and vulnerable unborn children is troubling to me.
Why is it ok to terminate it's life? Because it doesn't feel pain? Because it isn't "awake"? Might as well kill anyone who falls into a coma or anyone who is knocked unconscious ever. Doesn't matter that they will return to consciousness, just as a baby, I mean "blob of tissue" (it helps to dehumanize it, makes it easier to kill), will become conscious.
There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, there is however, a right to life.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
A blob of tissue isnt human, IMO. It posesses the genetic material to become human, but up until a certain point a woman should have the right to choose. You can argue this point with me until the sun comes up, but in the end the status of the fetus as human/not human is completely subjective. Halting the development of a 3 week old fetus is not the same as killing someone in their sleep.
Regardless of whether the fetus is human or not, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Its a moral decision that should be left up to the woman, and she should be provided with enough education and alternative choices to make her own well informed decision with what to do with her body. The government should not be delegating morality
Do I think abortion is right? Not entirely. My beliefs are in line with Beau's in that I dont think its a decision that should be taken lightly. Accidents happen, and within a certain time frame abortion should be a safe option. Taking away the freedom of choice wont result in less abortions. Will kids stop having sex? No. Will more girls become disfigured and suffer horrible injuries because out of desperation they head to seedy underground abortion clinics to end a pregnancy? Yes. This is the case everywhere that abortion has been made illegal.
A government telling a woman she can't terminate a pregnancy that is a result of rape or incest is downright twisted, and boarderline evil if you ask me.
There is also a right to a persons liberty and pursuit of happiness. How are you upholding the right to liberty, or their pursuit of happiness by taking away their right to govern their own body? Its a double edged sword, and even if you and I both agree that its wrong, its not our decision to make.
BV
DaWarw
New member
BigVrunga said:
Actually those cells are a human. Check the DNA of those cells and guess what will be found? Human DNA!
It isn't legislating morality when it is murder. A convicted murderer can say that senators are legislating morality by outlawing it. What would you say then? It has nothing to do with morality when dealing with murder. There is a natural law that all humans need to abide by.
brogers
Member
BigVrunga said:
Life is a continuing process, from conception until death. It is a human from the moment it is conceived, until the day it dies. It isn't a dog, cat, or monkey at any phase in between. It is a human being.
Also, I don't believe the right to life is a subjective matter.
The murder of millions of completely innocent unborn babies is downright twisted, evil, and totally barbaric, possibly the worst act the human race has ever committed, if you ask me.
brogers
Member
BigVrunga said:
I'm afraid you can't have liberty or happiness, if you aren't first allowed to live. I guess you're suggesting those rights trump the right to life. Pretty disturbing.
Govern their own body? You've got to be kidding me! The child didn't just impose itself on the mother. To the contrary, the mother imposed the child on herself. They govern their own body right into conceiving a child.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
That is a completely twisted argument. Yes, the fetus contains human DNA. Up until a certain point, it is completely dependant on its mother's biology for survival. A pregnant woman can't say "I didnt want this baby, you take it" at 4 weeks of pregnancy. If she miscarried, that blob of tissue would die immediately.
Its not the same a someone murdering a living, fully developed human being. I would also think that aborting an unborn child after its major organs and brain were developed would be wrong and should not be allowed.
People should stop concerning themselves with what other people do with their bodies, souls, and minds. If there really is a god and he/she/it really feels that abortion is murder, than that woman can answer for herself on the other side.
BV
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Are you condoning that a woman who becomes pregnant through rape should be forced to have a child?
Abortion isnt a simple issue. Its serious choice that should be left up to the woman. By taking away this choice, you are not saving a life, it will just mean that there are no women who desire abortions having them in clinics and hospitals.
Think about it. By making drugs illegal, is the government decreasing the amount of drug-related abuse and crime? It may be a poor analogy, but its just another case of the government controlling a persons freedom of choice.
jomi822
Banned
DaWarw said:
cut off my arm. check the dna and it will come back human. possessing dna doesnt mean you have a soul, memories, consciousness, etc.
the bottom line is that whatever your views are, you cannot take the choice away from the mother. let her make the decision it is NO ONE ELSES.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
I do believe that this 'tissue blob' will become a human, and after a certain amount of time in its mothers womb is human. This human life is of course valuable. I defintely have a problem with abortions performed after a certain stage of pregnancy. I can condone and accept limits on abortion if the restritions are clear. Such as not allowing pregnancy to be terminated when a woman passes the 3rd month of pregnancy, or allowing abortions when a woman's life is endangered or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
I dont think abortion is ever the right choice for a person to make, but it is a womans choice to make it.
BV
I dont think abortion is ever the right choice for a person to make, but it is a womans choice to make it.
BV
DaWarw
New member
BigVrunga said:
What about newborns? They are completely dependent on the mother for survival.
Once again, your not taking into account the child. That's equivalent to doing something wrong and saying "Well if it's really wrong the person will pay for it in the afterlife." What about the person who has been wronged?
brogers
Member
BigVrunga said:
You're right it's a poor analogy. When someone takes a drug, it only affects that person. When a pregnant woman ends the life of her unborn child, she is making a choice for two, not one.
Yeah I'm sure some people are going to be getting "underground" abortions if it's illegal. However, if they start prosecuting people (they are breaking the law now), especially if they start charging them with murder, I'm willing to bet that's gonna stop, fast.
I can't say I really feel the need to protect any woman who dies because of a botched illegal abortion, I do however, feel the need to protect the 1 million+ unborn children being killed each year in the United States.
Do you have any idea how many abortions are because of rape? We're talking 1%. Also, I didn't realize rape condemns an innocent child that had nothing to do with the crime to death.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
No, they're not. A newborn can be raised and nurtured by anyone. It does not need its mothers heart to pump its blood. It has thoughts, and a consciousness. A newborn is an individual. Humans are, by definition, individuals. NOT symbiotes.
In a sense, I am taking into account the potential child that may exist. I would hope there would be a damn good reason for a woman wanting to terminate her pregenancy, and perhaps its because she's not mentally or financially capable of bearing and raising a child. Not all women want to be preganant. Again, it boils down to the government deciding what a woman can do with her body.
Last edited:
brogers
Member
jomi822 said:
Your severed arm is not alive, it is dead, like a dead person, there is no life in it.
The bottom line is the government doesn't get to choose which Americans get the right to life, and which don't. We all do.
The mother's decision and no one elses? You're right, it's her decision to have sex or not. She can decide what she does, and she's going to have to live with the consequences of her decision. I'm glad you're a crusader for personal choice, how about giving the child a chance to make a choice?
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Just like it stops people from doing other stuff that's illegal, right? If someone really wants an abortion, they'll find a way to get it.
Perhaps the government should focus its efforts on educating young people about birth control then. Or delegating funding toward a safe an effective way for humans to control pregnancy. If 1 million + women are getting abortions every year, then this government that's doing such a great job that it now thinks it has a right to decide sensitive ethical issues for people is doing a piss-poor job on spreading the message about safe sex and birth control. If they really wanted to reduce the number or abortions, then thats where they should be spending their time.
Then I guess that woman should have a right to kill her rapist then. She didnt ask to get pregnant, the unborn child didnt ask to live, but the rapist decided to make that choice for both of them. Seems pretty fair to me. Put one human on the Earth that nobody asked for, take one away.
BV
BigVrunga
Well-known member
When a law infringes on a persons right to choose what to do with their body, it shouldnt be a law.
Maybe. Drug related crimes dont seem to be going away, though. Those penalties are pretty stiff. Education is the real key toward changing the behavior of a society.
At least we agree on something
Beau
Well-known member
A few more thoughts from the one who initially stirred the pot: I try to lead my family a day at a time, and do so in ways consistent with who I am. In my case, that happens to involve (and hopefully reflect) a relationship with God. Mind you, I fail far too often. In fact, some times my failures are significant; and for that I ask for forgiveness. I do not like to be embarrassed by what I've done. The best situation is clearly to avoid putting yourself in situations you would later seriously regret. I think unwanted pregnancy qualifies as one of those situations.
I've tried to raise my sons and daughter to respect not only who they are, but also who others are, and to try to avoid "doing the wrong things" and try to "do the right things". Does this involve my imparting morality? Yes, for me to do otherwise would be grossly in neglect of what a father is called to do. Does that reflect my relationship with God? For me, it has to.
What I try to impart involves how my sons should treat women; not as pieces of tail, but as human beings, and with the same respect they would afford their mother or sister. It also involves teaching my daughter about the way guys think (I've been one for some time now).
Do things happen? Yes. Do we need to take care of things when they do? Yes, again - but hopefully in ways that we can live with; and without regret.
For me and my family, I hope we are never faced with an abortion crossroad. I hope my decisions would always reflect what I believe I stand for. I have to assume responsibility for my family, one decision at a time. Morality can only truly happen one decision at a time, and one family at a time. In trying to do the "right thing", I frequently have to do things I wouldn't chose to do, or avoid things I might be drawn towards.
It isn't enough that we not knowingly try to put ourselves in these situations; we really have to plan to avoid them.
Regardless of the legality, there are many things we could do. Legality doesn't make it right, nor wrong; we need to look elsewhere for that.
Sorry for the sermon. As one of the older contingent, I'm just trying to share a bit of what I've gleened in the past; realizing that makes it right only for me.
I've tried to raise my sons and daughter to respect not only who they are, but also who others are, and to try to avoid "doing the wrong things" and try to "do the right things". Does this involve my imparting morality? Yes, for me to do otherwise would be grossly in neglect of what a father is called to do. Does that reflect my relationship with God? For me, it has to.
What I try to impart involves how my sons should treat women; not as pieces of tail, but as human beings, and with the same respect they would afford their mother or sister. It also involves teaching my daughter about the way guys think (I've been one for some time now).
Do things happen? Yes. Do we need to take care of things when they do? Yes, again - but hopefully in ways that we can live with; and without regret.
For me and my family, I hope we are never faced with an abortion crossroad. I hope my decisions would always reflect what I believe I stand for. I have to assume responsibility for my family, one decision at a time. Morality can only truly happen one decision at a time, and one family at a time. In trying to do the "right thing", I frequently have to do things I wouldn't chose to do, or avoid things I might be drawn towards.
It isn't enough that we not knowingly try to put ourselves in these situations; we really have to plan to avoid them.
Regardless of the legality, there are many things we could do. Legality doesn't make it right, nor wrong; we need to look elsewhere for that.
Sorry for the sermon. As one of the older contingent, I'm just trying to share a bit of what I've gleened in the past; realizing that makes it right only for me.
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
there is a great point made that alot of the abortions that do take place are not due to rapes or incest.....but that is NOT the main point here. its not the reason of why....its just a reason of should.
to say that a person should have ABSOLUTLY NO CONTROL over their decisions is wrong. i think that abortions should be regulated and not given in excess, but as big veruga has mentioned, it should be a womans choice. why....who takes care of unwanted babies.....the single mother......when it comes down to it, the mom is the only one that is almost always guaranteed to be there (and even then, there are alot of unfit mothers). alot of men sit back on their bibles and say what they want to say, but when it comes down to it, they are not women. they do not give birth, nurse,etc......
i've noticed there is alot of mention of laws.....why in the world do you care about why laws are so important when casting your own views....??? just becase a law is a law doesnt mean that its right......
the blob of dna, the undeveloped fetus.....is not a child.....is not, is not.....is not.
to say that a person should have ABSOLUTLY NO CONTROL over their decisions is wrong. i think that abortions should be regulated and not given in excess, but as big veruga has mentioned, it should be a womans choice. why....who takes care of unwanted babies.....the single mother......when it comes down to it, the mom is the only one that is almost always guaranteed to be there (and even then, there are alot of unfit mothers). alot of men sit back on their bibles and say what they want to say, but when it comes down to it, they are not women. they do not give birth, nurse,etc......
i've noticed there is alot of mention of laws.....why in the world do you care about why laws are so important when casting your own views....??? just becase a law is a law doesnt mean that its right......
the blob of dna, the undeveloped fetus.....is not a child.....is not, is not.....is not.
doggzj
Board Supporter
As part of the debate team in high school, these types of debates always interest me. My views are somewhat in the middle, but that's not why I'm posting. If this were a debate contest, brogers team would be dominating. They have made a point that has yet to be refuted (a woman making a choice).
Gimpy, your whole post has already been replied to and answered four hours ago
Gimpy, your whole post has already been replied to and answered four hours ago
doggzj
Board Supporter
I feel I should make a point which makes this this whole point pretty much impossible to come to a correct answer:
Men and Women are not the same.
Gimpy, BV, I have a question for you. In current US law, if a guy gets some girl pregnant, and he wants an abortion, and she doesn't, he is screwed. Also, If he gets the girl pregnant, and he really wants to keep the baby, and she doesn't, he is screwed. Too add insult to injury, if the girl keeps a baby the man does not want, he's forced to pay for it for 18 years! The man has no reproductive rights.
So, how is that fair?
Men and Women are not the same.
Gimpy, BV, I have a question for you. In current US law, if a guy gets some girl pregnant, and he wants an abortion, and she doesn't, he is screwed. Also, If he gets the girl pregnant, and he really wants to keep the baby, and she doesn't, he is screwed. Too add insult to injury, if the girl keeps a baby the man does not want, he's forced to pay for it for 18 years! The man has no reproductive rights.
So, how is that fair?
BigVrunga
Well-known member
It isnt fair. I guess it isnt fair that a woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy and a pain you or I could never know to deliver a child, either.
Nope, they're not. And that's the way it is. .
Nope, he doesnt. All a man does for the reproductive process is donate the Y chromosome, biologically everything else is left up to the female. IMO, a man should be held responsible for their children regardless of whether they 'wanted' the child or not. A man can decide where to put his sperm, a woman can't decide to get pregnant.
BV
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Doogj i dont understand? Brogers side of the argument thinks that a woman shouldnt have the choice? Just curious...I was never a debater in HS/college wanted to know how you arrived at that conclusion.
They've had very good points, for sure, They definitely havent been advocating choice though.
BV
jomi822
Banned
brogers said:
I didnt know a priest had entered the building. there is always a reason a woman CHOOSES to have an abortion it is not simply so they can "avoid consquences".
The teenage girl who gets pregnant can now no longer live a normal life, probably along with the father. The pregnant woman with no job and no money is screwed. the single woman with no husband or father figure whatsoever is screwed. the woman with a full time career must give that up. two hormonal teenagers in the moment are no concerned about consquences. the primary funtion of any organism is to reproduce and its going to happen whether you are aware of the consquences or not.
whether or not you agree that the unborn fetus is a child or not you cant decided to legislate the woman's decisions.
you simply cannot take away the personal decision of a fully operation conscious breathing eating thinking human woman and tell her she is not allowed to terminate the development of a packet of cells inside her. she must live with that in her for 9 months. she must raise that child no matter her financial status, or whether there is a husband, or whether there is security.
stop being ignorant people, this isnt about your beliefs, its about the pregnant woman's. im sure she does not care what you think, she wonly wants the decision.
jarhead
Well-known member
The bottom line is that this country is not supposed to have laws based on religion, because there are many different faiths in this country. When you start that, you are forcing one's beliefs onto another. The debate about when life begins is decided differently by different faiths. By not giving women the choice, you are making it for them, based on your beliefs. And if the women is christian, she'll have the opportunity to make an appropriate choice based on her beliefs. Too many people in this country feel the need to tell other people how they should live their lives and what is moral. And way too damn many of these people are lawmakers.
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
doggzj said:
i completely understand where you are coming from and it is a great point. that isnt fair for a guy to have to pay child support for a child he never wanted. that is sad where the guy wants to keep the baby and the girl aborts it without any concern to his feelings. it really isnt fair. abortion is too complicated of a situation to ever draw a clear cut decision about.
as mentioned before.....alot of times the woman is stuck raising the child by herself and no amount of child support money can help ease the burden of waking up in the early morning, or driving them to preschool before work, etc.... thats also what isnt fair.
all that said, people need to be mature about it all and take simple precautions such as condoms and birth control if they dont want kids, and if an accident does occur....then think really carefully about your decisions. dont take it lightly. people that take no contraceptives and "magically" get pregnant due to wrecklessness, should not get an abortion.......thats just my opinion though. as i mentioned also....abortions should be given, but they should be highly regulated...i dont see why one person could possible need more than one abortion in their lifetime if they are responsible people....
brogers
Member
jomi822 said:
A possible consequence of having sex is conception. Having an abortion is avoiding that consequence, that isn't my opinion, that is simply factual. I'm hardly a priest, and I don't know why it would matter if I was.
All those instances you mentioned, are just people finding reasons to avoid the consequences of their actions. If she doesn't want to get pregnant, use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really that simple.
You keep telling me I can't legislate a woman's decision. We legislate 'decisions' all the time. Every time a criminal commits an illegal act it is his decision. The government is supposed to make laws to protect our rights. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?
Her decision doesn't just affect her! Whatever you want to call it, baby, fetus, blob of tissue, it is HUMAN LIFE. It is a human life from the moment it is conceived until the day it dies.
Stop being ignorant? What the hell am I ignorant of? It isn't about my beliefs? I struggle to respond as you just seem to ramble and make vague statements.
jarhead
Well-known member
brogers said:
This is the whole issue- YOU call it human life, others do not. Just because you call it life does not make it so. The point of when life begins is the whole debate. If people don't agree with your beliefs and ideas about when life begins, you can't legislate it into them, nor do you have the right. You have every right to feel the way you do, but so do others. Why is it so difficult for people who are against abortion to realize that nobody is forcing YOU to get one? Make your choice, let other people make theirs.
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
jarhead said:
:goodpost:
brogers
Member
jarhead said:
Great point, I suppose if I don't think anyone wants to murder me, I shouldn't care if it's legalized, because it doesn't affect me, other people will die, but that's not something that should matter.
It isn't a belief that life starts at conception, it is simply the truth. If that "blob of tissue" isn't human, I challenge you to tell me what it is. We are all merely groupings of cells. Killing an unborn baby because it doesn't have characteristics of fully developed humans is comparable to the Nazi programs euthanizing mentally and physically handicapped people, after all, they were burden on the people who had to take care of them (sound familiar?).
jarhead
Well-known member
brogers said:
Wow, my bad. I guess you just solved the "life starts at conception" debate. I didn't know it was that simple. If it is simple fact as you say, then why the big nationwide debate ? All you have done is spout more pro life rhetoric. Look, I respect that its your point of view, but that's all it is-your point of view. There aren't any "simple facts" with this subject. And by the way , no I don't think a "blob of cells" is a human being any more than I think a pile of bricks is a building.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
You keep comparing abortion to murdering a developed human being, this is not the case. A zygote is no more a complete human than a few cells from my skin are a complete human.
By your method of reasoning, now that cloning technology is becoming more viable, in a few years nobody should be allowed to get any type of surgery that involves tissue removal. After all, those cells could potentially be a full grown human, if grown in the right conditions.