Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Freakin' South Dakota.Follow

#1 Feb 24 2006 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
Hrm.
Do you think this will really lead to overturning Roe v. Wade? Do you think Planned Parenthood is being rope-a-doped? Time for another Assylum Abortion Thread (AATTM)!
#3 Feb 24 2006 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,735 posts
Baron von AngstyCoder wrote:
I'm glad no one aborted the asylum.



Could have at LEAST retried.


Better than failing, I guess.
#4 Feb 24 2006 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's a good question. If it really is an intended challenge to Roe, in my opinion it's an awkward one. By disallowing exceptions in the case of danger to the mother's health (a different standard than "to save her life"), they've allowed a major loophole for a district appeals court to overturn it.

It may be useful, though, in that it gives Planned Parenthood a chance to go on the record with some reasons why a second-trimester abortion may be desired in some cases - late-detected birth defects, problems with the pregnancy itself, etc.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Feb 24 2006 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'm the wrong one to ask that; but in the case of, for example, ancephaly, where the baby would not live long after birth, I think an argument could be made that aborting would spare the parents a few months of pain.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Feb 24 2006 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
AngstCoder wrote:
Soooo... birth defects makes it OK to have an abortion?


In this case birth defects mean development problems that will ultimately kill the infant and/or endanger the mother.
#8 Feb 24 2006 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Can someone break down Section 3 for me. I think I kind of get it but its almost like reading a word where you know where it means but if someone asked you, you would have to hum and haw about explaining it.

The Legislature finds that, based upon the evidence derived from thirty years of legalized abortions in this country, the interests of pregnant mothers protected under the South Dakota Bill of Rights have been adversely affected as abortions terminate the constitutionally protected fundamental interest of the pregnant mother in her relationship with her child and abortions are performed without a truly informed or voluntary consent or knowing waiver of the woman's rights and interests. The Legislature finds that the state has a duty to protect the pregnant mother's fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child.


Every other part was clear forward

-as soon as a egg is fertilized it is human. Trying to define it legally when it is "human" at the earliest possible time, conception.

-human rights apply to both born and unborn human beings. Now that we have defined an embryo as human we are clearly emphasizing that it has the same rights as every other human.

-emphasize the risk to the mother both mentally and physically.

-change certain aspects of law and define certain things to help support this particular piece of legislation.

-reinforce that birth control and contraceptives are ok.

-the they cover there *** by saying that if any part of this bill is found to be unconstituitional that it doesnt affect the other parts legal status.

____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#9 Feb 24 2006 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
Can someone break down Section 3 for me. I think I kind of get it but its almost like reading a word where you know where it means but if someone asked you, you would have to hum and haw about explaining it.

The Legislature finds that, based upon the evidence derived from thirty years of legalized abortions in this country, the interests of pregnant mothers protected under the South Dakota Bill of Rights have been adversely affected as abortions terminate the constitutionally protected fundamental interest of the pregnant mother in her relationship with her child and abortions are performed without a truly informed or voluntary consent or knowing waiver of the woman's rights and interests. The Legislature finds that the state has a duty to protect the pregnant mother's fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child.

I take it to mean that South Dakota law includes certain protections for mothers and their children, and that based on some sort of analysis of abortion cases (probably psychological questionnaires and anectdotal evidence), these protections have been compromised because pregnant mothers are unwittingly losing their relationship with their unborn children because they don't fully know what they're doing when they have abortions.
#11 Feb 24 2006 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Why would you think that?

In response to Bhodi's question: South Dakota's lawmakers are saying that they know what's better for women than the women involved do. It's a fairly patriarchial point of view, out of fashion for some time now.

Maybe they're into the retro thing, I dunno.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Feb 24 2006 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, the example I gave was ancephaly, a condition similar to spinal bifida in which the brain case doesn't close properly during development. Ancephalics survive fine in the womb, but cannot survive without heroic assistance once born. The condition is usually diagnosable at about twenty weeks.

Let me be clear, also, in my statement that this is an example of an obvious (to some) loophole in the law as written. I'm not arguing that birth defects are the only reason abortion should be available; or even that everyone carrying a fetus with a fatal birth defect would or should abort.

But, whatever. If you want to see me as some sort of neo-Kevorkian, I can't stop you.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Feb 24 2006 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
AngstyCoder wrote:
There are tons of people randomly deciding what they think is an acceptable quality of life, some of whom don't think any kind of birth defect will give the person any kind of enjoyable life, and thus they should be aborted. Yeah, it sounds out there, but I wanted to define our range here.


Yeah I liked GATTACA too. I do aggree with you there are some people in this world that are hung up on the smallest problems.

#16 Feb 24 2006 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Well all I can says is

This bill + Faith based initiatives teaching abstinence - any focus on safe sex = increase in teen pregnancies & single mothers.

____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#17 Feb 24 2006 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#18 Feb 24 2006 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!
QFT.
#19 Feb 24 2006 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Samira wrote:
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!


Then 20 yrs later and more tax dollars than you care to think about the state executes the person.

We come full circle.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#20 Feb 24 2006 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Samira wrote:
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!


So how long until gbaji the Recyclopedia is in here spewing his rebuttal?

#21 Feb 24 2006 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,784 posts
Samira wrote:
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!


/nod


Looks like somebody has been reading "Freakonomics".

Smiley: wink
#22 Feb 24 2006 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
baelnic the Braindead wrote:
Samira wrote:
Increase in teen pregnancies and (resentful) single mothers = increase in crime in 15 years or so. Hallelujah!


So how long until gbaji the Recyclopedia is in here spewing his rebuttal?


Lol! How about right now?

While the basic statement is valid, historical data does not show that legalizing abortion decreases the rate of teen pregnancy. If anything, the data shows the opposite.

Although in this case, it's pretty much impossible to be sure of the social effects of legalized abortion on teen pregnancy rates. It's possible that the sexual revolution would have resulted in dramaticaly higher rates (something like 20 times higher today then 40 years ago) whether abortion was legalized or not. It's possible that by legalizing abortion, we've at least blunted the effects of a higher rate of pregnancy which was going to occur anyway. It's also possible that by legalizing abortion, we helped encourage teens to have sex more often and that has resulted in higher pregnancy rates.


So. Not so much a refutation of the statement, but a refutation of the implied context of the statement. At least, I'm *assuming* that by making the statement, you're suggesting that banning abortions would result in a greater total number of children born to unwed teen mothers, which in turn would result in a higher percentage of angry poor kids in the next generation? If that assumption is correct, then yeah, I don't agree with it. Because there's absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and at least *some* evidence that the opposite is the case.


Again. It *could* be coincidence that during the same time period that we legalized abortions, the rates of teen pregnancies and unwed births just happened to go up. Or there might be a causal relationship between them, in which case you're not just wrong, but dead wrong. In either case, it's definately not wrong to question your logic, since there's literally no evidence to back it up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Feb 24 2006 at 10:14 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
I've said all I have to say on this subject a million times. I could point out little points of logic that Gbaji is missing, but I simply don't have the heart to do it.

I'm ill over this, simply ill. This law WILL be upheld with Scalito on the SCOTUS. Other states will take that as their cue to pass similar laws, and women absolutely, 100%, no doubt whatsoever, guaranteed will once again be using coat hangers and dying as a result. And I will be the one cleaning up the mess, as I find myself dealing with deathly ill and/or infertile women as a result of botched illegal abortions.

Oh, how we have progressed. We're saving theoretical people at the expense of actual people.

Now taking bets on when the first woman will die under this law...





Edited, Fri Feb 24 22:15:33 2006 by Ambrya
#24 Feb 24 2006 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Um... Let me add something here before heading off for the weekend. While I mention "teen pregnancy rates", the significant factor is actually "unwed teen pregnancy rates". The overal rates of teen pregnancy has actually gone down slightly over the last 40 years or so, but the rate of teen's getting married has dropped at a much faster rate.

So. While more teens were having children back in the day, they were more likely to be married and raise their children in an environment where they were less likely to be angry troublemakers. Today, the rate of those poor angry kids is much higher, simply because while we're allowing teens to have abortions, at the same time, we've removed social pressures that they shouldn't be involving themselves in risky sexual behavior unless they're married. It's simple math that when your rate of unmarried teen births rises from 12% to 80%, but your overall rate of teen pregnancy only drops from 80% to 50%, you're going to end up with a lot more children born into disadantage over time...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Feb 24 2006 at 10:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
I've said all I have to say on this subject a million times. I could point out little points of logic that Gbaji is missing, but I simply don't have the heart to do it.

I'm ill over this, simply ill. This law WILL be upheld with Scalito on the SCOTUS. Other states will take that as their cue to pass similar laws, and women absolutely, 100%, no doubt whatsoever, guaranteed will once again be using coat hangers and dying as a result. And I will be the one cleaning up the mess, as I find myself dealing with deathly ill and/or infertile women as a result of botched illegal abortions.

Oh, how we have progressed. We're saving theoretical people at the expense of actual people.

Now taking bets on when the first woman will die under this law...



Where's Joph with his Slippery Slope! when you need him?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Feb 24 2006 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
It's not a slippery slope, you pompous dolt. It's historical fact.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 324 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (324)