South Dakota is introducing a bill that will ban abortion

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Verto
I just don't understand why the unborn offspring of endangered species are protected, but not a human fetus.

Humans aren't an endangered species.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I agree. It seems that Southern states have a penchant for anti-abortion legislation spouting stuff like "Respect all life", "Choose life", etc but they are the same states that are the first to execute ppl.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Not hypocrisy at all. The fetus isn't guilty of anything, those criminals are.

If you don't got the equipment, you shouldn't make the decisions. Simple as that.

<-----Pro-choice.

For the gazillionth time, if the fetus is a person, then it has those rights. You're argument is STUPID because it completely MISSES the thrust of the anti-abortion argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by loinburger
Humans aren't an endangered species.

So? Why are those endangered species MORE important than people?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Felch
I don't care about abortion, being a guy and already born, but I don't like the idea of judges creating laws out of their asses. Folks act as though first trimester abortions were mentioned in the Constitution or something. This is an issue that should be left for the state's and their governments to decide.

And I am not going anywhere near South Dakota.

One of the problems the Roe v. Wade Court faced was that the state leglislatures perpetually failed to do their job and tackle this issue. When an action is brought before the court, it doesn't have the freedom to abstain.

The most worrisome part of this law for pro-choice people is the Leglislature saying life begins at conception. If that legislative finding can pass constitutional scrutiny (& I can't see why it wouldn't), then the factual basis of the Roe v. Wade decision falls.

Practical effect: South Dakota women go to North Dakota to get abortions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger

Humans aren't an endangered species.

Well there's that big comet that says otherwise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the five years before the court suddenly discovered in the constitution a virtually unlimited right to abortion, 16 states, with 41 percent of the nation's population — including then-Governor Reagan's California — liberalized their abortion laws. The state legislatures were doing what legislatures are supposed to do in a democracy: They were debating and revising laws to reflect changing community thinking.

Indeed. Che's blanket assertion doesn't take into account the facts (as usual, might I add ). There was gradual change in the states. Slow, yes. But it was moving. So to say one way or the other what would have occured is ignorant. We can't know what course it would have taken.

When an action is brought before the court, it doesn't have the freedom to abstain.

It can refuse cert .

If that legislative finding can pass constitutional scrutiny (& I can't see why it wouldn't), then the factual basis of the Roe v. Wade decision falls.

That's the point, I think. This law has specifically been passed for a Constitutional challenge to Roe.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
So? Why are those endangered species MORE important than people?

What do you mean? It's not as though a human dies every time a bald eagle is born, so, in the absence of a zero-sum game situation, I don't see how laws intended to preserve endangered species imply that these endangered species are more important than the human species.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Well there's that big comet that says otherwise.

True, but it's unlikely that the comet will be averted by an increased birth rate among humans, unless we start firing people at it, in which case we really should be increasing the number of obese people and not just the number of people overall.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by loinburger
What do you mean? It's not as though a human dies every time a bald eagle is born, so, in the absence of a zero-sum game situation, I don't see how laws intended to preserve endangered species imply that these endangered species are more important than the human species.

If there is not a corresponding law for humans, than it says that you are willing to go further to protect the endangered species than humans.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
If there is not a corresponding law for humans, than it says that you are willing to go further to protect the endangered species than humans.

No, it says that the human species does not require the same protections as the endangered species, because humans are not endangered. In terms of survival of the species, abortion is a non-issue -- humans are reproducing just fine as it is.

[Kuciwalker]

No, it says that the human species does not require the same protections as the endangered species, because humans are not endangered. In terms of survival of the species, abortion is a non-issue -- humans are reproducing just fine as it is.

Exactly - you value human fetuses less than the fetuses of other animals, because humans aren't endangered.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Exactly - you value human fetuses less than the fetuses of other animals, because humans aren't endangered.

The marginal utility of a fetus of an endangered species (not "other animals," but "endangered animals") as it relates to the survival of that species as a whole is far greater than the marginal utility of a human fetus as it relates to the survival of the human species as a whole. If you want to apply loaded terms like "values," then hey, whatever floats your boat.

[GePap]

It is a crime to kill a member of an endanger species. That would mean the Death Penalty is proof we value endangered animals more.

Your point Sky?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger
True, but it's unlikely that the comet will be averted by an increased birth rate among humans, unless we start firing people at it, in which case we really should be increasing the number of obese people and not just the number of people overall.

The US does its part.

Thank God for MacDonalds. Saving mankind is all in a days work.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
For the gazillionth time, if the fetus is a person, then it has those rights. You're argument is STUPID because it completely MISSES the thrust of the anti-abortion argument.

That's an awfully big 'IF'. How do you know whether or not the fetus is a 'person'? What gives you the right to declare it as one or not?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
That's an awfully big 'IF'. How do you know whether or not the fetus is a 'person'? What gives you the right to declare it as one or not?

What gives *you* the right to declare it as one or not? The issue must be decided one way or another. The Pro-choice movement just brushes it aside to talk about knocked-up crackhead teenagers who got raped and had to drop out of high school and now Mean Ol' Mr. Conservative is laughing at his diabolical scheme to make them cry while he bites the heads off of fluffy lil' bunny rabbits and so on and so forth. It's very sad, no doubt, but not directly related to the abortion argument-certainly not as much as "is it human," anyway.