South Dakota is introducing a bill that will ban abortion

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

Nope, because generally endangered species aren't guilty of murder...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by loinburger
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.

Again, you said it EXACTLY - the value of a fetus of an endangered species is, because of marginal utility, greater than that of a human.

Notice I never made any moral judgements based on this

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Elok
What gives *you* the right to declare it as one or not?

I don't. I do hold an opinion as to whether or not it is though.

My view is that a newly fertilised egg is not a human being because it does not have the complexity to experience human thought and emotion (being one-cell and all). Once it starts to divide, eventually it will have that complexity and then I would say that aborting it is wrong.

In my view to claim that a single cell is human is just silly. 'Potentiality' is just not a good enough claim to humanity. Of course, no abortions (also the morning after pill?) abort a single cell - they have already divided quite significantly, so it depends on the cut-off point of where they should be regarded as human. I have asked twice (once to Boann and once to Kucinch) for people to express their opinion on where this point is and provide reasons, but have had no response. I notice that you (Elok) gave no reply to this question either. Personally I think this is the only question which is relevant to the discussion.

Personally, I just don't know. I don't know enough about human develepmental biology to say, which is why I am interested in the opinions of others. My hunch would be that the point should be fairly early on (within the first month?), but one should not make laws on the basis of hunches.

[Giancarlo]

Glad to see they are finally outlawing murder in one state.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Kucinich

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.

To address your first statement, my good sir. I was addressing the fact that many of these ppl state that ALL life is sacred. Guilty or no, one of the Bible's tenets "Love thy neighbor"? Granted, ppl who commit crime are not "free of sin", but isn't forgiveness divine? I see the hypocrisy in the fact that certain Christian groups can say that "all life is sacred" on one hand, but would be the first to end the life of another person regardless of what they may or may not have done.

To address your second statement.....let me try to clarify my previous statement. I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body. How do I miss the anti-abortion argument? I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument. I still believe that it is about "life" instead of determining whether or not a fetus is a person.

If you want to clarify your statement or cast a rebuttal, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument.

You'd be wrong.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body.

I don't see how this is a valid argument. Why should your inability to perform a specific 'evil' act on another person lead to the conclusion that it should not be illegal?

I could not commit mass murder (I do not have the psychological profile for it) but I still think that we should enforce my belief that it is wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Frankychan
To address your first statement, my good sir. I was addressing the fact that many of these ppl state that ALL life is sacred. Guilty or no, one of the Bible's tenets "Love thy neighbor"? Granted, ppl who commit crime are not "free of sin", but isn't forgiveness divine? I see the hypocrisy in the fact that certain Christian groups can say that "all life is sacred" on one hand, but would be the first to end the life of another person regardless of what they may or may not have done.

(wrt bolded part) exactly, it's not earthly

Seriously, saying "all life is sacred" does not preclude the death penalty - for example, one could hold that executing them could end up saving lives, and thus less violations of the sanctity of life.

To address your second statement.....let me try to clarify my previous statement. I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body. How do I miss the anti-abortion argument? I see your point that there is a whole controversy to determine whether or not a fetus is a "person", but I do not believe anti-abortion advocates use this as the crux of their argument. I still believe that it is about "life" instead of determining whether or not a fetus is a person.

If you want to clarify your statement or cast a rebuttal, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I say.

When they talk about "life", they mean "human life" or "life with a soul in it". They are referring to amoebae.
Basically, they view the fetus as a third party, and so they think it isn't some private decision of the mother, about herself. AFAIK they don't say that it's "bad for the mother" (except in that it's sinful or whatever).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
Do you guys think that this issue will ever be solved, or will it always be a huge debate, that will never end?

Maybe one day a real legislation will give you sensible laws regarding abortion. But as long as you can abort at will until birth, making some abortions basically infanticide, your debate is bound to be terribly radical.

Here in Europe, it is extremely rare that people imagine abortion as infanticide: that's because abortion at will is allowed only during the first trimester. As such, pro-abortionists do not defend near-infanticide. And anti-infanticide people are not necessarily at odds against abortion

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
[frothing-at-mouth-mode]Yah! Those *damnable* activist judges! BEHEAD THEM ALL! How *dare* they stand up for a woman's right to choose. In fact, how dare they try to change society at all! We need more literalists on the bench! 1789 or bust![/frothing-at-mouth-mode]

Gatekeeper

(Whew. Nothing like a little release now and then, eh, boys and girls?)

Yeah, if it wasn't fer them damned librul activist judges, we'd still have darkie in his place er, uh.... never mind.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
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.

Which is a big "so what?"

No other aspect of law conveys distinct rights or recognition to an unborn child until birth. Child support and estate law recognize the existence of a pregnancy as an issue affecting future rights once the child is born, and there's a recent push on fetal homicide statutes, but nothing with gives a fetus a distinct set of "rights" separate from that of the mother.

Roe doesn't hinge itself on a definition of when "life" or "human life" begins. The basis for Roe is the point at which the state can assert an interest in the fetus independently from that of the woman carrying it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

MtG,

Wasn't the Roe v Wade decision also morevoer the infringment of the fetus on the rights of the mother, regardless of whether the fetus had rights or in fact life?

So in echo to what you said, the concept of fetal life and where it actually started had no bearing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I meant to say that since I cannot produce children (I do not have the biological body parts) then I do not think that I can enforce what I believe is best for the female body.

So Congresswomen can't rule on laws dealing with Prostate Cancer? Silly argument.

[Elok]

Afraid so, Imran. Also, you can't say anything about amnesty for illegal aliens unless you snuck over the Rio Grande personally.

[Felch]

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

The Supreme Court can and often does refuse to hear cases. Also it can say that the Constitution reserves this authority to the states, which is most certainly does.

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.

So if the facts don't support Roe v. Wade why should we protect it?

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

I agree completely.