South Dakota Bans Abortion

[SpencerH]

This is truly a bizarre attempt to reverse Roe v Wade. Based on what I heard from Scalia the other day on C-span, I doubt that any of the supremes would support such a reversal.

[DinoDoc]

How many abortion clinics are there in SD? I'm just curious how much this law is simply an admission of reality for most of that state anyway.

[TheStinger]

wouldn't a judge on the SC even if he disagreed with Roe vs Wade uphold it due to precedent.

[SpencerH]

Not necessarily but Scalia essentially said that stare decisis was such an important guiding principle for the supremes decisions that it would require a complete change in the countries opinion of the question in order to realistically contemplate the overturning of even such a bad decision (from a constitutional viewpoint) as Roe v Wade.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Is this supposed to be an Appeal to Emotions response?

Abortion IS an emotional issue, in case you haven't noticed -- for both sides.

The question is to what extent can one honestly acknowledge that their emotions play a part in articulating their well-reasoned, rational arguments. In whatever position we take with most issues, emotions combine with rational-thought process.

I'm not sure why you need to use such a grossly denigerating term as "lump of flesh."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How many abortion clinics are there in SD? I'm just curious how much this law is simply an admission of reality for most of that state anyway.

Then they ought to make an active effort to establish abortion clinics that are accessible for women who may need their service.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How many abortion clinics are there in SD? I'm just curious how much this law is simply an admission of reality for most of that state anyway.

As I understand it - Just one. Planned Parenthood.

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui: If Rove was on this, they'd do something like ban "partial birth abortions" and scream that even something that most people agree on (and most are against partial birth abortion) can't be banned.

I disagree, I think this new SD law has Rove's fingerprints all over it. By making the law as severe as possible, the Republicans produced legislation that's guaranteed to be overturned; and I suspect that's what's intended.

Look at the timing: after working its way through the federal courts, it'll be 2007 or 2008 by the time SCOTUS declines to consider the case and lets the lower court's ruling stand. Perfect timing for riling up the base and turning them out for the 2008 presidential election.

What's interesting is that it'll also rile up the Democratic base and could have the effect of increasing pro-choice voter turnout.

[Ben Kenobi]

although it's still quite disgusting that a woman whose health is in danger is going to be forced through pregnancy. Oh well, guess she shoulda though of that!

The way health has been interpreted in Doe v Bolton, is that it also includes things like emotional health, and the age of the woman. So basically, if pregnancy changes the way in which you feel, it means you should be able to get an abortion.

Now, if a woman is in serious difficulties where her life is in danger, that is different. And this law would still permit them to save the mother.

[Ben Kenobi]

To reply more directly to your question, I say that in the cases of risk of death of expectant mother, rape, and incest, I whole-heartedly would support that woman's choice in having an abortion.

Would you ban all other abortions Mr. Fun?

[Ben Kenobi]

killing people is why we want to legislate this issue

Exactly. That's the only reason why this issue becomes a legislative issue. There are plenty of prolife libertarians, if you go by the answers on the political compass I am one of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

well finally someone brought up the ONLY important issue in the so-called abortion debate, which is the need to define sentience.

Sentience, not dna or brainwaves or whatever, is why we accord rights to certain objects like human beings. A corpse has human dna...do we accord it rights? Cows have brainwave activity and a complex social structure...rights?

Nope, sentience is the only reasonable criteria to distinguish a lump of cells from a being with rights...the debate should be about when exactly that is with plenty of 'room for error' and then set that in stone except for rapes, etc.

Excellent points. However I have to challenge your initial assertion. Is it true that the only reason we assign rights to people is because they are sentient?

Look at a person who is in a coma. They may not be able to communicate with you, yet we would not kill them just because they have lost that ability. As for determining death, we look at the irreverseable cessation of brain activity. It is not enough merely to temporarily lack this quality.

The unborn child lacks sentience in the sense of brain activity only temporarily. We expect that after a certain stage of development that the child will acquire this ability, much as she learns to walk or to read. Nothing has changed about the child herself, other then the fact that she can now exhibit sentience.

I would argue that the capacity for growth and development is the primary category that seperates human beings from other animals, and why we ought to treat them different from one another. A zygote immediately after conception has this ability, given only nourishment and shelter.

As for the other qualities, a zygote is an individual living human being. She is individual in the sense, that it is a seperate entity distinct from the mother and the father. She is human, in the sense that she has human parents. She even has her sex, since she will have either an XX or an XY.

Oh, and if sentience is the only important issue, why would we allow women to kill their innocent child because she was raped?

[Kidlicious]

I've come to take no side on this issue. Generally, I think having an abortion is immoral, but I don't object necessarily to it being legal. I can understand how people can see things two different ways.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Would you ban all other abortions Mr. Fun?

I'm not sure I could outrightly ban all other forms of abortion. I find the use of illicit drugs for recreational purposes for instance, morally unacceptable from my viewpoint but I also know that such drug users are not violating other people's rights in enjoying illicit drug use. For that reason, I would not be able to, with a clear conscience, ban illicit drug use if I were in such a position of authority to do so. There are no laws for getting drunk off your ass in your own home, so I suppose you can get as high as you want to in your own home (this is my opinion in light of reality that there IS prohibition against illicit drug use in most states).

I think the same could go with my position on abortion. I would find aborition under any other circumstances that I did not include, as morally unacceptable. But, at the same time, I would probably not ban all other forms of abortion because the fetus, even though you and I know it could eventually grow into a fully conscienable human being, is not a person in its earlier stages of development in the same sense that you and I are.

So abortion for other circumstances do not violate another person's right just as illicit drug users are not violating another person's right if they enjoy marajuana in the privacy of their home, for example.


Does this make any sense at all or do I need to reexamine this argument of mine?

[Ben Kenobi]

would probably not ban all other forms of abortion because the fetus, even though you and I know it could eventually grow into a fully conscienable human being, is not a person in its earlier stages of development in the same sense that you and I are.

Well, first of all, if you believe that it is morally objectionable to have an abortion other then for rape and incest, my question would be why do you believe that it is morally objectionable.

The second question would be whether you feel that it should be illegal. This should follow from the moral objection because the unborn child is a person.

If the unborn child is a person, then we are not justified in killing that person, and we have an obligation to protect them from being killed by restraining those who would kill them. This is the fundamental difference between abortion, and say, recreational drug use.