South Dakota Bans Abortion

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Fascinating arguments regarding brainwaves, sentience, et al.

That said, why should the government and various interest groups decide what's best for the woman? Presumably she will have the same access to the information and arguments — and then some — made in this thread. Armed with such information, why isn't she (and presumably her loved ones and doctor) the best one to decide what to do? Hmm?

The government, of course, can set safe medical standards and whatnot; after all, abortions generally are performed in medical facilities. But the actual decision should rest with the individual and those she trusts. Not legislators. Not interest groups. Period.

So is your argument that laws generated by the society through the actions of the elected representatives are irrelevant, or is it just for this issue that they're irrelevant? Either way, you must live in a fantastic and interesting place.

The "controlling" types should have faith in the individual to do what's right.

Gatekeeper

[Seeker]

"Surely you can see that a human embryo ought to be treated differently from say a horse embryo or a dog embryo."

Why? I don't think so.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So is your argument that laws generated by the society through the actions of the elected representatives are irrelevant, or is it just for this issue that they're irrelevant?

Perhaps, once upon a time, that was how it worked (i.e. most lawmakers actually representing a broad cross-section of society). Nowadays, it seems like far too many lawmakers are elected in part by special interest groups that drive the campaign "issues" and then fund the lawmakers' re-election efforts.

So the question is: Do these said lawmakers actually represent the majority of the public, or are they simply beholden to those who hold the purse strings (which, more and more, are special interest groups, regardless of their political leanings)

Take my home state as an example: In poll after poll over the years, South Dakota residents generally take a moderate approach to abortion. They don't like it to be unfettered, but neither do they want it outlawed. Yet the state Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor of a draconian abortion bill that even a lot of anti-abortion types are saying won't pass muster and may very well deal the movement a setback.

A number of legislative leaders — including Jay Duenwald, Brock Greenfield and Roger Hunt, among others — are active in the pro-life and/or conservative church movements, oftentimes in leadership positions. This base, combined with the strange habit of many moderate-leaning types to not get riled up over a lot of things, gives them an advantage from the get-go. These men voted to outlaw abortion, seemingly clashing with data showing the state's "general" population is more even-keeled on the issue.

So, do they actually represent a broad cross-section of South Dakotans, or are they simply carrying out the desires of those who are their base and fund their campaigns? Probably the latter, and that won't change until the "silent majority" (or genuine conservatives — those desiring *less* government interference in individuals' lives) gets annoyed enough to turn out knock the "bums" out of office.

In effect, one could argue that, yes, such laws passed by these types of legislators are, indeed, irrelevant since they apparently don't reflect the wishes of the majority of the people but, rather, those who keep them in office. And rarely do such monied interest groups numerically outnumber a lawmaker's actual constituents. They're just richer and more powerful.

WRT the second part of your question, my dear SpencerH: Since abortion is the issue in this thread, that's what my inquiries are focused on. Just because what a legislature does WRT abortion — at least in South Dakota — may be irrelevant, doesn't necessarily make everything it does irrelevant. That's akin to burning down the entire house because a single ceiling tile in the kitchen has a spot of black mold on it.

Either way, you must live in a fantastic and interesting place.

Yes, I do. The world knows it as the United States of America.

Your lack of faith in people is disturbing (to semi-quote the "all-wise" Yoda).

Gatekeeper

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


Perhaps, once upon a time, that was how it worked (i.e. most lawmakers actually representing a broad cross-section of society). Nowadays, it seems like far too many lawmakers are elected in part by special interest groups that drive the campaign "issues" and then fund the lawmakers' re-election efforts.

So the question is: Do these said lawmakers actually represent the majority of the public, or are they simply beholden to those who hold the purse strings (which, more and more, are special interest groups, regardless of their political leanings)

Take my home state as an example: In poll after poll over the years, South Dakota residents generally take a moderate approach to abortion. They don't like it to be unfettered, but neither do they want it outlawed. Yet the state Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor of a draconian abortion bill that even a lot of anti-abortion types are saying won't pass muster and may very well deal the movement a setback.

A number of legislative leaders — including Jay Duenwald, Brock Greenfield and Roger Hunt, among others — are active in the pro-life and/or conservative church movements, oftentimes in leadership positions. This base, combined with the strange habit of many moderate-leaning types to not get riled up over a lot of things, gives them an advantage from the get-go. These men voted to outlaw abortion, seemingly clashing with data showing the state's "general" population is more even-keeled on the issue.

So, do they actually represent a broad cross-section of South Dakotans, or are they simply carrying out the desires of those who are their base and fund their campaigns? Probably the latter, and that won't change until the "silent majority" (or genuine conservatives — those desiring *less* government interference in individuals' lives) gets annoyed enough to turn out knock the "bums" out of office.

In effect, one could argue that, yes, such laws passed by these types of legislators are, indeed, irrelevant since they apparently don't reflect the wishes of the majority of the people but, rather, those who keep them in office. And rarely do such monied interest groups numerically outnumber a lawmaker's actual constituents. They're just richer and more powerful.

Interesting info. I wondered why SD (of all places in the USA) was the first to try this nonsensical approach to abortion law repeal (since it's doomed to failure).

It is not the duty of a peoples representative to follow the whims of those people. Its the duty of a representative to lead and to vote their conscience with respect to what they believe is the best way forward. It's the duty of the people to vote to change those representatives if they disagree with what their representative has done.

WRT the second part of your question, my dear SpencerH: Since abortion is the issue in this thread, that's what my inquiries are focused on. Just because what a legislature does WRT abortion — at least in South Dakota — may be irrelevant, doesn't necessarily make everything it does irrelevant. That's akin to burning down the entire house because a single ceiling tile in the kitchen has a spot of black mold on it.

Ah, but your comments suggested a much more general stance than that i.e. "That said, why should the government and various interest groups decide what's best for the woman? ", so I asked.

Yes, I do. The world knows it as the United States of America.

After I wrote that I was hoping you wouldnt take my friendly little dig the wrong way (and I assume you didnt).

Your lack of faith in people is disturbing (to semi-quote the "all-wise" Yoda).

Gatekeeper

Given that I view most of those who will vote for their representatives as having the intellectual capability of chickens, I'd say I have lots of 'faith' (in the system of representative government).

[Ben Kenobi]

Why? I don't think so.

There are folks who take your sentience argument and extend it to infants, like Peter Singer.

I can't see why one could make a distinction between a human infant and say a horse, yet make no distinction between a human embryo and a horse embryo. Nothing has changed, the same embryo grows and develops to become an infant.

[Kidlicious]

We don't know if there is any difference. It's just a feeling we have in our gut.

[Whaleboy]

After week 12, the general consensus is to use the term 'fetus'. Before week 12, it is embryo, and when you have just the one cell, you have a zygote.

Indeed, but my point was that it is proper to use the word "foetus" from embryo until birth.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Emotive arguments such as "unborn child" and "murdering children" are useless, yes, but the emotional consequences on the woman who's foetus has been aborted (as well as the emo. consequences of the pregnancy being taken to term), must also be considered.

Good point.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Using an inaccurate epithet such as "lump of flesh" to grossly distort and depreciate the importance of both sides of the issue is a serious fallacy in which you seem to have no shame to partake in.

My prefered description is "lump of cells."

Now if you can show me how this is an inaccurate description of what a foetus is.

Originally posted by MrFun
As BK has pointed out -- you yourself are appealing to emotions with such an attack.

BK and I are on the same side in this regard.

Both of you are wrong.

A "lump of cells" is not an emotive term. It is completely natural. As such, it is an anti-emotion term.

Now if your point were I have been playing down on the uniqueness of individual foetuses, the only thing unique about a human foetus is it has a set of DNA different from both of its parents. However the same can be said about all species of organisms that reproduce sexually. That includes plants.

A human foetus has no sentience, so, it is not an unique individual human being.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Interesting info. I wondered why SD (of all places in the USA) was the first to try this nonsensical approach to abortion law repeal (since it's doomed to failure).

Heh. You're not the only one. Now, back to the end of the line! No cutting allowed!

It is not the duty of a peoples representative to follow the whims of those people. Its the duty of a representative to lead and to vote their conscience with respect to what they believe is the best way forward.

Well, I'll try and keep that in mind the next time I see a list of contributors to a lawmaker's campaign war chest and compare it to how s/he voted.

It's the duty of the people to vote to change those representatives if they disagree with what their representative has done.

Agreed. Doesn't always happen, though, especially if monied and powerful interest groups manage to hijack the agenda.

Ah, but your comments suggested a much more general stance than that i.e. "That said, why should the government and various interest groups decide what's best for the woman? ", so I asked.

That was specifically WRT abortion. By no means am I an anarchist.

After I wrote that I was hoping you wouldnt take my friendly little dig the wrong way (and I assume you didnt).

Heh. I did think you were being snide there for a moment, but chose to assume otherwise.

Given that I view most of those who will vote for their representatives as having the intellectual capability of chickens, I'd say I have lots of 'faith' (in the system of representative government).

I hear monarchies might make a comeback.

Gatekeeper

[Ben Kenobi]

A human foetus has no sentience, so, it is not an unique individual human being.

Great, however, that's the question we are trying to answer.

Is it current sentience that qualifies one to be an individual human being, or simply the capacity for sentience? The unborn child has this capacity from conception, a capacity that other species do not possess.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

My prefered description is "lump of cells."

Now if you can show me how this is an inaccurate description of what a foetus is.

Both of you are wrong.

A "lump of cells" is not an emotive term. It is completely natural. As such, it is an anti-emotion term.

Now if your point were I have been playing down on the uniqueness of individual foetuses, the only thing unique about a human foetus is it has a set of DNA different from both of its parents. However the same can be said about all species of organisms that reproduce sexually. That includes plants.

A human foetus has no sentience, so, it is not an unique individual human being.

"Lump of cells" might be technically accurate, but we know what your real intentions are when using such a term as this.

Fetus is arleady a neutral enough term with no denigerating connotations and it's accurate -- god forbid if you engage in debate with enough respect for the other side by using a more neutral term that has no denigrating connotations.