SD state legislature voting to ban abortion

[longshot7]

To have an abortion just to get rid of the baby is Murder plain and simple.

 

It's not plain and simple. To decide to have an abortion is a very big choice - I myself know numerous women who have had them, and none of them did it callously or without a lot of thought. I would suspect the number of women who did it as a birth control measure after sex instead of before is extremely low.

 

What we as a society need to do is reduce the need for abortions - however the religious right seems to not want to do the things necessary to reduce this need: educate young women on birth control and ways to prevent pregnancy besides abstinence, and teach them that their bodies are not their enemies. I believe they are reticent to do this because of deep-rooted misogynism, which thinks that women should remain inferior to men, and not be sexually empowered.

 

The major problem is how the right, and with that, how the church views the roles of women in society.

 

From my blog on MySpace:

There is no doubt that there is a (large) portion of the population that views women's roles in society as nothing more than as slaves to their masters. Why would we want them to have their own personalities - when they can parrot everything we tell them, and will cook, clean, and serve us as we want? How can a "partnership" exist between two people where one is truly subservient to the other? How is that love? I just don't get it.

 

What kind of sick world do we live in where we're going to FORCE women to have the babies that are created due to rape & incest?? What the f*** is this?? What better way to show them that they are seen as nothing more than breeding machines who shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions for their own bodies?? Who knows better than an individual woman what's right for her body - well, we do, the legislature, obviously. OBVIOUSLY."

 

Women are not brainless breeding machines. Forcing them to have babies they don't want is SLAVERY, to coin a phrase, pure and simple.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yet if you wait a few years and lethally inject him just to get rid of the person, it is "justice".  Funny how that works.

 

 

Its justice to get rid of a vicious killer not to kill an innocent unborn child.

 

People who equate the 2 are completely clueless and stupid.

[AbeFroman]

Its justice to get rid of a vicious killer not to kill an innocent unborn child. 

 

People who equate the 2 are completely clueless and stupid.

 

I would not call it completely clueless... There are plenty of people who believe in protecting life in all circumstances.

 

The argument that there is no right to take ANY life is a pretty damn powerful argument. Its not one I happen to agree with entirely, but its definitely an argument that is worthy of respect.

[Balta1701]

People who equate the 2 are completely clueless and stupid.

Something tells me Nuke doesn't like the Catholic church

[minors]

Yet if you wait a few years and lethally inject him just to get rid of the person, it is "justice".  Funny how that works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Are you actually comparing innocent babies to convicted murdering thugs? Wow that is apples and oranges.

[minors]

well put.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What is well put? That innocent babies are like murdering thugs? That is what you are saying isn't it?

[minors]

Of course one solid answer is adpotion there are many loving families who can not convceve, who are just waiting for a child. It is really sad that we treat our convicted murdering thugs better than our unborn children. At least the thugs have tons of rights while the child has none real sad.

[Heads22]

Of course one solid answer is adpotion there are many loving families who can not convceve, who are just waiting for a child.  It is really sad that we treat our convicted murdering thugs better than our unborn children.  At least the thugs have tons of rights while the child has none real sad.

 

 

I agree with you that it is one of the best answers out there. I wish that more people would consider and do it.

[Balta1701]

Of course one solid answer is adpotion there are many loving families who can not convceve, who are just waiting for a child.  It is really sad that we treat our convicted murdering thugs better than our unborn children.  At least the thugs have tons of rights while the child has none real sad.

As long as they're not Gay.

[mr_genius]

As long as they're not Gay.

 

uh oh, here we go.

 

[minors]

As long as they're not Gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Honestly I could care less if their gay or not while I deplore the practice of homosexuality if they are good parents and want to adopt all power to them. I would much rather have 2 gay parents who loved their kids rather than 2 heterosexual parents who abuse their kids any day of the week.

[YASNY]

Yet if you wait a few years and lethally inject him just to get rid of the person, it is "justice".  Funny how that works.

 

I refer you back to post #19 of this thread.

[Steff]

Sounds kind of where I am on this topic.  I, myself, do not believe in having abortions (except in cases of rape and incest), but I would not stop some one else from having one if they, themselves, are okay with it and can accept all the consequences that come with it.  Who am I to force my beliefs on to them?

 

 

I agree with you QP, though I would extend the criteria past rape and incest. Had my step-daughter not interrupted her first pregnancy she would be dead right now. As well, serious questions have arisen relating to Joey's birth as well. That child suffered a tremendous amount of pain... as well did we. Compelling argument on both sides.

[vandy125]

I am pro-choice, and pro-child.  That is not cowardice or supporting the killing of babies.  It means two things.  One, I think life begins when the fetus has reached a point where it could live on its own - thus, an independent life form.  The other thing it means to me is that, knowing the horrors of an abortion, I would never, ever recommend it or endorse it to anyone close to me.  But ultimately, its not my choice.

 

I always hear "Who are we to tell someone what to do?", but I am wondering, who are we to decide when life begins? Where do we make that distinction? What happens when we are wrong?

[Steff]

I always hear "Who are we to tell someone what to do?", but I am wondering, who are we to decide when life begins?  Where do we make that distinction?  What happens when we are wrong?

 

 

What circumstances are you referring to? And wrong about what?

 

It's been scientifically proven as to when the fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The argument after that is a personal one.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Ah! One of the great ironies around here.  Conservatives in favor of capital punishment and against abortion.  Liberals opposed to capital punishment and in favor of abortion.  The only real difference is that the unborn are totally innocent ... always.

Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about abortion is pretty nuts.

Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about capital punishment is pretty nuts.

 

Not directed towards you only, YAS. As many have argued for the sanctity of life being inherent then there is nothing that a person can do to lose that. Only people can choose to take it away from them.

 

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The legislators should focus on sane/rational discussions of sexual education with children so they can be prepared for sexual activity in the future instead of merely banning it. As we've seen with alcohol and the war on drugs -- mere prohibition does not work and is not effective. A serious, well-reasoned discussion giving people all the benefits and risks of sex and sexual activity would do wonders to cutting down the rate of abortions -- much more than abstinence only education.

 

Simply making abortion illegal will not stop abortion -- it will just make it less safe for women who want them to get them.

[Balta1701]

What circumstances are you referring to? And wrong about what?

 

It's been scientifically proven as to when the fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The argument after that is a personal one.

Yes, but it's also scientifically proven that if you put a fetus on a chair in your dining room and make it dinner...it won't live through dinner.

[minors]

Simply making abortion illegal will not stop abortion -- it will just make it less safe for women who want them to get them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Also if Capital Punishment is made illegal won't stop it from taking place in the prisons with other inmates killing the worst offenders either.

[AbeFroman]

Also if Capital Punishment is made illegal won't stop it from taking place in the prisons with other inmates killing the worst offenders either.

 

The nuance is that we can only really control government sanctioned actions. I suspect inmates (or even non-inmates) are going to keep killing each other regardless of this country's stance on th edeath penatly

[Steff]

Yes, but it's also scientifically proven that if you put a fetus on a chair in your dining room and make it dinner...it won't live through dinner.

 

 

 

Was that the question...? If it was I apologize because I was referring to the debate over when the egg becomes a "life".

[vandy125]

What circumstances are you referring to? And wrong about what?

 

It's been scientifically proven as to when the fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The argument after that is a personal one.

 

I usually do not hear that when talking about abortion. A lot of people will not make that distinction. It seems to me that many people do not think of a fetus as life. That is why they are willing to say that abortion should be legal until such and such arbritrary point that they think is the beginning of intelligible life.

 

That is what my point is referring to. I think that destroying even a fetus is a very grave matter because it involves life. Many people do not go that far.

[Steff]

I usually do not hear that when talking about abortion.  A lot of people will not make that distinction.  It seems to me that many people do not think of a fetus as life.  That is why they are willing to say that abortion should be legal until such and such arbritrary point that they think is the beginning of intelligible life.

 

That is what my point is referring to.  I think that destroying even a fetus is a very grave matter because it involves life.  Many people do not go that far.

 

 

 

Right. Which is why I said the argument is a personal one.

[Balta1701]

Was that the question...? If it was I apologize because I was referring to the debate over when the egg becomes a "life".

So was I. After an egg becomes an embryo, it is capable of growing, but not capable of survival on its own. In fact, some embryos wind up being created but not successfully implanting themselves in the proper spot, and thus wind up not surviving. Hard to call that murder, IMO. Just like it's hard to call the tens of thousands of frozen embryos which are created and destroyed at fertility clinics murder since they're simply not viable on their own.

[Steff]

So was I.  After an egg becomes an embryo, it is capable of growing, but not capable of survival on its own.  In fact, some embryos wind up being created but not successfully implanting themselves in the proper spot, and thus wind up not surviving.  Hard to call that murder, IMO.  Just like it's hard to call the tens of thousands of frozen embryos which are created and destroyed at fertility clinics murder since they're simply not viable on their own.

 

 

Oh, I agree with you on that aspect. I was leaning more towards when the personal decision is made as to when the egg becomes a life.

 

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.. anyone have a stance on eptopic (sp?)pregnancy...? When that is terminated, is that abortion also?

[longshot7]

Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about abortion is pretty nuts.

Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about capital punishment is pretty nuts.

 

Not directed towards you only, YAS.  As many have argued for the sanctity of life being inherent then there is nothing that a person can do to lose that.  Only people can choose to take it away from them.

 

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  The legislators should focus on sane/rational discussions of sexual education with children so they can be prepared for sexual activity in the future instead of merely banning it.  As we've seen with alcohol and the war on drugs -- mere prohibition does not work and is not effective.  A serious, well-reasoned discussion giving people all the benefits and risks of sex and sexual activity would do wonders to cutting down the rate of abortions -- much more than abstinence only education.

 

Simply making abortion illegal will not stop abortion -- it will just make it less safe for women who want them to get them.

 

 

Good response. Very true.