Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 15 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 142

Thread: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

  1. #1
    Busyman's Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    13,839
    Take the Fifth
    South Dakota's invitation to snuff your embryo.
    By William Saletan
    Posted Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 12:38 AM ET

    Monday morning, Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota. He called it a "direct challenge" to Roe v. Wade. But the ban also poses a direct challenge to the pro-life movement, and to itself, by permitting the destruction of what it calls unborn human beings.

    According to Section 1 of the law, "life begins at the time of conception," and "each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization." Accordingly, Section 2 bans the administration "to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Section 5 defines "unborn human being" as "the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation."

    In short, if you terminate life after fertilization, you've killed a human being, and you're going to jail.

    Section 3, however, tells a different story: "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing."

    Look at that language carefully. It doesn't just say you can take a contraceptive drug before sex. It says you can take such a drug after sex, as long as it's before conventional tests can detect a pregnancy.

    Conventional tests can't detect a pregnancy at fertilization. They detect hormonal changes at implantation, which begins around the fifth day after fertilization and can take another week to complete.

    In other words, South Dakota gives you five days to kill what it calls your unborn child.

    How? By taking a morning-after pill such as Plan B. According to the Food and Drug Administration, Plan B "acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)." Fertilized egg, in South Dakotan, means human being. And prevention of implantation means death.

    Why the loophole? Are South Dakota lawmakers confused about when life begins? Section 2 of their legislation says the ban applies only to a "pregnant woman." Do they think, as some moderate pro-lifers do, that pregnancy and life begin at implantation? Nope. Section 5 of the ban defines "pregnant" as "having a living unborn human being within [your] body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation." Pregnancy begins at fertilization, as does life.

    Is the loophole just a matter of enforceability? If conventional tests can't prove a woman was fertilized, prosecutors can't nail her pill provider for abortion. But that's an argument for omitting the loophole as unnecessary, not for inserting it.

    What's curious about the loophole is that its supporters not only included it; they advertise it. In the second paragraph of his signing statement, Rounds pointed out that the ban "does not prohibit the taking of contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in the case of rape or incest."

    There's your answer. The purpose of the loophole is to give rape victims a grace period. Americans overwhelmingly think abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. Rape victims are the women most likely to know immediately after sex that they're at high risk of unwanted pregnancy. Give them morning-after pills, and you've solved the political problem.

    But now you've got a scientific, moral, and legal problem. The South Dakota law purports to supersede Roe because "scientific advances since the 1973 decision" show that "life begins at the time of conception." It concludes that unborn children, "from fertilization to full gestation," have an "inalienable right to life." Nobody who seriously believed these things would give you five days to kill an embryo, any more than they'd give you five days to kill a baby. The loophole discredits the law's rationale.

    Welcome to world of ambiguity, pro-lifers. Out of compassion for women in tragic but medically non-threatening circumstances, you agree that unborn life, up to a certain stage of development, may be aborted. Now we're just quibbling over the details.
    I have always said if one believes life begins at fertilization then be fucking consistent. Giving an out for rape and incest with an excuse of "we can't verify if she's pregnant" is bullshit.
    Last edited by Busyman; 03-07-2006 at 06:35 AM.
    Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!

    Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
    ---12323---4552-----
    2133--STRENGTH--8310
    344---5--5301---3232

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    But there is also the "Sodomized Religious Virgin Exception" as suggested by Bill Napoli.


    I agree with your thinking Busy. I think it's a dilema of balance for most "pro life/anti choice" people. The hardliners are probably not the majority.
    Last edited by vidcc; 03-07-2006 at 06:35 PM.

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    It's a compromise.

    The out is that they do not know if the pill ever causes an abortion, as by definition it will have terminated the pregnancy.

    The woman in the rape circumstances takes the pill and neither she nor anyone else knows whether she was pregnant or not, or whether she aborted her baby or not.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    Double post.
    Last edited by JPaul; 03-07-2006 at 08:40 PM.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    I was listening to a clip from Crooks and liars.com
    Mike Stark takes it back to the streets and calls wingnut talk show host Andrew Wilkow. He asks the question that Jane put out the other day:

    Jane:

    I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?...read on"
    In case you can't be arsed to listen basically he doesn't answer the question because he sees it as being an impossible choice, which i suppose qualifies him as a 'consistent pro lifer' (and a moron).

    I thought it raised an interesting question though, how come we don't hear about pro lifers going nuts at fertility clinics because the number of fertilised eggs that get produced and chucked is huge. From the miniscule amount i know of it and have bothered to read, i think we're looking at about 30 eggs being extracted, a high percentage of these being fertilised and about 1-2 actually being born. I.e. killing about 20 "babies" a pop. It seems to me like they're being inconsistent and in the end don't care how many "babies" die as long as as many people as possible are born...
    Last edited by ilw; 03-07-2006 at 08:46 PM.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    Does anybody actually live in S. Dakota?
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Busyman's Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    13,839
    Quote Originally Posted by vidcc
    But there is also the "Sodomized Religious Virgin Exception" as suggested by Bill Napoli.


    I agree with your thinking Busy. I think it's a dilema of balance for most "pro life/anti choice" people. The hardliners are probably not the majority.
    Then some of these prolifers need to STFU.

    If any pro lifer's contention is that a fertilized egg is a person then....

    1. There should be no compromise with the morning after pill. The fact is that the pill does, among other things, prevent an egg from attaching to the uterine wall AFTER fertilization. This is like firing a gun in a room with a person in it and the shooter's eyes are closed.

    2. Rape and incest should never matter. How is it the "child's" fault.

    These fucking people are idiots.

    Some thoughts...

    1. Government shouldn't regulate a woman's own body.

    2. Prove that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.
    If not (3)...
    If so (4)...

    3. It cannot be deemed separate from the mother...not a person.

    4. Then government should use an apparatus to bring it to term themselves.

    The father should have no decision making power in the matter.
    The government should have no decision making power in the matter (unless 2 and 4 are satisfied).

    Imagine if a huge mass of South Dakotan women wanted an abortion in SD under this abortion ban.

    What is the governmnt gonna do....ban coat hangers? strap the women down for 8 months....then hand them a medical bill? open a chain of adoption agencies and orphanages?

    The best thing for them to do is leave shit be.
    Last edited by Busyman; 03-07-2006 at 11:26 PM.
    Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!

    Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
    ---12323---4552-----
    2133--STRENGTH--8310
    344---5--5301---3232

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Busyman's Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    13,839
    Quote Originally Posted by ilw
    I was listening to a clip from Crooks and liars.com
    Mike Stark takes it back to the streets and calls wingnut talk show host Andrew Wilkow. He asks the question that Jane put out the other day:

    Jane:

    I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?...read on"
    In case you can't be arsed to listen basically he doesn't answer the question because he sees it as being an impossible choice, which i suppose qualifies him as a 'consistent pro lifer' (and a moron).

    I thought it raised an interesting question though, how come we don't hear about pro lifers going nuts at fertility clinics because the number of fertilised eggs that get produced and chucked is huge. From the miniscule amount i know of it and have bothered to read, i think we're looking at about 30 eggs being extracted, a high percentage of these being fertilised and about 1-2 actually being born. I.e. killing about 20 "babies" a pop. It seems to me like they're being inconsistent and in the end don't care how many "babies" die as long as as many people as possible are born...
    Good one!

    I'd love to hear what a pro lifer would say. Talk about being backed into a corner.

    Either they look like a moron or are inconsistent.

    One could simply argue the last on percentages but it seems to me fertility clinics are committing "mass murder" though.
    Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!

    Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
    ---12323---4552-----
    2133--STRENGTH--8310
    344---5--5301---3232

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    Tempestv's Avatar Engineer
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    699
    I am right next door to SD Biggles.

    what does the law say about women that go to another state to have an abortion? are there going to be women coming over this way to get an abortion in Montana?

    I gotta agree with Busyman, the whole idea is stupid. Everything you've said about this is making sense.
    Last edited by Tempestv; 03-07-2006 at 11:14 PM.
    Plan for the worst, hope for the best

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    [QUOTE=Tempestv][quote=Biggles]
    Does anybody actually live in S. Dakota?
    right next door

    what does the law say about women that go to another state to have an abortion? are there going to be women coming over this way to get an abortion in Montana?
    Or Canada?

    The numbers involved are hardly huge. Is this some sort of stalking horse to raise the debate elsewhere or will it simply be ignored in the more populated States?
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


Page 1 of 15 123411 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •