South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

[Biggles]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.

That would be that trolling thing then?

[j2k4]

I know you are pro life but in what instances would you want abortion allowed?

I assume this is the question in question?

You are asking me, mind you, so I'll tell:

First of all, I see the "five-day-period" (during which viability cannot be clinically determined with certainty) as a "loophole", yes, but one that can be shaded either way.

You believe it should quite rightly be viewed as the undoing of the entire pro-life argument as it applies to the new law in South Dakota, which law (it should be noted) has been offered up in an attempt to create a test case for purposes of laying some groundwork for future legal understandings of the issue, and also to resolve the state's-rights issue.

However, if one accepts the circumstance of this short period of indefinite status on it's face, it could serve the purposes of both sides:

The pro-lifers could use it to backstop their belief that individuals should assume responsibility and control of/for their own lives, and that by doing so they might take advantage of the "second-chance" afforded by a morning-after pill (the first chance having been the decision of whether or not to practice unsafe/irresponsible sex, risking pregnancy or c.s.d.)

The pro-abortionists could use it to promote their "agenda" of privacy, self-determination, or whatever reasoning they prefer.

You see a problem, I see a solution.

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

There will shortly be a female somewhere in South Dakota who will ante up a pregnancy for the legal-eagles' consideration, and, presumably, some sort of state referenda.

I say this with full knowledge you have a spasmodic compulsion to defer to the federal government in all matters, but I believe otherwise, and the proper resolution to several constituent concerns may well be determined in and amongst the upcoming legal shitstorm.

Back to your question:

You previously alluded you somehow knew what my beliefs were, relative to the matter of conception, and you extrapolate that I am rigid in my practical beliefs.

Here is what I believe should be a practical path-

I think youngsters should be bombarded from all quarters with a comprehensive message promoting responsible behavior, and I think it should take the form of a public campaign; this because, as we all know, parents cannot always be trusted to adequately communicate the concept to their kids.

I think promoting a message that combats the stigma that so unfortunately attaches to sex, pregnancy, s.c.d.s, and all related issues should be paramount.

I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made, and, again, every effort must be made to de-stigmatize the circumstance; offenders should be deprived of the ability to hide behind a socially-induced inclination to silence on the part of the victim.

I want to live in a society where unwanted pregnancies are absolutely minimized by dint of appropriate social pressures and norms, and the occasions wherein abortion would be considered are also minimized.

Social guilt is not a bad thing; it is what affords us what civility we do practice and enjoy.

You object to legal constraints on a women's self-determination?

I'll tell you something:

If a woman is sloppy in her personal management, if she cannot be bothered to practice safe sex, if she is dishonest in her personal relationships?

She deserves what she gets.

If she is ignorant, educate her.

If she is poor, provide her with the necessities to be safe.

However, if she is educated and has means?

Again, she deserves what she gets.

There would be some pain involved when social norms and expectations shift, but nothing good happens without a bit of pain, right?

BTW-If you call me an asshole for my beliefs, I'll call you an asshole for yours.

In other words, to do so serves no purpose whatsoever, so if you desire to post purposelessly...feel free.

I've rambled a bit here, and reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

[Busyman]

I know you are pro life but in what instances would you want abortion allowed?

I assume this is the question in question?

You are asking me, mind you, so I'll tell:

First of all, I see the "five-day-period" (during which viability cannot be clinically determined with certainty) as a "loophole", yes, but one that can be shaded either way.

You believe it should quite rightly be viewed as the undoing of the entire pro-life argument as it applies to the new law in South Dakota, which law (it should be noted) has been offered up in an attempt to create a test case for purposes of laying some groundwork for future legal understandings of the issue, and also to resolve the state's-rights issue.

However, if one accepts the circumstance of this short period of indefinite status on it's face, it could serve the purposes of both sides:

The pro-lifers could use it to backstop their belief that individuals should assume responsibility and control of/for their own lives, and that by doing so they might take advantage of the "second-chance" afforded by a morning-after pill (the first chance having been the decision of whether or not to practice unsafe/irresponsible sex, risking pregnancy or c.s.d.)

The pro-abortionists could use it to promote their "agenda" of privacy, self-determination, or whatever reasoning they prefer.

You see a problem, I see a solution.

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

There will shortly be a female somewhere in South Dakota who will ante up a pregnancy for the legal-eagles' consideration, and, presumably, some sort of state referenda.

I say this with full knowledge you have a spasmodic compulsion to defer to the federal government in all matters, but I believe otherwise, and the proper resolution to several constituent concerns may well be determined in and amongst the upcoming legal shitstorm.

Back to your question:

You previously alluded you somehow knew what my beliefs were, relative to the matter of conception, and you extrapolate that I am rigid in my practical beliefs.

Here is what I believe should be a practical path-

I think youngsters should be bombarded from all quarters with a comprehensive message promoting responsible behavior, and I think it should take the form of a public campaign; this because, as we all know, parents cannot always be trusted to adequately communicate the concept to their kids.

I think promoting a message that combats the stigma that so unfortunately attaches to sex, pregnancy, s.c.d.s, and all related issues should be paramount.

I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made, and, again, every effort must be made to de-stigmatize the circumstance; offenders should be deprived of the ability to hide behind a socially-induced inclination to silence on the part of the victim.

I want to live in a society where unwanted pregnancies are absolutely minimized by dint of appropriate social pressures and norms, and the occasions wherein abortion would be considered are also minimized.

Social guilt is not a bad thing; it is what affords us what civility we do practice and enjoy.

You object to legal constraints on a women's self-determination?

I'll tell you something:

If a woman is sloppy in her personal management, if she cannot be bothered to practice safe sex, if she is dishonest in her personal relationships?

She deserves what she gets.

If she is ignorant, educate her.

If she is poor, provide her with the necessities to be safe.

However, if she is educated and has means?

Again, she deserves what she gets.

There would be some pain involved when social norms and expectations shift, but nothing good happens without a bit of pain, right?

BTW-If you call me an asshole for my beliefs, I'll call you an asshole for yours.

In other words, to do so serves no purpose whatsoever, so if you desire to post purposelessly...feel free.

I've rambled a bit here, and reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?

Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?

[JPaul]

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

What do you mean "all", old bean. I don't remember jumping to any unwarranted conclusions .... in this thread.

[JPaul]

Rock on South Dakota!

Babies 1, Murderers 0.

@ Busyman: Get a womb or get a life.

That would be that trolling thing then?

Indeed, only wearing clown make-up.

[j2k4]

In any case, you are all jumping to unwarranted conclusions, as no practical debate has yet taken place.

What do you mean "all", old bean. I don't remember jumping to any unwarranted conclusions .... in this thread.

Ah, yes.

Exclusion granted, sir.

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

[Busyman]

Typical. I love it.

[vidcc]

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

which "other guy" ?

[Busyman]

I meant Busyman and the other guy.

which "other guy" ?

I guess he means ilw.

[j2k4]

Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?

When survival of the mother is jeopardized.

In case of rape.

In case of incest.

These are personal views; I don't expect resultant laws will be so constrictive, but then, I've got my vote, which I would freely use.



Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?

I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.

I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.

You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.

Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.