Home - List All Discussions

Abortion is now officially illegal in South Dakota!

Let's all celebrate this, it's wonderful!

by: AshMarie88

http://www.lifenews.com/state1422.html

reply from: yoda

I share your enthusiam, AshMarie, but you're a bit premature. It's cleared the SD senate committee, it hasn't been approved by the full senate or signed by the governor yet.

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh... I thought it was the senate. :-/

reply from: yoda

Patience, patience...........

reply from: nsanford

Not good, not good. The way to decrease abortions is to inform the public, not to ban them.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

You're either a total fake or just really ignorant nsanford

The public has access to LOTS of information. They murder their babies because they are selfish and evil. The majority is evil.

reply from: Alexandra

Bull.

If shoplifting were legal, would there be more people shoplifting, or less? Think about that.

Most women get abortions because it's "legal." Criminalize it, and the rate will plummet.

reply from: nsanford

How many people do you know that have seen a video of abortion? Or even seriously think about the issue until it concerns them? Truth is, the majority of the nation is ignorant when it comes to abortion.

reply from: yoda

Sorta like how there were so many millions of illegal abortions before 1973, right? </sarcasm>

reply from: nsanford

Bull.

If shoplifting were legal, would there be more people shoplifting, or less? Think about that.

Most women get abortions because it's "legal." Criminalize it, and the rate will plummet.

And the rate of death would skyrocket. My stance about choice aside, make abortion illegal, and women will go back to back-alley abortions. That would cause more harm to the woman.

reply from: yoda

Now there's a lot of truth to that. What Survivor said was that the information was available for anyone who really wants it. Probably a majority of our society is apathetic to the subject.

That's why the abortion photos and videos are so important to get out to the public.

reply from: nsanford

We finally agree on something, Yoda. I don't believe the way to stop abortions is to ban them, because that just restricts choice. We need to inform the public, and get them before they get pregnant. Sure, some will abort anyway, but in the end, that is their decision.

reply from: Alexandra

You mean back-alley as opposed to front-parlor? The term back-alley comes from when the entrance to an abortion clinic was off the back alley--out of view.

And women die from legal abortions.

Does it really make sense, if you're a woman and you find yourself pregnant, to resort to an option that you KNOW could end in death for you?

reply from: Skippy

Wow. You people need to get your stories straight. That one dude who keeps getting cross-wise of the law says if people could only view his pictures, they'd stop having abortions because they would SEE THE LIGHT!

Now you're telling me people already know the "truth" that fellow wants them to, and they have abortions anyway.

Talk amongst yourselves, and get back to me.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Showing the images does some good. People still do evil despite knowing the truth though because they are evil. Their hearts are evil.

It will be the hard work and activity of a few that brings about change as has always been the case.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Choice" NEEDS to be restricted.

reply from: nsanford

Why does choice need to be restricted? You love you're "choice" to speak out, don't you? Choice is a part of American society, and a natural right. It should never be restricted, even when it comes to abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion doesn't need restrictions? Why not?

EVERYTHING is a choice, murder, rape, abortion, child abuse... yet those have restrictions. As does suicide, kids going places themselves, rated r movies, etc. You think it should be okay for kids to see rated r movies if they are under 17 (legal age?) without parents? Do you think it should be okay for a kid to get a tattoo without a parents' permission if they are under 18?

EVERYTHING needs restrictions, and abortion is one of them.

reply from: nsanford

Okay, I'll give you that one. But still, abortion concerns the woman, since it is her body, and should not be restricted.

reply from: AshMarie88

Okay, I'll give you that one. But still, abortion concerns the woman, since it is her body, and should not be restricted.

The not-yet-born-child isn't the woman's body. It's a different body, with a different DNA and a different body.

And yes it should be restricted. Killing a child, always should be restricted.

Tell me... are you okay with women getting many abortions in a row? After sex each time, using it as birth control? What about late term abortions? Abortions up to 9 months?

reply from: bradensmommy

Okay, I'll give you that one. But still, abortion concerns the woman, since it is her body, and should not be restricted.

So if a woman decides to cut herself we should ignore it? If a woman decides she cannot care for her newborn child she can kill it and we should just get over it? I don't think so...

The choices a woman should have in her life:

Throw out that pathetic waste of space that is her husband/bf who is giving her an ultimatum to kill her child
the choice between staying at home or getting a job while someone watches her child
The choice to have sex protected or not
getting EDUCATED

Abortion should NEVER be an excuse, it is an excuse to be irresponsible, it is an excuse for women to do what we want sexually because we can get rid of our "inconveniences"

The ONLY time abortion should be acceptable if it is a life or death situation.

reply from: yoda

We do agree on the need to get more information out to the public about the true nature of elective abortion, and "get to them before they get pregnant", yes. I do not agree that banning abortion "just restricts choice". Making illegal would probably reduce the abortion rate considerably from the million or so a year now being done in this country. And that would probably save a lot of babies.

reply from: yoda

You seem to have a reading disorder. He said public has access to the information, he did not say they "already have it".

reply from: yoda

Excellent responses AshMarie, I couldn't have said it better myself!

reply from: nsanford

Okay, I'll give you that one. But still, abortion concerns the woman, since it is her body, and should not be restricted.

The not-yet-born-child isn't the woman's body. It's a different body, with a different DNA and a different body.

And yes it should be restricted. Killing a child, always should be restricted.

Tell me... are you okay with women getting many abortions in a row? After sex each time, using it as birth control? What about late term abortions? Abortions up to 9 months?

What sane person, male or female, would be okay with a woman using abortion as birth control? Or abortion right before she goes into labor? Do you know how many pro-choice people actually approve of late term abortions? Few to none, is how many. I think abortion is something that should be used if the woman made a mistake. For example, a woman has sex, but the birth control fails, in this case, an abortion should be allowed. She could always carry the baby to term, but she should have a choice.

reply from: Sigma

As far as I know, even Planned Parenthood generally won't perform late term abortions.

reply from: MaleNurse

For those "ney-sayers" here's part of what the bill says regarding full term vs abortive (babykilling) risks:

Notice "a greater risk of death than associated with carrying to full term"

They generally don't include stuff into law based on "here-say"

reply from: Sigma

Absolutely they do. Those that create the law do not have to base it on medical evidence. Pointing to a law as a basis for medical evidence will not generally yield the correct results.

Back up the law with actual evidence and you have a case.

reply from: AshMarie88

Okay, I'll give you that one. But still, abortion concerns the woman, since it is her body, and should not be restricted.

The not-yet-born-child isn't the woman's body. It's a different body, with a different DNA and a different body.

And yes it should be restricted. Killing a child, always should be restricted.

Tell me... are you okay with women getting many abortions in a row? After sex each time, using it as birth control? What about late term abortions? Abortions up to 9 months?

What sane person, male or female, would be okay with a woman using abortion as birth control? Or abortion right before she goes into labor? Do you know how many pro-choice people actually approve of late term abortions? Few to none, is how many. I think abortion is something that should be used if the woman made a mistake. For example, a woman has sex, but the birth control fails, in this case, an abortion should be allowed. She could always carry the baby to term, but she should have a choice.

Why does the INNOCENT DEFENSELESS HUMAN have to pay the price for the mother's mistake? Why? Death is serious... Death shouldn't even be a choice when it comes to a innocent human being!

EDIT: It would almost be like if a man robbed a bank, and his child had to die because of what HE did, what HIS mistake was. Not the child's. The people who made the mistake or who committed the crime should "pay" for their own mistakes, not an innocent.

reply from: yoda

How naive can you possibly be? Here's your "birth control" abortion mentality:

Table 2. Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years (U.S. 1987-88, by percentages)
25.5 -Wants to postpone childbearing
7.9 -Wants no (more) children
21.3 -Cannot afford a baby
10.8 -Having a child will disrupt education or job
14.1 -Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2 -Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
2.8 -Risk to maternal health
3.3 -Risk to fetal health
2.1 -Other (includes rape)
100 -Total (1773 -Number surveyed)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

No, I haven't taken a survey, but I know a lot of them are done. Want to see the evidence?

And an abortion because of failed "birth control" is NOT using abortion as "birth control"? Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, or what?

reply from: Sigma

Nor should women "pay" for having sex. It is not justifiable to punish women for doing so, even to save the life of the fetus. Our gov't should not violate one person's right to save another's life.

Saving life is noble, yes, but it is not so to disregard the rights of others to do so. Sometimes one cannot morally or legally interfere, even to save a life.

reply from: yoda

There is NO HIGHER DUTY than to save an innocent life! There is NO MORAL RIGHT to kill the innocent.

There is NEVER a moral reason NOT to save an innocent life. What kind of morals disregards innocent life?

reply from: AshMarie88

Nor should women "pay" for having sex. It is not justifiable to punish women for doing so, even to save the life of the fetus. Our gov't should not violate one person's right to save another's life.

Saving life is noble, yes, but it is not so to disregard the rights of others to do so. Sometimes one cannot morally or legally interfere, even to save a life.

A woman shouldn't have sex then! Simple as that.

Your thoughts are VERY twisted, very gross... Why don't you think about this for a while?

reply from: Sigma

The kind that believes in the law and believes in rights. Life is not the be-all end-all goal of society.

You may personally believe in life above all (I doubt that however) but your views seem a bit twisted around anyway.

reply from: yoda

The kind that believes in the law and believes in rights. Life is not the be-all end-all goal of society.

You may personally believe in life above all (I doubt that however) but your views seem a bit twisted around anyway.

Wow, just wow!

You value "rights" about innocent human life, and offer no apology. You would kill an innocent baby to preserve someone's "rights".

That's not just cold-hearted, that's stone cold hearted! Does life (other than your own) mean absolutely nothing to you?

reply from: AshMarie88

Nor should women "pay" for having sex. It is not justifiable to punish women for doing so, even to save the life of the fetus. Our gov't should not violate one person's right to save another's life.

Saving life is noble, yes, but it is not so to disregard the rights of others to do so. Sometimes one cannot morally or legally interfere, even to save a life.

By that argument, it would be OKAY to kill a rapist's born child because of what he did? Just so he wouldn't have to care for that child if he didn't want to?

Or does that "sometimes one cannot morally or legally interfere" only apply to people that haven't been born yet and other lives you feel aren't worthy of life or protection?

reply from: Sigma

No, I wouldn't. I might to preserve my own, but it would depend on the right in question.

reply from: Sigma

No, it wouldn't. A born child does not infringe upon anyone's right to bodily integrity as the fetus does. A born child may be given up for adoption or cared for by others. A fetus cannot be.

It does not matter if the conception was a result of rape, the argument remains the same.

reply from: yoda

No, I wouldn't. I might to preserve my own, but it would depend on the right in question.

Wow! Tell us which one of your "rights" are worth more than the life of an innocent baby, Sig.

We're waiting with bated breath to know about your "super important rights"........

reply from: yoda

Like heck they don't. Ask any woman who's nursed very long.

So by your logic, nursing ought to be considered a capital offense, right?

reply from: AshMarie88

No, it wouldn't. A born child does not infringe upon anyone's right to bodily integrity as the fetus does. A born child may be given up for adoption or cared for by others. A fetus cannot be.

It does not matter if the conception was a result of rape, the argument remains the same.

Actually, a born child does. A born child is as COMPELTELY DEPENDANT upon another person as a preborn child is to its mother. The only difference between them is LOCATION (DOES NOT matter) and stage of development (like a preborn child, a born person is STILL DEVELOPING, and is not fully developed, and is still dependant on someone else).

Your argument is basically invalid...

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

A woman can stop nursing if she chooses to. A pregnant woman only has abortion as an option to stop the infringment upon her rights (in the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done).

AshMarie88,

Not quite.

Yes, and a born child may be removed from the woman's care by the woman's choice to stop the dependancy without harming the child. A fetus may only be removed via abortion in the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed. In both cases the woman may remove the dependant from her care.

reply from: AshMarie88

A woman can stop nursing if she chooses to. A pregnant woman only has abortion as an option to stop the infringment upon her rights (in the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done).

AshMarie88,

Not quite.

Yes, and a born child may be removed from the woman's care by the woman's choice to stop the dependancy without harming the child. A fetus may only be removed via abortion in the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed. In both cases the woman may remove the dependant from her care.

REMOVED via abortion? You mean mutilated, killed, sucked thru a tube via abortion? Yup, what a way to get rid of a life you deem unwanted just because you hate responsibility!

reply from: Sigma

However you wish to phrase it, then. The fetus is removed from her care.

reply from: AshMarie88

The child shouldn't be aborted just because she's too lazy for responsibility.

Maybe people should learn to have self control or to get fixed if they don't want kids.

reply from: yoda

Doesn't matter. IF she does nurse, then the baby is a burden to her body. IF she does carry the baby around, it's a burden. IF she takes care of it in any way, it's a burden.

Any woman who abandons her baby without good reason is properly considered a bad mother and a bad person.

And IMO any woman who electively aborts her baby is in exactly the same category. Abandoning a child is an evil thing to do whether it's born or not.

reply from: yoda

Doesn't matter to you if it's shredded, grated, pulled into tiny pieces, or burned with chemicals, does it?

You really don't feel anything for others, do you?

reply from: MaleNurse

I'm glad you noticed that's what they did !

reply from: Skippy

It bears repeating that "getting fixed" is close to impossible for a young, child-free woman. It took me almost seven years to obtain a tubal ligation, and then only because I threatened to sue my insurance company for denying me benefits unless they found a doctor to perform it.

I only mention this because a lot of anti-choicers sling the phrase "get fixed" around as if it's something easy to accomplish.

Myself, I feel very certain I've done everything right. So if, horror of horrors, I do become pregnant, my new favorite string of characters will be "RU-486".

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,

Maybe they should. However, the gov’t doesn’t exist to enforce personal responsibility. No matter how irresponsible the woman was, it does not justify punishing her.

yodavater,

It does matter, that’s the point. A woman who is pregnant cannot put the fetus down or allow another to care for it. A woman with a born child can remove the child from her care, either temporarily or permanently, without harming it. A pregnant woman can only have an abortion to remove it from her care during the timeframe the vast majority of abortions are performed.

For the purposes of this discussion, no. Since we are talking about removing the fetus from ones care vs removing a born child from ones care the method of death for the fetus is irrelevant.

Malenurse,

I’m asking you to back it up with evidence. Legislatures are not required to have good evidence or any evidence.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

EVERY law restricts choice. Deal.

reply from: nsanford

The kind that believes in the law and believes in rights. Life is not the be-all end-all goal of society.

You may personally believe in life above all (I doubt that however) but your views seem a bit twisted around anyway.

Wow, just wow!

You value "rights" about innocent human life, and offer no apology. You would kill an innocent baby to preserve someone's "rights".

That's not just cold-hearted, that's stone cold hearted! Does life (other than your own) mean absolutely nothing to you?

I don't know about Sigma, but you hit my views exactly, as harsh as you made it sound. Abortion is a terrible evil that needs to stop, but banning it restricts someone's rights. I would protect the mothers rights over the childs. Not because I'm immoral, as you would like to claim, but because of the other doors government control over our bodies could open. Soon, if the government could control pregnancy, the could control what we eat, drink, do, say, etc. Abortion is a evil, but I fear what could happen if we ban it. We need to focus on education, not just making abortion illegal. Think about it. If abortion is made illegal against women's will, then some abortions will occur anyway, causing harm to babies and women. But if we focus on education, no rights are taken away, and women know why they cannot have abortions.

reply from: AshMarie88

Am I the only one here who sees hypocrisy in nsan's writings?

reply from: galar

You're not the only one. Count me in.

reply from: bradensmommy

Well, its sad that the government has control of who we marry, but I do believe they should have a law against killing anyone, born or unborn.

reply from: yoda

It matters ONLY if you subscribe to the concept that a woman has a right to "throw away" her baby, EVEN IF it causes the death of the baby! I DON'T subscribe to that! NO WOMAN or MAN has the right to cause the death of their child JUST SO THEY CAN GET RID OF IT! What kind of world is this, where the death of an innocent child is secondary to the right to THROW IT AWAY???? That's the most dispicable, nasty, lowlife idea you could come up with? Why not just advocate chopping them up for dogfood????

For the purposes of this discussion, no. Since we are talking about removing the fetus from ones care vs removing a born child from ones care the method of death for the fetus is irrelevant.
Oh, wow. Since we're talking about "killing the baby anyway", it really doesn't matter how the dirty deed gets done, right? Then you'd be perfectly okay with killing it just after birth, right? After all, we're going to kill it anyway, what difference does a few inches make, right? How about a meat cleaver to the neck just after birth, you okay with that?

reply from: yoda

Glad to know that, ns.

Hmmm..... let me see if I've got your drift here....... it's a horrific thing that needs to stop, but we musn't use the law to stop it? Isn't that what criminal laws are designed to do? Don't we take away the "rights" of a serial killer when we put his butt in jail?

How exactly does that work, ns? Does elevating the rights of one person over another automatically give the party of the first part the right to kill the party of the second part? Which one of the articles of the Bill of Rights gives us the right to kill those whose "rights" are less important than ours?

Could you explain that a little more fully?

reply from: Sigma

...
That's a difference whether or not you agree with abortion. A woman who is pregnant cannot put down the fetus, while a woman with a born child can remove the burden from herself in a myriad of ways.

You make no effort to have even the most basic of concepts

reply from: yoda

Ah yes, and some of those "ways" will result in the death of the "born child", but that's okay with you. In your world, the right to throw a child away is more important than the life of the child.

reply from: Sigma

The point being that the born child can be removed from the woman's care without harming it. This cannot occur when a woman is pregnant during the timeframe the majority of abortions are performed.

reply from: yoda

But she doesn't HAVE TO refrain from harming it, does she Sig? By your moral logic, she has the right to throw it away, EVEN at the cost of the baby's life!

Admit it! You support the right to kill the baby over the right of the baby to stay alive, don't you?

reply from: Sigma

No, but it doesn't surprise me that you cannot understand logic.

Since any amount of reasonable effort is required to do so, it is unjustified to harm the child to remove it from her care.

reply from: yoda

What about the "reasonable effort" it would take to gestate an unborn baby? Why shouldn't she be required to put out that much effort, if you're going to require her to put out effort for the born child?

Since nature dictates 9 months gestation, why isn't that "reasonable"? Or is ANY effort made to save the life of an unborn baby "unreasonable" to you?

reply from: Sigma

There is no amount of effort that will allow another to care for the fetus within the woman during the time frame we are talking about. There are a myriad of options that require very little effort to rid herself of a born child.

reply from: yoda

I'm not talking about "another" caring for the baby, what about requiring the mother herself to provide a "reasonable effort" to allow her baby to finish gestation?

What's "unreasonable" about asking a mother to allow her child to live for 9 months, rather than butcher it?

reply from: Sigma

We are talking about a born child vs. the fetus in the womb. The woman can, with little effort, remove the child from her care without harming it. There is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it.

reply from: yoda

There is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it.

SURE THERE IS. It's called "Gestation" and "BIRTH".

reply from: Sigma

I repeat, there is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it, while a woman with a child has a myriad of options open to her to remove the child from her care without harming it.

reply from: yoda

Gestation and birth IS THE EFFORT that is required, Sig........ can't get that through your head?????

reply from: Sigma

I repeat, there is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it, while a woman with a child has a myriad of options open to her to remove the child from her care without harming it.

Were she to complete gestation she would fall into the other category, and we are comparing the categories. What I have said is true.

reply from: yoda

In the MEANTIME she would have made the effort required to REMOVE the fetus from her without harming it.

Isn't that what you said was IMPOSSIBLE???

reply from: Sigma

It is in the timeframe we are talking about.

reply from: yoda

"TIMEFRAME"????? NOW you are putting a time limitation on saving a baby's life?

WHAT'S YOUR HURRY???? Is there some reason to be in a hurry to kill a baby?

reply from: Sigma

The timeframe we've been talking about is when the vast majority of abortions are performed. Late term it is possible to induce labor, but that would place the woman in the other category and we are comparing categories.

reply from: yoda

No, you just threw that "timeframe" stuff in when I showed you were wrong to say " There is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it."

Why are you so stingy with "time", when the life of an innocent baby is at stake? What's your hurry to KILL????

reply from: Sigma

No, I said that originally.

It does matter, that’s the point. A woman who is pregnant cannot put the fetus down or allow another to care for it. A woman with a born child can remove the child from her care, either temporarily or permanently, without harming it. A pregnant woman can only have an abortion to remove it from her care during the timeframe the vast majority of abortions are performed.

I figured you knew what we were talking about so I dropped it's use, but apparently you could not handle keeping on topic.

reply from: yoda

That whole statement is innacurate anyway.

Abortion is legal right up to delivery, because of Doe v Bolton. Just go to Killer Tiller's website, and look under "elective late term abortions".

reply from: Sigma

I wasn't talking about the legality.

reply from: yoda

You're ALWAYS talking about the legality. WHAT ELSE could possibly prevent a woman from having a late term abortion?

reply from: Sigma

I wasn't talking about when abortion is legal, I'm talking about when they are done.

There is no amount of effort that will remove the fetus from her care without harming it during the timeframe the vast majority of abortions are performed, while a woman with a child has a myriad of options open to her to remove the child from her care without harming it.

reply from: yoda

So WHY must something be done to remove the baby during that particular timeframe?

Why not a longer timeframe, just for the simple humanity of saving a life? Does saving an innocent life have NO appeal to you at all?

reply from: Allizdog2000

Here is what Planned Barrenhood is whining about:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/pressreleases/pr-060222-abortion-ban.xml;jsessionid=079185FA0A6FCFC2E23EE50BB4044AC6

I hope more states follow and Roe V. Wade gets over turned

reply from: AshMarie88

Ah, this is a GREAT day!

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

South Dakota lawmakers passed legislation to ban nearly all abortions today. The Governor said he would likely sign the bill.

reply from: NorthStar

All this will do is give the pro-abortion side another victory. Any abortion ban that restricts women from obtaining pre-viability abortions is doomed to be struck down by the Courts.

We need a more shrewd approach. I have three suggestions for states wishing to curtail abortions.

1. Call for a constitutional amendment to allow for time limits on abortion, as I discussed in another thread.

2. Create a law against abortion that punishes the father of the child rather than the mother or the abortionist.

3. Ban abortions after quickening and argue that quickening is the point in pregnancy at which a state's interest in protecting potential fetal life becomes compelling.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics