Abortion Laws in South Dakota [Archive]

last_caress

6 Mar 2006, 10:57 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4780522.stm

I've just been watching the news and this caught my eye.

I'm interested in what people think about the way the state is acting in this instance.

Exceptions will be made if a woman's life is at risk, but not in cases of rape or incest.

Ignorant.

Lori

6 Mar 2006, 11:00 PM

Presuming you were referring to the quote from the article, that is the part that concerned me most about the law.

Edmond Zedo

6 Mar 2006, 11:00 PM

Isn't this going to get shot down in the Supreme Court, at least? Someone tell me that's being mentioned. I hate watching the news.

last_caress

6 Mar 2006, 11:02 PM

Presuming you were referring to the quote from the article, that is the part that concerned me most about the law.

The article, yes.

distraction tactics

6 Mar 2006, 11:18 PM

Isn't this going to get shot down in the Supreme Court, at least? Someone tell me that's being mentioned. I hate watching the news.

That's the general sentiment on all the news networks.

Either this is a clever ploy to strengthen Roe vs Wade or Christians really are dumber than I've been led to believe.

mgb

6 Mar 2006, 11:22 PM

Isn't this going to get shot down in the Supreme Court, at least? Someone tell me that's being mentioned. I hate watching the news.

You'd think it would, but you never know.

Lori

6 Mar 2006, 11:30 PM

Isn't this going to get shot down in the Supreme Court, at least? Someone tell me that's being mentioned. I hate watching the news.
The concern according to the BBC report i watch is that there are 2 new people on the bench (My knowledge of the system in the US is very poor - sorry) and they are conservatives. the worry is that they may tip the balence to get this new law through.

geniusndisguise

6 Mar 2006, 11:32 PM

Lori

6 Mar 2006, 11:37 PM

The timing of this is no coincidence. If they didn't think they had a shot at getting Roe overturned now, with two new justices, it wouldn't have been signed it into law.

Edit: oops, cross posted. :)

Justices - thanks genius - I couldn't think of the officers that were being refered to on the news. ( I must learn more about the US system and how it's made up)

They did also menntion about the possibility of Roe overturned - I know this won't directly affect me being an ocean away but the fact that this is happening does cause me concern.

geniusndisguise

6 Mar 2006, 11:46 PM

Justices - thanks genius - I couldn't think of the officers that were being refered to on the news. ( I must learn more about the US system and how it's made up)

They did also menntion about the possibility of Roe overturned - I know this won't directly affect me being an ocean away but the fact that this is happening does cause me concern.

Sure.:)

The thing is, even if Roe is overturned it doesn't make abortion illegal in America. It just sends the decisions back to the states to decide what to do about the issue. I don't particularly want to see abortion completely illegal but a lot of people think the Roe decision was faulty. I don't know, but I do tend to fall on the side that more issues should be states issues. Because, well, that's how our Constitution was set up and I think we should either follow it or scrap it.

Lori

6 Mar 2006, 11:58 PM

Sure.:)

The thing is, even if Roe is overturned it doesn't make abortion illegal in America. It just sends the decisions back to the states to decide what to do about the issue. I don't particularly want to see abortion completely illegal but a lot of people think the Roe decision was faulty. I don't know, but I do tend to fall on the side that more issues should be states issues. Because, well, that's how our Constitution was set up and I think we should either follow it or scrap it.

I have to admit i know nothing about the original decision. :(

The thing that concerned me was the lack of exception for victims of rape or Incest. I really think it is wrong to force a woman (or child) to have a child that has been conceived under such circumstances if they do not want to keep it.

Keeping decisions at a state level seems to be quite effective. I have found it confusing in the past that there are so many levels of law in the USA but once you understand it i think it caters better for local needs than federal law (across the whole country)

booyalab

7 Mar 2006, 12:03 AM

The thing that concerned me was the lack of exception for victims of rape or Incest. I really think it is wrong to force a woman (or child) to have a child that has been conceived under such circumstances if they do not want to keep it.

well if your premise is that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as other humans, it makes sense, since it's not it's fault that it's mother was raped.

geniusndisguise

7 Mar 2006, 12:07 AM

I have to admit i know nothing about the original decision. :(

Don't worry, most people here don't either. They just know what "their" side thinks about it and follow suit. I've read it, and I'm still not completely sure.

The thing that concerned me was the lack of exception for victims of rape or Incest. I really think it is wrong to force a woman (or child) to have a child that has been conceived under such circumstances if they do not want to keep it.

Keeping decisions at a state level seems to be quite effective. I have found it confusing in the past that there are so many levels of law in the USA but once you understand it i think it caters better for local needs than federal law (across the whole country)

It is scary. I don't think in the end we'll have many states with laws like this one though. I hope not anyway. :shock:

knome

7 Mar 2006, 12:08 AM

So all you rapists out there remember, if you want to spread your genes as widely as you can with no possibility of your bastard spawn being terminated, head for south dakota.

From a purely 'spreading the genes' view of things this law is horrific. It means those most lacking in societies moralities will be most capable of spreading their genes throughout the population. Good going guys, future generations will thank you.

So pregnancy cannot be aborted even in the face of incest and/or rape? Way to go SD. You fuckers.

Xander

7 Mar 2006, 12:17 AM

This has as many daft repercussions as any infingement on people's rights.
To outright ban this act except in extreme circumstances just means that those who are with child and are desperate to get rid of it will turn to alternate measures if desperate enough. Bring back all those stupid pregnancy "cures" from the old days and send up the suicide rate into the bargain.
Another point to the myopic governments and legal systems!!!

Lori

7 Mar 2006, 10:45 AM

well if your premise is that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as other humans, it makes sense, since it's not it's fault that it's mother was raped.

I do see your point of view here. I wiould question whether it is in the best interests of anyone to bring a child in to the world that is not wanted, that will be resented by their family bacause of how they were conceived.

I know a couple of people who have been raped, fortunately they did not become pregnant as a result. I do know however that the idea for them to go through with a pregnacy that was as a result of a horriffic attack would have been too much to bear for them.

I agree with Xander on this, driving abortions underground is the wrong way to go.

This kind of law just give me the impression that we are taking a step backwards rather than forwards.

sbw

7 Mar 2006, 12:51 PM

Sure.:)

The thing is, even if Roe is overturned it doesn't make abortion illegal in America. It just sends the decisions back to the states to decide what to do about the issue. I don't particularly want to see abortion completely illegal but a lot of people think the Roe decision was faulty. I don't know, but I do tend to fall on the side that more issues should be states issues. Because, well, that's how our Constitution was set up and I think we should either follow it or scrap it.

or give it to iraq, since we're not using it.

one of my friends, though pro-choice, thinks that the original decision was erroneous due to states' rights. another friend who is in law school said that was wrong, due to a technicality which I don't remember.

Scott

sbw

7 Mar 2006, 12:54 PM

Xander

7 Mar 2006, 01:05 PM

this whole thing is good news for my investment in wire hanger futures.

Scott
This sounds sick, if I read it right.

kendoiwan

7 Mar 2006, 02:14 PM

You know what puzzles me about the position is that people who hold this POV are usually the same people crying about "welfare queens".

On the one hand you don't feel like people should have babies they don't want, or can't care for. They don't feel like tax paper dollars should be spent to support people who have childern they can't support. They know that statistically speaking a child who is born to mothers/families who don't want them/can't properly support them, are more likely to be raised in either poverty, neglect, or some combination of both. Are more likely to grow up to be criminals, or end up in abusive situations which in turn require social services to step in which they also feel to be a needless waste of tax dollars. Never mind that social workers are overworked and the courts clogged as it is...

They tend to hold all or some of the above mentioned attitudes, and yet they oppose women being able to choose whether or not they want/are ready to have a child.:shock:

Granted I understand and respect the human issue at hand regarding whether or not a fetus is a life and the moral ramifications of the act itself... but ultimately I believe that it's something the woman making that choice has to live with... I view in the same light as a nation choosing to send troops to war... lives will be loss and that choice is on a nations conscious.

Edmond Zedo

7 Mar 2006, 04:33 PM

You know what puzzles me about the position is that people who hold this POV are usually the same people crying about "welfare queens".
That's religion for you. If it made sense, it wouldn't be popular.

Xander

7 Mar 2006, 04:37 PM

That's religion for you. If it made sense, it wouldn't be popular.
Fashion and religion must have a lot in common.

sbw

7 Mar 2006, 07:30 PM

This sounds sick, if I read it right.

you read it right. that quote is from the onion; I couldnt remember the source earlier when I posted it.

Scott

Nemesis

8 Mar 2006, 12:03 AM

Ignorant.
The woman was raped yes that's horrible. I'd rather be alive and have to live with the fact that my father raped my mother than not be alive at all.

nottaprettygal

8 Mar 2006, 01:13 AM

You know what puzzles me about the position is that people who hold this POV are usually the same people crying about "welfare queens".

Well, they most likely think that people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage to begin with. I mean, if people stopped having sex then there would be no unwanted pregnancies and the number of people supported by the welfare system would be dramatically reduced. And most importantly, they wouldn't have to fear being damned to hell for all of eternity because of their debauched lifestyle.

The woman was raped yes that's horrible. I'd rather be alive and have to live with the fact that my father raped my mother than not be alive at all.

And this is almost as dumb as that crap I just wrote.

You're a bunch of cells! You don't care about living or dying!

Nemesis

8 Mar 2006, 01:22 AM

Well, they most likely think that people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage to begin with. I mean, if people stopped having sex then there would be no unwanted pregnancies and the number of people supported by the welfare system would be dramatically reduced. And most importantly, they wouldn't have to fear being damned to hell for all of eternity because of their debauched lifestyle.

And this is almost as dumb as that crap I just wrote.

You're a bunch of cells! You don't care about living or dying!
But, unlike a liver or kidney, I am going to become a living breathing human being.

Nyairj

8 Mar 2006, 01:29 AM

Excellent work. All else being equal, a more populous country is more powerful than a less populous one, and no abortions means more babies being born. We're in better shape in America (about 2 children per woman) than Europe (1.3 in some, others not much better), but we're still hovering around the replacement rate (and European-Americans are a bit below the replacement rate).

IIRC, South Dakota is almost totally Euro-American. This bill will help somewhat in offsetting the high fertility rates of immigrants (http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html), most notably Mexicans. Banning abortions by state is far better strategically than a blanket ban on abortion because of differences in demographics, and it may also be a good way to preemptively fight crime, I hear.

nottaprettygal

8 Mar 2006, 04:29 AM

But, unlike a liver or kidney, I am going to become a living breathing human being.

Yup. There's a potential for life there. Just like every morning before school when you jerk off in the shower, your precious life-giving juices just wash down the drain. Both are tragic.

Rhu

8 Mar 2006, 04:40 AM

Yup. There's a potential for life there. Just like every morning before school when you jerk off in the shower, your precious life-giving juices just wash down the drain. Both are tragic.

It's all the rage these days to save it in a milk bottle and put it in the freezer for future use. That way it isn't wasted seed, and therefore not as much of a sin.

Praise Jesus! Soon I'm gonna have enough wee little Gooey-Rhuey tadpoles to fill a bathtub!

C.J.Woolf

8 Mar 2006, 04:43 AM

Shit, who's gonna run the country when 98+% of the population is in the pokey for masturbating away their sperm or menstruating away their ova?

And why is there no talk of prosecuting fish? They eat their young!

last_caress

8 Mar 2006, 04:44 AM

Yup. There's a potential for life there. Just like every morning before school when you jerk off in the shower, your precious life-giving juices just wash down the drain. Both are tragic.

"Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood."

Rhu

8 Mar 2006, 04:46 AM

And why is there no talk of prosecuting fish? They eat their young!

You know... I always knew there was something creepy about the people with the fish on the back of their cars... Always seemingly pregnant, but never actually having more than 2.5 children...

Fish can do no wrong. Jesus said so.

C.J.Woolf

8 Mar 2006, 04:51 AM

Fish can do no wrong. Jesus said so.
And all those loaves that don't turn into fishes? They're failing to live up to their full potential so they're guilty of something, I'm sure.

Nemesis

8 Mar 2006, 04:52 AM