South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed the legislation into law today that bans virtually all abortions except those that would save a mother’s life. It will be challenged by pro-abortion groups:
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973
U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state’s only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, immediately pledged to challenge the measure. The challenge could either be in court or by petition signatures to refer the measure to a statewide ballot in which voters would be asked to repeal the abortion ban.
“We fully intend to challenge this law,” said Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood. “It’s just a question of how.”
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Rounds said he believes it would be better to chip away at abortion one step at a time rather than directly confront Roe v. Wade. But he said many abortion opponents want the direct challenge.
“Personally I think this court will be more interested in looking at different aspects of Roe v. Wade rather than the direct frontal assault, but we’ll never know unless someone tries,” Rounds said.
I give the legislature and governor of South Dakota a lot of credit for taking this on. Mississippi is also considering a similar law.
docjim
Science can observe and describe things, it cannot give them meaning. That’s not the role of science. What we have in the abortion debate is a competition of values in weighing the proper response when the rights of mother and child are in conflict. Science can only offer their observation of what conception through birth entails, not give meaning to at what point life becomes philosophically “human.” Biologically, conception is a unique event of new human dna, but whether or not it makes that nascent life the moral equal of its mother.
Other societies have seen nothing wrong with infanticide because they didn’t see the moral worth of infants. Some individuals (like Singer and Dr. Cranford) push a similar philosophy for America.
It is up to the people to decide these matters.
Darleen, none of your demented blitherings has addressed my actual POINT, so expecting me to address anything YOU said makes you a hypocrite as well as a cockroach.
OMNI You,ve never clarified Your point ! what is it ? enlighten us all ..please.
There’s nothing to clarify; it’s stated very plainly in my original post, which is still at the top of this thread.
Darleen,
Kudos to you for your attempts at cogent debate with Omni. Unfortunately Omni apparently sees opposing points as abuse, not as debate.
Omni,
Besides the fact that sometimes women die during childbirth, you have not brought forth one single fact to this discussion. They are all opinions and conjecture. You have no children so you base your information on things you have heard from other mothers. Please, this is not a fact. Equating childbirth with torture is not a fact. Insinuating that mothers will die because of this law because they can’t get an abortion is not a fact (this point is particularly obscene and ridiculous).
Remember Omni, people who challenge you and disagree with you are not abusing you!!
Omni
You equated pregnancy and childbirth to torture and suffering
you have defined demented for yourself
what a loon
I think Roe is bad law and that the Supreme Court made a mistake when they made that decision. There is not “right” to an abortion guaranteed in our Constitution. So, politically, abortion should be a state’s rights issue. If the voters of South Dakota wants to ban all procedures with a mother’s health exception than the voters should be allowed to do it.
Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, but I can understand that not all people will agree with me. Abortions in the first trimester I could deal with, but after that I would view it as murder. Partial birth abortion is one of the cruelest procedures I have ever seen.
JR, only a psycho or a cockroach could read Darleen’s endless personal insults to me and declare that she’s behaving admirably and I’m imagining abuse… which are you?
Darleen, for all too many women, that IS their experience of pregnancy and childbirth, according to their own words; if you believe them all to be liars, you’re a disgrace to womanhood.
Mantis says:
To those who support laws such as this:
Out of curiousity, what should the punishment be for women who get an illegal abortion?
A very interesting question and one that can’t really have a definitive answer because it would change with every situation. Personally, I would vote for a bill that outlawed partial birth abortion. I would expect that the penalties would be lost of the license for the doctor who performed the procedure with the possibility of jail time and the mother should also face the possibility of jail time.
Omni,
I don’t know, you tell me, because apparently we’re in the world according to Omni. Like I said, challenging your position does not constitute abuse and/or insults.
And if anyone is a hypocrite, it’s you. Unless, of course, you don’t consider calling someone a pyscho or a cockroach an insult.
Again, you don’t seem to be debating or responding to people’s challenges to your assertions (remember they are not facts). Take this last one:
Darleen, for all too many women, that IS their experience of pregnancy and childbirth, according to their own words; if you believe them all to be liars, you’re a disgrace to womanhood.
Please tell me, do you consider this statement to be a fact? There is nothing in it but vague references to some abstract number of women that you claim represent the majority of women. You have nothing to back that up, nothing. Are we supposed to believe you because you said it?
If this is a fact, then how are we reproducing?? How come there are families and/or women with more than one child! Now I’m not saying that childbirth isn’t painful, nor am I saying that pregnancy isn’t uncomfortable and/or painful as well. But it is hardly as dramatic as you make it out to be.
JR, no one has challenged my position… no one has even made the slightest reference to it as of yet.
You’re wasting your time trying to pretend that nothing Darleen said was an insult; she was too blunt and too prolific. Or is it that in the JR universe, insults to people you disagree with magically don’t count? And in the JR universe, women don’t complain about their pregnancy and childbirth experiences, is that it? And YOUR expertise in this area is based on…?
Omni Your position constantly shift,s so as to avoid defending your indefensible positions , you have not answered one question on this whole subject ! Rather you have chosen to throw insults at everyone who points out your bitter deficiency, It,s time to wake up…
docjim505
Brain activity in not just the standard in Holland, it’s the current standard in the U.S. When a person is brain dead (no substantial brain activity) U.S. courts allow life support to be removed. Remember last summer when the courts allowed the feeding tube to be removed in the Florida case. Why not use the same standard for the unborn?
It’s invalid to say that the supreme court shouldn’t define what constitutes a person under the law because that decision will be controversial. What’s new? That’s the very reason the court is involved. If there were already a standard most people agreed with we wouldn’t need the court to intervene.
The standards set by Roe have no basis in either science or religion. If and when the court decides to address Roe, it would benefit the nation if the court simply defined when a human life, in all circumstances, is a person under the law.
Holy crap Omni, where to being.
I never claimed to have any expertise in this area, although I do have some experience with childbirth, where as you do not. You’re the one making claims about the majorities of women with nothing to back it up.
Interesting how you now write this:
And in the JR universe, women don’t complain about their pregnancy and childbirth experiences
I actually just said that they do, just not to the extent or intensity that you claim they do when you said:
If you tortured a woman for, say, 20 hours, you’d be locked up for the rest of your life; if however, you force a woman to endure the agony of childbirth for 20 hours, not to mention the preceding months of suffering during pregnancy, the damage to her body, and the risk of DEATH, that’s ok, huh?
There seems to be a big difference in those 2 statements. Sure childbirth is very painful, but there is the ultimate reward at the end of it. My wife gave birth to our first child a little over a year ago. She was in labor for over 20 hours, yes she went through a lot of pain, yes it took awhile for her to completely recover. But if you could see the look on her face when our daughter was born, if you could feel the emotions she felt when she held her for the first time, if you could see the way our daughter looks at her now, you would then know why we are talking about having another child.
But you can’t understand that, instead, you start blabbering about charging people with murder who vote to eliminate abortions and equate childbirth with torture. Which makes me wonder, exactly, what point are you trying to make anyway that apparently no one has been able to refute??
Virgo, my position has never shifted; it has always been exactly as stated in my original post.
JR, my point is stated very clearly in my original post, at the top of this thread; there’s no need to wonder, just read it.
Sorry, “being” should say “begin”!!! I’m sure there are other grammatical errors in the post, but that one is just glaring.
Omni,
I have read it. I think it’s nonsense and have stated as such, as many others have. Again, you have only brought forth one fact: that women have died as a result of childbirth. That fact has no bearing in this discussion. You have made no point, you have only stated your opinion! An opinion backed up with nothing but baseless assertions that you claim to be true.
So instead of trying to defend your opinions, you have retreated to labeling opinions and arguments other than yours as abuse, essentially making debate with you pointless (try as we may). It’s sad that you can’t see that.
Omni pregnancy is not forced on anybody, unless it is rape or incest..it is the biological outcome of sex. if you can,t take the consequences ..maybe you should avoid it altogether.. otherwise by your own logic your torturing yourself…
JR, saying something is nonsense does NOT count as having discussed, debated, questioned or challenged someone’s position, now does it?
My post PRECEDED the general abortion discussion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with it; I had an opinion and I stated it, as I am free to do on this blog, and that would have been the end of it had people not replied with insults.
There have been NO arguments about my actual point, just endless unsubstantiated claims as to what women “really” suffer in pregnancy and childbirth. Show me one post where someone actually discussed, DISCUSSED, the issue I raised, or stop claiming people have been trying to debate me.
And quit trying to pretend that there have been no personal insults; the big lie theory won’t work here.
Virgo, I will NOT get sucked into debating abortion as a whole, as it has nothing to do with my point.
Omni If you wish to make pregnancy and childbirth pains to be a punishable and monetararily compensatable through the court system.. You must go through the legislative processes like You must for every other law in this country..You must also have the majority on your side..ohoh
Omni,
Gee, with the beating you’ve been taking here, I am surprised you are still conscious.
One thought I forgot to post last night that I hope is worthwhile. The holocaust horrifies at least in part because it is relatively easy to visualize what the Jews were exposed to, the cattle cars, the dogs, the gas chambers. Imagine then a fetus floating serenely in warmth and darkness only to be dismembered by the suction catheter.
And what is typically dismembered is not some “ball of cells” the pro-abortion crowd usually talks of, nor the chicken embryo from high school biology class. By the time a woman misses a period, gets a pregnancy test, makes the decision, schedules the appointment, and undergoes the procedure, what gets aborted is frequently well past three months and looks like what it is, a small immature, but unmistakably human, being.
When I was in medical school, I was present at an abortion. The woman, in for her sixth abortion, wanted to see the POC (products of conception) at the end of the procedure. She wanted to see if it was a big as the last one.
Abortions are, I suppose, inevitable. But the trilogy of safe, legal, and rare needs a hell of a lot more emphasis on rare.
darleen wrote (March 8, 2006 09:50 AM):
What we have in the abortion debate is a competition of values in weighing the proper response when the rights of mother and child are in conflict. Science can only offer their observation of what conception through birth entails, not give meaning to at what point life becomes philosophically “human.”
…
It is up to the people to decide these matters.
I agree on all points.
Omni wrote (March 7, 2006 02:53 AM):
When the 1st woman who wanted an abortion and is denied one DIES, I think everyone who voted for that bill should be tried for murder… and the same thing for every other woman who dies in childbirth because she couldn’t abort.
As I understand you, you believe that those of us on the pro-life side should be held liable under both criminal and civil law if a woman dies in childbirth because she couldn’t have an abortion, and should also be held liable for lost wages and other expenses associated with the pregnancy as well as compensation for “pain and suffering”. Correct?
Let me reply by first stating my belief that arguing for abortion due to concerns over the health and safety of the mother are very much overblown, so much so that they border on an outright falsity. Statistical data seem to support this conclusion.
First, I maternity is not especially dangerous in the United States. According to a 2003 CDC report, there were 525 deaths related to pregnancy in the United States in 1999. From 1991 to 1999, there were 4200 total.(1) Here are some specifics for all US women aged 25 – 34 (deaths per 100,000 as of 2002)(2):
All causes: 12,619
Accidents: 1,818
Homocide: 457
Malignant neoplasms: 415
Suicide: 345
Heart disease: 206
Congenital defects: 108
HIV: 64
Pregnancy / childbirth: 61
The rates are similar for women in childbearing years, i.e. late teens through mid-thirties.
In 1999, there were 861,789 legal abortions in our country.(3) Are we to assume that the majority of these women – or even a large minority – would otherwise have died? I really doubt it. Given that the overwhelming majority (80.8%) were unmarried women, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that most abortions are performed for the sake of the mother’s convenience, not her health. Survey data seems to bear this out. According to a survey conducted in 2004 by the Allen Guttmacher Institute(4):
Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons [for choosing abortion] were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now”… Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).
In other words, women in the survey were FIVE TIMES more likely to abort for reasons of convenience than for reasons of health. The risk of death from childbearing is miniscule; a woman is far more likely to die in an accident or from homocide than she is from pregnancy.
It therefore seems to me that “concerns for the mother’s health” is a chimera, a false argument by abortion supporters to try to put a benevolent face on a barbaric practice.
And by the way: I don’t deny that pregnancy and labor are very uncomfortable and downright painful for women. However, to equate it with twenty hours of torture seems a bit of a stretch.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/fs030220.htm
(2) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_17.pdf
(3) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
(4) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
I only stated it was nonsense after I had articulated why I thought as much after numerous posts discussing what you had written. For some reason you have chosen to ignore that.
My post PRECEDED the general abortion discussion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with it; I had an opinion and I stated it, as I am free to do on this blog, and that would have been the end of it had people not replied with insults.
No, your post was written in the comments section on a blog (not your own) referencing a post about abortion. I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you how comments work, but people will often engage other commenters, so you really should expect to be called to the mat to explain yourself. And again, any normal person would agree, you were not insulted. But obviously, you’re sticking to that claim. Anything to stay away from actually debating or discussing what you wrote.
just endless unsubstantiated claims as to what women “really” suffer in pregnancy and childbirth.
And what was yours?? It was the same such thing. But your’s is fact and everyone else’s are unsubstantiated claims.
And quit trying to pretend that there have been no personal insults; the big lie theory won’t work here.
Again, any normal person would agree, you were not insulted. But obviously, you’re sticking to that claim. Anything to stay away from actually debating or discussing what you wrote I guess.
I’m just curious, how many women have you talked to about childbirth and pregnancy? I would expect a lot considering your matter of fact statements. And did all them who stated it was torture also feel it wasn’t worth it?
Well said Rich ,but alas Omni will only say that this doe,snt address her point…
Virgo, I’ve said nothing about wanting to personally make what I think is fair into law, and have no interest in doing so; thank you for being the FIRST person to make ANY reference to my actual point.
Rich said:
“Omni,
Gee, with the beating you’ve been taking here, I am surprised you are still conscious.”
I’m adding this to make the point clear to those who are ignoring posts other than mine and each other’s that someone other than me recognizes that I’m not being politely reasoned with here… thanks Rich!! 🙂
JR, I still challenge you to point out ONE post other than the one Virgo just made where my actual point was discussed… not the tangential nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, but my POINT.
Oh, and tell me how the term “ignorant slut” is NOT a personal insult; that one’s my favorite.
Are you kidding me, ignorant slut?? Do you not know the reference there? It’s from an old Saturday Night Live skit. I read it like a joke, not an insult.
And fine, let’s forget the insults. You view them as such and I can’t convince you otherwise. And really if you find them insulting whose to say to you they are not. My bad.
But seriously, if you think that none of my posts have addressed, debated, and/or discussed your original opinion then you really are just avoiding the issues you presented. How about answering the questions I asked about your opinions? Or is that too much too ask?
I would think that any reasonable health care workers would attempt to save both the mother and her child during an emergency situation.. as for punitive awards for life choice decisions, i would think maybe a trial attorney like John Edwards may be able to pull it off with a sympathetic jury”” who know,s i would,nt be surprised if it end,s up with lawsuits like this..
Docjim505, thank you for addressing my point. You said:
“As I understand you, you believe that those of us on the pro-life side should be held liable under both criminal and civil law if a woman dies in childbirth because she couldn’t have an abortion, and should also be held liable for lost wages and other expenses associated with the pregnancy as well as compensation for “pain and suffering”. Correct?”
Unless you’re a member of a legislative body, that would be INcorrect; you might have MEANT legislators, though, in which case you DO have the concept summarized correctly.
I don’t claim that a majority of women who wanted abortions would die, in fact I’ve made no numerical projections at all; all I’ve said was that I think that any who DO die, and there’s no denying that it WILL happen sooner or later, should mean that certain legal things would happen. You’re free to disagree, and I’ll make no attempt to change your mind, as even if I succeeded it’d gain me nothing.
As to the rest of what you said about abortion; I respect your right to view the why’s and wherefore’s of the issue the way you do, but I hope you’ll understand my unwillingness to make a case for abortion given the hostile climate here.
JR, if you think that someone who passionately disagreed with me was JOKING in the numerous insulting things she said… well, you’re entitled to your opinion, and we’ll agree to disagree. Have you noticed that SHE hasn’t denied that she was in fact insulting me?
Please indicate where you discussed my point that I’ve missed seeing, and I’ll be happy to reply to what you said. You can also indicate where you asked for my opinions, but I don’t guarantee that I’ll choose to give opinions that will lead us off the track; I will NOT get sucked into general debate on abortion, or about who thinks they’ve heard more women’s pregnancy and childbirth stories.
Virgo, I’m intrigued that you think lawsuits of the type I refer to might happen even withOUT laws being passed to explicitly permit them; I think you might be right, that some folks might at least try.
I’m going to go sleep for 3 hours, as I’ve been up for nearly a day now, and then I’ll come back and try to reply to people; be warned that if I have 20 pages of posts aimed at me, I will NOT take 5 hours to reply to everything.
Sorry Omni, that isn’t what I meant. The treatment you have been receiving here reminds me of group therapy at the VA Psych ward. You seem to border on the frankly delusional and everyone else is just giving you a little reality therapy.
I recognize that abortion is a highly contentious issue and there are two sides. But it seems very much like the debate on capital punishment. There is no common ground with such as Jean Dead-Man-Walking Prejean. If you conceed that capital punishment is not right in this case, she simply moves on to the next and the next, usw. The pro-abortion crowd seems to understand in their heart of hearts that any restriction implies that the decision to abort is to be regretted and avoided. Sooo…. no restrictions whatsoever. I suspect Kate Michelman (spell?) will be willing to discuss restrictions about the same time pigs learn to say the rosary.
I’m glad I came back for one last look after my shower; I’d hate to delay my response to you, Rick.
I’m sorry I thought you were being compassionate, or even reasonable, rather than a cockroach; my bad.
When you use an extreme term like “delusional” to describe someone’s opinion, or their recollections of what people have said about the events of their lives, you lose all credibility… and if that didn’t do it, summing up DOZENS of nasty posts as THERAPY would mark you as someone eager to be ugly rather than accurate.
The best help I can give the pro-choice cause is to let the moderates who are reading along here see just how vicious some of you are willing to be, and for how long; if you think you’re making “your side” look good by this endless gang bang of someone who didn’t direct a single word to anyone before the insults started rolling in, keep up the good work.
My hair’s dry now, so I’ll go catch a few zzzz’s and be back this afternoon.
Please note that Omni can’t even keep her own singular point straight… her first post
then in her reply to docjim
She’s gone from demanding ALL pregnant women the RIGHT to sue EVERY person who “voted against abortion” for assault and receive compensation to now claiming she never said that only that some vague, floating in the ether “some legal thing should happen” if a woman dies in childbirth.
I don’t deny that I have used less than terms of awestruck admiration in some of my posts to Omni. When a person is acting as mind-numbing stubborn as she – when she PROUDLY states she has no figures, never looked at ’em, doesn’t WANT to look at ’em – when she makes unsubstantiated claims and then calls anyone challenging those claims “cockroaches” – she is acting in the bizarre mode of much of the left – I offer pointed statements hoping it might offer a CLUE to how she appears to others. Omni offers only the argument of the three-year-old that WANTS and FEELS and throws a tantrum when s/he doesn’t get his/her way.
Omni says pregnancy and childbirth MUST be torture and suffering because she feels it UNrelated and UNtethered to anything so pedestrian as facts or reality. She says she has been abused because she FEELS it and her feelings also absolve her of any responsibility for her own words.
Omni is like the co-worker we all met..the one that screws up and blames others with a righteous indignation “That’s NOT what I meant! Stop being so unfair to me!”
pitiful.just.pitiful.
A truth that should be considered.
Text communications are not always read in the same “tone of voice” in which they were written. Most people tend to read their own words in a reasonable tone of voice.
Omni… you’ve sounded every single bit as hysterical and viscious as anyone who has replied to you. What moderates see is probably not what you see. Your reasonable and calm demeanor does not come through the keyboard… you started out with a call to “try them for murder” and went on from there. That you typed calmly and were not in the least hysterical or upset just doesn’t come through because no one can see your smiling face or hear your voice.
It’s not their fault. It’s just a fact.
Oh, Darleen, don’t you know? It’s not about babies. It’s about hating women.
As long as the question can be made to be about hating women, all those other troublesome issues never have to be dealt with.
Well, so far in response to my question about the legal consequences of women who get illegal abortions we’ve got guilt, it depends, and the “possibility of jail time”. I’m not sure what I was expecting, exactly, but it seems odd to me that those who consider abortion to be murder tend to hedge when it comes to punishment for such murders.
If we operate under the assumption that abortion is murder (I know not all people think this), shouldn’t the punishment be the same? As I understand this SD law provides up to 5 years prison for doctors who perform illegal abortions, and as far as I know there is no penalty for the woman who gets the abortion. Shouldn’t laws banning abortion include punishment for the mother. After all, the mother is the one who contracts the murder, the doctor is just the hit man.
Presumably it would be legal to go elsewhere, where abortion was legal, and have one.
I don’t really know, mantis. For most people this is about the baby, not the mother. Few people are interested in punishing the mother at all. They just don’t want babies killed.
What penalty should there be? I donno. I’ve known very few people who have talked about having had an abortion. The one person I’ve met who talked the most about it was a 17 year old who didn’t want one, not particularly, concealed her pregnancy from rather inattentive parents, and when it came to light, was taken by them to get an illegal mid-term abortion. This was long after she could feel the baby move.
What punishment should be put upon whom? The girl? Certainly she could have asserted herself and refused rather than passively accepted what she didn’t really want. The parents? They certainly *caused* a baby over five months along to die. The doctor? The doctor broke the law and probably did so for a nice wad of cold cash.
What do *you* think should be the punishment?
Darleen, few people can resist the bait of their words being wildly misrepresented, especially when you’ve veered so far from the truth about ANYTHING… but I’m one of the few. You’re not gonna lure me into a game of “that’s not what I said/meant/implied.”
There are no “facts” relevant to my opinion as to how blame for the sufferings of women who were denied abortions should be handled, any more than “facts” could debate my assertion that pink is the prettiest color.
I’m astonished and fascinated that you didn’t deny any intent to insult me, as we probably all expected you to; this is a big kick in the teeth to the members of your “side” who have repeatedly denied that I was ever insulted.
Note to those who said that; do any of you have the class to admit you were wrong and apologize for wrongly hammering me on that issue?
Synova, if someone is posting in all caps with a bunch of exclamation marks and deteriorating spelling and/or grammar, it’s reasonable to assume that they’re very upset; otherwise, it’s not, and “hysterical” is NEVER defensible as a label for someone who’s still managing to type and post. Anyone who becomes convinced that upset, much less hysteria, exists in a commenter without evidence must correct that impression in their minds, or admit that they’re choosing to believe an obvious falsehood; if they choose the latter, anything they say in error IS their fault.
For most people this is about the baby, not the mother. Few people are interested in punishing the mother at all. They just don’t want babies killed.
See, this is the part I don’t understand. We also don’t want (non-gestational) people to be killed, but we sure as hell want to punish those responsible. In essence, how do you stop babies from being killed if there is no punishment?
As far as what I think the punishment should be, well I don’t think there should be a punishment. I think abortion should be legal (though not through Roe; I think we ought to legislate it). I do think late-term abortions should be illegal (except in extreme cases), and doctors who perform them should lose their licenses at least. I think if early abortions were legal and the penalties were stiff enough for doctors we could virtually eliminate late-term abortions.
As far as your example of the deplorable parents, that’s a tough one. Obviously parents should have legal rights over their children until a certain age, but I don’t think that should extend as far as forced abortion. Seems to me such cases would be rare, but I don’t know.
I think you’ll find a whole lot of people who react to you a particular way and will continue to do so for just as long as you insist that the mere ability to type on your part equates to a calm and reasoned tone of voice.
My years and years of observation on usenet of the disconnect between what people believe they write and how it is recieved is apparently irrelevant.
I’m sorry I bothered.
Synova, I’ve had over 6 years of heavy online forum/message board/club/group/blog involvement, and I’m well aware of the basics of how people behave. What you’re not grasping is that how belligerent people react has little to do with what the victim is saying; I’ve had many experiences of posting the EXACT same comments, word for word, in different places, and had people in one place tell me I’m “raving” while the next place has people singing my praises and eagerly discussing what I said, with even those that disagree doing so pleasantly and with respect for my right to my opinions.
I’ve also proven repeatedly that, when belligerent people disagree with me, how they respond differs wildly based on whether they think I’m male or female, and again I mean when I post the exact same thing in similar forums… just FYI.
Mantis, I doubt it’s rare. But I’m using a really broad definition of forced. “We’re here to help you and will support your decision if you keep the baby, but it’s up to you.” is the bare minimum for a non-coerced abortion by a minor, IMO.
The imbalance of power between a child and parent is extreme. Any sort of a threat of “*We* aren’t taking care of that baby!” or implication that the young woman will be on her own or even lectures about how her life will be completely ruined, is not going to leave her a *choice* at all. That’s not choice. It’s just not.
Of course that’s the same argument given to support minors being able to obtain abortions, not just without her parent’s permission, but without parental notification. Very few minors can stand up to their parents.
I don’t know what to do about that, either, because it doesn’t seem balanced when it’s never possible to *keep* a baby without your parent’s knowledge. It would seem likely to push young women toward abortion when they might otherwise not chose that course.
Surprisingly, I’m almost never responded to in a belligerant manner. Not never, but seldom.
I think you came across, initially and thereafter, as provocative and over the top. My subjective opinion, of course. And if you were still capable of typing and not using all caps, neither did anyone else fail to be able to type nor did they use all caps.
The only person who’s ever told me I’m not entitled to my opinion, for what it’s worth, was a feminist who accused me of being given my opinions by men and therefore not having an opinion that was the least valid. I think she called me “little woman” too, and accused me of spitting on my sisters. All for the crime of uttering the words, “I’m not a feminist, but…” I’m sure she had plenty of lovely discussions with people who disagreed with her but did not become belligerant in their disagreement. How is that relevant? It proves nothing but that she allowed disagreement within certain perameters or in certain manners. Grovel enough as you present your disagreement and nearly anyone will engage you civily.
Met a lady who told me soonish, as we chatted, that people either loved her, or hated her. As time went on it was apparent that it was all she permitted. Love or hatred. She seemed convinced that because some people loved her, that she was loveable, and that it was obviously not her fault if other people hated her. Obviously the world was filled with hateful people. But most people don’t require love or hatred. Most people get on in a civilized, impersonal way. Given a choice of love or hatred, most people just don’t have the time to bother.
Synova, regardless of how someone comes across to a given person, that person can choose, CHOOSE, to initiate contact in a proper manner or an ugly one… and they’re 100% responsible for that choice, and for any and all trouble that arises from it.
There may well be such a thing as a good person who’s nasty in only one specific area… but I’ve never seen it, and judge accordingly.
My experience is that most people will hate at the drop of a hat; if you’re the wrong religion, color, political party, sexual orientation, or even prefer the wrong band, TV show, radio station or sports team, and dare to make it known, haters will come out of the woodwork… and they won’t bother with polite disagreement.
It’s also my experience that, eager to believe that they themselves are safe from unprovoked attacks, some folks will go to great lengths to blame the victim, with never a word against the wrongdoers; this is part of why you see so many threads hijacked by flaming on every sort of forum, because almost no one has the balls/ovaries to address the attackers.
Synova
a feminist who accused me of being given my opinions by men and therefore not having an opinion that was the least valid.
ROFL. I was in a thread where we were all offering our opinions on the artistic merit of the Vagina Monologues and because I found it less than Shakespearian I was accused of holding that opinion because I let men “own” my vagina.
That’s when you know you are in a discussion with people religiously wedded to their ideology and any dissent is apostasy.
At that point, mocking seems entirely appropriate (though some have no sense of being mocked and start whining about being “victims” of “abuse”…ahem) It really need not be said that our contemporary culture suffers from the strange disease of Entitled Victimology.
Mantis like all criminal and civil statutes, appropriate consequences are arrived at by consensus. We don’t punish those that kill in self-defense and even manslaughter (say running a redlight and killing another in a car accient) may be deemed a misdemeanor and punishable only by probation and community service. We have sentencing ranges specifically to give judges a chance to consider each case and impose an appropriate sentence.
Mantis like all criminal and civil statutes, appropriate consequences are arrived at by consensus. We don’t punish those that kill in self-defense and even manslaughter (say running a redlight and killing another in a car accient) may be deemed a misdemeanor and punishable only by probation and community service. We have sentencing ranges specifically to give judges a chance to consider each case and impose an appropriate sentence.
I understand that. The question is what would crime would find an equivalent level of punishment. I mean under the assumption that abortion is murder; not just homicide, but murder. Not only that but in what are presumably virtually all cases, it is premeditated murder. Treating a fetus legally as a human being is the meaning of this Federal law from 2004. Of course, it provides an exception for abortion, which seems a glaring inconsistency (and it only applies to the military). The presumption behind this law is presumably the same as the law in SD banning abortions.
In any case if the premise is that the unborn are entitled to life the same as any of us postwombers, and therefore abortion should be illegal, doesn’t that make abortion premeditated murder? This isn’t hitting someone at a red light or negligently poisoning their groundwater or dropping a piano on an old lady’s dog, this is deciding that a person should be killed because they are not wanted, and hiring someone to kill that person. Should the punishment therefore be in the equivalent range of sentences of other murders with premeditation? It stands to reason. Is it right?
mantis wrote (March 9, 2006 01:24 AM):
Should the punishment therefore be in the equivalent range of sentences of other murders with premeditation? It stands to reason. Is it right?
I think the issue here is what I remarked about in an earlier post: we are conditioned to think of women who get an abortion as somehow not really responsible for the act. Further, abortion has the outward appearance of a victimless crime: we have no photos of the corpse; no tearful friends and relatives in the courtroom describing what a wonderful person the deceased was; no funeral; no grave. The victim doesn’t even have a name. It’s as if nobody really died.
Logically, however, it is premeditated murder. I doubt society will ever get round to penalizing it as such; revoking the license of a doctor who performs an abortion and perhaps putting him in jail for a time seems reasonable punishments to me. It may be that society will also see fit to punish women who get multiple abortions, but who knows?
Rich raised an interesting point in an earlier post (March 8, 2006 01:00 PM) when he mentioned a women who had gotten several abortions: I wonder how many abortions are “repeat customers”? I recall that Whoopie Goldberg virtually bragged in front of Congress that she’d had more than one.
Revolting.
Apart from executing a death warrant, killing a person is a homicide. It’s up to police to investigate the circumstances and then up to the appropriate prosecutor to bring charges, if any. In cases of obvious self-defense prosecutors routinely rule such killings are justifiable homicide and no charges are filed. If a killing is not clear-cut self-defense, charges are filed as supported by the evidence. Even then, a jury decides the facts.
If the Supreme Court defined a person under the law as a human with significant brain activity, then yes, we would have unborn persons entitled to the full protection of the law. In theory then, women could be charged with killing their unborn baby. Also, anyone helping them would be charged and these folks usually get less sympathy from juries. The real question is, should such a possibility preclude establishing a scientifically defendable definition of what constitutes a person under the law? The brain activity standard has been used for years in the case of injured people, so it already has significant scientific and legal standing.
For a woman to be charged with killing her unborn baby, she would have to be having sex, and miss all the signs of pregnancy up to around the 20th week. Given the accuracy of over the counter pregnancy tests, and the rarity of women who don’t know they are pregnant into the second trimester, few woman who want an abortion should find they are unable to do so. At that point, a woman could still give up the baby for adoption. Because current laws allow killing someone else in self-defense, women could get abortions anytime there’s substantial risk to their life or their health.
Another point is that for a killing to be ruled a crime there has to be criminal intent. Thus, women who engages is sports or other activities while pregnant and suffer the death of their baby as a result, could not be charged with a crime, as there was no criminal intent.
the Supreme Court would be doing the nation a great service by stepping up to the plate and telling us what defines a person under the law. They should use the South Dakota case to rework Roe with such a definition.