Wait On That Abortion

[Mike]

Is that the catch?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

In the lawful defense of said person

If a woman is choosing to have a legal abortion... is killing the doctor in lawful defense?


The only way I could see this bill giving the green light to offing abortion docs is if abortion was illegal.

[Mike]

Are we going to have a new legal debate in some states as to whether a legal abortion can or does cause great personal injury?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

Are we going to have a new legal debate in some states as to whether a legal abortion can or does cause great personal injury?

isnt it the womans choice to have an abortion?

I dont think anyone is forced to have an abortion.

Roe vs Wade makes this south dakota think moot. especially since Federal law trumps state law. though i dont think there is anything in the state law that makes it legal to kill abortion doctors.

[Mike]

I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. I got the article on a newsfeed on my Facebook rewgarding the Tea Party's designs to set back the rights and progress of women in this country-not sure I'm buying this inclusion. As always, I'll ask my liberal friends who may be taking the headlines at face value to explain the bill to me

Probably best for me to move on, I stopped coming into this Politics section a few years back, this conversation seems quite civil, however.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

If the situation is reversed, and the boyfriend wants the baby but the woman doesn't, the boyfriend (would-be father) has the option of not driving his girlfriend to the abortion clinic. So much for the equality of male/female parenthood.

You're correct in that a currently legal act cannot be a felony of course. At least not at the same level of law. Federally legal may or may not have a bearing on the State, County or Local definitions. The law is peculiar that way. You can try a guy for murder (like O.J), find him innocent of the murder, but yet win a wrongful death civil lawsuit for the same set of events you found him innocent of criminally.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

[somerfrost]

I hesitate to speak to the Dakota bill, I can see the concern from those who are pro-choice, the wording can be taken a couple ways and it's not unreasonable that some nut job will read it as giving him/her open season on abortion providers even though that is clearly not the intent. I am troubled by the suggestion that sterilizing folks is an answer. It takes me back to the 60's and a song written by Phil Ochs, "Here's To The State Of Mississippi" in which he touches on the immorality of forced sterilization. I thought that was an idea who's time had come and (thankfully) gone with the success of the civil rights movement...guess not. There is no question that a lot of folks are simply not ready to be parents due to a variety of reasons (immaturity, drug use, ignorance of basics and a variety of mental health/character issues) but who would make that decision? How can one justify punishing folks for what may happen in the future? No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

[Mike]

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Mike

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

Please don't take my post as a personal attack, I was responding to the general discussion and didn't mean to single anyone out.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?

All of those things, guns, drunk driving -- those harm real, living people. I just have a very hard time understanding the thinking that values the "rights" of a hypothetical human being with no ability to survive, no functioning (or formed to the point of being productive) organs over the rights of a sentient, living human being not being forced to be an incubator for 9 months against her will.

But I respect a woman's ability to make her own choices about her own body, and would never be so presumptuous as to think I should have any say over what someone else does with their own body. And yes, that includes the choice to be sexually active, potentially resulting in pregnancy if birth control fails, etc, and believing that the choice to be sexually active does not deny you the later choice to not carry to term a pregnancy that could be dangerous, unwanted, a child you can't afford to take good care of, or any of the other numerous reasons a woman might choose abortion.

The argument about abortion, no matter what words are used, is an awful lot more about women than it is about babies, and controlling their bodies and controlling their choices. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body, so it only stands to reason that I should shut up and MYOFB about what a woman, going through something I will NEVER go through in my life, should do with her body.

The thing I'm most hopeful about, and still have a good feeling about, is that this fantasy of yours where any woman who feels inclined to use her vagina for anything is then automatically indebted to be an incubator for some ball of DNA against her will, is unlikely to become the law of the land.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by jms62

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Mike

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?

google: south dakota nebraska murder abortion

And you'll get lots of hits.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

What is omitted from this debate is when, during the pregnancy, abortions are legally permitted to be performed.

Watched another vet "pinch a twin" this morning in a pregnant TB mare. I did not tell him he was "murdering" a horse.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is omitted from this debate is when, during the pregnancy, abortions are legally permitted to be performed.

Watched another vet "pinch a twin" this morning in a pregnant TB mare. I did not tell him he was "murdering" a horse.

Yet if you believe life begins at conception you would see that as murder!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

No one is killing any offspring becuase they are not offspring until they are born.

A Latin word for offspring is "fetus".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is the entire issue is it not? Those who believe life begins at conception can never accept legalized abortion while those who see life beginning at birth must in good faith support a woman's right to choose. That is the basis for the debate and until/unless science can provide a absolute answer, the debate will continue.

Quite correct.