South Dakota Bans Abortions

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lots of talk on the ‘right’ to have sex. To that end, I do not disagree.

But with rights come responsibilities. No one is telling a woman she can’t have sex - that is a ludicrous straw man. So why does a man that decides to have sex not entitled to get off the hook from taking care of a child that his partner refused to abort, even though he wanted her to?

Here we stand at the point ushered in by the 1960’s - the attempts to create a consequence-free environment of hedonism. And it doesn’t extend just to sex.

Want to be a glutton, eat as much garbage as you can force down your face, and get fat and destroy your health? No problem - you should be entitled to have society bail you out of your personal choices with risk underwriting and cost absorption.

Want to spend all your money, max out your credit cards enjoying cosmic levels of consumer enjoyment, only to break your household finances? No problem - you should be entitled to have society bail you out of these bad choices with easy bankruptcy.

Want to have all the sex you want, with whomever you want, and ultimately get pregnant? No problem - you are entitled to enjoy yourself, and it is up to society to allow you to erase your mistakes with abortion.

And the last thing we would want is to rain down scorn upon these choices and possibly hurt someone’s feelings in the post-60s environment of pervasive non-judgmentalism.

We’ve replaced self-reliance, self-discipline, and self-mastery with self-expression, self-indulgence, and self-destruction. Our grandparents fought in World Wars and toughed out the Great Depression. We march around, well-fed and interested only in instant self-gratification, demanding ever more entitlement and freedom from responsibility. We want abortion availability, diet pills, stomach stapling, handouts, and free ‘everything’. What a bunch of sissies we have become in the name of ‘fulfilling our desires’.

Plenty of talk about ‘rights’ these days - but I am more interested in the talk about responsibility.

The mantra is this: “If it feels good, I want to do it, but if the results blow up in my face, I want everyone else to bail me out”. I can’t get on board with that. Ever.

Further, abortion has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with women’s rights. It has everything to do with the very complicated question of when to start extending human rights to the child in the womb. I don’t think that is an easy question, and I think reasonable people can disagree as to the answer. But, that is the only question - and ‘women’s rights’ are smokescreen and completely irrelevant.

As Justice Holmes remarked:

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.

Likewise, the right for a woman to have whatever sex she wants gets compromised the moment another life gets entered into the mix. You can’t do anything you want when another being’s interests and rights are suddenly on the table.

Abortion is a complicated issue, but cannot be decided through a prism of ‘abortion is part of my right to have fun’. [/quote]

BRAVO!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.

It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.

That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…

SICK!

Are all of you just as vocal when it comes to adoption and wellfare?

Who are all of you?

Anyone focusing on “anti-abortion laws” while ignoring the negativity going into a child being brought up by parents who don’t really want him, a father who may not love him, being raised in circumstances that provide no moral nourishment, or being abandoned by his parents altogether.[/quote]

Then by all means that child should be killed. How nutty the liberal talking points are on this issue…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Then by all means that child should be killed. How nutty the liberal talking points are on this issue…[/quote]

Ridiculous. Instead of the nonsense you just wrote, the correct thought should be a realization that the problem is not in the existance of abortion. The problem extends far beyond birth and those so intently focused on controlling what women can or can not do should be equally caring about those raising kids on wellfare, those kids growing up in poverty level environments and the overall lack of education. Instead, we get people focusing on abortion when perhaps, that should be the LAST place to turn all of your attention.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Ridiculous. Instead of the nonsense you just wrote, the correct thought should be a realization that the problem is not in the existance of abortion.[/quote]

That’s not the problem? Tell that to the 50 (or so) million babies that have died because some thought abortion was a good idea and it became law.

I know darn those laws! Hey, if a woman can do anything she wants with her body how come she can whore it out legally? And how come she can’t kill herself legally?

So much for the liberal mantra of “it’s a womans right to do what she wants with her body.”

You guys are so very predictable…

Yes I agree with you here. There should be more focus on these problems. BUT those are separate issues. Because you are not going to deliberately kill a child simply because he is poor…are you?

No of course not.

Oh I don’t know about that. I tend to think that killing babies before they are born is quite serious and worthy of plenty of attention.

Zeb, you know, once the child has progressed enough to become more human, to be capable of thinking and having feelings, then I am more apt to agree with you.

However, short of religious reasons, I can’t see any harm done if what is present is merely a collection of cells. Sure, the potential is there, but until realized it isn’t that important.

I scrape off and kill cells every time I scratch, eat or take a dump. Nobody is getting incensed over the fact that parts of my body, living cells, are removed and dying every day.

When a baby is developing, and is no longer just a mass of cells, then I am more willing to grant it rights and considerations. Before that point, it’s simply a collection of cells with potential.

Yes, yes, I know everyone has a different viewpoint, and I’m not saying you can’t have yours, but this is mine. Removing religion from the picture leaves me with principles concerning pain and suffering.

Just as you and a few others are saying “sure, use silly reasonings to justify killing babies”, you and a few others are equating a mass of cells with a baby, which I find silly. Short of religion, life itself isn’t the important issue… as in nature all life feeds on other life, death is everywhere.

As humans, we do at least have the ability to make sure the deaths we cause are somewhat humane, or that our interactions with others do not cause undue suffering.

P.S. Enough with the relativism bullshit, it is simply a red herring.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
miniross wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
miniross wrote:
ZEB wrote:
miniross wrote:
No one has a right to life. Like sheep and cows dont, and impala on the serengeti dont, and cod in the sea dont.

Where did this right to life idea begin.

I have no idea.

You continue to disappoint me.

Why, because i have no gradiose notions to which i attach myself to. I

I absolutley insist that there is no right to life. what about the millions of unknown miscarriages each year? Does that embryo have a right to life, then to have it dashed because the host body rejected it?

Life is wonderful, yes, but by no means do you have a right to it.

You poor little confused ‘dyslexic’ man: If you do not have a right to your life, then there are no rights at all. We are each ‘endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

An embryo has the DNA structure of a human. It is a person. It therefore has all the rights that all of us who happened to be born already have secured. Abortion is the murder of a human. It is the negation of rights. It is simply Satanic evil.

No cofusion, enlightenment. I have Humanistic tendencies, but i am not arrogant to think i have a right to this life. Lucky, maybe, but not a right to it. It could be taken away in a second, by a cruel accident that has no way of respecing this so called “right”.

do you think you have a right to your life then?

Cofusion? Isn’t that a hoped-for energy source waiting to be discovered? :slight_smile:

Rights are defined in terms of your relationship with other humans. It has nothing to do with you having the ‘right’ to ignore the law of gravity or ‘right’ to not being eaten by a lion while on safari.

You need a good class on Political Philosophy. Start with John Locke.

[/quote]

Wasn’t he off LOST?

I wish i had the the time to have one, but i will look into it. I do have a bit of info of biological behaviourism, so i will, as a reductionist, go there first.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That’s not the problem? Tell that to the 50 (or so) million babies that have died because some thought abortion was a good idea and it became law.[/quote]

Babies aren’t called babies until they become babies. Considering it is widely disputed at which point cells become a fetus which then becomes a baby, you can’t claim to have the only correct viewpoint.

[quote]

I know darn those laws! Hey, if a woman can do anything she wants with her body how come she can whore it out legally? And how come she can’t kill herself legally?[/quote]

Possibly because there are way too many people in the world who feel it is their place to decide what others can or can not do when they should be much more concerned about their own personal affairs.

[quote]

Yes I agree with you here. There should be more focus on these problems. BUT those are separate issues. Because you are not going to deliberately kill a child simply because he is poor…are you?

No of course not.[/quote]

A zygote is not a child.

A zygote is not a baby.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Possibly because there are way too many people in the world who feel it is their place to decide what others can or can not do when they should be much more concerned about their own personal affairs.

[/quote]

Oh yes…yes indeed. We should all just mind our own business and allow anyone to do anything. Never enact laws to protect the weak you cannot protect themselves. Heavens no…just mind our own business and whatever happens happens…" la la la…the world is beautiful…dee dee doo."

I don’t think you are a nit wit, I really don’t.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Possibly because there are way too many people in the world who feel it is their place to decide what others can or can not do when they should be much more concerned about their own personal affairs.

Oh yes…yes indeed. We should all just mind our own business and allow anyone to do anything. Never enact laws to protect the weak you cannot protect themselves. Heavens no…just mind our own business and whatever happens happens…" la la la…the world is beautiful…dee dee doo."

I don’t think you are a nit wit, I really don’t.
[/quote]

At what point do you cut off the desire to control what others do? No one wrote that there should be no laws. However, why do you care if someone with a terminal illness wants to kill themselves? You brought up this point above. You didn’t take into account any circumstances that might cause a woman to wish to take her own life, you only thought of your desire to stop it. Why? Why is alcohol legal yet marijuana illegal? To save the poor children?

There should be laws or there will be anarchy. There should not be a desire to control the actions of others to the point that the law has direct control over how a person of sound mind chooses to treat their own body.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Possibly because there are way too many people in the world who feel it is their place to decide what others can or can not do when they should be much more concerned about their own personal affairs.

Oh yes…yes indeed. We should all just mind our own business and allow anyone to do anything. Never enact laws to protect the weak you cannot protect themselves. Heavens no…just mind our own business and whatever happens happens…" la la la…the world is beautiful…dee dee doo."

I don’t think you are a nit wit, I really don’t.

At what point do you cut off the desire to control what others do? No one wrote that there should be no laws. However, why do you care if someone with a terminal illness wants to kill themselves? You brought up this point above. You didn’t take into account any circumstances that might cause a woman to wish to take her own life, you only thought of your desire to stop it. Why? Why is alcohol legal yet marijuana illegal? To save the poor children?

There should be laws or there will be anarchy. There should not be a desire to control the actions of others to the point that the law has direct control over how a person of sound mind chooses to treat their own body.[/quote]

I don’t want to control anyone. That you should even bring that up is sort of nutty.

Anyway, my primary concern is with the infant who is temporarily residing in that womans body. It’s their right to live that I want to preserve.

On another note, you are supposed to be a doctor right?

If that’s what you are, would you perform an abortion?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:

I am with Miniross on this, we have no rights whatsoever…

Okay…then give me your TV set.

You are confusing the idea of God-given inherent rights and social conventions and you are doing it on purpose…

Or you are really not able to see the difference which would explain why you cannot grasp that people do not want religious ideas shoved down their throats by making them social conventions.

“Religion” does not enter into the debate when it comes to “murder” or “rape” or any other crime against a human being.

You have the right to walk the streets safely, and I think an unborn baby should have the right to be born!

You dragged religion into this.

[/quote]

Then I?ll ask you again:

When does a fertilized egg become an unborn baby? When does it start to have the right to be born?

Now answer that question without using ideas of a religious nature.

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

[quote]orion wrote:

Now answer that question without using ideas of a religious nature. [/quote]

That is a worthless exercise. Laws are reflections of values, not scientific observations.

Nothing in science tells us that it is wrong to murder a 6 month old baby. Why would you be so rigid in clinging to science to answer the abortion question when you wouldn’t for any other act of violence against a human?

Where we draw the line as to where a child in the womb gets protection of the law is largely based on a value judgment that will be informed by religion/culture/morality. That doesn’t mean science doesn’t help at all, but it does not answer moral questions.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
On another note, you are supposed to be a doctor right?

If that’s what you are, would you perform an abortion?
[/quote]

It isn’t “supposed to be”, I am one. However, that is not my field of practice. My job is to do no harm intentionally and to help people. If an abortion was needed and I was skilled in that area, I would do one. I would not, however, willfully allow a baby I helped create be aborted. I don’t live my life like that. Therefore, my own values and standards can be carried out well without trying to force the rest of the world to act just like me.

In this situation, for those that aren’t accepting the religious interpretation, it is certainly not a worthless exercise.

Some objective criteria must be used to determine when the mass of cells reaches a critical stage where it should be recognized as a human and granted rights.

Why? Because the values to be applied depend on the level of development that has been achieved. A sperm is not a baby. An egg is not a baby. An egg in the process of being fertilized is not a baby.

There are points of development that will involve the appearance of neurons, nerves and other body components that become involved with thinking and feeling. From a non-religious standpoint, these are very significant issues.

[quote]orion wrote:

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.[/quote]

No, YOU are draggin religion into this and I am pointing that out!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
On another note, you are supposed to be a doctor right?

If that’s what you are, would you perform an abortion?

It isn’t “supposed to be”, I am one. However, that is not my field of practice. My job is to do no harm intentionally and to help people. If an abortion was needed and I was skilled in that area, I would do one. I would not, however, willfully allow a baby I helped create be aborted. I don’t live my life like that. Therefore, my own values and standards can be carried out well without trying to force the rest of the world to act just like me.[/quote]

That is a very good argument. And it was used by the South to rationalize slavery. I bet you wouldn’t have liked it much if you lived then.

“What difference is it to you if I own a slave? It’s no ones business” they screamed!

I would have said the same thing I do now about abortion: It’s everyones business!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

No, YOU are draggin religion into this and I am pointing that out![/quote]

Then I?ll ask you again:

When does a fertilized egg become an unborn baby? When does it start to have the right to be born?

Now answer that question without using ideas of a religious nature.

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

Cut and paste…

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

No, YOU are draggin religion into this and I am pointing that out!

Then I?ll ask you again:

When does a fertilized egg become an unborn baby? When does it start to have the right to be born?

Now answer that question without using ideas of a religious nature.

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

Cut and paste…[/quote]

Groundhog day!

[quote]vroom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Responsibility takes many shapes and forms. So just when do you get to ‘impose’ responsibility on people.

What about drunk driving?
Murder
Stealing
Beating
Going to school or not
wearing a helmet while motorcycling

Did I not say I understand the ability to set laws under the constitution? In any case, the basis of the law in question can be determined.

Murder: Obviously the biggie here, but traditionally limited to those that were already self-aware distinct people.

The rest fall into actions that have known measurable effects on others or society. I’m not sure there are measurable effects on society for loss of an unborn.

So, as an attempt at an answer, you can impose laws on people when the actions that the laws impact have been shown to have a large impact on society. This is a reason, other than religion, to impose rules on behavior.

I understand your viewpoint and I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t have it. Don’t get worked up just because other people have differing viewpoints.

there are a litany of things that we are required to be responsible for. Some even claim that the president of the United States was responsible for everything that occurred because of a natural disaster. Funny how responsiblity gets used to ‘justify’ ones position.

Funny, being in charge confers a measure of responsibility sometimes. Was there any point here?[/quote]

Funny

You claim you want ownership ie-to be in charge of her body–yet that doesn’t confer responsibility to you.

Pick and choose–pick and choose

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

No, YOU are draggin religion into this and I am pointing that out!

Then I?ll ask you again:

When does a fertilized egg become an unborn baby? When does it start to have the right to be born?

Now answer that question without using ideas of a religious nature.

You are dragging religion into this, I am merely pointing that out.

Cut and paste…[/quote]

At the point of conception. When do you think it occurs?

Currently it’s legal to kill this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Fetus.png

And that’s simply wrong!