(South Dakota) State House passes bill outlawing abortion

World Net Daily ^ | THURSDAY

[contessa machiaveli]

what would you think is the proper penalty if a woman intentionally throws herself down a flight of stairs and miscarries?

[BearArms]

what would you think is the proper penalty if a woman intentionally throws herself down a flight of stairs and miscarries?

In that case, we clearly have an abortion where the woman herself is the abortionist. And there are plenty of other ways a woman could self-abort, the options available to her only increasing with time and technological advancement.

That's why I've never been able to understand the common pro-life position that abortion is murder and should be banned as such, but the principal in the crime should get off without criminal penalty. This is essentially a position in support of decriminalization of abortion - technically illegal, but allowed to be practiced with virtual impunity. I fail to see how this is a morally superior position to that of supporting full legality of abortion under regulation and controls, which is the position I support.

[Libertina]

Wonderful news, may other states follow suit and also strike down homosexual "marriage" as well.

[rikkir]

"Respectfully, I think your theory is naive."

You may be right, it is somewhat naive. However we have to begin sometime to play the game the way the libs do. All of the major accomplishments (if you want to call them that) that the left have made have been through incrementalism. Every issue they stand for has been brought to the mainstream in little doses so we wouldn't notice. Look at the education system in this country. It is not by accident that people graduating from high school don't understand our economic system, can't tell you what the Constitution says, but know how to put a condom on a cucumber. A dumbed down society is easier to control. The left knew this years ago, seized control of the education system, and began implementing their agenda small bits at a time. We as conservatives still haven't learned this lesson.
This action today can be looked at from both standpoints. A huge slap in the libs collective face, which they will howl about, and you're right, probably defeat with the help of their Judiciary (which was also put in incrementally). It if that happens we can still draw a small victory by bringing these Dems who voted for this to the national forefront. Let them tell their fellow voters why. It's that small foot in the door. A crack in what appeared to us even a year ago to be unpenetratable armour. I just think it's something to build on, the first step being SCOTUS putting this issue back where it belongs, in the states legislatures.

[inquest]

I fail to see how this is a morally superior position to that of supporting full legality of abortion under regulation and controls, which is the position I support.

Well, the fact that it would prevent many more deaths than full legality would, kinda makes it a tad morally superior.

[BearArms]

Well, the fact that it would prevent many more deaths than full legality would, kinda makes it a tad morally superior.

The evidence worldwide is that banning abortion does little to lower incidence. I refer to South America for the most compelling example. Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru -- all ban elective abortion and all have extremely high abortion rates. This is the rule rather than the exception. The Netherlands permits abortion with some controls and has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. They've also had aggressive contraception programs in place for some time.

Now, many pro-life laws do have very significant impacts on incidence of abortion, informed consent being one of these. However there can be no informed consent laws if abortion is illegal.

[inquest]

Correlation doesn't establish causation. There are a number of factors that would affect the abortion rate one way or the other. IOW, comparison needs to be made in the same state/country before and after the laws were put into place, rather than comparing one country where it's legal with another where it's not. I, and I think most people, would require some pretty solid evidence that laws against abortion do not reduce the incidence of it. We know that in the U.S., Roe vs. Wade has resulted in (or at least contributed to) a substantial increase in it.

[BearArms]

We know that in the U.S., Roe vs. Wade has resulted in (or at least contributed to) a substantial increase in it.

Yes, but in the years subsequent to the Roe decision, state laws such as informed consent and waiting periods were not yet in place. After the courts upheld these laws and they were allowed to go into effect in several states, they proved unquestionably successful. Pro-life sources have credited them with significant reductions in abortions in the states that have them.

That, plus the remarkable success of the Dutch policy, shows that abortion can be effectively combatted without resorting to complete prohibition, which would inevitably bring with it severe consequences for many young women in trouble who are not evil, just desperate.

[The Raven]

>>10th amendment BUMP

The liberals overturned the 10th Amendment. It's quite amazing that we allow changes to the Constitution through liberal, progressive interpretations by a few people --- and passing an amendment or even clarifying it - requires a tedious process with 2/3 majority vote.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If this is what the bill says, then it is also outlawing some forms of contraception like the pill."

I believe women have the right to choose. (don't shoot me on this) It is after all, a womens body and this should be a moral issue and not a legal one.

Saying that, I do hold doctors responsible for making a living off performing abortions. However, it is a doctors ethical responsibility to ensure that everything is done to preserve life and aborting a healthy child from a healthy mother doesn't fit into this paradigm.

Give you an example. Now this is going to seem out of place, but please try to view it from a doctors ethics perspective.

My uncle died of cancer. He was in his 70's. The last month of his life was spent in a dark room, hooked up to machines that kept him alive. He was not cognizant, nor was he able to even communicate because the morphine kept him in a perpetual comatose state. Until the last month of his life, he repeatedly asked to be euthanized. He knew nothing could be done to save him. As did the doctors. But they kept him alive because of their oath to preserve life.

By the way, the bill that was presented to the insurance company for that last month totalled over one hundred thousand dollars.

Let's look at two more situations. The criminal on death row that has confessed so there is no question about his/her guilt. Nothing to do with doctors, but has to do with the taking of life.

And finally look at Terri Schiavo. Is everyone starting to see something here?

Morality has been taken away from us. What our nation was founded upon is slowly being eroded in the name of the ACLU, secularism and attorneys fees. Doctors and attorneys are selectively deciding what is morally right and what isn't. It is confusing as is this diatribe.

[inquest]

Yes, but in the years subsequent to the Roe decision, state laws such as informed consent and waiting periods were not yet in place. After the courts upheld these laws and they were allowed to go into effect in several states, they proved unquestionably successful. Pro-life sources have credited them with significant reductions in abortions in the states that have them.

Reductions to 1973 levels?

The problem I see with keeping it legal is that there are still going to be women - not the majority of those who procure abortions, but a certain percentage nonetheless - who are just plain selfish and think nothing of killing their babies. Informed consent and waiting periods will not stop them, but making it illegal might just make them think twice about it.

As for those who are merely desperate, there would still be pregnancy crisis centers for them to go to that could help them through their situation. And the fact that there are plenty of couples willing to adopt should help take the pressure off them. It's different now than in 1973 in that pregnancy doesn't have the same stigma as it did then. That means that there'd be less pressure for the woman to terminate the pregnancy so as to hide the fact that she ever became pregnant, which I'd guess was probably the largest factor contributing to illicit abortions pre-Roe.

[Theodore R.]

I have notice that in many states the lower house of the legislature is much more "conservative" than is the upper house. Is this also true in SD, where Democrats are now favored to control the U.S. House seat and both U.S. Senate seats this year? Sometimes a state House will pass something, knowing that the state Senate will kill it. Even the old Dirksen Amendment to restore school prayer used to pass the House with the 2/3 majority but was always blocked by "moderates" in the U.S. Senate from both parties. SD is very liberal when it comes to U.S. House and Senate; perhaps the conservatism there is limited to the state House. Also, is the governor there "conservative" enough to sign such legislation? He may veto on grounds that he does not want the state to go to the expense of defending the law in court.

[BearArms]

Reductions to 1973 levels?

Oh, yes, and far below those levels, IMO, if the correct policies are in place. And keep in mind, too, that the overall US abortion rate has been declining quite steadily over the last decade as it is. Whether because of increased contraceptive access and knowledge, or abstinence education, or pro-life cultural influence, or all of these factors.

The problem I see with keeping it legal is that there are still going to be women - not the majority of those who procure abortions, but a certain percentage nonetheless - who are just plain selfish and think nothing of killing their babies.

You're quite right. I know of women who use abortion for birth control, and I know of women who've had a single abortion and feel horrible about it. But an abortion ban will affect all, not just a few. My position is that there are better ways to deal with the problem that should be given a chance.

[uncbuck]

"Why is it different in cases of abortion?"

Because, for a while, some women will have been BRAINWASHED into thinking that it is not murder.

I have a very dear friend, who did something very stupid, and very selfish, who is nearly as much a victum of the culture of death as her baby is. She regrets it every waking moment. She was once a liberal, but has come back to her religious roots, and is now a conservative.

She was brainwashed into thinking it was 'ok' to kill your baby. She had been born after RvW, and never lived when it was illegal to kill a baby.

If you or anyone can say they have never done anything immoral or illegal that you didn't regret, than, by all means, throw that stone.

Penalty for crime, is done to prevent someone from commiting that crime again. Protect society from the criminal, not as punishment for punishment's sake. In some instanses this requires the death penalty, on other occasions life, and in other occasions a fine of $20 for speeding.

But people still speed after a fine, does this mean that we should lethaly inject repeat speeders? Of couse not. This is why we have a graduated penalty system. Hence, perhaps a milder penalty than death or life in jail for those brianwashed into thinking killing your own baby is "ok"

Let's go after the real criminal, the abortionist doctors and promoters who look at the ultrasounds and babys thrown into waste baskets. Those who have seen that it is a life, yet still want to murder.