South Dakota's Anti-Aborion Laws

[Aesop]

Here we go folks. Remember to play nice.

On Wednesday the state senate of South Dakota voted to outlaw abortion completely excepting only those cases where the abortion would directly save the life of the mother. This is the first direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in about 15 years and it seems likely the the govenor of the state, Mike Rounds, will sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk because he is very definitely anti-abortion.

Now I just don't get it. I never have and I doubt I ever will, but I don't understand why anyone thinks they have a right to tell somebody else what to do with his or her life. I mean I don't plan to stop dripping candle wax on my wife's breasts and I'd resent the hell out of somebody who thought they could tell me to do so. Abortion is certainly a more important issue, but I think the basic freedom is the same. I could never approve an abortion if the decision was left to me, but what gives me-or anyone else-the right to decide that for a stranger? What do you all think? Is this a blow for morality or a reduction of the freedoms the United States is supposed to stand for?

[chromedome11]

Abortion, as you will find, Aesop, is a very emotional and divisive subject. You say you just don't get it, that a woman should be able to control her own body. Anti-abortionists believe abortion is murder. The two sides will never find common ground.

On a more pragmatic basis, if you support a woman's right to choose, you need to elect more Democrats. It's as simple as that.

To elect more Democrats, the Democratic party is going to have to re-evaluate its policies. Rather than playing the victim card ("Bush stole the election"), they need to return to the party of Bill Clinton. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid".

The problem with the Democratic party is most of their policies don't work. They create dependency which leads to more poverty, not less. Only when the Democratic party honestly asks itself "What will get us elected?", and then implements the answers, will abortion remain a woman's right.

Now that I've hijacked your thread, I'll get off my soapbox.

[Aesop]

Abortion, as you will find, Aesop, is a very emotional and divisive subject. You say you just don't get it, that a woman should be able to control her own body. Anti-abortionists believe abortion is murder. The two sides will never find common ground.

On a more pragmatic basis, if you support a woman's right to choose, you need to elect more Democrats. It's as simple as that.

To elect more Democrats, the Democratic party is going to have to re-evaluate its policies. Rather than playing the victim card ("Bush stole the election"), they need to return to the party of Bill Clinton. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid".

The problem with the Democratic party is most of their policies don't work. They create dependency which leads to more poverty, not less. Only when the Democratic party honestly asks itself "What will get us elected?", and then implements the answers, will abortion remain a woman's right.

Now that I've hijacked your thread, I'll get off my soapbox.

lol I don't mind a little thread hijacking now and then. You're right about the pragmatical issue, the trouble for me is that I also agree with you about a number of the democratic party's policies so I have to appeal to the nature of everybody and not support one group or another.

I do understand that many people consider it flat-out murder and will never be able to see it as anything else, but if people are using that-presumably out of compassion-reason to stay against abortion then where is their compassion to the victims of rape or incest? And-generally speaking-the people who are against abortion are also against welfare programs and other services the government provides for those children that the pro-life folks say have to live. Personally I just can't see that as anything but cruel. You have to live, but after you're born you're on your own even though mommy didn't want you.

And here's the biggest thing. Logically this can't be stopped. It can be outlawed but it can't be stopped so by outlawing it we would be putting our women's lives into the hands of incompetents with coat hangers and I just can't see that as the better way to go.

[Sklaventreiber]

...

And here's the biggest thing. Logically this can't be stopped. It can be outlawed but it can't be stopped so by outlawing it we would be putting our women's lives into the hands of incompetents with coat hangers and I just can't see that as the better way to go.

Kind of like other laws that have outlawed certain practices, in particular the world's oldest profession...

[Sklaventreiber]

To let you know up front I'm a democrat, I don't vote straight party tickets, cause that's stupid, I have some serious socialist leanings in certain areas, and some conservative leanings in others.

1. I believe that what is done with a fetus is the right of the woman carrying it, to choose what she does with it. To me that is Black and White.

2. I believe in the Death penalty. You do the crime you suffer the penalty. There are those who are introducign legislation to make child molestation a death penalty crime. I agree.

3. I believe we should all be allowed to carry concealed weapons, as long as we can legally obtain the weapon.

4. I believe the republicans are wrong to reduce taxes if by doing so makes education suffer, only affects the rich, and puts a larger burden on the poor.

5. The War in Iraq is a necessary evil, but the efforts to bring bin Laden to justice have been ignored for to long.

6...

I could go on and on...but then I would be high jacking the posting...

South Dakota is wrong and I suspect that the issue will be fought all the way to the supreme court over and over...

[fantassy]

South Dakota is wrong and I suspect that the issue will be fought all the way to the supreme court over and over...[/QUOTE]


That is exactly why SD passed such a radical statute. They believe the Supreme Court has changed and want to test the new members as quickly as possible. Although everybody agrees that this court will chip away at Roe, this is being sent up as a test case to see if they annihilate it in one fell swoop.

fantassy

[Ozme52]

My problem with this issue (and to me) the closely related issue of the death penalty, is both parties are conflicted and/or hypocritical.

One ostensibly supports abortion, which the other says is murder, and they in turn support the death sentence, which the former says is murder.

Grrr.
---------------------------------------------------------
So if I'm pro-choice AND I support the death sentence... (and I suspect I'm actually in the silent majority on these issues....)

am I a Demblican or a Republicrat?


And more importantly, what's my mascot? Do I get twice as much head or twice as much tail?

[Aesop]

My problem with this issue (and to me) the closely related issue of the death penalty, is both parties are conflicted and/or hypocritical.

One ostensibly supports abortion, which the other says is murder, and they in turn support the death sentence, which the former says is murder.

Grrr.
---------------------------------------------------------
So if I'm pro-choice AND I support the death sentence... (and I suspect I'm actually in the silent majority on these issues....)

am I a Demblican or a Republicrat?


And more importantly, what's my mascot? Do I get twice as much head or twice as much tail?

LOL Whichever you are sign me up, cause I'm a part of that silent majority.

[vistana]

Just as an update to this - first, watch this news piece about the ban (a few weeks old by now), which includes a definition by a Republican senator on 'how bad' someone would need to be raped for him to consider an exemption to the ban, and then try Googling 'sexist asshat'.
If you support the cause, aid the google bombing. Bill Napoli is a sexist asshat.

Then, more recently the chief of a sioux reservation in SD has declared that she will set up a Planned Parenthood clinic on Reservation land where the state government has absolutely no authority.
Link to the story.

[Sklaventreiber]

Just as an update to this - first, watch this news piece about the ban (a few weeks old by now), which includes a definition by a Republican senator on 'how bad' someone would need to be raped for him to consider an exemption to the ban, and then try Googling 'sexist asshat'.
If you support the cause, aid the google bombing. Bill Napoli is a sexist asshat.

Then, more recently the chief of a sioux reservation in SD has declared that she will set up a Planned Parenthood clinic on Reservation land where the state government has absolutely no authority.
Link to the story.

I love it when somebody finds a loop hole...

[Weena]

this news piece about the ban (a few weeks old by now), which includes a definition by a Republican senator on 'how bad' someone would need to be raped for him to consider an exemption to the ban

Oh my gosh........I cant believe that someone would actually think that they have the right to decide 'how bad' a rape was to an individual. That is truly a delusive outlook.

[vistana]

Yeah. That woman gets serious kudos.

[mkemse]

As Far as Abortion rights go, to me this is a VERY PERSONAL issue which should be left bewtween the Husband, Wife and Doctor, the Governemtn has no more right telling a Women how do deal with her Repoductive System, then they do saying on Thursday all Men 21 or over MUST wear Blue Shirts and Green Jeans, the government must become far less intrusive into everyones lives
Let a Husband, Wife a Doctor determine the issue of abortion not the goverment.
Also, if they apss a Consitutional Ammendent, dictating that a Marriage is the Union of 1 Woman & 1 Man, and the Same Sex Marriage are not legal and make it a Federal Crime, 1st. the Constiution is NOT designed for this, it is not a ducumant to be played with at the whim of Senators and Legislators in WAshington, even the Constution guarantesss that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, thus it is not the goverments place to dictate in a Society that offers us Freedom, of Choice, Freedom Of Expression ect. ect it is notthe goernments right to dictate to anyone inthis conutry who one may or may not marry
Let the Govemrnet deal with issues such as The Ecomony before we are all paying $15.00 to gfill up our cars, inflation, so i can still buy brea for $1.00 aloaf not $9.00, Terrorism, The Drug Issues, Homelessness, the fact that we have to many in this country, the Richest inthe Wolrd I may ad, let them deal with an come up with solutions to these and leave the issue of Abortion to families and their Doctors and Sam Sex Marriage to those involved
If we ammend the Constution evertime some cries about it, we will ruin what this important docuent was ment to do, GOVERN the people, nottell them they have to have a baby, or that if he loves him they can't marry
If Congress needs to ammend the Contution or reverse Roe vWade, our Senators and Resprentatives HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME on their hands

[_ID_]

I see both sides of the fence. On the one hand, you at one point were a fetus, and therefore had the potential to be aborted. Think of it from the fetus side. When you do that, not only are you bringing in the "abortion is murder" side of things, you bring into it "when does life begin" debate. On the flip side of that, if your prochoice, and think the woman should be able to decide for herself. At what age can the female decide to do this, since the age of concent in many places differs very much, your probably going to end up matching a womans choice of abortion to the age of concent. If we follow the radical pedophilic group in the Netherlands, that age is 12. If you follow the laws that US Military members must adhere to, that age is 18. Many US States put the age at 16. I feel it should be 18+ in all cases, you get to make adult choices when your legally an adult.

Beyond even the party pollitics of it all. You come down to simply how much freedom will you allow a person. We have all kinds of laws that tell us to do things we think are just too intrusive. For instance, where I grew up at (Pocotello, Idaho USA) they have a law that says you must smile (look it up on google). Is this intrusive, you bet it is. We also have laws that restrict how fast we drive. German Autobahns have many sections of road that have no such limitation, believing that if you desire to risk your own life by going 200mph, thats your choice.

So it simply comes down to us deciding how intrusive we are going to let the government be.

I don't play party politics. I vote for the cannidate that says they will do those things that I feel are in my best interest (unfortunately they usually dont do that).

So now the question becomes, how do we get them to legislate in the way we desire?

[fantassy]

I feel it should be 18+ in all cases, you get to make adult choices when your legally an adult.

You raise an interesting, very complex issue of age of consent. I assume you feel that the parents of a girl age 16 should be the only one's allowed to consent for her? How do address the connundrum of who will raise and support the child of a 17 year old girl who was forced to have the baby against her will? The girl's parents don't have any legal obligation to support the baby. What about when the girl is 18, unable to support herself or the now 2 year old child she didn't want because she was forced to stop her education because of a decision her parents made. The 18 year old IS legally obligated to support this child. I'm also assuming you wouldn't allow the 16 year old to consent to adoption without parental consent either? So basically the 16 year old is forced to raise a baby she doesn't want for 2 years and we're going to criminally sanction her if she abuses or neglects that baby. That doesn't seem right to me. I have to go with the argument that if a girl is old enough to consent to having sex she is old enough to consent to having an abortion, which is where I believe the age of 16 is derived. But, as I said, it is a very difficult, complex issue.

So now the question becomes, how do we get them to legislate in the way we desire?

Ok, I'm going to give you my cynical response to this question - the only way to influence legislators is through money or publicity, which is why I get soooo angry over the media's abdication of their responsibility to investigate and report on the government. Instead, every TV station reports the same fluff.

fantassy

[Alex Bragi]

"My body, my choice"—the catch cry of the women pro abortionists. I used to agree 100% with that, however, the more I think about it, the more this god-like attitude that implies if you created the life you have the right to destroy it, kind of irks me

Why stop with destroying unwanted foetuses? Why not do away with the elderly and the terminally ill also, if they threaten to be an inconvenience on us socially and economically? If no one wants to claim responsibility, why not 'abort' them too?

A silly comparison? Maybe, a foetus is after all, in most cases, a potentially long and healthy life, the elderly or terminally ill certainly aren't.

Please, I do realise and understand that there will always be circumstances where abortion is the only option, as cheeseburger has already pointed out, but I just can't help feeling that it's becoming all too acceptable in our society. I guess, to me, overly liberal attitudes towards abortion sometimes have me feeling like a little like we're on the verge of becoming Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", and that bothers me.

So, Aesop, getting off my soapbox and back to your original question.

I think while South Dakota senate could have perhaps been a little more flexible, I'm not against their ruling in principle—not at all.

[_ID_]

You raise an interesting, very complex issue of age of consent. I assume you feel that the parents of a girl age 16 should be the only one's allowed to consent for her? How do address the connundrum of who will raise and support the child of a 17 year old girl who was forced to have the baby against her will? The girl's parents don't have any legal obligation to support the baby. What about when the girl is 18, unable to support herself or the now 2 year old child she didn't want because she was forced to stop her education because of a decision her parents made. The 18 year old IS legally obligated to support this child. I'm also assuming you wouldn't allow the 16 year old to consent to adoption without parental consent either? So basically the 16 year old is forced to raise a baby she doesn't want for 2 years and we're going to criminally sanction her if she abuses or neglects that baby. That doesn't seem right to me. I have to go with the argument that if a girl is old enough to consent to having sex she is old enough to consent to having an abortion, which is where I believe the age of 16 is derived. But, as I said, it is a very difficult, complex issue.



Ok, I'm going to give you my cynical response to this question - the only way to influence legislators is through money or publicity, which is why I get soooo angry over the media's abdication of their responsibility to investigate and report on the government. Instead, every TV station reports the same fluff.

fantassy

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

As far as your cynical response, my question was retorical.

Thanks for the imput though, you also brough very good points.

[fantassy]

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

I guess you assume I am anti-abortion. In all actuality, I am pro-choice. The questions I had raised, are questions we must ask when considering legislation.

No, I think you conveyed your pro-choice leanings. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I think we did differ on the age of consent issue, but there are many nuances to that issue. For example, although I personally take the extreme view of allowing minors to be able to consent to abortions, I understand the contradiction that presents since those same minors cannot consent to surgeries or even dental work without parental consent.

I enjoy discussing/arguing these tough issues. I think taking a position in debates like this (whether it be a deeply held position or merely a position assumed for the sake of argument) forces one to clarify one's own thoughts.

Thanks for the mental stimulation.

fantassy

[cheeseburger]

Let me give you a few common examples of when an abortion is used, and what I think about it in that particular case:

1) Just... because. Parent is over 18 years of age, and just doesn't want the responsibility.

2) The parent is under the age of 18, and doesn't want the responsibility.

3) Rape/incest

4) Giving birth poses a significant health risk to the mother.

I think these 4 cases pretty much outline when an abortion is used. The first two are overwhelmingly more common then the second two; and kind of perplexingly they are also the ones that I would be against.

Should people put a blanket ban on abortion? Of course not. In some countries in Africa, abortions are illegal, and in many cases the mother dies giving birth, when an abortion would have saved her life. Not cool.

On the other hand, abortions that fall into the first two categories are debatable. Is the baby 'alive' at some point during the pregnancy? At what point? Would it be murder to kill the baby?

While I can't (and actually don't want to) answer any of those questions, what I can say is this: you have to be accountable for what you do.

Its that simple. You have sex with someone, you get pregnant, you have a baby. No easy way out.

The third and fourth cases cloud the issue. The percentage of abortions that actually fall into those categories are minimal. The majority of people that have abortions are in the first two categories, and when someone says they are against abortion, they mean they are against the frivolous use of abortions.

As usual, you can't expect anything to really develop on this issue, since all the politicians are too chicken to actually have an opinion on it. Ask any presidential hopeful of 2008, directly, "do you support abortion" and they'll give you a mountain of bull.

So who cares? Do what you want, its a free country.

[fantassy]

Its that simple. You have sex with someone, you get pregnant, you have a baby. No easy way out. . . .when someone says they are against abortion, they mean they are against the "frivolous use of abortions".

The abortion issue may be many things, but it is not "simple." When a poor 16 year old daughter of a drug addicted mother, who has struggled her entire young life to keep clean and earn a scholarship to college to get out of the mess in which she is raised, seeks the love and affection from her boyfriend which was lacking in her home and accidentally gets pregnant, would that be a "frivolous use of abortion?" Wouldn't society, the girl and the girl's future children be better off if she were able to create a future for herself? And of course only the woman is forced to pay this strict price you propose to exact. The males who get women pregnant ARE allowed to take "the easy way out." They are not forced to give up their futures.

fantassy

[Aesop]

Just a friendly reminder to keep it calm everybody. We're all friends here.

[cheeseburger]

When a poor 16 year old daughter of a drug addicted mother, who has struggled her entire young life to keep clean and earn a scholarship to college to get out of the mess in which she is raised, seeks the love and affection from her boyfriend which was lacking in her home and accidentally gets pregnant, would that be a "frivolous use of abortion?"

While I don't actually have statistics on this, from what little I know this case is in the grave minority. When deciding things on a general basis, one usually looks at the more general use of abortions, which as far as I know are largley frivolous.

About this specific case, to my knowledge there are several things that aren't quite as you say they are. First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

However, the 16 year old's life is far from over. After delivering the baby, there are plenty of kind, loving, mature people that are more than willing to adopt. In most cases the young adult chooses to hold on to her baby; again this is a choice she made, she lives with the consequences.

In my mind, this is one of the biggest problems in this society: we don't expect to be held accountable for what we do.

Finally, I am sure there are some cases where, really, the girl had few options, got pregnant, etc. There are very, very few cases like this. In these limited cases, I would say sure, have an abortion. The problem is, the majority of teen pregnancies aren't as clear cut as you portray them.

I enjoy discussing/arguing these tough issues. I think taking a position in debates like this (whether it be a deeply held position or merely a position assumed for the sake of argument) forces one to clarify one's own thoughts.

I agree entirely.

[vistana]

About this specific case, to my knowledge there are several things that aren't quite as you say they are. First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

What about the person who does take responsibility, uses multiple forms of birth control. That drops your odds of getting pregnant to a much smaller number. Are they not taking responsibility?
That's my current situtation, and if I get pregnant I will get an abortion.
I am careful when I have sex, I take every reasonable precaution and am certainly not paranoid enough to abstain in order to avoid the chance of pregnancy. If I do conceive I will still take every step to avoid pregnancy. I don't believe I could responsibly carry a child to term, even given that I wouldn't raise it myself, and I feel that dealing with a full term of pregnancy is a greater consequence than an unlikely birth control failure deserves.

Also, some of these arguments, 'what about the 16 year old girl' sound eerily similar to the case used by Bill Napoli to describe someone who might be worthy of an abortion which garnered him near-universal outrage and the title Sexist Asshat -
"...a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Who are you/we to judge which specific circumstances deserve the right to have an abortion? A poor 16 year old college student, what about a mother of 4 on welfare? Is she badly enough off to deserve it? A dancer who would lose her livelihood for at least several months? A financially supported but mentally instable woman?
If we start drawing lines like that, who gets to decide?

[vistana]

whoops...double post.

[Silke]

First, in no way did the 16 year old 'have' to have sex with the guy. You don't get pregnant by accident. Many people don't understand this, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Nature drew this line for us, and you can't blur it: you have sex, you have an approximately 30% chance of getting pregnant ( think thats the number). People need to grow up and take responsibility; the sooner this happens the better.

Phew, that's a hard stance you take there, Cheeseburger. Of course, nobody has to have sex (unless we're talking about rape and that's a different story altogether) but have you never been young and done something you later regretted? It happens all the time and thank God most of us get lucky and walk away with a black eye and hopefully a lesson learned.

Now, you really want to hold minors fully responsible and force them to go through their pregnancy and have a baby? They wouldn't even be judged that hard when committing a crime! They're young and made a mistake and they'll have to pay for it anyway...or do you think it's an easy decision to live with when you have an abortion? I don't think so.

Yes, nature drew a line for us...and if you really want to follow this line of thought, you'd have to question laws that don't allow teenagers under a certain age line to have sex with partners that are older - nature would speak against that if girls start getting their period at 11, 12 yrs of age they can have sex and get pregnant and according to 'nature' there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, no matter how old their partner is. Nature doesn't put up moral or ethical lines, society does.

I do agree with you, though, when you say that in general we should grow up and be held accountable for the choices we make...when we're adults and the protection time is over. Being held accountable - to me - is about really thinking every option through carefully, gathering information, getting counselling or advice from people who know what those options will lead to, probing their conscience. And THEN make a decision and live with it. I don't think people will make that decision easily that way...be it pro or contra abortion.

Just my thoughts on this...

[_ID_]

This thread is taking on an age of consent debate. What percent of abortions are of those of girls under the age of 18? If you look on the CDC website you will see the ages of abortions by age in the past 27 years. In 2000 the percentage of abortions by girls under 19 years of age was 18.8. To me that low of a percentage is not a reason to base your abortion laws on if your forcing someone who is young to be responsible for their actions. Additionally the laws can and most likely would be written to account for minors who were pregnant, starting at the youngest age a girl could get pregnant to the time of adulthood. My guess is they would use a graduated scale that went by age to determine if the girl needed the concent of the parent to get an abortion or not.

Now as far as making someone responsible for their actions. Women over the age of 25 made up 48.4 percent of abortions in 2000. I feel that if your not smart enough to go to the doctor get birth control, or require your partner to use a condom by the age of 25, then yes, you should be held accountable for your actions. Does that mean I feel women over 25 shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. No, it means I think it should be finacially difficult for a woman to have an abortion if she is over 25. Make her show her past year tax return, and require a 10% of total years income to conduct the proceedure. This would eliminate the whole process being something the rich and powerfull could do, and the poor could not. Thereby not forcing poor people into a situation they were trying to avoid in the first place.

V/R
ID

[Alex Bragi]

What about the society we life in? We see and hear sex everywhere. You just can't avoid it.

I think we don't necessarily need to preach abstinence from sex to kids, but to discuss it openly and honestly--benefits of monogamy taught from an early age, along with correct and consistent use of condoms and other birth controls.

Recently it was discovered that some teens believed drinking Mountain Dew soda would reduced a male's sperm count--every teen needs all the facts.

[cheeseburger]

As IDCrewDawg points out, something like 20% of abortions are done by people under the age of 18, and some 50% are done by people over the age of 25. Thanks for getting this information into the discussion.

To me, these numbers mean this: the majority of abortions are done as a way to escape responsibility. If you are over 25, there is no excuse for not using birth control; weather that is a condom or a pill. If you did somehow screw up, there exists the 'morning after' pill. These people need to realize that their actions will have repercussions on other peoples lives (for starters, their babies), and they need to accept responsibility. This is what you should base an 'abortion law' on. the majority. Not the 2% case of incest, or whatever.

However, speaking now only about the case of teenage pregnancies, I feel very strongly that these kids need to be accountable.

Yes, kids do make mistakes. And when they do, you need to discipline them. Why? For their own good. So that later they won't make those mistakes. If you're 12 and you steal a candy bar, you get scolded. If you're 30 and you steal, you get thrown in jail. Better to learn while you're young, wouldn't you agree?

To me thats the whole point. You need to tell kids that, even if they don't understand it, if they do ___ they will face the consequences. Then maybe, when they grow up, they'll realize that yeah, mommy was right. Even if you don't get punished, doing ___ is bad. And meanwhile, they never did ___ because they knew they would get punished if they did.

Returning to abortion, if a kid gets pregnant, goes to an abortion clinic, gets an abortion without telling her parents, she won't know she's done something bad! Heck, it was fun!

On the other hand, if she goes through with the pregnancy, she might put 2 and 2 together and realize that sex isn't something you kid around with. Is it wrong to 'kill' a fetus? Are you even killing a fetus? I dunno. Who cares? Better to not even have this discussion, to get pregnant if and when you're ready.

And sure, society is significantly more lax and open about sex. Is this good? I dunno. I really don't know if its 'better' this way, or worse. Again, who cares? As long as you realize that sex is 2 minutes of fun, and then (potentially) a lifetime of trouble, you're on the right track.

So no, I'm not against abortion. You need it; there are times when not doing an abortion are bad. But keep it for those times when you actually need it.

I can go on and on like this, but I think you get the point?

[_ID_]

"...a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

This case is of the rarest, and we all know this case would warrent an abortion. What we are getting at is if your going to have sex, and vistana you have said you are going to. Then you are risking pregenancy, even though you are using condom's and birthcontrol, the chance of getting pregnant using these methods is so incredibly low that it barely warrents concern, yet, it is still there. Since your taking this risk, and know you are taking this risk. Then in my view, if you get pregnant, you should be held accountable for this action. As the male, if I were to get a girl pregnant, and she was using all the same things, I know I would be responsible for the care of this child, equally as much as you, yes you have to carry it, but we both must live with it. Your alternatives would be to give it up for adoption, or abort it. To me the adoption option would be the better of the two for all concerned, especially for the growing human being in your womb.

Just cause you say you wouldnt take good enough care of your body during pregnancy, and you don't want to be bothered with the whole process doesn't mean it's the best option. This opinion of yours that you stated is actually the number one reason for abortions today. Also listed on the CDC website I mentioned earlier. To me, this is lazy and irresponsible. Which is why I felt that if someone such as yourself wanted the option of abortion, I would want it to be financially difficult for you to do so. We all know that having a child is going to be finacially difficult, why shouldn't not having one be also?



V/R
ID

[vistana]

This case is of the rarest, and we all know this case would warrent an abortion.

I know that that's a rare case, which is kind of the point. There are people in this thread arguing for abortion rights for people who are already badly enough off to justify it, but not the regular people who do it for convenience. My question was, who gets to decide who is worthy of getting an abortion? The guy I quoted above has been attacked by any number of people for just that reason. Google 'sexist asshat' and he's at the top of the page.

What we are getting at is if your going to have sex, and vistana you have said you are going to. Then you are risking pregenancy, even though you are using condom's and birthcontrol, the chance of getting pregnant using these methods is so incredibly low that it barely warrents concern, yet, it is still there. Since your taking this risk, and know you are taking this risk. Then in my view, if you get pregnant, you should be held accountable for this action.

If I walk outside and get mugged should I be held accountable, since I knew there was a risk when I left the house? Most rapes are committed by people you know. Should I avoid being alone with male friends because the risk is there and by taking that risk I'm assuming responsibility if anything happens?
By that logic we should be held responsible for accidents during any activity that carries a risk (aka everything).

Just cause you say you wouldnt take good enough care of your body during pregnancy, and you don't want to be bothered with the whole process doesn't mean it's the best option. This opinion of yours that you stated is actually the number one reason for abortions today. Also listed on the CDC website I mentioned earlier. To me, this is lazy and irresponsible. Which is why I felt that if someone such as yourself wanted the option of abortion, I would want it to be financially difficult for you to do so. We all know that having a child is going to be finacially difficult, why shouldn't not having one be also?



V/R
ID

As for your argument for making it financially difficult to have an abortion, how is that ever a good idea? Having a child is expensive, so not having a child should also be expensive? That leaves someone in quite a bind for what may have been an accident they had no control over. Going that route is an excellent way to make people turn to other methods, you'd get back-alley abortions and coat-hangers again.
Or was your argument to only penalize those who would abort because they are 'lazy and irresponsible' and not the ones who actually deserve an abortion?
If that's the case, we're right back at the 'who gets to decide' argument.