South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

This is a touchy topic to say the least but from what I have seen abortions have always been traumatic for the mother not just physically but emotionally and mentally as well. It did prevent a lot of agony and suffering that would have resulted had an abortion not occurred.
I agree that late abortion shouldn’t be allowed but abortions in general should be allowed as even though the fetus is "living" it is still in your body and in early stages it is part of the mother.

IMO what needs to be done to solve this problem we have with abortions is to clearly define when an individuals rights begin and when do they end, where do the rights of the mother end with respect to the fetus and at what point in its evolution in the mother womb does it become a "person" which is protected by law. I feel that only answering such questions and clearly demarcating what is and what isn’t an individual such that both the baby and the mother come away with equal opportunities to choice and life. IMO the law should give the mother an opportunity to abort till a particular period of embryonic development after which the rights of the baby should be enforced.
I am not savvy with the laws of abortion but IMO the above sounds feasible.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by dawnstar
well, let's see.....and I could be wrong on this one...
there is somewhere between 800 - 1200 abortions per year

Yes. Your math is way off. Sorry.

There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted
eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.

There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day.

womensissues.about.com...




[edit on 3/11/2006 by FlyersFan]

you numbers are either worldwide, or way off also!!

www.religioustolerance.org...

the numbers from cdc.....hope you don't have a problem with that...

by the way? abortions are legal in the US, so why would people be having illegal ones with the added risks?

well, anyway, according to cdc, there were 857,000 (in 2000, missed a footnote before, so shot me!! but that is a far cry from the millions you are claiming!!!) of these 1.4% were performed in the fifth or later month.....

I am assuming that if they are chosing abortion that late in the pregnacy, well, chances are there are problems discovered, either in the parent or the child....even if this assumption is wrong, is doesn't take into the account those that were discovered earlier through genetic testing, does it? so, taking a long shot, something I stated in my earlier post anyways....well, there might be around 8,570 or so babies each year that would have been born with severe problems........

hey, I gave it a shot.....

but, well, how many millions babies are being aborted every year?? come one, the cdc wouldn't have missed that many!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
you numbers are either worldwide, or way off also!!

Yes. 46 million a year is a worldwide figure.
In the United States it is 1.3 million a year.
womensissues.about.com...

Your original post said

800 - 1200 abortions per year

[edit on 3/11/2006 by FlyersFan]

Well, Im sure all 5 people in South Dakota are in an uproar over this!

I suppose if someone wanted an abortion they could cross the state line and do it elsewhere.

Originally posted by valkeryie

...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...

The legislature in South Dakota has just gone on the record as stating that women have no value, that their lives are insignificant if they are pregnant. The legislature has stated that you, pregnant woman, are merely a vessel and what is in your womb is more important than you are.

The Dark Ages have returned. What shall we reintroduce next? The Inquisition? Should we burn Wiccans at the stake? Maybe we should wipe out another civilization for their resources just like the Spanish did centuries ago.

One moment. We are already doing that. Scratch that.

Life in the United States grows more inane by the hour.

[edit on 3/11/2006 by Bibliophile]

like I said, multiply by a thousand.....I missed a footnote, that's something like 850,00 or 875,000 or what ever I posted....according to the cdc, still less than your million or whatever....


ummm.....what brought on this little debate over numbers was the idea that there are babies within that 800,000 to a million or so that are being aborted because there are serious problems, either with the mother, or the child. which led me to ask, who will take care of these children, the children of mothers who die in childbirth, because for some insane reason, their risk wasn't taken seriously.....texas is already denying babies born with severe problems medical care, so I think we can just forget about them. in NY, well, it seems they would want to put these kids in nursing home, and forget about them. no schooling, or training......so much for them reaching their full potential huh?

so, well, we can bicker about the number of kids that would be born with serious complications and defects or the number of abortions, you can't deny that there would be some...the more abortions you cliam, the more I will claim are defected...since well, I imagine it would rise proportionately. in other words, it serves you original argument no good to bicker that there are more abortions than I said. that just means the original debate, how many kids would there be, well, you are degrading you own argument that there really isn't that many. like there really isn't that many women who have abortions because they determine the health risk to them is just too great....since they are both small numbers, there is no reason to discuss them, right??

That's what I disagree with. why have babies when we know they will have serious problems and well, you will be turned down on the care needed to keep them alive? that seems kind of twisted to begin with.

oh, and by the way, a women told me this story once. she found herself pregnant, and well she was on medication. well, he doctor recommended she abort the baby, since the medication would cause severe deformities in it. she refused, and well, that was when she was committed into a mental institution and they did it anyways...

how many women do we have now on anti-psychotic,, anti-depressant drugs? because, that is what she was on....
weather what they did was legal or not, who knows, they aren't susposed to half all those kids up in NY in foster homes either, but they do. and they aren't susposed to be testing new drugs on these foster kids either, but they did...so, well....what can I say, why not beleive that they would institutionalize a women and force an abortion on her?

Well for a fat guy I'm not very jolly right now so forgive me for being brief. My computer thinks i'm in canada and i cannot seem to convince it otherwise, therefore i'm having to backspace unintended characters frequently and this is from time to time causing my browser to go back, thus killing posts.

Roe will go down for political reasons. Once Roe is gone, there will be anti abortion ballot initiatives in states with the initiative process, including Ohio and Florida. This is good for Republican turnout in 2008.

If Alito and Roberts can put down Roe, they get another Republican president and odds are that Stevens will kick the bucket and they'll be running the court with a solid majority.

the margin in the case is likely 5 to 4: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy (souter may go with him.) On the conspiracy side, I wouldn't be shocked to see Kennedy's arm twisted to make sure. Or on the political side, they may compromise to criminalize partial birth abortion and force notification laws back into action without totally killing abortion, because Kennedy isn't a dyed in the wool pro lifer as far as I can tell.

red and green states have the initiative process to exploit.

Originally posted by dawnstar
that there are babies within that 800,000 to a million or so that
are being aborted because there are serious problems, either
with the mother, or the child.

Yes. A small fraction is. I posted a link to that information.
- 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
- 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
This is 'risk' to health.

we can bicker

I'm not bickering. I saw your '800 abortions a year' and countered
that with the fact that there are over one million a year in this country.
46 million around the world each year. I'm just posting full and accurate
figures for the discussion.

you can't deny that there would be some ...

I'm not denying anything.

like there really isn't that many women who have abortions because they determine the health risk to them is just too great

Yes, there is a small fraction that does have abortions for that reason.
What is being discussed in S. Dakota allows for this.

how many women do we have now on anti-psychotic,,
anti-depressant drugs?

A whole bunch. Many women who have had abortions end up on
them as well. There is a lot of debate that abortion triggers mental
health problems that were hidden, or that new mental health
problems come up. Some groups say this is not true. Some
say it absolutely is.

www.abortionfacts.com...



[edit on 3/12/2006 by FlyersFan]

Abortion is a seriously traumatic thing. Many women do experience serious emotional/psychological fallout in the wake of choosing to abort.

However, I think what's more dangerous than emotional scarring is a state that regulates medical procedures based on political ideologies.

Originally posted by valkeryie

I personally am opposed to abortion, but everyone has the right to chose what goes on with their own body.

Does a conjoined twin have the right to be detached from her twin if the separation is an assured death sentence to the other twin? No? Women make their "choice" when they spread their legs for a man, once they have conceived someone else has an equal, indeed a superior, claim to their body as they do.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]

Originally posted by valkeryie
everyone has the right to chose what goes on with their own body.

But the pregnant woman isn't aborting herself. She's aborting
another human being. She isn't stopping her own heart from
beating, she's stopping another human's heart. She isn't painfully
burning herself to death, she is burning to death another human
being. She isn't ripping herself apart, she's ripping another
human being apart.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

But the pregnant woman isn't aborting herself. She's aborting another human being. She isn't stopping her own heart from beating, she's stopping another human's heart. She isn't painfully burning herself to death, she is burning to death another human being. She isn't ripping herself apart, she's ripping another human being apart.

Once again, the woman is less important than the contents of her uterus. Who are you to decide what she does with her body? Who are you to judge the decisions she makes about her own reproductive processes?

This is a private issue that should involve the woman, her partner, and the woman's physician and no one else.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
This is a private issue that should involve the woman, her partner, and the woman's physician and no one else.

Well said, the womens basic human rights would be compramised if she isnt even allowed control over her own body.
The question we have to ask is what is a human, when does a fetus become a human ? Do we consider every miscarriage as murder now ?

It is criminal to bring a life into this world just so that we may pander to our petty and vain philosophies, a life that we may condemn to needless pain and suffering. Misery that could have been avoided.

IMO the mother is the best person to decide on an abortion as it is essentially a part of her that she would be killing both physically and emotionally. No one but the mother is in any position to decide as it is her fetus that has developed in her womb in her body. It would be right for the mother to abort the baby if she is unsecure about her future to prevent a life lost into destitution and misery. Even the adoption argument fails, as adopted kids will live atypical lives psychologicaly.

" Women make their "choice" when they spread their legs for a man, once they have conceived someone else has an equal, indeed a superior, claim to their body as they do. "

=======================================

really, ya think so??

I think you're treading in dangerous ground here. so, if giving birth to the baby will kill the mother, well, they baby's right is "superior"?

or, IF the medicine the women needs to take for some health problem is dangerous to the baby, but necessary for her, well, the baby's right is superior??

or, if their is reason to believe that the women's diet is harming the baby's developement, the baby's right is superior to the mother's right to the freedom in choosing what she feels is best as far as diet??

really, very dangerous ground here....glad I can't have children anymore. this attitude stinks, and well, if it is ever reflected in the laws of the land, childbearing or not, my husband will be made to understand the full meaning of the abstinance only!!! as well as alot of other men I hope!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
" Women make their "choice" when they spread their legs for a man, once they have conceived someone else has an equal, indeed a superior, claim to their body as they do. "

=======================================

really, ya think so??

I think you're treading in dangerous ground here. so, if giving birth to the baby will kill the mother, well, they baby's right is "superior"?

or, IF the medicine the women needs to take for some health problem is dangerous to the baby, but necessary for her, well, the baby's right is superior??

or, if their is reason to believe that the women's diet is harming the baby's developement, the baby's right is superior to the mother's right to the freedom in choosing what she feels is best as far as diet??

really, very dangerous ground here....glad I can't have children anymore. this attitude stinks, and well, if it is ever reflected in the laws of the land, childbearing or not, my husband will be made to understand the full meaning of the abstinance only!!! as well as alot of other men I hope!!

dawnstar -

The person who posted the statement you replied to is clearly not a fan of women. The entire sentence is a dead-giveaway.

The poster is openly hostile to women by stating "...when they spread their legs for a man...". A man who respects women would not have made a statement of this nature. He would have found a far more polite way to refer to the sexual act.

This person is not worth your time.

In sisterhood,

Bibliophile

Chastity belts for every woman and a similar device for men only to be opened by the regimented society leader on birth promotion days! No sex for anyone other than procreation at any time. Only sex between approved married couples at approved times after drug testing and thorough DNA testing to make sure that they are only of the best breeding stock.

Problem solved, no sex unless allowed by the state! No need for abortions as only those allowed by state will conceive.



Now that I have solved the abortion problem I think I will work on world peace, no procreation at all--no people no war-- wow how hard is that...
I will take elections for god now

once you get over the shock that someone actually posted a manual for abortions for the women of South Dakota, this is an interesting read....

www.newhousenews.com...

with a lot of historical info about pre-roe.

-------------------------------------

"The underground abortion movement there was not just activists and feminists, but was composed of the backbone families of these small, very conservative Massachusetts towns," Cline said.

Clergy -- of many denominations -- were instrumental in guiding women to abortion providers, he said.

"There was a nationwide organization called the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion; in western Massachusetts there were two chapters," Cline said.

Cline interviewed former members of these networks. "People said should Roe be overturned, they'd be ready to go again. And I want to stress this -- it wasn't just the feminist activists who said this, but also the clergy.""

-----------------------------------------------from the link posted above.

The wade vs roe will stay as it, it will be not changes, challenging but not changes.

BTW a women's body is the women's property, a pregnancy is a temporary stage in which a women allowed her body to become an incubator for the birth of her offspring.

Without an Uterus a fetus can not develop so the fetus doesn't own the mothers body at any time during pregnancy is just borrowing the space.

Uh is this thread misleading in its title? I'm not aware the law has been changed yet?

Let the people of South Dakota do what they want. Maybe liberals should stop trying to tell everyone else how they should live.

This seems like a sensible law they want to pass, which still allows an abortion in situations where they deem it necessary.

I'm prolly old fashion, but I believe women who just have abortions because they don't want to take part in motherhood should be put on death row for murder.
This law would be wrong because rape victims should be able to make that call. It's not about "its my body" crap. Its a living person being killed.
The exceptions should be rape, and if the mothers life is at risk..and then only if she so decides to terminate the pregnacy.
For all others out there ...close ya dang legs, practice safe sex, birth controllll, and if all else should escape you in the heat of a moment, think about the screaming 2 am feeding time, saggie boobs, and all those parties you WILL miss. The cost of raising a child, and in this cruel world.
And before you ask, I have two children. I played, so now I pay...and lovin every minute of it. I see children as a blessing, not a hardship. So if you don't, then don't take any chances.