A Win for Those Opposing Abortion

Remove all ads!

Hmm, what's that about the death penalty? Oh, yes, until you "murder" an innocent man/woman...

 

Death penalty: No, no. Guns: well if we banned them, it would just give the gangsters another item to sell on the black market. Abortion: depends on whether or not you believe when, between sex and birth, a human life actually starts.

 

I consider this rto be despicable because, let's see.... say a 13 year old gets pregnant in result of incest. Can't have an abortion becayuse hey, her life is not danger. Same goes for rape victims. THere simpoly are a LOT of circumstances beyond mother's life being in danger where abortion should be allowed.

 

it's just a political catch all, they've created a law that is specifically designed to bring the law before the Supreme Court without killing someone. If you outlaw abortion in cases of incest or rape, you're going to get someone to go to the Supreme Court. This law isn't suppose to hold, it's the sacrifical lamb to set things in motion. Unfortunately SD is primarily low density rural area, where incest happens at its highest rates, it's very likely some poor girl will end up with a mentally retarded child she can't abort.

Machiavellian is what this law is, forwarding one's own goals at the expense of others... and the lamest part is the goal is purely ideological, without a tangible impact on societal life.

 

Chandos,

Well, this has been discussed before. No point in going in circles.

Arabwel,

I see. Well, there are anti-abortion people who will never make any exceptions, no matter the circunstances. However, I am sure most of us would be willing to make exceptions depending on the concrete case. Such as rape and incest at an early age. Yes, I am including myself into this camp.

 

Someone should tell those idiots in the SD courts that banning abortion doesn't make it to away.

 

For the second time....

The courts in SD did not rule on abortion. The SD state legislature PASSED A BILL banning abortion. It is highly unlikely such a bill/law will be found constitutional by the courts.

 

I agree, but the problem is the wheels of justice turn really slowly. If some 13-year old got pregnant as a result of rape, and challenged the inability to get an abortion in court, it is entirely likely that by the time the case is decided, she would already have given birth. So challenging the ruling could only be done with an altuistic motive of not having it happen to others - it wouldn't do her the least bit of good.

EDIT: @ T2B - true enough, but at this present moment, that legislation is LAW in SD, and will likely remain so until challenged, with the problems I listed above.

 

So if the women is not allowed an abortion will the state finance the childs needs from birth till he/she gets a job. No. Bad idea. IMHO.

 

I see. That's true. But ain't for this that laws are made for? I mean, these kind of exceptional cases should be forseen and legislated when anti-abortion bills are passed. Then when something like that happened, it would find legal support, and we would be preventing the problem.
Botton line: Create laws that ban abortion, but that at the same time make concessions to specific cases.

 

I've always believed that abortion should either be legal or illegal -- no 'except in the case of' garbage. I tend to favor legal myself. Although I do oppose certain procedures (making specific procedures illegal should not violate the legality of abortion).

Once the government get involved everything gets too messy. As Aldeth pointed out. Other questions in the case of rape or incest:

Can the woman claim she was raped, or does she need proof? Most women do not come forward at the time of the rape and evidence is destroyed. So do we punish her for keeping quiet? What if she's lying (i.e., she had sex with her boyfriend, but can't get an abortion unless raped)?

What about the child in a case of incest? Can she just claim incest and have the abortion? Does the relative automatically face charges? Again, what if she's lying (i.e., she had sex with her boyfriend, but can't get an abortion unless rape or incest and she's pissed at her *insert male relative here* anyway)?

The waters become too murky when conditions are placed on abortion. Just who decides? Would you really WANT the average government employee to make that decision? What would be the qualifications of the person who would make that decision?

What a mess. Keep the government out of it.

 

Bruno, that may sound a bit too cruel and all, but I am sure you have in English something to the effect of "The law does not protect those whom sleep" as well.

 

I believe in giving credit where it is due, and because of that, I must commend Svyatoslav for his views, despite the fact that him and I usually disagree. I think one of the major reasons that abortion is such a divisive issue is because it's so damn hard to find people like Svyatoslav who are willing to accept some middle ground, which is going to be needed for any compromise to happen. All too often, the only thing you see on the news are people who want:

A. Abortion on demand in all cases.
B. Abortion prohibited in all cases.

There at least has to be SOME provision for getting an abortion, even if the health of the mother isn't at risk, and cases where rape or incest has occured, it's clearly not the woman's fault. It's one thing if you want to use an arguement of, "You consented to sex, so now you must accept the consequences." It's quite another thing with rape or incest. By definition, a woman cannot consent to rape, and I would think that consent to incest without a lot of coersion would be nearly impossible as well.

I also have an admission to make. While my liberal mind tells me that abortion should be legal, and I have no problem with Roe v. Wade being upheld, on a personal level, I would never want a child I fathered to be aborted except in very exceptional circumstances. My personal view is that abortion shouldn't be used as after-the-fact contraception. Basically, I don't see why someone who was living a lifestyle where there was a good chance that she would get pregnant, but yet was irresponsible enough to do nothing to avoid a pregnancy should be entitled to get an abortion on her whim. To me, if you're dumb enough to have sex without any contraception, and then you get upset that you got pregnant, well, what did you expect was going to happen? In these cases, I think the biggest reason to allowing the abortion is to prevent that person from passing on what are obviously deleterious intelligence genes. I know that sounds like a harsh assessment, especially coming from someone who is admittedly pro-choice. It's just that sometimes my brain does not always find what is legal to be right. Yet, at the same time, my brain tells me that even though it doesn't seem right, it should remain legal, because not everyone holds the same views as I do. Abortion is one of those issues that I think should remain legal even though it is something that could only be right in some rare cases.

 

jus scripta vigilantibus est

As the common law countries don't like written or codified law, I do not think they have that maxim.

 

Aldeth,

I know any half assed lawyer can tell you morality and justice are not to be confused with what is legal - even though they will say they should be related. However, shouldn't we try, to the best of our efforts, to make legal only that which is right? It is a bit confusing to me, how can someone say something is not right, but wish it to be legal anyway.

EDIT: Thanks Iago. However, as far as I know, the US and the English law systems are not exactly equal. For one, the US has a constituion, while the British don't.

 

My mother got pregnant with my sister while only nineteen. She had sacrificed a lot to get into the career she was in and suddenly had to give the career up (the details are unimportant). My sibling and I never knew those things until after my mother had died and we were going through her belongings. All we ever new was she treated our older sister different that us younger siblings.

After reading about the sacrifices my mother went through to get into the career -- my older sister said,"No wonder she always hated me."

Aldeth, my mother would never have gotten an abortion. I'm very glad she didn't -- I love my sister dearly. But I certainly do not envy the life my sister had as a child. I would not wish that on anyone. Forcing a woman to keep a child she does not want is an invitation to abuse.

There is a huge stigma in this society for a woman who gives her child up for adoption (hence, most unwanted children are kept). No matter the circumstances. Unwanted children have higher chances of birth defects and abuse or neglect. You are trading one 'evil' for another.

[ March 02, 2006, 17:59: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Svyatoslav,

The reasons are manifold, not the least of which is something that T2Bruno brings up above. An unwanted child is definitely something that should be avioded if at all possible. Another reason is I'm unconvinced about the idea of a soul, especially regarding a recently fertilized egg. Yet another reason is that I'm not sure at what point life begins. It's certainly prior to birth IMO, but to me, it is just as certainly some point later than conception. Finally, there are a lot of things that I disagree with which are legal, and I believe should remain so. Like the speed limit of 55 mph on most highways. I think that's way too low. However, many people break the speed limit, and if they raised it to say 65 mph, I think people would just increase the speed in which they drive by 10 mph. So there's no positive response to be gained by changing it. I disagree with the law, but think that speed limits should still exist. That's just one example, but if you want more, I can certainly provide them.

 

Aldeth,

Sorry, my mistake. I should had made clear that by right I was addressing the more moral and important issues, not trivial things like highway speed. But I do see your point, and there is no need to provide more examples.

 

I am of the camp that believes that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Using abortion as ex post facto birth control is irresponsible, and adoption is a superior option that minimizes the impact on the mother's life. Eliminating the impact is not the objective.

 

Does.... not.... compute... Gawain.... impersonating.... Death Rabbit..... /head explodes/

@Svy,

I do take moral consideration into account as well, but frankly my moral points are not the same as everyone else's, and by what right do I have to place my morals on someone else? I mean, I ceratinly don't want muslims expecting me to live by their moral beliefs, and it would be hypocritical of me to expect others to accept my moral beliefs. To sum it up as succinctly as possible, I would like abortion to be considered as a final option only.