namelesstavern.net

And the battle begins..... From Associated Press:

PIERRE, S.D. - Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

“It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill’s main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman’s health.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would “look favorably” on the abortion ban if it would “save life.”

Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.

“It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill’s main sponsor.

Interesting.

lyion wrote:

“It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill’s main sponsor.

Interesting.

I guess it's time to turn around on abortion, Lyion~

this should make lots of fuss for a long time. Practically, this seems like the one real weakness of the bill.

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman’s health.

I don't understand the rape/incest argument...

Isn't this murdering an innocent unborn baby??

Funny thing about this debate. Roe vs. Wade is just a Federal law prohibiting individual states from banning abortion. If it was overturned, South Dakota could ban abortion but North Dakota would allow it. So what would you see? All 45 women who want an abortion in South Dakota taking a car ride to ND to get the operation. I'd like to see Roe v Wade get overturned and see states determine if they want the ban or not. It would put to end a lot of arguement over the abortion and it's affect on morality in the country. I can assure you; California, Mass, NY, Oregan, and DC would never ban abortion.

Eziekial wrote:Funny thing about this debate. Roe vs. Wade is just a Federal law prohibiting individual states from banning abortion. If it was overturned, South Dakota could ban abortion but North Dakota would allow it. So what would you see? All 45 women who want an abortion in South Dakota taking a car ride to ND to get the operation. I'd like to see Roe v Wade get overturned and see states determine if they want the ban or not. It would put to end a lot of arguement over the abortion and it's affect on morality in the country. I can assure you; California, Mass, NY, Oregan, and DC would never ban abortion.

Nothing is going to put an end to abortion arguments. If its even allowed in 1 town you will have people screaming and yelling about the baby kills in that town demanding that they stop. With it being some states one way and some states another, the right to life people in the states where abortion is legal will be pissed that their state just doesn't get it, and the pro choice people in the other states will be screaming about womens rights and such. Its an argument that will never end.

Yes, but then those that live in a state that allows abortion could tell the pro-lifers to move to South Dakota

I don't understand the rape/incest argument...

Isn't this murdering an innocent unborn baby??

It's not that simple of an issue to everyone, you have two main issues, maybe more, here:

1) When does a fetus have the rights of a living person (at conception or at some other, seemingly arbitrary, point in gestation)

2) Can the state force a woman who has been a victim of sexual assauult to carry her pregnancy to full term?

The catholic definition of life used to be when the baby would take it's first breath. Guess that's not the case now?

Erodalak wrote:The catholic definition of life used to be when the baby would take it's first breath. Guess that's not the case now?

Source? For quite some time the Catholic Church believes life begins with the spark at conception.

The real answer is when does science say the baby is cognizant and alive, aware and should be protected.

Because the catholic church has always had the ability to differentiate its ass from its mouth?

I'm not an expert on religion or modern day politics. I think what I'm referring to may predate modern day science where there was no way to prove the "spark of conception". No source, just something I remember from class.

I do know for an absolute fact that as of the early 70s at least, the Catholic Church did not consider unborn fetuses to be persons. How do I know that? My mom had not one, but TWO miscarriages in the early 70s, about a year apart, starting about 2-3 years after I was born. In *BOTH* cases, the Catholic Church refused to allow the deceased fetus to be buried in hallowed church graveyards on the grounds that it wasn't a person, and thus had no right to be buried in a graveyard intended for people. Needless to say, such a refusal did not help the emotional state of my mother, which was already lousy due to having just lost a baby mid-term. The fact that my parents stayed Catholic after such a snub at such a time is continually surprising to me.

In any case, if the Catholic Church actually believed life began at "The Spark of Conception", then that fetus would have been a person, and could have been buried in a church graveyard. Their unshakeable position, however, was that it was NOT a person, as it was just an unborn fetus.

Perhaps their position has been altered in the last 30-35 years. Seems awful fishy to change such a fundamental religious tenet in the space of 30 years, however, especially when that time frame coincides with abortion being made legal....

-Arlos

Harrison wrote:Because the catholic church has always had the ability to differentiate its ass from its mouth?

valid

The Catholic Church has been anti abortion since the 1800s, the same time abortion was somewhat outlawed here in the US. That vastly predates any of us. They also in the 60s did a ceremony for my Moms miscarriage, so obviously YMMV, as well as provided a lot of counsel and support, which reaffirms what the church stands for to me. Obviously doctrine evolves, just like it does for society.

What you are saying goes against what I've seen and known, and is different than what I've heard my entire life, but I guess its tough looking back 30+ years to things we percieve that might have hurt ones family, even if we were not there or really know what happened.

I've talked to my parents about those events more than once, and had other conversations with them abotu the religion (remember, I quit Catholicism and picked something else that worked for me, so it was inevitable that I'd have conversations with them about faith, etc.) There are aspects of the Church that they disagree with rather strongly, also being rather liberal sorts, like the position on birth control (not abortion, but just plain birth control), women in the priesthood, etc.; but both of them are committed to the religion. (Both are eucharistic ministers, my dad is a top rank Knight of Columbus, my dad taught sessions of CCD, etc.)

Both of them have said that those events surrounding my mother's miscarriages remain their biggest beef with the Catholic Church, and they're still hurt by it. I am sure the church offered counselling, etc. but their refusal to allow burial was adamant and never waivered, and their reasons were the same on BOTH occasions, and were exactly what I said they were: that the unborn fetus was not a person, and thus was entirely ineligable for burial in Church burial grounds.

-Arlos

Abortion should be legal up to 8 weeks, when the process passes from the embryonic phase to the fetal phase. Embryos aren't people.

I am definitely pro-choice, but I don't think you should have 16 or 20 or however many weeks to make that choice.

I would love for people to abort their embryos though. Anyone who doesn't want to be a parent, shouldn't be a parent, it leads to a lot of bad shit.

I'm pretty sure that the cut off line is 12 or 13 weeks in canada

I have to say that emrbyos can be considered people if you consider that they have the DNA blueprint of a human being. It isn't like that emrbyo has any chance of becoming a frog.

Spliffs wrote:Abortion should be legal up to 8 weeks, when the process passes from the embryonic phase to the fetal phase. Embryos aren't people.

8 weeks? My ex wife didn't realize she was pregnant until that time. Now, if it had been an unwanted pregnancy where would that have left her? A lot of women don't realize they are pregnant until around that time unless you are constantly checking.

Eziekial wrote:Funny thing about this debate. Roe vs. Wade is just a Federal law prohibiting individual states from banning abortion. If it was overturned, South Dakota could ban abortion but North Dakota would allow it. So what would you see? All 45 women who want an abortion in South Dakota taking a car ride to ND to get the operation. I'd like to see Roe v Wade get overturned and see states determine if they want the ban or not. It would put to end a lot of arguement over the abortion and it's affect on morality in the country. I can assure you; California, Mass, NY, Oregan, and DC would never ban abortion.

the banning gay marriage or whatever thing they were trying to pass a year or two ago actually passed here in oregon so i wouldn't be surprised if abortion passed too

Agrajag wrote:

Spliffs wrote:Abortion should be legal up to 8 weeks, when the process passes from the embryonic phase to the fetal phase. Embryos aren't people.

8 weeks? My ex wife didn't realize she was pregnant until that time. Now, if it had been an unwanted pregnancy where would that have left her? A lot of women don't realize they are pregnant until around that time unless you are constantly checking.

I'm thinking if you miss your period by a week or more, you should probably be checking. If you're a woman who is all screwed up and typically have 6 weeks between periods, then you should be even more careful.

Anyway, I meant 8 weeks from conception, not 8 weeks from the last period, which is how the term is measured. So maybe I should have said... 12 weeks. Just to cover the potential gap.

Abortion wasn't much of a problem back in the day. They used to all die magically of "exposure". The fucked up thing was that this was widely accepted until the 1800's, I think.