South Dakota Bans Abortion

[bascule]

re pcs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

(he was amusing' date=' but now he's getting pretty dull)[/quote']

 

I espouse the DNFT philosophy.

 

pcs is something like the 5th or 6th reincarnation of revprez, his past 5 or 6 or so identities on these forums having been banned. Not sure why pcs isn't banned yet, especially after Pangloss posted that whole Revprez is not welcome here under any incarnation thread.

 

I'm guessing it's because were he to be banned, he'd just come back yet again with a new account. He apparently can't take a hint.

[pcs]

A right to privacy has existed in the constitution since the Bill of Rights was written.

 

What we now consider to be the constitutional right to privacy was not "discovered" until Poe v. Ullman in 1961, in dissent. That may change in the future.

 

The constitution doesnt have to use the words "right to privacy" explicitly...

 

By one standard of construction, and by far not an undisputed one.

 

...all that matters is the right to privacy as an actual constitutional principle (its exactly the same case where the words "separation of church and state" dont appear in the constitution, but its a valiid constitutional principle nonetheless).

 

Aside from this "principle-based" construction, you might note that the current Administration has been accused of appointing justices less likely than most to view current Establishment clause case law in a different light.

 

However, if this goes to the Supreme Court, they wont care whats morally right or wrong, only thats consistent with constitutional principles.

 

Like Bush v. Gore? And Justice Breyer is on record as promoting an ethic of "active liberty" in interpretating law and constructing constitutional findings.

 

However, while you said this system was bad because it "repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional", I dont think democracy really solves the problem (keep in mind that 11 US states unanimously voted away the rights of gay couples to get married).

 

And when the Courts turn against you, too, will you find democracy as such a bad way to get things done?

 

I espouse the DNFT[/url'] philosophy.

 

But not the "contribute something" philosophy, apparantly. Perhaps you should add to the thread rather than attacking other members. I mean, at least contribute as much as Aardvark does before you set off on derailing it, m'kay?

[Aardvark]

I think it is impossible to have a literal law that will cover every situation, but you of course have a point that possibly the Judiciary is being to liberal. I can understand Abortion, but to say no rights to privacy is being too literal IMO.

 

Possibly the judicary is too liberal now. In time it may swing in a too conservative direction. My concern isn't so much whether it is liberal or conservative but that law should, in effect, be made by an unaccoutable body. If a right to privacy is considered a positive thing then it should be legislated by a democratically elected body. Not 'discovered' on the whim of an unelected body.

 

Every political and religious group has failed to 'do the right thing' at some point in history. That doesn't condem the whole group past, present and future.

 

True, i'm not condemning the judicary, simply pointing out that i can't seem any particular reason to believe it is a particularly reliable branch of government to be entrusted with the belief that it will act as a defender of minorities and the weak.

 

 

I have more confidence in the Judiciary, because they are the 'experts' in regards to the Constitution and Law. They shouldn't bend to political pressure.

 

Being an expert on the law doesn't give the judicary the mandate to write new laws, that is a quite different thing, yet they have, de facto, abrogated that right. Certainly, it would be nice to think that they are neutral arbiters of the law, free from political pressure, but in practice courts can show bias and they are no longer simply arbitrating the law but writing new law.

 

Just as I have more confidence in scientists when it comes to scientific questions - they are fallible, but on the whole will make better judgements on scientific issues.

 

I trust scientists to understand science and i trust lawyers to understand law. But that doesn't extend to lawyers making law.

 

 

 

That is true, but for something basic as human rights, I think an amendment is appropriate.

 

It would be good to see an amendment passed by a democratic body rather than 'discovered' by an unelected one.

 

We are in a republic' date=' so our representatives, who have lobbyists and other interests at heart, make the laws. We don't vote on the laws.[/quote']

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Certainly, the political system inspires little faith, the lobbyists and the gerrymandering are a disgrace, but even so imperfect a system is surely a better way of making laws than by completely unaccountable judges?

 

The constitution defines the powers of the federal government. It can be read literally or be interpreted. If the people want to make a law that is against the constitution, that is wrong.

 

Why would that be wrong? It would be illegal, but wrong?

 

My basic point is that in a democracy laws should be made and changed by the representatives of the people while the judicary interperate and uphold those laws. Instead, it appears that the judicary has redefined its role to making law. That can not be good for democracy.

 

When an issue such as whether abortion should be allowed comes down to an argument over the interpretation of a document that doesn't even mention the matter it can only detract from the real arguments about the morality of the matter.

 

Such an issue should be decided, on its merits, through open discussion and democractic vote. Not lawsuits.

[padren]

Am I missing something here?

 

I was under the impression that anti-abortionists are such because, generally due to religious beliefs, they believe a fetus is a human being.

 

Pro-choice people, are generally so because they feel a fetus is not a human being, but a mass of cells with the potential to become a human being.

 

 

I always thought this was a bunch of religious zealots trying to say "Since we believe life is this way, we will dictate what you can do with your body."

 

Its the same sort of mentality that bans contraceptives or outlaws oral sex. Yet in the end, they provide no basis for the claims other than the scripture they happen to subscribe to.

 

 

But did I miss something? Is there anyone that thinks a fetus is a child, but that it should be legal to kill it anyway? Or that a fetus is nothing more than a cluster of cells, but that a woman should be forced to carry it to term?

 

It seems sometimes anti-abortionists paint it as roe vs. wade says the rights of the potential mother are more important than that of the rights of the unborn child, and thus needs to be overturned.

 

But I am pretty sure no (or nearly no) pro-choicers see it that way, but see it as a cluster of cells cannot have rights at all just because a source of scripture claims life starts at conception.

[pcs]

Am I missing something here?

 

I was under the impression that anti-abortionists are such because' date=' generally due to religious beliefs, they believe a fetus is a human being.[/quote']

 

That would go for the vast majority of the grass roots movement. Conservative attorneys and jurists, while they may intersect on moral and political grounds with the activists, often have reasons rooted in judicial philosophy. You might say a pro-life conservative would not find anything legally troubling about a legal world where Roe doesn't exist but federal and state law guaranteed access to abortion and other objectionable reproductive services.

[padren]

That would go for the vast majority of the grass roots movement. Conservative attorneys and jurists, while they may intersect on moral and political grounds with the activists, often have reasons rooted in judicial philosophy. You might say a pro-life conservative would not find anything legally troubling about a legal world where Roe doesn't exist but federal and state law guaranteed access to abortion and other objectionable reproductive services.

 

Are you trying to say that many pro-life conservatives aren't anti-abortion, they are against one one ruling (R vs W) that supports abortion, and would prefer abortion to be guaranteed by a different law?

 

Did I get that right? It doesn't sound right to me...how can you be "pro-life" if its not about the "life" part?

[pcs]

Are you trying to say that many pro-life conservatives aren't anti-abortion' date=' they are against one one ruling (R vs W) that supports abortion, and would prefer abortion to be guaranteed by a different law?

 

Did I get that right? It doesn't sound right to me...how can you be "pro-life" if its not about the "life" part?[/quote']

 

I think I'm going to have to get in the habit of quoting myself. In response to your observations that religious belief informs the pro-life position on abortion: "[t]hat would go for the vast majority of the grass roots movement."

 

As for those pro-life conservatives who object on issues of law, you might say that they lack a pro-life orientation (I've seen no study of tracking judical philosophy of jurists and lawyers with their political and ethical views of on abortion) but you may say that pro-life is in a political alliance with opponents of privacy jurisprudence. And that argument existed long before Roe took case law into interesting waters.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade has a precedent which extends privacy rights to the protections of ones own organs, and says the government cannot compell anyone to give up or share any of their organs for any reason, even to save a life (otherwise, we'd be abducting people off the street to harvest their organs for use in others). Abortion is protected because the fetus doesnt have a right to use a womans organs, not even for its own life.

So now we're arguing over the rights of natural biological processes?! This is something that occurs naturally. Sure, you can argue over the rights of an artificially created thing--like filesharing--but arguing if a fetus, which never made a decision on the subject, has a right to be there, is insane.

 

Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs?

The fetus never had a chance to consider these problems. There's a difference between something that's brought there without its consent (it's arguable if a fetus even can consent) than someone that actually makes a concious decision about it.

 

I think that on this subject, a lot of people are reacting because of the "oh my god they're killing a baby" thought instead of actually thinking it through (I'm not specifically speaking to any one of you, but that's my general impression). We need to stop and think about this. Take as an example the fact that South Dakota hasn't banned abortion--yet. They're only halfway there.

[padren]

Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs?

 

Personally I am pro-choice for other reasons, but while you state no one else has the right to use your organs (I basically agree) if you are responsible for that individual becoming dependant on your organs, and then take deliberate actions causing their death, how could you not be responsible?

 

No one has the right to your property, even say, your inflatable life jacket. However, if a human life becomes dependant on your life jacket because you placed them in the middle of a lake in it, when they can't swim...if you decided to take it back from them and allow them to drown, you would be committing a crime, yes?

 

I am pro-choice, because I don't believe a fetus is a human, and a potential human does not have rights anymore than a potential lawyer can practice law.

[Pangloss]

It's certainly possible to be opposed to abortion without being a "religious zealot", padren. Atheists seem to generally favor "life" when it involves opposing wars of aggression, but oppose "life" when it comes to abortion. It's an interesting contradiction.

 

It's also one I happen to share, and I feel it's offset under certain conditions by the welfare of the person carrying the child.

 

But then I also think that the war of aggression issue is potentially offset by issues such as non-compliance with international agreement.

 

I'm just a whole mess of contradictions, aren't I? Almost exactly like a real human being. Imagine that. Quick, someone assign me to an ideological niche so I can get myself straightened out!

[Skye]

Aardvark, on the 'courts making laws' point, the thing here is that courts do not have the power to breach rights given in the constitution, regardless of what legislative produces. The constitution is the ultimate power in a constitutional democracy, not any branches of government, including the elected representatives.

[Skye]

Aardvark, on the 'courts making laws' point, the thing here is that courts do not have the power to breach rights given in the constitution, regardless of what legislative produces. The constitution is the ultimate power in a constitutional democracy, not any branches of government, including the elected representatives.

[padren]

It's certainly possible to be opposed to abortion without being a "religious zealot"' date=' padren.

[/quote']

Yes I agree, but I do think someone would have to be rather zealous to think that it is wise to draft legal legislation based solely on quotes from their preferred holy scripture.

 

Atheists seem to generally favor "life" when it involves opposing wars of aggression' date=' but oppose "life" when it comes to abortion. It's an interesting contradiction.

[/quote']

There is no opposition to life when it comes to abortion, just a disagreement as to what life is, as far as I know. Its very consistent. Do you actually believe that atheists who support abortion are generally of the mind set that a fetus is a child, but that its okay to kill it? Unless I am missing something, that would be required for that contraction to be valid.

 

It's also one I happen to share' date=' and I feel it's offset under certain conditions by the welfare of the person carrying the child.

[/quote']

Ironically I am mixed there, because I am not 100% convinced that a fairly late term pregnancy is not a human and therefore with rights. If the mother's health is in real danger then I would have to accept her health should be favored as the lesser of two evils.

 

But then I also think that the war of aggression issue is potentially offset by issues such as non-compliance with international agreement.

 

I'm just a whole mess of contradictions' date=' aren't I? Almost exactly like a real human being. Imagine that. Quick, someone assign me to an ideological niche so I can get myself straightened out![/quote']

 

Well that has less to do with contradictions as having mixed feelings about the information. I mean, Iraq wouldn't comply with the UN and claimed we had spies in the inspectors, but then it turned out we did have spies in the inspectors unbeknownst to the UN, which really angered them, but did Iraq know that or would he have kicked us out anyway?

 

In my experience, contractions are usually based on how we evaluate large amounts of little semi-reliable bits of data. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, should we have gone in? Were they a threat to us and regional stability? I would be willing to bet you measure this war or any war based on a fairly consistent measuring stick, just one that is complex enough others and perhaps yourself would assume resulted in inconsistent measurements because they don't understand the system you used.

[Pangloss]

Do you actually believe that atheists who support abortion are generally of the mind set that a fetus is a child, but that its okay to kill it?

 

That is, in fact, my position, and I don't think it's all that uncommon. In fact when I explain it to people in greater detail, I often find that they essentially agree with it, or at least don't have a major beef with it. Those conversations have generally helped lead me to the conclusion that most people who have firm opinions on abortion are actually the ones in the 15%-either-end extremes. The 70% in the middle are folks like me (more or less), who agree that it's probably a "killing", but that it may be a necessary evil given current technology.

 

It's actually an excellent example of something else: The way the organized extremes control the social agenda in this country.

[padren]

That is, in fact, my position, and I don't think it's all that uncommon. In fact when I explain it to people in greater detail, I often find that they essentially agree with it, or at least don't have a major beef with it.

 

I do find that interesting. Is there a cut off point where you feel an abortion is unlawful due to the advancement of the fetus? I don't know where I think that line is myself, but I am sure its there somewhere.

[Pangloss]

I think my point was more along the lines that you're asking the wrong question. It's not so important where we draw the line. What's important is whether we're willing as a society to allow unborn children to be killed in certain cases.

 

I am. Others are not. But saying that there's an arbitrary line where they become "human" is somewhat of a denial of reality.

 

More importantly (and I believe this is FAR more important), you are being dictated to think otherwise by the two opposing special interests who control the agenda on this subject.

[padren]

I think my point was more along the lines that you're asking the wrong question. It's not so important where we draw the line. What's important is whether we're willing as a society to allow unborn children to be killed in certain cases.

 

I guess we can disagree about what is important. For me, a cluster of cells at the point of conception is undoubtedly not a human, and what is born at birth 9 months later undoubtedly is.

 

If the question was whether we are willing to kill unborn children, then I would be anti-abortion instead of pro-choice.

 

I hope I am not belaboring the point, its just I never saw that side of the debate before. I've always seen the religious arguments that happen to keep morning after pills off the shelves be applied to abortion. I'll have to look into it more.

[Tetrahedrite]

It's certainly possible to be opposed to abortion without being a "religious zealot", padren. Atheists seem to generally favor "life" when it involves opposing wars of aggression, but oppose "life" when it comes to abortion. It's an interesting contradiction.

The contradiction cuts both ways. Theists tend to be pro-life about abortion, but usually pro death penalty and pro war as you say. Just wanted to point out that this isn't just a querk of atheist (or left of centrists) and can be applied equally to theists (or right of centrists).

[pcs]

The contradiction cuts both ways. Theists tend to be pro-life about abortion, but usually pro death penalty and pro war as you say.

 

I don't think the pro-life camp can think of an unborn child that's commited a capital crime or taken up arms against their country.

[Pangloss]

I guess we can disagree about what is important. For me' date=' a cluster of cells at the point of conception is undoubtedly not a human, and what is born at birth 9 months later undoubtedly is.

 

If the question was whether we are willing to kill unborn children, then I would be anti-abortion instead of pro-choice.

 

I hope I am not belaboring the point, its just I never saw that side of the debate before. I've always seen the religious arguments that happen to keep morning after pills off the shelves be applied to abortion. I'll have to look into it more.[/quote']

 

That's okay, and I respect your opinion on it. By the way, when I said "you're asking the wrong question", I just meant "in my mind" or "to my way of thinking" (in order to answer your question) -- I didn't mean in the accusative sense. But I think you got my point there, which was just to offer a different perspective on it.

 

In my mind, it's not so much abortion that is the issue, but the way in which we allow our emotions and our society to be manhandled by the special interests associated with the subject, not to mention hundreds of other "straw man" issues that are really just not as important as we are constantly harangued and cajoled into believing.

 

When someone in a perceived position of authority is constantly screaming at you for your opinion about something, AND supplying you with limited information about that thing, sooner or later you're going to form and opinion and feed it back to them, whether it's accurate and well-considered or not. Sometimes I wonder if we're all just Country Walk kids.

[bascule]

South Dakota bans abortion... for real this time:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html

[bascule]

Signed into law by the governor today...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

 

"Take that, wemminfolk!" quips governor Mike Rounds

as he signs the bill banning abortion statewide.

[Pangloss]

For what it's worth, I doubt this will even make it to the Supreme Court.

[Mike T]

Mike T comment

Once some of these governors get elected, they think they are gods.

This person is nothing but a lackey of the popes policy. The popes are the primary sources of fueling this and other restrictions on freedom.

 

To me, the pope and his church are outlaws that violate the 'cruel and unusual punishment' of our Constitution and the 'free speech' mandate.

An example goes back in history during the 16th century when G. Bruno was burned at the stake and G. Galilea was humilated by that chuirches inquisition about the nature of the universe.

 

This may not directly pertain to this topic but it does indirectly because of the influence of that church in overruling our Constitutional rights.

Another example is their restrictions on 'volentary euthanasia.

 

I support abortion even 'on demand' because 'post abortion' is common in nature. And Nature is the only creator of life.

 

I just hope the Supreme Court honors our Constitution as the highest law in the country and ignores these higher law religious fanatics trying to overrule our rightful and only law.

 

Mike T

[Jim]

I don't think the pro-life camp can think of an unborn child that's commited a capital crime or taken up arms against their country.

 

I agree with you PCS. That argument has always seemed obtuse. Of course, there is a difference between Ted Bundy and an unborn child (to the extent it is a "child.")