Ban on Most Abortions Advances in South Dakota

[stilltrucking]

Yeah I know what you mean firsty, with all the problems we got, you would think that what we do in the privacy of our homes is not an issue as long as we are not harming anyone else. My favorite religous arguement against abortion is my christian friends who say what would happen if the messiah was in some woman's belly and she aborted it. No more messiah's. What do you think of that arguement. I remember The Abortion by brautigan. a romance I think he called it. I loved that library he workded at where the old woman brought a book she had wrote with crayons. \\

Thanks LR.

[firsty]

analogies are fun, just like semantics.

can we play a game where we try to come with abortion analogies that include two lives? the wolf one that edog had was a good one, even tho one of the lives was a wolf (and even tho it disproved his point), i think you'd find more feminists getting mad at the wolf killer than at someone having an abortion in that scenario, what with naked PETA chicks and all. but the wolf was an animal, a lower species than us brilliant humans. so i wonder (seriously) if we can come up with an analogy that includes two human lives and enough similarities to the abortion issue, one that would steer us towards justifying abortion. no cutting off arms or anything. no removal of organs.

it might come down to, as lr said, the lesser of two evils. my only issue with that is that that makes abortion pretty much the ONLY scenario (that i can think of) which declares a person to be better off dead. we cant even let our elderlies kill their own damn selves.

killing a messiah? well, i'm pretty sure that the angels will alert the next mother mary, as they did back in the day. God's a pretty smart chick, after all.

[knip]

ok...the year is 2079, cloning has been perfected such that you can rent your arm as a farm...they put a solution and do a short procedure on your arm, a small growth grows there for a week, then they surgically remove it, incubate it, and 3 weeks later have a living breathing baby! society needs this because 90% of the population has been wiped out by the uranusites in the last war of globalization

but mary jane solopski decides, 2 days after the growth treatment, that she's changed her mind, and pinches the thing off with nail clippers



see? analagies can be lots of fun



or how about the morning after pill? seems like the same thing to me

[e_dog]

"but the wolf was an animal, a lower species than us brilliant humans." -- firsty

an adult wolf is smarter than a fetus. without question.


i already provided an example of justified homicide of innocent humans -- my example of a slave killing the guard, who is also a slave, to escape bondage. you have to provide reasons why this analogy doesn't work. so far you've only said that women aren't slaves. but the whole point of an analogy isn't that the two cases are identical but that they share a logical structure or, indeed, semantic similarity. my reason for the comparison is that being forced to carry and bear children is a situation where she is forced to undergo forced 'labor' on behalf of others' demands against her will. the liberation of women requires control of one's body, because without that she is effectively disabled as an economic actor and autonomous individual. (in a way that a frivolous perverse desire to cut off ones arm does not, contra knip's first example. his second sci-fi case is more complex b/c of the strange scenario.)

"can we play a game where we try to come with abortion analogies that include two lives?" -- firsty

[stilltrucking]

the liberation of women requires control of one's body, because without that she is effectively disabled

My point exactly. Thank you

There was a website by a paraplegic guy he wrote an article about The Phenomenology of Female Spatiality, his anolagy what it is to have the body of a woman analogy to that of having the body of a cripple.

[MrGuilty]

I like the Navajo Chindi. It comes into our bodies with our first breath.

I know those are no longer considered gill slits and ontogeny re-capitulates phylogeny not considered true anymore
but

but I say the needs of air breathing humans has a higher priority than our ocean breathing embryos.

what do I know

pure speculation from monkey brain

[whimsicaldeb]

I find this continued, long, debating by the men (!) here at S8 over a women’s right to choose personally surprising! While I'm not surprised to see that happening in such a place as South Dakota … here???? oh well, never the less …

Here’s some of my thoughts …

Right now, in 2006 – women still have the right to choose, to have an abortion, or not ~ and personally, I want things to stay that way. But that’s what’s being activated to take away. It was a hard fight to get it in place as it was... I don’t want to see it go.

Is it perfect? NO. Can it be improved? Yes.

But that won’t happen, if the only thing people are willing to argue over is whether it should be reversed, or not. There are other things that need/can be discussed instead, other things that could use clearing up and clarification first: Things like …

A) Do we really have a “right” to life? And what does that mean?

Males & females – men and women, humans or any other animal did not create "life" – all that’s ever done is that we create the vessels that can contain life … but we do not, did not, create ‘Life’ itself.

(god aside) Life simple IS – Life has existed in some form before we (humanity) even came into being, and there is nothing to say that it won’t continue to existence in some form or another for millennias after we’re (humanity’s) gone.

So, when we look at this issue from this place, it kind of puts “us” and our self importance, in a proper (?) perspective.

And this distinction is important because …


B) To conceive, young – children – in truth, is NOT to give them the right ‘to live’ – but to be the ones responsible for handing out a DEATH sentence to everything we concieve (conceived)!

If you really look at it, we’re not passing along “the right to life … we are passing along our right to death.

With no exceptions.

Our bodies are not ‘life’ – they are our bodies, and the body will die … no exceptions. Sex can create a body, but our body is not life. However, once life enters the body – from that point on, we’ve begun the process of dying.

Even a house, will get old, crumble and pass away …

Which brings us then to …

C) Quality of life – and what that really means, from inception to ending.

Unwanted pregnancies create unwanted children and unwanted children are the most brutely abused in societies across all demographics (past/present, race, wealth, religions, location).

Brutely abused … and mostly without anyone every knowing as well.

What kind of “life” is that for anyone?
What kind of way to die, is that?
What we are trying to create with these decisions?
What kind of lives, what kinds of deaths?

Next …

D) It takes two – to make a baby.

So far, even in this debate, it’s primarily on the woman to be in charge of the ‘birth control’ – but the fact is, if “little jack horner” were “as properly dressed” at all times along with “little bo peep” – nothing unwanted would ever be conceived – no unwanted pregnancies would take place, and there would be no need for abortions beyond the need to save a woman’s life, or because of incest, or rape.

So, when men start arguing as passionately over their responsibilities: for also being in charge of birth control of/for their OWN sex – as well as their responsibilities legally, morally, and monetarily of child caring/rearing – as they do over a woman’s right to choose …

… and there are as many – if not MORE – options formen’s birth control as they are for erectile dysfunction … ahhhh, well then we’ll finally be getting some place on this issue.

And last …

E) Perfection.

The problem is never just ‘one thing’ – and Abortion is no difference … a small word, that covers a vast field of interrelating aspects, all equally important.

In addition, it’s impossible to have everything be perfect. We have to keep in mind that no law, or lack of one, will ever cover all this. But what happens if people become so idealistic that they aim for perfection – and then when that doesn’t happen, they want to throw in the towel, throw everything … just because things aren’t going perfectly.

Our we willing to accept lack of perfection as valuable - as 'okay'?

When we aim for perfection, we'll always fail. But when we aim for improvements –– a reachable goal, things turn out differently.

In the area of abortions, we can improve by expanding and working on what we already have in place – not by throwing it all away. And we can begin by asking a lot more questions …such as these...

How realistic are the right-to-life goals compared with those who support choice? What do they have in common? Where are they in agreement, where are they not, and can we find a solution - or learn to live with, there areas where we aren't?

These are some of the other things that need to be included in all these decision makings processes.

800 abortions in one year in South Dakota alone – there is definitely room for improvement. I can understand why those who don’t like abortions are upset.

But repelling a woman’s right to choice is a backward move, a throwing the ‘baby’ out with the bathwater, as it were – it’s the wrong, and over reaction to the problem based on a false, glamorized view that things were better and simpler back then – but that’s not true… and that is what needs to be addressed now.

Looking at how all these issues feed into each other; quality of life, abuse issues, birth control issues, support issues, male and female rights issues – each of these have a part in what leads up to abortions … and without addressing all these issues at once, we’re just spinning out wheels.

The best thing we can do, when talking with someone who’s ‘anti-abortion’ is bring these other parts back into the whole, back into their awareness.

As well as realize that South Dakota is an extreme... so how much of one, and how much influence do they actually have, and what type of backlash will happen from this is yet to be determined. (Is being determined now.)

Now, is are our moment (pro choice) of opportunity ... If we can adequately show their unreasonableness that could work in our favor.

I could go on & on & on ... and some of my views are quit radical, and this has been one llllooonnnnggggg two cents worth, so I'll stop now.
…
on a personal note ..

Personally, I’m a woman who’s fought long and hard for mine, and others, right to choose; I’ve also had an abortion myself … it was not pleasant. I did not choose it lightly. The father was involved, and while it was a joint decision – in the end, it truly mine. For good, or ill. It was the toughest choice I ever had to made – and I was lucky, he stayed through the process.

Yet without a doubt, in my heart, I know it was the right one for all involved, and yes that includes our child, but it took years of inner work to reach that place of understanding.

I realize that there are those who do no, and would not, agree with my choice. And that’s fine, that’s their right, and I can live with their disagreement; but what I don't want to live with again, is their right taking mine away.

~~~~~

Now ~ an fyi …

It’s spring in California again, we’ve already begun receiving the first of many baby mammals and birds in the animal hospital (as January – 258 and counting animals so far…) – and we’re busy training a fresh new batch of volunteers. Which means, I’m getting busier, which mean – that once again – I won’t have the time to post and talk about things and such as I’ve had over this winter.

I’ve enjoyed this winter …

And I’m sorry to leave such a long posting, with so many different things in it and then do what amounts to ‘disappearing ’ – not staying around more to talk about things in depth with anyone who actually reads through it all.

But I’m not a fast typist and these types of postings take awhile for me, first I have to gather my thoughts together and then write them out. And past experience has shown me that from here on out I'm just not going to have the time like I have over winter.

I'm sorry, but I'm doing what amounts to a "post & run."

[stilltrucking]

As well as realize that South Dakota is an extreme... so how much of one, and how much influence do they actually have, and what type of backlash will happen from this is yet to be determined. (Is being determined now.)

Listen Deb I read the whole got dam thing I was intimadated at first by its length . But I had to read it..

That bit above is the only point where i disagree. This is not about south dakota, this is about Roe v Wade. This case was put forward to bring the matter before the supreme court and over turn roe v wade, I have heard estimates of close to twenty years before it makes it to the supreme court. I heard a sound byte the Focus On The Family Dobson read a very nice letter on the air today from ALito. A nice warm note of thanks.

Speaking of spring it feels early, I heard a mourning dove yesterday morning.

EDIT added later

You all ready knew about the case being floated for the Supreme court you probably the one who told me. A lot of men here trying to tell women what they know.

Makes me want to rock and roll

WARREN ZEVON
Mohammed's Radio
written by Warren Zevon

Everybody's restless and they've got no place to go
Someone's always trying to tell them
Something they already know
So their anger and resentment flow

But don't it make you want to rock and roll
All night long
Mohammed's Radio
I heard somebody singing sweet and soulful
On the radio, Mohammed's Radio

done

[firsty]

wd, i disagree with a lot of what you said, but i agree that the issue from a legal standpoint needs to be viewed within the larger social context. the problem with roe is that it doesnt really address abortion at all. in a way, the prochoice movement's success has been second-hand. if the issue is addressed directly, it will require a much different public debate and will force people to look at differently than they already have. it's not the law's fault if it gets repealed and all that the court could do is force the thing to be discussed differently by perhaps wrongly taking advantage of roe's weakness to shift its point of view politically more towards the right-wing.

i think most reasonable people would agree that abortion is a bad thing, but many people feel it's necessary. edog's analogy is hopeless, which i may decide to point out depending on whether or not i want to argue with someone who thought that johnny cash wrote "rusty cage". and the perspective of creating death not life is interesting and deserves a response. the biggest issue i have with deb's post is that it seems to say that one evil is necessary because of other evils. while this may be true when we look at it within the larger social context, it would also be nice if (even here?!?! of course here!) we could talk about it in the same way we talk about war, suicide, etc. war is necessary sometimes but that doesnt mean that i'm not going to say i'm 100% against it. but to say someone is 100% against abortion brings out the feminist in many people because abortion has been framed as a woman's issue and no one seems to want to move from that, which puts it in a place that demands protection from mean powerful men of history, which i think is sexist in itself. women want men to have more responsibility for pregnancies, but still want to be able to have abortions without notifying the father. there is a huge double standard in western society that protects women not only from abuse of power (which is valid) but also, in many ways, from criticism, and that is wrong.

[mtmynd]

Abortion is not a proceedure invented by Roe vs Wade.

Women, ever since pregnancy was realized, have taken the choice factor and chose between aborting their pregnancy or not.

The earlier days saw women drinking bleach... jumping off ladders... consulting with herbalists on which herbs to use to abort.. the list is extensive and sometimes extremely dangerous. Roe vs Wade put abortion in the public's eye... and cleaned it up, so to speak. It gave women more access to a quick, safe and easy fetus removal. You can't force a woman to love the idea of every pregnancy... it's stupid.

Like Intelligent Design, this administration is going backwards... and in doing so, is giving women less choice and more demands as to pregnancy.

It is irrelevant what I think of abortion... I don't have to carry the damn thing! Why should my opinion carry more weight than a seven pound infant in a mother's womb? If those that scream 'killer' don't fucking like abortion, go adopt a unwanted child... there's plenty around. If they don't aren't they guilty of 'killing parenthood' for the unwanted?

If those that vehemently disagree with abortion were just as strongly against poverty, hunger and disease that children live with daily, worldwide, perhaps there would be a dramatic reduction in those same crimes children deal with daily.

[firsty]

"If those that vehemently disagree with abortion were just as strongly against poverty, hunger and disease that children live with daily, worldwide, perhaps there would be a dramatic reduction in those same crimes children deal with daily."

if those that vehemently agree with abortion were just as strongly against poverty, hunger and disease that children live with daily, worldwide, perhaps there would be a dramatic reduction in those same crimes children deal with daily.

and i think the perspective that wb writes from demonstrates this. we seem to feel abortion is necessary within this horrible world, instead of concentrating on dealing with it. if we said that women are historically inept at dealing with the fact that they carry fetuses, we'd be strung up by our balls. if we say that men are historically inept at protecting women from getting pregnant in the first place, we're applauded.

[stilltrucking]

Firsty you lost me again. I been having trouble reading your posts on this thread. Especially the long ones, I tend to drift away. Seems like you have some issues that I dont. I suppose you have children. I don't when I was ready to lay down and die with lung cancer one important factor in my ability to main tain was that I had to fight the goood fight for the sake of myy nephew.

I find it so remarkable that I can not get you here but I do on go?

[mtmynd]

firsty -

we seem to feel abortion is necessary within this horrible world, instead of concentrating on dealing with it.

I never said abortion is necessary. How many of those that disagree with RvsW feel that since it is legal it therefore follows that it is necessary? Too many I feel. RvsW only gives women a choice... a safe, legal choice. No words on necessary.

"According to the CDC report, in 2002:

* 40 percent women who had abortions in the U.S. had no other children;
* 44 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. had at least one previous abortion;
* 80 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. were unmarried.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood:

At current rates, an estimated 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

* Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.
* Fifty-two percent of U.S. women having abortions are younger than 25 years old.
* About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing 1 percent of all abortions." - Family.org

Kaiser Network.org reports 2/23/06 -

"Despite significant progress in reducing childhood deaths over the last 50 years, 29,000 children under age five die each day from preventable diseases, including HIV/AIDS, according to a new report by UNICEF Canada released on Wednesday, the CP/Canada.com reports. According to the report, HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest threats to child health.

The most accurate estimates of the causes of child deaths to date, published in the March 26, 2005 of THE LANCET, reveal that worldwide more than 70% of the 10.6 million child deaths that occur annually are attributable to six causes: pneumonia (19%), diarrhoea (18%), malaria (8%), neonatal sepsis or pneumonia (10%), preterm delivery (10%), and asphyxia at birth (8%).

Robert Black (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA) and colleagues in an independent group on child health epidemiology, along with those from the World Health Organisation (WHO), analysed available data from publications and ongoing studies in 2000 to 2003 to obtain new estimates for mortality by cause in children younger than age 5 years. They found the four communicable disease categories account more than half (54%) of all child deaths. Infection of the blood or pneumonia in newborn babies and pneumonia in older children constitute 29% of all deaths. Undernutrition is an underlying cause of 53% of all deaths in children aged younger than 5 years. The investigators also calculated the total numbers and proportional distributions of deaths in children younger than age 5 years by cause for the six WHO-defined regions. Among deaths in children, 42% occur in the WHO Africa region, and an additional 29% occur in the south-east Asia region."

If an estimated 29,000 children under the age of five die daily, what are the pro-lifers saying about those statistics? Does this administration say anything about the Iraqi babies (under 5) that have lost their lives from U.S. bombs? What of the largest group of childhood deaths in Africa..? What has our modern and civilized world done to prevent those deaths?

Firsty - the bottom line is death has no age limits. People that are born die. There's no stopping this cycle of life/death. But the actual soul... the spirit that lights our bodily lamps, is eternal... never dies. If you believe that statement is b.s., then I suggest a change of consciousness from a fetus has the ability to support itself and it is murder to abort it to a more full acceptance of quality of life versus quantity. Our human civilization cannot provide for all... there are too many upon this planet at the sake of land and resources to support all of us if ideally there was no abortion or childhood deaths from any source (not to mention women will continue aborting unwanted pregnancies no matter RvsW or any other b.s. that is fed to them).

[firsty]

c, i just mean necessary as the choice, as part of a social structure. not that it's necessary to get an abortion.

our inability as a civilization to provide for all as a means to justify abortion, i think, is unique to abortion. we doint talk about our inability to provide for all life when we get upset about genocide, wars or poverty. we try to fix those things. i guess my issue with abortion is that more seems to be spent on maintaining "choice" than in preventing it in the first place. we dont pass laws to allow people to "choose" genocide. we try to prevent it. thats the difference. i dont disagree with anything you're saying. but i find it bad that we've framed this particular moral dilemma as one of merely "choice" and, further, we've assigned it solely as a woman's issue. i think this prevents honest discussion about it, and i think thats wrong.

that woman will continue aborting even if it's illegal doesnt negate the issue. people will always break some law.

[mtmynd]

Laws are made to be broken, as the adage claims.

Choosing is a very human trait, as it is with much of life, only we clever humans have given it the name "Free Will", a gift from 'God'. If this is accepted then 'God' surely allows woman the choice of abortion thru 'His' gift of this Free Will.

Nothing new under the sun... including aborting a fetus.