By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer

PIERRE, S.D. - State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation's highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic performing abortions in South Dakota, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

-------------------
Wow

And so it begins.

Chet Brokaw?? Tom's kid???

I never understood that name. Should be BANNED Parenthood.

I do not understand the opposition to Planned Parenthood, and probably never will. First of all, very few Planned Parenthood centers perform abortions. Their main purpose is in their name - PLANNED Parenthood. They teach people to avoid pregnancy. Do they refer people for abortions? Yes. However, they do it in the context of counseling. It is an option that is presented to a pregnant woman, among other options.

And I'd like to know what sort of solution do people opposed to Planned Parenthood suggest? Isn't it better that people receive counseling on how to only get pregnant when planned, rather than it just happening?

My sister-in-law worked as a nurse for Planned Parenthood for many years. She was shocked at the sexual ignorance displayed by women who were sexually active, many of them already pregnant. She was able to provide counseling on birth control, so that many never became pregnant again, unless they chose to. Isn't that a better solution than having sexually active women not knowing how their bodies work and getting pregnant because they believe (and I swear this is true) that they won't become pregnant if they jump out of bed on the left side immediately after having sex?

Leave it up to the government to take away the right for a female to choose what to do to her body. I've gotten into some arguements on here a long while back because of the topic of abortion, and i still maintain that at the end of the day no one has the right to tell a woman whether she can or can not stop her body from developing a baby.

Oveer 45,000,000 abortions have taken place sice Roe -v- Wade. I agree a woman should have a voice when it comes to her body but we have to do something about the number of abortions taking place everyday in America. Doesnt the Consitution protect everyone? Even the unborn?

DS

Well DS the only option is to tell woman they aren't aloud to stop something from growing in their body, and i wouldn't do that. Besides there i still alot of debat as to when a fetus is truly living. (lets not let this one get out of hand guys)

Smitty, I completely disagree with the use of abortion as birth control. I think it's disgusting. HOWEVER, I can't make that decision for every woman. And in order for women to be able to have that control over their bodies, that means it must be available to all women, for whatever reason.

Smitty, you have a lovely wife and daughter. Would you care to see the day when women can't have abortions? Perhaps they could in the case of rape, or if their life was at risk, but that's it. Then let's say (and I pray to God that such a day would never, ever come) that your daughter goes on a date, and is a victim of date rape (again, God forbid). However, because it is a case of he said/she said, the guy is either found innocent, or the DA feels that he doesn't even have enough to bring charges.
Now what? Would you want your daughter to be forced to carry the child of that animal, who used and abused her? Or how about she wakes up in her college dorm, was obviously slipped something in a drink because she has no recollection of the previous night, and doesn't even know she had sex until she finds out she's pregnant? Certainly no rape case can be made there, either.

In today's society, these are all realistic scenarios and the best reasons why Roe v. Wade must stay firmly in place.

And the number of abortions is also the reason why we need places like Planned Parenthood, which help women to avoid pregnancy altogether.

Don't get me wrong, i dont' think that this should be used as a means of birthcontrol either, but i think that if someone very young makes a mistake, they should be aloud to one mistake. Now if it becomes a case where they are just being stupid, then i agree that they should not be aloud to abort a kid. i wouldn't like to see a 15 year old carrying around a kid because of one mistake. but i'd definatly hate to see a 21 year old having an abortion.

I understand what you are saying SB. I did say though that we have to find a way to stop so many abortions, I did not say I was against them. I think that a woman should have the right to an abortion if the mothers life is in danger or the child will be born with a horrible diesease that will cause the child when born to be in horrible pain and is doomed for death. I think a woman should be able to have an abortion during the 1st trimester but after that I think that the woman should have the baby. When the child gets to the 2nd and 3rd trimester I believe that child will feel pain. As long as what I stated above is not taking place (Moms health Ect.) I do not see why to wait so long.

Oh Well :rolleyes: they'll still always have this, right?

Quite simply, adoption. As far as that goes, in the 21st Century, with all the Sex Ed. and birth control available (if people simply have to instead of exercising a little self-control), there simply is no excuse for an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. And don't bother with the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother scenarios, because even the most left-winged statistics have to admit that those account for like 1 or 2 percent of murdered babies. Let's just be honest: out of the millions of babies slaughtered, virtually all of them have been for the sake of convenience. Someone didn't take a pill; someone didn't wear a condom. For those who argue over a "woman's right to choose," then I say if she hasn't got sense enough to choose to keep from getting pregnant (or the man to have the sense to choose not to impregnate her), then she certainly doesn't have the God-given sense to decide what should be done to the baby once she's pregnant. And I might point out that none of it is the baby's fault. At that point, we're talking about TWO people's rights, not just the foolish couple's. All those babies slaughtered for convenience. We should be ashamed of ourselves arguing over careless people's "rights."

Am I being self-righteous? I've never been there? Wrong! I am ashamed to say that when I was eighteen or so, I was an idiot, too, and got my girlfriend at the time pregnant. Being someone who couldn't care less back then, I financed an abortion. And whether anyone believes me or not, there's not a day that goes by that I don't regret it (or think of the misery she might still feel, wherever she may be now). In fact, I'm weeping now as I wonder what my child might have been today, and what joy he/she would've brought me (or some childless couple). And who's to say that he/she might've grown up and benefited all of mankind, not just me.

I know this is an emotional issue that stirs strong passions. If someone is offended, there's no need for me to apologize, because there's no way to discuss this matter without offending someone. I just wish to God now that I hadn't been a fool then. An alternative to murder? There are plenty. God help us when we rationalize taking a life and put it on the level of a woman's "rights." And let's please not further trivialize/rationalize by arguing about "when life begins." That's easily answered with a question: When a woman becomes pregnant, what are the odds that in nine months she will give birth to what "the law" defines as an actual person? Try killing the baby then and see what happens. And law or not, we all know there are and have always been unjust laws. No matter how you cut it, there is no justification for a murdered baby.

At the end of the day, it's not really a matter of a woman 'stopping her body from developing a baby'. To do that, she'd have to commit suicide.

The proper terminology is that she is ending the life of a baby growing inside her.

I've said this here before, too. If more people thought of abortion as the ending of a life than a woman deciding what to do with her body (as if she were piercing her ears), then the less abortions there would be.

I'm glad S. Dakota made this decision. They may have set a precedent. I hope more states follow suit.

Apple

Snake, What I'm talking about is the fact that there are many women out there who don't have the first clue about birth control or how their bodies work. Planned Parenthood does NOT offer abortion services. They offer education and counseling. If the woman is already pregnant, then they help her by presenting ALL options, including abortion and adoption. But they are mostly about offering education, counseling, and gynecological services to women who can't afford to go somewhere else. And their mission is to help PREVENT future pregnancies, which is implicit in the name of the agency. They are all about pregnancies that are PLANNED.

As for your decision when you were young, of COURSE you are filled with regret. It is a gut-wrenching decision. Any decision involving an unplanned pregnancy is bound to be charged with regret, no doubt. But perhaps it has helped you to appreciate the children that you have now even more, and maybe that's something good that can come out of that.

I know that this is a difficult topic, and one that is bound to cause anger or offend. But I think that as long as men don't live up to their responsibilities as parents (need I really go into the subject of deadbeat dads?), then women need to have that right.

Smitty, I know what you're saying. I never did understand the rationale of the part of Roe v. Wade that allows such late-term abortions. The only thing I can think of is the timing of amniocentesis that may reveal problems. If anyone knows for sure why that was included in the law, please share that with us.

I must compliment the fine state of South Dakota for finally waking up and realizing that abortion is infanticide. Unfortunately, it has taken the lives of far too many innocent people for some to realize this is the case.

I find it ironic, SB, that you're praying to God that things don't happen (such as rape), but still advocating abortion. I'll never get used to it.

The debate, as I've said countless times, only arises from those who attempt to rationalize murder. The sentient being within the womb, from conception until birth (and obviously thereafter) carries out all cellular functions that are characteristic and definitive of "living," including (but not limited to) respiration and growth. A baby takes its first breath long before it escapes the womb (again, why else would fetus' have "gills" unless it needed to breathe?).

And we're having the same debate we had before - if women claim that they are so independant and self-reliant, and this feminist movement has done its job, exactly why does the blame fall squarely on the man? Certainly half of the child came from the woman - and there are women who are just as deadbeat as men out there.

Apparently, though, because Daddy wasn't there, a child must die. Silly me. I guess we'd have to kill off quite a few more citizens who have magically popped out of the womb (successfully avoiding abortion!) and had to grow up without fathers, or, in fact, mothers.

But that would be murder, right? :rolleyes:

Again, kudos to South Dakota.

Cheers,
Double-J

According to the US Census, 50% of divorced fathers don't pay their child support. And yes, women are independent. And yes, women are responsible. However, if women can be made pregnant against their will or desire, or if mothers are made to bear the sole financial support while the fathers can walk away from their responsibility, then, to me, that's a good enough reason for Roe v. Wade.

So that means that 50% of the divorced fathers do pay child support! Congrats. That means not every Dad is a deadbeat Dad.

Similarly, I ask again, what about women who leave the child to be taken care of soley by the father? Are there not women in this country who falsely attest that one particular man is a child's father only to find out later through DNA that he is not...and he has been invested (emotionally and financially) all along?

You know what? I think this is all a good enough reason for adoption, not infanticide.

Sincerely,
Double-J

If those were the only scenarios under which abortions were performed, then you might be close to having some kind of a point. However, in this day and age abortion has also become a convenience, a way to 'fix' an unwanted problem. And in many of those cases, as noted in this very thread...the 'fix' becomes a source of sorrow and regret even years later, even when one's life has taken a more pleasant turn.

If abortion were not as easily available as it is today, then there would probably be far less mistakes made that need such fixing.

Apple

Yeah lets not show any sympathy to a 15 year old who doesn't know any better. I mean, its all her fault for giving in to the hormones that are raging through her developing body.

Duh! That's what Planned Parenthood is for, according to SB.

Then again, where is the "parent" who is supposed to be the responsible ward of the child?

Nay, we shall not teach a 15-year-old responsibility, consequences, and repurcussions! We shall kill the child, in the name of convenience, women's rights, and rationalization for hormones.

:rolleyes:

Doesn't know any better? Unless it's rape, she should MOST DEFINITLEY know better and be responsible and ask for her partner to wear protection, AT LEAST.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You wanna take the hard way out!

That's the point, mr. soprano.

Without a procedure called abortion so legal and readily available, without that modern convenience lingering somewhere in the back of their minds...there might be far less 15yr old girls (and boys) giving in to those raging hormones. There might be a far less casual attitude about sex at so early an age.

Apple

Right cause at 15 any of us were thinking about anything else then getting laid, how many of you were thinking about wrapping your sticks with latex. Its like we have to hang these girls up to dry after a mistake they've made, and believe me they learn responsibility afterwords. why be harsh to people who are going through learning experiances, these girls are growing. not to mention unfit to have chrildren. not to mention that its also a higher risk of medical problems when having a kid at such a young age.

Not to mention is also a higher risk of medical problems to have an abortion performed at such a young age.

Listen, little 15 year olds out there...you don't have the sex, you don't get pregnant, you don't need to make the very adult decision of whether or not to have the baby. You practice self control, you consider self-respect and the respect of others, you think about the possible consequences of your actions. And this is what your parents are hopefully instilling in you, instead of the ridiculously self-serving mantra that you should be able to decide what to do with your own body.

That's where the education starts.

So removing the opportunity of abortion from a young girl who 'didn't know any better' (but should have) is being 'harsh'???

Yep...it will take a generation to turn around that kind of thinking.

Thankfully, South Dakota has gotten the ball rolling.

Apple

BECAUSE ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.



Best,
Double-J

oh well...in the end everyone has their own opinion. i won't continue with this post any longer. though i comment apple and jj for their good points.

Cheers, my friend.

Best,
Double-J

Snake I like your approach. Long time ago, myself and Krlea had a nice discussion on what constitutes 'human life' and 'human form' etc in the context of abortion/cloning. As you might have guessed, I did come up with a rather complex distinction between the two terms to justify aborting an embryo before a certain stage of its maturity. But that seems like needless hair-splitting. Nevertheless, I will try to find if there are any statistics on the odds of pregnancy to successful delivery.

This is all about men's control over women, IMO.

If a majority of the lawmakers in this country were women, and if so many men in this country weren't so chauvinistic and self-righteous, this wouldn't even be an issue.

But since the majority of lawmakers are men, and since so many men are chauvinistic and self-righteous, it is.

I'd like to know if all of you men who are anti-abortion would feel the same way if you were a woman, impregnated against her will, or having to fear worrying about supporting a child for the next 20 years or more with no help from the father, or caught up in a any number of other unfortunate scenarios, would feel the same way.

You know what?

You don't or can't possibly know how you would feel unless you were in that situation, can you?

You may think you know, but how can you be sure?

You certainly would like to believe that you'd still be against abortion for the same self-righteous reasons, but I'd like to know how you can be so sure you would when faced with the prospect of giving birth to an unwanted child.

It's real easy for a man to be anti-abortion.

After all, what do men have to worry about?

Get it hard, stick it in, ejaculate, impregnate a woman, and walk away from the whole thing if you like.

You don't have to change your life of turn it upside down one iota if you help cause an unwanted pregnancy, do you fellas?

Meanwhile, let's lay all the responsibility for birth control, pregnancy, pre- and post-natal care, financial expense, and everything else on the woman.

Come back, men, and tell me how you're still anti-abortion when you've been raped or are pregnant by your parent or a partner/lover who has disappeared, or have to go through an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months and turn your life upside down.

Yeah, actions have consequences, but if the consequences in this case were the same for the man as they are for the woman, abortion would be a given and we wouldn't even be talking about it.

I will accord a great deal of respect to the views of a woman who is anti-abortion, though.

Even though I disagree with her views, at least she is making a decision to be against something that she can suffer the direct consequences of her being against.

You gotta at least respect that.

But men who are anti-abortion?

Pffft....(Am I spelling that right?)

Snake (and any one else interested in this!), further to my last post, I found this from Wikipedia

**********************************
Miscarriages occur more often than most people think. About 25% of women will experience one in their lives. Up to 78% of all conceptions may fail [1], in most cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant. A fifth of confirmed pregnancies have some bleeding occurring in the first 20 weeks and in all 15% proceed to miscarriage [2]. After the age of 35, the risk of miscarriage increases considerably: 1 in 5 or 6. After 40, the risk increases to 1 in 3, and after 45 it is 1 in 2.
**********************************

After reading this article, I not so sure if your logic holds good still! Anyway, I will be hunting for more convincing arguments.