« Can She Beat Hillary? | Main | Iraq and terror »

Virtually All Abortions Banned in South Dakota

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed the legislation into law today that bans virtually all abortions except those that would save a mother's life. It will be challenged by pro-abortion groups:

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.


The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, immediately pledged to challenge the measure. The challenge could either be in court or by petition signatures to refer the measure to a statewide ballot in which voters would be asked to repeal the abortion ban.

"We fully intend to challenge this law," said Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood. "It's just a question of how."

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Rounds said he believes it would be better to chip away at abortion one step at a time rather than directly confront Roe v. Wade. But he said many abortion opponents want the direct challenge.

"Personally I think this court will be more interested in looking at different aspects of Roe v. Wade rather than the direct frontal assault, but we'll never know unless someone tries," Rounds said.

I give the legislature and governor of South Dakota a lot of credit for taking this on. Mississippi is also considering a similar law.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Virtually All Abortions Banned in South Dakota:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

» La Shawn Barber's Corner linked with Child Killing Law Challenged in South Dakota

» All Things Beautiful linked with Does An Embryo Have An Independent Right To Life

Comments (96)

They're gonna start droppin... (Below threshold)

They're gonna start droppin' like flys.

I'm guessin' maybe 20 states in the next year.

If you tortured a woman for... (Below threshold)
Omni:

If you tortured a woman for, say, 20 hours, you'd be locked up for the rest of your life; if however, you force a woman to endure the agony of childbirth for 20 hours, not to mention the preceding months of suffering during pregnancy, the damage to her body, and the risk of DEATH, that's ok, huh?

When the 1st woman who wanted an abortion and is denied one DIES, I think everyone who voted for that bill should be tried for murder... and the same thing for every other woman who dies in childbirth because she couldn't abort. Furthermore, the families of each of those women should be able to sue for her lost lifetime wages, for childcare for her surviving children, and for their pain and suffering.

I also think that every woman who's denied an abortion and LIVES should have the right to bring every person who voted against allowing abortions to trial for, oh let's call it indirect assault, AND to sue them for her pain and suffering, all her medical costs, and the lifetime costs of the care of her child, including her lost wages during maternity leave.

Now THAT would be justice.

I'm pro-life... pro the MOTHER'S life.

I'm don't consider myself p... (Below threshold)
MisterX:

I'm don't consider myself pro-life or pro-choice, but I do have a few feelings about this. The number one reason I think abortion should NOT be illegal is because people will have them regardless. If we make it illegal, young women will go to back alley offices and have abortions performed by "doctors" who are less than ethical.

I also have an issue with women being forced to have a child when the 'father' raped her. I just don't think anyone should endure that.

I do disagree with some of Omni's comments. Everyone who votes for a law that makes it illegal to have abortions should be tried for murder? I realize you apparently have very strong feelings about this issue, but I think it's ridiculous for you to say things like that and expect most people to take you seriously. I mean nothing personal, I'm sure others will feel the same about my opinions...

A ban this far the other wa... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

A ban this far the other way will likely muster popular support against it. It also makes it more likely the Supreme Court will likely shoot it down.

Conservatives don't really have as much of a presense in the Supreme Court as the Liberals like to complain about. But by believing we do, anti-abortion efforts are running full steam into a potential brick wall.

I'd say it would be better to move in smaller steps. Otherwise we could end up will a slew Supreme Court rulings actually enforcing abortion. The scarey part is that I believe the Democrats are more self-aware of their limits. I think they're stepping aside and allowing these laws to be passed in an unwatered down form because they know they are much more likely to fail.

On the other hand, MisterX,... (Below threshold)
Omni:

On the other hand, MisterX, there are probably also folks who are tired of seeing people toss out insults rather than making actual rebuttals to points of view they disagree with, and who think that people who do so aren't filling out their inseams very well... I mean nothing personal by that, of course.

It was so much easier to mu... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

It was so much easier to murder them when they were unseen. Enhanced ultrasounds will change that, but too late for millions. Sad.

Now we get to hear the same... (Below threshold)

Now we get to hear the same old "keep government out of my uterus" argument all over again from the same people who want every other aspect of our lives controlled by the nanny state. Government wasn't who they let in there that got them into that shape to begin with and they don't mind a little governemnt visit if tax money is used to pay for the abortion so that argument falls flat really fast.

I have this quaint idea tha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I have this quaint idea that the law should be consistent. If the unborn life is not a person as defined by the law, then no laws, state or federal, should say it's murder or cause the death of such a life. If the determining factor is the location of the unborn life (in the mother's womb), then abortion up to birth should be legal and it shouldn't be a criminal matter if someone cause the death of these pre-persons. A civil suit is another matter.

If the determining factor is the age of the life, then it shouldn't matter where that life resides, in or out of the mother's womb. If the life is considered a person after 24 weeks, then insurance companies should not be compelled to pay for the care of a pre-person.

There are lots of emotions surrounding when a human life is a person under the law and when it's not. I would like the supreme court to consider scientific evidence in determining the definition of a person. That definition must also work at the other end of life cycle. By defining what makes a human life a person under the law, the court would resolve many issues.

If the supreme court said a human life is a person when that life exhibits substantial brain activity, it could still allow abortion after that time by saying women have a constitutional right to kill their unborn. The court could also limit that right to kill for the purpose of self defense, the mother's life or substantial harm. At lest there would be no ambiguity about what abortion is. It would also use current state and federal laws to punish those who kill a person, born or not.

I'm a Christian and I have my beliefs as to when a human life begins and deserves protection under the law. Yet I realize that this is my religious belief, and so I would accept a well reasoned scientific definition that works for the entire life cycle from conception to death. Now lets see how many radical pro-abortionists are willing to accept reason.

Omni,Can I sue you... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Omni,

Can I sue you for the mental torture caused by reading your rediculous "logic"?

They're gonna start droppin... (Below threshold)
nick:

They're gonna start droppin' like flys.
I'm guessin' maybe 20 states in the next year.
Posted by: Rovin at March 7, 2006 01:25 AM

I think "guessing" is the key word there. Watch how the Supreme Court won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because every semi-intelligent republican in the country knows it will tip the balance to the Democrats. Thus, it shows what complete phonies repubs are on this subject.

rovin wrote (March 7, 2006 ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

rovin wrote (March 7, 2006 01:25 AM):

I'm guessin' maybe 20 states in the next year.

I wouldn't hazard a guess at a number, but I agree that several states will follow So. Dakota's lead and pass similar legislation. If so, then it would seem to really corrode the liberal mantra - also used in the Roe decision - that most American support abortion rights.

MisterX wrote (March 7, 2006 04:11 AM):

The number one reason I think abortion should NOT be illegal is because people will have them regardless.

Should we therefore make murder legal? After all, it's been illegal in our society for centuries but people still do it...

If we make it illegal, young women will go to back alley offices and have abortions performed by "doctors" who are less than ethical.

Or, hopefully, they will stop having unprotected sex. This isn't the nineteenth century anymore: there are many different and generally effective methods of contraception, starting with abstinence.

I also have an issue with women being forced to have a child when the 'father' raped her. I just don't think anyone should endure that.

This presents a difficult moral issue for me. On the one hand, I don't think that it's fair to the woman to make her bear the child of her rapist. On the other hand, I don't think that it's right to execute the child for the sins of the father.


jpm100 wrote (March 7, 2006 05:35 AM):

... I believe the Democrats are more self-aware of their limits. I think they're stepping aside and allowing these laws to be passed in an unwatered down form because they know they are much more likely to fail.

I don't agree. I think many Americans are outraged by such things as partial birth abortion and children getting abortions without parental notification or consent. The image Americans get of abortion these days is not some poor woman forced into a back alley abortion, but rather a harpy from NARAL or some empty-headed actress insisting that women should be able to sleep around all they want without having to go through the inconvenience of using contraception or bearing the child. Had the NARAL crew and their fellow travelers been willing to agree to some "common sense" restrictions on abortion such as parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions, I doubt that the So. Dakota bill would ever even have come up. Some democrats have recognized that the tide is turning and are running with it, while others are waging a futile battle to keep it back.

omni, when your entire rant... (Below threshold)

omni, when your entire rant is about the mother dying in childbirth/from the pregnancy, etc and you ignore this little inconvenient part of the article "The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life." you will indeed not be taken seriously.

When the political push for... (Below threshold)

When the political push for legal abortion began it was tied *firmly* with birth control. The two things were the same. The anti-abortion people also opposed birth control, the "pro-choice" side of the argument was just as much arguing for the availability of legal birth control as legal abortion.

Some anti-abortion people disapprove of birth control to this day, some Catholics... I had an interesting discussion with a woman who's Baptist pastor said it was okay for her to go with a friend who was having an abortion so long as she'd never get one and then had a cow when she explained that it wasn't an issue because she'd had her tubes tied. Those people are rare. They exist, but no one pays them much mind. (Most Catholic women I know ignore the teachings against birth control... it's pretty well accepted in practice.)

Quite frankly, the stories one hears of the "bad old days"... it was really awful for women and they certainly had little or no choice about bearing children. Can anyone really make that argument any longer? No one is interested in forcing women to take the medical risk of a pregnancy or bear children they don't want to bear. Banning abortion doesn't *do* that when reliable birth control is so easily available.

Trying to present this as forcing something on women that they don't want may have worked once... it just doesn't really work any longer.

Sheik Yur Bouty, can I sue ... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Sheik Yur Bouty, can I sue YOU for the mental torture caused by your inability to spell, not to mention your being a belligerent twit?

Falze, when you suggest that because abortions to save a mother's life can be performed that no women will die in childbirth, people will not only not take YOU seriously, they'll wonder what drugs you've been taking.

Omni,"belligerent ... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Omni,

"belligerent twit"

Dearest Kettle,

You are black.

Sincerely,

Pot

Really, Omni, you need to chill out before you burst a blood vessel. You sound like the pro-abort equivalent of abortion clinic bombers.

When the 1st woman who ... (Below threshold)

When the 1st woman who wanted an abortion and is denied one DIES, I think everyone who voted for that bill should be tried for murder...

What about all the women who've died during/after a legal abortion...?

Sheik, you attacked and I r... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Sheik, you attacked and I responded; there's no confusion as to which of those actions is belligerent. And please, spare us the standard ploy of people with no actual argument to offer of trying to make the other person sound upset and therefore, somehow, obscurely in the wrong; either debate my actual assertions or crawl back under your rock.


Brainster, a woman is FAR more likely to die in childbirth than from an abortion. If we eliminate all medical procedures during which someone MIGHT die, our doctors wouldn't be able to perform ANY of them.

As someone who believes in ... (Below threshold)

As someone who believes in the rule of law, although I am pro-choice, I fervently hope that the judicial monstrosity known as Roe Vs. Wade be overturned. Let the fight to create an abortion right go back to state legislatures, where it should have stayed in the first place. That is how Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, and the repeal of Prohibition came about, and that is the proper American way.

Honestly, I don't know whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe. I do know it WON'T MATTER if it does.

You see, for all the rights rhetoric (whether "right to choose", or "right to life"), abortion is not an abstract concept. It's a medical procedure requiring a doctor willing to perform it. In states where abortion is frowned upon - the states likely to ban abortion if Roe is overturned - abortion providers are already incredibly rare.

Most abortion providers, understandably, prefer to practice in states where people support them and where clients are more likely to be, i.e., states where abortion won't and will never be banned.

This reality means that however much energy is spent on Supreme Court battles, a Roe reversal wouldn't change the country's total number of abortion providers much. In fact, after Roe is overturned, it would be the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life at all.

Few people have examined which states would ban abortion if Roe fell. Shortly before the 2004 election, one group who did, the Center for Reproductive Rights, announced that 21 states were "highly likely" to ban abortion and nine "somewhat likely".

However, I looked at the Center For Reproductive Rights' claims more closely. Not only are 20 West Coast, East Coast, and "Rust Belt" states solidly pro-choice-population giants like California, Illinois, Michigan and New York among them-but the other problem with the pro-choice calculations is that they include pre-Roe 1973 abortion bans still on the books. Roe superseded these laws in practice. In theory, some bans would immediately become law if Roe were overturned. But this theory implies that legislators and voters in these states wouldn't be able to debate and pass laws saying otherwise.

Given the split in U.S. politics, many would do just that. Of the 21 states the Center for Reproductive Rights claims are "most likely" to ban abortion after Roe, seven have Democrat governors. These governors would not be able to preside over new post-Roe abortion bans without risking a party revolt.

Of the other 14 states, one (Rhode Island) votes consistently Democratic in presidential races, and elects rather mild Republicans who are often derided as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Though not all Democrats support abortion, it's unlikely that the 60% of Rhode Island voters who chose Sen. John Kerry last fall would be inspired to support a ban. Nor would the milder Republicans in Rhode Island-or anywhere else these mild Republicans exist-dare try one.

Another state, Ohio, is too much of a political tossup to count in the ban camp. Colorado might vote Republican, but the state's recent election of a Democratic senator and new Democratic majorities in its statehouse implies that the politics are pretty split.

That leaves us with 11 likely states. According to data from The Alan Guttmacher Institute, these states had 122 abortion providers in 2000. That's less than 7% of the 1,819 abortion providers - a fluid number, to be sure - in the USA. More than half of those 122 providers (65) are in one state: Texas.

In the other 10-state area, abortion providers are already few and far between. In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly states, women already have to travel hours by car or bus to obtain abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines, going a bit further up or down the Interstates, that story wouldn't change.

(This is also why claims of "a return to back alley abortions" are utter bunk! A boost in Greyhound Bus ridership is what will happen, not fictional "back alley abortionists".)

Of the nine "somewhat likely" states, only three have solidly Republican governors, legislatures and voting tendencies: Indiana, Idaho and Georgia. If they banned abortion, that would affect just 48 providers. In a realistic "worst-case scenario" (for pro-choice types) of 14 states that included a Texas ban, overturning Roe would affect a maximum of 170 providers, less than 10% of the U.S. total.

And how many Republicans in these 14 states, especially Texas (65 abortion providers is a lot for an ostensibly pro-life state, even one that big) really have the stomach for such a fight? For how many of them is abortion the real burning issue? Many Republicans are pro-life, but they see the fight for tax cuts, spending cuts, and the War On Terror as much bigger issues. These Republicans are not going to act like Captain Ahabs and go down with the anti-abortion ship. I honestly would be surprised if more than 10 states enacted or retained abortion bans once Roe is overturned.

In their zeal to fight over the Supreme Court, though, neither side of the abortion debate has absorbed these numbers. Few pro-life groups realize they've fought a 30-year battle to put just a handful of doctors out of business. Pro-choice forces haven't grasped that the millions they spend lobbying to block Bush's nominees could be better spent tipping a lot of state and local legislative races. Or, for that matter, to build abortion clinics in solidly pro-choice states that are near the borders of states likely to enact or keep abortion bans.

Instead, over the last few years, the two sides have fought the political equivalent of World War I trench warfare - bloody contests over yards of turf. Millions have been spent. Alito and Roberts suffered the same "Borking" fate as Judge Robert Bork, a very agile legal mind, did in the 1980s. Fortunately, having learned from Bork's fate, they steeled themselves for the battle in advance and prevailed. The filibuster might melt with the "nuclear option."

Yet in the end, a post-Roe world will look a lot like a Roe world - except we'll like each other a lot less, thanks to the battles.

Nick Byram,You gav... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Nick Byram,

You gave us an interesting peak at the political mess that would result with the overturning of Roe. That's one of my reasons for wanting the supreme court to consider scientific evidence in determining the definition of a person under the law. If the supreme court said a human life is a person when that life exhibits substantial brain activity, then prior to that event abortion would be legal in all states as it is now. After that event, abortion would be against the law in all states, as murder is now. However, existing law does allow the taking of someone else's life in self-defense. This would allow a woman to abort a pregnancy at any time if it threatened her life or serious damage to her health. A well reasoned scientifically defendable definition of what makes a human life a person in the eyes of the law would produce consistency and order without all the political wrangling. See my prior post on this topic for more details.

If you tortured a woman for... (Below threshold)
Rich Edwards:

If you tortured a woman for, say, 20 hours, you'd be locked up for the rest of your life; if however, you force a woman to endure the agony of childbirth for 20 hours, not to mention the preceding months of suffering during pregnancy, the damage to her body, and the risk of DEATH, that's ok, huh?

Dear O,
Are you completely out of your mind? 20 hours of agony? First births do indeed frequently take 20 hours, but each and every moment in pain? How many children do you have? Suffering for months? Huh? Damage to her body??? Women being women are built for it. Unless you mean all those nasty stetch marks and weight gain.
Pregnancy is these days an ellective condition. Rape? Please. It is standard procedure to offer some kind of post-coital/morning after medications. Incest? Show me cousin Phil's indictment, and we can talk about it. Mother's life is something of a no-brainer, and I have never seen anyone advocate anything else. But mother's health - wink wink, well being, self esteem etc. That's carte blanche and everyone knows it.
I have never seen a study, and you'd have to question it, given all the potential biases, but I would guess that for every rape/incest/birth control failure there are five or ten pregnancies where it became unwanted when the male proved, as we have often enough from time immemorial, a shitheel. But the woman got pregnant knowing it was possible, or even on purpose.
Final comment. The problem with abortion is that it progressively corrodes our sense of the value of human life. If it is OK to waste an unborn infant, how long is it before we want to unburden ourselves of a born but defective child? The answer is now. And if now, how long before defective comes to mean "wrong sexed" as in a female infant. The answer is also now.

Nick Byram: Very informativ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Nick Byram: Very informative post. Thanks for taking the time to give us the info.

Mac Lorry wrote (March 7, 2006 07:56 PM):

A well reasoned scientifically defendable definition of what makes a human life a person in the eyes of the law would produce consistency and order without all the political wrangling.

I'm not so sure, simply because many people regard this as a religious / moral issue rather than a scientific one. Further, any lines drawn would have to be arbitrary, and I think we'd be back to bickering over where those lines are to be drawn and who does the drawing.

To those who support laws s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

To those who support laws such as this:

Out of curiousity, what should the punishment be for women who get an illegal abortion?

Rich, are YOU completely ou... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Rich, are YOU completely out of YOUR mind? If you truly think that there's no suffering involved in pregnancy, that no permanent health problems ever result from it (and weight gain, if it can't be budged, DOES count as a major health issue), that because there are pauses between contractions that somehow the agony doesn't count, and that all pregnancies are "ellective," [sic] when there's no such thing as perfect birth control or perfect use thereof, then you must be posting from a padded cell, or from another planet where pregnancy doesn't cause women suffering or harm.

Your ignorance is only matched by your lack of compassion; you are an utterly terrifying human being.

RichOmni has had <... (Below threshold)

Rich

Omni has had no children and she is so hysterical with her claims as to make me wonder if there is phobia involved.

The vast majority of abortions are not done due to health but convenience. And the idea that pregnancy is this horrendous risk to females is a hoot. Have women died in childbirth? Certainly, in the past due to infection, currently only under rare circumstances.

Personally, I believe the legal right to seek an abortion (abortion, per se, is not a "right") should remain outside the province of the government when dealing with an adult woman of sound mind within the first trimester. Outside those parameters there is reasonable state interest, up to and including banning forthwith the medically unnecessary and horrendous practice of "partial birth abortion" on viable, healthy fetuses.

There are many immoral behaviors that the law leaves to society to deal with -- ie adultery, promiscuity -- I'd leave early, convenience abortions in the same category. Legal but immoral.

OmniWho the frig d... (Below threshold)

Omni

Who the frig do you think you are trying to lecture on the "torture" of pregnancy?

I will say one thing. Thank GOD you haven't reproduced.

omni ,your guilt and self l... (Below threshold)
virgo:

omni ,your guilt and self loathing show intensely in your blogging. logic : if your not a person 10 seconds before your out of the birth canal , you dont immediately become one 10 seconds after your delivered.. if your killed in either case it,s MURDER..

Darleen, who the frig do yo... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darleen, who the frig do you think YOU are, coming on someone else's website and spewing abuse at a total stranger? The only "hysteria" is from the so-called pro-lifers here who have hurled abuse at me and not yet debated a single one of my actual POINTS... a sure sign that you CAN'T debate them, and that you're not the nicest of people. Furthermore, if you think that women die from childbirth only from infections, you're scarily ignorant; try looking up "eclampsia" and "hemorrhage."

Virgo, if you see "guilt and self loathing" on my blog, you must be projecting like mad, because those things don't exist ANYWHERE in any post I've ever made, on my blog or any other.


THIS is why the anti-mother's-life people will eventually lose; they're all too often an ugly-minded, aggressively nasty bunch, they don't have any actual arguments to offer, they just try to abuse anyone who disagrees with them into ceasing to speak up.

Keep on attacking me, cockroaches; the more you take time out of your lives to abuse a stranger who has never directed a comment at you, rather than discussing the issues, the more you scare the undecideds away from your camp. Keep on showing what kind of person opposes abortion. Keep on spewing [email protected] at me, PLEASE. :-)

MANTIS ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

MANTIS to those who would support laws such as this : what should be the penalty for illegal abortions ? Answer " You live with it "

OmniJAYsus on a po... (Below threshold)

Omni

JAYsus on a pony, if you quit being so hysterical you might actually comprehend what I wrote!

I didn't say women today don't die in childbirth...I said it was RARE and certainly VERY RARE when women have normal prenatal care. IN THE PAST most women who died did so because of INFECTION.

If you are so afraid of pregnancy...get your tubes tied. Stop shoveling your histrionics as if it had anything to do with reality.

The majority of abortions performed today are done in the FIRST trimester and they are not done because the female's life is in danger. That's fact, sweetcheeks. Deal with it.

I want abortions done up to 12 weeks gestation to remain LEGAL. But that doesn't mean I can't call 'em what they are -- when done for convenience they are IMMORAL.

Girlfriend, you got issues. Seek.help.

Omni ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Omni I offered a plain as day Clear as a blue sky point to discuss.. How can a person be a person after birth , but not before ??

Darlene, there's been no hi... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darlene, there's been no hint of hysteria, or any ANY degree of upset, in anything I've said, and that won't change no matter how many times you claim otherwise. You came on someone's else's website and hurled personal attacks at a total stranger; if you don't see what sort of person that makes you, what else can I say?

Virgo, you asked a question... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Virgo, you asked a question that had nothing to do with my post, so I see no reason to debate it with you. If you have anything to say about MY post, not about my blog or about your learned character analysis of me personally but about my post on this topic on this blog, I'll be happy to read it.

OmniYOU came on "s... (Below threshold)

Omni

YOU came on "someone else's website" and started screeching unsubstantiated claims that pregnancy is "torture" fraught with grave consequences.

I challenged your claims and now you just stand and piddle on the floor like a puppy caught by surprise.

meshugga

Your right "" I guess suck... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Your right "" I guess sucking the brains out of an unborn " fetus " quote" unquote has nothing to do with a womans right to choose.,

Darlene, I stated the simpl... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darlene, I stated the simple facts that women DO suffer from a wide variety of ills during pregnancy, and horrific pain during childbirth; countless mothers I've heard or read the descriptions of the pregnancies and childbirths of have made that clear. You challenged those facts in your eagerness attack me, and now YOU are "screeching" because I won't play doormat for your abuse and repudiate those facts. COCKROACH.

Virgo, your newest post STILL has nothing to do with MY post on this topic.

AHHH!! I see.. so the topic... (Below threshold)
virgo:

AHHH!! I see.. so the topic is South Dakota bans abortions so women can enjoy the pains of childbirth.. we,ll that,s a horse of a different color than..

Alright ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Alright How about just giving the child up for adoption and avoiding the whole lawsuit aspect ?

O MY, someone hand me the s... (Below threshold)

O MY, someone hand me the smelling salts... erstwhile female Omni calls me a "cockroach"

Ah think ah'am gonna faint.

Listen up, Omni. You said pregnancy was TORTURE. Now you are baring your teeth like an untrained Chihuahau about things you allegedly have read from [snort] "countless mothers."

US maternal death are 7.5 per 100,000, and half those deaths can be prevented with prenatal care. Abortion is safer than childbirth ONLY WHEN IT IS DONE AT 8 WEEKS OR LESS. After that, maternal death due to childbirth or abortion is roughly equivalent (1 in 29,000)

Now for YOU it seems to be that putting on a couple of pounds is SUFFERING, but pregnancy for most women is a happy and HEALTHY experience.

And a full term pregnancy is very healthy for the child now, isn't it?

But heck, keep trying to scare females into abortion as birth control. Actual women can see the true nature of the stuff you're peddling.

Answer " You live with i... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Answer " You live with it "

Well, we don't need laws for that. People have to "live with" their actions no matter what they are. If there are no institutional penalties for breaking a law, why is it a law?

So seriously, what should be the punishment for women who get illegal abortions? Jailtime? A fine? What is appropriate? It is murder, isn't it?

mantisIMHO the SD ... (Below threshold)

mantis

IMHO the SD law is not "serious"...it is a political stunt.

No, Darlene, I did NOT say ... (Below threshold)
Omni:

No, Darlene, I did NOT say that "pregnancy was TORTURE"; you just can't get ANY facts right, can you?

I'm not willing to debate 20 different issues with you; if you have anything to say about my post on what a woman who's denied an abortion has the right to sue about, and can say it in a mature manner without lacing it with grade school insults, feel free... if all you want to do is continue having diarrhea of the keyboard, do it on your own blog where no one will ever see it.

Omni on her first post... (Below threshold)

Omni on her first post

If you tortured a woman for, say, 20 hours, you'd be locked up for the rest of your life; if however, you force a woman to endure the agony of childbirth for 20 hours, not to mention the preceding months of suffering during pregnancy, the damage to her body, and the risk of DEATH, that's ok, huh?

equating TORTURE with pregnancy.

To paraphrase SNL.... Omni, you ignorant slut. I know why you don't allow comments on your website.... YOU CAN'T DEBATE.

feh

No, Darlene, that's equatin... (Below threshold)
Omni:

No, Darlene, that's equating torture with CHILDBIRTH, since both are extremely painful; thank you for demonstrating just how utterly incapable of accurate analysis you are.

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you went charging over to my blog and looked for a way to spew venom on it? THAT'S why I don't have commenting.

you added "...not to men... (Below threshold)

you added "...not to mention the proceeding months of suffering"

I didn't 'charge over', but I'm always interested in taking measure of people who come onto a blog that allows comments and then refuse to engage in debate.

You want to spew your hysteria, unsubstantiated, and refuse to answer any challenge.

No surprise that your own site is the same.

Pregnancy is not a high risk endeavor for women and labor is not suffering equivalent to torture.

But then, you are childless and have to depend on what you READ from "countless suffering women" [yea..right...countless...that's the ticket]

Again. Thank you for not reproducing.

I'm not one of the lucky on... (Below threshold)

I'm not one of the lucky ones who have easy and fast deliveries.

But I gotta say... I've definately had things that hurt worse... waaaay worse. The hysterics about how terrible labor and delivery are are just that... hysterics.

Any of you guys who have had kidney stones... don't let women tell you they've got you on pain because they *don't*.

And us grown up girls can decide before we get pregnant if we want to have babies or not and we can make grown up choices. How insulting is it to pretend that women are so helpless and stupid that they can't figure cause and effect? Or use contraception properly?

Even if abortion should be legal, it should never be birth control.

Darlene, I'm not interested... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darlene, I'm not interested in debating... and neither are you, although you THINK that spewing insults and nonsense IS debating.

If I get a torrent of abuse in response to an idea I put forth, but no actual rebuttals of my points, I know I've come up with a good idea; thank you for your part in this process.

Mantis wrote (March 7, 2006... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Mantis wrote (March 7, 2006 10:04 PM):

Out of curiousity, what should the punishment be for women who get an illegal abortion?

Tough call. As I believe that the child is a human being from the moment of conception, then the deliberate taking of his life absent a threat to the life of the mother constitutes premeditated murder and logically should be punished as such.

That being said, I admit that I have some serious qualms about the idea of putting a seventeen year old girl who "had an accident" in the dock. I suppose that this is due to the novelty of the idea and the fact that I've been mentally conditioned to believe that a girl who gets pregnant is not responsible for it.

But, then again, is a seventeen year old boy who kills a convenience store clerk during a robbery "responsible"...

In both cases, let the courts decide.

docjim505... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

docjim505

I'm not so sure, simply because many people regard this as a religious / moral issue rather than a scientific one.

I have my religious views as many do, however, I also understand that basing this and related issues on absolute religious views is unworkable in our diverse society. That's why I propose the supreme court make a well reasoned scientifically defendable definition of what makes a human life a person in the eyes of the law.

Further, any lines drawn would have to be arbitrary, and I think we'd be back to bickering over where those lines are to be drawn and who does the drawing.

We already use the substantial brain activity standard for individuals who are born and this is not an arbitrary standard, but one that defines what a human is, at least in a scientific sense. Using the same standard for the unborn would go a long way in removing the inconsistencies in the law without requiring any fundamental changes to existing laws. The fact that some will bicker over such a standard is irrelevant, as there will be bickering over any standard that can be devised.

Do what you want with a pre-person, but once the standard is met and a life is a person in the eyes of the law, then taking that life is a homicide. As I stated before, the right of self-defense would allow a woman to abort her pregnancy at any time if it posed a serious threat to her health or her life. Some procedure would have to be devised to prevent this loophole from being abused, but that's doable.

One of the arguments against any restrictions to abortion is embodied in the question "are you going to prosecute women for ending an unwanted pregnancy?" Well, we prosecute women who hide their pregnancy, give birth in a restroom and then kill their baby. Don't such women deserver the same compassion as women who have an abortionist kill their baby during the birth process? Defining one baby as a person and the other as tissue based on the dark ages standard of first breath is what's indefensible in the 21st century. We might as well define a person on the standard of first bowel movement, which would give the other parent an opportunity to abort an unwanted child. We now have the technology and understanding to devise a scientifically defendable definition of what makes a human life a person in the eyes of the law. It seems a crime not to do so.

Mac Lorry wrote (March 8, 2... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Mac Lorry wrote (March 8, 2006 08:06 AM):

That's why I propose the supreme court make a well reasoned scientifically defendable definition of what makes a human life a person in the eyes of the law.

But that's the whole rub: science and religion don't necessarily mesh. Those who support partial birth abortion would argue that the child isn't human until he's completely outside the woman's body. Those who oppose abortion in virtually all cases would argue that the child is a human being at the moment of conception. There is "scientific" evidence to support both cases. It's a real conundrum.

I also feel some unease about defining a human being based on level of brain activity; shall we euthanize people who don't meet it? I believe that this sort of thing is legal in Holland.

Omni babbles:Da... (Below threshold)

Omni babbles:

Darlene, I'm not interested in debating

Well, DOAH. I offered several on-point facts which she not only failed to address but outright ignores.

Synova is correct. Pregnancy and even childbirth is far exceeded by several things. Anecdotally, I suffered a herniated disc in my lower back. I would rather go through ten pregnancies and childbirths before ever experiencing that pain again.

And I already have done the childbirth thing four times, sans any meds.

docjimScience can ... (Below threshold)

docjim

Science can observe and describe things, it cannot give them meaning. That's not the role of science. What we have in the abortion debate is a competition of values in weighing the proper response when the rights of mother and child are in conflict. Science can only offer their observation of what conception through birth entails, not give meaning to at what point life becomes philosophically "human." Biologically, conception is a unique event of new human dna, but whether or not it makes that nascent life the moral equal of its mother.

Other societies have seen nothing wrong with infanticide because they didn't see the moral worth of infants. Some individuals (like Singer and Dr. Cranford) push a similar philosophy for America.

It is up to the people to decide these matters.

Darleen, none of your demen... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darleen, none of your demented blitherings has addressed my actual POINT, so expecting me to address anything YOU said makes you a hypocrite as well as a cockroach.

OMNI ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

OMNI You,ve never clarified Your point ! what is it ? enlighten us all ..please.

There's nothing to clarify;... (Below threshold)
Omni:

There's nothing to clarify; it's stated very plainly in my original post, which is still at the top of this thread.

Darleen,Kudos to y... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Darleen,

Kudos to you for your attempts at cogent debate with Omni. Unfortunately Omni apparently sees opposing points as abuse, not as debate.

Omni,

Besides the fact that sometimes women die during childbirth, you have not brought forth one single fact to this discussion. They are all opinions and conjecture. You have no children so you base your information on things you have heard from other mothers. Please, this is not a fact. Equating childbirth with torture is not a fact. Insinuating that mothers will die because of this law because they can't get an abortion is not a fact (this point is particularly obscene and ridiculous).

Remember Omni, people who challenge you and disagree with you are not abusing you!!

OmniYou equated pr... (Below threshold)

Omni

You equated pregnancy and childbirth to torture and suffering

you have defined demented for yourself

what a loon

I think Roe is bad law and ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I think Roe is bad law and that the Supreme Court made a mistake when they made that decision. There is not "right" to an abortion guaranteed in our Constitution. So, politically, abortion should be a state's rights issue. If the voters of South Dakota wants to ban all procedures with a mother's health exception than the voters should be allowed to do it.

Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, but I can understand that not all people will agree with me. Abortions in the first trimester I could deal with, but after that I would view it as murder. Partial birth abortion is one of the cruelest procedures I have ever seen.

JR, only a psycho or a cock... (Below threshold)
Omni:

JR, only a psycho or a cockroach could read Darleen's endless personal insults to me and declare that she's behaving admirably and I'm imagining abuse... which are you?


Darleen, for all too many women, that IS their experience of pregnancy and childbirth, according to their own words; if you believe them all to be liars, you're a disgrace to womanhood.

Mantis says:To ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Mantis says:

To those who support laws such as this:

Out of curiousity, what should the punishment be for women who get an illegal abortion?

A very interesting question and one that can't really have a definitive answer because it would change with every situation. Personally, I would vote for a bill that outlawed partial birth abortion. I would expect that the penalties would be lost of the license for the doctor who performed the procedure with the possibility of jail time and the mother should also face the possibility of jail time.

Omni,I don't know,... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Omni,

I don't know, you tell me, because apparently we're in the world according to Omni. Like I said, challenging your position does not constitute abuse and/or insults.

And if anyone is a hypocrite, it's you. Unless, of course, you don't consider calling someone a pyscho or a cockroach an insult.

Again, you don't seem to be debating or responding to people's challenges to your assertions (remember they are not facts). Take this last one:

Darleen, for all too many women, that IS their experience of pregnancy and childbirth, according to their own words; if you believe them all to be liars, you're a disgrace to womanhood.

Please tell me, do you consider this statement to be a fact? There is nothing in it but vague references to some abstract number of women that you claim represent the majority of women. You have nothing to back that up, nothing. Are we supposed to believe you because you said it?

If this is a fact, then how are we reproducing?? How come there are families and/or women with more than one child! Now I'm not saying that childbirth isn't painful, nor am I saying that pregnancy isn't uncomfortable and/or painful as well. But it is hardly as dramatic as you make it out to be.

JR, no one has challenged m... (Below threshold)
Omni:

JR, no one has challenged my position... no one has even made the slightest reference to it as of yet.

You're wasting your time trying to pretend that nothing Darleen said was an insult; she was too blunt and too prolific. Or is it that in the JR universe, insults to people you disagree with magically don't count? And in the JR universe, women don't complain about their pregnancy and childbirth experiences, is that it? And YOUR expertise in this area is based on...?

Omni ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Omni Your position constantly shift,s so as to avoid defending your indefensible positions , you have not answered one question on this whole subject ! Rather you have chosen to throw insults at everyone who points out your bitter deficiency, It,s time to wake up...

docjim505... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

docjim505

I also feel some unease about defining a human being based on level of brain activity; shall we euthanize people who don't meet it? I believe that this sort of thing is legal in Holland.

Brain activity in not just the standard in Holland, it's the current standard in the U.S. When a person is brain dead (no substantial brain activity) U.S. courts allow life support to be removed. Remember last summer when the courts allowed the feeding tube to be removed in the Florida case. Why not use the same standard for the unborn?

It's invalid to say that the supreme court shouldn't define what constitutes a person under the law because that decision will be controversial. What's new? That's the very reason the court is involved. If there were already a standard most people agreed with we wouldn't need the court to intervene.

The standards set by Roe have no basis in either science or religion. If and when the court decides to address Roe, it would benefit the nation if the court simply defined when a human life, in all circumstances, is a person under the law.

Holy crap Omni, where to be... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Holy crap Omni, where to being.

I never claimed to have any expertise in this area, although I do have some experience with childbirth, where as you do not. You're the one making claims about the majorities of women with nothing to back it up.

Interesting how you now write this:
And in the JR universe, women don't complain about their pregnancy and childbirth experiences

I actually just said that they do, just not to the extent or intensity that you claim they do when you said:
If you tortured a woman for, say, 20 hours, you'd be locked up for the rest of your life; if however, you force a woman to endure the agony of childbirth for 20 hours, not to mention the preceding months of suffering during pregnancy, the damage to her body, and the risk of DEATH, that's ok, huh?

There seems to be a big difference in those 2 statements. Sure childbirth is very painful, but there is the ultimate reward at the end of it. My wife gave birth to our first child a little over a year ago. She was in labor for over 20 hours, yes she went through a lot of pain, yes it took awhile for her to completely recover. But if you could see the look on her face when our daughter was born, if you could feel the emotions she felt when she held her for the first time, if you could see the way our daughter looks at her now, you would then know why we are talking about having another child.

But you can't understand that, instead, you start blabbering about charging people with murder who vote to eliminate abortions and equate childbirth with torture. Which makes me wonder, exactly, what point are you trying to make anyway that apparently no one has been able to refute??

Virgo, my position has neve... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Virgo, my position has never shifted; it has always been exactly as stated in my original post.


JR, my point is stated very clearly in my original post, at the top of this thread; there's no need to wonder, just read it.

Sorry, "being" should say "... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Sorry, "being" should say "begin"!!! I'm sure there are other grammatical errors in the post, but that one is just glaring.

Omni,I have read i... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Omni,

I have read it. I think it's nonsense and have stated as such, as many others have. Again, you have only brought forth one fact: that women have died as a result of childbirth. That fact has no bearing in this discussion. You have made no point, you have only stated your opinion! An opinion backed up with nothing but baseless assertions that you claim to be true.

So instead of trying to defend your opinions, you have retreated to labeling opinions and arguments other than yours as abuse, essentially making debate with you pointless (try as we may). It's sad that you can't see that.

Omni ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Omni pregnancy is not forced on anybody, unless it is rape or incest..it is the biological outcome of sex. if you can,t take the consequences ..maybe you should avoid it altogether.. otherwise by your own logic your torturing yourself...

JR, saying something is non... (Below threshold)
Omni:

JR, saying something is nonsense does NOT count as having discussed, debated, questioned or challenged someone's position, now does it?

My post PRECEDED the general abortion discussion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with it; I had an opinion and I stated it, as I am free to do on this blog, and that would have been the end of it had people not replied with insults.

There have been NO arguments about my actual point, just endless unsubstantiated claims as to what women "really" suffer in pregnancy and childbirth. Show me one post where someone actually discussed, DISCUSSED, the issue I raised, or stop claiming people have been trying to debate me.

And quit trying to pretend that there have been no personal insults; the big lie theory won't work here.


Virgo, I will NOT get sucked into debating abortion as a whole, as it has nothing to do with my point.

Omni ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Omni If you wish to make pregnancy and childbirth pains to be a punishable and monetararily compensatable through the court system.. You must go through the legislative processes like You must for every other law in this country..You must also have the majority on your side..ohoh

Omni,Gee, with the b... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Omni,
Gee, with the beating you've been taking here, I am surprised you are still conscious.
One thought I forgot to post last night that I hope is worthwhile. The holocaust horrifies at least in part because it is relatively easy to visualize what the Jews were exposed to, the cattle cars, the dogs, the gas chambers. Imagine then a fetus floating serenely in warmth and darkness only to be dismembered by the suction catheter.
And what is typically dismembered is not some "ball of cells" the pro-abortion crowd usually talks of, nor the chicken embryo from high school biology class. By the time a woman misses a period, gets a pregnancy test, makes the decision, schedules the appointment, and undergoes the procedure, what gets aborted is frequently well past three months and looks like what it is, a small immature, but unmistakably human, being.
When I was in medical school, I was present at an abortion. The woman, in for her sixth abortion, wanted to see the POC (products of conception) at the end of the procedure. She wanted to see if it was a big as the last one.
Abortions are, I suppose, inevitable. But the trilogy of safe, legal, and rare needs a hell of a lot more emphasis on rare.

darleen wrote (March... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

darleen wrote (March 8, 2006 09:50 AM):

What we have in the abortion debate is a competition of values in weighing the proper response when the rights of mother and child are in conflict. Science can only offer their observation of what conception through birth entails, not give meaning to at what point life becomes philosophically "human."

...

It is up to the people to decide these matters.

I agree on all points.

Omni wrote (March 7, 2006 02:53 AM):

When the 1st woman who wanted an abortion and is denied one DIES, I think everyone who voted for that bill should be tried for murder... and the same thing for every other woman who dies in childbirth because she couldn't abort.

As I understand you, you believe that those of us on the pro-life side should be held liable under both criminal and civil law if a woman dies in childbirth because she couldn't have an abortion, and should also be held liable for lost wages and other expenses associated with the pregnancy as well as compensation for "pain and suffering". Correct?

Let me reply by first stating my belief that arguing for abortion due to concerns over the health and safety of the mother are very much overblown, so much so that they border on an outright falsity. Statistical data seem to support this conclusion.

First, I maternity is not especially dangerous in the United States. According to a 2003 CDC report, there were 525 deaths related to pregnancy in the United States in 1999. From 1991 to 1999, there were 4200 total.(1) Here are some specifics for all US women aged 25 - 34 (deaths per 100,000 as of 2002)(2):

All causes: 12,619
Accidents: 1,818
Homocide: 457
Malignant neoplasms: 415
Suicide: 345
Heart disease: 206
Congenital defects: 108
HIV: 64
Pregnancy / childbirth: 61

The rates are similar for women in childbearing years, i.e. late teens through mid-thirties.

In 1999, there were 861,789 legal abortions in our country.(3) Are we to assume that the majority of these women - or even a large minority - would otherwise have died? I really doubt it. Given that the overwhelming majority (80.8%) were unmarried women, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that most abortions are performed for the sake of the mother's convenience, not her health. Survey data seems to bear this out. According to a survey conducted in 2004 by the Allen Guttmacher Institute(4):

Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons [for choosing abortion] were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now"... Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).

In other words, women in the survey were FIVE TIMES more likely to abort for reasons of convenience than for reasons of health. The risk of death from childbearing is miniscule; a woman is far more likely to die in an accident or from homocide than she is from pregnancy.

It therefore seems to me that "concerns for the mother's health" is a chimera, a false argument by abortion supporters to try to put a benevolent face on a barbaric practice.

And by the way: I don't deny that pregnancy and labor are very uncomfortable and downright painful for women. However, to equate it with twenty hours of torture seems a bit of a stretch.


(1) http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/fs030220.htm

(2) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_17.pdf

(3) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

(4) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

I only stated it was nonsen... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I only stated it was nonsense after I had articulated why I thought as much after numerous posts discussing what you had written. For some reason you have chosen to ignore that.

My post PRECEDED the general abortion discussion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with it; I had an opinion and I stated it, as I am free to do on this blog, and that would have been the end of it had people not replied with insults.

No, your post was written in the comments section on a blog (not your own) referencing a post about abortion. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how comments work, but people will often engage other commenters, so you really should expect to be called to the mat to explain yourself. And again, any normal person would agree, you were not insulted. But obviously, you're sticking to that claim. Anything to stay away from actually debating or discussing what you wrote.

just endless unsubstantiated claims as to what women "really" suffer in pregnancy and childbirth.

And what was yours?? It was the same such thing. But your's is fact and everyone else's are unsubstantiated claims.

And quit trying to pretend that there have been no personal insults; the big lie theory won't work here.

Again, any normal person would agree, you were not insulted. But obviously, you're sticking to that claim. Anything to stay away from actually debating or discussing what you wrote I guess.

I'm just curious, how many women have you talked to about childbirth and pregnancy? I would expect a lot considering your matter of fact statements. And did all them who stated it was torture also feel it wasn't worth it?

Well said Rich ,but alas Om... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Well said Rich ,but alas Omni will only say that this doe,snt address her point...

Virgo, I've said nothing ab... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Virgo, I've said nothing about wanting to personally make what I think is fair into law, and have no interest in doing so; thank you for being the FIRST person to make ANY reference to my actual point.


Rich said:

"Omni,
Gee, with the beating you've been taking here, I am surprised you are still conscious."

I'm adding this to make the point clear to those who are ignoring posts other than mine and each other's that someone other than me recognizes that I'm not being politely reasoned with here... thanks Rich!! :-)


JR, I still challenge you to point out ONE post other than the one Virgo just made where my actual point was discussed... not the tangential nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, but my POINT.

Oh, and tell me how the term "ignorant slut" is NOT a personal insult; that one's my favorite.

Are you kidding me, ignoran... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Are you kidding me, ignorant slut?? Do you not know the reference there? It's from an old Saturday Night Live skit. I read it like a joke, not an insult.

And fine, let's forget the insults. You view them as such and I can't convince you otherwise. And really if you find them insulting whose to say to you they are not. My bad.

But seriously, if you think that none of my posts have addressed, debated, and/or discussed your original opinion then you really are just avoiding the issues you presented. How about answering the questions I asked about your opinions? Or is that too much too ask?

I would think that any reas... (Below threshold)
virgo:

I would think that any reasonable health care workers would attempt to save both the mother and her child during an emergency situation.. as for punitive awards for life choice decisions, i would think maybe a trial attorney like John Edwards may be able to pull it off with a sympathetic jury"" who know,s i would,nt be surprised if it end,s up with lawsuits like this..

Docjim505, thank you for ad... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Docjim505, thank you for addressing my point. You said:

"As I understand you, you believe that those of us on the pro-life side should be held liable under both criminal and civil law if a woman dies in childbirth because she couldn't have an abortion, and should also be held liable for lost wages and other expenses associated with the pregnancy as well as compensation for "pain and suffering". Correct?"

Unless you're a member of a legislative body, that would be INcorrect; you might have MEANT legislators, though, in which case you DO have the concept summarized correctly.

I don't claim that a majority of women who wanted abortions would die, in fact I've made no numerical projections at all; all I've said was that I think that any who DO die, and there's no denying that it WILL happen sooner or later, should mean that certain legal things would happen. You're free to disagree, and I'll make no attempt to change your mind, as even if I succeeded it'd gain me nothing.

As to the rest of what you said about abortion; I respect your right to view the why's and wherefore's of the issue the way you do, but I hope you'll understand my unwillingness to make a case for abortion given the hostile climate here.


JR, if you think that someone who passionately disagreed with me was JOKING in the numerous insulting things she said... well, you're entitled to your opinion, and we'll agree to disagree. Have you noticed that SHE hasn't denied that she was in fact insulting me?

Please indicate where you discussed my point that I've missed seeing, and I'll be happy to reply to what you said. You can also indicate where you asked for my opinions, but I don't guarantee that I'll choose to give opinions that will lead us off the track; I will NOT get sucked into general debate on abortion, or about who thinks they've heard more women's pregnancy and childbirth stories.


Virgo, I'm intrigued that you think lawsuits of the type I refer to might happen even withOUT laws being passed to explicitly permit them; I think you might be right, that some folks might at least try.


I'm going to go sleep for 3 hours, as I've been up for nearly a day now, and then I'll come back and try to reply to people; be warned that if I have 20 pages of posts aimed at me, I will NOT take 5 hours to reply to everything.

Sorry Omni, that isn't what... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Sorry Omni, that isn't what I meant. The treatment you have been receiving here reminds me of group therapy at the VA Psych ward. You seem to border on the frankly delusional and everyone else is just giving you a little reality therapy.
I recognize that abortion is a highly contentious issue and there are two sides. But it seems very much like the debate on capital punishment. There is no common ground with such as Jean Dead-Man-Walking Prejean. If you conceed that capital punishment is not right in this case, she simply moves on to the next and the next, usw. The pro-abortion crowd seems to understand in their heart of hearts that any restriction implies that the decision to abort is to be regretted and avoided. Sooo.... no restrictions whatsoever. I suspect Kate Michelman (spell?) will be willing to discuss restrictions about the same time pigs learn to say the rosary.

I'm glad I came back for on... (Below threshold)
Omni:

I'm glad I came back for one last look after my shower; I'd hate to delay my response to you, Rick.

I'm sorry I thought you were being compassionate, or even reasonable, rather than a cockroach; my bad.

When you use an extreme term like "delusional" to describe someone's opinion, or their recollections of what people have said about the events of their lives, you lose all credibility... and if that didn't do it, summing up DOZENS of nasty posts as THERAPY would mark you as someone eager to be ugly rather than accurate.

The best help I can give the pro-choice cause is to let the moderates who are reading along here see just how vicious some of you are willing to be, and for how long; if you think you're making "your side" look good by this endless gang bang of someone who didn't direct a single word to anyone before the insults started rolling in, keep up the good work.

My hair's dry now, so I'll go catch a few zzzz's and be back this afternoon.

Please note that Omni can't... (Below threshold)

Please note that Omni can't even keep her own singular point straight... her first post

I also think that every woman who's denied an abortion and LIVES should have the right to bring every person who voted against allowing abortions to trial for, oh let's call it indirect assault, AND to sue them for her pain and suffering, all her medical costs, and the lifetime costs of the care of her child, including her lost wages during maternity leave.
then in her reply to docjim
all I've said was that I think that any who DO die, and there's no denying that it WILL happen sooner or later, should mean that certain legal things would happen.
She's gone from demanding ALL pregnant women the RIGHT to sue EVERY person who "voted against abortion" for assault and receive compensation to now claiming she never said that only that some vague, floating in the ether "some legal thing should happen" if a woman dies in childbirth.

I don't deny that I have used less than terms of awestruck admiration in some of my posts to Omni. When a person is acting as mind-numbing stubborn as she - when she PROUDLY states she has no figures, never looked at 'em, doesn't WANT to look at 'em - when she makes unsubstantiated claims and then calls anyone challenging those claims "cockroaches" - she is acting in the bizarre mode of much of the left - I offer pointed statements hoping it might offer a CLUE to how she appears to others. Omni offers only the argument of the three-year-old that WANTS and FEELS and throws a tantrum when s/he doesn't get his/her way.

Omni says pregnancy and childbirth MUST be torture and suffering because she feels it UNrelated and UNtethered to anything so pedestrian as facts or reality. She says she has been abused because she FEELS it and her feelings also absolve her of any responsibility for her own words.

Omni is like the co-worker we all met..the one that screws up and blames others with a righteous indignation "That's NOT what I meant! Stop being so unfair to me!"

pitiful.just.pitiful.

A truth that should be cons... (Below threshold)

A truth that should be considered.

Text communications are not always read in the same "tone of voice" in which they were written. Most people tend to read their own words in a reasonable tone of voice.

Omni... you've sounded every single bit as hysterical and viscious as anyone who has replied to you. What moderates see is probably not what you see. Your reasonable and calm demeanor does not come through the keyboard... you started out with a call to "try them for murder" and went on from there. That you typed calmly and were not in the least hysterical or upset just doesn't come through because no one can see your smiling face or hear your voice.

It's not their fault. It's just a fact.

Oh, Darleen, don't you know... (Below threshold)

Oh, Darleen, don't you know? It's not about babies. It's about hating women.

As long as the question can be made to be about hating women, all those other troublesome issues never have to be dealt with.

Well, so far in response to... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, so far in response to my question about the legal consequences of women who get illegal abortions we've got guilt, it depends, and the "possibility of jail time". I'm not sure what I was expecting, exactly, but it seems odd to me that those who consider abortion to be murder tend to hedge when it comes to punishment for such murders.

If we operate under the assumption that abortion is murder (I know not all people think this), shouldn't the punishment be the same? As I understand this SD law provides up to 5 years prison for doctors who perform illegal abortions, and as far as I know there is no penalty for the woman who gets the abortion. Shouldn't laws banning abortion include punishment for the mother. After all, the mother is the one who contracts the murder, the doctor is just the hit man.

Presumably it would be lega... (Below threshold)

Presumably it would be legal to go elsewhere, where abortion was legal, and have one.

I don't really know, mantis. For most people this is about the baby, not the mother. Few people are interested in punishing the mother at all. They just don't want babies killed.

What penalty should there be? I donno. I've known very few people who have talked about having had an abortion. The one person I've met who talked the most about it was a 17 year old who didn't want one, not particularly, concealed her pregnancy from rather inattentive parents, and when it came to light, was taken by them to get an illegal mid-term abortion. This was long after she could feel the baby move.

What punishment should be put upon whom? The girl? Certainly she could have asserted herself and refused rather than passively accepted what she didn't really want. The parents? They certainly *caused* a baby over five months along to die. The doctor? The doctor broke the law and probably did so for a nice wad of cold cash.

What do *you* think should be the punishment?

Darleen, few people can res... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Darleen, few people can resist the bait of their words being wildly misrepresented, especially when you've veered so far from the truth about ANYTHING... but I'm one of the few. You're not gonna lure me into a game of "that's not what I said/meant/implied."

There are no "facts" relevant to my opinion as to how blame for the sufferings of women who were denied abortions should be handled, any more than "facts" could debate my assertion that pink is the prettiest color.

I'm astonished and fascinated that you didn't deny any intent to insult me, as we probably all expected you to; this is a big kick in the teeth to the members of your "side" who have repeatedly denied that I was ever insulted.


Note to those who said that; do any of you have the class to admit you were wrong and apologize for wrongly hammering me on that issue?


Synova, if someone is posting in all caps with a bunch of exclamation marks and deteriorating spelling and/or grammar, it's reasonable to assume that they're very upset; otherwise, it's not, and "hysterical" is NEVER defensible as a label for someone who's still managing to type and post. Anyone who becomes convinced that upset, much less hysteria, exists in a commenter without evidence must correct that impression in their minds, or admit that they're choosing to believe an obvious falsehood; if they choose the latter, anything they say in error IS their fault.

For most people this is ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

For most people this is about the baby, not the mother. Few people are interested in punishing the mother at all. They just don't want babies killed.

See, this is the part I don't understand. We also don't want (non-gestational) people to be killed, but we sure as hell want to punish those responsible. In essence, how do you stop babies from being killed if there is no punishment?

As far as what I think the punishment should be, well I don't think there should be a punishment. I think abortion should be legal (though not through Roe; I think we ought to legislate it). I do think late-term abortions should be illegal (except in extreme cases), and doctors who perform them should lose their licenses at least. I think if early abortions were legal and the penalties were stiff enough for doctors we could virtually eliminate late-term abortions.

As far as your example of the deplorable parents, that's a tough one. Obviously parents should have legal rights over their children until a certain age, but I don't think that should extend as far as forced abortion. Seems to me such cases would be rare, but I don't know.

I think you'll find a whole... (Below threshold)

I think you'll find a whole lot of people who react to you a particular way and will continue to do so for just as long as you insist that the mere ability to type on your part equates to a calm and reasoned tone of voice.

My years and years of observation on usenet of the disconnect between what people believe they write and how it is recieved is apparently irrelevant.

I'm sorry I bothered.

Synova, I've had over 6 yea... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Synova, I've had over 6 years of heavy online forum/message board/club/group/blog involvement, and I'm well aware of the basics of how people behave. What you're not grasping is that how belligerent people react has little to do with what the victim is saying; I've had many experiences of posting the EXACT same comments, word for word, in different places, and had people in one place tell me I'm "raving" while the next place has people singing my praises and eagerly discussing what I said, with even those that disagree doing so pleasantly and with respect for my right to my opinions.

I've also proven repeatedly that, when belligerent people disagree with me, how they respond differs wildly based on whether they think I'm male or female, and again I mean when I post the exact same thing in similar forums... just FYI.

Mantis, I doubt it's rare. ... (Below threshold)

Mantis, I doubt it's rare. But I'm using a really broad definition of forced. "We're here to help you and will support your decision if you keep the baby, but it's up to you." is the bare minimum for a non-coerced abortion by a minor, IMO.

The imbalance of power between a child and parent is extreme. Any sort of a threat of "*We* aren't taking care of that baby!" or implication that the young woman will be on her own or even lectures about how her life will be completely ruined, is not going to leave her a *choice* at all. That's not choice. It's just not.

Of course that's the same argument given to support minors being able to obtain abortions, not just without her parent's permission, but without parental notification. Very few minors can stand up to their parents.

I don't know what to do about that, either, because it doesn't seem balanced when it's never possible to *keep* a baby without your parent's knowledge. It would seem likely to push young women toward abortion when they might otherwise not chose that course.

Surprisingly, I'm almost ne... (Below threshold)

Surprisingly, I'm almost never responded to in a belligerant manner. Not never, but seldom.

I think you came across, initially and thereafter, as provocative and over the top. My subjective opinion, of course. And if you were still capable of typing and not using all caps, neither did anyone else fail to be able to type nor did they use all caps.

The only person who's ever told me I'm not entitled to my opinion, for what it's worth, was a feminist who accused me of being given my opinions by men and therefore not having an opinion that was the least valid. I think she called me "little woman" too, and accused me of spitting on my sisters. All for the crime of uttering the words, "I'm not a feminist, but..." I'm sure she had plenty of lovely discussions with people who disagreed with her but did not become belligerant in their disagreement. How is that relevant? It proves nothing but that she allowed disagreement within certain perameters or in certain manners. Grovel enough as you present your disagreement and nearly anyone will engage you civily.

Met a lady who told me soonish, as we chatted, that people either loved her, or hated her. As time went on it was apparent that it was all she permitted. Love or hatred. She seemed convinced that because some people loved her, that she was loveable, and that it was obviously not her fault if other people hated her. Obviously the world was filled with hateful people. But most people don't require love or hatred. Most people get on in a civilized, impersonal way. Given a choice of love or hatred, most people just don't have the time to bother.

Synova, regardless of how s... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Synova, regardless of how someone comes across to a given person, that person can choose, CHOOSE, to initiate contact in a proper manner or an ugly one... and they're 100% responsible for that choice, and for any and all trouble that arises from it.

There may well be such a thing as a good person who's nasty in only one specific area... but I've never seen it, and judge accordingly.

My experience is that most people will hate at the drop of a hat; if you're the wrong religion, color, political party, sexual orientation, or even prefer the wrong band, TV show, radio station or sports team, and dare to make it known, haters will come out of the woodwork... and they won't bother with polite disagreement.

It's also my experience that, eager to believe that they themselves are safe from unprovoked attacks, some folks will go to great lengths to blame the victim, with never a word against the wrongdoers; this is part of why you see so many threads hijacked by flaming on every sort of forum, because almost no one has the balls/ovaries to address the attackers.

Synovaa feminis... (Below threshold)

Synova

a feminist who accused me of being given my opinions by men and therefore not having an opinion that was the least valid.

ROFL. I was in a thread where we were all offering our opinions on the artistic merit of the Vagina Monologues and because I found it less than Shakespearian I was accused of holding that opinion because I let men "own" my vagina.

That's when you know you are in a discussion with people religiously wedded to their ideology and any dissent is apostasy.

At that point, mocking seems entirely appropriate (though some have no sense of being mocked and start whining about being "victims" of "abuse"...ahem) It really need not be said that our contemporary culture suffers from the strange disease of Entitled Victimology.

Mantis like all criminal and civil statutes, appropriate consequences are arrived at by consensus. We don't punish those that kill in self-defense and even manslaughter (say running a redlight and killing another in a car accient) may be deemed a misdemeanor and punishable only by probation and community service. We have sentencing ranges specifically to give judges a chance to consider each case and impose an appropriate sentence.

Mantis like all criminal... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis like all criminal and civil statutes, appropriate consequences are arrived at by consensus. We don't punish those that kill in self-defense and even manslaughter (say running a redlight and killing another in a car accient) may be deemed a misdemeanor and punishable only by probation and community service. We have sentencing ranges specifically to give judges a chance to consider each case and impose an appropriate sentence.

I understand that. The question is what would crime would find an equivalent level of punishment. I mean under the assumption that abortion is murder; not just homicide, but murder. Not only that but in what are presumably virtually all cases, it is premeditated murder. Treating a fetus legally as a human being is the meaning of this Federal law from 2004. Of course, it provides an exception for abortion, which seems a glaring inconsistency (and it only applies to the military). The presumption behind this law is presumably the same as the law in SD banning abortions.

In any case if the premise is that the unborn are entitled to life the same as any of us postwombers, and therefore abortion should be illegal, doesn't that make abortion premeditated murder? This isn't hitting someone at a red light or negligently poisoning their groundwater or dropping a piano on an old lady's dog, this is deciding that a person should be killed because they are not wanted, and hiring someone to kill that person. Should the punishment therefore be in the equivalent range of sentences of other murders with premeditation? It stands to reason. Is it right?

mantis wrote (March ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

mantis wrote (March 9, 2006 01:24 AM):

Should the punishment therefore be in the equivalent range of sentences of other murders with premeditation? It stands to reason. Is it right?

I think the issue here is what I remarked about in an earlier post: we are conditioned to think of women who get an abortion as somehow not really responsible for the act. Further, abortion has the outward appearance of a victimless crime: we have no photos of the corpse; no tearful friends and relatives in the courtroom describing what a wonderful person the deceased was; no funeral; no grave. The victim doesn't even have a name. It's as if nobody really died.

Logically, however, it is premeditated murder. I doubt society will ever get round to penalizing it as such; revoking the license of a doctor who performs an abortion and perhaps putting him in jail for a time seems reasonable punishments to me. It may be that society will also see fit to punish women who get multiple abortions, but who knows?

Rich raised an interesting point in an earlier post (March 8, 2006 01:00 PM) when he mentioned a women who had gotten several abortions: I wonder how many abortions are "repeat customers"? I recall that Whoopie Goldberg virtually bragged in front of Congress that she'd had more than one.

Revolting.

Apart from executing a deat... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Apart from executing a death warrant, killing a person is a homicide. It's up to police to investigate the circumstances and then up to the appropriate prosecutor to bring charges, if any. In cases of obvious self-defense prosecutors routinely rule such killings are justifiable homicide and no charges are filed. If a killing is not clear-cut self-defense, charges are filed as supported by the evidence. Even then, a jury decides the facts.

If the Supreme Court defined a person under the law as a human with significant brain activity, then yes, we would have unborn persons entitled to the full protection of the law. In theory then, women could be charged with killing their unborn baby. Also, anyone helping them would be charged and these folks usually get less sympathy from juries. The real question is, should such a possibility preclude establishing a scientifically defendable definition of what constitutes a person under the law? The brain activity standard has been used for years in the case of injured people, so it already has significant scientific and legal standing.

For a woman to be charged with killing her unborn baby, she would have to be having sex, and miss all the signs of pregnancy up to around the 20th week. Given the accuracy of over the counter pregnancy tests, and the rarity of women who don't know they are pregnant into the second trimester, few woman who want an abortion should find they are unable to do so. At that point, a woman could still give up the baby for adoption. Because current laws allow killing someone else in self-defense, women could get abortions anytime there's substantial risk to their life or their health.

Another point is that for a killing to be ruled a crime there has to be criminal intent. Thus, women who engages is sports or other activities while pregnant and suffer the death of their baby as a result, could not be charged with a crime, as there was no criminal intent.

the Supreme Court would be doing the nation a great service by stepping up to the plate and telling us what defines a person under the law. They should use the South Dakota case to rework Roe with such a definition.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy