Will the new law banning abortion bring about the final defeat of the anti-abortion side?
It's a very risky move, and one certainly not supported by more worldy conservative leaders. They want to use abortion to "motivate the base" but don't want to take on a directly an issue that will be a long-term looser for them.
If RvW is overturned, then the repubs are going to have to go out and campaign on a strong anti-abortion platform and they will likely loose. Badly. If they choose not to, then they will loose the support of their base, which will be worse.
OTOH, a rush to the Supreme Court is quite likely to yield just another precedent in support of RvW, and leave them in worse position than before. Much worse. I think the last thing anti-abortion strategists want is an early review of a blanket ban.
My bet: (write this down for consultation later) The Supreme Court will bust a gut to find a technicality on which to throw out this law. Then they won't have to rule on the issues.
DanZ
S Dakota Abortion law
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
I think you are right at least to some extent. Pregnancy gets less risky for women as they age, perhaps until age 18 or so? Not really sure. It gets riskier again after 40 or so. Is there a doctor in the house to help us with this question??ST88 wrote:I've always wondered about the Minor exception that people seem to have regarding abortion. Isn't it more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term for younger girls than it is for adults?
I support having parental consent, as long as there is a clause to address abusive family relationships.
I'm not sure it is just a concern about 'bad stuff.' As the potential grandparents, the parents of the girl will in some sense be responsible not only for the girl but her child as well, while she is a minor. They are responsible for providing the girl medical care while she is in their trust. Given this, I think it makes sense that they be involved decisions like this one.
Yes, I also think it is fair to say that the act if making the decision and the consequences of that decision whatever it is, will be more difficult for a girl the younger she is.
I won't argue the physical harm point. However, although I would agree that social pressure is a big factor in the stress and other psycholocial impacts of becoming pregnant and either having a baby or an abortion, I think some of the stress is inherent in the situation. Sexual issues and experiences are emotionally intense, and even in the most supportive environment, the decision of what to do when faced with an unintended pregnancy can be difficult and has the potential to create stress, guilt, etc.ST88 wrote:The abortion procedure itself is not physically harmful, and is only psychologically harmful inasmuch as social pressure allows it to be.
I think both extremes on the abortion debate are guilty of playing on these feelings when they think it is to their benefit. BOth sides try to portray the examples on 'their side' as the 'most legitimate' and disparage the feelings and trials of women who have made the 'wrong choice' in their view.
I have no doubt that some women who have had abortions feel guilty and wish they had made a different decision. I also have no doubt that their are women who look back and, even loving the child they might still be raising, wonder if that was the right choice. At this point I don't have any data to say which is the larger group. My sense is both of these groups are small in proportion to the group of women who have had abortions and have not regrets.
Post #32
If the supremes are the men of God that some think they are, they will not overturn Roe. Letting people commit the the murder of their unborn is a personal choice. That is what secular people do.
Not murdering your unborn children is still OK. That is what people of God do.
It's all about choices on judgment day. It's all about people and their man made law down here.
Not murdering your unborn children is still OK. That is what people of God do.
It's all about choices on judgment day. It's all about people and their man made law down here.
Post #33
Just an update, as the issue has been getting more press here in SD lately and there are new poll results.
Certainly there is a lot of time before the election, and we haven't gotten into the real intense part of the fight yet, but right now, it looks more than likely the law will go down.
Look for the supporters of the current law to try and convince people that the law as passed actually does allow an exception for rape or incest. All you have to do is terminate the pregnancy before the time at which a doctor can actually determine whether or not you are pregnant.
In other words, as a political ploy (IMV) some supporters of the law are saying it is OK to kill the baby if you don't know if the baby is there. This reminds me of the WWII practice of having most of the firing squad have blanks in their guns, so you could never be sure who actually fired the fatal bullet. Thus, all were "absolved" of killing an unarmed person.
Certainly there is a lot of time before the election, and we haven't gotten into the real intense part of the fight yet, but right now, it looks more than likely the law will go down.
However, the poll did not give any type of ringing endorsement for abortion rights.The statewide survey of 800 registered voters found 47 percent opposed the strict ban, while 39 percent favored it. The remaining 14 percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Let's see, 59% of 47% rounds to 28%. Assuming the 39% who support the current law would also support the law with the exception, we get 67% who would support a law banning abortion except for rape or incest.Monday’s poll also asked voters who said they would reject the ban or were undecided how they would vote if the legislation allowed abortions in cases of rape or incest: 59 percent said they would support it, 29 percent said they would still reject a ban, and 12 percent were undecided.
Look for the supporters of the current law to try and convince people that the law as passed actually does allow an exception for rape or incest. All you have to do is terminate the pregnancy before the time at which a doctor can actually determine whether or not you are pregnant.
In other words, as a political ploy (IMV) some supporters of the law are saying it is OK to kill the baby if you don't know if the baby is there. This reminds me of the WWII practice of having most of the firing squad have blanks in their guns, so you could never be sure who actually fired the fatal bullet. Thus, all were "absolved" of killing an unarmed person.
Post #34
Here are a few updates.
A Zogby poll from earlier this fall found 47% against the ban, 44% for it.
THe most recent poll shows that the Abortion Ban is opposed by 50% and supported by 41%.
The opponents of the ban have focused on the lack of any exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I think they have been successful at making this case. As the article notes, a more moderate ban would be likely to pass.
A Zogby poll from earlier this fall found 47% against the ban, 44% for it.
THe most recent poll shows that the Abortion Ban is opposed by 50% and supported by 41%.
The opponents of the ban have focused on the lack of any exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I think they have been successful at making this case. As the article notes, a more moderate ban would be likely to pass.
Post #36
I don't know. I really wonder if the most strident 'moral values' folks are losing their audience. A poll from last summer on the gay marriage ban also showed less support for the ban than against. Some claimed it was because the polling question was 'confusing', but I have a hard time accepting that analysis.
In both cases, I think the laws were poorly drafted. Those that did the drafting didn't seem to think the details really mattered, only that the laws were 'pro-life' and 'pro-family/anti-gay'. The side-effects of the laws are irrelevant; we are supposed to focus only on the headline.
Again, I should reiterate I do not describe myself as 'pro-choice' as I have significant concerns with abortion. However, I am very concerned with how the pro-life movement is going about things. As with the creationists (and obviously there is considerable overlap between these two groups), they don't care about looking at all the evidence, only the evidence that supports their position. The pro-ban adds are all about stories of women who happen to agree with the pro-life position. No data, except the stat on the small percentage of abortions that are officially ascribed to rape or incest.
In both cases, I think the laws were poorly drafted. Those that did the drafting didn't seem to think the details really mattered, only that the laws were 'pro-life' and 'pro-family/anti-gay'. The side-effects of the laws are irrelevant; we are supposed to focus only on the headline.
Again, I should reiterate I do not describe myself as 'pro-choice' as I have significant concerns with abortion. However, I am very concerned with how the pro-life movement is going about things. As with the creationists (and obviously there is considerable overlap between these two groups), they don't care about looking at all the evidence, only the evidence that supports their position. The pro-ban adds are all about stories of women who happen to agree with the pro-life position. No data, except the stat on the small percentage of abortions that are officially ascribed to rape or incest.
Post #37
Well, as I prepare to hit the sack, I find that I once again have lived up to my knack for picking losing causes. 
I did vote for the abortion ban. It is down 55% to 45% at this point. The precincts remaining to be counted are more conservative on average than those that have been counted, but I can't see that the ban will pass.
Next year, the legislature will pass a less extreme ban, including exceptions for the rape and incest and/or the health of the mother. If it is referred to a vote, I would expect it to pass easily.
The gay marriage ban looks like it will pass narrowly. It is now up 52% to 48%. I was hoping it would go down, but am not too optimistic at this point. I will be encouraged that it was even this close. I could see this one being revisited in the not too distant future.
As an interesting side light, a legislator at the center of our own mini-Foley scandal looks like he will be re-elected. He has maintained his innocence steadfastly against the allegations. Now he is going to have to face proceedings of a special session of the legislature on his behavior. He stayed overnight in a hotel with a male page.
There was also an initiative to repeal state supported video lottery, and it is going down big time, again over my well-informed objections.
I think I am going to go dig my 1980 John Anderson for President T-shirt out of the cedar chest.
I did vote for the abortion ban. It is down 55% to 45% at this point. The precincts remaining to be counted are more conservative on average than those that have been counted, but I can't see that the ban will pass.
Next year, the legislature will pass a less extreme ban, including exceptions for the rape and incest and/or the health of the mother. If it is referred to a vote, I would expect it to pass easily.
The gay marriage ban looks like it will pass narrowly. It is now up 52% to 48%. I was hoping it would go down, but am not too optimistic at this point. I will be encouraged that it was even this close. I could see this one being revisited in the not too distant future.
As an interesting side light, a legislator at the center of our own mini-Foley scandal looks like he will be re-elected. He has maintained his innocence steadfastly against the allegations. Now he is going to have to face proceedings of a special session of the legislature on his behavior. He stayed overnight in a hotel with a male page.
There was also an initiative to repeal state supported video lottery, and it is going down big time, again over my well-informed objections.
I think I am going to go dig my 1980 John Anderson for President T-shirt out of the cedar chest.
Post #38
Indeed, the abortion ban bit the dust. It's a good thing; it was too restrictive, effectively sending an implicit message of support for rape and incest, and a second message of disregard for women. Genetically and evolutionarily, we'd want children not to be born of rape, because that passes on the genes that predispose men to raping. Ideally, we'd prevent rapes. But until we can, we have a dilemma of whether to support a rapist's behavior at the expense of victim, or to support the victim at the expense of the embryo whose potential was "stolen" from the victim by the rapist.
With incest, we'd also want to prevent the behavior, but until we can, we face the high probability of children with serious genetic disorders due to homozygosity of deleterious genes. In the "good old days" when Christian rules were better than what passed for medicine, such children simply died. Now, at great expense, we can get many of them to adulthood and their own reproductive ability to pass on the problems. There's a reason that most religions tell us to avoid incest. It's probably confusing, though, since First Man and First Woman did kinda have to encourage incestuous activities in order to populate the planet...so we've got an educational campaign to teach people not to behave like the "perfect" founders of the species, and instead behave like Chimpanzees, who have a very strong incest taboo instinctively.
Ideally, we'd allow women to seek abortions when necessary, but do our best to help them choose not to. In the end, though, it's not my decision. It's not my right to tell a woman that I control her body. Men should have no say in this issue until we can develop a way to let them carry the fetus and nurse the baby.
That said, it does seem fairly tacky--as 1John and AlAyeti have said--to have a culture in which young people engage in rampant sex, and figure "what the heck, I can always abort the thing." But here too, as with rape and incest, the goal should be to prevent the behavior in the first place. That requires education, especially among those who are traditionally disenfranchised and given lousy schools with lousy curricula and--here's the kiler--lousy expectations.
Looking on the bright side, though, it probably won't matter much pretty soon. We're pretty close to the carrying capacity of the earth. We're on the verge of using up the oil, or at least making it so expensive we can't maintain our current culture (like commuting to work, transporting food long distances, running school busses and ambulances, pumping fresh water to Phoenix and Las Vegas, etc). We've only got a few decades to go before the ocean's fish stocks are gone (according to Science). Economic chaos, starvation, and wars will probably overshadow the abortion issue before long. We'll probably wonder why we were so fixated on it when there were real problems bearing down on us.
With incest, we'd also want to prevent the behavior, but until we can, we face the high probability of children with serious genetic disorders due to homozygosity of deleterious genes. In the "good old days" when Christian rules were better than what passed for medicine, such children simply died. Now, at great expense, we can get many of them to adulthood and their own reproductive ability to pass on the problems. There's a reason that most religions tell us to avoid incest. It's probably confusing, though, since First Man and First Woman did kinda have to encourage incestuous activities in order to populate the planet...so we've got an educational campaign to teach people not to behave like the "perfect" founders of the species, and instead behave like Chimpanzees, who have a very strong incest taboo instinctively.
Ideally, we'd allow women to seek abortions when necessary, but do our best to help them choose not to. In the end, though, it's not my decision. It's not my right to tell a woman that I control her body. Men should have no say in this issue until we can develop a way to let them carry the fetus and nurse the baby.
That said, it does seem fairly tacky--as 1John and AlAyeti have said--to have a culture in which young people engage in rampant sex, and figure "what the heck, I can always abort the thing." But here too, as with rape and incest, the goal should be to prevent the behavior in the first place. That requires education, especially among those who are traditionally disenfranchised and given lousy schools with lousy curricula and--here's the kiler--lousy expectations.
Looking on the bright side, though, it probably won't matter much pretty soon. We're pretty close to the carrying capacity of the earth. We're on the verge of using up the oil, or at least making it so expensive we can't maintain our current culture (like commuting to work, transporting food long distances, running school busses and ambulances, pumping fresh water to Phoenix and Las Vegas, etc). We've only got a few decades to go before the ocean's fish stocks are gone (according to Science). Economic chaos, starvation, and wars will probably overshadow the abortion issue before long. We'll probably wonder why we were so fixated on it when there were real problems bearing down on us.
Panza llena, corazon contento
