S.D. doctors must disclose abortion ends life, judge rules

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

A federal judge upheld part of a South Dakota law that requires women to be told abortion ends a human life, but struck down disclosures that the procedure increases the likelihood of suicide and that they have an existing relationship with the fetus.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's decision Thursday ends a lawsuit that Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota filed in response to a 2005 informed consent law that required several disclosures to women seeking an abortion. She sided with the state in ruling that doctors must make the biological disclosure "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."



Read more: http://www.startribune.com/nation/53887662.html

But this sounds crazy.

OK, it *is* crazy (Note to SD legislature: go fuck yourselves).

Any lawyers out there who can explain how the judge decided which parts of the law would be struck down vs which ones would not? It seems pretty whimsical, not to say contrafactual. I'd think that there'd be a higher instance of suicide attributable to post-abortion remorse (i.e., a fact) vs the belief (i.e., not a fact) that a fetus is a human being.

I am really losing patience with these feebs trying to cram their religious-derived crapola up my ass. In case they hadn't noticed, it's supposed to flow the other way.

face the audit and penalties. And I suppose you can drive in ther HOV lane as long as you'll pay the fine for not using the child seat.

But justify to us that if Scott Peterson had killed Lacy, and she wasn't prengant but instead had a tumor, that it would have been a double murder.

If you are looking for a black and white one rule fits all - this isn't the place - in fact, that place doesn't exist.

while pregnant. It was in California in the 90s. She got a ticket and it was such a "public uproar" - of course, that she got away.

They claim birth control pills ALSO kill a "Human being, separate, unique, blah, blah, etc.)

BUT NNOOO health coverage after its born. & NNNOOOOO school breakfasts to help feed, & NNNOOOO WIC, that was CUT, at least by Gov Arnie. How about the death-rate of those already born? Highest infant mortality rate of all the 1t world nations?

(((Hypocritic))) !!!!!dogmatic!!!!! ^^^^reality-denying^^^^^

Is it not?????????


In biology, the science that studies living organisms, "life" is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and the continual change preceding death.<3><4>

<3>The Concise Oxford Dictionary. English Edition 1991
<4>"Merriam-Webster Dictionary". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life. Retrieved 06-21-2009.

What's the problem? A simple term, let's put religion aside and see the definition given for what it is.

why are you comparing human embryos to a tree? :crazy: BTW, if you are wondering, I'm anti death penalty and anti unnecessary war as well.

Yes, I stole that from somebody at DU.

a fetus is not a human being any more than a cyst or a wart or a tumor is human being

:shrug:

There is a difference.

"the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and the continual change preceding death."

Trees live, grow and die, they help keep the air clean - that fits the definition you gave.

And a tree can be home to birds, squirrels and insects. They could be killed when a lumberjack cuts a tree down.

But hurray for the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change.

now you're comparing cancer tumors to human embryos. One kills as soon as it metastasizes, the other grows into a humans. Notice I'm not even injecting religion into anything.

Technically you are stopping life.

My argument is done.

Prolife female Democrat. Rare commodity isn't it?

<waits for the usual ho hums to call me names and trash me>

you are anti-Choice.

You are elevating a collection of undifferentiated stem cells or an unformed proto-human as having more basic rights than does its host.

You say you are not injecting religion but you are promoting a religious myth that embryonic ubber-rights trump a woman's right to decide what happens in her own body...

And you're being rather snarky about it...there's an internet term for that...

:thumbsup:

You are for an individual woman's right to make such a decision on her own and not the government, correct? I can respect someone being "prolife" as long as they respect other women's right to make that decision.

Our bodies, ourselves!

If -I- want to eat fast foods, fat foods, MY choice!

If -I- want to smoke like a chimney in the privacy of my own home, MY choice!

If a woman wants to rid herself of womb worms, HER choice!

Stop the invasion of the body rights snatchers!

In fact, now I will compare them to your left kidney. Grab a kitchen knife, cut it out, and put it on the floor. It will stop being "alive" in no time.

See. Those 3 things all have something in common that make them comparable. They exhibit a dictionary definition of "life" while connected and growing inside a human body (though their life is facilitated by that body, and entirely dependent on it). Once removed, they are all quickly dead. Should a doctor, therefore, always have to talk about destroying life when removing any growth, organ, cleft, cyst, etc?

Now, why shouldn't I compare them. You seem surprised. Do you believe embryos are sacred or something? Was the comparison sacrilegious?

but i agree with you.

abortion does end the life of a seperate unique organism.

whether or not a 1st trimester fetus is a "human being" i think is a bit problematic . it certainly can (and will) develop into one. but i would hesitate to call (for instance) a fertilized egg that has split into a few hundred cells (obviously very early in pregnancy) a 'human being'

i am pro choice because i believe this organism's "right" to live does not trump the woman;s right to abort it.

but i'm not about to pretend , as many pro-choicers do, that abortion is simply a medical procedure that only concerns a woman and her doctor. it concerns a woman, her doctor, and a fetus.

if the fetus is at 6 months, i would say no abortion on demand.

2 months? heck, yes

a polite request should be all that's necessary.

:eyes:

where'd this stupid "abortion on demand" come from? like women go to clinics and stand in the middle demanding that someone give them an abortion and they want it right NOW!

from one of the court cases, but not quite sure.

it's a common word usage in many areas X "on demand" and basically means all you need to do to get X is assert that you want it.

although nowadays mostly seen with cable stuff "movies on demand"

I'm fully prochoice but I can be prochoice and acknowledge that even before a mere ten weeks that "undifferentiated conglomeration of cells" has clearly vanished and a fetus is present, w/differentiated cells and all. I don't believe that's the point: the point is, the fetus exists only by the mother's permission. It's a unique situation and I treat it differently than I would, say, capital punishment or war. The woman gets to choose because the fetus is in her body and her body sustains it. I have huge problems with full-term abortions but I again believe that if it comes down to a choice of the mother or the baby, Mom and/or the relatives get to make the call. A new human life may be a wondrous thing, but it's no more wondrous than an existing life - the life of a grown human being who loves and is loved, and upon whom living people depend.

I think it's disingenuous to claim the fetus is not a life, and is not a human life. Again, that's beside the point.

(generally) although i am not as open to late term abortions "on demand", but want medical need.

regardless, even though i am prochoice, i find many prochoice arguments intellectually dishonest. that irks me

If he came to change your life and dictate your every move forever WOULD YOU KILL THAT TERRORIST? That stranger come into your house? WOULD YOU?

Would you make him tea or would you take your first amendment gun and shoot him dead?

I'm sure you'll take the most Christian and loving position.

I agree with you.




the adamantly pro-choice


Tansy Gold, who doesn't have a first, second, third, or thirty-third amendment gun

Is he cute and cuddly and does he say "I love you, daddy" when I tuck him in at night? Are you in the habit of equating children to terrorists, or is this a first time thing?

Yours is the worst pro-choice argument I've ever encountered.

If you were being forced to have an abortion, I would go down fighting for your rights not to have an abortion. I'm a "Pro Choice female Democrat" and I would hope you would respect my rights same as I would respect your rights.

So far we have yet to make viable a fetus less than 19 weeks old. We'll get there.

until then, it's a parasite of the host...

And susceptible to the host's decisions...

A parasite refers to an invasive organism that diverts resources gathered or produced by a host organism to serve as its own source for the ultimate purpose of its own reproduction-- to the detriment of the reproductive interests of the host organism. This requires that the host/dependent relationship be 1) different from the host species' usual mode of reproduction; 2) that the dependent organism is not the actual, normal, genetic offspring of its host.

Placental mammals all have this mode of reproduction. Parasitism has to describe something a little unusual.

Unwanted does not equate to being a parasite.

Does this mean anything to my opinion? No. As far as I am concerned, the woman still has the complete right to end her pregnancy at least before the 6th month. After that, I have qualms over whether the fetus has crossed over to become a person, but I can presume that extremely few women would ever wait that long to abort, and will not do it unless the fetus is discovered to have a fatal defect.

You read the wrong definition of life. Read the definition that takes a definite or indefinite article. The distinction there is everything. The meaning of which is "an individual life" "a living being" or "a human being."

The judge's ruling puts a serious scientific inaccuracy into law. A fetus has live, human cells, but calling it "a life" is declaring, against all evidence, that it is a person, or an individual with who has gained consciousness.

Obviously, a fetus can become a human being later, but there is no way an early-term fetus is person or a human being. In fact with just a little intervention shortly after its implanted, you twin it and turn it into two human beings. So, did two lives begin at conception?

You read the wrong definition of life. Read the definition that takes a definite or indefinite article. The distinction there is everything. The meaning of which is "an individual life" "a living being" or "a human being."

The judge's ruling puts a serious scientific inaccuracy into law. A fetus has live, human cells, but calling it "a life" is declaring, against all evidence, that it is a person, or an individual with who has gained consciousness.

Obviously, a fetus can become a human being later, but there is no way an early-term fetus is person or a human being. In fact with just a little intervention shortly after its implanted, you twin it and turn it into two human beings. So, did two lives begin at conception?

You read the wrong definition of life. Read the definition that takes a definite or indefinite article. The distinction there is everything. The meaning of which is "an individual life" "a living being" or "a human being."

The judge's ruling puts a serious scientific inaccuracy into law. A fetus has live, human cells, but calling it "a life" is declaring, against all evidence, that it is a person, or an individual with who has gained consciousness.

Obviously, a fetus can become a human being later, but there is no way an early-term fetus is person or a human being. In fact with just a little intervention shortly after its implanted, you twin it and turn it into two human beings. So, did two lives begin at conception?

:evilgrin:

I do love disingenuous trolls. For my bridge and my lawn.

I imagine that to maintain intellectual consistency, one must also be prepared to state with the same conviction, "the removal of my tonsils ends life..."

Not unless it can live outside the womb on its own. Until then, its just fetal tissue.

Should the government be forcing doctors to tell their patients things?

That is a philosophical issue, not a biological one, and thus, not the court's decision to make.

it sure doesn't sound like a separate, unique, living human being. If I can't deduct it as a dependent, it sure doesn't sound like it either.

If a woman miscarries, does she still get to deduct the pre-kid? I wonder what sorts of forms that would involve?

I have heard about legal cases where women whose husbands are dead have inherited property from his side of the family through the rights of a miscarried baby. If she hadn't had that miscarriage (and thus what amounts to inheritance from her unborn dead child) the property would have passed to the husband's other nearest relatives.

of course it ends life, but what kind of life would it have been? and perhaps it had already ended prior to the procedure.

life begins. However, with all the oral contraceptives, cheap over the counter PLAN B emergency pills, education about sex, I always found abortion to be a terrible expensive last resort. Unless the mother's health is in danger. And as absurd as the neo cons are, they have one argument that is powerful and that is what if WE were aborted?

nor would we be having this conversation.

It is a choice that the person who has decided to have the abortion has to live with, it is not a decision for me or you or anyone else has a right keep her from.

If you think the cons have any powerful arguments, I think your in the wrong location.

typical "you need to go someplace with the freepers" retort. That was predictable.

As if all of us Democrats think alike. I hate that stupid logic. Why should I leave because I don't agree 100% with the hardcore left wing? I am a Democrat, but a prolife one. We exist "Democrats of America for Life".

I hate neo cons with passion,everyone has seen my posts bashing them, but that argument of life is very powerful (and perhaps the only one of theirs that will ever be).

It is her choice to abort, but the topic at end was discussing abortion and so I will give my opinion as I wish!

"typical "you need to go someplace with the freepers" retort."

And you succeeded...

Yeah turn up your little snarkiness. There are some over sensitive people on this board who throw a hissy fit ahem ProudDad... just because one doesn't accord with their beliefs. But my argument is 'stupid', just because it is on the opposing view. How infantile.

Until then, it seems you are anti-choice, and if that is true, you do not have a place here.

wah, wah, wah

you can call yourself a Democrat all you like, but spewing right-wing talking points gives lie to that notion.

Are you pro-choice, in that you support a womans right to make her own decisions concerning her body? Or are you against that? Very simple question, a "yes I am in favor of a womans choice" or a "no Im not in favor of a womans choice". Until we clear this up, it really doesnt matter what YOUR personal feelings on abortion are. What is your position?

...

We weren't...

Stupid argument...

Irrelevant...

not more stupid than the ones comparing humans to trees and cancer! You don't agree with it and that is why you call anything stupid like a bratty little infant. Weak. I will be civil but once the name calling starts you will see my nasty side.

You're the one who started getting nasty...not I...

Weak!

Your post #7 shows that you were spoiling for a fight.

"once the name calling starts you will see my nasty side"

that's a real progressive Democratic value there ...

:rofl:

you're attempts at argument are pathetic, and you call us bratty little infants.

If only wed all been so lucky. But then we wouldn't be we. We just wouldn't be, and wouldn't have been. Doesn't sound so bad.

Because I don't agree with you? That is so messed up. WTF?

(and there are MANY different definitions one could choose from)

And just as well, with the one selected, a tumor did in fact meet it. You failed to specifically provide a reason for differentiating between to growths inside the human body, which are dependent and not viable outside. You have no real reason to not classify the "life" of either growths as the SAME as the "life" of the host body.

At what point does a growth within a "living" being become a unique and separate "life" itself? Does the dictionary answer that?

The argument is "inane" because it presented a weakly supported position, and refused to add support and clarify. You are still hiding behind the same premise, without fully defending it. Seems like a weak attempt at it all, and not intellectually honest whatsoever.

BTW...quick question. Is a sperm a "life"? How about a single-cell organism?

my argument is from a humanist/valuist point of view. I have also studied biology, in fact I have an MS in the field and my major focus was on cancer. So you don't need to go through all that metastasis, tumor progression, parasite stuff. You don't need to brag on how much science you know to me.

That is why there are no stupid arguments in the abortion debate and it will continue on forever. This is how I feel. I'm also apprehensive about outright making the process illegal since some desperate women would resort to back alley abortions. However,I do not support the procedure.

Under what non-arbitrary conditions does a growth within a "living" human body becomes a separate unique "life" itself?

Thats is still largely ignored. You want to say a "life" is created when a sperm enters an egg. Why? Why is it not just more of the same "life" its within? You are not being clear.

"This is how I feel."

Ok...so this is a "belief" (something that cannot be proven). Next time, don't bother showing up with a dictionary.

is not outdated. I used a dictionary to make the simplest point. It's late, I'm tired and I don't feel like writing an essay tonight, ok?

What is the world without beliefs or emotion? We would all be robots, no?

I learned about the stages of life in primary school. The process of abortion stops life. Simple. You can argue whatever you want to argue about that.

And you still won't answer the question: why is the fetus a separate and unique "life" from the host body it depends upon?

You cannot explain why removing an organ, growth, or tumor stops "life" any less. Until you can, this remains a very complex question.

Your dictionary definition is simply not suitable for addressing this complex scientific/philosophical problem. Life isn't always so black and white--so simple.

Let me know when you have an answer. In the meantime, either we should carry on with any and all abortions, or ban all tumor removals.


"What is the world without beliefs or emotion?"

Yeah, thats all good in your own life. Paint a picture and write a poem about it. Keep it out of public policy.

You have your beliefs I have mine. Like I said, I do not condone the horrific procedure but banning it wouldn't make a hell of a difference since some women will resort to coat hangers.


You sound like a very intelligent person and you make very good arguments. Whew, you gave me a good work out.I am a passionate person (Cancerian here), so I love to go on message boards and discuss topics. All my arguments are not intended to attack the poster in question (unless they are straight up assholes}.

I know, I should have gone into sociology.

"I do not condone the horrific procedure but banning it wouldn't make a hell of a difference since some women will resort to coat hangers."

ehg.

Its not "horrific". Its a medical procedure that removes a growth from a human body (until anyone can prove such a growth is a separate and unique "life", thats the way it is).

comparing a POTENTIAL human life to a GROWTH in the body is so dehumanizing. It is NOT just another growth!




I guess we are looking at it from two different views. I will agree to disagree because we are not going anywhere. LOL

Why? You've had plenty of chances to explain, but you won't.

Even when it is a single fertilized cell, the fetus already has its own life principle and
its own genetic makeup. This tiny clump of cells is a uniquely distinct individual who, with only
the addition of time and nutrition, will develop into a mature human being. The only significant
difference between a fetus and a fifty-year-old is a few years and meals!

Plain and simple.


At one time, you also were just a clump of cells”. How important those cells were
for you! Yeah, you are just GROWTH. LMAO


As for your argument about a fetus being parasitic on its mother. How many two-year-olds can live on their own without food and care from their parents? Even as adults, we depend upon others to help keep us alive. But we are still human.
If being dependent means not being human, then toddlers, the handicapped, the injured, the
sick, and the aged could all be killed on demand.


Your argument is so unethical and has no human emotion. Slavery was legal and lasted centuries in this country. Many things are legal but still wrong.

wrong

there are no guarantees that even with "a few years and meals" a fertilized egg will even be born, much less turn into a 50 year old. a fetus is not proven viable until it has been born and survived birth. all else until then is projection/conjecture.

"If being dependent means not being human, then toddlers, the handicapped, the injured, the
sick, and the aged could all be killed on demand."

more ignorant right-wing spew.

So does a donated organ. Is it a life itself separate than the person who receives it?


So do cells infected by certain viruses, BTW. Does new life begin when a virus alters the genetic code of a cell? Even a mutated cell has its own genetic makeup, which can cause a cancerous growth to develop. Is that a new, separate life?



(And yes, I anticipated 5 posts ago that this was the direction you were going in)

Now I'm not saying that even though I am an editor of anatomy & physiology textbooks for college students that I am aware of *every* medical and scientific term, because that would be foolish. But I have never heard of "life principle." Little help here please?

spelling on edit

If you'd made that clear earlier, I don't think people would have been so combative.

"what if WE were aborted"

well, what's your point? what if we were? how is that an argument?

Does the "life" have a second amendment right to bear an AR-15 at an Obama rally?

It should get its own little tiny AR it can swim up to the security perimiter with. It could cruise for hot egg cells in the local bars afterwards. We are forgetting that by using the dictionary definition of life we'd also need to take into account the life of cells. That makes applying the dictionary definition even more ludicrous as a defense of intruding on a woman's medical procedure.

its a stupid, open ended dime store philosophy question with one answer, you would never know!

What if the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupted tomorrow???????


Oh jeez now, there's a POWERFUL argument. what if what if what if.

and calm your funky ass down. See, I tried being civil.

:rofl:

you are in the wrong place honey.

.........

for or against?

answer the questions your being asked...

ETA: if you think asking "what the FUCK..." is cussing at you, you better get a lot thicker skin if you plan to hang around here spewing anti-choice bullshit.

BTW, the appropriate response when someone ELSE is breaking the rules is to alert on the post.

The process is, in a way, too complex for simple language, but "life begins at conception" contains so many ethical and factual errors that you could write a dissertation about it. Life doesn't "begin" then. It would be somewhat closer to the truth to say that an individual begins at conception, but not much. The zygote has no mind. You can't take a single cell and give it the same value as a human being it might become later. It has nothing to it that could be dealt with as a human being.

What you could say is, the "person's blueprint is complete at conception." It hasn't built a human being, yet, but what it does have a plan.

I know yours would be an exception, but the entire motive behind insisting that "life begins at conception" is to make the science fit the religious dogma, no matter how imperfectly. Dogma: God creates life. Biology: a fetus starts to after conception. Therefore, life begins at conception.

What if WE were aborted is as selfish as it comes. YOU are so damn precious that it doesn't matter how many millions of women suffer as long as YOUR precious self exists.

That's an execrable argument. But it does go to the essence of the problem. Selfish self-important pigs deciding life or death for women and their children instead of letting the women decide.

Rudolph Astorwicz, aborted in 1981 and who would have grown up to discover the Laemle particle that travels faster than light and would theoretically allow time travel, and Emelina Costello, aborted in 1996 and who would have grown up to develop the nano-gene therapy for eliminating Alzheimer's disease, ALS,and type II diabetes, also aborted were "the mad epidemiologist" Minyori Hamamoto, who would have been born in 1978 and by now be well on his way to spreading the hyper-pox virus that would eventually kill almost half the world's population within the first few months and, due to soil infestation leave 90% of the arable land useless for crop production for several decades, leading not only to mass starvation but horrific wars and the devastation of virtually all ecosystems on the planet and K'mehau Loropunakidri, the charismatic preacher who lured thousands of innocent men, women, and children to his compound in the African jungle and then allowed his elites to slaughter and eat them.

The point being, of course, that we will never know how many wonderful people were aborted, but we will never know how many horrible monsters were aborted at the same time.

It's a stupid argument, and it seems to me that only the ignorant would use it.


Tansy Gold, who tries very hard not to be ignorant

this has got to be one of the stupidest fucking things ever said about abortion.

so WHAT if i had been aborted? big fucking deal, i would never have been born and i would never have KNOWN i hadn't been born. there'd be one less pro-choice feminist in the world, but other than that...

you really, really need to educate yourself about contraceptive failure rates, availability of "cheap" contraception, etc, etc, etc before you spew any more shit into the thread.

Both the sperm and the egg are alive otherwise there would be no way conception would result in a baby. When the sperm enters the egg there is a division of cells that can result in a live birth. However, it is spiritual philosophy that life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. It's not a matter of fact. Others have different philosophies about it.

I believe it begins well before conception and I approach the issue from that viewpoint. To me, the whole anti-abortion movement is over-the-top in their protection of a fertilized egg over other much more serious issues. For example, electing a president--just because he was anti-abortion--who presided over more executions in his state than any other governor and who clearly lied to start an illegal war which killed likely over 1 million others. Asinine.

But I would agree that once a baby is viable and not morbidly deformed, and while it is still alive, women should not abort them. But it's just my opinion. I say while it is still alive because I carried a dead fetus for several days because 2 doctors I went to refused to acknowledge it was dead and abort it because it was against their spiritual philosophy (they were Catholics). I nearly died and spent two weeks in the hospital due to the infection resulting from the decomposing fetus.

And what if WE were aborted is not all that powerful to me. To me it is really rather unsophisticated and childish. If I were aborted I wouldn't have known the difference.

is to be reserved only for the affluent...

Film at 11...

and that is where I draw the line. That is their warped philosophy---to hell with those kids after birth. But they don't give a damn about blowing up kids in Iraq.

I believe that All life IS...

We are just temporary physical manifestations of All life...

When we "die" we remain in All life...

So morally, it doesn't really matter when we die; at conception, 5 months gestation, birth, age 10, age 100...

It's all the same and therefore value neutral...

It's religions that place bogus value judgments on how and when and under what circumstances death occurs...

strange. But without the breath of life a fetus cannot live. I sometimes visualize that we are containers with electrical activity but in order for us to sustain life outside the womb with a knowing we must breath in air and it must take hold before it becomes alive in the sense of a living being. Some may call it the spirit or the soul that enters upon birth when the breath is taken in I see it as the lightswitch that activates.

and it is the baby's soul in the energy field of the mother that causes that "glow".
The soul does not enter into the vehicle/body of the baby until about the time the placenta disengages from the wall of the uterus..and it enters into the vehicle through the soft spot on the top of the skull. This is the same area the soul leaves through during astral travel and/or death.
If, for any reason the soul cannot enter into the vehicle at the time of the birth process, it will merely go to another mother with a fertilized egg (that will best allow that soul to work out its lessons for this life) and be in her energy field until it can enter into the vehicle.
This transfer of energy/soul can be measured at the moment of death.
Science has yet to figure out how to measure the transfer at birth...but I am assuming it wont be long now.
This is all to be found in advanced yoga philosophy.

Now take your new age garbage and stuff it in a narrow orifice.

Just because you cannot see energy fields yet does not mean you never will.
Just because you don't like my post is no reason to be nasty. :)

With respect, enjoy your class but you're not going to sell "that stuff" here. :crazy:

:puke:

sorry I cannot show you all seven, you have to earn that yourself.

I just looked really tired, especially when the pregnancy went into extra innings.

I do love when people post crazy wooish nonsense like it means a damned thing to anybody with a brain. It's amusing.

I am sorry you had a difficult time.
If you ever are in my area...I will be happy to show you the first four layers of the human energy field. I cannot show you all seven as you must earn that yourself.

Is this along the lines of the "we choose our parents" philosophy? Just wanting to understand. Thanks.

Kind of like telling drug companies they have to release info on side effects of their drugs, etc.

Because of the "living human being" part as not being commonly accepted science.

An embryo/fetus is not a human until it's viable outside the womb.

Alert the wingnuts!

I am a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose, and believe that women know what they are doing when they choose to have an abortion. It's an insult to their intelligence to think otherwise.

But what else would you expect from SD's male dominated legislature - they don't think women can think for themselves, so they push biased laws such as this.

I'm sad that a woman judge ruled this way, though.

but................after the sperm fertilizes the egg, the zygote progresses into an embryo, then fetus. That is the growing process of a life form. We learn this in primary school. When you abort it, ABORT=stop. You are stopping the life. Simple as that. I am not being a hypocrite, I support all forms of life including being against war and the death penalty.

I am finished with my argument. It seems like some over sensitive bunch of people are throwing venom at me for expressing my thoughts. The only time I started getting nasty was when shrills came at me with venom. When someone uses the word "stupid" on me, I will lose my patience because I consider myself FAR from stupid. Stupid is a harsh word.

Sorry, not all Democrats SUPPORT abortion. Now not supporting abortion does not mean I want it to be illegal. I said that many times, yet for some reason alot of people are thick headed and want to read what they want to read. I call it selective reading.

Now you want to jump on me because I probably hit deep into you, well to hell with you. My arguments are not stupid, they are just another point of view. I made clear and concise points on the cons of abortion. I never made hateful statements. It is stupid to low minded people because they strongly disagree. That is a very infantile type of behavior and a turn off. One girl started cussing at me, for what? And you know what? I let it out on her. That really doesn't make you more different than those "Freepers" you bitch about. "You're either with us or against us", hence the people saying I should go to Free Republic because I happen to not be so crazy about abortion (even though I agree with most other Democratic ideals). That is bull.

I love how people like to bully on threads. I hate that sometimes people are so afraid to go against the grain on message boards because they want to conform. Hey, don't shake the waters, right?


Everyone of us has opinions, everyone of us has something we stand for or are against. I'm sure many don't accord 100% with the ideas of the Democratic party---many people on here don't support ilegal immigrants and wish for all of them to be deported and families broken, many support cops at all costs, etc. It would be kinda shitty if we all thought the same, wouldn't it? We all have our beliefs about certain subjects. That makes us, well, humans.

is what opinions like yours can "kill." If the fetus is in her womb, it's her right to decide what happens. If you got a less than merry reception here, it's probably because you are stating opinions that endanger womens' freedom and control over their bodies.

Your compassion for the unborn child is something that helps make the world a better place, but it is also a better place when we have the utmost respect for the woman who's carrying the unborn child by realizing that what goes on in her body must be under her control.

Abortion kills an innocent human being who is distinct from his mother. A mother has
no more right to kill her unborn child than she does her born child. AFTER ALL, IT'S HER CHILD when it is out, right?


From the moment of
conception, the mother carries in her body a genetically unique human being.

The mother cannot morally take even her own life, much less her baby’s.



Think about it: does a father have
the right to kill his child just because he lives in his father’s house? Of course not. Neither does
a mother have a right to kill her baby just because he lives in his mother’s womb. Abortion is
wrong. As Abraham Lincoln reminded Stephen Douglas in a debate about slavery: We never
have the right to do wrong

She has the freedom to give the baby life and place it for adoption. After all, so many women are infertile like my sister who wish to raise kids in a healthy and happy environment. I'm so tired of that 'freedom' argument.

If the woman willfully became pregnant (not by rape), she has so many options today to prevent an unwanted pregnancy---Plan B,contraceptives, abstinence, etc.

that's it! you have shown you actually have complete contempt for women. they are just fucking breeding machines to you. you have no real knowledge of the failure of birth control, how hard it is to even get it in some areas and for some women.

did you ever think that if your sister was "supposed" to raise kids, she'd be able to get pregnant, instead of trying to force other women to breed for her? your attitude is disgusting.

whether the mother commits an abortion in her womb, or dumps her baby in the trash after she squats it out. Killing is killing!


Continue supporting unethical treatment of humans while walking around talking about "Save the crabs". LOL

I'm out. I made my points clear enough.

so you must not eat anything then, right? no animals are killed so you can eat them, no plants are killed so you can eat them.

"I am finished with my argument." You don't have an argument, you have talking points.

you don't like people telling you your argument is stupid, but you don't mind calling us shrills who come at you with venom, that we are over-sensitive, we are thick-headed (but you're not stupid!)

"Now you want to jump on me because I probably hit deep into you," Think a lot of yourself don't you? Like we've never heard your silly talking points before around here :rofl:

"I made clear and concise points on the cons of abortion." wrong again.

people who disagree with you are low-minded, but you don't get nasty, you are civil!

"One girl started cussing at me" oh boo fucking hoo for you. if that makes you mad, think how you'd feel if someone considered you no more important than a damn fertilized egg...

your posts are a real laugh riot. keep posting, i need some amusement!

Given your sig line, that you put much more faith -- and I mean that quite literally -- in your "God" than in the secular courts, the research laboratories, the schools, even the doctors' offices.

That means your arguments are biased, and we know which direction they are biased.

You are saying that your definition is the only definition and that it should become the law of the land. In other words, your "God's" word should become the law of the land.

but your "god" is not mine.

Understand that even under a theocracy, not everyone agrees. Should your version of the law be enacted, what will happen when the word of God as heard by the judge doesn't agree with the word of God as heard by you? What about all those who have killed their living children because they heard the word of God tell them to do so?

What about Pastor Anderson here in Arizona who says God tells him all the gays should be killed, all the sodomites and queers? Who's to say he doesn't hear the same God you do? Who's to say you're not hearing the wrong god or a false god or someone who just does a really good impersonation inside your head?

If I hadn't read your sig line, I wouldn't have made these comments.


Tansy Gold, who's not going to make the other comment

:puke:

I've seen it here before.

happens. If the fetus cannot live outside the womb yet then it is not a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" now is it?


JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!!!!!!

The age of viability is dependent on the advancement of science in the medical community. What it was 20 years ago is not the same as it is now. So what happens in another 10 or 20 years when this number starts to become negligible (test-tube baby). I am an atheist and I believe life begins at conception, fwiw.

We can keep grandma alive LONG after she should have died too. Modern medicine does not take the place of nature. I base the standard of a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" to be when it can survive on its own outside the womb.

And in 10 or 20 years, if we are creating babies in test tubes and growing them outside of a womans body, well thats a whole other subject, now isnt it? We are talking about a woman right to choose what to do with her body, nothing more.

The context of the discussion is in the debate of the genesis of life. You say it is that point in time when it exists wholly outside of the womb and I am saying that that is dependent on science. Surely the meaning of life cannot, must not, be dependent on science. Look, I think the judge is a crackpot and I am "pro-choice" as well as I am "pro-life." But I am tired of the feel-good arguments for being pro-choice it's time we accept the ethical ramifications of abortion. It is the destruction of life and no amount of circular logic is going to change that.

I thought the conservatives didn't want government involved in healthcare? I'm confused :eyes:

is the world history of abortion.

As long as history has been recorded women have found ways to abort their pregnancies. Whether it's right or wrong this is what history documents.

Women from early generations 50s, 60, 70s can share their horror tales of friends dying in back allys from coat hangers and other dangerous methods.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm

Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt,

Here are some of the ancient methods to induce abortions.....
<snip>
Other measures to induce abortions have included iron sulfates and chlorides, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds and even crushed ants. Probably the herbs most commonly mentioned were tansy and pennyroyal. We know that tansy was used from at least the Middle Ages. One of the most brutal methods was practiced in the Orient in ancient times by violently kneading or beating the abdomen to cause abortion, a procedure with great peril to the woman who used it. Even in the 20th century, women were still trying Hippocrates’ jumping up and down method, likely with as little success as their ancient sisters
<snip>

If abortion were to be made illegal today in the US thousands of women will die needlessly. For what? To appease Americans who would never have the procedure? So don't have it. It is not your right to tell other Americans what to do with their bodies.