Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
South Dakota to ban abortions?; ...the perfect law.
Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 07:56 AM (4,190 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
sue
Jan 23 2006, 03:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her kids sent out to foster homes. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

In all honesty, if I had to choose between my wife and unborn child, I'd decide for my wife every time, unless she'd very explicitly told me otherwise. Even then I'd have to struggle very hard to come down on the side of the unborn, and I'm not sure I could do so.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 23 2006, 12:35 PM
There is another view and one that has more than passing credibility and precedent in our common tradition.

That is, while we may not deliberately harm a fetus, when its life comes into direct conflict with an already born person, the autonomous person's life (i.e. the pregnant mother) takes precedence. This is applicable if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered a third party pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Despite the classification of the fetus as a persuer, once the baby's head has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.

This makes sense to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

musicasacra,Jan 23 2006
02:43 PM
Mark,Jan 23 2006
11:36 AM
Would you be willing to die to carry a baby to term?

if it came down to my life or the baby's, i would choose the baby's. i would not abort. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made the same decision.

When I was 8, my mom was pregnant with my younger brother. He had developmental problems, and almost every doctor said she should have an abortion because labor could risk her life. My dad said the decision was hers, she went through with having the baby, she survived, and the baby died a few seconds after birth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Opt,

Quote:
 
However, I cannot see trying to convince a mother who does not believe in God that she must risk her life because it what He thinks is best. What if she has other children at home? I doubt that she would see dying and leaving behind a family for her husband to take care of as "what is best."


I see what you're saying, and I think most pro-lifers around here including me support the right to an abortion if it threatens the mothers life. Hence laws coming out criminalizing abortions except to save the life of the mother. Would you hold that position?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key,Jan 23 2006
02:06 PM
musicasacra,Jan 23 2006
02:43 PM
Mark,Jan 23 2006
11:36 AM
Would you be willing to die to carry a baby to term?

if it came down to my life or the baby's, i would choose the baby's. i would not abort. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made the same decision.

When I was 8, my mom was pregnant with my younger brother. He had developmental problems, and almost every doctor said she should have an abortion because labor could risk her life. My dad said the decision was hers, she went through with having the baby, she survived, and the baby died a few seconds after birth.

H

that was very courageous of your mom.

the St. Gianna Beretta Molla -- a physician -- i mentioned before was a mother of three when she chose to protect her unborn baby.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Optimistic
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jan 23 2006, 04:08 PM
Opt,

Quote:
 
However, I cannot see trying to convince a mother who does not believe in God that she must risk her life because it what He thinks is best. What if she has other children at home? I doubt that she would see dying and leaving behind a family for her husband to take care of as "what is best."


I see what you're saying, and I think most pro-lifers around here including me support the right to an abortion if it threatens the mothers life. Hence laws coming out criminalizing abortions except to save the life of the mother. Would you hold that position?

Yes. I was just trying to point out that, although I personally would not abort were my life at risk, I can't see forcing that same rationale on a non-believer. I myself am absolutely against abortion. For society, not as much.
PHOTOS

I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up.
- Mark Twain


We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
-T. S. Eliot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I can definitely see what you mean, however are you in favor of making abortions legal ONLY when the life of the mother is in danger?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The left has gone completely overboard on the abortion issue and it is comming back to haunt them big time.


Personally, I think you are hallucinating. A law passed in one of the least populous states in the nation is hardly having the abortion issue coming back to haunt the left big-time.

Every national poll ... every single one ... shows a very substantial majority of the American public in favor of a woman's right to an abortion, at least in the first trimester. You can argue around the edges ... whether kids should be able to get abortion without parental consent, whether married women should have to notify their spouses ... but the bottom line is that, for a single, adult woman in the first trimester, most of the American public believes that she should be allowed to make that choice. That's not a majority in every state, but it's a very clear majority nationwide.

This is one issue where the left is in the majority. Deal with it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?

What about the responsiblility, and love, of the three kids? Is that so unimportant to you? Why bring another child into the world when you've left three heartbroken children motherless?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.


Well, I listed those as choices for the unborn child, not really for the existing children.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I guess they must be gearing up for appeals, then, because it is against federal law to ban abortions prior to the 3rd trimester. Or, maybe they're banking on Roberts and Ailito tipping the scales on Roe v. Wade. In any event, sounds like SD has some overly eager beavers in their legislature - nothing like thumbing one's nose at the law of the land.

You know, even if Roberts and Ailito turn out to be the swing votes in this direction, I say, bring 'em on. All it will take are a few states to outlaw abortion, altogether, and you're going to see a massive rally toward abortion rights. I guarantee it, considering that over two-thirds of Americans favor abortion rights.

And MS, I've seen the stats in your state. It's not nearly as overwhelming as your suggest. If memory serves, the pro-life/pro-choice ratio, although low on the pro-choice end than the national average, was very near 50/50.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:17 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?

What about the responsiblility, and love, of the three kids? Is that so unimportant to you? Why bring another child into the world when you've left three heartbroken children motherless?

Why kill the fourth?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
kathyk
Jan 23 2006, 02:29 PM
I guess they must be gearing up for appeals, then, because it is against federal law to ban abortions prior to the 3rd trimester. Or, maybe they're banking on Roberts and Ailito tipping the scales on Roe v. Wade. In any event, sounds like SD has some overly eager beavers in their legislature - nothing like thumbing one's nose at the law of the land.

You know, even if Roberts and Ailito turn out to be the swing votes in this direction, I say, bring 'em on. All it will take are a few states to outlaw abortion, altogether, and you're going to see a massive rally toward abortion rights. I guarantee it, considering that over two-thirds of Americans favor abortion rights.

And MS, I've seen the stats in your state. It's not nearly as overwhelming as your suggest. If memory serves, the pro-life/pro-choice ratio, although low on the pro-choice end than the national average, was very near 50/50.

Stats don't always tell the truth.

SD is not a big state, population wise. Much like Wyoming.

When Cheney was Wyoming's lone congressman, it was said people routinely approached him on the street, calling him by his first name. In a small state, people pretty much know where you stand.

And while the vote may be closer than some think, I'll bet on the native....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:34 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:17 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?

What about the responsiblility, and love, of the three kids? Is that so unimportant to you? Why bring another child into the world when you've left three heartbroken children motherless?

Why kill the fourth?

Because the three children you've already brought into the world deserve the best you can do for them. And I don't think dying when you have a choice, is the best you can do. If you bring kids into the world, you are responsible for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Optimistic
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jan 23 2006, 04:18 PM
I can definitely see what you mean, however are you in favor of making abortions legal ONLY when the life of the mother is in danger?

Well, this is where the whole "not being sure of which camp I fall into" issue comes up. I know what my personal choice would be, but I struggle with how much these beliefs should be forced on the rest of society.
PHOTOS

I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up.
- Mark Twain


We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
-T. S. Eliot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:47 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:34 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:17 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?

What about the responsiblility, and love, of the three kids? Is that so unimportant to you? Why bring another child into the world when you've left three heartbroken children motherless?

Why kill the fourth?

Because the three children you've already brought into the world deserve the best you can do for them. And I don't think dying when you have a choice, is the best you can do. If you bring kids into the world, you are responsible for them.

And if you are pregnant with the next one, you are responsible for that one, also.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
AC said...

Quote:
 
There is another view and one that has more than passing credibility and precedent in our common tradition.

That is, while we may not deliberately harm a fetus, when its life comes into direct conflict with an already born person, the autonomous person's life (i.e. the pregnant mother) takes precedence. This is applicable if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered a third party pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Despite the classification of the fetus as a persuer, once the baby's head has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.


what a brilliant and novel idea.

i wonder where it came from, who would have thought it?

i wonder what tradition could have been so....unique in its understanding.

in other words, things are not always black and white. life or death. there can be shades of grey...amazingly refreshing idea. must be some new age thinker....





"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:48 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:47 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:34 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 02:17 PM
Jolly
Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
sue
Jan 23 2006, 12:56 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 23 2006, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I would think this is not a black or white decision. What if you already had 3 kids, your husband had recently died, you had no relatives around to look after your existing kids....would you still make the same decision?


Well, there's always the adoption agency, foster families, etc...

I find it hard to imagine any mother making a wilful choice to have her existing kids sent out to foster homes for the sake of an unborn child. How about looking after the ones you've already got? Could you really do this to your own kids? I can't imagine it.

I don't even has to ask her. My wife would lay it on the line in a heartbeat.

See, that bunch of cells bouncing around your uterus is your child, just the same as the eight-year old sitting at the kitchen table.

It would be the same decision as picking up a baseball bat, and killing the youngest children in time of famine...it achieves the desired result, but at what cost to the soul?

What about the responsiblility, and love, of the three kids? Is that so unimportant to you? Why bring another child into the world when you've left three heartbroken children motherless?

Why kill the fourth?

Because the three children you've already brought into the world deserve the best you can do for them. And I don't think dying when you have a choice, is the best you can do. If you bring kids into the world, you are responsible for them.

And if you are pregnant with the next one, you are responsible for that one, also.

I see it as a choice, Jolly. Not an easy one, but one that would have to be made. My responsibility would be to the ones I've already brought into the world. I could not willingly leave my kids motherless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Jan 23 2006, 03:29 PM
And MS, I've seen the stats in your state. It's not nearly as overwhelming as your suggest. If memory serves, the pro-life/pro-choice ratio, although low on the pro-choice end than the national average, was very near 50/50.

well that depends on the poll and the way the questions are asked, doesn't it. i used to work in politics are know all about poll spinning.

if it's 50/50, then why is there only one abortion clinic in the entire state, staffed by doctors who are flown in from out of state?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Sincere question. If S.D. has a law prohibiting abortions can a resident still leave the state and have one performed elsewhere then return without the possibility of prosecution?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
bachophile
Jan 23 2006, 02:51 PM
i wonder where it came from, who would have thought it?

i wonder what tradition could have been so....unique in its understanding.

in other words, things are not always black and white. life or death. there can be shades of grey...amazingly refreshing idea. must be some new age thinker....

I forget the source. But it seemed highly credible. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 23 2006, 04:02 PM
Sincere question. If S.D. has a law prohibiting abortions can a resident still leave the state and have one performed elsewhere then return without the possibility of prosecution?

i don't believe that's part of the bill being proposed.

i think the point is to make south dakota a pro-life state. the way south dakotans deal with something that is not accepted by communities is to quietly work at legislation to address it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I forget the source. But it seemed highly credible


well, if u need translations from the hebrew, ill let u know.

as for your question, i heard canada will extradite all S.D. felons.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
musicasacra
 
i think the point is to make south dakota a pro-life state.  the way south dakotans deal with something that is not accepted by communities is to quietly work at legislation to address it.


I see. Kinda like muncipalities and communities declaring their area a nuclear free zone back in 70's and 80's.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply