South Dakota moves to llegalize murdering Abortion doctors.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Phototoxin wrote:
No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.

Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.

Go and read the deliberations of the parliament of the United Kingdom on this topic, and when you have done so, you will be significantly enlightened.

**Gibbsey**

Here's a question, is it right to let a mother die from complications when the fetus isn't developed yet?

Fetus is going to die either way and honestly i don't think the anti-abortion protesters outside care about that, to them the doctor is simply a baby killer.

**Frazzled**

Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

**biccat**

Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.

Glad to see the "I disagree with someone so they're an idiot" rationale is still around.

FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)

On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.

**yeenoghu**

Crossing the street to get to the abortion clinic.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

When would what happen?

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

When would what happen?

The mother's life be in danger?

**Gibbsey**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

When would what happen?

The mother's life be in danger?

If the mother is too young there can be complications, also other life threatening complications can happen

And then there are complications unrelated to the pregnancy but cannon be treated without killing the fetus or while the mother is pregnant

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

When would what happen?

The mother's life be in danger?

From what? I've lost track of the chain of thought.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?

When would what happen?

The mother's life be in danger?

From what? I've lost track of the chain of thought.

So have I. Frankly copying the Gilligan's Island lyrics onto the DCM forum has made me slightly dizzy. I may have to go lay down, or even worse, get some work done.

**Phototoxin**

Go and read the deliberations of the parliament of the United Kingdom on this topic, and when you have done so, you will be significantly enlightened.

What how it was illegal only 42 years ago? How its still illegal in Northern Ireland? I'm not going to re-read a whole act to make you happy so just make your points rather than try to get me to waste my time.

Besides I don't see how governmental policies determine if something is morally right. Slavery was legal - it didn't make it right.
If the BNP get in power and make it legal to grind up all the Polish for food it wont make it right!

**Kilkrazy**

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

My point is that this whole issue has been examined in great depth by society as a whole, and interest groups such as the churches. Scientists and ethicists have given advice. Everything has been considered, debated, put through committee stage, gone to the House of Lords, come back and gone through committee stage again, and finally a decision has been reached.

Which you disagree with, but you can't be bothered to inform you self about how and why that decision was taken, and you prefer ignore the points made that refute your own arguments.

Go and live in Eire if you like unwanted pregnancies so much.

**Manchu**

biccat wrote:On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.

That was a great line and I think we should cleave to its spirit.

**Mr Meatballs**

Guys. I checked. This is against the constitution. they can't pass it. even if they wanted too.
Heh stupid rednecks.

**Ahtman**

biccat wrote:FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)

On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.

Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion. I'm also not sure where you get that infanticide is ok or that Biden and Kucinich have been off limits to criticism.

**Ribon Fox**

I bring forth Bill Hicks, the man speeks the truth

(note* NFWS)

**mattyrm**

Good old Bill.. he was more appreciated here than in the US apprently, did you know they tabled a motion in parliament about him?

From wikipedia..

On February 25, 2004, British MP Stephen Pound tabled an early day motion titled "Anniversary of the Death of Bill Hicks" the text of which was as follows:

“ That this House notes with sadness the 10th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks, on 26th February 1994, at the age of 33; recalls his assertion that his words would be a bullet in the heart of consumerism, capitalism and the American Dream; and mourns the passing of one of the few people who may be mentioned as being worthy of inclusion with Lenny Bruce in any list of unflinching and painfully honest political philosophers.”

Mr Pound MP went on to recite Bill's famous "It's just a ride" speech.

I think thats cool. He was a funny guy, I loved his rage!

**Frazzled**

Wow a comedian making fun of middle America, there's something new!

**mattyrm**

Frazzled wrote:Wow a comedian making fun of middle America, there's something new!

I didnt say it was new mate, he was funny though.

He died in 1994 i think.

**Frazzled**

Wake me when you have a comedian making fun of New York.

**frgsinwntr**

mattyrm wrote:

Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.

Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.

What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?

Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.

Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.

And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?

I actually think she answered these questions well. I disagree with her personal feelings on abortion. BUT... by no means are her answers in this video bad...
she said "no it shouldn't be illegal"
She said "yes evolution SHOULD be exclusivly taught"

Now... some of the other crap she says may be bad, but this video really isn't

**Manchu**

lol wrong thread

**Phototoxin**

Kilkrazy wrote:There's none so blind as those who will not see.

My point is that this whole issue has been examined in great depth by society as a whole, and interest groups such as the churches. Scientists and ethicists have given advice. Everything has been considered, debated, put through committee stage, gone to the House of Lords, come back and gone through committee stage again, and finally a decision has been reached.

Which you disagree with, but you can't be bothered to inform you self about how and why that decision was taken, and you prefer ignore the points made that refute your own arguments.

Go and live in Eire if you like unwanted pregnancies so much.

I'm sure that all of these things were 'considered' before the oppression of quakers, the holding of slaves and everything else. Legally permissable =/= morally right.

Additionally Abortion is contrary to the medical ethics in the Hippocratic oath, both in its original version (derived from ancient Greece) and modern reformulations such as the World Medical Association's 1948 Declaration of Geneva which states: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception."

Yet 20 years later it's ok to kill babies?

I have read that act before so your blindness comment is irrelevant. Additionally many of the guidelines in the law are flouted - the whole double reference thing doesn't happen. 'Oh you're suicidal *wink wink*' and if the doctor is opposed to it on personal CO grounds then they are legally obliged to refer on to a doctor who will advocate the abortion.

Additionally most reasons cited are socio-economic ones. These clearly aren't going to cause 'injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children in her family'..

Cheers for the racism and what I presume to be some sort of poorly veiled anti-Catholic snipe. (FYI being Irish I have the right of freedom of passage to travel live and work in the UK, maybe you should check up on those laws.) Which would be funny if I was a Roman Catholic.

**Ahtman**

Yet 20 years later it's ok to kill babies?

By your definiton of baby, yep, it sure is. There are all sorts of wonderful theocracies and monarchies in the world that control women and tell others how to live their lives and you have the freedom to choose to go live in those places if that is the kind of thing you want so badly. If you want a touch of liberty and a bit of freedom, well, your sometimes going to have to also live with the fact that everything you want you won't get. It's part of the price you pay for being free, well off, and alive all at the same time.

If it makes you feel any better I find your stance just as morally repugnant as you feel toward those who believe that a female should have the option to choose. So yes, legal and moral aren't the same thing, but that also doesn't mean that something that isn't legal is wrong either. Most would agree that armed robbery is wrong and it is also happens to be illegal.

Unless you spent a good deal of time studying medical ethics you probably shouldn't try and use that as an argument becuase all most of the arguments you've been "nuh-uh"ing come from medical ethics.

**Phototoxin**

Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)

It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.

A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.

**Corpsesarefun**

Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)

It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.

A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.

You don't choose to become pregnant? So all impregnation is totally without the mother consent?

**biccat**

Ahtman wrote:
biccat wrote:FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)

On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.

Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion. I'm also not sure where you get that infanticide is ok or that Biden and Kucinich have been off limits to criticism.

First, I never said that they were the same thing. There are some people who are pro-choice (e.g. the 42nd president) and there are some who are pro-abortion (e.g. some feminists, and some who are posting in this thread).

Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.

Third, a statement was made that a poster was wrong for agreeing with Sarah Palin on the abortion issue. I asked why this was so, and was told that she is such an idiot that (presumably) anyone who agrees with her on anything is wrong.

In contrast, I pointed out that Kucinich and Biden are both idiots, yet those who agree with their positions (note that Kucinich is pro-infanticide, believing that life begins at conception, but that taking of that life to prevent unwanted pregnancies is allowable) are not similarly derided.

I can accept that some people believe that life begins at birth/some discreet point, and that they would allow abortions to that point. I cannot accept that some people would acknowledge life begins and would still allow abortions after that point. That is morally reprehensible.

**Phototoxin**

corpsesarefun wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)

It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.

A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.

You don't choose to become pregnant? So all impregnation is totally without the mother consent?

No you can 'try' to become pregnant, you can have artificial/assistive reproductive methods used or you could be raped. Pregnancy may occur. But a woman doesn't wake up and say 'I choose to become pregnant *grits teeth* *ding* There!'
Choices can be made (with the first two) or can be forced (with rape) but pregnancy is the result of the action. Nonetheless the child's life is now in the care of the mother and shouldn't be killed because it is 'unwanted'. Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.

**youbedead**

biccat wrote:

Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.

Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality

**Emperors Faithful**

youbedead wrote:
biccat wrote:

Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.

Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality

I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.

I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.

In other news, Little Britain gets a Baby.