South Dakota set to Limit most Abortions

[Johnny Canuck3]

explain please, what I get from that statement is a big blue contradiction.

I think what he's saying is that it's possible to be anti abortion, but still be opposed to the murder of abortion doctors.

 

[snadge]

I think what he's saying is that it's possible to be anti abortion, but still be opposed to the murder of abortion doctors.

fair enough but stil it's a contradictory statement at the best.

As though RY has covered his bases as your side of the pond says.

 

[London_Calling]

Hang on, even if South Dakota pursued this legislation wouldn't South Dakotans wanting an abortion simply head over to the far more liberal Minnesota?

Presume so. It might work like the Irish EasyJet culture of a day trip to London for a quick termination. How many dead Irish foetuses did the NHS stack up last year, about 30,000 ?

 

[rogue yam]

I think what he's saying is that it's possible to be anti abortion, but still be opposed to the murder of abortion doctors.

I'm not merely saying it's possible. Rather I'm saying that it is commonplace; almost without exception in fact. Futher I'm saying that everyone knows this and that those who state or imply otherwise are liars. Clear now?

 

[snadge]

I'm not merely saying it's possible. Rather I'm saying that it is commonplace; almost without exception in fact. Futher I'm saying that everyone knows this and that those who state or imply otherwise are liars. Clear now?

so the newsreels we see of abortion clinics getting picketted are an illusion?

the reports of death threats against the workers are hearsay?

the very real deaths of doctors and nurses that work at these places are just a figment of peoples fertive imaginations?


I'll stick with my initial analysis of the situation thank you.

and your blind agenda is obvious RY.

 

[London_Calling]

Isn't Mr Yam just saying he believes in acting within the law, even though he doesn't agree with current legislation.

Obviously others on the more radicalised fringes believe in more radical behaviour.

Not that complicated to grasp, is it?

 

[Julie]

He's not considered pregnancies that have occured as the result of rape either. What about children that have been conceived in this way? What will happen when they find out how they came into this world? It'll screw their heads up for sure.

Absolutely.

 

[Barking_Mad]

To suggest, as you do, that "pro-lifers", generally speaking, are not resolutely opposed to attacks on abortionists is profoundly dishonest.

Ohh what's up Yammy? Dont tell me, the only time labels are to be used sweepingly is by you and George Bush, right?

I didn't mean to suggest all pro-lifers agree with shooting doctors that is of course plain wrong, I should have used the word "some pro-lifers". It was a genuine error.

anyhow, you'd know all about being profoundly dishonest, you're the past master at it.

 

[slaar]

He's not considered pregnancies that have occured as the result of rape either. What about children that have been conceived in this way? What will happen when they find out how they came into this world? It'll screw their heads up for sure.

They could well however prefer that to never having been born. Others can't presume to make that juudgement on their part. They can always be given for adoption if the mother doesn't feel she wants the child.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How about at seven months?

Do you know the procedure used for a late-term abortion?

Yes Johnny, I'm well aware of the surgical techniques used to perform third-trimester abortions (which incidentally, seeing as you haven't mentioned it, comprise a very small percentage of abortions carried out).

What point are you struggling to make, if any?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, but we're talking about the terminology. I'd say a late term abortion becomes something more akin to an induced stillbirth, as opposed to what happens in first trimester abortions.

And if you'd read the thread thoroughly (did you do that?) you'd have noticed that I mentioned the different techniques used at different stages in an earlier post.

Abortion is abortion, look it up in a medical dictionary. Whatever technique is used it's all classified as "abortion".

 

[ViolentPanda]

They could well however prefer that to never having been born. Others can't presume to make that juudgement on their part. They can always be given for adoption if the mother doesn't feel she wants the child.

Sorry mate, but implying that a foetus has the ability to exercise choice is daft, as is expecting a pregnant woman to pyschologically (and possibly physically) damage herself carrying an unwanted child to term.

If life were that simple don't you think that the tens of millions of women who have died down the centuries from attempting abortion would have taken the adoption option?

You're attempting to impose a singular moral vision on a situation that has never ever been simple enough to be viewed that simplistically.

 

[nino_savatte]

To suggest, as you do, that "pro-lifers", generally speaking, are not resolutely opposed to attacks on abortionists is profoundly dishonest.

So if they aren't "opposed to attacks" then they approve of them - is this correct? Or is your syntax fucked?

 

[toggle]

No, but we're talking about the terminology. I'd say a late term abortion becomes something more akin to an induced stillbirth, as opposed to what happens in first trimester abortions.

I don't.

 

[In Bloom]

So if they aren't "opposed to attacks" then they approve of them - is this correct? Or is your syntax fucked?

I think what he is saying is that anybody who claimed that anti-abortionists are in favour of attacks on doctors would be being dishonest. Dunno why he felt the need to say "not opposed to" instead of "in favour of," but it's not really that badly written, in all fairness.

 

[nino_savatte]

They could well however prefer that to never having been born. Others can't presume to make that juudgement on their part. They can always be given for adoption if the mother doesn't feel she wants the child.

See VP's post. It is unreasonable to force someone to carry an unwanted foetus to full term. It's comparable to an additional trauma on top of the one already experienced by the woman.; it is a permanent reminder of rape. In fact, you could describe it as a sentence that is being served by the victim, whose assailant has been locked away - for the time being.

I often find that the most vociferous anti-abortionists are men. I think this is an indication of how corrosive and twisted patriarchal society is...not that we need a reminder.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think what he is saying is that anybody who claimed that anti-abortionists are in favour of attacks on doctors would be being dishonest. Dunno why he felt the need to say "not opposed to" instead of "in favour of," but it's not really that badly written, in all fairness.

Well he didn't make himsellf terribly clear in that case.

 

[Streathamite]

To suggest, as you do, that "pro-lifers", generally speaking, are not resolutely opposed to attacks on abortionists is profoundly dishonest.

erm...but he isn't saying that. not at all. read it again. and how general is 'general'? 51%? 65%? 90%? well, how many?

 

[In Bloom]

erm...but he isn't saying that. read it again.

That's what I got from it anyway. Guess we'll just have to wait for him to slither back over and tell us

 

[Streathamite]

Being against the murder of unborn children is extream?

What a strange commie reality you live in.

Your own laws are far more restrictive than ours, were partial birth abortion is legal.

So by your diffinition, your own laws are extream then.

so, you little nazi, you don't think a women should control her own body?
and if it's 'unborn', it ain't a child. not at 24 weeks
dickhead.

 

[zoltan]

Being against the murder of unborn children is extream?

What a strange commie reality you live in.

Your own laws are far more restrictive than ours, were partial birth abortion is legal.

So by your diffinition, your own laws are extream then.

Am I allowed to called you a fuckin retard or is that rude ?

 

[slaar]

Panda - I am supposing no such thing. Nino said that a child could be scarred by the knowledge that his life was the result of a rape, assuming therefore that they had been born and grown up enough to think about it. I argued they might prefer that to never having been alive. I don't see how this concerns foetuses.

Nino - I wasn't debating from the POV of the mother. I agree that the rights of the mother should also be very strongly considered. But that's a separate question if, hypothetically, the child has become concious and been told about his origins.

You can't argue for abortion because the nascent foetus has few rights relative to the mother, on the grounds that later it might or might not wish to have been born as a result of a rape. You're conflating the two and it's not valid to do so.

 

[nino_savatte]

Panda - I am supposing no such thing. Nino said that a child could be scarred by the knowledge that his life was the result of a rape, assuming therefore that they had been born and grown up enough to think about it. I argued they might prefer that to never having been alive. I don't see how this concerns foetuses.

Nino - I wasn't debating from the POV of the mother. I agree that the rights of the mother should also be very strongly considered. But that's a separate question if, hypothetically, the child has become concious and been told about his origins.

You can't argue for abortion because the nascent foetus has few rights relative to the mother, on the grounds that later it might or might not wish to have been born as a result of a rape. You're conflating the two and it's not valid to do so.

Children ask questions, slaar...they always do and they will always want to know "where they come from". How should that question be broached, in your view?

 

[snadge]

Isn't Mr Yam just saying he believes in acting within the law, even though he doesn't agree with current legislation.

Obviously others on the more radicalised fringes believe in more radical behaviour.

Not that complicated to grasp, is it?

not from the statement I was questioning which was wooly to say the least

To suggest, as you do, that "pro-lifers", generally speaking, are not resolutely opposed to attacks on abortionists is profoundly dishonest.

followed by

I'm not merely saying it's possible. Rather I'm saying that it is commonplace; almost without exception in fact . Futher I'm saying that everyone knows this and that those who state or imply otherwise are liars. Clear now?

my emphasis

so what I get from that is in his brand of anti abortion rhetoric no one breaks the law, so the zealots don't exist and people that bring that distasteful argument into it are liars.

 

[slaar]

Children ask questions, slaar...they always do and they will always want to know "where they come from". How should that question be broached, in your view?

With honesty, but not brutal honesty. People should absolutely know where they come from as and when they want to know. If this is referring to my bit about adoption, that was more for the mother's benefit than the child's.

 

[nino_savatte]

With honesty, but not brutal honesty. People should absolutely know where they come from as and when they want to know. If this is referring to my bit about adoption, that was more for the mother's benefit than the child's.

Fair enough but any child will want to know where they come from, even if they are adopted. I think anyone, if they were told that were brought into the world as a result of a rape, may have an awful lot to deal with psychologically. It would be unfair on any child too.

 

[slaar]

More unfair than not allowing them to make that choice (again, only the child's POV here)? Plenty of people deal with things a good deal worse than having been born of a rapem(being raped themselves for example), and come out stronger and healthier individuals. I don't see this as a reason against abortion, whereas psychological and physical effects on a mother is.

 

[nino_savatte]

More unfair than not allowing them to make that choice (again, only the child's POV here)? Plenty of people deal with things a good deal worse than having been born of a rapem(being raped themselves for example), and come out stronger and healthier individuals. I don't see this as a reason against abortion, whereas psychological and physical effects on a mother is.

I think you're deliberately misreading me, slaar. I am presenting all sides of the argument against this law. But no one has ever dared mention what might happen to a child produced as the result of rape. Why do you think that is?

The "pro-lifers" are fond of telling us how they are thinking of "the unborn child" but they tend not to think beyond the clump of cells that they reckon is some sort a being.

 

[spring-peeper]

<snip>
The "pro-lifers" are fond of telling us how they are thinking of "the unborn child" but they tend not to think beyond the clump of cells that they reckon is some sort a being.

I've often wondered - each time a woman's egg goes unfertilized, is that denying a child the right to life?

 

[zoltan]

I've often wondered - each time a woman's egg goes unfertilized, is that denying a child the right to life?

Yup, and having a wank is spilling your seed on barren ground as well.