South Dakota Abortion Ban Signed Into Law

CptStern said:
glirk please stop ..you cant compare a lump of cells to a living breathing human being ...most abortions are performed within the first 4-6 weeks when the baby is 1/5 of an inch long ..or about the size of a grain of rice ..if you can successfully argue that that is a human being when scientists, theologians havent been able to determine that then I will make a complete about face.

again Glirk I ask you ..and I want a straight answer:

should the state have the right to force you to keep your child alive to full term even though there is 100% certainty that it will die at birth or that it is so severly handicapped that each living breathing day will be a struggle full of pain and misery? I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy
Click to expand...

Nope, the state should not. That is one of the exceptions IMO. If the mother and baby are in perfect health then they should carry that baby. There are ways to not get pregnant...IE pills and condoms and day after pill if owrried. That combination works pretty dang well.

Also...find a way to fix the long waiting lists for adoption and then I could care less about abortions. Just doesn't seem right to me to be careless and end that babies life when there are people out there that wish they could have a child.
 
Glirk Dient said:
Nope, the state should not. That is one of the exceptions IMO. If the mother and baby are in perfect health then they should carry that baby. There are ways to not get pregnant...IE pills and condoms and day after pill if owrried. That combination works pretty dang well.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about planned pregnancy and the mother is rarely at risk. so please answer again
 
Glirk Dient said:
So now the choice to murder babies is up to women because it is their baby thats being murdered? Does that mean I can have my family eliminated because it is my family and therefor my choice?
Click to expand...
If they still 1-6 weeks into prelife, then YES!!!
 
yes, you do know with 100% certainty that the baby will not survive, why else would the doctors say "he has no chance of survival" .. yet you're willing to let the baby/family endure that excrutiating pain just so you can fulfill YOUR moral ethics ... that attitude sickens me. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY FAMILY
 
CptStern said:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY FAMILY
Click to expand...

hehe, although i agree with your point Stern, you cant slay your wife or kid and use that quote in court :p j/k
 
...hmmm I never thought of using that in court ..I wonder if it's retroactive?

"YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME NOT TO CHOP MY FAMILY UP INTO TINY BITS" - Lizzy Borden
 
I approve of chopping family members into little bits.

Come on, it's the only thing we got left that keeps us feeling human in this fast-paced hectic society.
 
CptStern said:
what Angry Lawyer said



Angry Lawyer: is there some way I can donate to this scalar wave sterilizer? where do I send the cheque? ...oh and will you be making one that can zap bigger areas? like south of the Mason-dixon line? ;)
Click to expand...
:O *Wraps testicles in tinfoil*


Tater Bonanza said:
wanking off in a napkin and the like is not preventing a life from starting, because if left alone your jizz won't magically crawl up some chick's leg and into her ovaries.
Click to expand...

Maybe yours wouldn't :naughty:
 
Doesn't that make wanking really immorral, for the same reasons?

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...
No...without the egg there is no potential of life...
Click to expand...
Without the mother's womb, there is no potential for life either.

Lawyer's point stands!

When the state has control over reproduction, it creates a state of "breeders": Women who are forced, unwillingly, to carry a child for strangers (in this case, the state officials passing and enforcing this law.)
 
Birth the babies and feed them to the poor! Two problems solved at once!

-Angry Lawyer
 
CptStern said:
glirk please stop ..you cant compare a lump of cells to a living breathing human being ...most abortions are performed within the first 4-6 weeks when the baby is 1/5 of an inch long ..or about the size of a grain of rice ..if you can successfully argue that that is a human being when scientists, theologians havent been able to determine that then I will make a complete about face.

again Glirk I ask you ..and I want a straight answer:

should the state have the right to force you to keep your child alive to full term even though there is 100% certainty that it will die at birth or that it is so severly handicapped that each living breathing day will be a struggle full of pain and misery? I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy
Click to expand...

Its really comforting that you regard a developing human being as a 'lump of cells'.

Firstly, by the time the mother even knows she is pregnant, the feutus has a fully functioning nervous system. By the time your ready to proceed with the abortion, it can suck its thumb. What you have to realise, is that the only connection that 'lump of cells' has with the mother is the umbilical cord and the womb, which provides nutriets and resources to allow the feutus to grow. Save for this dependance, the feutus is a completely seperate and self developing organism.

Argueing that it's the mothers choice whether to abort or not, is an issue of whether you believe we are to submit completely to the thing or one we depend on.

The issue i would like to raise is one of value. Why can't you compare a human being to a lump of cells? I mean after all, scientifically thats what we are. Why is it, that you give one lump of cells more value over another lump of cells? Is it an issue of quantity? I mean a fetus has less cells, so maybe we should regard it as less valubable.

This issue here, is that you can't just look at it scietifically. Because if you do, we are all just a bunch of cells, with no inherint value, and that has dire consequences. If we are just lumps of cells, than what does it matter if we are masicared or raped or exploited? It doesnt matter, where just objects anyway. I mean you step on grass everyday, whats the difference between a grass and your face? If your both a bunch of cells, what difference is there between me stepping on your face and stepping on grass?

Anyway, I think ive made my point, my question to you is, what is it between a fetusus lump of cells, and your lump of cells (or a born babies bunch of cells) that makes you (the born baby) so much more valubale then it?
 
I'm a father ...I've seen the development of my son as a fetus and as a baby born 3 months before it was supposed to. I cant tell you at what point in development a lump of cells becomes a human because no one can. But the scientific and the spiritual are completely meaningless when faced with this:

"should the state have the right to force you to keep your child alive to full term even though there is 100% certainty that it will die at birth or that it is so severly handicapped that each living breathing day will be a struggle full of pain and misery?"

you cannot honestly answer that till you yourself have had to make that decision
 
I would hold that the decision resides with the handicapped baby. Why should anyone make the decision for it?

Let it live until it can decide.
 
you cant be serious


..the baby will most likely die before the end of it's first day if not during delivery. A baby with genetic problems usually have parts of their brain missing, major organs will either not function at all or will fail all together once separated from the womb. Should it survive in the first day it would have 80 - 90% chance of dying in the first week ..if it should survive that it had a 80 - 90 % chance of dying in the first month ...if it should survive that it has a 80-90% chance of dying within the first year. Those days will be spent inside an incubator where it will be monitored for the rest of it's short agonizing life. It will never know it's parents it will never see the outside world or even understand it

you really want to do that just to placate YOUR sense of morality?
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
I would hold that the decision resides with the handicapped baby. Why should anyone make the decision for it?

Let it live until it can decide.
Click to expand...
And I hold that for now on whenever construction workers are to stick dynamite in large masses of rock and dentonate it, we run the this all by the large masses of rock to see if they're okay with it or not.

Excuse me, sir, but I don't think you have thought this out fully. Do you honestly think a baby could understand all of the circumstances of life and death? But more importantly, do you think an extremely ill baby could understand? Are you nuts? Seriously. There is a reason for our eduation system. It's not all superficial stuff.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
Anyway, I think ive made my point, my question to you is, what is it between a fetusus lump of cells, and your lump of cells (or a born babies bunch of cells) that makes you (the born baby) so much more valubale then it?
Click to expand...

There is significant scientifc evidence that fetuses, and even young babies, are not "conscious." In other words, fetuses are not any more aware of their existence than pine trees.


Afferent inputs can alter the activity of neurons in the neocortical alange by 20 weeks of gestation, when thalamocortical and cholinergic afferents form synapses with the upper subplate neurons, 19 whereas noradrenergic and dopaminergic fibers start to penetrate the subplate zone by 13 weeks of gestation and reach the cortical plate by 16 weeks. 20 Thalamocortical axons penetrate the primary somatosensory cortex by 24 weeks of gestation, 21 providing the final anatomic link for the developing somatosensory system. Therefore, somatosensory evoked potentials were recorded from the sensory cortex of 25-week preterm neonates. 22 From approximately 20 weeks of gestation, electroencephalo-graphic recordings and ultrasound studies can differentiate sleep states and wakefulness, 23,24 as well as responses to touch 25 and sound. 26 Experimental paradigms investigating the prenatal acquisition of memories in the third trimester of pregnancy further support the concept of fetal consciousness. 27 To us, all these lines of evidence suggest that fetal consciousness develops from about 20-22 weeks of gestation.
Click to expand...

Source:
Fetuses, Fentanyl, and the Stress Response: Signals from the Beginnings of Pain?
Anesthesiology. 95(4):823-825, October 2001.
Anand, K. J. S. M.B.B.S., D.Phil., F.A.A.P., F.C.C.M., F.R.C.P.C.H. *; Maze, Mervyn M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.P., F.R.C.A

In addition, I would like to explain the results of not aborting a baby.

A mother who wants an abortion probably cannot support the child, or she would not take such drastic measures. If she cannot support the child, the child will grow in a negligent environment. If a child grows in a negligent environement, he is much mor elikely to become a criminal because he is not taught morals from a young age.

Observe the following graph:

http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/archive/photos/Violent Crime Rates chart 1973-2003.jpg

Let's evaluate the following:
What trends do we observe in crime rates?
When was abortion legalized?
What is the average age for the criminal.

We can obviously see chuting rates from the start of the 90s.
Abortion was legalized in 1974.
The average age of criminals is 20.

The babies that were aborted after abortion was legalized would have been 20 in 1993, when abortion rates started going down.

I think this is significat circumstancial evidence, supported by a logical theoretical statement (that an unwanted baby will be raised in negligence) to be considered.
 
CptStern said:
you cant be serious


..the baby will most likely die before the end of it's first day if not during delivery. A baby with genetic problems usually have parts of their brain missing, major organs will either not function at all or will fail all together once separated from the womb. Should it survive in the first day it would have 80 - 90% chance of dying in the first week ..if it should survive that it had a 80 - 90 % chance of dying in the first month ...if it should survive that it has a 80-90% chance of dying within the first year. Those days will be spent inside an incubator where it will be monitored for the rest of it's short agonizing life. It will never know it's parents it will never see the outside world or even understand it

you really want to do that just to placate YOUR sense of morality?
Click to expand...

well in that case I agree with you stern
 
NotATool said:
Abortion was legalized in 1774.
The average age of criminals is 20.

The babies that were aborted after abortion was legalized would have been 20 in 1993, when abortion rates started going down.
Click to expand...
I totally support abortion, and agree with you, but-

That would make them more like 220 years old. Your name is strangly ironic!

LOL. J/K.

NVM. You fixed it.
 
Stucco said:
I totally support abortion, and agree with you, but-

That would make them more like 220 years old. Your name is strangly ironic!

LOL. J/K.

NVM. You fixed it.
Click to expand...
He's talking about when abortion was legalized in 1974 with Roe v. Wade.
 
Captain M4d said:
He's talking about when abortion was legalized in 1974 with Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Yes! I am sorry for the original mistake.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
well in that case I agree with you stern
Click to expand...


well south dekota doesnt agree with you/us ..a woman would have to carry the baby to full term and deliver it only to watch it die.
 
I am not sure anyone sane agrees with forcing a woman to carry a child till the day it is born and then dies after that.
 
Captain M4d said:
He's talking about when abortion was legalized in 1974 with Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
I got that. He had made a funny typo if you look at my post- 1774. That's what I was LOLing at.

Tool- no need to apologize for the occasional typo. Just don't let it happen again!

LOL
 
NotATool said:
There is significant scientifc evidence that fetuses, and even young babies, are not "conscious." In other words, fetuses are not any more aware of their existence than pine trees.
Click to expand...

So they are no more valuable than pine trees? The issue with you is that you still are seeing this from a 'lump of cells' perpectives. Things arent just lumps of cells, or a coincidental seredipious congregation of atoms. You cant see things in that light. Because if you do, then everything becomes valueless, and the only value that matters is the one that is determined by the one in power. In hitlers case for example, jews were valuless, and this justified the genocide. You can't say what he did was wrong in a world of atoms and lumps of cells.

the view that conscious organisms are valuable and nothing else is, is one that is limited. Because as conscious organisms, we have the capacity to become aware that all things in existance have some kind of inherint value, and a place in the universe.

NotATool said:
Let's evaluate the following:
What trends do we observe in crime rates?
When was abortion legalized?
What is the average age for the criminal.

We can obviously see chuting rates from the start of the 90s.
Abortion was legalized in 1974.
The average age of criminals is 20.

The babies that were aborted after abortion was legalized would have been 20 in 1993, when abortion rates started going down.

I think this is significat circumstancial evidence, supported by a logical theoretical statement (that an unwanted baby will be raised in negligence) to be considered.
Click to expand...

The way to solve child negligence isnt abortion. You can't just kill your kid if you don't want him anymore. They're not dolls to be discarded when you've had enough. Education, and firm family ethics can play a large roll in providing environments where unwanted children are not born and born children are looked after.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
So they are no more valuable than pine trees? The issue with you is that you still are seeing this from a 'lump of cells' perpectives. Things arent just lumps of cells, or a coincidental seredipious congregation of atoms.
Click to expand...

They certainly aren't conscious human beings like youme, and the 14 million jews who perished in the holocaust. I provided significant scientific backing for that.



The way to solve child negligence isnt abortion. You can't just kill your kid if you don't want him anymore. They're not dolls to be discarded when you've had enough. Education, and firm family ethics can play a large roll in providing environments where unwanted children are not born and born children are looked after.
Click to expand...

You can't kill your kid if you don't want it, but if you can prevent his birth if you know you won't be able to support it I'm all for it.

The whole point is that parents who want an abortion know they won't be able to properly educate their children or teach them proper ethics. You can't say "they should", the point is "they aren't".
 
but we don't live in a ideal world, now do we?


South Dakota's lawmakers are teh shit, simply put. :/
 
So they are no more valuable than pine trees? The issue with you is that you still are seeing this from a 'lump of cells' perpectives. Things arent just lumps of cells, or a coincidental seredipious congregation of atoms. You cant see things in that light. Because if you do, then everything becomes valueless, and the only value that matters is the one that is determined by the one in power. In hitlers case for example, jews were valuless, and this justified the genocide. You can't say what he did was wrong in a world of atoms and lumps of cells.
Click to expand...

I'll call you out on this one - Hitler and the Jews are a horrible analogy, as the Jews undoubtably had feelings/souls/etc, which brings up one point "Pro-Life" people tend to forget - there is no scientific proof that the bunch of cells that is a prelude to a developing baby has feelings or sentience. As for the "value of a pine tree" question, the fetus has the possibilty to become a baby (albeit a rather high one), while the pine tree can't aspire any higher than to be a tall pine tree - so it's a bad analogy.

I also have to ask you and other Pro-Lifers this question :

1) Is your primary aim/goal of your movement to get the baby out of the mother in whatever condition it is in, or is it to ensure that baby has a good life after leaving the womb ?

Oh and aren't you degenerating the mother's status by taking away the choice from her ? You are turing her solely into the "carrier", a non-person who has no decision (in your opinion and perfect world) in the outcome of the baby she has created, whether by her choice or not. It amuses me to see so many "Pro-Lifers" standing high on their soap-boxes preaching to the masses about the uncaring attitude of pro-choice people while the "Pro-Life" people are stripping away the rights of the already living and feeling people they are (apparently) trying to save. The majority of Pro-Life people are, ironically, becoming the type of people they despise.
 
I know two girls who have had an abortion, and I believe it was the right choice for them.

It wasn't an easy decision for them to make, so please don't act like it's just like a split-second decision.
 
CptStern said:
you cant be serious


..the baby will most likely die before the end of it's first day if not during delivery. A baby with genetic problems usually have parts of their brain missing, major organs will either not function at all or will fail all together once separated from the womb. Should it survive in the first day it would have 80 - 90% chance of dying in the first week ..if it should survive that it had a 80 - 90 % chance of dying in the first month ...if it should survive that it has a 80-90% chance of dying within the first year. Those days will be spent inside an incubator where it will be monitored for the rest of it's short agonizing life. It will never know it's parents it will never see the outside world or even understand it

you really want to do that just to placate YOUR sense of morality?
Click to expand...
I have a question for you Stern. Let's say that a baby is born with the condition you just described, and only had a few painful months to live. My question is: would you kill the baby to stop its suffering? I'm just curious.
 
Teta_Bonita said:
I have a question for you Stern. Let's say that a baby is born with the condition you just described, and only had a few painful months to live. My question is: would you kill the baby to stop its suffering? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...


I wouldnt step outside of the law but it would cross my mind ..but ultimately I would trust that modern medicine will ease it into oblivion as gently as possible
 
Well, the only thing I disagree with abortions on is this: They give a quick 'get out of managing a baby' card to anyone who has too much sex, and too much sex unprotected. You get pregnant, you have a healthy baby, then have it!

Inconvience my ass! If you can't provide for it, put it up for adoption. There's no shame in this.
 
DeusExMachinia said:
Just going to my school, I wish more mothers had considered abortion.
Click to expand...

I say that you don't go far enough.

Compulsary abortions for those judged not fit to be parents.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Well, the only thing I disagree with abortions on is this: They give a quick 'get out of managing a baby' card to anyone who has too much sex, and too much sex unprotected. You get pregnant, you have a healthy baby, then have it!

Inconvience my ass! If you can't provide for it, put it up for adoption. There's no shame in this.
Click to expand...

Thats right, you can't go around saying that its okay to have abortions because you are not capable or willing to care for a baby. You shouldnt be sharing sexual experiences with people who are not willing to care for you, and your children (if it happens) anyway. I mean how much must you value the intimate experience of sexuality with another person if your willing to do it with someone who is not willing to be there and take care of you when he is required to do so?

In a world where things have intrinsic value, we wouldnt be so ready to throw away our most intimate experiences at the whim of a desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-smash-
Many have been affected by a large VAC ban wave
Replies
3
Views
19K
Otto-Grainer
O
Omnomnick
CS:GO "Operation Vanguard" Now Available
Replies
2
Views
5K
Sidedraft
Sidedraft
-smash-
Movies, TV Series, Music, and More are Coming to Steam
Replies
7
Views
50K
FoxLeks
FoxLeks
-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
Sectorial
Half-Life 2 Canon (Theory)
Replies
5
Views
3K
MFL
MFL
Back
Top