South Dakota Abortion Ban Signed Into Law

[Javert]

"Now there's really nothing left to do in South Dakota."
-Bill Maher

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

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.

Your giving Jews value, just because of consciousness, feelings etc. So are things that don't have consciousness, feelings, etc, just to be dealt with as utility? I mean should I go and cut down all the world natural forests just because trees dont have feelings? Value is inherint in everything, not just organisms that are conscious. If we don't realise this, then the only other alternative is a world where everything is material and matter and without value. In a world like that, The person who has the power is the one who defines what is valueable and what is not. For example, Nike is a very powerful organisation, and their shoes are very 'valuable', thats why they cost so much. They define what is valuable due to the power they have in a world where value is not inherit, but projected.

My analogy with hitler was to show you, that in an extreme case, where the world lacks value Hitlers actions are justified as he had the power to project the value that the aryan race was the greater race and the jews were the scum of the earth that needed to be scourged from the planet. He had the power to make his value matter, and thats why his value is valid.

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 ?

Well i dont exactly consider myself a pro lifer, but in answer to your question, my primary aim would be to ensure that life is not devauled as utility nad 'lumps of cells'. what is ensuring that a baby has a 'good' life? You can't always equate happiness (at least in the hedonistic sense of the term) with goodness. For example, a person may be happier drinking alchol all the time, and this may keep him happier, but at what cost is this to the person and the ones around him?

I would hold that aslong as the born child is ensured a life in which he or she is not demeaned or exploited, and has an opportunity to live a meaningful existance, then his or her life should not be taken away from them at the whim of a selfish parent. More over, the question should be raised whether the parent is capable of determining if the child they are bearing is capable of a meaningful existance.

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.

Isn't the mother degenerating the babies satus and value my taking away its life? Clearly, it was her decision to have sex and take the risk of bearing a child in the first place. Having an abortion (in the case of an unwanted baby) is a choice about running away from responsibility, its not a choice about whther to have a baby or not. You made that choice or took that risk when you decided to have sexual intercourse with someone. The correct and well informed choice would be to perform this experience with someone who will be willing to support you and care for you if you do happen to fall pregnant. But because the choice to have sex nowadays is about pleasure, the act of sexual intercourse has become more or less like a buisness transaction between two consenting people instead of an intimate and special experience in which the origin of our future existance is created. Thus, what we have are ill informed and miseducated women, who have made the choice to risk have a baby and who are willing to evade the responsibility of the act they have undertaken. This is why women have such a hard time going through with an abortion.

Banning abortion isnt about stripping the rights off women to make the choice about having a baby, its about taking away an ability from them that allows them to evade the responsibility of the choice they have made. You can't give people guns and then the ability to evade the responsibility of shooting someone with that gun. If you do, then people will go around shooting who ever they please, because there is no longer any consequence left for killing people with guns.

 

[GhostBoi]

Banning abortion isnt about stripping the rights off women to make the choice about having a baby, its about taking away an ability from them that allows them to evade the responsibility of the choice they have made. You can't give people guns and then the ability to evade the responsibility of shooting someone with that gun. If you do, then people will go around shooting who ever they please, because there is no longer any consequence left for killing people with guns.

That is is exactly what it is, is stripping away the rights of the women to choose. <See look there is me taking everything in black and white, that is what you are doing.

You have to understand that the person who is in the situation of making the decision about having an abortion is likely more informed than you about why they are doing this. That is why they should have the choice to abort the pregnancy and not you making the decision for them. The "whole" potential arguement is stupid and you aren't going to sway anyone using that, because you are just drawing an arbitrary line there, and everyone has their own definition of what a "life" is.

 

[Zeus]

Terrible...another freedom down the drain. Also there's some girl in my class who detests abortion and I heard her talking to her friend about how she wants to lead the fight against abortion..I mean gtfo its not her decision she shouldnt get to decide for other people what is right and what is not...sorry but this just pisses me off

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

That is is exactly what it is, is stripping away the rights of the women to choose. <See look there is me taking everything in black and white, that is what you are doing.

You have to understand that the person who is in the situation of making the decision about having an abortion is likely more informed than you about why they are doing this. That is why they should have the choice to abort the pregnancy and not you making the decision for them. The "whole" potential arguement is stupid and you aren't going to sway anyone using that, because you are just drawing an arbitrary line there, and everyone has their own definition of what a "life" is.

Ofcourse she is going to be more informed about why she is having an abortion, I don't know a womans mind to be more informed about why she would be having and abortion. However why is it, that a woman knowing why they are making a choice, makes that choice anymore valid? It's not about knowing why you are making a choice, its about knowing the meaning of the choice you are taking.

You can't say, its a womans choice, because everyone has a definition of what a Life is, and its up to the woman. What if I was a psychopath and I believe that life is nothing, and theres nothing wrong with killing people? Does that make it okay for me to go and kill others? I mean I am informed as to why Im making the choice, I think that it doesnt matter if people live or die, so why isnt my choice valid like that of a woman who is informed about why she wants to have an abortion?

If you believe in a nihilistic world with no intrinsic value, then yes, What you believe is just as true as what I beleieve. The only difference between us is power. If I have power, than what I believe becomes reality, and whether that effects you or not is irrelevant, because in a valueless world, your view has no value unless you are powerful enough to make it reality. This is why I keep bringing up Hitler, A prime example of a world, where there is no value except for the reality of the one in power.

Now if you believe that life is meaningful and has value, and is not just a material cluster of coincidental atoms coming together, not just utility, material and based purely on hedonistic outcomes, then you would understand, that the act of having sex is a very important and precious one (as it is the act of preserving the future and existance of our species, which must not be taking lighty.) and it cannot be just done with anyone as an exchange of pleasure. In the event of a pregnancy, you would not regard the child inside you as a cancerous lump of unwanted cells, you would regard it as much more precious and beautiful than that, and be willing to bear the child even though it may be difficult for you to provide a meaningful existance for it.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

Your giving Jews value, just because of consciousness, feelings etc. So are things that don't have consciousness, feelings, etc, just to be dealt with as utility? I mean should I go and cut down all the world natural forests just because trees dont have feelings? Value is inherint in everything, not just organisms that are conscious. If we don't realise this, then the only other alternative is a world where everything is material and matter and without value. In a world like that, The person who has the power is the one who defines what is valueable and what is not. For example, Nike is a very powerful organisation, and their shoes are very 'valuable', thats why they cost so much. They define what is valuable due to the power they have in a world where value is not inherit, but projected.

My analogy with hitler was to show you, that in an extreme case, where the world lacks value Hitlers actions are justified as he had the power to project the value that the aryan race was the greater race and the jews were the scum of the earth that needed to be scourged from the planet. He had the power to make his value matter, and thats why his value is valid.

Okay, let's take that Hitler analogy a bit further, shall we, just because Pro-Lifers like to refer to it so much, as killing a un-sentient (scientifically speaking) bunch of cells is equal to the (near) mass genocide of a whole race of people ?

Analogy One : Hitler took away the Jews right of freedom away, captured them and forcefully put them into slave and prisoner camps to undergo a torturous existance no matter whether the Jews were at any fault at all, just to satisify his own needs.

Analogy Two : Pro-Lifers would like very much to strip away the right of freedom of the mothers to decide whether to have their baby on not, regardless of whether it was their fault or not that they got impregnated in the first place or not (rape, incest, customs, etc), just to satisify their own needs.

See any similarities ?

Well i dont exactly consider myself a pro lifer, but in answer to your question, my primary aim would be to ensure that life is not devauled as utility nad 'lumps of cells'. what is ensuring that a baby has a 'good' life? You can't always equate happiness (at least in the hedonistic sense of the term) with goodness. For example, a person may be happier drinking alchol all the time, and this may keep him happier, but at what cost is this to the person and the ones around him?

I would hold that aslong as the born child is ensured a life in which he or she is not demeaned or exploited, and has an opportunity to live a meaningful existance, then his or her life should not be taken away from them at the whim of a selfish parent. More over, the question should be raised whether the parent is capable of determining if the child they are bearing is capable of a meaningful existance.

Babies that have a medical problem that doesn't allow them to have a "meaningful existance" should not have to be subjected to a horrible (and very possibly, only) start of life which is demeaning to them, just to satisify a small section of society's needs.

As for that Gestapo-Type comment of "The question should be raised whether the parent is capable of determining if the child they are bearing is capable of a meaningful existance" is ludicrous - as your values have no bearing at all on what society in general thinks, and, as there is no independant party in this situation to deicide whether it is right or wrong - your decision to wrest power from the mother just because this can't happen is totally selfish.

Isn't the mother degenerating the babies satus and value my taking away its life? Clearly, it was her decision to have sex and take the risk of bearing a child in the first place. Having an abortion (in the case of an unwanted baby) is a choice about running away from responsibility, its not a choice about whther to have a baby or not. You made that choice or took that risk when you decided to have sexual intercourse with someone. The correct and well informed choice would be to perform this experience with someone who will be willing to support you and care for you if you do happen to fall pregnant. But because the choice to have sex nowadays is about pleasure, the act of sexual intercourse has become more or less like a buisness transaction between two consenting people instead of an intimate and special experience in which the origin of our future existance is created. Thus, what we have are ill informed and miseducated women, who have made the choice to risk have a baby and who are willing to evade the responsibility of the act they have undertaken. This is why women have such a hard time going through with an abortion.

To your (first) bolded question, no, the mother is not degenerating the baby's status yet as it isn't even sentient at that point (scientifically speaking). Oh, and to answer your second statement, if a girl is raped and become pregnant, is it her choice ?

Of course it is ! She made the choice whether to walk down that dark alley and get raped by a guy. Hell, we should make her have the baby for that ! It might even put off women going anywhere - near - dark alleys. Of course, if she's drawn kicking and screaming down there ... well ... she could have kicked and screamed harder ! Then she'd get her throat slit and die in a groutesque fashion so the whole situation of abortion wouldn't have to come up to hurt poor Pro-Lifer morals. [/Sarcasm]

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Okay, let's take that Hitler analogy a bit further, shall we, just because Pro-Lifers like to refer to it so much, as killing a un-sentient (scientifically speaking) bunch of cells is equal to the (near) mass genocide of a whole race of people ?

Analogy One : Hitler took away the Jews right of freedom away, captured them and forcefully put them into slave and prisoner camps to undergo a torturous existance no matter whether the Jews were at any fault at all, just to satisify his own needs.

Analogy Two : Pro-Lifers would like very much to strip away the right of freedom of the mothers to decide whether to have their baby on not, regardless of whether it was their fault or not that they got impregnated in the first place or not (rape, incest, customs, etc), just to satisify their own needs. See any similarities ?

This is the paragrah, (that came staight after the paragrah you quoted me on) outlining the intention behind my reason for the use of this analogy:

My analogy with hitler was to show you, that in an extreme case, where the world lacks value Hitlers actions are justified as he had the power to project the value that the aryan race was the greater race and the jews were the scum of the earth that needed to be scourged from the planet. He had the power to make his value matter, and thats why his value is valid.

Babies that have a medical problem that doesn't allow them to have a "meaningful existance" should not have to be subjected to a horrible (and very possibly, only) start of life which is demeaning to them, just to satisify a small section of society's needs.

Yes, I agree with you, if you are incapable of providing a meaninful exitance for a child, then it should not be brought into the world.

As for that Gestapo-Type comment of "The question should be raised whether the parent is capable of determining if the child they are bearing is capable of a meaningful existance" is ludicrous - as your values have no bearing at all on what society in general thinks, and, as there is no independant party in this situation to deicide whether it is right or wrong - your decision to wrest power from the mother just because this can't happen is totally selfish.

To your (first) bolded question, no, the mother is not degenerating the baby's status yet as it isn't even sentient at that point (scientifically speaking).

Are you even reading what I am writing? I am telling you, you can't regard life as lumps of meaningless cells. If you do, then the world is controlled by the dominant value systems of the time, in the 1940z, that was Hitlers Nazism. The thing that makes something right or wrong is determined by the most powerful entity of the time. You cant have a world like this, because ultimately, you end up with hitlers if you do. However, if you believe that all life and things have intrinsic value, then the dominant value determing instituions of the time will not be able to demean anything without carefully considering what it is doing first.

If the only thing valuable in the world is sentient, then that would mean that everything else can be demeaned and exploited and used without any consideration for that things worth or value. And its happening anyway, i mean the industrial nations of the world are plundering the earth for its reasources without a second thought. They are wiping out rainforrests, destroying the natural habitats of all living creautes and life the the pursuit of their own value: profit. Why? because they have the power to do so. No, Im sorry, but the value of life isnt determined by what you think just because you have the power project your value on to me. If I was a jew and you were Hitler, Im sorry, but Im not a lower race or speices than you, just because thats what you believe about me, and you have the power to treat me according to what you believe.

The only system of beliefs that are worthy are those that hold that all things in the universe, including life and experiences, etc, hold intrinsic value. If this is not what is believed, then the demeaning and misuse of things or life will occur.

If you think that only conscious things are valuable, then you are demeaning all things in the universe that are not conscious. And you can treat those things in the universe because you have the power to do so. That doesnt make it right. Just as it doesnt make it right, for a mother to demean the baby growing inside her by having the ability to abort it because she has the power to do so.

Of course it is ! She made the choice whether to walk down that dark alley and get raped by a guy. Hell, we should make her have the baby for that ! It might even put off women going anywhere - near - dark alleys. Of course, if she's drawn kicking and screaming down there ... well ... she could have kicked and screamed harder ! Then she'd get her throat slit and die in a groutesque fashion so the whole situation of abortion wouldn't have to come up to hurt poor Pro-Lifer morals. [/Sarcasm]

No, she didnt make the choice of getting raped by that guy. That was something done to her against her will, and I beleive I have mentioned before that rape is a whole different case from women who want abortions because of their own foolish decision to share intimate sexual experiences with males who are not capable or willing to provide for them and take care of their child when he is required to do so.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

"Now there's really nothing left to do in South Dakota."
-Bill Maher

Bill Maher's awesome. Real Time quote I take it?

 

[GhostBoi]

Are you even reading what I am writing? I am telling you, you can't regard life as lumps of meaningless cells. If you do, then the world is controlled by the dominant value systems of the time, in the 1940z, that was Hitlers Nazism. The thing that makes something right or wrong is determined by the most powerful entity of the time. You cant have a world like this, because ultimately, you end up with hitlers if you do. However, if you believe that all life and things have intrinsic value, then the dominant value determing instituions of the time will not be able to demean anything without carefully considering what it is doing first.

I don't regard life as a lump of cells, I regard a lump of cells as a lump of cells.

EDIT:

If the only thing valuable in the world is sentient, then that would mean that everything else can be demeaned and exploited and used without any consideration for that things worth or value. And its happening anyway, i mean the industrial nations of the world are plundering the earth for its reasources without a second thought. They are wiping out rainforrests, destroying the natural habitats of all living creautes and life the the pursuit of their own value: profit. Why? because they have the power to do so. No, Im sorry, but the value of life isnt determined by what you think just because you have the power project your value on to me. If I was a jew and you were Hitler, Im sorry, but Im not a lower race or speices than you, just because thats what you believe about me, and you have the power to treat me according to what you believe.

The difference is wild life and the forests they live in have immediate value to society. A fetus in a womb that has no feelings, or no recognition of its own life only serves to take nutrition from its host.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I don't regard life as a lump of cells, I regard a lump of cells as a lump of cells.


The difference is wild life and the forests they live in have immediate value to society. A fetus in a womb that has no feelings, or no recognition of its own life only serves to take nutrition from its host.

You are still missing my point. The fact that you regard a fetus as a lump of cells devalues it, and because you percieve a fetus as a meaningless lump of cells you believe there is no issue with killing it. Scientifically, everything is a lump of cells, even you. Does that mean that if you were getting on my nerves I could kill you? No, because you are not a lump of cells, you have value inherint within you that I have no right to take away from you. Just like everything else. Can you imagine a world where everything is meaningless and a lump of cells? If everything has no value then (assuming i was the most powerful being in the world) I could do anything I wanted to you regardless of how demeaning that may be to you.

You would argue that conscious sentient life is valuable, and all other life, like trees and animals are 'lumps of cells'. Since a fetus falls into this category then its okay to kill it.

I am saying no, because if you hold this view, you deny the intrinsic value that all things hold within them. According to your outlook on the world, everything else besides consious human beings are utility...material objects that we can just use and abandon when we are done with it.
For example, It wouldnt matter that we cut down all the forrests because trees are just 'a lump of cells' that are expendible, and the animals that live in that habitat are also expendible. Do you see how this way of thinking is wrong because this view projects valuelessness on trees and animals, and because of this view that we hold, and because we have the ability to cut down trees and destroy habitats, we demean and devalue trees and animals?

The value of something cannot be determined by sentient and conscious human beings, Because we are too imperfect to make decisions about what is and is not valuable. Hitlers devalueing of Jews is a prime example of this. Because he, as an individual was to imperfect to understand the instrinsic value that all things hold, he's value systems caused alot of horror and pain in the world.

Hence, a fetus is not just a lump of cells, it is a growing human child that holds intrinsic value within it, and killing it would be to demean it. Thus in this demeaning sense, abortion is wrong. To claim otherwise would be to reject the instrinic value that all things in the universe hold and to claim that the only true values are those that the most powerful are able to project onto things.

 

[GhostBoi]

But I am saying that the fetus has no immediate value to anyone, nor any feelings or any recognition of what is happening to it. Trees and wildlife do have immediate value, in that they keep the ecosystem in balance.

 

[M1CH43L]

Well, all I can say in reply is: God Bless America!

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Trees and wildlife dont have any recognition of what is happening to them. Niether does the ecosystem. And a single tree or animal has no value to the ecosystem, or very little value. Does this mean we can do what ever we want with it?

Keeping this in mind, one fetus may not have that much value, but all fetuses have hold the future survival of our speices in our hands.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Trees and wildlife dont have any recognition of what is happening to them. Niether does the ecosystem. And a single tree or animal has no value to the ecosystem, or very little value. Does this mean we can do what ever we want with it?

Keeping this in mind, one fetus may not have that much value, but all fetuses have hold the future survival of our speices in our hands.

That argument only makes sense is you assume that every fetus will be aborted, to the point that the earth decomes completely depopulated.

Right now, the Earth is arguably becoming overpopulated, so that point doesn't work.

ALSO:

If a tree sprouts up through the middle of your living room, you'd chop that ****er down in a second.

BAM, ANALOGY'D.

 

[GhostBoi]

Trees and wildlife dont have any recognition of what is happening to them. Niether does the ecosystem. And a single tree or animal has no value to the ecosystem, or very little value. Does this mean we can do what ever we want with it?

True, but it is the combination of the fact that a baby has no recognition of itself or any value that makes it fine for the mother to abort it if she has reason. I don't think anyone should have the right to know what the mother's reasons for doing it are either.

You see if the fetus has recognition of itself I'm all against it, but the majority of abortions are done before that(those few that aren't should cut it out). Or if the fetus had some immediate value being in the women's womb. But the absence of both makes me all for a women's right to have an abortion if she have reason.

 

[kirovman]

Prohibition will mearly expand the backstreet abortions clinics business.

 

[el Chi]

Prohibition will mearly expand the backstreet abortions clinics business.

Exactly. It would at least be nice to know that people can make this choice and not have to fear about being severely physically damaged. Or even dead. Do they deserve that?

By saying "People should take responsibility of their actions" in the case of abortion you're not making people more responsible, you're punishing them. How, exactly, does that make someone a better person?
They messed up and of course it's their fault. But women should not be forced to have a large part of their lives made worse (physically, psychologically, emotionally - and not just during the pregnancy) because some law-maker had different morals to them.

And when people say
"Ah, but it'll make people's attitudes towads sex far too flippant."
I would bet a large sum of money on the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions did not think
"Well, I could get pregnant, but never mind - if I do, I'll just have an abortion."
I would bet a further large amount of money that, upon learning that they were pregnant, they did not say:
"Oh, not again! Looks like I'm back off to the abortion clinic. I wonder if there's an equivalent to frequent flyer miles?"
It's not a decision people take lightly, and it's not something that people get through easily. But they should have the choice to.

If a tree sprouts up through the middle of your living room, you'd chop that ****er down in a second.

BAM, ANALOGY'D.

Have you ever read the philosopher Judith Thomson? That's pretty much the same analogy she used.

By extension, to people: It's a hot day, your house is very stuffy, so you open a window to let in a pleasant draft. A vagrant comes into your house and announces that, for the next nine months, he's going to live with you, eat your food, stop you going to work, cause you mental anguish, cause you severe pain, and, eventually outright agony, do you say:
"Well, I shouldn't have left the window open."
No, I don't believe you do. I reckon you kick him out.
Fair play, you don't kill him, but the point is that you remove this thing that will impede on your life and give you problems that you, as a person, are not ready to deal with.

Aren't we always told that we should learn from our mistakes, not suffer for them?