Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Towering Solons of Abortion

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 7, 2006

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas—South Dakota is so rarely found on the leading edge of the far out, the wiggy, the California-esque. But it has now staked its claim. First to Outlaw Abortion This Century. The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. They will decide. Women will do what they decide.

These towering solons, representing citizens from the great cosmopolitan centers of Rapid City and Sioux Falls to the bosky dells near Yankton, are noted for their sagacity and understanding. When you think “enlightenment,” the first thing that comes to your mind is “the South Dakota Legislature,” right?

As well it might. The purpose of the law is to force a decision from the United States Supreme Court, where the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito have now shored up the anti-choice forces.

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the “life” clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for “convenience,” but he told “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” about how he thinks a “real-life example” of the exception could be invoked:

“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Please stop and reread the paragraph above. See? Clearly Napoli’s exception would not apply to the South Dakota woman also interviewed by the NewsHour. “Michelle” is in her 20s, has a low-paying job and two children. And says she simply cannot afford a third. She drove five hours to the state’s only abortion clinic.

“It was difficult when I found out I was pregnant. I was saddened because I knew that I’d probably have to make this decision. Like I said, I have two children, so I look into their eyes and I love them. It’s been difficult, you know, it’s not easy. And I don’t think it’s, you know, ever easy on a woman, but we need that choice.”

But who is she to make that choice when Bill Napoli can make it for her? He explains: “When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. ... I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.”

I find this so profound I am considering putting Sen. Napoli in charge of all moral, ethical and medical decisions made by women. Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he’s there, and perhaps that’s what we all need—a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious just for our own convenience.

Look at some of the incompetent women we have running around in this country—Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, now there are a couple of girls in need of guidance from the South Dakota legislature. Female doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, engineers and, for that matter, female members of the South Dakota Legislature—who could ever trust them with an important decision?

In South Dakota, pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives should it trouble their conscience, and some groups who worked on the anti-abortion bill believe contraception also needs to be outlawed. Good plan. After that, we’ll reconsider women’s property rights, civil right and voting rights.

For years, the women’s movement has been going around asking, “Who decides?” as though that were the issue. Well, here’s the answer. Bill Napoli decides, and if you’re not happy with that arrangement, well, you’d better be prepared to do something about it.

www.creators.com


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Brian, April 30, 2007 at 10:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Abortion is just wrong. The old excuses of the wire hanger and the parent or society vilifying the poor pregnant single woman are gone.You have many routes to take now. And yes, you can put the child up for adoption. There are many programs to help the pregnant woman now and many of these old horror stories put up by the freedom of choice people don’t hold water.And yes, in cases of rape it should be streamlined to the courts.Or in certain cases of total deformity where the baby is non entity- the same should hold true. But if you have a healthy woman who chooses to have sex and a healthy man who is the same then you really should consider having the baby then letting some other family raise it.Why not? Listen, many great people where born of such circumstance.Many single Mothers/Dads do just fine.
But to have it as an option because you just don’t want it- is wrong. Listen,your not a fortune teller and can’t see the future. So how is it that you can foretell this child to be a misery, or have a useless life?And if it is going to stop you from pursuing your dreams or your spouses and yours- big leap to such dreams,or peaks? I got news for you- You don’t have what it takes from jump street- if you are thinking along these lines.And when you and your spouse - or your lover finally get around to growing up and committing to something other than yourselves.And decide to have a “family”- How pray tell are you going to look these children you “kept” in the eye without looking away or feeling really bad about the one or more you tossed away? It’s really sickening how self absorbed we have become as a society. How petty. I would step in front of a speeding car to save any child. Would you? So how is it that you would treat an infant as an object? To be tossed aside. Are you that numb? That out of touch with what matters? The really warped part is that this is an ancient argument. This is truly shame. We treat our clothing better than we treat a human life.I have four kids and each one was told when they came of age that I would be proud,more than happy, to pitch in and help raise such a child if need be.It’s just simple doing.

Report this

By Melissa M., April 16, 2006 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:  Rosy, steve-o, et al.

The decision to have an abortion belongs to the woman who is pregnant.  It can be a difficult decision or an easy one.  Every woman has a different set of circumstances in her life that leads her to this decision.  We would have to “walk a mile in her shoes” to know why the decision is right for her.

I am not poor, a member of a minority group, uneducated or live in a rural area.  I was fortunate to grow up in a loving, affluent family with all the choices and resources that this entails.  I, however, am one of those women that could not tolerate the “pill”; and other methods of birth control have a more limited success rate.  I am the mother of a grown daughter.  She is bright, beautiful, responsible, employed, and a law abiding, tax paying citizen.  I love her with all my heart. I take a small measure of credit for the type of excellent human being she is today.  I feel that by being able to stay employed while she was growing up and also having the time to spend quality time with her, contributed to her health and well being as a child and adolescent.  If I would have been forced to have other children that I did not want and could not care for, I would have had no other choice but to go on public assistance.  I would not have been able to provide her or any other children with the things that make for a happy childhood – a happy, loving parent, extracurricular activities, proper nutrition and health care, a safe neighborhood with good schools.

If the laws of this nation had not allowed me to limit the size of my family, I fear that today, instead of having two happy, healthy, productive citizens there would be several unhappy people that would be a burden to themselves and society.

The pro-life movement does not take into consideration what happens to women and children after the event of birth.  I know that my story will not change their minds, but I wish that they would consider the lives of desperation that many women and children face that live in poverty – the abuse and neglect, the hopelessness that breeds crime and drug addiction and so many of societies other ills.

Children should be wanted, loved, cared for and nurtured.  They are our nation’s greatest resource.  This is why I have always been and will remain PRO-CHOICE.

I did not mention God in this statement because it does not belong.  The United States of America is NOT a theocracy.  I support the right of everyone to believe in whatever faith they choose.  Religion is a private, not a government matter.  Read the Constitution.

Report this

By lamberthml@comcast.net, April 12, 2006 at 5:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I once again affirm the Ninth Amendment.Do not didtort what I mean by consciousness.Dr.Sagan expresed what I meant. Leave Sky Pappy out of the discussion.What is relevant is what is good or bad for humans., not what some ignoramuses thousands of years ago thought. Reason,not a dead Galilean , saves!

Report this

By shelisha, April 7, 2006 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I Got Pregnant At 14. I did Not Abort, My Son Is Now 6. We Are Not Gnd So What Rightdo We Have To Kill An Innocent Child?!!!! It May Be A Womans Right Or Choice To Abort. But What About The Childs Right To Live??? How Much Innocent Blood Must Be Shead Before Everyond Realizes, What Their Doing Is Cold Blooded Murder. Plain And Simple.

Report this

By Slappybob, March 15, 2006 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Any insult by a small minded,hypocritical,bitter liberal is a badge of honor ...wear it with pride. Ivins only claim to fame is being a plagiarist. These people call others ignorant? bumpkins?  .... Remember .. many like Ivins believe others(i.e. government)must feed,educate and take care of people while others use thier own intellect to survive.Who seems smarter?  On abortion- The biggest fools are those that think they know the un-knowable ... they have NO conclusive proof of anything regarding God’s existence OR when life(the soul) begins in the womb ..Guess what!, niether do I ! .. I choose to have faith in and believe that there is more to our lives than this mortal existence , unlike those who think they know know it all and must “educate” us.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, March 15, 2006 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With all due respect, Mr. Curt Bentley, your request that we “please don’t characterize me as irrational and ignorant” is denied.

Your stated beliefs (in #5075) are CLEARLY IRRATIONAL (unsupportable by reasoning) and CLEARLY IGNORANT (you can’t possibly KNOW that what you believe is actually true.)

To those who believe abortion is wrong, my advice is DON’T HAVE ONE.

To those who believe that because THEY believe that abortion is wrong then EVERYONE should believe it, how about DROPPING DEAD and if you can’t follow through on that, I’ll settle for you just MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

Report this

By Jean Salomone, March 13, 2006 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yeah sure- there are SO many people waiting to adopt out there—- then why are there kids waiting to be adopted?!? Let’s worry about all the kids that are already here first before we make it mandatory for women to make more…

Report this

By Curt Bentley, March 13, 2006 at 12:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in response to Mr. Baxter, who probably rightly takes me to task for treating too lightly a serious issue, and accordingly, I apologize.

Although, please note that my mention of a “real response”, was my own recognition of this.

I went and read the chapter of Leviticus he mentions.  Still, having read those verses I do not find any justification in them for a belief that God does not place value on “zygotes, embryos, fetuses or even postpartum infants under one month of age.”  With all due respect, I think Mr. Baxter is reaching here.

<p>There are strong scriptural justifications for the opposite position (see below).  But I think that I can disagree on a more fundamental level.  It seems to me that a basic belief of all Christians is that all people are the children of God.  I believe this, and simply cannot reconcile that fundamental Christian belief with the notion that God places less value upon their lives when his children are in the womb.  I believe that all people existed prior to this life with God, and were sent to earth for a purpose.  Therefore, given that I believe that life existed spiritually before it exist temporally, it does not make any sense to me that he would not value that life from the moment it was created.</p>

Given what we know about the value that God places on human life—the lives of his own children—I think that it is not me who bears the burden of proof to show that God “proscribe[s] abortion”.  Rather, I think that the nature of God if fundamentally incompatible with such a practice, and the burden of proof should lie with Mr. Baxter, who seems to imply that God would sanction the practice.

<p>The only possible argument to be made is that God also places a tremendous value on free agency—the right of his children to make their own decisions.  This is surely the case, but it is clear from the scriptures that there are consequences for the exercising of agency when one uses it to take another’s life.  This is a scriptural boundary beyond which the agency argument cannot pass.</p>

I recognize, however, that other people will disagree with me.  A fundamental point of my last posting is in response to the tenor of Ms. Ivins article—that all supporters of a ban on abortion are ignorant “country bumpkins” [to borrow a phrase from Stare Decisis smile].  While you may not agree with my views, please don’t characterize me as irrational and ignorant because they are different than yours.

Just a brief comment on Star E. Decisis’ posting:

She is generally right.  This is a problem with the political debate on both sides of the ideological fence—as a country we seem to have lost the ability to talk to each other.  The only exception I take to her posting is her implication that the anti-abortion movement is basically reactionary.  I think it has deep-rooted beliefs and bases of its own.  But her intellectual contempt argument is a good one, and I probably did not help the situation much with the first half of my previous posting.

Still, having been a lone conservative in many liberal academic departments, I have to say that many of those I met take the view that conservatives are conservative merely because they are ignorant.  I don’t consider myself ignorant, and believe that there are good reasons for the beliefs that I have.  In this article Ms. Ivins has taken the Ann Coulter approach—and all this does is reinforce the smug conclusions of those who have already chosen their ideology.  It contributes nothing to the political debate, and only serves to antagonize. 

Now, below are some scriptures that I believe show God places value of human life while it is in the womb, and even before then.  Let me give credit where credit is due: for more on these, visit
http://www.solport.com/references/abortion/Scriptures.htm


Luke 1:38-44

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and asaluted Elisabeth.

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was afilled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou mong awomen, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Exodus 21:22

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

 

Jeremiah 1:4-5

Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

Report this

By C. M. Baxter, March 12, 2006 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In the Old Testament, we find God telling Moses the different monetary values that must be assigned to the People of Israel according to their age and sex (Lev 27:3-:6).

Males 20-60 years old: 50 shekels of silver; females: 30 shekels.
Males 5-20 years old: 20 shekels; females: 10 shekels.
Males 1 month-5 years old: 5 shekels; females: 3 shekels.

God places no such value on zygotes, embryos, fetuses or even postpartum infants under one month of age.  So when and where does God proscribe abortion?  Go read!

P.S.
Just trying to give Mr. Bentley (#4947) another chance for a “fun” and “easy” response.  Perhaps, if we’re lucky, he’ll even give us another “real response” as well.

Report this

By Star. A. Decise, March 12, 2006 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I do find fault with one aspect of Molly’s piece: she damns almost all residents of the state as a bunch of country bumpkins.

It’s not only unfair but counterproductive - akin to those who argued Bush would never be elected because he’s dumb.

The South Dakota abortion law isn’t a case of dummies-run-amok. It reflects a deep and profound movement in the country. By treating it with intellectual contempt, we only propagate it, endangering us all.

We should have learned this lesson with Bush’s election.

But thanks for the piece.

Best,

Star
http://www.enigmaticparadox.com

Report this

By lvj7KHiTiN, March 12, 2006 at 12:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

o6eAFOo3kY D1bcdH4r3L tzEQdCekueafl

Report this

By Rosy, March 11, 2006 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I know I said that was may last and it is to everyone except “mpls”

If you care to look at my response to “Denny” and find his response to “Melody” you might trouble yourself to scroll down to her story and read it. I did not in anyway suggest that her story is the norm. I simply asked what is hypocritical in “Melody’s” desire that this happens to no one else. While what happened to her is like you said not the usual, it certainly isn’t impossible. I also asked “Denny” if he read her story at all since he made some hurtful and untrue comments about her situation. I have read stories people have put up and I am willing to believe them. I believe “Melody” and I believe you when you say that you don’t regret getting an abortion and that you don’t know anyone who does. It is impolite to assume that a person is lying. It is also impolite to make judgements about anyone that you don’t know or do know for that matter. I have stated my belief that abortion is wrong and that is my belief and not yours, but I have not and will not attack you for yours. You have stated that you do not need me to feel sorry for you. I am sorry that my sorrow has offended you. It was never my intent. Please remember that everyone is stating their opinion and as long as they do it politely and respectfully with no ill intent why should we harbor ill feelings for them.

Report this

By sara, March 11, 2006 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is anyone else disturbed that Napoli’s description of a real-life example in which abortion is allowable is almost a carbon copy of something out of western pulp novels and terribly stereotypical cowboy & Indian movies?

Rape is brutal because it is rape, but he’s mining the savage Indian archetype in order to come up with his real-life example, and that speaks volumes about him.

‘The savage Indian kidnaps the God-fearing innocent homesteader, brutally rapes her and does horrific things to her.’

The other thing that comes to mind for me, is that he’s drawing a very clear separation in HIS mind between rape and then serious rape, and this is why he came up with that grotesque exagerration of what is a brutal scenario no matter how it happens.

I’d be curious to know how many women he date-raped or coerced in college, for starters.  People disclose a lot about themselves and their proclivities, on occasion, and this is one such occasion.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, March 10, 2006 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In #4910, Steve-o takes me to task because I think the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective, should have priority in a civilized society. He apparently does not…

“What was your new enlightening idea ? hmmm.. let’s see .. people banding together to decide how other’s should conduct themselves .. gee, sounds like representative government to me! What is really destroying our society is those who feel that each individual is his own little universe and shouldn’t be required to conform to ANYTHING except what they want. Certain norms for a decent law abiding society SHOULD be enacted and enforced, otherwise there is chaos ...”

Well, Steve-O, I think you need your “hearing” adjusted if what I wrote means “representative government” to you. When I, the individual, elect a representative, I elect him or her to look after those things that I as an individual cannot… you know, international trade, drilling for resources, building schools, and so on. I do NOT need, want or authorize any “representative government” to decide for me how I should conduct my sex life, whether or not I should take on responsibility for yet another unwanted child, or in any way interfere with how I conduct my interpersonal affairs.

I especially love your conclusion that to allow the individual to choose his own “universe” would lead to “chaos!” And exactly WHAT, dear Steve-O, do you think we have NOW?

You went on… “the problem lies in the point that some think that they should never be made to abide by any law / norm that prohibits their self destructive behavior .. yes yes .. it is “your” destructive behavior - but many times the foolishness of a few affects many ... people will always have some sort of authority to answer to or some entity that has at least some POWER OVER all of us, so grow up and deal with it.”

I did not say or imply that individuals “should never be made to abide by any law/norm that prohibits their self-destructive behavior…”. I stated very clearly that when the behavior of one begins to interfere with another’s right to be safe, to enjoy peace, to a clean environment, to freedom from interference in personal pursuits, then “rules” come into play. What is a “norm” for you may NOT be a “norm” for me and I reject your assumption you have the right to decide for me what my “norm” will be.

For example, should you wish to go to church 7 days a week and spend hours in prayer and reading a holy book, that’s no skin off my nose and I have no right to interfere with your right to do so. What you DO in no way interferes with me. However, should you wish to conduct gospel prayer services with music and clapping and bells ringing, etc., you would likely DISTURB my right to peace and quiet, and you should be prevented from doing so. If I and my partner should decide that we do NOT want another child in the family, and we learn there’s one on the way, then it is OUR decision to take whatever course of action we choose… NOT YOURS or ANYONE ELSE, or most certainly,  any “representative government.”

Finally, I am of the opinion that I am NOT on this planet to satisfy the notions or desires of others. If you wish to submit your life to the control of some “authority,” be my guest. That’s your business entirely. All I ask is that YOU and everyone who thinks like you, keep your bloody hands off MY RIGHT to do as I damned well please with my time on earth.

Report this

By Rosy, March 10, 2006 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is my last post. I know that some of you are probably estatic. Glad to make your day. I just want to leave a challenge with everyone who is sincerely pro-choice to research the whole abortion proceedure. This includes looking at pictures of aborted babies or seeing footage. I know this sounds disgusting and uneeded but you need to fully comprehend what you are standing for. It is one thing to read about things but it is an entirely different thing to see them. I think that every person considering an abortion should look into the risks, and the benefits and not just be informed by the clinic who performs the abortion or the people against abortions. I think that people need to educate themselves. “Myeisha”, you called me naive. I am less naive than you think. I believe that life is sacred and should not be taken lightly. I was with my Mother when she lost her fight with cancer. I could no longer hold the oxygen mask on her face because she fought me so hard. Have you ever watched someone you love die? It is not as they show it in the movies. They do not simply close their eyes and stop breathing. They fight with everything they have to live. Everything is born with a will to live. Who are we to decide for the helpless. I am not trying to play God but after seeing developing babies that look human as young as eight weeks and seeing pictures of aborted babies I cannot ever support the woman’s right to choose past intimacy with the exceptions that I have already mentioned. In the case where the Mother’s life is in danger I think that they should try to save both, but if that cannot be accomplished I definitely think that they should save the mother.

Report this

By mpls, March 10, 2006 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to “Rosy”:
While I would never, ever want someone to be strapped down and gagged and forced to have an abortion, that is not how abortions are performed en masse.  That is ridiculous to even suggest that is what happens.  MOST WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS SO NOT REGRET THEM.  I have never spoken with a woman who was strapped down and gagged and forced to have an abortion.  It is not fair for you to even try to make it seem like that is what happens when a woman has an abortion.  I had one.  I was not strapped down.  I was not gagged.  I was not forced.  No one I have ever met has been.  I respect your opinion that ‘life’ begins at conception.  An abortion would not be a good option for you.  It was a good option for me when I had mine and it was a good option for every woman I have talked to who has had one.  Not one of us needs you or anyone else to tell us what we may or may not do regarding our reproductive choices.  Just as I would never tell you what you may or may not do with yours.

Report this

By Rosy, March 10, 2006 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to the questions I wrote about when the fetus is considered a person.  I did a little looking around. It is agreed in the scientific community that the child is a seperate being than the mother at conception because it has it’s own blood, and seperate DNA. I also looked up the “difference between living sperm and egg cell and the fertilized egg”. The difference being both the “living” sperm and egg cells have only 23 chromosomes, while the fertilized egg has 46 chromosomes.  You may say “so what?” Well, the fact that the chromosomes in the baby are different than those in the Mother makes it a seperate body, even if this seperate body is housed by the mother. This baby contains chromosomes that are half the father’s and half the mother’s. Everywhere I looked according to science this is the case so life does begin at conception. However if you read about pregnancy, the moment you conceive you are not necessarily pregnant. Once the baby implants in the uterine wall, then you are pregnant. This takes place well before you discover you are pregnant. By the time you are certain that you are pregnant more often than not the fetus’s heart is already beating.  I think that we should all read as much as we can possibly find on this very important issue.  I don’t mean opinions, but I mean honestly look into these statistics that are being thrown back and forth on both sides. If we read medical journals on the development of a fetus, other journals on the risks involved in carrying a child, others on the rate of pregnancies among rape victims not just among the statuatory rape victims, and journals on just how many women were actually dying from illegal abortions before it was made legal. I think that a lot facts should be looked at and considered and I think that one very important question should be answered. Is a fetus a person?  From all the biology classes I have taken and things that I have read on the development of fetuses and the two pregnancies I have had myself I would have to say that in my mind there is not a doubt that a fetus is a person.

Report this

By steve-o, March 10, 2006 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: # 4939   -  the brainless should not be allowed to post ... i.e.  - you and #4919 princess. Your gutter talk doesn’t enlighten, it makes you sound immature and stupid ... just trying to help ...

Report this

By confused, March 10, 2006 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

this question is for the christians, and i would just like an honest answer from one of you (you people never do answer the question): does the bible stress taking care of the poor; profiting off of religion; not judging others; etc. more than it does abortion?  if so, point to some evidence and which version of the bible you read.  if not, please explain whether or not you devote (at least) equal time to these issues.  the bible references poverty, literally, thousands of times.  how many times does it mention abortion, even indirectly?  what proportion is it to poverty?  i’m just trying to logically figure this out.  thanks.

Report this

By Rosy, March 10, 2006 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Quote from “Denny”

“In response to Melody #4786.  I’m always suprised when someone who already had an abortion now doesn’t want any else to have one.  Why was it all right for you to get rid of your unwanted baby because it was inconvient for you to have it and now she thinks other women shouldn’t have that option?  How hypocritical!”

Question: Did you read Melody’s story at all? Did it escape you that she did not want the abortion performed on her? Did you miss that her Mother made the choice for her after promising to respect her choice to have the baby. Did you read that they strapped her down and gagged her while she screamed? Where in her story did she state that she did not want the baby or that it was inconvient for her to have it? How is she being hypocritical in not wanting anyone else to have to suffer what she has?

Report this

By Melody, March 10, 2006 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am here again to bust the “abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor” myth that I have seen posted here. 

According to EX-ABORTIONISTS testimonies, they have as little to do with the patients as possible. 

Carol Everett, ex-abortion provider has given us an insider look at just how abortion clinics operate. 

According to Carol Everett and other abortion providers, the most important person in the clinic is the person who answers the phones.  Alot of money is spent training them on how to be the perfect sales people.  They receive more training in this area than any other.  They are more important than the abortionist who performs the procedure or the nurse who assists him.  The people who answer the phones are the most important because they bring the money in.

It is the job of the people who answer the phone to sell you on abortion and they insist that you bring the money with you in cash “just in case.”

Once the client comes in she is taken to a room where a pregnancy test is done.  This is really where the “marketing” strategies come into play. 

“From the moment the woman enters the door she is pressured to abort.” Carol Everett says.  “A great deal of training is spent on our “counselors” to ensure that the woman chooses abortion.”

The counselors are trained to wait with the client on the result of the pregnancy test.  She is trained to act sympathetic and caring.  She is trained to sit silently with you and stroke your hand reassuringly.  When the pregnancy test results in positive the counselor is trained to act as if this is a sentance worse than death.  Every person in the clinic then treats the client with kid gloves.  They make slight clucking sounds of distress, as if your pregnancy is the worst thing that could happen to you. 

Next comes the pressure and the lies. You are told over and over that it is “best to get it over with now.”  You see statistics show that women who make a second appointment for the abortion don’t come back.  Therefore they must not be allowed to leave the clinic.  They might look up some information on the physical and emotional devastation that abortion causes women on the internet.  Or they may talk to a friend or loved one who will give them the love and support they need to carry the child to term.  This must not happen if the abortion clinic wants to make a profit. 

She is then taken to the “counselor” who rushes through the possible physical complications that could arise. She says them so fast it is hard to take in what she is saying.  She is trained to do it this way.  Then she asks if you have any questions.  She is quick to tell you that it is not really a “baby” just a lump of tissue.  She then tells you how young you are, helpless you are, and generally how unfit you are to be a mother now. If the client says she wants to talk with family members she is made to feel guilty for burdening them with “her little problem.”  She is made to feel selfish for wanting to keep her own baby!

Once the woman has been convinced that nobody loves her, no one will support her in a choice to keep her baby she is ready to abort. 

She is taken to an room, given a gown and told to lie in the table with feet in stirrups.  If you are a woman you know the routine. 

Unlike a doctor however, the abortionist never looks at your face, or even calls you by name. You see you might become a person to him if he looks at you or talks with you.  He just goes between your legs and does the dirty job he is there for. 

One abortion clinic in TN gives women a bracelet with a number.  Sounds like the concentration camps right? You see it’s easier to brutalize people when they are nameless.

After the pain and humiliation of having your child ripped from your body you are whisked down the hall to the recovery room.  A room filled with cots where you lie for a few hours trying to forget that you just murdered your own child and a part of yourself. Women who cry to much are taken to a private room so as not to scare the other clients.  Nurses soothe you and tell you that you made the right choice.  There will be opportunities for other babies later they say.

Abortion is a BUSINESS folks. Stop your pretenses.

Report this

By Rosy, March 10, 2006 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sorry so many of the same ones got posted. My computer timed out and I didn’t know if any posts got sent, so again I am sorry that they are repeated.  I really am curious about one thing though, when does Roe vs. Wade classify a fetus as being a human being? When does science classify it as a human being? Is it when the fetus’s heart beats or when it is viable? If it is when it is viable are they telling me that my baby is nothing and feels nothing until it is born? What about the way the baby jumps in utero when there is a loud noise? The baby sure looks human at 20 weeks.  I am not trying to be arguementative or contraversial, I really want to know.. When do they think that this ball of cells becomes human? If not when the heart starts beating, then when? Isn’t a pulse a sign of life? Isn’t movement a sign of life? Is it when the fetus shows some brain activity? How would you moniter that?  Is anyone else curious about this or are we all more interested in the right to choose?

Report this

By Rosy, March 9, 2006 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in response to “mpls”. I wrote that I do feel sorry for those who have had abortions because they will never feel that baby move, which they won’t because it is dead. I did not write that they will never have a baby, or feel a baby move. I believe that is your own interpretation of what I wrote. I do believe that life starts at conception and continues at implantation and if you have ever read and taken biology classes on the development of a human you would appreciate how very little conceptions manage to implant.  This all said, if life doesn’t start then, then when? In response to “Myeisha” I am pro choice in this regard: I believe that the person chooses when they decide to be intimate. I also believe that those who have been raped should have the choice to terminate since their choice to be intimate was taken away. I also believe that in the instance that the Mother’s life is in peril she should also have the choice to terminate, even if my own Mother did not take it. I believe in these circumstances that it is up to the Mother.

Report this

By Denny, March 9, 2006 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Melody #4786.  I’m always suprised when someone who already had an abortion now doesn’t want any else to have one.  Why was it all right for you to get rid of your unwanted baby because it was inconvient for you to have it and now she thinks other women shouldn’t have that option?  How hypocritical!

Report this

By Curt Bentley, March 9, 2006 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Some Responses:

1. Quote from Matthew Burton Kelly:

“I disagree with a lot of choices people make.  I don’t make these choices myelf, and I certainly don’t make other people live by my morality.”

Answer: But you do make people die because of your morality.

2. Quote from Myeisha:

“A WOMAN WHO WILL BE MORESO DAMAGED BY THIS SURGERY THAN ANYONE ELSE, WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE HER DECISION AND TO MAKE HER AGAINST HER WILL CARRY A CHILD”

Answer: What about the dead child?

3. Another quote from Myeisha:

“you are so naive to what is happening to women’s rights in South Dakota do you realize that “Napoli” has basically made himself God, thrown out all wages of democracy and decided to take it upon himself to make everyone be pro-life.”

Answer: Didn’t I read something about the South Dakota Legislature?  Since when is a majority legislative decision anti-democratic?

4. Quote from Morgan Lamberth:

“TThe [sic] ninth amendment gives us unenumerated rights;the right to privacy is such.Faith-based reasoning that life itself counts is irrelevant:what counts is consciousnes s and feeling pain.Such reasoning involves statistical lies.”

Answer: Are you really implying that it is OK to kill when people are unconscious and don’t feel pain?  Is it good enough that when you do it fast and effectively while they sleep; they might not feel a thing . . . hmm . . . life is not the issue, right?  Life is irrelevant—Am I actually reading this?

Now, my real response:

I have had quite a bit of fun with people who set themselves up for easy responses . . . but this obviously is an important and serious issue.  I am a man, and will never be pregnant, have a baby, or an oppotunity to make the decision to abort or not.  But, I do have some thoughts.

Those who are trying to cast this issue in a purely legal light, e.g. Federalism 10th Amendment v. Unenumerated Rights in the 9th Amendment are missing the real point.  This may be important to the reasoning of the Supreme COurt, but ultimately, this is a moral—not a legal—issue.  The real point is that this is a debate over a conflict between a person’s right to act as they choose (in the interests of their own health, future life) and the right of a fetus for life.  What makes this decision difficult are two things: (1) the fact that some can try and justify that a fetus is not a living human being, and (2) the fact that not every pregnancy is a result of a voluntary choice to engage in sexual activity.  Even all but the very arch conservatives on the religious right acknolwedge a mother’s right to abort a pregnancy initiated by rape, or which medical professionals agree endangers her own life.  This should all but eliminate the second difficulty.  With this elimination, all you have left is the difficulty that will result in a young mother being forced to accept responsibility for a child and the rights of the fetus itself.  This difficulty can be substantially eliminated as well—through adoption.
In reality, the pro-life position is the following:

When the mother has made a voluntary choice to be sexually active, she is being required, in the interests of the rights of her unborn child, to go through the process of pregnancy and childbirth in order to give that person (which she helped initiate) a chance to live.  She may place the child up for adoption, and have no further responsibility if she chooses.  But really, is that too much to ask?  Remember, it is the life of the child at stake!

Now, you may answer my posting by disclaiming that a fetus is a human being.  That may be your opinion . . . but don’t cast me or others as unreasonable and “destroying the wages of democracty” (by the way, what are the wages of democracy anyway Myeisha. . .) because we believe that a fetus is human being who is protected under homicide laws.

A final response to posts about conservative hypocrisy:

Essentially, the tired old argument goes something like this: if conservatives are so concerned about rights, how can they let innocent children suffer and go around waging war on unsuspecting countries which pose no threat to national security. Or, an alternative version: how can they talk about life when they only stand up for big business and continue to oppress the poor within their own country.  You may have various views about conservative foreign policy and fiscal policy objective, but the hypocritcal argument is always a weak one—if abortion is wrong, it is wrong.  This is true no matter if the party who supports its abolition is wrong on every other issue under the sun.  You know that, and so do I.


Sorry for the typos, and please respond.

Report this

By Rosy, March 9, 2006 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in response to “mpls”. I wrote that I do feel sorry for those who have had abortions because they will never feel that baby move, which they won’t because it is dead. I did not write that they will never have a baby, or feel a baby move. I believe that is your own interpretation of what I wrote. I do believe that life starts at conception and continues at implantation and if you have ever read and taken biology classes on the development of a human you would appreciate how very little conceptions manage to implant.  This all said if life doesn’t start then, then when? In response to “Myeisha” I am pro choice in this regard. I believe that the person chooses when they decide to be intimate. I also believe that those who have been raped should have the choice to terminate since their choice to be intimate was taken away. I also believe in the instance that the Mother’s life is in peril, she should also have the choice to terminate, even if my own Mother did not take it. I believe in these circumstances that it is up to the Mother.

Report this

By Rosy, March 9, 2006 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in response to “mpls”. I wrote that I do feel sorry for those who have had abortions because they will never feel that baby move, which they won’t because it is dead. I did not write that they will never have a baby, or feel a baby move. I believe that is your own interpretation of what I wrote. I do believe that life starts at conception and continues at implantation and if you have ever read and taken biology classes on the development of a human you would appreciate how very little conceptions manage to implant.  This all said if life doesn’t start then, then when? In response to “Myeisha” I am pro choice in this regard. I believe that the person chooses when they decide to be intimate. I also believe that those who have been raped should have the choice to terminate since their choice to be intimate was taken away. I also believe in the instance that the Mother’s life is in peril should also have the choice even if my own Mother did not take it. I believe in these circumstances that it is up to the Mother.

Report this

By scrubbyoak, March 9, 2006 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I love you, Molly, but I disagree with your views on abortion. Yes, banning almost all abortions, like South Dakota did, borders on the extreme, but you must also admit that abortion on demand should not be the answer. A line should be drawn somewhere, so, where do we draw it.
The argument that a woman has a right to her body is valid to a point. The point where that baby is survivable outside the womb. That is a child at that point. Nobody should have a right to kill that child. Not even the mother.
The pro choice side of this debate want no restrictions, not even on late term abortions. Avoiding pregnancy is a lot easier than it used to be. Contraception is not perfect but it beats the hell out of abortions, especially the late term abortions.

Report this

By tquigly, March 9, 2006 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Napoli’s memories “growing up in the Wild West” are different than mine - I remember horror stories of women (and their unborn babies) dying horrendous deaths from botched abortions because abortion was illegal.  Making abortions illegal again will not stop them - it will only kill women (and their unborn babies).  Is Napoli willing to adopt every baby put up for adoption because abortion was not an option?  If not, he needs to shut up.
Anyway, the Rude Pundit has the solution for Napoli and South Dakota:
The Solution For South Dakota: More Fucking:
Here’s what we do: the age of consent in South Dakota is 16 years old, so this’ll be easy. We gotta get a bunch of the smoothest black motherfuckers around, sweet-talkin’, hot lookin’ African American males, we’re talkin’ some Terence Howard or Andre 3000 or Taye Diggs-lookin’ and actin’ dudes, and get ‘em on board for a mission to South Dakota, where the past-the-age-of-consent (which is, by the way, 16) white pussies are tight and virginal and ready for fuckin’.

Then we organize us a concert, say a double bill of Common and John Legend, maybe a mini-tour of the fine, repressed towns of Pierre, the ironically-named Deadwood, and the even more ironically-named Sioux Falls, places where meth use and HIV infections due to IV drug abuse are flyin’ high.

Invite all the fine Christian youth groups, young women only past the age of consent, which is, as has been mentioned, sixteen, to the concert, and let them listen to Common for a little while. All of a sudden, in their pure white panties, they’ll start feelin’ sticky and strange, like they did for just a moment when they saw Michael W. Smith in concert, but now it’s so much more intense, much hotter, and so goddamn-oops- damn tingly, and, what the hey? No one’s makin’ ‘em feel guilty for it.

Then, the trap set, the troop of smooth black dudes heads into the club or American Legion Hall to start dancin’ with the beautiful, snow-white daughters, all of whom are at least 16, of South Dakota. If a Taye Diggs-lookin’ man is whisperin’ in your ear, movin’ slow to that groove, while John Legend is singin’ “Let’s Get Lifted Again,” you are goin’ to promise to do anything to fuck that man.

Which, of course is the end result of the evening. Fuckin’. Lots of fuckin’. All consensual. All without drugs or alcohol. All above 16. Just pure, passionate, oh, shit, ain’t this fun, fuckin’. The cherry poppin’ noises’ll make it sound like New Year’s Eve. Those upstandin’ Christian white girls’ll be shoutin’ their “Hallelujahs” and “Amens” and really know what those words mean.

And when the night is over? Well, shit, it’s South Dakota, man. Get those guys out of there. Fast. You seen how they treat the Indians who live there? How do you think they’re gonna treat visitin’ non-whites?

Over the next few weeks, months even, as periods are missed and crocodile tears are shed (for, indeed, there will be few real regrets), you can pretty much bet that abortion on demand will become the law of the land in South Dakota so fast that it’ll seem that yesterday never happened.

Report this

By Myeisha, March 9, 2006 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You know, to all of you who have posted what you have said has been extremely controversial….ROSY:  your statement makes my blood boil because you are so naive to what is happening to women’s rights in South Dakota do you realize that “Napoli” has basically made himself God, thrown out all wages of democracy and decided to take it upon himself to make everyone be pro-life.  Religiously that is nice but we were all given minds, thoughts and opinions for choice…..whether you are against abortion or for it think first are you pro-choice, this is the issue to have choice…..have you taken time to read Roe v. Wade….the situation occurring in South Dakota is so deep and far beyond what is being written on this board, whether God believed in abortion or not, he created it.  The 14th Amendment which is the key to protection on the state level is all about “due process” first generated to protect newly freed slaves from authorities.  Nonetheless, in order for the 14th amendment to be legitimate and apply to everyone the United States Supreme Court eventually made the 14th amendment apply as due process for citizens in all states regardless of race.  That application came with the Weeks case in 1913.  Today all states due to selective incorporation have the benefit of The Bill of Rights (i.e. rights which, under a society’s laws, citizens and/or residents either have, want to have, or ought to have).  Its not right to choose to take women’s rights (abortion) while continuing to keep other rights which apply the same thing….taking life (war, death penalty, etc. etc. etc.).  What makes abortion so wrong.  Yes I do understand how it feels to carry a child who is yours, part of you, carried by you, is there when you are alone for 9 months, I understand the love that you can have for a child once it begins to develop sometimes even earlier than that, BUT WHAT GIVES ANYONE ANY RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER A WOMAN SHOULD CONCEIVE OR ABORT A CHILD, WHO MADE ANYONE GOD, HOW CAN YOU WITH ANY DIGNITY TAKE CHOICE FROM A WOMAN.  A WOMAN WHO WILL BE MORESO DAMAGED BY THIS SURGERY THAN ANYONE ELSE, WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE HER DECISION AND TO MAKE HER AGAINST HER WILL CARRY A CHILD THAT SHE MAY NOT BE READY TO TAKE CARE OF, IN THIS DAY AND TIME EVERYONE DOES NOT PRESERVE THEIR VIRGINITY UNTIL MARRIAGE, HOWEVER SOME DO THE SITUATION CONTINUES THAT MANY DO NOT, SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YOU OUTLAW SEX OUT OF WEDLOCK AND IF IT DOES HAPPEN THEN YOU DO WHAT THEY DID IN OLD TIMES AND FORCE MARRIAGE UPON THEM.  HAS ANYONE EVER THOUGHT THAT EVOLUTION IS CHANGE AND YOU MOVE FORWARD NOT REGRESS….WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD!!!!

Report this

By Bluestocking, March 9, 2006 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wonder if any of these “women” ever thought of birth control…or sterilization…or just keeping their legs closed ?—Walter

***********************

Last time I checked, Walter, it takes two people to make a child and not just one—blaming women for unplanned pregnancy suggests that men shouldn’t be expected to take responsibility for their own choices, which is a little too conveniently ironic considering that your argument claims that abortion results from a lack of personal responsibility! I wonder how many of these “men” ever thought about condoms…or having a vasectomy…or just keeping their flies zipped?  It works both ways, fella!

Irresponsibility is not particular to women. If a man wants to have sex—especially since men seem to place such a high premium on it—he should be willing to consider the consequences and take precautions simply for his own benefit instead of leaving it all up to his partner. If a man doesn’t want to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, he should make certain that he *always* uses condoms even if his partner claims that she’s protected—either that, or not have sex.

Report this

By Melody, March 9, 2006 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To all confused pro-aborts out there.  Prior to Roe vs Wade women ALWAYS had the right to abortion for medical reasons.  Doctors always aborted the child if the mothers life was endangered by the pregnancy. This is why the Catholic Church had an edict about it.  Even in the deep south doctors were aborting babies to save the life of the mother, as early as 1939!

Someone asked how many women abort every year due to “health.”  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the pro abortion think tank of Planned Parenthood, that percentage is EXACTLY 1%.

Sorry but have to make my point here again. WE are coming out of the closet.  You look extremely silly argueing with women who have “been there done that” when you believe the abortionist profiting from her instead of believing her experience.

Also, last but not least. The term “doctor” is a lie too.  No woman consults a doctor about an abortion.  She goes to see an abortionist whose main goal is to take the life of her child for profit.

Report this

By mpls, March 9, 2006 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in response to “Rosy”, who commented on how she feels sorry for women who have had abortions because they will never feel their precious babies move.  That is a ridiculous comment as it assumes, first of all, that women who have had abortions will never have children.  It also assumes that everyone believes as she does - that at the moment of conception, it is a baby.  I have had an abortion.  I do not regret my abortion.  I am eternally grateful that I was able to have a safe one.  I have also since then had a baby and I STILL don’t regret having an abortion.  I do not need “Rosy” to feel sorry for me because I’ve had an abortion.

Report this

By Aimee L. Walker, March 9, 2006 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We should consider banning South Dakota. (I have a travel web site.)

Also what about men who opt to getting a Vasectomy?  Is that a form of birth control?  Will doctors be able to sterilize women?  Will men who make women pregnant be held resposible for all of the babies who are saved from abortion?  Can they afford to support all of their babies?

Peace,
Aimee

Report this

By princess katrina woman, March 9, 2006 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

molly darling,

the nutwhacks are on fire. thank you. i’m ready for the nukes to fly. we are dust. i plan on having a martini in one hand and chocolate in the other as i watch this insane ass parade of bitter bitter shriveled up people march us to the end of time. death to us all can not come soon enough. we as a country deserve to die. today. now. please please please let south dakota be the new ground zero.

yours in christ,

princess katrina woman

Report this

By Charlie Wallace, March 9, 2006 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In Comment #4893, Dave Moberg asks “Where in God’s Green Earth do you see ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to abortion??”  The answer is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ...”  This clause guarantees every one of us the right to determine what will be done to and with our own bodies.  This right is what stops others from being able to force you to donate blood, or bone marrow, or even organs such as a kidney or lung, against your will.  Not even if your failure to do so will cost a REAL human being their life.  If people like Dave would like to deny women the right to determine how their bodies will be used (i.e. their uteruses), then they themselves should be ready to give up the right to refuse to donate THEIR body parts.  After all, you can live perfectly fine with one kidney, or one lung.  You can replace the blood and bone marrow you’d be forced to donate.  My point is that a fetus, regardless or whether or not it is a human being already, does NOT have a right to use a woman’s uterus against her will.  No more than I have a right to use Dave’s blood or bone marrow against his will. Even if I would die without it.

In Comment #4894, Steve-o states “If you can’t afford to raise a child or don’t want one - keep your pants on!”  So he is maintaining that, because a woman engages in an act that some small percentage of the time results in a pregnancy (for example, I’ve engaged in sex thousands of times, resulting in only 3 pregnancies: my three kids whom I love dearly), then the government is justified in denying her medical treatment to alleviate the result.  By that logic, the government would be justified in denying Steve-o medical treatment for being in a car wreck.  After all, he knows whenever he gets in a car, that there is some small probability that he will be in a car wreck.  If he doesn’t want to be lying in the gutter with his head split open, then he should get off his ass, and WALK where he wants to go.  My point is that, just because you engage in some act by choice, that does not mean that you forfeit the right to medical treatment for any “unfortunate results” of that act that might ensue. How many surgeries has Evel Knievel undergone, for HIS reckless behavior over the years?  We have never denied him medical treatment.  Yet people like Steve-o want to deny women medical treatment because of behavior that is perfectly normal and natural (sex).

The bottom line is that no one has the right ot tell anyone (including women) what they have to do with their own bodies.  That was the basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  And that is still perfectly valid today.

Report this

By W. White, March 9, 2006 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Carl Sagan, the late great Cosmologist and author, was ever the logical scientist, even when it came to the emotion laden issue of abortion. If our society, morally and legally, accept a flatline EEG as clinical death at one end of life, he posited, why then can we not accept flatline EEG at the other end? Since the fetal brain develops brain waves only at the start of the third trimester, he proposed, perhaps we can be consistent, and accept that as the start of life, just as we accept the cessation of brain waves as clinical death. His proposal requires some give and take by both sides. The question is, can we give as well as take?

Report this

By saul2006, March 9, 2006 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The religious wrong have not read Number 5:12-29 where it talks abou a husband jealous about his wife having maybe had sex with another. A test is given and the honest women shall cocieve while the unfaithful wife shall abort.
So it appears God is not against abortion.
He is also not against whores since when Judah visited what he though a prostitute but who was the wife of his deceased son, the ouctome of this illicit liason was Perez who was to become the forefather of David and misbegotten one

Report this

By steve-o, March 9, 2006 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

R.A. Earl —thanks for letting all of us know that we keep debating the same points ... maybe because THEY DON’T CHANGE .The issue is what it is .. the facts are what they are ... What was your new enlightening idea ? hmmm.. let’s see .. people banding together to decide how other’s should conduct themselves .. gee , sounds like representative government to me!What is really destroying our society is those who feel that each individual is his own little universe and shouldn’t be required to conform to ANYTHING except what they want. Certain norms for a decent law abiding society SHOULD be enacted and enforced, otherwise there is chaos ... the problem lies in the point that some think that they should never be made to abide by any law / norm that prohibits their self destructive behavior .. yes yes .. it is “your” destructive behavior - but many times the foolishness of a few affects many ... people will always have some sort of authority to answer to or some entity that has at least some POWER OVER all of us, so grow up and deal with it.

Report this

By Dave Moberg, March 9, 2006 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

nelliebly, you really don’t get it do you? You really think that these so-called “Bible-Waving” politicians are just trying to steal privacy away from women?? You actually believe that?  As I’ve said before, Roe v Wade is about the federal government usurping power away from the states, away from the people, therefore allowing the bible-wavers and Jesus-Freaks to have their positions voiced, and the heathen godless hellbound aetheists to have their voices heard equally. 

Why won’t you people listen??

IT IS NOT ABOUT PRIVACY!

It’s about respecting LIFE and LIBERTY.  Freedom to choose your laws.  Freedom of self government, freedom of DEMOCRACY.  There is no reference to anything close to abortion in the Constitution- no mention of the word “privacy” anywhere, the 4th Amendment is not relevant in this issue at all.  The States therefore have the right to decide for themselves on this issue.

nellie, you want the “freedom to make your own choices”?? Well then you should be at the front of the Supreme Court Steps protesting Roe v Wade.  Unless you’re afraid that the Bible-Wavers are actually the majority?

Report this

By Rosy, March 9, 2006 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am saddened when I read these emails placed by men and women tearing each other apart over a difference of opinion on religion and abortion. I am currently 10 weeks pregnant. I love my baby! I have two little boys and the oldest (my three year old) is so excited about cute baby. To all those women who are trashing those who don’t believe in abortion have you never been pregnant? Have you ever felt the baby move and just wanted to hold it and protect it. I feel my babies move at 16 weeks and when they are born they know my voice. I don’t need science to tell me when my baby starts to feel. They honestly don’t know. They just discovered that babies cry in utero at 28 weeks. I am pro life and I am religious. I like C.S. Lewis believe that our idea of right and wrong came from somewhere. I feel sorry for all those women who get abortions. I grieve for them because they will never feel that precious baby move. They will never feel the joy of holding that squirming bundle even if they can’t keep it. I am proud of all young women that have the babies and give them up for adoption because they could not afford the baby and the babies father was either a rapist or a dead beat. I watched friends who had wanted a baby for years able to adopt. I saw their gratitude for an unselfish young woman who just wanted her baby to have everything that she had but could not provide it herself. I have friends who have given up babies and while they regretted getting pregnant at the time they did and being unable to raise the baby themselves they have never regretted that their baby lived and has parents who love him. They are now married and have other children and while they never forget that they gave up a child they also thank God that they didn’t kill it. I am so very grateful that I waited until I was married to be intimate. I have two beautiful boys and it would have broke my heart to give them away, but I know I would have if I had been raped and unmarried. Those things you can heal from. Rape is not your choice therefore not the victim’s responsibility. I am not saying that rape is an easy thing to get over. I had a roomate who had been raped by one of her brother’s friends. We used to talk and she would cry but she knew that it wasn’t her fault. She still had a hard time with trust but she knew that she was not responsible for this young man’s actions. The young man was responsible for his own actions and deep down no matter how much he can justify he knows it’s wrong. I feel the same about abortion and deep down I know that it is wrong.  They wanted my Mom to abort her last child telling her that she would die. She looked at them and calmly said no then went home to plan her furneral and the birth of number eight. She did not die and neither did the baby. I am grateful that my Mom had the faith to do what she knew to be right. I am grateful that she chose to have my sister. I am also grateful that my sister inlaws Mom was also such a lady or she wouldn’t be a part of our family. Here’s to the courageous women out there who just do what they know deep down to be the right thing.

Report this

By Rosy, March 9, 2006 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am saddened when I read these emails placed by men and women tearing each other apart over a difference of opinion on religion and abortion. I am currently 10 weeks pregnant. I love my baby! I have two little boys and the oldest (my three year old) is so excited about cute baby. To all those women who are trashing those who don’t believe in abortion have you never been pregnant? Have you ever felt the baby move and just wanted to hold it and protect it. I feel my babies move at 16 weeks and when they are born they know my voice. I don’t need science to tell me when my baby starts to feel. They honestly don’t know. They just discovered that babies cry in utero at 28 weeks. I am pro life and I am religious. I like C.S. Lewis believe that our idea of right and wrong came from somewhere. I feel sorry for all those women who get abortions. I grieve for them because they will never feel that precious baby move. They will never feel the joy of holding that squirming bundle even if they can’t keep it. I am proud of all young women that have the babies and give them up for adoption because they could not afford the baby and the babies father was either a rapist or a dead beat. I watched friends who had wanted a baby for years able to adopt. I saw their gratitude for an unselfish young woman who just wanted her baby to have everything that she had but could not provide it herself. I have friends who have given up babies and while they regretted getting pregnant at the time they did and being unable to raise the baby themselves they have never regretted that their baby lived and has parents who love him. They are now married and have other children and while they never forget that they gave up a child they also thank God that they didn’t kill it. I am so very grateful that I waited until I was married to be intimate. I have two beautiful boys and it would have broke my heart to give them away, but I know I would have if I had been raped and unmarried. Those things you can heal from. Rape is not your choice therefore not the victim’s responsibility. I am not saying that rape is an easy thing to get over. I had a roomate who had been raped by one of her brother’s friends. We used to talk and she would cry but she knew that it wasn’t her fault. She still had a hard time with trust but she knew that she was not responsible for this young man’s actions. The young man was responsible for his own actions and deep down no matter how much you can justify you know it’s wrong. I feel the same about abortion and deep down I know that it is wrong.  They wanted my Mom to abort her last child telling her that she would die. She looked at them and calmly said no then went home to plan her furneral and the birth of number eight. She did not die and neither did the baby. I am grateful that my Mom had the faith to do what she knew to be right. I am grateful that she chose to have my sister. I am also grateful that my sister inlaws Mom was also such a lady or she wouldn’t be a part of our family. Here’s to the courageous women out there who just do what they know deep down to be the right thing.

Report this

By nelliebly, March 9, 2006 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rarely do I agree with Ivins, but in this case she is right on. In my child-bearing years, I would not have chosen abortion, but that’s my personal decision. Even so, I want all women everywhere to have the freedom to make that very serious and troublesome decision for themselves and not some stuffy, pompous Bible-waving politician. Roe-versus-Wade will not go away because women will not allow that to happen. For those who disagree, I have this bit of advice: Live your own life and let others live theirs. And take your Bible with you.

Report this

By steve-o, March 9, 2006 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please stop all the whining about how difficult it is to raise a child ...the hardships you face are a result of your own irresponsible behavior. Having to work a low wage job, lack of male support etc. are stressful no doubt - but - maybe ..just maybe you and your “partner” should have used a little restraint or better judgment before participating in an act that most likely produces a child ...women AND MEN should take responsibility for the decisions they make .. If you can’t afford to raise a child or don’t want one - keep your pants on!

Report this

By Dave Moberg, March 9, 2006 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

4th Amendment My Ass.
Here is the ENTIRE TEXT of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Where in God’s Green Earth do you see ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to abortion??  This amendment is solely concerned with searches of property, persons and detaining without warrants.  There is nothing in this amendment that covers your so-called “right to choose.”  It’s about your right to private property.

And ravenguard, don’t ever try to pull that “no religion” in laws crap, because in the first place, you liberals love to assume that all conservatives and all pro-lifers are against abortion because we have the Holy Spirit and a bad case of Jesus Fever- which is ridiculous.  Sure the idiots protesting outside of the abortion clinics are, well, idiots- and that’s the only pro-life media coverage out there.  However, the real “agenda” pro-lifers have is not to create Biblical Law, it’s to ensure that the government fulfills its first and foremost obligation to the American People- protecting its citizens. 
What is religion??  What is Law??
Are they not based more or less on your hated “morals”??  How can you separate religion and law?  You cannot, unless you selectively brand all laws that deal with social issues as “religious interference.”  What about “Thou shalt not steal”- should we decriminalize shoplifting and larsony because it’s “offensive and intolerantly religious”??  Almost all “religions” condemn theft- so what.  If we are to have this “separation of Church and State” (which is a grossly distorted and perverted idea, congrats, you have a handful of quotations taken out of context of the founding fathers, have a cookie), than we can in effect have no laws at all, because somewhere, some religion sanctions similar principals!! OH NO!!!

Your selective intellect and falacious logic is not only offensive, it’s dangerous and infectious.  High Horse Liberals who claim that conservatives are all “holier than thou,” should turn the mirror around when it comes to Roe V Wade.  If you are so against the federal gov telling you what you can do with “your own body” than why don’t you do the honest thing and strike down Roe, which strips the power away from you and me to truly “choose.”  States are given the rights to decide these matters not specifically dealt with in the Constitution, and anyone who thinks that abortion is in any way shape or form dealth with in it is a moron, or has been brainwashed.  READ THE CONSTITUTION before opening your mouth.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, March 9, 2006 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a quick observation or two…

First, I’ve not discovered even ONE new position or notion posted in this forum. It’s as if the entire issue is stuck in some kind of time-warping, revolving cultural/religious door operating within the American psyche. Talk about boring and futile verbiage!

Secondly, where along the way was it decided that “some” people could band together to decide for “other” people how they should live their lives?

This is a crystal clear example of how the collective in the USA has embarked upon the road of POWER OVER, which, in my view, leads to an abyss from which there is no return.

It’s too bad… the first few hundred years of the American experiment, based on POWER WITH, looked so promising.

Report this

By Caryn, March 9, 2006 at 8:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

end the ignorance
http://www.abort73.com

Report this

By Steve-o, March 9, 2006 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

... Please show us in the Constitution where it mentions these “rights to privacy” so many liberals espouse ... and for the billionth time, seperation of Church and state is nothing more than a catch phrase for those trying to force their immoral choices and lifestyles on the general public ...The United States government does not force religion on anyone. Throwing out a few selected quotes from the founding fathers has no effect whatsoever on what is already in the constitution. Most abortions are- and will always be just a conveinent tool to eliminate a human life because someone couldn’t be responsible enough, or was too weak minded to control their behavior.. we need to stop making excuses and change the behavior that results in this tragic issue ... if you don’t want a child, keep your pants on !

Report this

By Nathaniel, March 9, 2006 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Five responses:

1. Kim - You claim that men need to be held responsible for their sexual decisions just like women.  I agree with you and that is why I am pro-life.  Only the pro-life view can hold men responsible.  We need to have men who are committed to women in marriage and willing to support their children.  Being pro-abortion is just what these “raping” guys want.  They want they women they have sex with to abort the fetus so they are not responsible.  That is why the biggest segment of the population that is pro-abortion is “young males”.

2.  Laralee -  You claim, “A fertilized egg is not a baby or a child.  Anyone who thinks that has a limited grasp of science.” 

Here are quotes from science textbooks that contradict your claim.  The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

 
 
Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

 
 
Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments…  The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo… “The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book.”

3.  Just Visting…  - You want people to “judge not lest you be judged.”  (Actually, that statement itself is a moral judgment.)  It seems that you fail to realize that are laws are based on a judgment of right and wrong.  Claiming that “rape is wrong” is a moral judgment.  I hope you make that judgment.  Those who are for protecting unborn life are making a similar judgment.  It is a judgment against murder.  (See # 2 for indication that unborn humans are human.)

4.  Angel McFee - You claim that the issue is about privacy.  Do you have that right to kill Kim in the privacy of your home?  The 4th amendment is meant to protect unreasonable searches.  That does not mean people (including doctors) have a right to destroy another human’s life in the privacy of anywhere.  The right to life is more fundamental than the right to privacy. 

5.  Ravengaurd - You state, “Another disgusting lie told by the anti-choice propaganda machines is calling people who are pro-choice “pro-abortion.” That’s stupid and it insults everyone’s intelligence. Give me a break. No one is FOR abortion. It’s not a choice made lightly, like buying a pair of shoes. It is a difficult decision. It’s not a method of birth control.”
It seem like you are saying that killing a baby is not equal to buying shoes.  I absolutely agree.  That is why the label “pro-choice” is inappropriate because it minimizes the actual choice being made.  “Pro-choice” people are “anti-choice” when it comes to rape and murder (I hope).  So why is it so hard to accept pro-abortion? 

http://www.abort73.com  (for more infomation)

Report this

By morgan lamberth, March 9, 2006 at 2:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

test

Report this

By morgan lamberth, March 9, 2006 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TThe ninth amendment gives us unenumerated rights;the right to privacy is such.Faith-based reasoning that life   itself counts is irrelevant:what counts is consciousnes s and feeling pain.Such reasoning involves statistical lies.

Report this

By morgan lamberth, March 9, 2006 at 2:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is the ninth amendment that cooounts;UNENUMERATED rightscount,Personhood does not begin until the fetus has consciousness and can feel pain.Life itself is irrelevantThe pro-forced pregnancy people need education:faith-based reasoning blinds most of them.Their book of fables does not bind the rest of us.

Report this

By ravenguard, March 8, 2006 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Roe v. Wade is NOT about the 10th amendment—it IS about the right to privacy. Remember that states can give people more rights than the country as a whole—but they CANNOT give them LESS rights. As it stands, proposed laws as restrictive as the one in SD are clearly unconstitutional.

Every single argument I hear from the anti-choice people (who are no more “pro-life” than Dick Cheney) fails the most basic test of research. The fake statistics about abortions and death, or abortion and breast cancer—any site that promotes these kinds of propaganda has a political agenda. Just look at the board members, look at the sponsoring sites. Then check those numbers against the National Cancer Society, or the National Institutes of Health, etc.

Another disgusting lie told by the anti-choice propaganda machines is calling people who are pro-choice “pro-abortion.” That’s stupid and it insults everyone’s intelligence. Give me a break. No one is FOR abortion. It’s not a choice made lightly, like buying a pair of shoes. It is a difficult decision. It’s not a method of birth control. 

If the anti-choice militia were so concerned with people’s lives, they would be working towards the time when abortion would not be necessary, by providing comprehensive sex education, contraception, and working on building teens’ self-esteem. Statistics from countries where there is comprehensive sex education show that the rate of unwanted pregnancies goes down—not because there are more abortions, but because education can give teens a sense of the real consequences of entering into sexual relationships.

Abortion and pregnancy rates went down during Clinton’s presidency. They’re up during the so-called “sanctity of life” administration of Bush.

No one can tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, be it for abortion or end-of-life decisions. The government has absolutely no right at all to enter into issues of privacy. The roots of this issue are purely religious (sometimes masquerading as “moral”)—and since religion has NO PLACE in legislation (and don’t even start—the Founding Fathers were crystal clear on their intent—see quotes below), then the issue has to be decided on privacy grounds. Period.

Brush up on the separation of church and state, folks:
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11)?

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
—Thomas Jefferson

“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
—James Madison

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper (February 10, 1814)

  “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.”
—Thomas Paine quotes (English born American Writer and political pamphleteer, whose ‘Common Sense’ and ‘Crisis’ papers were important influences on the American Revolution. 1737-1809)

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
—John Adams

“A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law.”
—Benjamin Franklin

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Report this

By bg1, March 8, 2006 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The culture wars are just BAIT for the ignorant, the gullible and the politically naive, to push through tax cuts, deregulation of business and the elimination of public services and other anti-worker policies that are difficult to sell to the public otherwise. If there’s one thing these right wing “culture warriors” care about more than anything else, it isn’t the unborn, but is instead the bottom line, i.e. their own bank accounts.  All this to-and-fro in the culture wars is just a diversion meant to get gullible people to vote against their own interests.

It should be noted that this culture war bait works for the Democrats too (most of whom get their money from the same masters as the GOP); they just pitch to the opposing crowd (e.g. to NY homos etc., rather than TX rednecks etc.).

Report this

By cheryl, March 8, 2006 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m from South Dakota-have lived here all my life.  This is the state that voted against George McGovern, its own senator in favor of Richard Nixon.  This governor and these legislators who voted in for this abortion ban are a bunch of dumb asses.  And that one stupid comment that representative made about those “shot gun weddings” We married them if we got them pregnant back in the old west.  Well, that may be true, but then they screwed around on the side.  I’m sure if we would check deep into several of the legislators who passed this piece of shit bill, lots of baby skeletons would be dangling in their closets!!!!

Report this

By Angel McFee, March 8, 2006 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The decision in Roe vs Wade was to allow a woman the privacy to discuss her medical condition and decision with her doctor.  It was an issue regarding privacy under the preumbra of the 4th Amendment’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Effectively, it eliminated the State’s right to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. There were other serious cases preceeding Roe…the one in Connecticut comes to mind. In the 60’s it was illegal for married couples to acquire birth control in that state. A doctor perscribed, I believe a diaphram, and was prosecuted. That case went to the US Supreme Court and the court ruled that the State has no business in the private marriage bed.

The point that everyone here is missing is the issue is really about PRIVACY. Whether one chooses to terminate a pregnancy or not is a decision that’s really nobody’s business…except the patient, the doctor, and whoever else needs to be involved.

Remember gentlemen…you will be required by FEDERAL law to support that child you so willingly placed an order for; you will pay child support until that child reaches 18…and back child support until you die if you don’t pay; they will attach your wages, your tax returns and throw your ass in jail. You can not ever get out of it…ever. And you can’t deny paternity either…the DNA labs are very, very good.
Or you may find yourself trapped into marriage because of a pregnancy.

I don’t see any real winners here…men who are stuck with children they have to pay for that they don’t want…women stuck with children they don’t want…abuse, abandonment, neglect. If you don’t believe me just check out all the stuff that happened in Romania when they had the same anti-abortion, anti-birth control laws a few years ago. Thousands of children were murdered, abandoned, starved, sent to orphanages. Look at Brazil with their unwanted children. And Mexico.

Remember…the trap traps us all.

Report this

By JustVisitingFromAnotherPlanet, March 8, 2006 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, and another thought.  If you are suffering from guilt for something that you did, that’s your problem.  If you are feeling inadequate or powerless, please don’t try to gain power vicariously by voting to control others.  And, doesn’t South Dakota have a death penalty?  Is it okay to kill real people.  This does not seem to be about the taking of life—it’s more about controlling and punishing women or atoning for one’s perceived sins.  Your religion is your’s, not mine.  If you choose to misinterpret the Bible or any other holy book, I do not have to be bound by your ignorance.  I don’t eat meat, but I don’t try to criminalize people who do.

Report this

By JustVisitingFromAnotherPlanet, March 8, 2006 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll bet State Sen. Bill Napoli has never been in a position of trying to raise a child or children on Walmart wages.  I’ll bet he’s never had to drop out of high school to support a child.  I’ll bet Napoli has never had to make a choice between putting food on the table and paying the rent.  Can Napoli force dead-beat dads to pay for the children that they created but refuse to support?  When a woman is divorced or widowed, she has to work—has Napoli ever tried to hold down a job or jobs while taking care of a home, alone?  You creepy, hypocritical, selfish, parsimonious hicks make me sick.  Stop thumping your bibles, which you have twisted to suit your sick agendas, and show some compassion, empathy and humanity.  JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED!

Report this

By laralee, March 8, 2006 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A fertilized egg is not a baby or a child.  Anyone who thinks that has a limited grasp of science. Life began billions of eons ago when elements previously inanimate became alive. Cells gathered together in such a way as to perform various functions. Organic forms must take in nourishment, excrete wastes, achieve some mobility and reproduce. Every cell in a living creature has a life cycle. It’s created, it functions, it dies. Living functional cells are referred to as alive. Leaves on trees are alive. The hairs on our heads are alive, until they fall out and die.

Reproductive cells are part of living organisms. Nature is very generous with its little packets of potential life. Every acorn, every sun flower seed, every man’s sperm and every woman’s eggs are live reproductive cells capable, under the proper conditions, of maturing into an adult organism.

Nature is so generous because the majority of reproductive cells are destined to die. There is not enough room on Earth for every acorn to become an oak tree, for every apple seed to become a tree, every flower seed to become a plant, every fish’s roe to hatch, every man’s sperm to create a child.
A woman has more than 200 chances to become pregnant in her lifetime. Modern science has blessed us with the tools to plan the best time to have a family and to have as many children as the parents feel they can support. The past dark ages of our great grandparents, when women had 11 to 22 pregnancies per lifetime in the hopes that three or four children would live, are over.  Abortions are blessings that wipe out mistakes.  Trust the woman to pick the time in her life to have her family and we’ll all be happy.  The pregnancy-enfo rces don’t really care about these few cells.  Staying in control is what they want .  They don’t care about children or we wouldn’t have so many kids living in poverty with rotten teeth.  Can we cut the hypocracy please!

Report this

By Kim, March 8, 2006 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s reframe this issue.  Instead of constantly blaming the woman in every issue involving pregnancy, let’s view prevention of pregnancy as male responibility as well.  Perhaps we should pass a law that forces men who impregnate women outside of marriage to undergo forced sterilization. How’s that? Do you like the idea of the state controlling YOUR body?  Or perhaps they should be thrown in jail for a year.  How about forcing men who have impregnated women outside of marriage to have their wages witheld and a sizable portion given to the woman who, at least in South Dakota, was forced to bear the unwanted child. Sound pretty good? Better yet, any man who impregnates a woman who doesn’t want the child will be forced to raise it himself!
Another good idea, is that all you nice people out there who want to make the most personal and painful decision for a woman that she can ever make, should surrender your addresses right now so that all these unwanted babies born of state enforced pregnancies can be sent directly to you. There are also many legislators who could use an unwanted baby right now, since they want to claim the decision as their own. Their decision, their responsibility, right?
  It’s really easy to self righteously spout your mouth off when you yourself are in no danger of suffering any consequences, isn’t it? 
  All you yappers out there damning the sexual needs of women I’m sure have done your share of screwing and seducing a few women yourselves, haven’t you? Feeling a little guilty? Punish yourself then, not women. How many of the feces covered, untouched, unloved AIDS babies did you adopt from Romanian orphanages when Ceaucesque was in power and forced women to breed? The babies were never held. Never loved. The nurses didn’t want to touch them.  Their eyes were huge pools of horror.  Why don’t you have that baby drop us a line and let us know what a great parent you are. Oh, you didn’t adopt an unloved AIDS baby? I see.  You can engage in a discussion like this unless, at some point, it intersects with reality. How convenient for you. See, for women, this is REAL. You know REAL LIKE IN REAL LIFE AND REAL AS IN REAL DEATH. They risk death having a baby. Then they support the baby with the job that provides them with, what is it now, sixty cents for every white man’s dollar?
  I wonder how many women will make the excruciating choice to have a tubal ligation or   hysterectomy at twenty-four rather than breed for the state? We know this isn’t really about pregnancy because so many pharmacists are denying women the birth control that prevents unwanted pregnancy. Nope, we all know that the banning of birth control is on the agenda. These guys want to control our sexuality. Mind you, it won’t keep THEM from seducing their interns, raping their fifteen year old neighbor, or finding someone who “understands” them so much better than their mean old wives. It won’t keep THEM from raping their daughters, going out drinking with the guys and having too much fun with someones sister. And they won’t suffer for any of it, the women will. But, lest I paint women as virginal victims of male lust and ferocity, the sad and frightening truth is that women like and need sex just as much as men do. It’s a human thing. This is what galls and frightens some of you. Our honest sexual power which we claim as our own. You want us to play the little game with you, you know, the one where you try to get us and we say “no, I couldn’t”, and then you finally with your awesome powers win over our chaste little objections. Well here’s what we say to you ” DROP DEAD”.
  Maybe South Dakota women will form rape squads to escort each other everywhere. If they pass that nice gun law that allows you to shoot anyone who seems to threaten you whether they have or not, the women can just shoot those rapists. Bang, bang, you’re dead!

Report this

By ernie algorri, March 8, 2006 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is hard to believe that a state which can produce such compassionate visionaries like Tom Daschle and George McGovern can also concoct this “trailer-park cassanova” law where some horney malcontent can literally force a rape victim to have a child.  Another example of Red States’ Rights!

Report this

By Nathaniel, March 8, 2006 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Molly Ivins used much rhetoric and distortion of reality to support her claims. 

First, the voters of South Dakota and many voters throughout the country support this type of ban on the termination of a life.  Napoli is not the only one deciding, but Ivins wants it to look like a dictatorship.
Second, being pro-unborn human is not necessarily being anti-women.  Rights are always limited when they take a greater right away from someone else.  We are forced to yield our right to drive when a pedestrian crosses the street.  After women have already made the choice to get pregnant (as is the case in about 99% of abortions), they have chosen between their right to become pregnant or not.
Third, if Christians fail to help the needy and oppressed in one realm, it does not mean others should think they are justified in doing wrong in another area.  Christians, although not perfect, have been leading reformers for the rights of the world’s oppressed, including women.
Fourth, medical evidence does not support the claim that the baby (fetus) is part of the woman’s body.  After the sperm and egg meet, a new unique life is formed with a different DNA, blood type, etc. inside the mother.  Just because the unborn baby is dependent, it does not mean it is less than human since many people are dependent after birth.
Fifth, the abortion industry is making much money doing a procedure on women that is unnatural.  This hurts women in many ways. 

If Molly Ivins wants to be more educated about abortion, so she can write a more informed article about abortion, she might try visiting http://www.abort73.com .

Report this

By Kim, March 8, 2006 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When does life begin?  The view from the right:  “At Conception!”  “The baby’s heart starts beating at…”  “That’s for God to decide, you murderer!”

Fair enough.  Life is sacred.

Read the following link:  http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0035021.cfm  It’s about this woman who is enraged at the idea of stem cell research, because she had a fertilized egg (that otherwise may have been used for such research) implanted in her womb.  That egg grew into a child.  Now she looks into her child’s eyes and sees thousands of children slaughtered for the purposes of research.  In her own words, “I HATE”.

The following link will only take you a few seconds to read.  It’s the death toll in Iraq.  http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/  I can just as easily post the death toll in New Orleans, a catastrophe left to rot by Bush and Co, while “Brownie” was doing a “hell of a job”.  Or the death toll on 9/11, an atrocity which occurred after Big Oil threatened Afghanistan with a “Carpet of Bombs” if they didn’t go along with their scheme to build a pipeline through it. 

While women like the one in the first article I posted were busy pushing their stollers toward the White House to defend the treatment of cell-clusters… real, developed, feeling, suffering people were dying in a war that their “pro-life” hero insists on perpetuating.

It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded this “sanctity of life” argument is.  All other human trauma pales in comparrison to that of a fetus.

Report this

By Susan, March 8, 2006 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You should have stopped your article after quoting the Senator.  I don’t think you can top him as an advocate for pro-choice.  It made me want to run out and become an abortion provider and I’m a ‘choose life’ kinda person.  So if an atheist slut is brutally raped she can’t have an abortion?  He might as well just say any other female than a Christian virgin is ‘asking for it.’  How about a measure of compassion for the sincere in both camps?  Oops!  Can’t legislate that.  Never mind.

Report this

By jeff, March 8, 2006 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: B.K.  -  Response 4757 ... Good post .. Roe v Wade was an incredibly unlawful descision .. as B.K. pointed out, the court circumvented the 10th amendment big time ... this issue should have been left up to the states to decide .. but as we are well aware, many times the only means the liberals / socialists have to inflict bad law upon us is to bypass the will of the people and find judges as morally bankrupt as they are ...

Report this

By dilbert, March 8, 2006 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Melody, couple of problems with what you posted.  For one, doctors increasingly (thanks to people you probably back) can’t even the discuss abortion with women.  How are they going to know both sides of the issue if the right is too scared to let doctors know the whole story?  Secondly, I’d like to know where you got your information.  How can a researcher attribute the deaths of the women directly to abortion?  For instance, what percent of women were getting an abortion BECAUSE of their health?  If this were the case, what percent would have died from other reasons?  Finally, and most important, what is the alternative?  No one on either side of the issue thinks that abortions will stop.  They’ll just be done in other countries (by rich women) or dangerously on their own (mainly poor women).  Little known fact, abortions have actually gone up each year bush has been in office, they declined each year Clinton was in office.  Why?  Clinton gave support for young and impoverished pregnant women.  He gave them options if they did become pregnant and a way to financially survive.  Bush has cut the programs and, as a result, abortions are now on the rise. 

Here’s a link (52,000 more abortions under Bush than under Clinton, reversing a ten-year trend that had resulted in a 17.4% decline in abortions): http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

Report this

By JEFF, March 8, 2006 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As we all know, ” choice ” is the operative word in abortion discussions ... how about “choosing” to keep your damn pants on !  ....  men and women should be taken to task for being so weak minded, irresponsible and reckless .... have we given up on actually trying to not have sex until ready for a child ?? ... is the urge to ” do it ” more powerful than your own mind ?  ... what I see is generations of immoral, weak minded, immature adults who reject the idea that a a person DOES have the power to deny him/herself some sort of pleasure if it could have life changing or tragic consequences.An almost impossible task? ... no doubt for many -  thanks to the constant drumbeat for decades by liberal fools and feminists who made the sexual revolution thier life crusade ...  What gives anyone the “right” to terminate a human life because they ” couldn’t control themselves ” ?? If you can’t control your behavior, than be enough of a human being to deal with what you created ....

Report this

By parkay, March 8, 2006 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ivins hates babies.

Report this

By confused, March 8, 2006 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

my last post was about the Saipan Islands, a US protectorate.

Report this

By The Black Crow King, March 8, 2006 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This debate is not just about abortion, it’s about sex, and it’s about the right of people having sex to obtain contraceptives. Let’s face facts: no one “wants” an abortion prior to becoming pregnant. It’s not like an elective cosmetic surgery, it is the choice someone makes in a crisis. The efforts of Repubs and Dems alike should be do erase the things that cause the crisis. Rape and Incest are both crimes, and not only do I support abortion in those cases but I would also suggest that, for the sake of the child who has to grow up and find out they were conceived this way, these pregnancies should be terminated as a rule. If South Dakota had a robust sex education curriculum, easy and cheap (why not free!) access to contraceptives, how many abortions would be prevented? Lots. But that is not their goal. They don’t want women to take control over their bodies in the specific way of allowing women to have sex for pleasure. That’s the real issue. Somehow these religions are telling people, even married people, that sex for pleasure alone is wrong, and hence, Wal-Mart (sucks) pharmacists refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. It’s lunacy. Fight unwanted pregnancy. Stop people from getting pregnant who don’t want to be pregnant. Encourage the ones who do get pregnant to give the kid up for adoption BY SPONSORING THEM, BY HELPING THEM FINANCIALLY, BY PROVIDING SOMEWHERE FOR THEM TO GO, or if all else fails, why doesn’t South Dakota and society in general just HELP PREGNANT MOMS? It’s tough out there, and we turn our backs on these women. We can talk about “the innocent children” but the Repubs seem to stop caring once that innocent fetus becomes a screaming baby.

I found this article provocative, and a good solution to the problem: http://www.culturebunker.com/columns/abortion.html

Report this

By Kim, March 8, 2006 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In reference to post #4786 by Melody. Your “feminist” mother was abusive and clearly deficient in her ability to raise girls with respect for their future or their bodies (4 girls, 4 unplanned pregnancies?).  It is regrettable what you and your sisters had to experience at the hands of your mother, no one should ever have an abortion forced on them.    All women should have the right to decide for themselves, no doubt many of your issues described are the direct result of this most important decision being made by someone else. Outlawing abortion is no different.

Report this

By Paula, March 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Regarding Post #4778

I think some of your information may be tainted by opinion rather than fact. For example, UNESCO backed away from a previous statement because it’s policy is to not take a political stance and because funding was threatened.
“New York, Feb. 12, 2004 (C-fam.org/CWNews.com) - In response to the concerns of the US government, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has promised to make substantial internal reforms to ensure that its publishing offices around the globe no longer produce documents endorsing abortion rights. At the same time, UNESCO’s efforts to distance itself from one particular document that recommends abortion-on-demand for girls, by highlighting the UN Population Fund’s participation in the production of the document, may create further problems for UNFPA as it embarks on a public relations campaign aimed at restoring its US funding…”
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27625

Subsequent references to the medical data on abortion and childbirth suffer because you do not provide specific information and ‘links’.

Regarding Post #4786:

What your mother did was reprehensible. She should have sat all of you down and discussed abstinence or birth-control with you after the first unplanned pregnancy. The next two unplanned pregnancies should not have happened. And, yes, multiple abortions probably do raise subsequent pregnancies to ‘high risk’.

Bottom line, though: You and your sisters should have had a CHOICE.

Report this

By LynChi, March 8, 2006 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

South Dakota has declared War Against Women.

Report this

By confused again, March 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hey right wing “christians”.  can you please explain this for me.  i can’t figure out why, as christians, you don’t voice more outrage over these type of issues:

Moved by the sworn testimony of U.S. officials and human-rights advocates that the 91 percent of the workforce who were immigrants—from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh—were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, Murkowski wrote a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas.

testimony from a women at the factory:

“Women were fired for being pregnant. And to keep her job, any pregnant woman would either go to an illegal abortionist or try to induce miscarriage by drinking herbal potions or falling down on purpose. Women who are fired from work have no way to support themselves aside from the sex trade. There’s no way to feed yourself aside from that.”

tom delay’s response?  he fought clinton who was trying to stop or curb these practices and said the following during a toast to the factory owners: “You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican party, and you represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America and in leading the world in the free market system.” With respect to American attempts to pass legislation to give workers a less than abhorrent lifestyle, he told them that they were “up against the forces of big labor and the radical left. Stand firm. Resist evil.”

this person, according to the right, is a moral person because…he say’s he is?  please read your bible again and tell me this isn’t the exact opposite of what jesus taught.

Report this

By Unenlightened in Idaho, March 8, 2006 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF (unborn) WOMEN TO CHOOSE (life).

Report this

By Bob Clawson, March 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Please understand that the “pro-life” movement is not about controlling women.  It’s about protecting the lives of children.”

If that is so,  then we should also address ourselves to protecting their lives AFTER they’ve been born.  Because our government is currently broke, it cannot protect the lives of children.  It can’t even fund a $50 million, ten-year study of children’s health as it once funded long-term studies of adult men’s and women’s health. 

The current administration has incurred more debt than all of our previous administrations COMBINED.  Where has the surplus money it inherited gone?  War, tax breaks for wealthy individuals and subsidies for large corporations.  We’ve become the largest debtor nation in the world.  There’s no way we can “protect” our children once they’re born.  The government, therefore, has no right to promote a pro-life agenda until it can put its money where its mouth is.

Bob

Report this

By confused, March 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

abortion has killed more women than anything else huh?  care to back that up with some evidence?  cause i’m guessing that in this country, not having universal healthcare kills more women (for instance not having PREVENTIVE healthcare) than abortions.  how many women are killed from guns each year (hint, more than abortions)?  how about war?  maybe, say death squads in central america (which most of you “christians” supported because they were “communiss”)?  or the water you drink that has high levels of mercury and arsineck?  if you were really “pro-life” you’d fight against war, economic exploitation, greed, profiting off of religion (paging pat robertson), etc.  you know, all the things the bible mentioned over and over and over again.  i understand why you all morally object to abortion (it’s a complicated issue) but most of what the right preaches seems to have little to no relation to the bible i’ve read over the years.

by the way, the baby killers are the ones funding the creation of b52 bombers and the ones exploiting workers and CHILDREN in developing countries.

remember this one?:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Report this

By hem, March 8, 2006 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

life begin at conception?  what, the egg, the sperm are dead coming into their union?

abortion is murder?  not for me, not until the fetus can live outside the mother on its own, until then it’s part of the mother, and it’s up to her to decide if it goes, just like her spleen

life is sacred?  really?  why does your religion bind my beliefs?

women who have aborted have regrets?  so don’t have any more abortions.

anti-abortion folks have justifiable beliefs, but they’re not mine, they’re not universally true or consistent, and they’re not going to impose their choices on me or mine - don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.  don’t want someone else to have one?  too bad, not your business.

Report this

By Matthew Burton-Kelly, March 8, 2006 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have one thing to say, so this will be short.  I would advise you to pay attention though:

ANY person should have the right to do what they want with their body.  IT IS THEIR BODY.  This is what freedom IS. 

Now, you may not agree with this.  Deal with it.  You, as another person, have NO RIGHT to dictate another’s actions based on your own moral values.  That is essentially what you are arguing over here, and that issue should not be the one at stake.  Whether I agree or disagree with the choices to have an abortion, not have an abortion, do drugs, or even kill themselves does not matter—any person should have the right to treat themselves as they see fit.

I disagree with a lot of choices people make.  I don’t make these choices myelf, and I certainly don’t make other people live by my morality.

Report this

By anthony, March 8, 2006 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bias, anyone?

Report this

By Soup, March 8, 2006 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m absolutely thrilled about this legislation!  May it be adopted by every state in the union, and be a model for the entire world. 

Let it be known that the law of our land cherishes posterity.  Let it be known that the law of our land still provides a voice to the voiceless and may it re-affirm that we are all - including the pre-born - equal under the law.

I’m certainly looking forward to the day the abomination of abortion is struck down by the SCOTUS.

Bye-bye Roe v. Wade and good riddance to bad rubbish!

P.S. - were the subject not so tragic I’d be moved to humor by Ms. Ivans’ insipid allusions to “women’s rights” in the subject article.

Ms. Ivans, surely you’re aware that abortion on demand has resulted in the death of more females than anything else in the history of the world, aren’t you?  Aren’t these poor murdered baby girls future “empowered women”, doctors, pilots, engineers, legislators? 

Oh!  I see from your colorful expose of the poor working mom, “Michelle”; her kids were probably only going to grow up to be gangsta’s or janitors, or waitresses, anyway; nothing productive, so why not grease them before they can offend your refined sensibilities by showing up to mop your exquisitely tiled ladies restroom, right Molly?

Move along folks, nothing to see here but the typical uninformed, rabid, lethal feminist blather…

Report this

By Stephen Kriz, March 8, 2006 at 11:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now is the perfect time for a Democrat to ask George W. Bush why it was O.K. for him to pay a 15 year-old girl (her name was Robin Lowman) to abort his love child in 1972 (before Roe v. Wade), but it is not O.K. for a woman who was raped to abort the rapist’s child now.

Do it!

Report this

By Winston Smith, March 8, 2006 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am a man, and I am against abortion in all cases except where the actual life of the mother is in jeopardy.  Please allow me to offer my credentials, before you bash me for daring to have an opinion on this “female health” issue:

In 1992, my (now former) fiancee got pregnant.  We were both students and made the choice, together, to abort the pregnancy.  I was with her every step of the way, both before and after the procedure.  When the Republican Convention came to town later that year, she and I defended abortion clinics every day for the two-week duration.  After several months, our grief got the better of us and we severed our relationship.

I offer this information to show that I am not some misogynistic right-wing bigot.  I speak from my heart and my experience.  Every day for the past 13+ years I have grieved for the loss of my child, and every day I try (and fail) to find a way to forgive myself for my part in his/her murder.

Please understand that the “pro-life” movement is not about controlling women.  It’s about protecting the lives of children.  People on both sides of this issue have gross misunderstandings about the nature and motives of those who disagree with them.  The root problem is that each side understands the issue in ways that are so fundamentally different that good communication is impossible.  I have been on both sides of the abortion controversy, and “put my money where my mouth is” on behalf of the “pro-choice” movement in days gone by.  Do not dismiss me simply because of my gender or my “pro-life” position.

Whether you agree or disagree with my position, please understand this political fact:  if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, the matter would be decided by the individual states.  If you live in a blue state, chances are good that abortion availability would not be impacted by such a turn of events.  People in red states may have to travel to another state for a legal abortion, or they may not.  Regardless, the people of each state should get the opportunity to decide whether abortion is simply an elective surgery or infanticide, or maybe something in-between the two.

Report this

By jeri rasmussen, March 8, 2006 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a former clinic director who was stalked on my walking path, in my car on the freeway and at my home here is my response to the Governor of
South Dakota and their Legislature - they are
sexual predators.  I am sending an e-mail to everyone on my list urging them to by-pass SD if travelling West.  SD depends on its tourist trade to balance their budget.  Well, squeeze them until they hurt - I take a trip out West at
least 3 times a year…South Dakota is off my
map - it is not safe for women and other living
things.

Report this

By Ed, March 8, 2006 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to “Comment #4718 by Greg W. Andersen on 3/07 at 7:03 am” I should like to add to the list.

(4) Sexually active adult women, not otherwise protected, occasionally have overly long periods, followed by an especially heavy menstrual flow. Studies by OB/GYNs come to the conclusion that this phenomenon is, in fact, a spontaneous abortion: they amount to approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of all (presumed) pregnancies…

Report this

By Orlando, March 8, 2006 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When you think “enlightenment,” the first thing that comes to your mind is “the South Dakota Legislature,” right?

Ahaaa… for me it’s a tie between the Law Making Bozos in South Dakota and the ones in Missouri… love those state majority religions!

Report this

By Ed, March 8, 2006 at 11:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

in response to “Comment #4724 by Erik on 3/07 at 10:03 am”  I should like to point out that the decision in the Kitzmiller, et.al vs. Dover Pa. School Board was written by a judge selected and appointed by G.W., or, at least, his administration.

I’m sure that G. W., if he thought about it, (assuming he can think about such things…) would not agree in the least with the decision, and would refer to Judge Jones, if he had been appointed by a Democrat, as an “activist judge” (gasp!).

Justices Roberts and Alito may yet surprise us.  Being appointed to the Supreme Court has, in the past, worked a strange sea change on the appointees.

Report this

By Edith M. Conrad, March 8, 2006 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nobody says anything better than Molly.  My suggestion however comes form Stephen Colbert’s Dead to Me List.  Let’s all put South Dakota on our personal DEAD TO ME LIST. ——-———  is DEAD TO ME, I will never go there nor buy any products, nor associate with any person or group who supports them.  ——-——— is DEAD TO ME.

Report this

By Claire, March 8, 2006 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Napoli’s exception in the case of a brutal rape highlights what lies behind who decides: a lack of trust.  Brutality would be required as proof of rape for someone like Napoli because a woman’s word could never be trusted. 

We trust people who are just like us, and we’ll allow them all sorts of exceptions to the rules (e.g., drug abusing relatives of Bush who spend time in rehab rather than prison); the laws are meant for the rest of us—people who don’t inhabit the same circle as the powerful.

Report this

By NETTIE, March 8, 2006 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WOW! HOW COMFORTING TO THINK THAT THERE IS A FLAMING MYSOGYNIST IN THE SO. DAKOTA LEGISLATURE.  IN HIS “REAL-LIFE” (AS IF HE’D KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT)SCENARIO, AN EXCEPTION COULD BE MADE ONLY WHEN A RELIGIOUS VIRGIN IS NOT JUST RAPED, BUT “BRUTALLY SODOMIZED”, ETC., SHE MUST HAVE BEEN VERY VIOLENTLY “PUNISHED” ALREADY JUST FOR BEING A WOMAN BEFORE HE DECIDES SHE DOES NOT DESERVE MORE PUNISHMENT.  WAKE UP, FOLKS!  IS THIS WHAT YOUR RELIGION PREACHES?  IF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PROTESTING WORLDWIDE HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE “WAR” IN IRAQ, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE WOMEN WHO ACTUALLY HAVE THE TIME AND ABILITY TO MARCH IN THE STREETS HERE, WILL CHANGE THE HEARTS OF HEARTLESS, NARCISSISTIC, RELIGIOUS PSYCHOPATHIC SORTS?  IF YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT YOUR RELIGION PREACHES, OR YOUR BIBLE TEACHES, TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE WORDS OF JESUS…..THERE’S A REASON IT’S CALLED “NEW”, REMEMBER?  NOW, I KNOW THESE RELIGIOUS ZEALOT MYSOGYNIST SORTS (NOT ALL MEN, BY THE WAY)ARE FAR FROM THE MAJORITY. THERE ARE MANY EVANGELICALS WHO DO INDEED CARE FOR EVERYONE, AND MANY OF THE WEDGE ISSUES THE BUSH CABAL USES ARE NOT PART OF THEIR MIND-SET.  YOU CAN’T LOVE A NON-VIABLE FETUS AND HATE THE CHILD AND THE MOTHER.  WOMEN GET PREGNANT FOR MANY REASONS AND OFTEN THERE IS LITTLE TO BE DONE FOR THAT, EVEN BIRTH CONTROL.  LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE LONG PICTURE…..I HAVE WORKD IN THE FIELD OF PSYCHIATRY FOR OVER 36 YRS., AND I SEE EVERY DAY WHAT HAPPENS TO UNWANTED CHILDREN RAISED BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT THEM AND ARE FINANCIALLY INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THEM.  MANY ADOPTIVE FAMILIES, AS WELL AS FOSTER FAMILIES ARE ABUSIVE, AS WELL….OR VERY NEGLECTFUL.  I SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN BORN TO MENTALLY ILL MOTHERS/FATHERS AND/OR DRUG ADDICTED.  I SEE THEM AS ADULTS HAVING CHILDREN AND THE LEGACY OF DYSFUNCTION MARCH THROUGH GENERATIONS.  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP THIS DEBACLE?  I DON’T SEE THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ADOPTING IN GREAT NUMBERS (THEY ARE OFTEN THE MOST ABUSIVE OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS), I DON’T SEE THEM OFFERING TO HELP SUPPORT THESE MOTHERS AND PARENTS IN LOW-PAYING JOBS, I DON’T SEE THEM DEMANDING THAT BIRTH CONTROL BE COVERED BY MEDICAID, I DON’T SEE THEM MARCHING IN THE STREETS TO DEMAND FUNDED CHILDCARE AND PATERNAL SUPPORT OF THESE CHILDREN.  I AM PRO-CHOICE, PRO-ABORTION, AND PRO-LIFE….THAT IS THE ONLY MENTALITY THAT WILL PROTECT OUR FUTURE GENERATION OF CHILDREN, WOMEN NOW AND WOMEN IN THE THE FUTURE.  THERE IS NO SHAME IN HAVING AN ABORTION WHEN YOU FIND IT NECESSARY, THERE IS NO SHAME IN ALLOWING THE PREGNANCY TO CONTINUE TO FULL-TERM, ESP. IF YOU HAVE TAKEN PARENTING CLASSES AND HAVE THE NECESSARY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO RAISE THIS CHILD OR DECIDE YOU DO NOT AND GIVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION (AN OPEN ADOPTION…LET’S STOP THE CULTURE OF SHAME THAT ACCOMPANIES MANY ADOPTIONS).  LET NO ONE ELSE SHAME YOU FOR YOUR DECISIONS, EVER. EACH WOMAN ALONE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT DECISION WILL BE BEST FOR THE POTENTIAL CHILD SHE IS CARRYING.

Report this

By rick, March 8, 2006 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This law should be renamed for what it is:

The Rapists Rights Law.

Report this

By Melody, March 8, 2006 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ms Ivins fails to inform readers that the legislators DID listen to women.  They listened to the testimonies of over 2,000 women who have undergone the procedure.  What Ms. Ivins and the pro-abort crowd does not want you to know that the recent push for more restrictive abortion laws are coming from women who have had abortions.  We are “coming out of the closet” now in a big way and are pushing our state legislatures to ban this horrible procedure before more women are hurt by it.  I recently gave MY abortion testimoney to the TN state legislature in Nashville, TN.  My sisters and hundreds of other post abortive women testified as well. 

I am the eldest of four daughters.  Our feminist mother “chose” abortion for me, and two of my younger siblings.  My sister Kathy was the first to undergo the procedure.  Everybody in our house knew that mom had taken our sister for an abortion but nobody talked about it.  It became our family’s dirty little secret.  The following year Cindy became pregnant and our mother whisked her away to Planned Parenthood faster than you could say the word “pregnant.”  The following year it was my turn.  I was 17.  I insisted that I WOULD NOT have an abortion.  My mother promised me that she would respect my wishes and took me to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test “just to be sure.”  After the test confirmed what we already knew I was told to lay on an examining table so the doctor could “examine” me.  A male orderly and a nurse then held me down and strapped me down to the table.  I realized then that an abortion was about to be performed on me whether I wanted it or not.  I screamed my head off until they gagged me.  When the abortionist came in he told them to “give me something” because you could still hear me screaming through the gag out in the hallway and he didn’t want other patients to hear my “caterwauling.”  My child was ripped from my body against my will and you call this a “choice.”

It is 27 years later and my sisters and I are just now talking about our abortions. I finally convinced my sisters to share their abortion stories as well.  Since there are four of us and three aborted and one did not we are also an excellent control group.  A study on our abortions and the physical and emotional toll it has brought us will appear in the June issue of the Southern Journal of Medicine 2006.  My sisters and I share three pre mature births, one etoptic pregnancy, one stillborn birth, past alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, dysfunctional marriages, and two suicide attempts between us. Contrary to the lies of abortion, abortion does not give you a chance at college or a career.  Research shows that women who keep their babies go on to college, women who abort do not.  Believe the research that abortion harms women physically and emotionally?  You bet we do, we lived it. The one sister that did not abort went on to college and now holds three nursing degrees.  The sisters who did abort did not go to college and earn half the salary of the sister who did not abort.  The sister who did not abort has had three normal pregnancies, no low birth weight babies, or premature births.  She married her high school sweetheart and they are still married today. She also never used drugs or alcohol.

Look out pro-aborts we are coming out and we won’t let you get away with the lies you tell women anymore!

Melody
a post abortive woman in TN

Report this

By R. A. Earl, March 8, 2006 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Wytanis in #4735 wrote, in part, “Can’t we give S.D. to Canada?”

I ask, What do you have against Canada?

Report this

By J Dennis, March 8, 2006 at 9:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can’t understand how it is that women have the freedom to terminate another person’s (or potential person’s)life with impunity while men get locked up should they decide that their own children (or anyone else for that matter) are simply not worth the trouble to care for and raise them.

For the person who complained about issues being black and white vs. shades of grey. I don’t see much grey being truly discussed where it comes to helping troubled women in unwanted pregnacies to find viable alternatives to abortion. The catch word for many of these people is to simply end the pregnancy, period. No other choice is even considered. No other alternative is acceptable. Don’t want it? Kill it and be done with it.

The areas of grey? How about the many millions of couples who long to have a child to love and raise but are unable to concieve? What about the many families that could be enriched by adopting a child but who themselves are missing out because of someone’s choice to end it all for someone else? For someone who simply cannot afford to have another mouth to feed, here is something to mull over—give your baby up for adoption; give your child a chance to have a life, an opportunity to make something of him or herself.

You have stated very emphatically that men should not have the right to dictate what a woman does with her own body. I wonder when you began to imagine that women, or anyone for that matter, had the right to end the life of anyone else, regardless of who they are or how old they may be?

Isn’t it interesting that many of the same people who are against the death penalty are for the wholesale slaughter of innocent children?

If you want to debate the issues, fine; bring on the healthy, thought provoking discussion between rational people. If all you want to do is to villify my for my comments and obvious stance on the issue, you are free to keep your peace.

Report this

By Melody, March 8, 2006 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At the 50th session of the U.N.‘s Commission on the Status of Women, members of the Pro-life, Pro-family Coalition for Non-Government Organizations are distributing vital information about abortion—information that flies in the face of the conventional leftist wisdom.

More importantly, it is information that could mean the difference between life and death for women around the world who hear nothing except positive portrayals of abortion by “women’s rights” advocates. In fact, women around the world hear a constant refrain that abortion is essential to “empowering” women and creating “gender equality.”

The counterbalancing information about abortion and its negative impact on women’s health and well-being from pro-life and pro-family advocates is carefully, meticulously documented. It often comes from the liberal organizations that promote their agenda though headlines that contradict their own research and facts.


Here are some little-known facts about abortion that directly impact women’s health and well-being.

Abortion data is incomplete and/or inaccurate.

While abortion is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, it is the least regulated, has less follow-up care, and is remarkably protected from the usual accountability for complications. In fact, abortion has escaped the thorough review, regulation and accountability to which other medical procedures are subjected.

Doctors report that abortion is seldom identified as the source of problems or death: a medical diagnosis might indicate “severe pain” when the real cause is abortion. The medical records might cite “vaginal bleeding” as the problem when that bleeding stems from an abortion. An operation might be indicated because of a “ruptured ectopic pregnancy and internal hemorrhage” after an abortion fails to end a pregnancy. An autopsy might list as the cause of death “overwhelming sepsis” after an abortion gone wrong.

Medical progress, not the legalization of abortion, reduced maternal deaths.

The decrease in maternal mortality coincided with the development of better obstetric techniques—antibiotics, blood transfusions and better management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy – and improvements in the general health status of women. In fact, even the United Nations Population Division and World Health Organization acknowledge that there has been no substantial increase in maternal mortality since 1995, even though more women than ever had access to legalized abortion.

Sadly, they acknowledge that 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in developing countries and that those deaths could be prevented with adequate basic health care and good obstetric care before and after births. WHO also supports the view that improvements in general health and the development of modern obstetric techniques would dramatically (WHO’s word) decrease maternal mortality in developing nations.

Worldwide data does not support the conclusion that legalizing abortion is responsible for reduced maternal mortality. Ireland, with one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, has not legalized abortion. The United States, which “legalized” abortion in 1973 and has high general health standards, has a maternal mortality rate that is four times that of Ireland. In Finland, where abortion is legal, a study has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.

Abortion can be very dangerous for women.

Three international health organizations—UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO—have published warnings on abortion. The major problems that women face from separation from the fetus (whether by delivery or abortion) are hemorrhage, infection and obstruction. These risks are relevant in both births and abortions because the woman who aborts is already experiencing the changes of pregnancy and, thus, faces the risks associated with childbirth.

Obviously, the risks are greater in developing nations where the general health care is poorer, antibiotics are limited, and clean facilities and drugs for hemorrhage are less available than in developed nations. Experts agree that the key to saving women’s lives—even in developing nations—is to improve overall health care for women rather than to legalize abortion.

Abortion is four times deadlier than childbirth.

Abortion advocates routinely claim that childbirth causes six, 10, or 12 times more deaths than abortion. Abortion clinics advertise that legal abortion is many times safer than childbirth. The statistical analysis agency for Finland’s government conducted a very accurate and complete study that reveals that out of 100,000 women, there were 281 cases of maternal deaths – 27 were women who had given birth, 48 were women who had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 were women who had abortions.

When the researchers calculated ratios, they determined that women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year than are women who carry to term. More startlingly, the researchers reported that the risk of death from suicide within a year of an abortion is more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth. A Canadian study revealed similar findings, as did a study of Medicaid payments in Virginia.

Sadly, many women have none of this information about the dangers of abortion. Instead, they know only the front-page information that has become conventional U.S. wisdom. Indeed, only a minute number of abortion deaths are classified as such in official data—which leaves women at the mercy of abortion lies instead of being well informed about abortion realities.

Report this

By Paul B., March 8, 2006 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just want to say something on this subject.  You all come in the name of choice, when the real subject is murder.  What’s the difference between having a doctor kill a baby or the mother throwing it in the trash.  How about if the boyfriend punch the mother in the stomach and caused her to abort.  The latter two would be put on trial, but the doctor in his all knowing wisdom would get away scott free.  I am from South Dakota and i find it to be one of the only places where people stand up for what they believe.  The believe abortion is never the answer as birth control.  Be repondsible for your actions.  On the subject of adoption, there are plenty of good couples that want to adopt, but have to wait for years and jump through plenty of government hoops.  THis I know from personal experience.  The whole abortion ruling is a fallacy.  The supreme court made an unconstituional ruling when they handed this down.  This is not something for the federal government to legislate from the bench.  THere is know constitutional right to abortion or privacy.  If you can find either of these rights anywhere I will concede my opinion.  Something that is relevent is that the legislator makes the laws.  THe courts review the laws in accordance with the constitution and like I said the right to abortion and privacy are not said, implied, or given anywhere in the constitution.

Report this

By Dave Moberg, March 8, 2006 at 8:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This law finally takes the steps needed to ensure that STATES RIGHTS are restored.  The blatantly unconstitutional Roe decision is not about abortion at all, it’s about the federal government sticking its hands into powers not enumerated to it.  ALL powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are RESERVED TO THE STATES!  To me, Roe symbolizes the power grab of the government, and whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, this Supreme Fraud Decision should be overturned- that is, if you are PRO-DEMOCRACY.  The PEOPLE should decide this matter, not the Courts.  The PEOPLE should vote on such divisive social issues, not have the Federal Government via the unelected judges start creating rights and overstepping their authority.  You can be the most bleeding-heart liberal, or the most cold-blooded arch-conservative; it’s irrelevant- Roe must be overturned, and States must be given their rights back.

Report this

By Bill Powell, March 8, 2006 at 8:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It takes a whole State legislature of conservative Morons to come up with such a backwoods, 18th century law such as this - and this is happening nationwide!
In every local, state and national election, and from now on, just vote the conservative bastards out of all government offices and keep ‘em out.

Report this

By Dave, March 8, 2006 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Senator Napoli’s rape and abortion comments remind me of a Pat Oliphant cartoon from the ‘70’s. Oliphant shows a fat and pompous Jesse Helms (retired Senator from NC) facing a very poor girl, and he has Helms saying (and I paraphrase) “If I were to get pregnant, I wouldn’t dream of getting an abortion.”

Report this

By Mooser, March 8, 2006 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The “rape exception” is completely phony. It’s not even worth discussing.
Intercourse is not “rape” until the alleged rapist is convicted. After that there may be appeals.
Can a woman just come into, well, where, and say “I was raped” and get an abortion? Who will make that determination? And in what amount of time?
It’s not even worth discussing! What if a rape conviction is reversed on appeal, or the alleged rapist is convicted on one of the many charges associated with sexual crimes, but not rape?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook