British Expatriate Network

So South Dakota wants a vote to ban abortion?

http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4742404.stm

Whatever next? While abortion doesn't appeal to me as a form of contraception, (I prefer the preventative methods), I still don't want to have to face a legal battle on top of everything else should I be in the unenviable position of having to make the decision. I believe that every individual should have the right to make their own choice on the matter. Rather than spending millions of dollars fighting this case, why don't they use the money to educate and inform girls/women on the alternatives, such as effective contraception. And boys/men too, of course.

Its ironic that a country which sees itself as the pinnacle of freedom and democracy, which invades other countries to kick out the religious zealots, such as the Taleban, (who tried to reduce women to little more than beasts of burden), are now considering passing laws which will, potentially, pull women's rights back into the dark ages.

This is not an attempt to outlaw abortion in SD per se, but an attempt to get get the case to the supreme court to get a new vote on abortion and an overturning of Roe vs Wade.

Like kids who keep asking their parents the same question until they get they answer they want this will never go away. Of course that's what you get when something as important as abortion is decided by un-elected judges..

People get the government they deserve. If the people of South Dakota want to avoid back-street abortionists and if the women of South Dakota want the right to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, then they need to elect officials who agree with them. 23 to 12 in the senate is quite an indication that they either want this law or don't care. Or they are being prevented from voting, in which case that would be my priority for external intervention.

You can lead a horse to water....

It is worrying that this could cause the Roe vs Wade ruling to be reversed, but once again, the people voted for the government who make the supreme court appointments.....

*sigh*

If "Roe" is overturned, it puts the decisions back to the individual states. There will be some states that allow it.

Thats correct. I don't see Roe vs. Wade being overturned as the big deal that everyone thinks it is. The blue states will still allow it. I think if SD wants to outlaw abortion, then it should be up to them,

excelant post and i agree 100% .
problem is that some religions BAN contraception and that fact manifests its self in the overpopulation in the worlds poorer countries .We teach responsiblity in enjoying sexual ativities, the churches teach otherwise abstinance if single or married sex without artifical means of constaception ..

Niether of these teaching belong to the 21 ST century ( or any century come to that )

An to a lesser extent in the fact tyhat a majority of abortion in the US come from the poorer uneducated citizens in the inner cities and the inverse fact that those in the inner cities who follow the religious mantra are responsible for the hightest rate of births to one parant families .

Seems Mississippi is having a stab at outlawing abortion too.

http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4792428.stm

Anyone living in the backward states worried yet?

Ah yes, the old nut, we had a chap on the news here saying he saw no reason to pay for his child, his girlfriend had told him she couldn't concieve and so it wasn't his responsibility. I can almost hear the racking of the shotguns. Like that arguement is gonna fly if you can't abort.
Mind if they're both younger than 21 I think the parents in such a situation should be forced to pay. Can you see it, here dad, here's the knife, you chop it off, he's costing us a fortune. twisted

Moderator hat on

It seems to me that this cannot progress as a discussion without us hearing from those who support this and/or any anti-abortion legislation. It also seems to me that this may feel a hostile discussion for those expessing such views, so I suggest that members wishing to comment anonymously create a secondary account to do so.

Normally, this would be a bannable offence, but in this situation I feel it could lead to some enlightened discussion. So I propose a temporary and limited amnesty. But, if you do create such an account, understand that this amnesty is only good for this discussion, does not permit you to flame or troll and that you should only use one account in this discussion. No "devil's advocate" discussions with yourself will be permitted. Only the moderators (Nigel, maczippy and I) will know who you really are and we will not divulge that information or allow it to influence our replies should we choose to comment. We will, however, not hesitate to ban you if you break the rules of this amnesty.

Questions/comments concerning this may be made via PM to me.

....oh, and... posts breaking these rules will be deleted without warning.

This is Mrs S's POV and not mine but, just for argument's sake here goes

Why should a woamn be allowed to kill another human being just because it's an inconvenience to her? Not talking about rape or incest or cases involving the danger to health the pregnancy may prevent but abortion as contraception. (In fact it's not even contraception because the conception has already occured). Women who give birth can easily (at least from a legal point of view) give the child up for adoption.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

Would there be a need for abortions if women were given fair treatment in society? Statistics show that more women are paid less than men for the same jobs, are not promoted because they are in the age range for having children, are on the poverty for having children as a single parent, are more likely to be abused and sex forced on them etc. etc.

If there was no stigma attached to having a child for a woman, that adequate childcare was provided from birth for everyone, that men received equal rights regarding maternity/paternity care, and the biggie - if men having sex freely suffered the same consequences as women, I truly believe that the need for abortions today would be very small. Also, if men didn't feel the need to force a woman to have sex either through rape or coaxing (married or not) then women wouldn't feel so trapped and would have more control over their own bodies.

I don't know a woman yet who hasn't been emotionally traumatized for having an abortion, but when a society makes them choose it isn't a choice. They say it should be a woman's right to choose but that makes it sound like the woman is choosing between buying a new car or not. Having an abortion becomes a choice of 'can a feed another child or will I end up on the streets', 'my boss told me I could only have the promotion if I was fully committed which means I can't keep this baby', or 'I want to please my husband by keeping him satisfied in bed but he doesn't like the feel of a condom'.

Because more than likely she is having the abortion because BOTH SHE AND THE CHILD are an inconvenience to some man. Whether a woman works or not someone has to take care of the child 24/7.

This is not the only reason a woman has an abortion but as Mrs S put it that way, I thought I'd put it in the same tone.

Women who used to give babies up for adoption also had to go and stay with some maiden aunt in the country for the judgements put on them then, before abortion was legal. They didn't just carry on with their every day lives, have the kid and return to work or whatever they did before.

A man can happily admit to being divorced and having a kid somewhere but not many women can happily admit to having a child adopted to all and sundry.

In fact, I just wish it was like the UK where everyone shut the hell up about it.

If you want an abortion, have one. If you don't don't. And if there is no way you can physically have an abortion you shouldn't be legislating and campaigning about it all the time.

No lady-plumbing not abortion vote. Too simplistic I suppose, but I've always been a fan.

My only other thought on this issue is that people who vote and lobby to ban abortion should be forced to sign a registry, and every baby that would have been aborted goes to a good home where life is the most important consideration. Maybe a rota situation where more affluent housholds get more babies. If they had to put thier money where thier mouth is, they might not be so mouthy. Not fair to the kids though.