Well shit. Guess who is behind the efforts to restrict birth control. Guess who is fighting the morning after pill. Guess who pushed for the “abstinence only” sex education. They sure exert and spend to get “their message” across and increase their influence, but not to actually HELP anyone. As far as what’s in the Constitution goes, abortion was never specifically mentioned in it at all. Roe v Wade is there because someone wanted to force the issue. It is there because the Supremes did recognize a certain right to privacy and self determination.
By the way, I neve thanked you for that wonderful cite that equates abortion to genocide, and which also entertained the idea of a nation where there could be a total ban on abortion with NO exceptions (it was further down the page - item 2 or 3). That pretty much summed it up for me as to your position. No compromise, no give and take, all or nothing. So back to the OP then. If abortion is indeed genocide, wouldn’t the death oenalty be fitting and just, according to YOUR cite?
Whether you describe it as murder or not, the South Dakota Law makes it clear that it is. That’s the language of the law. If you knowingly and premeditatedly take the life of a human being who is not a danger to you or another, you commit murder. The law defines a fetus as a human being.
In any case, I have not seen how a greater state interest has been served by exempting pregnant women here than in my New Jersey law. As I said, the inteerest there is to make the law morte popular, just like the interest described for this South Dakota measure. So on what basis may we notexclude individuals from prosecution, if making a law more popular is a legitimate reason to do so.
There is nothing wrong with calling into question the veracity of of some data. Lies, damn lies and statistics as it were. People do it, and rightfully so, all the time around here. Quoting from an obviously biased source makes it tougher for other to take at face value which is why in GD people usually strive to get info from sources like the CDC (as an example). Polling in particular is a dicey affair to rest your hat on (weren’t polling organizations called into serious question after the 2000 election because they were very wide off the mark?). A poll can be very hard to phrase neutrally and the “same” question asked different ways can get very different results. Even questions asked before a given question can slant the answers that come later.
I am not saying the Fox poll was faulty. Maybe it is spot on but till I see an analysis of their poll or other polls from non-biased sources I won’t buy it either. If Fox News reported the sun would rise in the east tomorrow I’d get seriously worried the world was about to end (as either the earth will be reversing its spin very soon or Fox actually telling the unvarnished truth…take your pick).
Look, Stratocaster, I am religious and I like arguing religion. While the odd agnostic or atheist may have crept in, it’s a simple fact that the majority of arguments made against dispensing the morning after pill and for banning all or some forms of birth control and for teaching abstinence only sex education are coming from conservative or fundamentalist Christians. In my opinion, arguing that the Religious Right has no part in this is disingeuous at best. Many Christians don’t believe in sex outside of marriage and that sex should be used only for procreation. The next few days will be busy, but if you like, I can give you links to websites calling for banning birth control pills, IUDs, and Depo-Provera because they may cause abortion. The pharmacists who’ve refused to dispense the morning after pill have done so out of religious reasons.
I like what I’ve seen of you, even while I’ve been disagreeing you. Please don’t stoop to arguing that Christians have nothing to do with making birth control less accessable or promoting abstinence-only sex education.
As I said, whether or not the SD law was crafted well, there is precedent for an SC decision recognizing a state interest in restricting abortions that doesn’t depend upon the existence of human life.
My point still stands. It’s not the SC’s job to make sure every state serves exactly the same interests, except to the extent that the Constitution demands it.
You’re reply to SteveG1 implied that the Religious Right was not involved in the issues I mentioned. Surely you must have considered how it would be taken.
I also consider the term “pro-choice” to be as reasonable a description as my views as any shorthand term will be. I consider abortion immoral and that we as a society should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions performed, therefore describing me as “pro-abortion” is inaccurate. I also believe that the decision to have an abortion should be made by the woman carrying the child and the man who fathered it if he is available*. “Pro-abortion rights” is more accurate than “pro-choice”, but since my position is having an abortion is a choice which should be made by people, not the government, “pro-choice” will do nicely.
Sorry, that’s not what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth. Among other things, Steve stated that the religious would be offended at the thought of spending money and energy. That’s explicitly what I responded to in my post; those are the words I chose. I fully understand, as does every reasonable person, that the Religious Right is a force in the arenas mentioned. I never said otherwise.
If you’ll review the recent Pit thread on abortion, you’ll see I’ve used both “pro-life” and “anti-abortion”, depending on the argument I’m making and what I perceive the focus of the people I’m discussing. In the case of the people who voted to ban abortions in South Dakota, I’d say that, considering their focus is on banning abortions which are only performed by one doctor one day a week, and that the law explicitly provides an exception for forms of birth control which other pro-life people oppose because they may prevent fertlized eggs from implanting, and because, as far as I have been able to tell, they are doing nothing to reduce South Dakota’s infant mortality rate, I’d say “anti-abortion” is the more accurate term. In other cases, as noted above, “pro-life” is more accurate.