# S.D. Gov'r "inclined" to ban abortions, shoves head up ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 25, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066 "2006-02-25T13:49:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/121 "2006-02-26T11:23:35Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > …it would be interesting to know what the infant mortality rate for South Dakota is compared to the rest of the country… [ > [@](#): > > South Dakota saw its highest number of births in 17 years in 2004, with 11,339 babies born… > …There were 93 infant deaths in South Dakota in 2004, or a rate of 8.2 per 1,000 live births. That’s well above the United States rate of 6.6 infant deaths per 1,000 live births for the same year (provisional data). > > Hollingsworth {Doneen Hollingsworth, Secretary of Health, SD Department of Health} said there was a significant disparity by race with the infant mortality rate for American Indians double that of whites, 13.3 per 1,000 live births compared to 6.9. > > The data points to tobacco use and lack of early prenatal care as major risk factors for low birth weight and pregnancy complications which can result in infant death. The infant mortality rate of babies born to mothers who used tobacco during pregnancy was much higher than for non-users, 12.8 deaths per 1,000 compared to 7.2 for infants whose mother did not use tobacco. > > There was also a strong link between early prenatal care and a lower infant mortality rate. The lowest infant mortality rate was among mothers who started prenatal care in their first trimester, 6.9 per 1,000 live births. The highest rate, 59.4, was among mothers who had no prenatal care… ]([http://www.state.sd.us/news/showDoc.aspx?i=6173](http://www.state.sd.us/news/showDoc.aspx?i=6173)) {}=CMC ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/122 "2006-02-26T11:24:44Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > No, actually, it is not. Raising the child is responsible. Giving the child up for adoptiuon is responsible. Except in cases of rape, incest, a non viable fetus or a threat to the health of the mother, abortion is all about avoiding responsibility for your actions. No lets not. When a woman decides she is not at the right time of her life to be a parent then she is the one who knows that. Adoption evolved from unwanted babies, generations of people who were not wanted. The lucky were adopted (and that started in the days when being adopted was gossip worthy) Yes they were adopted. Yes they had parents who loved them. Parents who always were there. Parents who did everything with them. Parents who were devoted to them. But did even ONE of them not reach teenagehood/adulthood and NOT either actively look for for their birth parent or wonder who their birth parent was? NO. If they find the birth parents will it all be happy? No. Maybe the aborting mother is the one who has more foresight. ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/123 "2006-02-26T11:28:28Z")
[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html) … 46 million abortions performed worldwide annually, seems like. Personally, I’ll sleep soundly on my moral stance that proper contraception use is what we should be focusing on. Pro-lifers do themselves no favors by straining at gnats by raising such a ruckus over BC pills and abstinence-only education. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/124 "2006-02-26T11:38:12Z")
EXACTLY! The only thing abstinence “education” is ever guaranteed to produce is babies. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/125 "2006-02-26T17:05:34Z")
Abortion \*can \* be the responsible thing to do. 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have children ([see page 24](http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf)). These aren’t irresponsible teenagers. These are women making a fully educated choice. If you already have children, and you’re struggling, you choose not to have another for the sake of your \*existing \* children. Let’s keep in mind that adoption is largely off the table for women who have children old enough to be aware and understanding of the pregnancy. How exactly do you tell junior that you gave his little sister away? Oh, and just for **Updike** , 27.4% of women who have abortions identify as Catholic. See page 23. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/126 "2006-02-26T17:16:33Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Abortion \*can \* be the responsible thing to do. 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have children ([see page 24](http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf)). These aren’t irresponsible teenagers. These are women making a fully educated choice. If you already have children, and you’re struggling, you choose not to have another for the sake of your \*existing \* children. Let’s keep in mind that adoption is largely off the table for women who have children old enough to be aware and understanding of the pregnancy. \*\*How exactly do you tell junior that you gave his little sister away? \*\* > > Oh, and just for **Updike** , 27.4% of women who have abortions identify as Catholic. See page 23. I imagine it would be a lot easier than telling junior that you threw his sister in a plastic bag and she’s in a landfill. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/127 "2006-02-26T17:21:23Z")
Well, that was a reasoned and insightful response. How’s that kidney comin’? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/128 "2006-02-26T17:28:17Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Well, that was a reasoned and insightful response. > > How’s that kidney comin’? I aplogize for the blunt verbiage. Nonetheless,\* if it is a child,\* aborting it is an act of callousness that would make the act of adoption (giving junior’s sister away…) pale in comparison. Your analogy/post began with the [foregone] conclusion that it is _not a child,_ and therefore abortion is a more responsible approach. I do not agree with the premise. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/129 "2006-02-26T17:33:34Z")
As I will never agree with your premise that it is. Now, you still have not addressed the question I’ve asked you three times now (albeit flippantly once), and so I will ask it once more. Your premise is that the fetus’s right to live overrides my sovereignty over my own body. And so I’ve asked you whether people should be obliged to donate blood or organs to save lives. If I’m to be compelled to lend out my uterus for the greater good, then why should you be allowed to go through life with two kidneys, when you only need one, and and there are others who can only live if you give one away? Do I have the right to take your kidney if without it I will die? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/130 "2006-02-26T17:44:29Z")
For me the bottom line is, when the choice is between, on the one hand: [ol] [li]Holding a woman hostage, against her will, to use her body to produce a child she is unwilling to produce (would you chain her to a bed until she gave birth if that’s what it took?)[/li][li]Raising the will of the government above the will of the individual in matters of that person’s body[/li][li]Not eliminating abortions; only eliminating SAFE abortions[/li][/ol] and on the other– [ol] [li]Terminating the biological functions of a non-viable organism whose status as a person is widely–and endlessly–debated; an organism with no consciousness or experience, certainly not in comparison with that of the mother[/li][/ol] –the wiser choice seems pretty clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/131 "2006-02-26T17:47:56Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Oh, and just for **Updike** , 27.4% of women who have abortions identify as Catholic. See page 23. Not only that, but some women who have abortions are explicitly opposed to them. [“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”: When the Anti-Choice Choose](http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/132 "2006-02-26T18:28:21Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I imagine it would be a lot easier than telling junior that you threw his sister in a plastic bag and she’s in a landfill. Fascinating. You say you’re opposed to the rhetoric being thrown around, then you throw some more. Fetuses are hardly disposed of by tossing them into a plastic bag and sending them to the dump. If you expect to be taken seriously, then I suggest you stop going for the shock factor and stick with facts. Also, you never responded to my post; do you agree or disagree? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/133 "2006-02-26T18:29:36Z")
I’m patiently waiting for the same folks who bark at pro life folks when they use “biased” cites to come in and bark at the folks using cites like the prochoice action network and Guttmacher (research affiliate of PP). Not that **I** automatically have a particular problem with using those kinds of cities, but I have this naieve notion that those folks would apply consistent objections to “biased” cites. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/134 "2006-02-26T18:40:05Z")
The CDC number for 2002, which are US only and do not include all 50 states, [indicate](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm#tab12) that: > [@CDC](#): > > For women who obtained legal induced abortions and for whom data on previous live births were adequately reported (41 reporting areas), 39% were known to have had no previous live births, and 32% had two or more previous live births (Table 12). The abortion ratio was highest for women who had three previous live births (291 per 1,000 live births) and lowest for those who had one previous live birth (194 per 1,000). [Link](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) Better? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/135 "2006-02-26T18:55:55Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Better? Perhaps you have trouble with that whole “reading the entire post” thing…you know, the part where I explicitly stated: > [@](#): > > Not that I automatically have a particular problem with using those kinds of cities… The post was obviously (I thought) addressed at the folks… “who bark at pro life folks when they use “biased” cites”. If that’s not you…then the post was not addressed to you. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/136 "2006-02-26T19:07:49Z")
Actually, I did read the entire post, and my response was for the people you refer to. That was me acknowledging that you made a valid point. No need to get snippy. FTR though, Guttmacher’s stats are [widely accepted as solid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guttmacher_Institute). ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/137 "2006-02-26T20:13:46Z")
Abortion is just one of those topics I steer clear from, because I admit I don’t know how I feel about it. While the whole idea disgusts me and I don’t think I’d be strong-willed enough to commit to one, but I think it’s a necessary evil in a society as dog-eat-dog as ours. Without abortions, we will see dramatic increases in: -severely/profoundly handicapped children, who will burden parents, families, and entire communities. Will the federal government allocate extra services to support these people? -neglected, unwanted children born to irresponsible, immature mothers. Will they grow up to be upstanding citizens? Or will they burden society as criminal freeloaders? Will the federal government allocate extra services to support these people? -struggling families. Will the federal government allocate extra services to support these people? -an overburdened foster care system. Will the federal government allocate extra services to support these people? -black-market abortions. Will the federal government allocate extra money to enforce anti-abortion laws? Are we really ready, as a society, to go after a twelve-year-old rape victim who decides she’d rather be a child than HAVE a child? Is our society ready to ensure the _real_ sanctity of life? It seems that if we are, we have also have to be for a massive social welfare program. I’d like to hear **the raindog** and **Updike’s** comments on the above points. On an even deeper level, if we’re going to treat fetuses as living human beings, entitled to life, won’t that mean mothers-to-be will need to be scrutinized by the government so that right is ensured? Will homeless pregnant women be given special assistance and accomodation by the government, for instance? What if they are HIV-infected? Will a pregnant woman who’s an alcoholic be charged with child endangerment? What about one who skydives or bungy jumps? Will pre-natal care be a requirement for all pregnant women? Does the “right to life” mean simply having a heartbeat upon birth, or does it mean being born free of problems tightly linked to the mother’s behavior (e.g., drinking, smoking, not taking proper vitamins, etc.)? If it’s just the former, what’s the point? But if it’s the latter, how do you possibly enforce such a thing? That last question is what troubles me the most about the pro-life position. It seems to me that once the government demands me to host another citizen, it’s incumbent on that government to make sure I’m a good host. Otherwise, _it_ should be fully responsible for any defective offspring I produce and all of the complications to my life that develop due to their conception. The Department of Family and Children currently ensures parents are doing an adequate job raising children. If you’re a rotten parent, you can get your kid taken away from you. They can be placed in a “better” home. But if you’re a rotten incubator (either purposefully or inadvertedly), what is the government going to do to help the “citizen” inside you? It can’t do anything unless it wants to unduly invade your right to privacy. And that’s a big no-no, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/138 "2006-02-26T20:45:04Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Fascinating. You say you’re opposed to the rhetoric being thrown around, then you throw some more. Fetuses are hardly disposed of by tossing them into a plastic bag and sending them to the dump. If you expect to be taken seriously, then I suggest you stop going for the shock factor and stick with facts. > > Also, you never responded to my post; do you agree or disagree? I would like to continue this discussion, and answer both you and **DianaG.** As to rhetoric, I have endeavored to not use **euphemisms** and silly word games—which appear to be pervasive on both sides of the issue. Of course, I don’t believe the disposition of aborted fetuses is as capricious as throwing them in a dump-----any more than I believe that the act of adoption is as capricious as ‘giving little junior’s sister away.’ **DianaG** used a colloquial term to describe adoption, and I replied with a colloquial term to describe what happens to aborted fetuses. I didn’t mean to be flippant, and I suspect she didn’t either. My point remains: The scenario she describes, in my view, is not one in which the 2 choices are aborting a non-human, and putting up for adoption the resulting child, but rather the choice between aborting—killing— her unborn child or putting that same child up for adoption after birth. If that is the case, it is not only **not** the responsible thing thing to abort–to kill—but adoption is the far better choice, _if only those 2 choices are available._ In my view, those fetuses are humans, _children_, and whether they are sent to landfill or incinerated as Bio-Hazardous waste, I can tell you the average house cat gets a better disposition. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/139 "2006-02-26T20:47:45Z")
I must run. I will endeavor to participate later tonoght, and answer as many questions/challenges as time allows. Till later… ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/140 "2006-02-26T20:53:31Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > The lucky were adopted (and that started in the days when being adopted was gossip worthy) Yes they were adopted. Yes they had parents who loved them. Parents who always were there. Parents who did everything with them. Parents who were devoted to them. > > But did even ONE of them not reach teenagehood/adulthood and NOT either actively look for for their birth parent or wonder who their birth parent was? > > NO. What a steaming load of bullshit. Guess what? I’m adopted, always knew it, and never once cared who my “real” mom was. My real mom raised me. I know plenty of other adoptees who feel the same way, but since you only asked for one, here I am. > [@calm kiwi](#): > > If they find the birth parents will it all be happy? No. Funny you mention that, cuz when I was 35 my birth mom found me. I was happy to meet her and now she’s a part of my life as my bonus mom. > [@calm kiwi](#): > > Maybe the aborting mother is the one who has more foresight. Maybe you’re full of shit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=8)