Abortion banned in South Dakota (2 Viewers)

[*Minka*]

I'd love send all the nutcases to mars and let them live in their own little world. Can't wait to see what the reaction will be when some cute white college student whow as raped goes on trial for having an abortion.

 

[davin]

rape is given as a reason in a very small percentage of the cases....and if that does become neccessary, i'm going to bet she'll just go into one of the neighboring states

 

[*Minka*]

What's most disturbing to me is that they are saying even if you didn't actively choose to get pregnant (aka you were raped), you have no choice as to what happens to your body. Basically, they are placing punishment for the crime onto the victim.

 

[*Minka*]

http://www.fucksouthdakota.com/

HA!

 

[katie_tully]

You forget, pro-lifers consider (rightfully) that the unborn child is still a human life entitled to the same rights as anybody else. Are you suggesting that these people should just stand back and allow what they consider to be murder, just to make it easier for a few femocrats to sleep at night, safe in the knowledge that they can get away with murder if it liberates women?

Short answer. Yes.

 

[katie_tully]

Somebody asked about incest too. Incest increases the risk of the child having serious physical or mental abnormalities. Down Syndrome is an example of a common birth defect associated with incest.
I think it's due to the chromosomes of the parents being too closely related.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You forget, pro-lifers consider (rightfully) that the unborn child is still a human life entitled to the same rights as anybody else. Are you suggesting that these people should just stand back and allow what they consider to be murder, just to make it easier for a few femocrats to sleep at night, safe in the knowledge that they can get away with murder if it liberates women?

It's not just a few 'femocrats' (whatever the fuck that is), it's pretty much every woman in Australia.

Also, it's not about murder to 'liberate women'. They're not doing it to make a stand against you, they're doing it because they've had a baby that they don't want... it's got nothing to do with you or the liberation of women or anything like that, it's their own personal issue.

Do you think that the 'femocrats' should just sit back and have their babies (even tho they don't want them, or can't have them) doing something they consider to be wrong for the baby and for them, just to make it easier for a few pro-lifer assholes to sleep at night knowing that the babies are all alive (weee!), safe in the knowledge that they can do whatever they want in the name of saving the 'widdle kiddies'.

 

[katie_tully]

I really think Phanatical is misinformed when it comes to why abortion is legal.

 

[davin]

Somebody asked about incest too. Incest increases the risk of the child having serious physical or mental abnormalities. Down Syndrome is an example of a common birth defect associated with incest.
I think it's due to the chromosomes of the parents being too closely related.

yeah, but no one says there should be exceptions for babies that have mothers that smoke, or drink, or suffer traits that they could pass along themselves. to be consistant, the claim should be the exception applying if any risk factor is present. heck, one of the big factors in down syndrome is an older mother...but no one says "except for cases of rape, mothers over 40, or the health of the mother"

 

[*Minka*]

So. If one of the Fetuses saved turns out to be gay, while they still fight for its rights?

 

[katie_tully]

Uh...but Davin, only those who oppose abortion have suggested we make exceptions.
Abortion should be available to all women, not women with "exceptional circumstances".

 

[davin]

you're trying to put my claim into a framework... i'm just objecting, generally, to anyone bringing incest into the issue of abortion because i don't think it is at all relevant. i'm not using this purely as a criticism of pro-choice people, but the debate as a whole.
though, i'm not sure how you say that its only those opposing abortion making exceptions...the ones that oppose abortion tend to also not want the exceptions.

 

[katie_tully]

Incest is not irrelevant. Incest is often in the form of rape. Why should a woman be forced to give birth to a child who was fathered by her father, brother, uncle or other relation? The fact too that the child has a significant chance of being born with a mental or physical abnormality should also be kept in mind.

A mother who is going ahead with a pregnancy who decides to smoke and drink through out, is not the same as a woman who was raped by a relative.

 

[davin]

and a woman who drinks a lot could've been raped while drunk, too.

i see the rape thing as relevant, yes, but see, i never questioned the rape exception, just the incest exception. if its incestuous it doesn't make the rape any less, um...rapey.

 

[katie_tully]

What the hell. I don't understand your logic.

You never suggested the woman who smokes and drinks through her pregnancy was raped. You merely suggested that the child was born with abnormalities because of this. Either way, she chose to go on with the pregnancy.

Being raped whilst intoxicated does not mean your child will be born with any drug or alcohol related abnormalities. It merely means she was in vulnerable state when the child was concieved, and why should she be expected to raise a child she did not want, or consent to?

 

[davin]

ok, my arguement is that while the health of the mother and rape are very unique circumstances, there should not be any special treatment of incest because that doesn't, generally speaking, create a significant risk to the baby.

you brought up incest as a form of rape, and my counter was that that is beside the point because any incident of incest that is also rape is already covered by the rape exception

 

[katie_tully]

But you're missing the point. Incest DOES create a significant risk to the baby! The chances of the baby developing abnormalities are significantly higher when the mother and father are closely related.

 

[davin]

not generally, only in some cases. and i've not heard the case made, then, that you should also group other risk factors.... if we're talking purely from a genetic point of view, then the exception should be for any case of little genetic variation or any case where the parents are both likly to have the same condition. incest, itself, doesn't raise the chances in its own right. only when a given recessive disorder is present.

 

[katie_tully]

So then tell me Davin, how do you distinguish whether certain pedigrees have recessive disorders present? You don't know until it is too late. Rape when inflicted by members of the SAME family increase the risk of a birth defect! Being raped whilst intoxicated does not mean the baby will be born with foetal acohol syndrome.
We are saying why should any woman who was raped and subsequently fell pregnant be made to carry on with an unwanted pregnancy? Incest was brought up because it is often seen as a worse form of rape. Being raped and impregnated by a member of your own family? Possibly the most degrading experience on earth? And yet pro lifers are attempting to deny these women a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy as a result of their ordeal?

 

[davin]

well, there is family history. second, we can identify the genes associated with many genetic disorders now.


and again, you can't bring in rape. i'm not questioning have an exception for rape. i'm saying that there is not significant enough of a risk, generally speaking, taht can be attributed to consentual incest to have taht be discussed as an exception in laws agasint abortion.

i'm not saying rape shouldn't be allowed, just taht incest has no place in the discussion of abortion