[GeneV]

I understand your point, Gene, but once one has engaged in the activity that results in the formation of another life, that life has rights too. To cause the cessation of that life would be criminal. That's what I meant when I wrote that once the law states specifically when life begins, then (and probably only then) does it become moot. Even so, it will be rife with controversy!

So, if you are talking about "engaging in activity that results in the formation of another life" then aren't you getting back to a personal moral choice about sex? Many who engage in sex aren't doing so intending to create another life.

Nevertheless, back to my purely legal point, if you hit someone with a car, the law does not require you to give the person you hit any part of your body or even your blood to keep them alive, and you cannot be killed or threatened because you don't offer your body even to someone who needs it because of your actions. Only in the case of an abortion is requiring someone to give their body and blood to another for 9 months, then endure painful and dangerous delivery even conceivable. It seems to me that a distinction is being made in a proposed law because of the feelings of some regarding the purpose of sex.

[clmonk]

Well, it is certain that actions have consequences. But, like you, I am trying to stay away from the moral (immoral???) aspect of this, and even "the purpose of sex", and keep it in the realm of the legal. If (ever) there is a legal opinion determined, and upheld in our courts that defines when life begins, then laws like the one in S. Dakota will not be necessary. Those who willingly cause the cessation of that life will be held accountable for their actions.

[shooz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be born to have inalienable rights?
Until then it's part of the mother.
Don't get me wrong. I think abortion as birth control, is wrong. We have better ways.

By the thinking in this law, it seems it would be legal to shoot the mother if she were to try and perform her own abortion. This will happen, if there are no doctors to do it.

The question you beg is this.
What about all the babies developing in test tubes?
What about the ones frozen in labs all over the place?
Can we also shoot the one who pulls the plug?

[Parallax]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be born to have inalienable rights?
Until then it's part of the mother.
Don't get me wrong. I think abortion as birth control, is wrong. We have better ways.

By the thinking in this law, it seems it would be legal to shoot the mother if she were to try and perform her own abortion. This will happen, if there are no doctors to do it..............

To carry that a bit farther...........
Some types of birth control do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation in the uterus. The law, if enacted, would seem to make it legal for a father to kill a doctor that prescribes or a pharmacist that dispenses those types of birth control to his daughter.

[shooz]

I stand by my comment about lawyers drooling.

[Parallax]

I stand by my comment about lawyers drooling.

Oh, c'mon now. It's only 99% of them that give the other 1% a bad name.

(Sorry, Gene! Some things I just can't resist. Everybody bashes lawyers, ............. until they need one)

Seriously, if this is signed there will be litigation and appeals ongoing for quite some time. The Governor that just left office was the impetus behind this stuff for 8 years. His successor, the former Lt Governor, hasn't been in office long enough for me to have a sense for his stance.

[shooz]

I'm not bashing lawyers.
Just saying it's going to take a phalanx of them to sort this out.
Many will be paid on the tax payers dime.

Bad law cost all of us.

[GeneV]

To carry that a bit farther...........
Some types of birth control do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation in the uterus. The law, if enacted, would seem to make it legal for a father to kill a doctor that prescribes or a pharmacist that dispenses those types of birth control to his daughter.

Let the truth be known, a lot, maybe even a majority, of those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control--regardless of how it works. This really is, in large part, about one's view of sex. The case that paved the way for Roe v. Wade concerning a band on abortion was Griswold v. Connecticut concering a ban on birth control. I am also offended by abortion as birth control, but this is not an area where the law should intrude, regardless of our personal feelings.

[redrockcoulee]

Well, it is certain that actions have consequences. But, like you, I am trying to stay away from the moral (immoral???) aspect of this, and even "the purpose of sex", and keep it in the realm of the legal. If (ever) there is a legal opinion determined, and upheld in our courts that defines when life begins, then laws like the one in S. Dakota will not be necessary. Those who willingly cause the cessation of that life will be held accountable for their actions.

You are right. If the courts changed the rulings to match YOUR belief than there would never be a need for the S Dakota law. All the biologists or physicians who disagree with you are obviousness illogical or know nothing about life. From your two postings I read that you fell that your belief is the only acceptable one and the only logical one as well as the only moral one possible.

[clmonk]

Shooz writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be born to have inalienable rights?
Until then it's part of the mother.
Well, Shooz, therein lies the problem doesn't it? And it comes back to the point I made earlier. IF the law would ever define when life begins, these issues would be settled once and for all. Personally, I think you ARE wrong. From a strictly scientific standpoint, life begins at conception or within 2 weeks thereafter if you want to say it is life when there is a discernable heartbeat. But please don't misunderstand. I am not in favor of shooting ANYone. At least not over this issue. I think if our lawmakers defined the meaning of "life", then some of these other practices would have to be looked at again to determine compliance with that definition.

[shooz]

I was speaking of the constitution.

[clmonk]

RedRock wrote: You are right. If the courts changed the rulings to match YOUR belief than there would never be a need for the S Dakota law. All the biologists or physicians who disagree with you are obviousness illogical or know nothing about life. From your two postings I read that you fell that your belief is the only acceptable one and the only logical one as well as the only moral one possible.
The "obviousness illogical" comment I will forego completely, but I WOULD like to ask how you would define life? Is it only a life once it exits out of the womb. Are you a father/mother? Can you deny that it is a life when you feel the child kick? Parents speak of their boy or their girl, give him/her a name, etc. Can you honestly think it is NOT a child the day before birth. Do you define the fetus as a child only when the fetus is viable and can live and develop outside the womb? At what point does a fetus become a child? I do not "fell" that my belief is the only acceptable one. I DO "fell" that it is the one that makes the most scientific sense. I am NOT trying to impose my morality on anyone here. I am simply trying to arrive at a logical conclusion that best accounts for the available data. You probably need not worry about my suggestion becoming law, however. To do so would largely put an end to a multi-million dollar industry in the U.S. There are FAR too many opposing this conclusion.

[clmonk]

Actually Shooz, I think you were referring to the comment in the Declaration of Independence not so much the Constitution, but I could be wrong.

[shooz]

It's the closest thing we have on the subject.

[ihasa]

Shooz writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be born to have inalienable rights?
Until then it's part of the mother.
Well, Shooz, therein lies the problem doesn't it? And it comes back to the point I made earlier. IF the law would ever define when life begins, these issues would be settled once and for all. Personally, I think you ARE wrong. From a strictly scientific standpoint, life begins at conception or within 2 weeks thereafter if you want to say it is life when there is a discernable heartbeat. But please don't misunderstand. I am not in favor of shooting ANYone. At least not over this issue. I think if our lawmakers defined the meaning of "life", then some of these other practices would have to be looked at again to determine compliance with that definition.

Why is having a discernible heartbeat the be-all and end-all? Is the foetus less alive before its own heart and circulatory system formed? Is the killing of, say, a rat to be outlawed because it has a discernible heartbeat?

I think abortion should be a progressively more grave decision as the pregnancy develops, up until a few weeks before the point where the foetus would be viable outside the womb at which point it becomes unlawful.

Prior to this the debate about whether the foetus should have 'human rights' is so much in the realm of abstract philosphical discussion, that the decision is best left for the mother to take in the context of her own beliefs and understanding of scientific opinion, and of course the situation which leads her to consider abortion in the first place.