South Dakota: A Lone Voice of Courage
Below are a few links and quotes from online news articles relating to South Dakota’s proposed ban on abortion. On the surface, it appears to be quite comprehensive. Voices are raised in a hue and cry on both sides of this extremely volatile issue: the pro-life are raising theirs in words of hope, while the pro-abortion seem to be raising theirs in words designed to inspire fear on both sides of the issue.
I am unapologetically pro-life. I don’t believe that there is ever a reason to perform an abortion, with the exception of very specific impossible medical situations, for example: ectopic pregnancies. I’m very leery of the term “mother’s health.” It’s been far too loosely defined.
At the moment, “mother’s health” is so broadly interpreted that it even includes women becoming depressed when they find out that there are going to be consequences to their actions … it’s not convenient for them to have a family, become pregnant, develop stretch marks, perhaps even lose their figures. The pregnancy will interfere with their vacation, or their job …
… I imagine that an abrupt termination of life might interfere a bit with the unborn child, too - who will never be given a chance to go on a vacation, or hold a job … or even see sunshine or breathe air. He didn’t ask to be there, and I’m sure he’d like to pack his little bags to find a more welcoming home, if he could, unfortunately - someone else’s actions put him there, and his very life is going to depend upon their “tender mercies.” Barely a whimper will be raised in defense of his existence … and he will pass nameless to join the growing number of the smallest and most helpless of all humanity who have been sacrificed on the altar of convenience.
All actions have consequences. Some consequences involve people other than ourselves, for example when we create a new life. That new life is dependent on ours for a brief while, but from the beginning, is separate from ours, genetically individual … the new life possesses its very own unique DNA. It is not a part of the woman’s body. When she aborts her baby, she is ending a life for which she was, in part, responsible for beginning, and which belongs to another human being. The only difference between the goverment calling it a legal exercise of a woman’s right to choose, and calling it murder, are a bit of time, and the participation of an abortionist.
A woman can choose to abort a baby up until the last moment. Take a look at the drawings just below to see what “partial birth abortion” is all about. Be forwarned: it’s graphic, even for line art.
I would like to know how this procedure can save a woman’s life? If she can deliver this baby up to his head, she can deliver the entire baby.
There’s no need for this. If those viable babies were allowed to live - were not murdered by having their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out, they could be given up for adoption. The waiting list for newborn adoptions is years long.
I can’t discern a single reason for this sort of procedure, beyond the murderous selfishness of the mother, and the sheer, unmitigated consciencelessness of the abortionist. There is no way for this procedure to be done with the idea of sparing a woman medically.
Before I get into the articles, I want to address an egregious example of embarrassingly blatant scare-tactic silliness from the pro-abortion camp:
“If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.”
What a load of idiocy! This sort of thing is decided in civil courts. A rapist who fathers a child is not going to automatically have visitation rights - or for that matter, any rights. This is nothing but a sound bite designed to plant a seed of worry in even the minds of those who are pro-life. Shame on you, Krista Hyphenated!
Source: ABC News (excerpt)
“Lawmakers in at least seven other states, including Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee, are considering similar legislation.”
Source: Boston Herald
South Dakota Legislature passes abortion ban
By Associated Press
Friday, February 24, 2006 - Updated: 03:49 PM ES
PIERRE, S.D. - The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.
The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.
Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in a series of steps, but some abortion opponents want a court challenge that could wipe out abortion in one fell swoop.
“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”
During debate on the measure, lawmakers were told that an anonymous donor has pledged to give the state $1 million to defend the abortion ban in court. The Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations for the legal fight.
“I can tell you first-hand we’ve had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already,” Rounds said.
Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women’s health.
If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
“The idea the rapist could be in the child’s life … makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,” Heeren-Graber said.
Source: ABC News
S. Dakota approves bill to restrict abortions
Feb 24, 2006 — CHICAGO (Reuters) - The South Dakota Legislature on Friday approved a bill that would ban almost all abortions in a move that could set up a challenge to the national abortion standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling.
The legislation, which calls for $5,000 fines and five-year prison sentences for doctors who carry out abortions, now goes to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, who has said he is inclined to sign it.
Backers and opponents of the bill have said it is the most restrictive measure on abortion to pass a state legislature since the Supreme Court legalized abortion with the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.
Supporters hope the conflict it sets up with Roe vs. Wade will provide a vehicle to bring the issue before the Supreme Court, whose newly appointed conservative members, they hope, will be more disposed dismantle the 1973 decision.
The proposed law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances in the past three decades. It would ban abortions in almost all cases, including pregnancies that endanger the mother or that resulted from incest or rape. It makes an exception in cases that involve saving the mother’s life.
Both the state House and Senate previously passed the bill but it did not take final form until the House agreed to a minor language change.
Rounds indicated he would sign the measure if the fine print stood up to scrutiny, as the bill’s sponsors have told him it would. He vetoed a similar measure two years ago not because of its intent but because of a technicality.
The South Dakota law is part of a grass-roots, state-by-state effort to challenge abortion. Legislatures in Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Indiana also have measures before them that would heavily restrict abortions.
It could take years for a challenge based on the South Dakota law or some other one to reach the high court.
Source: BBC News
Could this be the end of Roe v Wade?
By Clare Murphy
BBC News
The South Dakota legislators who have approved a bill all but outlawing abortions in the sparsely populated state have loftier aims - an end to the Supreme Court ruling which made terminations legal across America more than 30 years ago.
They hope to provoke pro-choice groups into launching a series of challenges to the law which will ultimately end in the nation’s top court, home to two new conservative Bush appointees.
Fresh from this makeover, the court is seen as more likely than ever to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling on abortion.
There are many ifs. Even if new justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were prepared to vote against the ruling - which is far from a given - they might still be in a minority on the nine-member bench.
For some anti-abortion activists keen to see an end to Roe v Wade, the South Dakota initiative is too little, too soon - but they nonetheless remain optimistic that a fatal blow is not far off.
The possibility of its demise sparks heated debate in a country deeply divided on the issue of abortion. Yet campaigners from both camps acknowledge that its fall could in fact make very little difference to many women seeking to end their pregnancies.
Business as usual?
Were Roe v Wade to be overturned, the issue would return to the state legislatures. In some of those likely to outlaw abortion were it to fall, local laws have already rendered the 1973 ruling all but irrelevant.
If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use state custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women
William Baude
New York Times
In the past decade, state legislatures have passed more than 400 laws limiting access to abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice think tank whose findings are quoted by both sides, says abortion is available only in 13% of US counties.
South Dakota, for instance, is already one of three states with only one abortion provider, joined by North Dakota and Mississippi. Many women wanting an abortion go to other states to get one.
Requirements for parental notification - in some cases involving both parents - make it harder for minors to terminate pregnancies, while mandatory waiting periods between the obligatory counselling session and the actual procedure have also been introduced in some states in the hope of preventing abortions.
Pro-choice groups argue this provision is particularly tough on poor women, who must thus take two days - often unpaid - off work. Anti-abortion groups say it gives the women time to really think the decision through, armed with the facts.
Let battle commence
But while in a post-Roe era a number of states would ban terminations outright, many would still allow them.
Liberal states such as New York and California would allow relatively unfettered access, while a handful might attach strict conditions.
But the battle would take place in state legislatures, and that, to an increasing number of pro-choicers, may be no bad thing.
It would force them to argue their case with voters at the state level, so the thinking goes, and stop them relying on unelected courts to impose their views. Abortion rights would finally have a firm, democratic foundation. Those women who currently have to travel to other states for a termination would continue to do so.
However there are many supporters of abortion rights who find this stance naive, arguing that some states which end up banning the procedure might also stop such abortion tourism.
“If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use state custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women,” William Baude argued in a recent New York Times editorial.
“Once Roe has been overturned, a state may be able to place an unborn child into protective custody, forbidding their mothers to take them across state lines.”
Others in the pro-choice camp may reject such suggestions as alarmist, while many remain confident that the American public would not as yet countenance an end to Roe v Wade.
But in South Dakota, hopes in the anti-abortion camp are clearly running high that change across the US could be on the way.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Very detailed Moof.
Great job!
The root of fear usually is based on the unknowns and on untruths, not facts.
Eliminate the unknowns and the lies, then most fear is alleviated.
And sure…
You can post whatever you want from my blog.
later…
P.S. You’ll have to forgive me for commenting on the wrong post.
*sigh*
I’ll shutup and get back to my Final Paper.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Thank you for your post, Moof.
Honestly, I never imagined a robust challenge to Roe would ever surface.
It’s going to get ugly, and I don’t expect that the outcome will be favorable to us life-advocates.
But I’m gratified that abortion is front and center, this time in the era of the blogosphere. I pray the discourse is enlightening, and not vicious.
best,
Flea
February 26th, 2006 at 11:00 am
South Dakota Challenging Roe Vs Wade
The state legislature of South Dakota has passed a bill to ban all abortion practices statewide, with the exception of situations in which the mother’s life is in danger. The governor, Mike Rounds (I’m assuming he’s a Republican) has said he is “in…
February 26th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
TJ … thank you for dropping in! You’re right about the unknown … it’s the source of our greatest fears. Sometimes that can be overwhelming and paralyzing …
Thanks for your permission … we’ll see what we can scrounge up on this subject.
Dr. Flea! Thanks for your comment! You also made an excellent post on the subject over at your place. I hope to refer to that in a post later tonight, or tomorrow.
As for the next comment - “Liberal Wrong Wing” … you should all take a look at that blog. I was really impressed. I blogrolled him.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:19 am
” would like to know how this procedure can save a woman’s life? If she can deliver this baby up to his head, she can deliver the entire baby.”
That says it right there. Somethings just aint right.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Let us hope other States will follow this brave lead by the citizens through their law makers in South Dakota, My fear is this will be short lived, I’m sure it will be challanged and over turned by the liberials using the Supreme Court.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
>
Are you serious??? This is an appalling lack of scope. You need to do some more research Moof. If the head could come out it would. See, the body of a breech baby is small, and a woman’s cervix need only open a tiny bit. If the body delivers through the small cervical opening, the head is bigger and can’t fit. The loss of pressure on the cervix at the neck can cause it to retract, or close down. It’s called head entrapment and it’s NOT the “goal” of a mid-trimester abortion. It is a very real medical problem that indeed can threaten women’s lives.
This procedure is sometimes necessary on regular labor and delivery floors, with midtrimester breech live preterm or stillborn deliveries, complicated by head entrapment. If this surgical procedure was banned these women would all have to have early c/sections, with the baby half out, before the lower uterine segment is well developed. This means that Repeat Cesarean section would be their only childbearing option forever. This type of scar will threaten the life of a woman and every future baby. Not safe. So even if you want to ban it for unwanted babies (abortion) how do you protect women who spontaneously need it for a true preterm delivery with this OB complication?
Are you aware that prenatal testing does not usually occur until 15-19 weeks of pregnancy? (midtrimester). And follow up testing to confirm anomalies, and then the difficult decision making process, takes time.
Try not to forget that some of these fetuses born via “partial birth abortions” were very much wanted babies with lethal anomalies. Some of these fetuses belonged to women diagnosed with breast or cervical or other cancers, who had to make the devastating choice to put their life before their baby’s. To do so, to cast such a wide and harsh judgement, to think it’s so black and white, it’s ignorant and mean.
Not many people are waiting to adopt the babies who will only live a few hours, the babies with Trisomy 13 or 18, with anencephaly or microcephaly or massive hydrocephalus. Not many people are standing in line to adopt the 3 or 6 or 15 year olds their sick mothers would have left behind.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I tried to include these quotes from you Moof at the start of my reply, but they didn’t come through. This is what I’m specifically replying to in the opening lines…
“If she can deliver this baby up to his head, she can deliver the entire baby.” and “I can’t discern a single reason for this sort of procedure, beyond the murderous selfishness of the mother”
February 27th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Maribeth, your comment would hold a lot more water if you weren’t anonymous. Are you a physician? Are you an OB/GYN? A midwife?
Are you perhaps simply a “late term” abortion supporter who would like to try to sway pro-lifers to your way of thinking?
Regarding Cesarean Sections: my daughter has had two cesarean sections, and plans to have more children. From my research, I’ve been given to understand that C-Sections have become a relatively frequent option, even for women who would be able to deliver vaginally.
Why would you assume that I haven’t done any research … because I’m pro-life? Has it occured to you that I could be pro-life because I’ve done some research?
I’ve heard - from more than one OB/GYN - that this procedure is never a medical necessity. I would like to hear from some of the physicians who visit this site regarding this subject.
Having had four children of my own - all naturally, with no drugs at all - I probably am a bit more “aware” than you realize.
Now, are you aware that I know a host of women who do not want that sort of “testing,” because they don’t want to be pressured by pro-abortion OB/GYNS who would expect them to abort their babies should the tests bring back Trisomy or some other defect? Some women, many women, do not want to abort their less than perfect babies.
It is my view that abortion ends a human life. Just like a woman can’t be “a little bit pregnant,” an unborn infant can’t be a “little bit human.” Abortion on demand has led to its being used as a convenience measure … a method of birth control … a sanitization of the human race through selective culling …
From the New York Daily News:
We are sacrificing our children on the altar of our convenience, and as such, I believe that we ourselves are becoming less human. We seem to be more concerned about baby seals than we are about baby humans.
It’s sad. Somewhere - we’ve lost our moral compass, and our priorities have become inverted. We want uncomplicated sex with no consequences - marriages with no commitments - children with no defects …
Murdering your own unborn baby for the sake of convenience is going to eventually have to bring some pretty bad karma down upon your daily walk … whatever your beliefs, or lack of them.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:17 am
I’m a homebirth, holistic, nurse-midwife. I’ve worked in maternal-child health, including internationally in 3rd world countries, for 14 years. I don’t like antenatal testing and would not chose it for myself. I also work with a majority of Plain families, who have devastating genetic diseases. We’ve lost three babies in the past 2 months to such disorders. Some women lose 5 or more of their babies. The mothers, by their faith, never considered termination or even early induction, even when it potentially has jeapordized their health. I 100% support every woman’s and families right to make their own personal choice in these most difficult decisions. A true caregiver stands by her clients’ own choices.
Sorry Moof, your research is lacking. There is a vast difference between a typical c/s and this type, in the placement of the scar. Cutting through the thickness of the whole uterus, before the lower segment is thinned in later pregnancy, is risky and dangerous and potentially both life threatening and a threat to future childbearing.
Why would you ever IMAGINE - and oh, where did you find in your research - that removal of the brain contents of a fetus is for some kind of sick fun or pleasure? What propaganda. If a breech baby was going to deliver it would simply slip out. Entrapment is a real issue and there is no way to deliver a baby in this condition which leaves the baby intact. I have encountered this terrible situation four times in my 13 years - all very much wanted babies, all born prematurely and breech. Two in remote places.
I notice you don’t have a reply for the women, mostly mothers, diagnosed with life threatening illness during pregnancy. You think this doesn’t happen not infrequently? Pregnancy is the only time a vast majority of women get any health care, and so it does. I’ve seen it in America, and in desperately poor countries, and abortions done “for the sake of mother’s life” is NOT propaganda. Wake up and smell the grey.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:35 am
I should add, from re-reading my posts. Certainly not all, or even many, preterm breeches become entraped. And advanced medical treatment for it - ie, general anesthesia, sometimes nitroglycerine - is available in some places. (wasn’t an option even in an urban hospital in Seattle though). Likewise, many “mid term abortions” are Intact D&Es. Head entrapment is a complication. Most are born intact, and believe it or not, can die in their mothers arms if so wished.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I find it amazing, that women who are sick, and whose lives are in danger because of their pregnancies, who don’t want to abort, but who have to end the pregnancy … can manage to have an induction … with prayers that the baby live, but leaving that to up to letting nature take it’s coarse.
They don’t force these women to do late term abortions, they have to choice to continue the pregnancy and risk their lives, to do an induction, C section, or late term abortion … and women DO choose the induction and C Section … and some of the babies make it, some do not, but they die because they were born too early … not because they were not given the chance.
Don’t tell me to do the research … I’ve had more than one friend make the hard choice, and choose the induction between 25 and 33 weeks.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Moof,
You have to give credit to Maribeth for defending dilatation and extraction.
I confess my breath was taken away. I didn’t think anybody would even try to defend the procedure.
I believe the S.D. legislation permits exceptions to save mom’s life (e.g. the mom who must abort or forgo chemotherapy).
D&X for T13 and T18 babies strikes me as cruel and unusual death for a poor baby who will die of natural causes.
Finally I disagree that a “true caregiver stands by her clients’ own choices”. This strikes me as an intemperate and poorly examined proposition.
best,
Flea
February 28th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
>
Obviously I am not talking about the mother who decides to take crack or ride bulls during pregnancy, Dr. Flea. It behooves you to take things in context.
Who WANTS a D&X for any woman, for any fetus? Nobody. Certainly not me. It’s awful. I was merely trying to present a different angle, from the real world out here. And just point out that legislation banning a surgical process is a slippery slope.
Let me share an interesting recent story for discussion. I’ll try to be brief. Ahem, not easy for me. I’ll back off the on the heated politics of it all, I promise. I know enough to know we’re not going to change one anothers’ minds.
Amish woman, we’ll call her Martha, had her baby diagnosed via ultrasound with multiple lethal anomalies at 31 weeks gestation. Her mother had lost 5 babies to the same syndrome. Martha had previously delivered her only other child via C/S. A repeat cesarean would mean “always a cesarean”. Problem is, she may have to lose 5,8,10 babies to get a few healthy ones. It is not medically safe to have that many c-sections. It is dangerous for mother and baby. This is an Old Order Amish farming family who likely not be open to limiting family size, even with the struggles they know they’ll face, even in the face of grave danger. As a midwife, I know it’s in the best interest of Martha’s reproductive health to deliver this baby vaginally.
Problem is, one of the associated anomalies is hydrocephalus (water on the head). If the head gets too big, the baby won’t be able to deliver vaginally. It can be difficult to deliver even via cesarean. The head can potentially have to be punctured to drain fluid off *even during C/S* (is that a D&X? Should a hyst be done instead?). If Martha wants to have a vaginal birth, she has to consider two options which may maximize her chances to do so: early induction or the possibility of having to needle fluid off of her baby’s head.
The problem is, in our conservative county, no doctor would offer her either option. They felt it was too politically sensitive, too much like a ‘late term abortion’. Is it? Once born, this baby was absolutely going to die, at 34 weeks or 40 weeks. By the time she and her husband are considering these choices the baby is at a viable gestational age, one that we would not hesitate to induce for, say, preeclampsia. And of course both inductions are meant to protect the health of the mother. The docs weren’t comfortable needling fluid off, either, in a baby known to be incompatible with life. Even though the procedure might be inevitable at some point anyway.
Anyway, food for thought. My point is that sometimes issues are more complicated than people may think.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Peggikaye - thank you kindly for visiting my blog, and for taking the time to comment on this most sensitive subject. I’ve visited your very interesting blog, and hope to get you blogrolled before the evening is over.
Dr. Flea … you are a balm upon my heart. Thank you for stopping by! You know, I’m amazed at some of what I’m reading too. More than anything, it just makes me sad for how many people really think that way - and the mental calisthenics they must have to undertake in order to not hear themselves.
You mention T13 … yesterday at 4 PM, a friend lost her little girl to T13. I believe the baby was a bit less than a week old. She had a miscarriage last year, and a very difficult pregnancy - she’s only 7 years my junior. They wanted to give their little girl as much tactile comfort as they could for her brief time on eath. I’m just crying inside for them.
I agree with you about a “caregiver standing by her cilents’ own choices” … this is something that came up between Dr. Crippen and I during a discussion. He felt that refusing an abortion would be like imposing his morality on others - and I disagreed. He is his own entity, and has to live with his own decisions. For each one of those procedures, there are 3 people involved - two of them have a choice - one doesn’t.
And Maribeth …
I have a question for you, since I honestly don’t know … just what exactly is a “homebirth, holistic, nurse-midwife?” I understand the “homebirth” part … and the “nurse-midwife” … but how does all of that fit into “holistic?” When I think holistic, I just think of AM.
You said:
You want to talk about propaganda? Okay … that was propaganda. If you got that impression from anything I wrote, or any “research” I mentioned, then you were reading your own ideas into it. In fact, that thought had never in my life crossed my mind. That it’s apparently crossed yours is very interesting.
Please note the following quote from my post: “I don’t believe that there is ever a reason to perform an abortion, with the exception of very specific impossible medical situations, for example: ectopic pregnancies. I’m very leery of the term “mother’s health.” It’s been far too loosely defined.”
I find it curious that you seem to be ignoring the fact that I wrote that there were specific impossible medical situations which could force an abortion. Did you just not see that?
Also - you said: “I notice you don’t have a reply for the women, mostly mothers, diagnosed with life threatening illness during pregnancy.” … I was a mother diagnosed with a life threatening illness during a pregnancy. So don’t go there.
And finally, I never said that “abortions for the sake of mother’s life” was propaganda … I said that I was leery of the term “mother’s HEALTH” because it’s been too loosely defined. In fact, I never used the word “propaganda” except when quoting you.
Before I quit, I also got an email today - from someone who apparently didn’t want to write things into here as a comment. I’m going to share it with everyone:
From Eldon Heeren -
Well Eldon, I’m sorry to hear about President Bush. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens there, since that’s all mere speculation at this point.
As far as parental rights, I’m not sure that there are any states that don’t have pro-bono lawyers. I would like to say that our court system has more common sense than to stand back and allow something like that to happen, however in this crazy time when a fellow who breaks his leg while robbing your house can win a judgment against you … there’s no telling.
I’m just going to keep trying to do my own little part, and hope you’re wrong.
—– 03/01/06 —– I got to thinking about Eldon’s email. I must have been very tired when I answered him. I was talking to my husband and he pointed out the obvious: what on earth has President Bush got to do with this? He has no legal say in any of this. This is going to go from SD to the Supreme Court - maybe. Probably not, actually … unfortunately.
So Eldon, I don’t know where you got your “information,” but if it really was an Associated Press bulletin, they need to bone up on their Social Studies.
And by the way - had Mr. Heeren emailed me something personal, or asked me to not publish his email, it would not have been added to this comment. Note that Mr. Hereen is quite anonymous even now. I have no way of knowing who he is, where he comes from, or even if he’s who he says he is - and unless Mr. Hereen comes back and identifies himself somehow, neither do my readers.
As it is, for those who don’t realize, anyone can use any name they’d like in a reply to a comment, and unless it’s linked to a blog or a web site, there’s no way to tell who they are. Anonymous commentors, especially flamers, are thus not taken very seriously - at least not by this blogger. Some will spam a post with flames, using different names, trying to make it seem as if a whole boat load of people had commented.
And - AM = “alternative medicine.”
February 28th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
First, Moof, how polite of you to publish someone, including name, who you seem have understood did not want to be listed here.
My replies to you were based mostly on the following statement…
I can’t discern a single reason for this sort of procedure, beyond the murderous selfishness of the mother, and the sheer, unmitigated consciencelessness of the abortionist. There is no way for this procedure to be done with the idea of sparing a woman medically
…and how vast the lack of understanding of unique circumstances that shows.
I don’t understand your statement “When I think of holistic, just think of AM”. Could you please clarify?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:00 pm
The AP story, which was published on Feb. 28, states that, during a news conference on Monday, Feb. 27, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan suggested that President Bush does not support a South Dakota bill that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.
Bush is “pro-life with three exceptions,” McClellan said. Those exceptions are rape, incest or when a woman’s life is endangered. As you know, the SD bill allows abortions only when a woman’s life is endangered.
Now you are absolutely right that Bush has no legal say in this. The story does point out, however, that the president has the good sense to realize there should be exceptions. He sees the shades of gray in an issue that some people believe is merely black and white.
Even if Gov. Rounds signs the bill, its chances of going anywhere are slim to none because it is too extreme. If you want to see “abortions for convenience” outlawed, you have to allow for exceptions when there are exceptional circumstances.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Thank for returning with the information, “Dakota Gramma.”
I agree with you that the chances of this bill getting as far as the Supreme Court are slim to none - but frankly, I don’t believe that those who wrote the bill expect anything else. I have a feeling that they’re accomplishing, at this point, exactly what they wanted.
As far as allowing exceptions for exceptional circumstances - I agree IF the exceptional circumstances are a medical necessity - to save the mother’s life.
I do not agree in the case of rape. While I understand that this could be worse than a nightmare for the mother, it’s not a reason to give the innocent unborn baby a death sentence. I do not place emotional trauma above a human life.
Aborting a baby because of incest is no different than aborting a baby because it has Trisomy … it’s eugenics … it’s selective culling. In fact, aborting a baby because of incest may be even worse, since not every baby which springs from an incestuous union is guaranteed to be defective.
And that is my position on abortion.
Life is precious … each human life has a right to give survival its best shot. Although one life may have sparked another, one life is still not worth more than another. You can’t put a value on life - life is.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 am
You have a right to your belief, but the reality is that desperate people will resort to desperate measures. Rape and incest victims who cannot bear to carry out a pregnancy that resulted from violence will find a way to terminate it. If the option of abortion is not available to them through legal measures, they will find other ways. They always have, and they always will. And if a woman dies from a botched abortion, then two lives are lost.
Life is precious, but it’s also imperfect.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Dakota Gramma, what you say is true. No doubt. I’m certain that there will always be people who do such things.
However, with the same logic: are we going to legalize drugs, so that drug addicts won’t try to get them from unregulated sources, and end up dying from drugs which were too pure, or were contaminated?
Women who do that sort of thing know what the risks are. They exercise their right to choose to do it anyway.
If abortion is legal, and used as birth control, the way it is today, then far more lives are lost than would be through illegal, botched abortions … because if abortion were outlawed, the danger and illegality would be a strong deterrent for many women.
The idea of legalizing something because some people are going to do it anyway … doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me.
Dakota - thank you for your cogent and level headed discussion of this most difficult subject. If you have more to say, I’d be happy to hear it.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Moof, you are talking about abortion in general. I am talking about abortion for victims of rape and incest. There is a huge difference.
People who engage in consensual sex should know the risk involved. They make choices.
Women who are impregnated through rape and incest are not willing partners in the sex act. They have no choice as to whether or not they are victimized.
When rape and incest victims are involved, the decision of whether or not to terminate their pregnancy is not about birth control, it is about sparing victims from further trauma.
We can talk about the horrors that rape and incest victims suffer, but we cannot know the depth of each individual’s personal pain or the fears that continue to haunt her.
If a victim chooses to terminate her pregnancy, only God knows if she has made the right choice. But I firmly believe that we do not – and should not - have the right to play God and make that decision for someone who has already suffered so much.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:53 pm
I’m sorry Dakota, but I disagree. And I am not only speaking about abortion in general. I’m speaking about any and all abortions which are performed for any reason but to save the mother’s life - because of specific medical necessities.
Babies who are conceived through rape or incest are not willing partners, either. They also have no choice as to whether or not they are victimized.
Dakota, having your life ended is pretty traumatic too. The woman is a victim, and she in turn victimizes the baby. No one wins, there.
Emotional trauma does not trump a human life. If I’m traumatized enough, I can kill another human being? Especially one that isn’t even responsible for my trauma, and who is already as much a victim as I am?
I understand that the agony they’re going through can be extremely damaging - traumatic - emotionally crippling, even. But it’s still not a reason to kill another human life. Killing that baby is not going to unrape the woman … all it’s going to do is make one more victim.
I’m sorry Dakota Gramma, you still haven’t convinced me.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 am
It does not matter whether or not you are convinced. The majority of Americans, including many who consider themselves pro-life, are not comfortable limiting choices for rape and incest victims. For that reason, we will never see anti-abortion laws that do not make exceptions for those people.
I will never have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy if I become the victim of rape. But if I did, I wouldn’t want someone else - especially someone who would not be affected in any way - making such difficult, personal decisions for me.
And, for me, that is the end of the discussion.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am
The rape and incest inclusion benefits from the logical consistency that comes from recognition that the fetus is an innocent party.
In fact, today, in a pregnancy resulting from rape, the fetus is condemned but the perp usually walks. That make sense to anybody?
BTW, at the risk of opening a can of worms, incestuous liasons are sometimes consensual.
best,
Flea
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Dr. Flea … I spent the day - so far - immersed in this stuff.
First of all, I just went to the most difficult funeral I’ve ever attended in my life. Some friends buried their 2 week old little girl - they lost her to T13. The pain in that tiny church was palpable. You could “feel” where the parents were with your eyes closed.
I didn’t really have any words to comfort the mom and dad with … all I could do was be there, cry with them, and love them.
After the “mercy meal” which followed the funeral, we gave a woman a ride to the store, and along the way, it came out that her 16 year old daughter was the product of a rape. She shared a bit of what she’s been through, and is still going through … and I found myself in tears, yet again.
At the end of our conversation, she said: “Well, look what I have! What could I change?”
I replied: “Perhaps the way you ended up with Ashley?”
And she said: “But, would it still be my Ashley?”
Now, every time I see Ashley, I’m not going to be able to help but think about Carol’s words … and remember some of the comments to this post. Ashley is a beautiful, gentle, smiling young lady - who loves babies and little children. I can’t imagine that she could ever have been classified as a “rape child” and subsequently aborted.
With this discovery, and still raw from the funeral of a two week old angel who would also have been a candidate for abortion - seeing the grief her parents are enduring … I’m firmer in my belief of the primacy of life than I’ve ever been.
By the way, Carol has agreed to counsel with anyone who is the victim of rape, and finds themselves pregnant … and needs to talk. Please email me, and I’ll put you in touch with her.
April 16th, 2006 at 12:19 am
worldpharmacy