South Dakota is first of many states to attempt to pass anti-abortion laws, and I believe, the first to show how much they truly care about the welfare of women in their state. The bill is only waiting for their govenor to sign it into law.
Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.
The fact that the legislature of South Dakota refused to allow amendments to when abortion should be legal, leads me to wonder who these people really are. Would they want their daughters give birth to children out of rape? How about the genetically retarded children of incest? This worries me, because I know women who have have become pregnant, only to be told by doctors that they had to terminate, or risk death themselves. Apparently, South Dakota wants all women to risk death to bring a child into the world.
In abortion, just as in life, there are exceptions to every rule, but South Dakota is only allowing one:
The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor’s attempt to save the mother’s life.
Although, I am not quite sure what this means. It doesn’t seem to state that if the pregnancy would cause harm to the mother an abortion could be performed. It appears to only allow a fetus who has died - directly or indirectly from a doctor’s doctoring - to be expelled from the body. That reasures me. It’s almost like saying ‘The only way you won’t be punished for termination of a pregnancy if it’s a miscarrage, or an accident.’
At 23, I most likely am right inside the demographic most likely to have an abortion. I am also violently pro-choice. I think that every woman should have a choice in what is happening to their body.
I do not believe, however, that abortion should be used as birth control. I think that a woman who has had more than one abortion (unless doctor recomended) should take a hard look at themselves in the mirror. And, get some birth control. Condoms are cheeper than an abortion. I also believe that you should not be able to abort a child when it is able to live outside the womb, even if it isn’t fully developed.
Awhile ago, Peggy posted about her choice with Brogan. She is pro-life, and she posted a link to a video that is extreamly graphic. The video shows parts of human fetuses that have been aborted at all stages of pregnancy, up to the third trimester.
I watched the whole video. And it doesn’t bother me. Yes, the third-term abortions bother me, because essentially you’re delivering a healthy baby early, and then killing it. Fetuses that in no way could survive outside the womb don’t bother me.
I may be an extreamly callous person. I am most definitely unsympathetic to those who seek to ban abortion.
Perhaps they might think about how over populated the world would be, if every child conceved was born. Abortion may be horrible to some, but it’s another way we control population growth.
As always, feel free to disagree. But don’t be nasty. I’ll put out flames on sight.
Articles Referenced:
“S. Dakota Legislature Passes Abortion Ban” 22 Feb. 2006. Reuters. 22 Feb. 2006.













I’m pro-choice, but personally I wouldn’t be able to have an abortion. My ex girlfriend had an abortion before we started dating and we were just friends. She asked me to go with her because she was scared as all hell, which is understandable. I didn’t really see much, but it was pretty bad.
Anyway, my take on states, or the federal government, trying to ban abortion is this:
There is nothing in the Constitution that says women’s bodies belong to the state. There is no law stating that a fetus is a living being, so there is no argument for murder. I don’t see how they can make it illegal. It’s already been decided on. The Supreme Court is revisiting the issue though.
The debate amongst people like those in South Dakota is a moral and/or religious one, and while I personally wouldn’t have an abortion (not that a baby is going to be popping out of me anyway), I don’t think it’s Constitutional, or the right thing to do for that matter, to force your beliefs onto a population of people ie: women, for any reason.
I suppose that I should have also mentioned that I don’t think I’d ever be able to have an abortion. I just need to know that I’d have that choice if I needed.
And today, the MSN homepage was saying that the bill has passed the legislature of S. Dakota, and the Govenor has said he would sign it into law.
It makes me wonder if there are any women in the S. Dakota government, and what they think about this.
there’s 15 in the house and 2 in the senate. One of the senators was a primary sponsor, while the other one was against. 10 sponsored it in the house.
I intend to mention abortion on the side of the conclusion to my memoir piece thing–though I don’t know when I’ll actually be at that point. Hard to imagine!
If you’re interested; I’ll try to remember to point it out when I’m done.