Left of Center: By Yukkione: South Dakota Abortion Law
South Dakota Abortion Law
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Time : 7:15 AM

So South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed a bill outlawing nearly all abortions. The only exception being if the life of the mother is in danger. No exceptions for instances of rape or incest. Under the new law, a rapist will have legal claim on the child as it's father. The mothers only options are to give the child up for adoption or put into an orphanage (with the consent of the rapist father). The rapist father could then be able to make his claim for the child when he leaves prison. Imagine that, a rapist having rights concerning the child that was a product of his rape... unimaginable! Of course this law will only affect poor and middle class women and girls, because the rich can always travel for abortions, and do. Before legalized abortion “trips” to Europe were common for those with money. I have mixed feeling about abortion. I was born in 1966 and was adopted. I guess I think about it in these terms, that it should be legal, and rare.

posted by Yukkione at 7:15 AM | Permalink |

[ back home ]

Comments for South Dakota Abortion Law
You keep doing such fine blog tweaking! NO, I'm not so much taking a rest as much as feeling disgusted by the high-school like antics of people that seek to draw me into their persecution delusions. That said-I'm not a quitter. But misspent energy makes me quite frustrated. There are plenty of worthy adversaries out there to criticize, doing terrible things- have at them.

I have been resisting the urge to post on this particular topic because it has a way of exploding into a big abortion debate over and over. Then I am forced to clarify my positions which I have done, then defend them which I have done, then debate them which I have done, then try to restore order which I've not done very well. I am reading others instead and their comments.

No Blood For Hubris did a great post -considering the 'wanted' child. I think I am with you, prevention, rare, and early. Sure, I have mixed feelings. But I can't push my mixed feelings onto another, I guess thats how I look at it. These exceptions really make me shake my head especially in cases of rape. Like I said elsewhere, during the Scalito hearings, he stood by his position on exceptions- there are none.

I wonder about the implications of all this...

It is morally reprehensible to allow a convicted rapist parental rights. It makes me want to vomit just thinking about it. That said all women with right thinking minds and a sense of self preservation ought to stay the hell out of South Dakota.

right static, they should hang a sgn at the border.

Ah lily, nice to see you..yes i resisted writing about the topic as well. But when i read about the parental rights issue , I just had to sa something. But I've said it and am done. As for the nonsense you were speaking of.. ya just gotta let it go, and your right about choosing your battles.

Why rare? Too many people on earth as is. We need to start instituting a policy similar to China. Forced abortions after one kid or if it's a girl.
  • Posted at 1:21 PM | By Anonymous Anonymous

Your honesty is refreshing, and I suspect a lot of people out in the world feel the way you do. Abortion as a means of birth control is wrong, but so is forcing a young woman to bear a child as a result of incest or rape.

Instead of trying to change the law in a draconian manner, maybe we need more honest dialogue about what circumstances are acceptable or not.

We also need to discuss the issues of supporting the children born to people of limited means. I believe it's just as criminal to turn a blind eye to children living without basic needs.

Hi Left of Center,
FYI, I've linked to you on my blog.

South Dakota's ban on abortion will affect men too: Think of all the men who will become dads, or deadbeat dads. But I'm sure the Bush administration has a plan to address that too, if they aren't already. They'll limit federal monies to tracking deadbeat dads and enforcing child support.

Good points, Leslie.

There are two camps: those who think a 1 sec old fertilized egg is a human being absolutely indistinguishable from a 1 month old baby, and those who don't.

Those in the first camp are beyond debate and it's folly to engage them. Those in the other camp -- surveys say 70% of all Americans -- can be brought into a resonable discussion on the bounds of medical regulation of abortion. I'd venture to say that 90+% of those in this second camp would rally around the "safe, legal and rare" mantra, while some small percent is in the "safe, legal, and who cares how many" camp.

One thing that's self evident -- to me anyway -- is that banning abortion will do nothing to eliminate the need (or want) for abotion. If you really want to reduce abortions, banning it is probably the least effective way to do it. But I suspect the real core of many abortion prohabitionists, is one of moral righteousness, not of actually saving lives -- though I think this is a subconscious driving motivator.

We see this same morality over humanity mission in the "faith based" AIDS programs our tax dollars are funding in Africa, where the priority is increasing "morality" not decreasing the instances of the desease. Reducing HIV/AIDS only has value if it's the side effect of "moral" sexual behavior. Otherwise, let the dirty hethens die, which is, of course, the divinely ordained punishment for such behvior anyway.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

-epm - good points, and yes, folly is the word.

i agree with you 100% both legal AND rare. of course NOT to be used as a birth control method. if we had better education on this subject, i think we'd have far less abortions to begin with

Depraved, abusive, culture they've got goin' on there ... very unkind and very stupid ...

About me
My Photo
Location: Austin, Texas, United States
Blogroll Me!

Powered by :
Powered by Blogger