New SD banning abortion..

[MrsKreamer]

How does that compare to other states? Maybe SD residents don't really want abortions. I don't live there so I don't know the answer for them.

It really doesn't compare to other states, unless Roe v. Wade is overturned...which will then make it up to the states, and you will see more of this....

FWIW even though I am Pro-Life, I don't see banning abortions a move in the right direction. I don't think it will stop or reduce abortions at all, just make them illeagal.

Another FWIW someone mentioned more sex ed to teach kids about their bodies. I had sex ed 4 times throughout my education, and took the Pill everyday...and yet I still had two Opps pregnancies...

 

[WatchinCaptKangaroo]

Another FWIW someone mentioned more sex ed to teach kids about their bodies. I had sex ed 4 times throughout my education, and took the Pill everyday...and yet I still had two Opps pregnancies...

And you choose to have babies. Why should someone who doesn't want to be pregnant or raise a child have to have a baby when her birth control failed.

(I know I have quoted you twice MrsKreamer, I'm not targeting you, you just have quotable stuff).

 

[Sylvester McBean]

Actually, I agree with this "unpopular" view: Its her body, her choice,
and men should not be forced into fatherhood just like women should not be forced into motherhood.

finally, someone with a sense of reason. bible addict laws in this country are out of control.

 

[bicker]

What you miss is many people don't see the legal murder of millions of unborn babies as a freedom anyone should have.

That turn-of-phrasing is nothing more than hubris: It assumes that one's own religious beliefs are the only rational beliefs that could exist. There is no objective evidence that a fetus is anything more than a fetus. It becomes a "baby" -- a person -- when people decide it does, and everyone has a right to make that decision for themselves, because, again, no one has a right to make that decision for anyone else.

If you believe as you do, then it should be illegal for you to participate in an abortion. That, however, doesn't mean it should be illegal for anyone else.

another 7% in the case of rape.

So, even if we accept your numbers, the immoral enforcement of this opportunistic law (I can turn a phrase as well) would commit an inexcuseable battery against those 7%, and again, for the sole purpose of imposing one group's religious beliefs on others.

That leaves 92% who are using it is as oops birth control. Very sad and troubling!

Yet, the law would do almost nothing to address that. It would simply make it more dangerous for the vast majority of those affected, more life-threatening, more destructive, more of an assualt. And for the rest, it would result in more unwanted, uncared-for children, in a society that has little or no compassion for such children-in-distress, once they've been forced from their mother's womb -- the ultimate capper for this hypocricy of morals.

If there was any measure of honesty in the hearts of those who say they want to reduce or eliminate abortion, they'd expend their efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancy. Working against reproductive rights, instead, just demonstrates self-centered arrogance -- the desire to impose one's religious beliefs on others. Despicable.

 

[kristen821]

Sure, when the mom's white and the father is white too, infertile couples are just champing at the bit to adopt their baby. If the baby is black or can't "pass" for white, not so much. I worked briefly at an adoption agency. There was a nice long list of parents waiting for white babies, but we were turning away black birth mothers.

We had a white birth mother who lied about her rapist's race. She said he was white, but her rapist was black (sorry, I just can't refer to a rapist as a birth father). She chose a white couple to adopt her baby. A few days after she gave birth, she signed away her parental rights and the new parents took the baby boy home. They took him to a pediatrician, who said this baby wasn't white. I took the first call from the almost-adoptive father after the doctor's exam, who kept skirting around the issue and wouldn't say what was wrong with his baby. At first I thought there was some medical problem, like a heart condition. He kept saying "the baby looks fine to me". After about 5-10 minutes I realized he possibly meant the baby's race was what was "wrong", and I asked him if the doctor said the baby wasn't fully Caucasian. He seemed relieved to say "yes". Long story short, we managed to find new parents for the baby boy on short notice. I think they must have been the last on the list willing to take a biracial baby, because right after that we began to turn away black birth mothers.

Maybe I have different views on this because my father was adopted. If abortion was legal then who knows what would have happened. He was adopted by white parents and biologically he is puertorican. He lived his whole life thinking he was white until he was 40 when his biological mother found him. His parents didn't love him any less because he wasn't the right color. They knew he wasn't biologically white but never told him. I know people who can't have children who would just love to have a child, they wouldn't care what the race was.
I also, know people who have had abortions and regret it everyday. I would never look down on these people who choose to have the abortion since it is legal, but abortion would never be my choice.

 

[kristen821]

Having worked in a sexual assault crisis center, I know it's very easy to say, I would do this.... I would do that... But it's a lot harder when you are in that situation. I am pro-choice. And no, under normal circumstances, I would not choose to have an abortion. However, I cannot imagine being pregnant with my rapists' baby- imagining if it would look like him, reliving my ordeal every time I felt a kick. Personally, I don't think I could do it. So, I understand where you are coming from when you say they can put the baby up for adoption, but I just don't think a lot of women would feel strong enough to go through with it, myself included. And you are much stronger than me if you could.

Of course I'm not in that position so maybe my views would change if I was, but I think I would personally hate myself forever if I had an abortion. Of course it would be a very hard 9 months, but in the end I would most likely give the baby up for adoption (I don't know if I could keep it or not since I am not in the situation) and know I am giving the baby a very good life with a very good family.

 

[Laura]

Maybe I have different views on this because my father was adopted. If abortion was legal then who knows what would have happened. He was adopted by white parents and biologically he is puertorican. He lived his whole life thinking he was white until he was 40 when his biological mother found him. His parents didn't love him any less because he wasn't the right color. They knew he wasn't biologically white but never told him. I know people who can't have children who would just love to have a child, they wouldn't care what the race was.
I also, know people who have had abortions and regret it everyday. I would never look down on these people who choose to have the abortion since it is legal, but abortion would never be my choice.

Oh, Hispanic babies weren't a problem at the agency, as often they can pass for white. I know Puerto Ricans can look very white, very black, or in the middle; it just depends on one's individual heritage. Infertile white couples, as a rule, simply want a baby who looks like them; it's not always a matter of racism or prejudice. I'm not blaming these couples for that, and certainly there are many couples who have happily adopted babies who were not of their race. I don't have kids yet, but if my husband and I turn out to be infertile, we'll adopt a child, and the race won't matter to us.

The thing is, though, babies who are African-American have a harder time getting adopted. At the agency I worked for, the fee for the adoption of a baby with one or two African-American parents was half that of any other races (Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Caucasian or any mixes of those races). It's just much tougher to place a black baby for adoption. That option is not as available to black women who find themselves pregnant. Not to mention there are women who may be carrying a child with health issues; those babies are much harder to place as well.

Adoption isn't the answer for every pregnant woman out there.

 

[Laura]

Wow, what a sad story.

Glad to hear your agency was able to find a home for the baby.
As for the first "parents", did they end up with a baby? I sure hope not.

I don't know. They might have, eventually, after I'd left the agency.

 

[bicker]

There are over 100,000 American babies waiting (hoping) to be adopted, and more than half are of African American descent, even though African Americans make up less than a quarter of our population. In many cases, in the absence of a personal religious belief to the contrary, the decision to abort versus carry-to-term and put up for adoption doesn't always land on the same side of the coin. There is no question that there are very horrible personal consequences for a woman who chooses to abort a pregnancy. However, again, without imposing a specific religious belief on her, there are situations where the other aspects of the decision overwhelm those personal consequences, and make abortion the correct, proper, and optimal moral decision.

In another thread, I recently wrote something, with regard to whether folks should feel obligated to plan to have children. Please read it in that context, and then consider how it applies to the concept of deciding whether it would be better to prevent or abort an unwanted pregnancy, versus carrying it to term and put the baby up for adoption:

IMHO, there isn't a compelling reason to HAVE children, that isn't significantly "self-serving" (though NOT "selfish"). In other words, we aren't running out of population; there is no reason to believe that any more children will have a positive impact on society as-a-whole; there is no doubt that if we invest the same amount of societal energy raising a smaller number of children, that the positive impact of that on society will be more than any perceived negative impact of that ON SOCIETY; there is no reason to doubt that all the extraordinary children (in terms of their impact on society) who would be born would be born anyway, even if a smaller number of children are born, since it is almost assured that investing more in each child raises the chances that that child will be extraordinary.

However, as I alluded to, things aren't so critical that the aforementioned self-motivation is specifically causing any significant damage to society. People shouldn't feel that they're wrong to satisfy their own personal desires for children, even though the positive impact of more children, in general, is substantially only on specific individuals, based on their own personal satisfaction.

Consider how much better things would be if we were able to balance the number of children wanted with the number of children born. (My personal preference would be to do so by preventing unwanted pregnancy, but we all have to live with the fact that we haven't expended enough effort to accomplish that yet.) I simply have never seen a viable argument made for having more children than are wanted.

 

[punkin]

Of course I'm not in that position so maybe my views would change if I was

Isn't this exactly the point of keeping abortion legal, so you have a choice when you are in that position?

Also, notice that this bill has only the exception of a waoman's life. How about medical comlications? Ruptured uterus anyone? Need for Hysterectomy? Nope. You don't need a uterus to live, so go a ahead and have a baby and ruin your later reproductive health forever.

How about a baby with an invariably fatal and painful disease? No. you have to have it even though it will not have a life other that 3 or 4 short years of suffering where you have to give up everything else in your life to care for it (because once you have that baby-you love it no matter what).

Think about what lack of choice means. It means that individual cases cannot be decided on an individual basis.

 

[kristen821]

Isn't this exactly the point of keeping abortion legal, so you have a choice when you are in that position?

Also, notice that this bill has only the exception of a waoman's life. How about medical comlications? Ruptured uterus anyone? Need for Hysterectomy? Nope. You don't need a uterus to live, so go a ahead and have a baby and ruin your later reproductive health forever.

How about a baby with an invariably fatal and painful disease? No. you have to have it even though it will not have a life other that 3 or 4 short years of suffering where you have to give up everything else in your life to care for it (because once you have that baby-you love it no matter what).

Think about what lack of choice means. It means that individual cases cannot be decided on an individual basis.

I am just stating personal choices as long as abortion is legal who am I to judge what other people do! But, I do know of people being told that thier babies would have something wrong with them and they should have an abortion when they didn't have the abortion the baby turned out fine. I know of 3 people that this happened too.

 

[bicker]

And if for even just one of them the worst did happen, then what?

 

[kristen821]

And if for even just one of them the worst did happen, then what?

They would still love the child.

 

[punkin]

It's nnot a question of loving the child. It is a question of a child having to live in constant pain and the mother having to see and deal with that pain daily. You may want to do that and it is your choice, but what gives you the right to force your beliefs on someone else (I use You here as the community you, not you personally)

 

[bicker]

They would still love the child.

To the extent that "they" would, and as long as that's guaranteed, there really is no issue. I would defend to my death the right of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses to do so.

The issue I was asking you about is with regard to the 100,000 babies that aren't loved, including those who are so terribly damaged by a pregnancy that shouldn't have been carried to term, that their mother is unable to care for them, or is driven by circumstance to neglect them.

 

[mickeyfan2]

It really doesn't compare to other states, unless Roe v. Wade is overturned...which will then make it up to the states, and you will see more of this....

I was talking about in %. How many abortions/population do other states have. Is this state really low or is the 800 in line with the population of SD.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I am just stating personal choices as long as abortion is legal who am I to judge what other people do! But, I do know of people being told that thier babies would have something wrong with them and they should have an abortion when they didn't have the abortion the baby turned out fine. I know of 3 people that this happened too.

My close friend was having her second. The Drs did an amnio and told they they were having a severly deformed baby boy and the Drs tried to talk them into an abortion. They chose to keep the pregnancy going and gave birth to a happy healthy baby girl. Boy would that have been a mistake. I have always wondered about the parents of the sick boy. They must have been told they were having a happy healthy baby girl. I too do not want women getting back alley abortions, but it seems to me that we are pushing them too much and not covering all the options first. I also think adoption laws much change in this country to make this a better option. We have 4 international adoptions in our family. The reason given for international was the open adoptions in the US. I would have loved to have had those 4 adoptions being US adoptions, but the laws made the parents look international.

 

[kristen821]

To the extent that "they" would, and as long as that's guaranteed, there really is no issue. I would defend to my death the right of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses to do so.

The issue I was asking you about is with regard to the 100,000 babies that aren't loved, including those who are so terribly damaged by a pregnancy that shouldn't have been carried to term, that their mother is unable to care for them, or is driven by circumstance to neglect them.

I wouldn't judge anyone for what they choose to do. They will have to live with the guilt of the abortion (if they end up feeling guilty) anyone I know that had an abortion regrets it. I just personally wouldn't have the abortion. If someone else chooses to that is thier choice. I don't always agree with other peoples choices, but don't think they are any worse of a person for it.

 

[bicker]

it seems to me that we are pushing them too much and not covering all the options first.

Just think if even half of the effort was put into making sure they don't get pregnant in the first place. This whole issue would completely vanish.

 

[kristen821]

My close friend was having her second. The Drs did an amnio and told they they were having a severly deformed baby boy and the Drs tried to talk them into an abortion. They chose to keep the pregnancy going and gave birth to a happy healthy baby girl. Boy would that have been a mistake. I have always wondered about the parents of the sick boy. They must have been told they were having a happy healthy baby girl. I too do not want women getting back alley abortions, but it seems to me that we are pushing them too much and not covering all the options first. I also think adoption laws much change in this country to make this a better option. We have 4 international adoptions in our family. The reason given for international was the open adoptions in the US. I would have loved to have had those 4 adoptions being US adoptions, but the laws made the parents look international.

I agree with you entirely. It is so hard and expensive to adopt a child in the U.S.