Lexrex, the 3/5 compromise did *nothing* towards helping African-Americans gain citizenship. In fact, it allowed Southern states to gain representation in Congress disproportionate to the population that was actually enfranchised. The compromise was that though African-Americans could not vote, 3/5 of their population would be counted when awarding delegates in the House of Representatives. So th eSouth benefited by denying people rights.

The question posed by Billy is “Not unless your position is to force young girls (16 or under) who got seduced by their boyfriends to get drunk, or stoned, have sex, and become pregnant to have to send their lover boys to jail or have a baby”

Quite the question, albeit asked a million times before.

Answer, have the baby. It’s not the baby’s fault.

However, Billy’s question also asks if you interpret his scenario as rape. If it wasn’t consensual sex, then it’s rape, the boy pays for it. The girl will eventually get over it and have the baby as a bonus.

However, the alternative is to terminate the baby, the boy still goes to jail and the girl and the baby will never get over it.

I am ready for the hypothetical question that you will pitch next too.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2903097.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Age_discrepancy_in_relationships.2Fstatutory_rape

“Age discrepancy in relationships/statutory rape
Studies indicate that an important contributing factor is an age discrepancy between the teenage girl and the man who impregnates her. Teenage girls in relationships with older boys and in particular adult men, are more likely to become pregnant than when involved with someone their own age. They are also more likely to carry the baby to term rather than receive an abortion. A review of California’s 1990 vital statistics found that men older than high school age sired 77 percent of all births to high school-aged girls (ages 16-18) and 51 percent of births to junior high school-aged girls (15 and younger). Men over age 25 fathered twice as many teenage births as did boys under age 18, and men over age 20 fathered five times more births to junior high school-aged girls than did junior high school-aged boys. A 1992 Washington state study of 535 adolescent mothers found that 62 percent of the teenage mothers had had a history of rape or sexual molestation by men whose ages averaged 27 years. This study found that, compared with nonabused mothers, abused adolescent mothers initiated sex earlier, had sex with much older partners, and engaged in riskier, more frequent, and promiscuous sex. Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of births to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.[24]“

Nearly 50 million unborn babies in the U.S. alone will never hear those words or face opportunites this free country offers that the living have.

M. Sanger also thought it best to extinguish life because she hypothesized that what she promoted, death in the womb, was best for mankind.

Way to prove the point, Fleming.

Let’s face it, that’s life, and we all know it.
What to do? I don’t know, but this new bill isn’t the answer.

bf, don’t test me, broski. we’ve been over how i believe it’s all murder but at some point you have to compromise, much like the 3/5 compromise.

as for 70% of all unwanted pregnancies being the result of rape, where the heck did you dig up that number? besides, we’re talking about abortions, not unwanted pregnancies. not necessarily the same thing.

Every draft I’ve ever seen holds the woman involved harmless. And the sperm provider is not even mentioned.

You might just as well say she doesn’t exist and has no legal standing.

And that boys will be boys.

If a fertilized egg is indeed a “person,” amend the constitution and give it rights. Also not to make the sex change from female to male (if necessary) at about 14 weeks, providing everything works out.

Oh, and you are getting your 97% number from state stats, surely you have got to be kidding! Other data shows that over 70% of all unwanted pregnancies are the result of statutory rape.

So stand by to send your sons to prison for a few years, and your daughters to death row for being real, living, breathing, human beings even as you fantasize about how many human souls and hypothetical human beings can fit on the head of a pin.

Ridiculous.

Lexrex, I am in SF the entire week of April 20th. If you are who I think you are then you should have my cell number, maybe we can talk about this offline. If you don’t have my number contact Lee B.

BTW, my mentioning Lee does not mean he endorses my view on this issue so readers don’t need to go there.

It will be interesting to hear the secular side spin this issue if voters give it passage. I suppose many will say that God did not hear the prayers for the first effort but he heard us on the second effort. God must be pro-exceptions too! Does that mean Jesus died for merely a percentage of sinners? What a burden for seekers to bear.

i wouldn’t dare pour water on his fire. we need his passion. we also need his vote in november to save the people on the first floor.

Next time make your points to them with a crayon, might sink in faster.

“would we refuse to go into a burning building to save the inhabitants on the first floor because we weren’t able to rescue the ones on the second?”

Good example.

you know and i know that this law, were it to go into effect, would save hundreds of lives.

brother bruce, you keep talking about what the question in november SHOULD be. i agree with you about what it SHOULD be.

but, we had our chance to introduce a pure ban. it didn’t happen. let’s concentrate on the task at hand, please.

would we refuse to go into a burning building to save the inhabitants on the first floor because we weren’t able to rescue the ones on the second?

I didn’t say that RTL condoned the bombings. Read this again:

“Some of the “RTL backers” are so whacko in their emotions (i.e. bombing abortion clinics) that they hurt the whole movement.”

If it “hurt” their movement, then obviously they didn’t condone it.

Exceptions = choice, does that sound about right?

The question in November should be about establishing the point at which life begins. Roe wants to know. I say at conception.

Medicine forces us to sign a liability waiver in attempt to remain beyond reproach as it is not an “exact science”. But Roe gave medicine the green light to perfect ending life for profit. That practice would end if the beginning of life were established.

Duh, I didn’t hear that RTL condoned bombing abortion facilities. What are you insinuating?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Lexrex has it right, I’m not ok with a little murder, but the chance to save a lot while keep trying to save the rest. I can’t say this any clearer or maybe I need to break out the crayons.

It’s hypothetically really no different than say in Normandy (WWII) where the allies advanced on a beachhead knowing that many would die, but once they got there, they saved multitudes more, or reverse logic on the A Bomb, knowing that to drop it, they would kill a lot to save many, many more (i.e. end the war).

In sum, taking a concrete stance, I say again, concrete stance on absolutely NO abortions costs the lives of thousands of babies every year when just chipping at the law saves hundreds and makes further attacks on the existing laws that less offensive to the populous.

By supporting further restrictions on abortions as this bill does, does not say that you approve of the rest being killed.

Some other ignoramous posted earlier that many RTL’ers are hypocrites because they are pro-life and pro-death penalty. That is insane. A innocent baby deserves life, a piece of shit like Anderson and the others on death row and the snot that have been executed forfeited their lives when they took other lives. I know, I know DNA stuff in other states exonerating prisoners, I’m not talking about that. A non-abusive confession by the slime ball is enough and our judicial system checks, checks, recheck and rechecks this ad nauseum. Pro-abortionist have the harder position, kill the baby but spare the moron who hacked apart a family because he “had it rough growing up” or is “misunderstood”. Give me a friggin break.

RTL’ers who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty are a special breed that I can’t seem to ascend to.

and the question before us in november is do we want to try to prevent 97% of abortions. i think duh would say yes, and that he’ll try to prevent the remaining 2-3% later.

You’ve misinterpreted my opinion. I’m very pro-RTL. I never have thought that RTL were the bad guys. Granted, there probably isn’t a more emotional topic than theirs. However, what I am saying is currently (legal climate), they cannot win the war, so if they pull back and get whatever victories they can in the passing of less than ideal bills which furthers their goals. One step at a time. All or nothing, sounds good, accomplishes nothing. The argument that if RTL backs this current bill with exceptions then RTL is saying that some lives can be forfeited. NO. They should be saying, look at how many more lives we’ve saved, while simultaneously acknowledging the loss of many more lives due to the legal climate. Some of the RTL backers are so whacko in their emotions (i.e. bombing abortion clinics) that they hurt the whole movement. I don’t think I can be clearer than that.

Healthy Families Campaign out manuvered Vote Yes then to save face we must concede by turning against everything we stood for in 2006.

We lost two years, and more, of helping voters understand the issue. The understanding being fed to them now is “This issue was settled so why are we seeing it again”.

We heard that same mantra in 2006 for other ballot initiatives, which was very effective.

The reality is that pro-life, under the current legal environment has to unfortunatly compromise in order to save lives. That doesn’t mean giving up, it means chipping away at the abortion block until you achieve your goals. That has always been the problem with Right to Life, butchering their nose way off to spite their faces. This all or nothing war hasn’t ever worked out for RTL and until either they realize that or the Sup Ct. changes, they will continue to be on the short-end of the stick.

The truth is never moot.

What I do now is more important than November.

There are no guarantees.

i agree that we have truth on our side, but the argument over rape and incest exceptions is moot, at least with this bill.

our choice, in november, is to pass a ban that attempts to legally prevent most abortions or maintain the status quo. what will you decide?

i will take my half a loaf (or 9/10 a loaf), and demand more when i’m done.

At the big meeting I asked, “How many of you here are Christian.” Every hand raised. Then where is the faith? Apparently at the feet of Healthy Families Campaign.

We have truth on our side. Let’s promote it. The best some pro-death advocates can come up with is “It’s about privacy.” Even the court doesn’t agree with that.

When does life begin my friend? Why does medicine proclaim it is not an exact science as a waiver yet the court gives medicine power over life and death as birth control?

Abstinence should be the preconception method of choice. Reality says it it not. Kids are having sex and they should know about contraception.

I think this abortion bill will pass simply because it does address the problems that were the big issue with the first ban. It even addressed the loudest arguments of Planned Parenthood from last time. What ever happened to Kate Looby BTW; did she retire?

This is not a slap in the face to people who were born as a result of rape. This bill is simply an attempt to prevent all the abortions of convenience and make people think a little more seriously about preventing those pregnancies in the first place. With the ease of abortions here in SD, an abortion is simply used as birth control.

bruce, are you actually saying that the loophole in this abortion ban is big enough that not one baby will saved?

if not, then isn’t it worth trying to save a few hundred? a couple hundred? dozens? or even a handful?

i agree that this act is not perfect, and has less of a chance than the previous ban of being upheld in court. but right now it’s what lies before us. it’s our only chance to hopefully save some lives.

Go ahead and read through the report, but when you stop to think about it, it makes sense: historically, when we legally ban anything, that doesn’t generally do a whole lot to actually solve the problem; instead, as was the case with prohibition and has been the case with anti-drug laws, they simply increase the amount of *illegal* drinking or drug use (respectively).

That, again, is why I say that people who are against abortion should be doing everything they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, including INCREASING access to contraception and putting COMPREHENSIVE sex ed in place, instead of passing abortion bans that won’t really do anything to stop abortion.

It’s about privacy, stupid. It is none of your business what a woman does with her body.

If you don’t believe in abortion, great, don’t have one.

If the Supreme Court reaches down for this effort will it limit medicine’s ability to determine value of procedure according to gestation? Does this effort differentiate between life beginning at conception or by method of conception? This current effort said some life can be destroyed and in some cases up to certain gestation. Just fill out the proper paper work and let ‘er rip, litterly. Is this effort asking the Supreme Court to approve methods of record keeping?

And what happens to SD’s trigger law that bans abortion when Roe is overturned?

I was at the initial meeting for this new effort and heard the data and method for arriving at language. Nobody would answer my wife’s question on three separate times, “How is this effort different from Roe?”

lexrex, don’t try to bully me about the direction my back is facing. Your conviction does not drive my conscience even though we agree about most isssues. This effort does not guarantee any percentages. Another medical fiat loophole is the “health” of the mother.

Duh, this issue is nation wide, meaning Roe and Doe put it in everybody’s back yard.

John, read the record for unPlanned Parenthood’s adoption efforts. It is lacking.

Fleming, know that distinct human life begins at conception then prosecute the perp to the fullest extent of the law. In prison Jerry can change his name to Mary.

Angi, before I read the report let me just say the results could be according to change in reporting requirements. A ban against abortion will not prevent one single abortion is quite the finite statement! Do you really stand by it?

Has anyone heard whether of not Senator Thune will endorse this effort? Remember he needed exceptions too. I wonder if this current Vote Yes group asked Senator Thune to sponsor a bill that defines life as beginning at conception? That’s doing a lot more than voting for a Supreme Court nominee.

Alas, apparently that has not sunk in yet.

A multi-year study released last year (which you can read about here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/12/abortions-study.html) has demonstrated that in countries and areas where abortion is banned, the abortion rate remains the same.

If a ban were to happen in South Dakota, women looking to terminate a pregnancy would do so themselves or find a way across state lines. Please don’t kid yourselves: an abortion ban will not “prevent” one single abortion.

It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again: the best way to reduce the abortion rate is to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, which is best done (in my opinion) by increasing the availability of contraceptives. I’m just SO tired of the right talking about how abortion is so “irresponsible,” and point to the abundance of birth control that’s available, AT THE SAME TIME as they’re trying to limit access to birth control (”pharmacist conscience” bill, anyone?).

You wake up pregnant. You’re honestly not sure how or why. But that’s what the test says. You don’t recall ever having sex or even what it is. You’re 14. Your foster father is an Evangelical minister. What to do?

WHEN the personhood of a fetus is recognized, and I feel certain that that time is not to far into the future, then it’s unlikely that the courts will be able to recognize as valid an exception to a ban other than a direct threat to a woman’s life.

Can’t we agree to disagree and promote prenatal care, education and adoption instead?

georgia’s law, which included similar exceptions, was actually overturned because the judges said it was legally flawed to say on one hand that all unborn humans deserved protection while on the other hand saying that abortions in the case of rape/incest were okay.

that’s why the first attempt made sense. unfortunately, it failed, leaving us with this less-than-perfect, yet support-worthy compromise.

Second, I was against the tactics of the previous RTL proponents because I didn’t think that they compromised enough. The exceptions were confusing to the voters and didn’t have the exceptions that this new bill has. No, I’m not pro-abortion, I am pro life, but until the US Sup. Court changes Roe, every attempt at having a full ban will fail. This new bill takes a step towards making it harder and also makes the next step towards a total ban that less offensive.

This all or nothing approach doesn’t work and as I’ve stated until the legal circumstances change, attacks via bills will also fail. Ultra RTL’er need to get off the soap box and realize that a compromise will not save all babies from abortion, but isn’t hundreds saved better than none? Reducing this collateral damage should be the goal here.

but there are times when compromise is necessary. the 3/5 compromise, for example, was offensive to africans living in the united states. but it is easily argued that it was necessary to move toward the end goal of recognizing their own citizenship.

i agree with rebecca about the strategy of the last effort, but that’s now water under the bridge, and here we are. our most viable option is the current one.

i understand how you might not want to support this act, but i sure hope you plan on voting for it. if not, you’re turning your back on the 97% of unborn humans who might benefit from its passage.

suppose S.D. passed the no exceptions abortion ban in Nov. 2006.. if S.D. then passed a bill or amendment establishing legal preborn personhood, then the courts would’ve upheld both

but suppose this new S.D. abortion ban passes with rape, incest, and health exceptions.. it would get struck down on its own.. even if S.D. then passes a personhood measure to back up the penalty, then the exceptions would have to be removed from the penalty.. the courts would say the penalty must remove the exceptions to meet the standard of equal protection of the laws of legal personhood

Recall what Justice Harry Blackmun told us in Roe v. Wade:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.

Further, Blackmun pointed out the contradiction in the Texas law that provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to create Roe v. Wade, thus striking down all state laws that dealt with abortion. “If the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law,” he asked rhetorically, “and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”

In other words, if you mean to end abortion, you cannot provide an exception that enables an abortion to be performed.

This seems to be a philosophical question: Is it better to ban 95% of abortions, if it makes it harder to ban the other 5% later, or is it better to insist on all 100% at once, even if it makes the whole thing less likely to pass?

I think they have done it in a way that is hard for any of their people to complain about – they tried for 100% first, and when that failed, they go for the compromise. I don’t think that, at this point, a second try at the absolute ban, even with a change in tactics as this woman suggests, would have much chance of passage.

I would add that these are political and not moral considerations. I don’t think I’d have the guts to make the argument to this woman, who was apparently conceived as a result of rape. You can only admire someone who has the conscience of their convictions.