Wait and see ...

evangelical outpost reports that the South Dakota abortion bill passed the house and will probably pass the senate as well. The story is also getting some press coverage.

February 11, 2004 08:58 AM
4 Comments

Why does government really insist on legislating something that is clearly not a political issue and in the end, will most likely do more damage to women then help? While no one I know is pro-abortion, I am quite secure in my pro-choice position. And choice should be up to the individuals involved-that is of course, if it's not a case of rape- not the government.

Pondered by rob at February 12, 2004 01:15 AM

I believe what the lawmakers supporting this bill would say (and what I would agree with) is that the choices involved in a woman having an abortion are fundamentally different than the choices involved in, say, getting a tonsillectomy, because it directly affects the life of another human being.

If life begins at conception (as this particular bill argues), then abortion involves the taking of human life. If that is true, then abortion is in the category of rape, murder, theft, and so on - one individual's rights are being taken unjustly by another. Consequently, it does count as a political matter and within the jurisdiction of government.

Another argument against abortion is also that it does do a great deal of damage to women emotionally, psychologically, and physically.

Pondered by maphet at February 12, 2004 08:05 AM

It is clear that we are sitting on separate sides of the fence on this issue and rather than get in a shouting argument that will result in nothing but shouting, I will just agree to disagree on this particular issue. I know from your postings that you are a religious person and I'm confident that drives your position on this issue. That being said, and this being the good ole' USA, while I respect your opinion, I clearly do not agree. And that's okay with me.


r

Pondered by rob at February 12, 2004 12:19 PM

Despite what could be construed as the rather contentious nature of my last two posts, I have absolutely no desire for a shouting match, either. :) My desire was just to present what the argument was for a bill like this.

In general (not anyone in particular), though, it is frustrating that often the pro-life side is stereotyped as solely seeking to throw women's rights back to some sort of Dark Ages, when that really isn't the fundamental desire. I think that is all I was trying to convey.

Pondered by maphet at February 12, 2004 02:43 PM