The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

GreenDreams — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:26:24 -0000

Maybe doctors can say it as fast as those disclaimers on drug ads. Wonder if they can use a recording, like a NY cabbie.

Seriously, though, this tramples the doctor's first amendment right to free speech. And should anti-abortionists succeed in getting abortion outlawed, it will be the first time (but doubtful the last) that ANY American could be compelled by the government to make a medical decision that could threaten her life, for the sake of another human, in this case only a potential human, since many factors could keep the fetus from a live birth. In no other area can the government tell you what medical procedures on your own body to accept or decline. A very dangerous trend. Could a woman on chemotherapy, cholesterol or blood pressure medication or other drug treatment be forced to stop treating her own disease to increase the chances for her fetus? (Why not, if the fetus's rights are more important than the woman's?) Could we be forced to donate a kidney (by the same argument anti-abortionists use, if you don't, it's murder)?

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

runasim — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:59:58 -0000

Is this country going mad by slow degrees?

First, creationism, now this.
Creationism is taught in LA and this law (which doesn't even pretend to have a connection to science and denies a woman's ability to reason) is effective in SD. Science and reason are losing on every front.
The separation of church and state is becoming dangerously blurred.

What's next - burning witches at the stake? Priests deciding the consittutionalty of laws? The Christian version of Sharia law? While we're out bringing democracy to the wrold, what's happening to ours?

Although I'm an atheist, I make a concerted effort to respect the religious nature of others - as long as they confine their beleifs to their own lives. . With this, however, these particular religious people have crossed the line, and I can't respect those who have no respect for others.

Just a short while ago, I relented and agreed to Obama's plan for a cooperative effort between government and faith based groups. Now, I'm reconsidering.
In some areas, if you give an inch, they take a mile.

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

vwcat — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:27:18 -0000

What is wrong with these people. It seems the fundies are trying to take over the country and impose their own law on us.

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

JSpencer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:23:35 -0000

This ruling represents a step forward for those who believe women should be discouraged from considering their bodies their own, and should ultimately not have the right to make important decisions regarding their own reproductive systems. The wording, "whole, separate, unique living human being" suggests that a zygote is somehow equivalent to a mature human being, which is of course, absurd. Keep in mind, before abortion was legal in the USA, illegal abortions were one of the leading causes of death among women. I have no doubt there are many anti-choice folks who are far gone enough to consider that some sort of divine justice. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the rational nature of my remarks.

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

Manchester2 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:00:21 -0000

The tide is turning against abortion, especially since teens seem to have a visceral reaction against it. Roe v. Wade may stand, but it's being hedged-in by enough laws to bring some balance to the issue. About time.

Re: On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

lurxst — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:51:17 -0000

Here's an interesting thought. If S.D. has a law that permits medical practitioners to refuse to conduct certain procedures (say, dispense a morning after pill) can they use that same standard of law to refuse to quote this "pledge". Every other medical procedure is left up to doctors, patent holders and professional licensing boards to work among themselves and agree upon standards that are followed. If we are going to allow a practitioner to refuse a procedure based on whatever standard s/he wants, be it religious, personal, or professional, they have that right. Whether they are kept on as a worthwhile employee is up to their boss and whether they keep a license to practice is up to the boards.