February 23, 2006

The Sanctity of Life

So South Dakota's legislature just passed a bill that will make abortion a crime unless the woman could die from the pregnancy. Evidently, being raped or crippled by a bad pregnancy isn't considered as a valid problem for the woman, because, by God, once God breathed life into an embryo, under South Dakota's law, it must be accorded the full rights of a born human being. And, in fact, some would believe that it is a better human than that stinky ole woman who just happened to be carrying it. Because, you see, embryos have not been yet tainted by original sin.

So what do you think should happen with all those little embryos that have been frozen during in vitro fertilization? Because according to this law, life begins at conception and those little fetuses are real human beings.

Let's consider what gets lost when the health of the mother is no longer considered. Therapeutic Abortion is performed when the health of the woman is a concern, but it also includes some other reasons for abortions that this bill will forbid:

Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. In its broadest definition, therapeutic abortion can be performed to (1) save the life of the mother, (2) preserve the health of the mother, (3) terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with defects incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity, (4) terminate a nonviable pregnancy, or (5) selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.

So nice of the South Dakota moralists to only consider the first reason for therapeutic abortion. Do you think that means that they will stop in vitro fertilization? Or what happens when women have 6 embryos emplanted and all six become zygotes? Perhaps husbands and wives that seek infertility help will be forced to carry to term six babys (because it is an abortion to reduce the number)?

Perhaps the next battle for protecting precious, sin-free life will be to force people who "harvest" 12 or 20 embryos for in vitro fertilization to implant them (or find a surrogate?) that will make sure this precious life is not lost? We could go after the fertility doctors because if they neglect this precious life, then they are certainly as guilty of destroying life as those doctors who help a woman get an abortion.

And I'm impressed that those moral legislators believe that forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy where the baby is so badly formed that it will die within days if not hours of its birth is more moral than an abortion. I guess it's because they believe God likes to see people suffer - it's what makes us human, after all.

And do you know what? I'll bet the Roberts/Alito court will think this is a fine law.

Posted by Mary at February 23, 2006 12:56 AM | Women | Technorati links |

About damn time people had the guts to stick up for unborn children. Kudos SD!!!!

Posted by: Gary at February 23, 2006 07:04 AM

What a fine moral stance there Gary. What about the rights of the already born? Oh that might raise your taxes, cause "moral decay" and well the Bible has some pretty stringent regs for the fate of the illegitemet now doesn't it?
When you can carry a child you will have something to say other wise not much difference between a father and a sperm donor. In other words STFU.

Posted by: delen at February 23, 2006 07:40 AM

Will the SD legislature, in its infinite wisdom, pass a law that requires rapists to pay child support and psychological counseling for the mother if the rape results in a pregnancy?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Posted by: Evil Progressive at February 23, 2006 09:22 AM

My wife had a question: does a "nonviable" pregnancy include an already dead fetus? They can remove dead tissue from a woman, right? I mean, sweet Jesus...

Regardless this law is an abomination.

Posted by: chatterbox at February 23, 2006 09:37 AM

I think the point about what will happen to all of the thousands of excess "embryos" locked away in fertility clinics is a very valid point.
If the State of South Dakota has now declared embryos to be "full human beings" then are
State troopers going to march into every fertility clinic in the State and demand that these "human" beings be given back to their "parents" because letting them remain frozen certainly isn't a way to treat "human beings." Will they arrest Fertility doctors?
Will they prevent clincs from conducting in vitro fertilization and other similar procedures?
Will couples being treated for infertility be forced to implant and carry to term each and every single embryo that they may produce?
After all- if an embryo is really a life (with constitutional rights), then we can't permit infertile couples to "experiment" on it, or to freeze it, or to destroy it. Somehow, I highly doubt that the South Dakota legislature will be consistent in their view of what constitutes "life."

Posted by: Trickster at February 23, 2006 12:48 PM

Have the SD legislators considered pregnancy resulting from incest? Or is it that incest is not a crime in South Dakota?

What a bunch of Neanderthals!

Posted by: Evil progressive at February 24, 2006 07:27 AM

There's a little thing called the 1st Amendment delen. Don't like my opinion? Too damn bad. I've got as much right as you to speak my mind.

Remember, free speech isn't just speech you agree with. Of course, that never seems to register with the "rights" crowd.

Posted by: Gary at February 24, 2006 12:05 PM

Chatterbox - yes, federal health care has already refused to pay for an abortion when the fetus was already dead (for a woman in the military, IIRC).

On a related note, "partial birth abortions" are often performed on dead or nonviable fetuses. The reason for this is so that enough of the fetus can be extracted for a doctor to try to determine the cause of the problem, and advise potential parents about later children.

This need, or a fetus rotting away inside the womb, doesn't seem to bother people like Gary, who does indeed have just as many rights as others but not as much mind.

Posted by: FungiFromYuggoth at February 24, 2006 12:50 PM

Typical. Attack the intelligence of those who disagree with you. Nice try Fungi boy. Perhaps you (and the other pro-abortioners on here) are the ones lacking in cognitive functional abilities.

Less than 5% of abortions each year are done for the sake of the "health of the mother." Pray tell, what are the other 95% then? Yeah, for the CONVENIENCE of the mother.

About time people started taking a stand against members of a culture of death who disguise their motives behind the banner of "choice."

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a monkey.

Posted by: Gary at March 1, 2006 07:13 AM

Today, I've read several comments on different, and popular blogs, that call SD's actions "grim" and "abhorrent." What a perverse way of looking at the world! Kill an unborn baby/fetus/developing human being? Good! Stop the killing? Grim.

I'm sure there are exceptions and various scenarios that prolife legislation needs to meet to be, uh, viable. But it prochoice people strike me as deceptive when discussing abortion law. The mother's health! they say. Rape! Incest! Yes, sure, as I say, exceptions are necessary. But their abortion support isn't about health, or rape, or incest. It's about convenience. Very often, it's about birth control for those who couldn't be bothered in the first place.

It comes down to violence against a developing human being (my daughter was born nine weeks early, and was just as human then as if she'd gone full term). Violence that's defended with deception.


Posted by: dan at March 1, 2006 06:10 PM

Forced pregnancy is violence against an already living, breathing human. You'd like to think that the instant the guy's part gets done, sperm meets egg, that sanctifies the whole thing. You'd like to promote the lie that late term abortion is common because nearly everyone knows someone who's a preemie.

Natural miscarriage, for any number of reasons, is the rule rather than the exception. A woman's body has natural failsafes to prevent certain types of problems, failsafes you would deny her conscious mind because you don't give a damn about women. And late term abortions, only a very few thousand of which happen any given year, are virtually always performed in cases of extreme medical need on the part of the mother or a terminal birth defect on the part of the fetus. Before abortion was decriminalized, a state the law will likely now return to, doctors had to tell women whose babies were either dead inside them or would certainly die the instant they detached from the womb that they had to carry them to term 'naturally.'

That's just sick, cruel and ignorant. It will happen again, and that's just frankly disgusting.

Update: I'd like to keep this thread open as it seems to have continued getting comments past the usual sell-by date, but it's also become a spam magnet that has to be cleared twice daily, so that's that.

Posted by: natasha at March 3, 2006 09:36 AM