If You're Going...to South Da Kota...
It was bound to happen, once the pro-life crazies got Sam Alito on the Supreme Court. You knew they'd challenge Roe v. Wade right away...somewhere. I mean, that was the whole point, right? We weren't debating whether or not this guy would be a good, responsible caretaker of the Constitution. Cause that would have been a very short debate (no).
No, the whole thing was to make sure he thought raped women or the victims of incest who get pregnant should have no option but to give birth.
Setting up South Dakota to become the first state in 14 years to start a direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade, lawmakers voted on Wednesday to outlaw nearly all abortions.
...
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.
I mean, really, when you think about it...fathers who impregnate their 13 year old daughters are only trying to spread their seed around and make more babies. They are concerned with spreading life, people. It's God's work!
They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
Wow...That's amazing. This is the State Government elected by the people of South Dakota. And now, these elected representatives, are basically saying, "Fuck you guys. You don't get to tell us if you don't like this law. Even though we're using your money to force it on the American people. Just shut up and stop having abortions, okay? Is that so hard?"
Your American Democracy at work.
Here are some conflicting opinions from some South Dakota State Senators.
"This state has a right and a duty to step up to the plate," Senator William M. Napoli, Republican of Rapid City, told his colleagues before he voted for the ban.
Hey, is William Napoli some kind of pseudonym employed by our very own Randy Jackson? "South Dakota really stepped up to the plate tonight. That abortion ban is hot!"
"What can we as a state possibly gain by passing a bill that is unconstitutional?" asked Senator Clarence Kooistra, Republican of Garretson, who added that he represented the "silent majority" of South Dakotans who would not approve outlawing abortion nearly entirely.
I couldn't agree with you more, Clarence. This will be a costly and time-consuming maneuver for the people of South Dakota, when they would be better served by focusing on the needs of people in their own communities and cities. But don't say..."silent majority." That's a Nixon thing. You don't want to sound like Nixon, right?
"It is a calculated risk, to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting," State Senator Brock L. Greenfield, a Clark Republican who is also director of the South Dakota Right to Life, told his colleagues in a hushed, packed chamber here.
I've discussed my views on abortion here before...So you don't need me to remind you that I think women have an absolute right over their own bodies, and it should not be the work of uptight, resentful, moralistic male beaurocrats to tell them where and when they can remove unwanted foeti.
I just can't understand the obsession of these people with outlawing this one procedure. I mean, thousands of Americans die every day from all kinds of stuff. And they are already alive. You can talk to them and discover their personalities, they have living relatives and stuff who care about them...No Republicans seem to care when those people die. Only the ones still coated in mucous membranes.
That's the motto of the New GOP for ya: If you aren't within 10 inches of a placenta, get bent.
Tbogg has more on South Dakota State Senator Brock L. Greenfield, the director of South Dakota Right to Life. He's only 3 years older than me, and check out his resume from his own website:
Professional Experience:
Baseball Coach, City of Clark & Clark American Legion, 2002-present
Substitute Teacher, Clark School & Doland School, 2002-present
Attendant, Greenfield's Short Stop, 1992-present
Wait, that guy's a Senator? Everyone, seriously everyone, who works at Laser Blazer has a more impressive resume than that. I've had homeless guys fill out job applications that were more impressive than Brock's. You're a 30 year old man, and you've worked as (1) a cashier at your family's convenience store, (2) a small-town substitute teacher and (3) a part-time baseball coach?
If that's all it takes to become a Senator in South Dakota, I'd like to officially throw my hat in the ring. You want qualifications? I've worked at a video store and a bookstore and I once spent an entire day researching astrophysics for The History Channel. Also, I used to temp at the Taco Bell Corporate Office! Eat that, Greenfield!
8 comments:
I've never really thought the "woman's body is her own business" angle on the abortion debate was much of an argument. It's not like we're talking about placing a ban on women getting tattoos or body piercing here. The whole issue hinges on the question of whether a foetus can be said to be "human" or "alive" or whatever other ill defined term we decide to use this week, and not on a woman's right to self determination.
Now I can't say whether a foetus is "human" or not... but it's certainly dependant. That dependency would seem to imply a duty of care on the behalf of a) the parents and b) society. Or at least it would to a lot of people. I’ve a masters in applied ethics and I still don't know exactly where I stand on the issue. It's complicated and tragic and there aren't any easy answers. But I'm sympathetic enough to the 'pro life' perspective (as much as I have come to hate the phrase itself for it’s implications of radicalism) that I feel no need to dismiss out of hand those who would legislate against abortion as being either religious fanatics or chauvinists or both.
What a woman does to her own body may be her own business (though even that’s debatable -- society has systems in place for preventing self harm after all, but anyway) but what she does to her unborn child is another issue. If a foetus is alive and we can accept that a mother has a responsibility to it then does it matter how she came to be in possession of that responsibility? I mean sure, sometimes we earn responsibility through our actions... but a lot of the time we just have it thrust upon us, unfairly or even tragically. That doesn't mean that it's not ours to live with. At what point is a parent absolved of responsibility to their child? What of the law too?
The relevant issue is not the right to self determination. Neither is it whether a pregnant woman has come to be such through tragic circumstances. The issue is whether a moral obligation exists to protect individuals prenatally. And as there is probably no right answer to that question this mess will no doubt continue for some time.
Well, Ben, let me just say that I think it's pretty simple, as a man, to sit around and talk about Masters in Ethics and the various perspectives and implications of the debate.
But, for a woman who has been raped or abused, this is about her body. It's not about your moral qualms and your defintion of "alive," you know? In a perfect world, we could sit down and reason this shit out..."This is a human and must be protected and this is not a human and can be exterminated." But that's not reality.
It's a world where some girls just don't want to have something grow inside them for 9 months and then raise it for 18 years. Motherhood's hard, not everyone is up to it.
And they'll take care of their problems in their own way, if you and the other moralists and deep thinkers would prefer to sit around and debate it for a while.
It's also pretty simple to use my gender to discredit me... but there's not much I can do about that I suppose. Sure seems like a copout though. Yeah, I'm a guy. Does that mean that I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion? Yeah, again, I'm not in a position to appreciate fully the distress which can come from an unwanted pregnancy or the gravity of making the potentially very difficult decision to abort. It's a complicated issue. I expressed as much. That's why I'm reluctant to adopt a position either way. I can appreciate both points of view. That's exactly what I was trying to say.
And thankyou by the way for being so patronising as to equate an education in ethics with being some kind of ivory tower moralist. That was a totally smug thing to say and it was comletely unnecesary. I appologise for trying to engage you in a discussion when you'd rather just throw mud around.
What a fucking bummer.
Again, Ben, you try to pretend like your gender doesn't matter in this discussion. "Oh, I can't have an opinion because I'm a guy?" But this not a matter of "appreciating fully" the situation some women find themselves in...Issues of pregnancy are women's issues, they affect women's lives and bodies.
Of course you can have an opinion. That's the right of every single American.
I'm just saying, your opinion doesn't matter to a girl who needs an abortion. You're not going to take care of her kid, you're not going to help her through what could be an intensely traumatic and awful period of her life, so why should it matter if you think abortion is wrong.
And I mocked your degree not because a degree is mockable (I have a Master's Degree myself), but because you were throwing this information around as if it mattered. If you hadn't brought up your educational background, as if it gave you particular insight into what a woman should be able to do with her body, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.
Okay... I'm gonna try to adress these in turn.
"Of course you can have an opinion. That's the right of every single American."
I'm not an American. Still my right though.
"I'm just saying, your opinion doesn't matter to a girl who needs an abortion. You're not going to take care of her kid, you're not going to help her through what could be an intensely traumatic and awful period of her life, so why should it matter if you think abortion is wrong."
I never said I think abortion was wrong. And I don't need or expect my opinion to matter to a girl who needs an abortion... unless you happen to be in that situation yourself. You, after all, are the person I'm trying to talk to here.
"And I mocked your degree not because a degree is mockable (I have a Master's Degree myself), but because you were throwing this information around as if it mattered. If you hadn't brought up your educational background, as if it gave you particular insight into what a woman should be able to do with her body, it wouldn't have been an issue at all."
Talk about reading into things. I made an isolated and flippant remark about my degree - in the context of saying that I haven't formed a concrete opinion the issue! If you can be bothered try reading that part again. It was as much a light hearted dig at my education as it was me saying "I've dedicated a lot of thought to this... and I'm still up shit creek as far as drawing any conclusions is concerned".
I certainly wasn't presenting myself as having "particular insight into what a woman should be able to do with her body". I haven't indicated an opinion about what a woman can do with her body either way, aside from having giving the vague suggestion that it's okay for them to pierce and tattoo themselves. What I said was that the omans body issue' is irrelevant to the abortion debate, because those who are in opposition to abortion are expressing the view that the feotus' humanity places it's right to life above a woman's right to self determination. They aren't saying a woman should be deprived of the right to do what she pleases to herself... they're saying that in aborting she harms someone else.
Really man. I feel like you've been missing what it is that I'm saying here. That's all great and everything that you're fired up about this topic, but you're kind of putting words into my mouth. If I wanted to say abortion was wrong I would've said it straight out, you know?
No, you didn't come out and say abortion was wrong. You said that you sympathize with the pro-life movement, and that you feel there are worthwhile arguments to be made about legislating against abortion.
Now, considering that you made those comments in response to my post arguing against a South Dakota law outlawing any abortion that doesn't actually save the mother's life, I naturally assumed that you were offering a contrary point of view. If all you were saying is that you don't know what to think and have no conclusions on the matter, that's fine, I guess...
As far as you not being an American, that's fine too. I just assumed that your interest in South Dakota law indicated your American-ness.
As far as a woman's right to her own body, I don't think it's the only good reason to keep abortion legal. But I do think that our domain over our own selves is a pretty fundamental right.
I think that preventing the births of thousands of discarded, unwanted babies is also a pretty good thing, overall, for both those babies and society at large.
"You said that you sympathize with the pro-life movement..."
Well... that all depends. Do I sympathise with someone who feels that unborn babies have rights? ...Yes. Do I sympathise with someone who pickets outside abortion clinics, harassing their staff and often extremely vulnerable clientel? ...Not so much.
"...and that you feel there are worthwhile arguments to be made about legislating against abortion."
No I didn't. I raised a question as to at what point the law is absolved of its responsibility to protect the interests of a foetus in any such case as the foetus can be determined to be alive and if "we can accept that a mother has a responsibility to it." My point being that the "humanness" of the thing is the central moral issue. A position I still hold, though you seem to disagree.
"If all you were saying is that you don't know what to think and have no conclusions on the matter, that's fine, I guess..."
Thanks. The conclusion I was making with regard to your original post, and my reason for writing, was that arguments about self determination are irrelevant as they side step the real issue. Which brings us to...
"As far as a woman's right to her own body, I don't think it's the only good reason to keep abortion legal. But I do think that our domain over our own selves is a pretty fundamental right."
So do I. But not at the expense of those to whom we are accountable.
"I think that preventing the births of thousands of discarded, unwanted babies is also a pretty good thing, overall, for both those babies and society at large."
This I just can't get behind. I actually think that's a rather sinister viewpoint to be honest. Do you mean to suggest that the lives of people who are less fortunate than others are not worth living? Or are you talking about babies that are discarded literally at birth and die as a result?
Discarded. Abandoned. Left to fend for themselves at birth, the fate of an increasing number of babies if impoverished mothers are not granted reasonably-priced, easy access to abortion. Though the U.S. Foster Care system has, for many, proved to be a fate worse than death.
Also, the use of the term "less fortunate" is deceiving. I'm not saying poor people should have abortions, obviously. I'm saying that some women are fundamentally incapable of raising a child - either materially or psychologically, particularly if this child is the product of incest or rape - and many babies born into such circumstances do not have happy lives ahead of them.
Ditto your use of the euphamism "self-determination." I want women to decide what happens to their own bodies...Therefore, I'm pro-self-determination. I'm against government intervention into a woman's womb. Is that really so outrageous?
And if it's sinister to suggest that a one month old clump of biological matter might be better off not being born into a world with no place for it, then I guess I'm just sinister.
Post a Comment