« 'Men are great, but they do not always fit into your timescale' | Main | Stupid and mean ain't no way to go through life, boy »

March 07, 2006

A few words on South Dakota

If one needs anymore proof of the 30+ years of cultural intercine warfare that Roe v Wade has wrought, it can be found in the newly signed South Dakota anti-abortion law and the various, hysterical reactions to it -- from BOTH sides.

The law itself is not serious -- the only reason it was passed and signed was as a political gesture to possibly get it to SCOTUS. It makes as much sense as the city council of San Francisco passing an Impeach Bush resolution. The law is as draconian as it can get in regards to abortion this side of Waahabism (or Mexico). This law's radicalism is a mirror image of the "abortion on demand" extremism of the prochoice pro-abortion lobby.

If SCOTUS hadn't diddled in the pneumbras of eminations and, thusly, yanked this important decision from the states, I'm sure I wouldn't be reading close to radioactive posts on so-called feminist blogs about The War On Women [cue screaming horses]. And nothing irks me more than seeing the prolife anti-abortion radicals parade around with offensive photos of "bloody" parts they claim are aborted fetuses.

There are a lot of behaviors and activities that are morally repugnant that are not the province of the law. Such behaviors are the province of citizens to use persuasion on others to ameliorate the behavior.

An adult woman, of sound mind and within the first 9 weeks gestation has (and should keep) the option to seek an abortion sans any government interference. Outside those parameters, the state has the right (and obligation) to regulate both the availibility and circumstances under which abortion will be provided.

Unfortunately, the two extreme sides of this issue are so emotionally wedded to their positions I am not confident this will be resolved either quietly or unemotionally any time soon.

Technorati: ,

Posted by Darleen at March 7, 2006 09:26 PM

Comments

Unfortunately, the two extreme sides of this issue are so emotionally wedded to their positions I am not confident this will be resolved either quietly or unemotionally any time soon.

The greatest failing of Roe v. Wade wasn't taking power away from the states to regulate a medical proceedure. It was taking an important issue out of the public discourse before the public had reached something like a consensus.

Eventually, a consensus will be reached. My predicition is that both extreme views will be disappointed. They'll just have to live with it.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 8, 2006 05:38 AM

Darleen,
I appreciated your thoughtful comments over at Whizbang, and your restraint in dealing with poor Omni. A thought or two, if you will. The bloody parts tactic is shocking and distasteful, but in response to the obfuscation of the pro-abortion crowd, it may be necessary. What gets aborted in the usual course of things is not a "ball of cells" nor the embryo remeniscent of the chicken whatnots from high school biology classes. It is a small, immature, but clearly human being. And it strikes me as odd that the course of modern medicine is to use endoscopes and accurately identify the target tissue, except for abortions.
Otherwise, I would have to confess to being at some level resigned to abortion. But the most abortions any woman (or couple actually) should need is one. After which, recognizing that they had made a truely dreadful decision were determined to never have to do so again.

Posted by: Rich at March 8, 2006 10:41 AM

If SCOTUS hadn't diddled in the pneumbras of eminations...

You realize this phrase comes from Griswold, not Roe, don't you?

Further, overturning Roe will not return this issue to the states. Congress has made it its business to regulate abortion.

Posted by: Josh at March 8, 2006 12:04 PM

Rich

I think the "bloody" thing backfires on the pro-life crowd.

I think, for instance, the Harvard Right to Life group has a better tactic in showing some of the famous and beautiful pictures of developing babies in the womb and talking about what happens at each stage.

Posted by: Darleen at March 8, 2006 01:21 PM

Your humble servant, madam. I thought, by the way, that what I had posted over at Whizbang, had not gone through. I did not mean to take up space here with the same or very similar thought.
What I ultimately think about abortion is that we have all made mistakes. I certainly have and whether I have discussed them with the Lord sufficiently, I will discover anon. However, to pretend them to be other than mistakes/errors/ sins/or immoral courts the gravest disaster. I do agree however, that abortion, as you have outlined, should not be illegal.
Best wishes
RCE

Posted by: Rich at March 8, 2006 08:12 PM