Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Controversial Argument

Note: In many situations, if I had to admit it, I would consider myself conservative. I believe that people should live with the consequences of their actions. More than that, I believe that as a society we should work to prevent those actions which will require necessary consequences. But even having said all of that, even being pro-life (if I had choose one or the other), I still do not agree wholeheartedly with this law. Make no mistake, I personally feel that is a step in the painfully appropriate direction, but there is a long way to go.

In South Dakota they have passed a law concerning the necessity for informed consent in abortion. Starting now, in order for a woman to obtain an abortion in South Dakota she, and her doctor, must signed a written statement that states (among other things) that:
*the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
*the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with the unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution;
*by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
*a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected to, including: (i) depression and related psychological distress, and (ii) increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.

The conservative side of me commends the direct and no-punches-pulled mentality of this law. I can respect that they wont sugar-coat the situation; they wont act like it is easy or healthy. That is a good thing, in my opinion. And hopefully it will cause some women to rethink their decision, especially in the case of those doing it for selfish reasons.

On the other hand, it is a poorly written law with many things left unconsidered. For example, how can you acknowledge that the fetus is a living human being without acknowledging the process as murder? If you believe it is a living human being, and you decide to halt its living, then that is murder. The definition of it, in fact. So that leaves a huge loophole gaping open. Is this a gateway law to considering abortion as murder, or is this a confused halfway attempt?

Many people could argue that this is just a "mean law" to make women feel guilty about doing what they have "the right to do". I want to understand that point of view, but for me personally it would be like saying it was mean to put criminals in jail. An almost arguable point that comes down to this: they made a choice. Consequences must be paid.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me; far from it. I just want to spark debate and conversation. This is an issue that affects women and families everywhere in one way or another. What do you think?


Twitchard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Twitchard said...

This is obviously a gateway law.
South Dakota in the last election tried to pass a popular initiative to ban all abortions except to save the life of the mother (no exceptions for rape or incest). It didn't pass. In the upcoming election they're trying again, with exceptions for rape and incest, this time. This shows that the pro-life movement in South Dakota is willing to make concessions in order to make at least some progress for the rights of the unborn around the nation.

This appellate court decision will help set a precedent for other states and other courts that want to pass pro-life legislation and ultimately overthrow Roe v. Wade.

I can tell you as a South Dakotan :-P.