|
|
Do you support or oppose HB 1215 and why?
Posted on October 11, 2006 by Moderator
|
|
|
|
Candidate Responses
|
|
HB1215
|
|
The question is "where to do I stand on this legislation?" I think HB1215 is poor legislation; the motive behind it was to challenge Roe. v. Wade at the Supreme Court level.That in itself is a poor reason to pass a law, if there are ulterior motives behind it. I will vote against Referred Law 6 for several reasons. It is extreme, no matter what folks supporting it say about there being an exemption for rape or incest, I don't see it. I have worked with high school students who have been raped and the last thing on their minds in the midst of such trauma was to find, if they even could, a place where they could get the morning after pill. People in trauma just don't think of these things. I also don't agree with the idea that abortion hurts women. It does indeed hurt some women; I don't doubt that at all; but it does not hurt all women. Women have as many reactions to abortion as there are people who have them. Not everyone is horribly traumatized for life. Many women are not and they should not be made to feel guilty about a choice they've made based on knowing their own situation and life circumstances. I have a great deal of compassion for women who do suffer from abortion; for many people it is a time of suffering and they need all the support we can give them. But this is not something that our government has any business legislating. We have poor people, abused children, prisons and jails filled to overflowing in our state, we have under-funded schools and people with no health insurance. That is where I think our legislature should place its focus.
|
|
Posted By Suzan Nolan on October 12, 2006 16:51
|
|
|
The power of this complex social issue has been used to divide people, but that
same passion and dedication could be used to unite people in the common goal of
having the fewest number of unwanted pregnancies in South Dakota.
We will not eliminate abortions by making them illegal. We must focus our
attention on prevention of abortion, eliminating the root cause: unwanted
pregnancy. We can do this through proper education concerning marriage, family
responsibility and consequences of sexual intimacy before and after marriage,
planning, family planning, birth control and all the factors associated with
pregnancy.
|
|
Posted By Pam Hemmingsen on October 17, 2006 17:50
|
|
|
Comments
|
|
Social Contract
|
My biggest conflict when it comes to the issue of abortion, is when does human life actually begin? I would like to know from your position, at which point does the embryo stop being a fetus and become a child.
I agree that legslature should put it's focus where you have said in your comment. But when something is legally happening in our region that could be breaking the social contract, I believe we have a larger problem.
As you are running for a state office, I am sure you are aware of John Locke. Locke argued that "a government could only be legitimate if it received the consent of the governed through a social contract and protected the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke)
I find Locke's argument very compelling. It is my belief that if this type of social contract (one that protects life, liberty, and estate) is broken, then our government is not a legitimate one.
This brings me back to the issue of abortion, and why it is so very important. The issue is one, not only between a woman and her doctor, but possibly between a woman, her doctor, and another life.
If in fact the entity in the womb is not a living person, then the social contract is not being broken and the basic guiding principles of our governemnt are upheld. If the entity in the womb is an actual living person, then the social contract is being broken, and the basic guiding priciples of our government are not upheld.
In a Lincoln Douglas debate, the value is I would be trying to uphold is the Social Contract. If I am for HB 1215 (Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act), my criterion would be protecting the life of the human inside the womb and the health of the mother. If I am against HB 1215, my value would be Privacy and my criterion would be preventing governement from interfering in matters between a patient and a doctor.
I would like to take the first position, and value the Social Contract with the criterion of proecting the life of the unborn and the health of the mother.
I pose a question to you again that I posed earlier. At which point does the embryo stop being a fetus and become a human life (for at some point it time it has to become a human life).
There is a 4 letter acronym, SLED, that appropriately tackles this issue. S-size, L-level of development, E-environment, and D-dependency.
1. Size. Some may argue that when the embryo recahes a certain size that it becomes a human life. If you use this idea of thought though, let us compare someone very small, say Mother Theresa, to someone very big, say Shaquille O'Neil. Using this logic, Shaq would be more of a person than Mother Theresa. So if at some small size you are not a human, then at a larger size you are human, then humanity is measured by how large you are. As you can see, this argument is very silly. I myself don't believe that any certain person is more or less human than another. Mother Theresa was no more human than Shaq and vice versa.
2. Level of Development. Some may argue that the level of mental or physical level of development determines whether or not you are human. What about someone with Downs Syndrome or some other type of handicap. Using this argument, someone who was not handicap would be more of a person than someone who was handicap, if you are using this as a means to measure humanity. This would be a dangerous track, as if this was a valid argument, someone would not break the social contract if he/she were to kill all the handicap people of the world. Also, using similiar logic, one can see that this can lead to what we now know as infanticide.
3. Environment. Some may argue that the environment which the fetus is enclosed determines whether or not it is human. This is the type of logic that partial birth abortion uses (which is generally frowned upon). In a partial birth abortion, the fetus is brought out feet first until the neck is exposed. After that, "tube" is inserted into the next and a vacuum sucks the brains out of the fetus. Since the head was not yet out of the womb, this fetus was not a human being. If that fetus had slipped out of the womb, the whole head came out, this would have been a murder. Say for example, that I, as a grown adult crawled into the uterus of a cow (with an oxygen mask), would I be any less human than when I am not in the uterus. What about if I am swimming in the ocean, an environment in which no would could survive forever (since no one can swim forever). Would I be any less human swimming in the ocean than walking on land? Again, this argument about environment is silly. What does your location have to do with how human you are?
4. Dependency. Finally, another common argument that people have is that the fetus is completely dependent upon the mother. But when you think about it, as soon as that fetus comes out of the womb and is born. If you just left it there, would it be able to survive by itself? The fact of the matter is that the fetus would not be able to survive on its own, at the very least, until it could walk or crawl, which does not come until months after birth. What about someone with a pacemaker, or diabetes? Are they not dependent upon varios medical devices? Again, this argument is silly and flawed.
So I ask the question again. At which point does the fetus stop being a fetus and become a human being?
If you agree with my four counters against the arguments presented, then you may not use any of them in your explanation. If you do not agree with my counters, then (in a debate) you must counter them with a set of valid arguments.
Another stance I would like to take in this debate is inconsistancy with existing laws. In many states, it is considered a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman. Yet in all of these states abortion is legal. It confuses me how in one circumstance someone can be charged with murder, and in the other they are considered to be giving women a sort of service.
Since you are against HB 1215, where do you stand on the double murder clause? Given that you are opposed to HB 1215, are you also against the double murder clause?
Might I not sound rude, but if you are against HB1215 but you are for the double murder clause, you have implicitly made the distinction of humanity as a fact of whether or not the fetus was wanted. Using this argument, if a woman wanted the child when it was born, but 2 years later decided she did not, she would have legal rights to kill the child.
There is still another part of my criterion that hasn't been discussed, and that is the health of the mother. By now, you may be tired of hearing my arguments, and I might be creating so many points of argument that it is beginning to get tough to refute them.
I would encourage you to check out the document "Why Can' We Love Them Both?" authored by Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke and published by Hayes Publishing Company, Inc. in 1997. You can find a published version on the internet if you do a search engine on it. It is a lengthy document, but as I see you would like exceptions for rape and incest, pay particular attention to Chatper 29. Some may discard this literature as being biased, but you can be the judge of that; all I ask is for you to consider it.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my value and criterion. Remember I am trying to uphold the Social Contract. The criterion is protecting the life of the a human inside the womb and the health of the mother. I believe that since many cannot agree on when human life begins, that we should should protect it from the point that the process begins. This would ensure that the Social Contract would never be broken. If government cannot uphold the Social Contract, then it fails to be a legitimate government, because the founding priciples are simply not present.
|
Submitted By Aaron Geier on October 13, 2006
Posted By Moderator
|
|
SuZan Reponds to Aaron
|
|
Thank you, Aaron, for the question you posed on the DIST32Debate website. You have done some research and thought about a lot of details on this topic. It is clear what side you are on and I respect that. I wouldn’t try to change your mind and I think that very few people do change their minds on an issue like this. I could respond to your SLED points item by item, but I don’t think that serves this debate well at all, other than to tie us up in lots of point-counterpoint arguments. I could talk endlessly about when a fetus becomes a person but that, too, is conjecture, subject to refutation and distortion. Suffice it to say that I respect your point of view; you make valid points. My point of view is just what you’ve pointed out, that this issue is layered with many complexities and I think we need to support those women who choose to have children and raise them; we need to provide day care assistance, health care for the many women and children who have none, and much more. We need to help create a climate where unintended pregnancies are not so likely to occur; the way I believe we can do that is to teach young people about their bodies, about how to make responsible choices about them, from the food we eat, to the reproductive decisions we make. Education is our best tool for making good decisions. What I know for sure is that life is complex and each person’s situation is different. I do not believe that I can chose what’s right for you or anyone else; I can have enormous compassion for teen mothers and the situation they are in; it does seem that censure always falls on the shoulders of the girls and boys are let off scott free; but that is a different topic. In conclusion, I appreciate your thoughts, I do not want to get tied up in responding to each point, because I don’t see the purpose for either of us. I would just conclude that this is a very difficult issue and one we all feel strongly about; however, endless debate does not seem to serve any of us very well. As you know, all four District 32 House candidates oppose Referred Law Six. Although you and I don't agree, I respect your viewpoint. If you vote in this race, you will end up voting for someone who opposes Referred Law Six, and I hope you will consider voting for me. Thank you for your thoughts, Suzan Nolan
|
Submitted By SuZan Nolan on October 14, 2006
Posted By Moderator
|
|
When does life begin
|
I'm pro-choice. My simple belief is that life begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb. At that point it is an independent person.
However, there will be no cut and dried, x marks the day, absolute dividing line on when life actually begins. Science cannot agree when life begins, and neither can people. Some believe it is when the egg gets fertilized, others when at birth. Both are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I also am pro-choice because I believe that stance encompasses all the choices women might make. Adoption, fostering, abortion, keeping the child. All options should be available to women and support given regardless of which path they choose.
That, to me, is what being pro-life means.
|
Submitted By Patti Martinson on October 16, 2006
Posted By Moderator
|
|
The Real Issue on HB1215
|
If RL6 passes or fails, it won't go into effect because it is constitutionally suspect and will be in court for years.
The biggest issue for me was the process of HB1215. The "abortion task force" showed an arrogance in its cherry-picking both testimony and in what was included in its final report. The result was a foregone conclusion by those who set up the task force. The report ignored science and even a fair discussion of ideas and ethics, and included many "facts" that have been long discredited by people outside the political arm of the "pro-life" movement. Several Republicans on the task-force were so appalled that they literally walked out of the proceedings and wrote a dissenting report.
Unfortunately, the actions of the task force were not unusual--a lot of the legislation in Pierre has been passed this way, with little serious debate of issues on their merits. Legislation dies in committee without a feair hearing. It's time for thoughtful discussion from other points of view.
|
Submitted By Curtis Price on October 17, 2006
Posted By Moderator
|
|
1215
|
|
Thank you to Curtis Price. He has gone to the source of dissension in this state. A legislature is nothing but a group of people, chosen individually by voters in separate districts. Perhaps their biggest job is to decide on who gets what share of tax money. They are not doctors; they are not ministers or priests; not one of them is even my best friend. My reaction to their vote on 1215 was, "Who in the world do they think they are?!" I was outraged at their arrogance and still am.
|
Submitted By Carol Lynch on October 22, 2006
Posted By Moderator
|
|
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
