South Dakota Requires 3-Day Wait Before Abortion

[eldirector]

The 3-day waiting period is good in my opinion.

Good enough to force on other people? Good enough to force someone into a counseling session? Good enough to penalize someone if they refuse?

Don't mean to pick on you particularly. It is more about this sentiment. Maybe we both need to wait 3 days and get some counseling before we post

 

[leftsock]

The 3-day waiting period is good in my opinion. ... That being said having a mandatory "cool-down" time, and requiring a counselor appointment and talk is a definite step in a "good" direction this will help people from making rash decisions that they may regret later on down the line.

Just wondering, would you think this is a good idea for firearm purchases too? To provide a "cool-down" period, and requiring a counseling appointment to prevent people from making rash decisions?

 

[Fletch]

Just wondering, would you think this is a good idea for firearm purchases too? To provide a "cool-down" period, and requiring a counseling appointment to prevent people from making rash decisions?

"Five days? But I'm mad now!"
-- Homer Simpson

YouTube - The Simpsons - Gun Shop

 

[Plinker]

Just wondering, would you think this is a good idea for firearm purchases too? To provide a "cool-down" period, and requiring a counseling appointment to prevent people from making rash decisions?

The immediate result of purchasing a weapon is not death. Apple/Oranges argument.

To twist a favorite argument... Guns don't kill people, abortions do.

 

[leftsock]

The immediate result of purchasing a weapon is not death. Apple/Oranges argument.

To twist a favorite argument... Guns don't kill people, abortions do.

We can't know if a person is making a rash abortion decision just as we can't know if a person is making a rash gun-buying decision. If the decisions were already well thought through by the individuals involved, should either require an additional, mandatory waiting period? Either rash person may need to "cool down."

 

[88GT]

+1 Leftsock.

I would hazard that many/most women who have chosen to abort an unwanted pregnancy have already thought about it for more than 3 days. This is simply the .gov playing thought police and trying to legislate morality.

Because playing politics with the unborn is far superior to a representative elected government prohibiting it, huh?

At what point does the right to life being for the individual? Please do keep in mind that there is sufficient case law in all 50 states that says somewhere before the child is born. So pick a month. First? Third? Fifth? Any time prior to the actual birth? And then please defend why, LEGALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY, that month makes the unborn different and distinguishable from the month, week, or day just prior to the extent that there is no infringement on that individual's right to life by the action of the mother.

I'm not trying to be a *****. But the hard and cold truth is that the concept of legalized abortion arbitrarily picks a point in the woman's pregnancy that says "It's okay to kill this baby today but not tomorrow." And if you accept that premise, I have to ask why that arbitrary date couldn't be placed post-birth at some point. Why is it okay to kill the unborn before the mother delivers but not after?

Furthermore, could you please explain why the legality of the death of the unborn is placed at the sole discretion of the mother. Why is it that she and she alone can determined the "wanted-ness" of the unborn? And why is it that her answer determines whether it's abortion or murder?

Again, I'm not asking these questions to be a *****. But if you're uncomfortable or dislike arguing the issue on its moral foundation, then we have nothing left but this approach.

 

[eldirector]

Thanks for your comments, 88GT. Part of my answer was in the rest of the post your quoted. Either make this legal or illegal. Mandatory counseling and a waiting period is simply playing politics, and not likely to change the outcome (at least in a significant way).

I think I will stay away from the abortion debate on this forum. It invariably becomes too heated and gets derailed. I'll stick to the mandated interference in an otherwise legal decision.

I WILL say I do agree with your "sole discretion" comment. The man in the equation, regardless of relationship, has absolutely NO voice in the decision, legally. I find that unfortunate. I know of more than one guy who has become an outstanding father and loving husband, all from a "casual" relationship that suddenly (and unintentionally) became very serious.

 

[Fletch]

At what point does the right to life being for the individual? Please do keep in mind that there is sufficient case law in all 50 states that says somewhere before the child is born. So pick a month. First? Third? Fifth? Any time prior to the actual birth? And then please defend why, LEGALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY, that month makes the unborn different and distinguishable from the month, week, or day just prior to the extent that there is no infringement on that individual's right to life by the action of the mother.

I've only put a small amount of thought into it, but I think I addressed each of your questions:

Surly Curmudgeon: Thoughts on Abortion

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

I agree with this position. While I'm personally opposed to abortion in almost all cases, I believe it should be up to the citizens of each state to decide what level of abortion they want to allow.

Agreed. And in South Dakota, the citizens have voted twice on anti-abortion measures in the past 6 years and both times the measures were voted down.

In theory, this law is a great idea. The only serious problem is logistical; namely, there's only one provider of non-emergency abortions in South Dakota, and since the woman must wait three days between consultation with the physician and having the procedure done, the woman would likely have to make an expensive trip twice for one procedure. Nevertheless; that is a small consideration in the face of reducing unnecessary abortions.

The logistical problem is by design. South Dakota already has the lowest number of abortions per year (not per capita because Utah wins that title I believe). Over the last 4 years the numbers according the CDC are between 700 and 850 per year in South Dakota. Data also shows that about 10% to 13% of South Dakota residents who get abortions are already doing so out of state.

So... The new question becomes, does this waiting period reduce the number of instate performed abortions but not the number of abortions residents received?

Since getting an abortion in South Dakota already potentially involves driving 200+ miles each way for some residents, does the additional requirement of making that drive multiple times push them to instead cross border into other states to get an abortion? Colorado may already be a shorter drive anyways.

 

[88GT]

I've only put a small amount of thought into it, but I think I addressed each of your questions:

Surly Curmudgeon: Thoughts on Abortion

Except that your pregnancy vs life argument hinges on only a partial definition of life. Life is not defined by autonomy. Viruses cannot live autonomously, requiring a host for nearly every second of their existence. And yet they are considered life. And as someone so vehemently (and nastily) pointed out to me in another discussion, babies born alive in the natural course of pregnancy and birth are still completely dependent on their mothers (or at least a substitute caregiver) to maintain life. So they aren't really completely autonomous outside the womb either. My point is that there is still an arbitrary point at which one decides where autonomy lies based on how one defines autonomy.

I didn't raise those questions thinking I have all answers. I raised them because, as you alluded in your blog post, both sides tend to stop well short of sufficiently addressing the issue. There's not much to argue for the right-to-lifers who based their position on Biblical doctrine. But part of the mindset of the biological/legal "pro-choice" crowd is one of rational common sense and an impartial approach to the facts and circumstances.

Sadly, the only conclusion I have come to is this: the three main approaches used to justify a position in this debate are fundamentally opposed to each other (or at least one other one) and almost completely mutually exclusive such that recognition of the validity of one justification negates the acceptance of one of the others.

If the society that values life as much as we say we do can so easily disregard that of the weakest and least likely to protect itself, we are not the protectors of freedom that would would have the world believe.

 

[Fletch]

Except that your pregnancy vs life argument hinges on only a partial definition of life. Life is not defined by autonomy.

If I gave the impression that I thought it did, I apologize. That is not my argument, and I think it should be clear from my later discussion of the scale of care required for pregnancy-terminated individuals that autonomy is not a requirement for life or consideration of rights.

 

[LEaSH]

Like I always say, If you can't feed them, eat them.

 

[88GT]

If I gave the impression that I thought it did, I apologize. That is not my argument, and I think it should be clear from my later discussion of the scale of care required for pregnancy-terminated individuals that autonomy is not a requirement for life or consideration of rights.

The apology should be mine then. When I read your blog post, I came away with thinking that was your position. But admittedly, I was reading quickly and distracted a smallish bit, so I more than likely processed it incorrectly. Now that I have more time, I'll go back and read it more carefully.