I managed to get some pictures of the Planned Parenthood rally at the Sioux Falls Federal courthouse over my lunch break today – unfortunately I won’t be able to upload them or provide much commentary until early evening. Check back here then for some imagery and commentary…
UPDATE: I only had a few minutes to snap some photos – had I more time I would have loved to interview people on both sides of the debate. I’d estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 people on the Planned Parenthood side, and maybe three dozen on the pro-life side across the narrow Phillips Avenue on the other side of the courthouse. There was no confrontation between the two groups. The Planned Parenthood people had their slogans and the pro-life people mainly prayed quietly.
As you can see, there were a few priests on the pro-life side – not surprising since Sioux Falls has a large Catholic population. I’m not sure how this debate will play out in this state – South Dakota is strongly religious and deeply conservative. At the same time, most South Dakotans – even those who are against the practice of abortion – may be very wary of this bill. South Dakotans don’t like to call attention to themselves, and this new law puts South Dakota firmly on the national spotlight.
Next to the Planned Parenthood protesters was a group of women dressed in black:
These were women who have had abortions that have come over to the pro-life side because of their experiences. In my experiences with the whole abortion debate, that isn’t uncommon, and the most viscerally anti-abortion people I’ve known have been women who had abortions when they were young and came to deeply regret it since.
I try not to deal with the abortion debate too much myself as its a debate with no good solutions. This rash law by the government of South Dakota has only hardened the battle lines in the abortion debate, which is not a positive direction. It won’t prevent abortions, and if this law is enforced the images of doctors being led away in handcuffs is going to turn a lot of fence-sitters over to the pro-abortion side.
At the same time, the argument that something as important as a nascent human life can be abstracted down to something as trivial as a “choice” is deeply disturbing to me. Human life is not a matter of choice. A society that pays so little respect to the most vulnerable is not a healthy society, and the arguments that abortion is about women’s health or “reproductive rights” strike me as largely fatuous.
The fact is that you cannot isolate sex and reproduction. They are biologically tied together. That doesn’t mean that sex is solely about reproduction, elsewise human culture and biology would be vastly different. At the same time, people can’t try to shirk the sometimes harsh realities of life. If a man sleeps with every woman he sees, sooner or later he’s going to end up with a paternity suit – and when it comes to reproductive law men are treated as second-class citizens. An allegation of rape, even when There seems to me to be a strong case that if women are granted full reproductive rights, men should be given the same consideration.
In the end, however, the South Dakota bill doesn’t change anything. The bill is going to be quickly struck down by the courts and the status quo will remain. Instead of pushing for a total ban, smart lawmakers should push for more and more restrictions on abortion along the lines of Germany. A law which requires mandatory counseling before an abortion can be performed makes sense for both the life of the fetus but also the mental and physical health of the mother. Had the South Dakota Legislature been thinking, they might have gone that direction before stirring up a hornet’s nest – more lives would have been saved, both children and mothers.
So…why should there be an exception for rape? It’s not the pre-born baby’s fault that daddy was a monster. The murder of an innocent is a very black-and-white situation, and providing an exception for rape reveals the true motives of the anti-choice crowd. I actually prefer the people who do not want exceptions for rape, because they honestly have moral qualms about terminating potential life. The people who want an exception for rape don’t actually give two shits about fetuses or about women. The point of a rape exception is that a woman who becomes pregant through rape isn’t pregnant because she’s a big dirty slut and therefore we should have compassion for her plight. The women who get pregnant because they just couldn’t keep their legs closed are honorless and should be forced to bear their shame for all to see.
In this country it’s possible to videotape yourself and your friends gang raping and assaulting an unconcious girl and be aquitted because boys will be boys and girls that get drunk at parties are asking for it. Have you ever watched somebody you care about be destroyed by rape? I’m assuming you’ve never had to radically alter your life to avoid an attacker because the law doesn’t protect sluts? But Sex and the City definitely makes it all better.
And one more thing – if abortion is the murder of an pre-born baby, what should be the punishment for women who have illegal abortions? What should be the punishment for doctors who perform illegal abortions?
Erica: I support an exception for incest and rape because there’s a huge difference in volition between the two. Someone who slips up and got pregnant took a risk knowing there would be consequences. A woman who was raped made no such choice and is an entirely different moral class. In the case of incest there’s also an obvious health concern as well.
The fact is that reproduction and sex are linked. You can’t argue that anyone should have the right to have sex all they want without any consequences whatsoever. The world doesn’t work that way. Complaining about it is simply futile. Want to have sex? Fine, but you accept the consequences, same as smoking, drinking, or driving too fast. That’s life.
And the fact is that in terms of reproductive law, men are treated as second-class citizens. One false allegation of rape can destroy a man’s life even if he’s cleared. The presumption of evidence is almost always against the man. In terms of child support, men are also frequently denied the equal protection of the laws. The argument that the law “doesn’t protect sluts” is another argument with no basis in fact. The law is heavily weighted towards women. Granted, I think that people who commit rape are absolute human scum and I fully support the idea that women should not only be granted the right of self-defense, but be allowed to use deadly force in so doing if necessary.
But that doesn’t mean that “reproductive rights” don’t come without reproductive responsibilities. Men have no choice when it comes to paying child support for children they didn’t want – and they don’t have a multibillion dollar industry of political action groups supporting their rights. The argument that women are these poor fragile creatures who are being victimized by the big evil male-dominated system may have appeal with radical feminists, but it isn’t the truth.
“I’m not sure how this debate will play out in this state – South Dakota is strongly religious and deeply conservative”
A Rasmussen poll indicated an evenly divided South Dakota electorate….45% supporting, 45% opposing. Another poll I’ve heard murmurs about indicates only 25% support for this bill among South Dakotans. And while they may be conservative, they’re also a libertarian cowboy streak, particularly West River, that may not necessarily tow the party line about Big Gov having this much control over their wives, sisters and daughters’ bodies.
“These were women who have had abortions that have come over to the pro-life side because of their experiences. In my experiences with the whole abortion debate, that isn’t uncommon, and the most viscerally anti-abortion people I’ve known have been women who had abortions when they were young and came to deeply regret it since.”
Which is as annoyingly hypocritical as ex-smokers turning into the preachiest and most self-righteous anti-smoking advocates. Some may like the insider perspective of these women who are full of regret over their past decision to abort, but I suspect most women and girls considering having an abortion could live without women who solved their problem by terminating a pregnancy, but now wish to criminalize a new generation of females from even having that option.
“At the same time, the argument that something as important as a nascent human life can be abstracted down to something as trivial as a “choice†is deeply disturbing to me. Human life is not a matter of choice”
Here I tend to agree with you. Qualifying the creation and termination of a life amounts to more than a “choice”. “Life” begins at conception, but should “life” in the form of a fetus inside a mother’s womb match (or even supercede) the human rights of the mother? Is it not possible to say that life being at conception, but still not recognizing a fetus as a human being with the same amount of rights as American citizens? Without drawing that line, you get the kind of obscene laws as the one passed in South Dakota where terminating a pregnancy produced by rape is considered “murder.”
“But that doesn’t mean that “reproductive rights†don’t come without reproductive responsibilities. Men have no choice when it comes to paying child support for children they didn’t want – and they don’t have a multibillion dollar industry of political action groups supporting their rights. The argument that women are these poor fragile creatures who are being victimized by the big evil male-dominated system may have appeal with radical feminists, but it isn’t the truth.”
Perhaps the answer is what a letter writer came up with for the Minneapolis Star Tribune the other day…..that would require all pre-pubescent males to get a vasectomy to avoid any chance of an “unplanned pregnancy”. A sample of every young male’s sperm would be preserved so that when a couple wishes to procreate, the female can be inseminated. Of course, the real agenda of tens of millions of Americans is to stop other people from copulating because they view human sexuality as a horrible and dirty sin. This solution would be a non-starter for them, particularly since Jack’s reproductive unit would be the state’s concern rather than Jill’s.
Or maybe because abortion is a physically and mentally destructive procedure that can cause years of anguish and guilt and those women don’t want others repeating their mistakes? Getting an abortion isn’t like getting a mole removed, it’s an incredibly invasive procedure that can cause deep psychological damage.
That’s why I personally prefer the German model. Abortion is still legal, but it’s heavily regulated. Counseling is mandatory post pre- and post-procedure. That’s why Germany has a significantly lower rate of abortion than the US. Such a system is better for the mother as many abortions are due to other factors such as sexual abuse that need to be dealt with.
Which is a deeply stupid idea, even in jest. Again, family and reproductive law is deeply biased towards the woman. A man who is lied to by a woman and ends up impregnating her can be out thousands of dollars a year for 18 years. He has no choice in the matter. Isn’t that the state involving itself in reproduction as well? The idea that men get off scot free just isn’t true.
Which is even sillier. Yup, that’s right, people who don’t want to see innocent lives snuffed out capriciously obviously do so not because they value life, but because they don’t want other people to screw.
What would be an even better idea is more birth control options for men. That way they wouldn’t have to worry about a woman lying about being on the pill. And then when something happens they would just have to pony up their money, since that’s life.
Men are bitter because they can’t force us into pregnancy or force us to abort like the could in the good old days. We’ve taken away “their” reproductive choice. So to get back at us for daring to live our own lives, they screw over their children. Where are the conservatives to cry “responsibility” and “that’s life, deal with it” in this situation? Are responsibility and stoicism qualities only of value in women? Apparently children are only entitled to support as long as their father is compensated for it by continued sexual access to the mother.
“but should “life†in the form of a fetus inside a mother’s womb match (or even supercede) the human rights of the mother?”
Here’s the rub. Pro-life people would be giving the fetus more rights than any other human beings have. I don’t have the right to requisition your internal organs to save my life. People dying of kidney failure don’t have the right to a kidney. The government cannot compel people to donate kidneys. So why do fetuses have the right to women’s internal organs? Why does the government have the right to compel me to donate my uterus?
“The argument that the law “doesn’t protect sluts†is another argument with no basis in fact.”
So what happened to my friend just didn’t happen?
Hey, if someone can come up with something viable, more power to them.
Real deadbeat dads deserve what they get. An irresponsible man who fathers a child should have to support that child. It does apply equally. Irresponsible fathers are as much as a part of the breakdown of the American family as anyone – maybe even more so.
There was an interesting thought experiment I read about many years ago that asked what the reaction would be if a woman were to have a rich and famous orchestra conductor attached to her body – would society treat that differently than abortion?
The difference in both cases is volition. People can’t magically become pregnant. (Well one person supposedly did, but that’s more than likely a one-time deal.) If someone does something irresponsible, they have to face their actions. If a woman sleeps around and gets pregnant, the her irresponsibility shouldn’t be a death sentence for her child. If a man sleeps around and gets a woman pregnant, he should bear the cost of child support for that child. The government isn’t compelling anyone to get pregnant – what they are doing is defending the right of nascent human life to exist.
I fully support safe, effective, and accessible contraception for everyone – but once a child is conceived the moral calculus changes.
I don’t know enough about the case to comment. The legal system isn’t perfect, but the argument that false accusations of rape never happen or that the family law system treats both parents equitably simply isn’t true. That also means that some rapists get away with their crimes – something that shouldn’t happen, but sadly does.