Why South Dakota's Abortion Ban is Good for America (Especially the Democrats)

Though I may disagree with you (coming from the different side of the aisle) I heartily welcome this lucid approach to dialog on this subject. Well done!!

A much appreciated, well-thought, and excellently argued point. I'd say you showed more clarity hear than any Democrat has in public for at least a decade. If we could get this kind of clarity past the filter of cable talking head shows, this country could come much closer to a compromise on the issue that lands in the center.

Well put. I agree that the Democratic party has long taken the wrong approach to this. This may not be my ideal solution, but much more importantly, it is what mainstream American wants.

To expand on item three a bit, both the right and the left have an interest in reducing the number of abortions performed. Only a tiny percentage wants the procedure outlawed, like SD has now done. Once the right concedes this, and the both sides decide that early action and prevention are better for everyone, we can start to stop this from being a political football. If we can help to prevent the situations in which a woman feels she must do this, then we all win. I'm not so naive to think that we can do it in all cases, but wouldn't be getting at the root causes of why woman go through this be a good way to focus our energies? Also, education on contraceptives and emergency contraceptives (which is not an abortificiant, as I outlined more here) are absolutely key. The right is going to have to come to grips that teaching abstinence only is simply going to increase unprotected sex and, as a result, abortions. Point four is so very important, and goes hand in hand with item three, but is going to take sensitive language.

The fringes of both sides have had this issue to beat the rest of us up with for far too long. It's time we made what the majority of Americans want into law: legal choices for women, with reasonable limits, and a focus on reducing abortions through social means.

I agree on the term of pro life vs. pro choice. During the fast few weeks, I've made a point of saying pro or anti reproductive freedom. So far it's worked.

You know, the big problem with talking about prevention to conservatives, is that if they take a strong bible approach (and that's what were talking about here in general), contraceptives are almost as evil as abortion. So their idea of prevention is abstinence education, which is a total failure.

a>

Most conservatives don't see contraceptives as "evil", because that assumes that all conservatives are primarily Catholic, which is the primary sect that condones the usage of contraceptives. Nice try.

I suspect you mean 'that does not condone' here. :)

I agree that the 'contraceptives are morally wrong/prohibited by our religion' is not the primary reason given for abstinence-only sex education. The usual argument I hear against contraceptive education (and for abstinence-only) is not that contraceptives are immoral, but that contraceptive education tacitly promotes pre-marital sex.

I'm sure there are catholics who oppose contraceptive education due to their religion, but I don't know that they're a major factor in promoting abstinence-only as public policy.

So their idea of prevention is abstinence education, which is a total failure.

I've heard this quite a bit but never heard any evidence to back this up. Many suggest that before modern sex ed was introduced into high schools in the late 60s that the unwed pregnancy rate was declining. Since then the increase has been astronomical.

This is a losing battle AKG. An overwhelming majority of this country believes in God, and somewhere, I don't know where, but somewhere it says that if you believe in God, then you can't let others have the right to choose an abortion.

I agree, the pro-life and pro-choice camps should try to meet in the middle; maybe we could ban partial-birth abortions because they are a "a barbaric procedure." In fact, I would be willing to ban abortions after 3 months. Then, we really could be considered pro-life because the major organs don't even start to form until after the 6th and 7th months. The only problem is, once you give them a little ground, they will want more.

Stephen Russell writes:

I've heard this quite a bit but never heard any evidence to back this up. Many suggest that before modern sex ed was introduced into high schools in the late 60s that the unwed pregnancy rate was declining. Since then the increase has been astronomical.

I think it's important here to distinguish between unwed and unwanted pregnancies; although I'm sure the majority of unwed pregnancies aren't (still), they're not equivalent.

I'd like to see some hard statistics, both on that quote and in general, with compensation for other factors (apples to apples.)

My gut feeling, though, is that even assuming that 50's-style sex education (hah) is basically acceptable (which I wouldn't concede), the genie's out of the bottle and a course of sex education (which is absolutely necessary) based purely on abstinence with no mention or instruction of contraception exacerbates the negative effects of younger people having sex (unwanted pregnancy, disease- there may be others, but I think we can all agree on those.)

Pop culture, the media, the general atmosphere in the United States is saturated with sexual imagery; a sex-ed class is certainly not going to provoke an abstinent teen (or older person) into having sex, and I find it doubtful it'll dissuade more than a tiny of fraction of those who otherwise would.

Unfortunately, many politician have made policies on their "gut feelings." You are the one who has charged abstinence ed. with abject failure. I'm looking for the data that supports that conclusion.

Interesting

You make some great points here, but i think we need to take a different approach. Abortions should be available but difficult to get. The democrats have been the whipping boys of republicans over this issue for years. It is always near the top of the agenda in every campaign. Let them overturn Roe v. Wade. Then allow states to create their own abortion legislation. In this manner, you may have to travel to a blue state to get an abortion, but if really necessary, they are still available. This also ends the pro-life/pro-choice debate that we are all so aware of.

Rhetoric (pro-life, pro-choice etc.) aside, I don't think that the right will allow democrats to circumvent what really is a basic difference of opinion on the issue of whether women should have independent control over their reproductive choices.

I also think that the views of the majority in this country will likely *always* favor constraining the exercise of individual female reproductive choices -- for both religious and cultural reasons.

Which leads us back to a clash that is recurrent in American political life -- between the rights of the individual and those of the collective. Perhaps a discussion of when the rights of the developing fetus supersede those of its mother would be most productive. How many weeks of development before we force women to bear children that they do not want? What remaining options/procedures should a woman have when she disagrees with society's choice that she bear a child that she doesn't want? What lines of appeal/reasoning/compulsion are acceptable to force a woman to bear a child that others prefer she bear to full term?

Phrased in this way, it is easy to see why the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice is so intractable. It is not a simple difference of opinion or semantics between democrats and republicans (as if there are no pro-choice republicans).

From this point of view as well, the South Dakota legislature's decision is just another turn of the wheel in the culture wars between the right and the left. In other words, more of what we have been living with for the last 15 or 20 years. Whatever the SD decision is, it does not represent progress, or an opportunity for the democrats to seize the rhetorical high ground.

Some differences of opinion are simply too stark to be papered over.

There is evidence to show that abstinence only education increases teen sexual activity, or at least doesn't slow it down (sorry I couldn't find the original story, so this is a reprint). There's also the fact that many abstinence only education programs just plain get the facts wrong. Kids are having sex and not giving them to information to make appropriate decisions is foolish.

@AKG

I agree with most of your article, however there is no way possible an amendment would be added to the constitution that would prohibit abortions. It is just far to hard to pass any amendment, much like one that is extremely controversial, especially when I believe a fair amount of republicans would be against it.

Abortion really has nothing to do with individual rights or reproductive rights. The female has the right to say no to having sex, and cases of rape are the exception not the standard. Abortion boils down to when you believe a human life is a human life. Is it at conception (which does not have to be a religious belief) or does human life start at birth, or somewhere in between. If you believe that life starts at conception then any abortion is murder, however if you believe life starts at birth or some later time, then abortion is little more than cutting you finger nails (well that is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point). I have no idea when life starts, I'd rather not take any chances, but for the most part I don't know, and I'd rather abortion go away as a national issue, which it shouldn't be. Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the actual court decision of Roe v Wade was rather poorly decided.

To the point of whether abstinence only works or not, you need to ask what is the purpose of an abstinence only program. The purpose is not just to stop unwed pregnancies but to stop premarital sex. Studies have shown that teens who have sex are far more likely to commit suicide and undergo depression than those who abstain. The best program would be a choice between the two, that way parents who want to teach their kids abstinence only can have that, and parents who want their children to learn more are also satisfied.

@thesonofhob

The statement "Studies have shown that teens who have sex are far more likely to commit suicide and undergo depression than those who abstain." is a causal statement. Unfortunately statistics can not make a causal statement like that if they are looking at what is happening, rather than causing it to happen. IE unless people have done some really messed up things like picking 2 random children to have sex and then watching if they get depressed, this statement is HIGHLY suspect. It might be that children that are more likely to be depressed have sex in order to get love and caring from a person.

This kind of talk from the pro-abstinence group is where they really have issues. There are certain things that can be figured out, and certain things that are just wishful thinking, and in this case, I think you have inadvertently quoted wishful thinking.

As a secondary note, giving a false dichotomy of choice, being either have sex and don't have an abortion or, have sex and if something bad happens don't have an abortion is broken. The fact that the woman's body, and life are what at stake when something bad happens needs to be looked at. Also the child's future life needs to be looked at. I know some people feel that it's better to have a child grow up in abject poverty then have an abortion, but we should really look at if we are destroying two lives when we force a young woman to not have an abortion.

Studies have shown that teens who have sex are far more likely to commit suicide and undergo depression than those who abstain.

"Studies" can "show" a lot of things-depending on whose asking the questions and whose answering them. The correlations between teen sex, suicide and depression are very complex-they would have to be. This debate could stand some acknowledgment of the complexity of the subject. Simply asking which came first, the depression or the sex would help to alleviate some of the confusion of the question. Factors like family mental health history, poverty, intelligence, cultural background-you get the idea.

Simple cause and effect relationships for complex subjects-like abortion and teen pregnancy, are worse than useless. Complex problems deserve complex solutions.

You and anyone who thinks like you scare me. This hostile religious take over of the USA is sending the country into a downward spiral. I don't deny our forefathers religious beliefs but I also don't deny the fact that they also believed church and state should not be confused as the same thing. People like you seem to forget the basic purpose of any religion is love, peace, and happiness. Instead you hide personal agenda in between the lines and pass it as fact to anyone who goes to church on Sunday. Just because your personal beliefs don't agree with the law doesn't mean you have to change the law to reflect your personal beliefs. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. If you don't believe in it don't have it. Lets not forget god gave us free will. The article only mentions god once but that is all you need to know to understand the motivation behind it. With this type of reasoning atheists can just as easily lobby to ban god from government just because its not what they believe in. Last I checked we came to this country to be free of an oppressive government. Not to go back in time and put ourselves back in the same situation. In case anyone is wondering i was raised as a good catholic alter boy. I've been baptised, confirmed and went to Sunday school. Though none of that clouded my judgment between logic and religion.

That's what your taking out of the situation but the fact is a decision like this is made with a bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. Regardless of what you say. I was responding to the greater issue at hand. Your opinion just happened to light a fire under my ass. Your a smart guy and you can use bigger words a lot better than I, so lets just agree to disagree and I'm sorry I agitated you so much.