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

First off, I have to agree with what several of the posters here have said; this has been a lively, mostly informed and civilized debate. I also want to voice my support for most of what AKG has had to say in his original article and subsequent comments. The question of the legality of abortion in this country has become nothing more that a political focal point around which the Republicans can rally the support of their conservative base. The possibility of their being a truly substantive change to abortion policy in this country is slim. At most, there will be a slow, periodic erosion of "abortion on-demand," the ultimate result of which should turn out to be somewhat similar to the system that AKG has proposed. Americans, at the end of the day, are a very pragmatic people, and I believe that, when presented with the facts, they will realize that making all abortions illegal would have a significant, negative impact on the economic, psychological, and physical well-being of the nation, not just the few individuals directly affected by abortions.

@GERob--I whole-heartedly support the development of voluntary methods of safe, non-fertility affecting contraception, and believe that such a development would have substantial positive effects on human civilization as a whole. However, I don't think that the government will (or necessarily should) foot the bill for it as an alternative to allowing abortions to remain legal.

On the issue of Democrats using recent developments in SD to their political advantage in the coming mid-term election, I am always in favor of Democrats taking whatever political advantage they can over the Republicans, but do share some of the concerns posted here that such a move could dramatically backfire. Having said that, though, I agree with AKG that an intelligent, carefully crafted assault on the political edifice that is the "pro-life v. pro-choice" debate could succeed in framing the issue in a new light that not only benefits Democrats politically but also increases the likelihood of a significant advancement on the myriad of other social issues that play into it (poverty, race, gender, religion, drugs, psychology, etc.).

Well, I hope that this posting continues to be a place for continued debate on this issue, and that said debate continues to be as civil and well-informed as it has to this point. Good day, all. I also strongly encourage those of you who feel strongly on any side of the issue to post an article/column of your own to keep the discussion in front of the community. This debate won't do a whole lot of good if it gets buried in this one post and disappears.

Well, I know I am quite late in this response, but the philosophical question that I am referring to is the origin of life. I will make the claim that life is coming from life. This is a claim that I can make with innumerable amounts of evidence. Everyone reading this has parents, and their parents also have parents. There is nothing living today that cannot be accounted fo by a previous living entity having spawned it. There is no evidence that suggests otherwise. There are amino acids reproduced by primordial soup and electricity, but I think all will agree that this is categorically different than sentience, and self-reproducing life. Given this precedent, that life is coming from life, then life would have to have begun at conception simply because matter cannot organize on its own. There must be that living essence present within the tissue to fuel the growth of the fetus. This is obviously a much-shortened version of an argument that I think should be seriously discussed in the abortion debate.

Yes, you're right, I think. This is an important question to be contemplated. My assertion is that all life is personal, that life means some basic form of consciousness even if only on the stimulus-response level. So that holds all over the varied forms of life. In the human form, the person is most developed, and able to express many nuances not available to tigers or penguins, but the essence in my view is the same. I realize that this is an assertion which must be argued for, but in the interest of fully responding to you, I shall save that argument for perhaps later.

My response is essentially that I experience all life as a very sacred. That being said, no life is free from killing. We must all survive on the lives of others, be they plants, bacteria, unknowingly trampling insects in our movement etc. I am personally a vegetarian for many years based on this understanding, and so I agree fully that animal life should not be undervalued. However, I know that I cannot live without killing as I have already said, and so I think the real issue is what is responsible killing? How can I anesthetize and minimize my painful impact on the world around me in a reasonable way. I don't mean to become am extreme Jain and give up many practicalities of life in the pursuit of nonviolence, but this discussion doesn't even have to go there, because in terms of responsible killing, abortion is almost always not an example. I am in favor of responsibility as a virtue of humans, both before and after sex.

I have always believed that both sides would be better served if the decision was left to local states. Our country was founded on that principle. No matter what your stance is on this, it is hard to justify the current juristocracy in regards to Roe v Wade.