South Dakota Voices Response: Sandra, thank you for joining the conversation. And thank you for providing the step by step rationale for your thinking. It is very helpful for our conversation.
Email comment from S: "What someone thinks or feels regarding the humanity of an unborn child is irrelevant. Science proves that a unique, individual is created at the moment of conception. It is one of the more absolutes of science. We have laws with fines and imprisonment for destroying a Bald Eagle's nest. Why? Because we all know those eggs are eagles. An unborn human is merely a human at a different stage in life. In most states, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the perp is charged with a double homicide. Paradoxically, she could have been on her way to an abortion clinic to legally kill that same child. Unfortunately I don't think we will completely ban abortion, but there is NO reason why tax dollars should subsidize it. "Planned" Parenthood is primarily an abortion provider. Their "family planning" services are minimal. Regardless, if they are such a valuable entity, they can be self supporting."
South Dakota Voices Response: Bryce, thank you for joining us. The point of the post was to point out differences in perspective and based on the stats and how people view personhood whether it makes sense to use tax money to pay for abortions. The post does not ask anyone to change their perspective.
Email comment from BJ: "It’s irrelevant if a fetus is a person at conception. No one, born or unborn, has the right to use someone else’s body to keep themselves alive. All these Christians need to read up on book they supposedly live by: no where in the Bible is it stated that abortion should be banned."
The reason that there are so many different views on abortion is the whole reason why it should NOT be a political issue! (especially when the politicians refuse to do anything to support women or families after the baby is born)
It is based on a person's religious belief and while I don't agree with some of them our constitution says that no religion can be the law of the land.
Personally I believe that fertilized eggs are living cells that hasn't developed into a baby yet. Abortion at this stage prevents a baby from developing but doesn't kill a baby that hasn't developed yet.
In my case one of my pregnancies developed into a molar pregnancy that wasn't a baby at all but cells that were never going to develop into a baby but could potential turn cancerous. I had to have a D&C at 4 months. Some will say 'that's different' but I did test positive for a pregnancy. It was a case that in today's time I may not have been able to access the care I needed depending on what politicians in that state thought. I've had pro-life people tell me that women with ectopic pregnancies should die rather than receive life saving treatment because that's what God wanted.
There are cases where women were actively miscarrying and rather than allow doctors to finish removing the embryo or fetus the women had to wait until they were close to death to receive help
and even a few cases where women died waiting for help with their miscarriages. This is government overreach!!
Keep the politicians out of the doctor's offices! This decisions is a woman and her doctors and should consider her family as well. It is always so interesting to see all the men chime in about how women should not have this right when they are not the one growing and giving birth to it.
No one should be forced to have a child especially when they can't afford it and their government offers no help.
There were so many lies surrounding Amendment G by the pro-life side that I wonder if they are familiar with the commandment about thou shalt not bear false witness. They claimed women would have 3rd trimester abortions - that's not true. In the 50 years that Roe V Wade was legal in SD there were ZERO 3rd term abortions. Doctors in SD deliver the babies and either offer them hospice or put them in the NICU.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
Years ago Dr Bernard Nathanson produced a ultrasound video, Silent Scream, that forever changed hearts and minds from death to life. Abby Johnson and others, too. "No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"
What a slippery slope! Every single person has different ideas and beliefs. Mine is you have a body living inside a body, blood pumping through its veins, getting oxygen from the vessel its in. Its real convenient to just eliminate than take responsibility, where were they when they had sex that they couldn’t take responsibility when they are many things available but it’s just laziness. Life is life, murder is murder, people just want laws to make them feel not so guilty, make it alright for them.
If we truly live in a constitutional republic, where the majority rule, then why are we tolerating the violation of this principle when the majority believes life begins at conception?!
I understand the article aimed to focus on the use of taxpayer dollars. However, I found the framing to be quite manipulative, it subtly guides the reader toward a particular moral conclusion, even while claiming neutrality. Responses to comments in the text below say “We appreciate your perspective. The point of the article was not to change anyone's perspective, but to talk about the use of taxpayer dollars.” It’s hard to read it and not feel like there’s a value judgment being pushed.
Also, I’m curious — where are the facts coming from? In a country as religiously and culturally diverse as the U.S., it’s pretty bold to make such sweeping generalizations with confidence. It would be helpful to see the sources behind the statistics or assumptions made in the piece. What is statistically true is there are 20 abortions out of 100 births currently in the usa (see the facts on statistica.com) and by cutting budgets South Dakota puts lives at risk (that very much goes against the religious beliefs above). Lives because people needing an abortion will not stop getting them if you make it illegal or not fund it. There are several global stats on countries where abortions are illegal and statistically it does not reduce the rate of abortion but asking hard working middle class to take it up illegally.
When public policy intersects with personal medical decisions, especially around reproductive rights, it’s essential we approach the topic with transparency, nuance, and genuine respect for the variety of lived experiences.
We appreciate your perspective on abortion and are not trying to change it. All the links are in the article. You can click on each link and see specifically what that group is saying.
Each religion/denomination is linked. You can go through them one by one and read their material. Actually there is one sect of the Islamic faith that also shares this basic belief. It was lumped with the other Islamic faiths because the overall principle is the soul which is slightly different.
A person entitled with the right to live is created at conception. They have their own unique DNA. That is the only rational , scientific and logical place to draw the line between one having rights to exist or not. I am also confused by the Jewish community, not believing in rights until birth. in one of the psalms. David talks about being knitted together in his mother’s womb. To decide Anywhere else wether it’s an arbitrary date after conception or or birth itself will inevitably cause others such as the elderly, infirmed, mentally challenged and others to lose their rights as well with the same logic applied to them. Most any arguments to the contrary are not based in logic or reason, but are emotional and solely for the purpose of ones personal freedom(at the expense of others) and a lack of responsibility for decisions made.
Someone told me something once that I thought was very wise:
Science is very plain in the conclusions that it has reached. But even if you choose to reject those conclusions, it is philosophically better to not act on a doubt. It *may be* morally incorrect to abort a baby. It is *never* morally incorrect to let a baby live. Ergo, it's something akin to pascal's wager. Is the possibility that you might be committing murder a risk you really want to take?
It’s never morally incorrect when it’s the full decision of the mother. If not, it very much is morally incorrect. You are alluding to telling a mother who does not want a child OR another one to have it… imagine the life of a child who is unwanted or does not have the finances to provide a good life for it. So yes, it’s morally incorrect to tell someone to have a child when they don’t want.
If telling a woman to have a child she doesn’t want is morally incorrect, why are there laws in 48 states charging me with murder if I harm a woman and as a result, kill her unborn child? I’m okay with fetal homicide laws in principle, but the idea that the difference between fetal homicide and “abortion” is whether the woman wants the child or not…that’s something I just find rather bone chilling, not to mention two-faced.
And there is also legal precedence for unborn children inheriting wealth. How they could do that if they aren’t really people is also kind of mystifying to me.
People do not take the position of their church on many issues, including abortion and taxpayer funding for abortion. So your argument doesn't make much sense.
In general women come to their own decisions on abortion. I have no problem with whatever decision a woman makes, even though I tend to a pro-life position. I look at reproductive health as an aspect of health care, so I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for such care.
I am not understanding your first point. We are talking about the percentage of the population that believes a fetus is a person. Are you saying that more than 50% of the population does not believe a fetus is a person? If so, could you please provide that link.
The first point responds to your assumption that what religious institutions purport to believe about fetal personhood, assuming you are relating it correctly, have any bearing on whether a fetus is a person. Most of your rundown talks about the fetus being "human life." Well, fine, but that does not mean that it fits a legal definition of "person." You tend to confuse a moral belief that the fetus is "human life" with a legal definition of "person."
What IS the point of your post, then? None of it seems to hang together logically, either from a legal, moral or practical perspective.
People have very nuanced and complex views on abortion, and all of those complexities really come forward when a woman faces having to make a decision to or not to terminate a pregnancy.. Legal rights, family needs, medical findings, and moral questions enter into any decision. Don't try to boil it down to some manufactured and false "majority" for a position on abortion. That ain't reality.
The post has nothing to do with changing someone's perspective on the issue. The point of the post is that people have radically different belief systems. A fraction of the population believes that abortion is always ok. The question is about forcing someone to have their taxpayer money used to fund something that is outside their belief system when the moral implications to some people are significant.
"People have radically different belief systems." They sure do. In fact they have as many belief systems as there are people. So what? Should I have to pay for anything I don't believe in? I tell you, there would be a lot of stuff that would go unfunded, including much of the war machine.
You have to excuse Donald. He has a history of very poor reading comprehension. It is a natural problem with Boomers. Likely due to their lack of education and the way their parents coddled them while growing up.
Depending on what polling you look at, somewhat over half of Americans are okay with abortion in all of some cases. People don't necessarily entirely align with every doctrine of their religion. Portraying these faiths as monoliths where everyone feels the exact same way about abortion doesn't map to reality.
While Catholicism as a church may not support abortion, individual followers can feel differently. This poll shows that over half of Catholics are okay with abortion in all/some cases
Thank you for sharing the link. I think we might be getting out into the weeds a bit. The article is focused on when people believe someone becomes a person and how that might impact people paying for abortions that are handled by taxpayer money (the taxpayer would have not idea of the circumstances). Regardless, there is some very interesting information there. It is interesting that 13% of the population with no religious affiliation is opposed to abortion and 73% for white evangelical protestants are opposed.
Vince, I'm not sure if you actually read (or understood) my comment. If you want to say if someone is okay with abortion then they can't be Catholic, I really don't care. My point is that just because 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, doesn't mean that all of that 20% is totally against abortion. A lot of people are ultimately okay with some forms of abortion, no matter how many tantrums you throw about "woke"
South Dakota Voices Response: Sandra, thank you for joining the conversation. And thank you for providing the step by step rationale for your thinking. It is very helpful for our conversation.
Email comment from S: "What someone thinks or feels regarding the humanity of an unborn child is irrelevant. Science proves that a unique, individual is created at the moment of conception. It is one of the more absolutes of science. We have laws with fines and imprisonment for destroying a Bald Eagle's nest. Why? Because we all know those eggs are eagles. An unborn human is merely a human at a different stage in life. In most states, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the perp is charged with a double homicide. Paradoxically, she could have been on her way to an abortion clinic to legally kill that same child. Unfortunately I don't think we will completely ban abortion, but there is NO reason why tax dollars should subsidize it. "Planned" Parenthood is primarily an abortion provider. Their "family planning" services are minimal. Regardless, if they are such a valuable entity, they can be self supporting."
Thanks for providing these stats that will hopefully foster an honest, well-informed conversation about this vital issue.
Thanks for this insightful article.
South Dakota Voices Response: Bryce, thank you for joining us. The point of the post was to point out differences in perspective and based on the stats and how people view personhood whether it makes sense to use tax money to pay for abortions. The post does not ask anyone to change their perspective.
Email comment from BJ: "It’s irrelevant if a fetus is a person at conception. No one, born or unborn, has the right to use someone else’s body to keep themselves alive. All these Christians need to read up on book they supposedly live by: no where in the Bible is it stated that abortion should be banned."
The reason that there are so many different views on abortion is the whole reason why it should NOT be a political issue! (especially when the politicians refuse to do anything to support women or families after the baby is born)
It is based on a person's religious belief and while I don't agree with some of them our constitution says that no religion can be the law of the land.
Personally I believe that fertilized eggs are living cells that hasn't developed into a baby yet. Abortion at this stage prevents a baby from developing but doesn't kill a baby that hasn't developed yet.
In my case one of my pregnancies developed into a molar pregnancy that wasn't a baby at all but cells that were never going to develop into a baby but could potential turn cancerous. I had to have a D&C at 4 months. Some will say 'that's different' but I did test positive for a pregnancy. It was a case that in today's time I may not have been able to access the care I needed depending on what politicians in that state thought. I've had pro-life people tell me that women with ectopic pregnancies should die rather than receive life saving treatment because that's what God wanted.
There are cases where women were actively miscarrying and rather than allow doctors to finish removing the embryo or fetus the women had to wait until they were close to death to receive help
and even a few cases where women died waiting for help with their miscarriages. This is government overreach!!
Keep the politicians out of the doctor's offices! This decisions is a woman and her doctors and should consider her family as well. It is always so interesting to see all the men chime in about how women should not have this right when they are not the one growing and giving birth to it.
No one should be forced to have a child especially when they can't afford it and their government offers no help.
There were so many lies surrounding Amendment G by the pro-life side that I wonder if they are familiar with the commandment about thou shalt not bear false witness. They claimed women would have 3rd trimester abortions - that's not true. In the 50 years that Roe V Wade was legal in SD there were ZERO 3rd term abortions. Doctors in SD deliver the babies and either offer them hospice or put them in the NICU.
We appreciate your perspective. The point of the article was not to change anyone's perspective, but to talk about the use of taxpayer dollars.
From the catechism:
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
It doesn't matter what people's opinions are.
Abortion is the taking of a human life, as its practitioners will ultimately find out.
All of the moral quibbling will be over when you're standing in front of The Big Guy.
Years ago Dr Bernard Nathanson produced a ultrasound video, Silent Scream, that forever changed hearts and minds from death to life. Abby Johnson and others, too. "No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"
Could you please share that link.
He tells his story in his 2001 book.
https://www.amazon.com/Hand-God-Journey-Abortion-Changed/dp/089526174X#averageCustomerReviewsAnchor
Thank you.
What a slippery slope! Every single person has different ideas and beliefs. Mine is you have a body living inside a body, blood pumping through its veins, getting oxygen from the vessel its in. Its real convenient to just eliminate than take responsibility, where were they when they had sex that they couldn’t take responsibility when they are many things available but it’s just laziness. Life is life, murder is murder, people just want laws to make them feel not so guilty, make it alright for them.
If we truly live in a constitutional republic, where the majority rule, then why are we tolerating the violation of this principle when the majority believes life begins at conception?!
I understand the article aimed to focus on the use of taxpayer dollars. However, I found the framing to be quite manipulative, it subtly guides the reader toward a particular moral conclusion, even while claiming neutrality. Responses to comments in the text below say “We appreciate your perspective. The point of the article was not to change anyone's perspective, but to talk about the use of taxpayer dollars.” It’s hard to read it and not feel like there’s a value judgment being pushed.
Also, I’m curious — where are the facts coming from? In a country as religiously and culturally diverse as the U.S., it’s pretty bold to make such sweeping generalizations with confidence. It would be helpful to see the sources behind the statistics or assumptions made in the piece. What is statistically true is there are 20 abortions out of 100 births currently in the usa (see the facts on statistica.com) and by cutting budgets South Dakota puts lives at risk (that very much goes against the religious beliefs above). Lives because people needing an abortion will not stop getting them if you make it illegal or not fund it. There are several global stats on countries where abortions are illegal and statistically it does not reduce the rate of abortion but asking hard working middle class to take it up illegally.
When public policy intersects with personal medical decisions, especially around reproductive rights, it’s essential we approach the topic with transparency, nuance, and genuine respect for the variety of lived experiences.
We appreciate your perspective on abortion and are not trying to change it. All the links are in the article. You can click on each link and see specifically what that group is saying.
I don’t see the stats on this Fetus becomes a Person at Conception (66% U.S. Population). Can you please direct me to this?
Each religion/denomination is linked. You can go through them one by one and read their material. Actually there is one sect of the Islamic faith that also shares this basic belief. It was lumped with the other Islamic faiths because the overall principle is the soul which is slightly different.
A person entitled with the right to live is created at conception. They have their own unique DNA. That is the only rational , scientific and logical place to draw the line between one having rights to exist or not. I am also confused by the Jewish community, not believing in rights until birth. in one of the psalms. David talks about being knitted together in his mother’s womb. To decide Anywhere else wether it’s an arbitrary date after conception or or birth itself will inevitably cause others such as the elderly, infirmed, mentally challenged and others to lose their rights as well with the same logic applied to them. Most any arguments to the contrary are not based in logic or reason, but are emotional and solely for the purpose of ones personal freedom(at the expense of others) and a lack of responsibility for decisions made.
Someone told me something once that I thought was very wise:
Science is very plain in the conclusions that it has reached. But even if you choose to reject those conclusions, it is philosophically better to not act on a doubt. It *may be* morally incorrect to abort a baby. It is *never* morally incorrect to let a baby live. Ergo, it's something akin to pascal's wager. Is the possibility that you might be committing murder a risk you really want to take?
It’s never morally incorrect when it’s the full decision of the mother. If not, it very much is morally incorrect. You are alluding to telling a mother who does not want a child OR another one to have it… imagine the life of a child who is unwanted or does not have the finances to provide a good life for it. So yes, it’s morally incorrect to tell someone to have a child when they don’t want.
(((Leitaker))). Every Single Time
If telling a woman to have a child she doesn’t want is morally incorrect, why are there laws in 48 states charging me with murder if I harm a woman and as a result, kill her unborn child? I’m okay with fetal homicide laws in principle, but the idea that the difference between fetal homicide and “abortion” is whether the woman wants the child or not…that’s something I just find rather bone chilling, not to mention two-faced.
And there is also legal precedence for unborn children inheriting wealth. How they could do that if they aren’t really people is also kind of mystifying to me.
Abortion is a Satanic sacrifice:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aqFWZyzLiPsk
People do not take the position of their church on many issues, including abortion and taxpayer funding for abortion. So your argument doesn't make much sense.
In general women come to their own decisions on abortion. I have no problem with whatever decision a woman makes, even though I tend to a pro-life position. I look at reproductive health as an aspect of health care, so I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for such care.
I am not understanding your first point. We are talking about the percentage of the population that believes a fetus is a person. Are you saying that more than 50% of the population does not believe a fetus is a person? If so, could you please provide that link.
The first point responds to your assumption that what religious institutions purport to believe about fetal personhood, assuming you are relating it correctly, have any bearing on whether a fetus is a person. Most of your rundown talks about the fetus being "human life." Well, fine, but that does not mean that it fits a legal definition of "person." You tend to confuse a moral belief that the fetus is "human life" with a legal definition of "person."
Thank you for the note. You are correct we intentionally are not focused on legal definitions. That was not the point of the post.
What IS the point of your post, then? None of it seems to hang together logically, either from a legal, moral or practical perspective.
People have very nuanced and complex views on abortion, and all of those complexities really come forward when a woman faces having to make a decision to or not to terminate a pregnancy.. Legal rights, family needs, medical findings, and moral questions enter into any decision. Don't try to boil it down to some manufactured and false "majority" for a position on abortion. That ain't reality.
The post has nothing to do with changing someone's perspective on the issue. The point of the post is that people have radically different belief systems. A fraction of the population believes that abortion is always ok. The question is about forcing someone to have their taxpayer money used to fund something that is outside their belief system when the moral implications to some people are significant.
"People have radically different belief systems." They sure do. In fact they have as many belief systems as there are people. So what? Should I have to pay for anything I don't believe in? I tell you, there would be a lot of stuff that would go unfunded, including much of the war machine.
You have to excuse Donald. He has a history of very poor reading comprehension. It is a natural problem with Boomers. Likely due to their lack of education and the way their parents coddled them while growing up.
Depending on what polling you look at, somewhat over half of Americans are okay with abortion in all of some cases. People don't necessarily entirely align with every doctrine of their religion. Portraying these faiths as monoliths where everyone feels the exact same way about abortion doesn't map to reality.
While Catholicism as a church may not support abortion, individual followers can feel differently. This poll shows that over half of Catholics are okay with abortion in all/some cases
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Just because 20% of Americans are Catholic, doesn't mean the entirety of that 20% is completely opposed to abortion. Same goes for any other religion.
Thank you for sharing the link. I think we might be getting out into the weeds a bit. The article is focused on when people believe someone becomes a person and how that might impact people paying for abortions that are handled by taxpayer money (the taxpayer would have not idea of the circumstances). Regardless, there is some very interesting information there. It is interesting that 13% of the population with no religious affiliation is opposed to abortion and 73% for white evangelical protestants are opposed.
Tom (Dumbass) woke, "Just because 20% of Americans are Catholic, doesn't mean the entirety of that 20% is completely opposed to abortion."
Then Tom (Dumbass), they are not Catholic.
Vince, I'm not sure if you actually read (or understood) my comment. If you want to say if someone is okay with abortion then they can't be Catholic, I really don't care. My point is that just because 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, doesn't mean that all of that 20% is totally against abortion. A lot of people are ultimately okay with some forms of abortion, no matter how many tantrums you throw about "woke"