This is the report from teh South Dakota Task force on Abortion. It comes across as pro-Life, however the committe was established I believe to look into issue, as a bi-partisan group that would report what they found - and what they found was what was reported with no pre-concieved ideas in mind. Read the whole report, I encourage you. It discusses the many facets that we often debate here about - in particular Gobbler's ideas on what is and isnt life, and other peoples concerns on how it affects the woman, and info on what about rape cases etc etc.
This is the report I believe that got the wheels in motion to ban abortion in South Dakota. It was not tossed together like a McDonald's crispy chicken salad, rather it was build and contructed with great detail covering almost all issues and backed with factual information and scientific data. I outlined a few things below, but please spend 10 minutes and read this - by doing so you'll have more knowledge of what abortion is, and the WHYs behind the coming battles of abortion that will be in the news for months and years because of this report.
During the 2005 legislative session an overwhelming majority of the Legislature voted to
create the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion. The Act, House Bill 1233, passed by a vote of 63 to 4 in the House and 28 to 6 in the Senate, and was signed into law by Governor
Michael Rounds on March 22, 2005.
====
Of significance, close to 2,000 women who have had abortions provided statements
detailing their experiences, trauma, and the impact abortion has had on their lives. Of these post abortive women, over 99% of them testified that abortion is destructive of the rights, interests, and health of women and that abortion should not be legal.
====
The Incorrect Assumptions of the
Roe v. Wade Decision
"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy,
and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary,
at this point in
the development of man's knowledge
, is not in a position to speculate as to the
answer." (
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 159) (emphasis added).
Thus, the Supreme Court did not affirm, but neither did it deny, that the "unborn child"
(what embryologists call the "embryo" or "fetus") is a living human being. To understand this point, and to understand the testimony of the witnesses from Planned Parenthood who testified before the Task Force, it is important to distinguish three separate questions.
The first question is a scientific one: is the human being, from the moment of conception,
a whole separate living member of the species
Homo sapiens in the biological sense? The
second question is a moral question: assuming that the answer to the first question is yes, should the life of that human being be accorded the same value, worth, and dignity at all stages of development, i.e., as a blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent, and adult. And the third question is a legal one: does the Constitution of the United States protect the rights of human beings at all stages of development before birth?
In
Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court expressly declined to answer the scientific or moral
questions. With regard to the scientific question, the Supreme Court said that at this "point in thedevelopment of man's knowledge" it could not say whether a human embryo or fetus is or is nota human being. The Court ruled that the state could not legally prohibit abortion. Whether ornot this decision was based upon sound legal analysis has never stopped being the subject of great debate.
===
2. What Has Been Learned From the Practice of Abortion Since the
Roe v. Wade Decision
It can no longer be doubted that the unborn child from the moment of conception is a
whole separate human being. During the 2005 legislative session, the South Dakota Legislature passed HB 1166 that expressly found that "all abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.
" The Act amends SDCL 34-23A-10.1 to require a physician to disclose in writing to a pregnant mother "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." "Human being" is used in the biological sense as a whole member of the species
Homo sapiens (SDCL 34-23A-1(4)).2 The Task Force received testimony from numerous experts who reiterated this fact. Of significance were detailed affidavits received from nationally and internationally renowned experts from a number of scientific and medical disciplines, who explained the scientific facts and information that establish the fact that abortion terminates the life of a human being. The Task Force concludes that the scientific evidence not only supports the Legislature's finding on
this matter, but that it is indisputable.
( read the whole article, details are given, experts who testified etc )
===
Specifically, Dr. Nathanson stated that:
"The abortion procedure is an extraordinary one because in it the physician is
proposing to terminate the life of one of his patients to whom the physician owes
a legal and professional duty. The doctor has no legal authority to do so. Under
normal circumstances, if he terminated the life of the unborn child, he would be
guilty of a battery upon the mother, and, in fetal homicide states, such as South
Dakota, he would be guilty of a homicide. The physician is given his authority to
terminate the life of one of his patients only if he receives authority in the form of
consent from the pregnant mother.
In order for such a consent to be informed, at a minimum, the physician must be
satisfied that the patient understood that the second patient was in existence, and
that the procedure would terminate the life of her unborn child. These facts go
directly to the risks, and effect the procedure would have on the second patient,
but they also explain the nature of the procedure. The nature of the procedure is
to terminate the life of the unborn child. Withholding these facts from the
pregnant mother deprives her of the ability to make an informed decision for
herself. Such informed written consent fails to meet the reasonable patient
standard of disclosure and deprives the mother of her rights of self
determination." (Nathanson Declaration Par. 10 and 11.)
No credible evidence was presented that challenged these scientific facts. In fact, when
witnesses supporting abortion were asked when life begins, not one would answer the question, stating that it would only be their personal opinion.
===
The Task Force concludes the following:
1. That abortion terminates the life of a unique, whole, living human being;
2. That the physician performing an abortion terminates the life of one of the
physician's patients to whom the physician owes a professional and legal duty;
3. That the authority for the physician to terminate the life of his or her patient rests
exclusively upon the written consent of the pregnant mother, which, at the time it
is signed, terminates the doctor's duty to the child; and
4. That the mother has an existing and important and beneficial relationship with her
child that is irrevocably terminated by the abortion procedure.
====
We find first that Planned Parenthood fails to inform the pregnant mother in any language
that her unborn child is in existence. It is impossible for a woman to give informed consent to an abortion if she does not fully understand that her child is in existence and that she is consenting to the termination of the life of her child.
Second, the doctor who in seeking consent to terminate the life of his or her second
patient (the child) cannot, in a professional or moral sense, contend that proper authority has
been obtained from the mother if she is not fully aware that she is giving such authority.
====
5. The Experiences of Women Who Have Had Abortions
We received and reviewed the testimony of more than 1,940 women who have had
abortions. This stunning and heart-wrenching testimony reveals that there are common
experiences with abortions. Women were not told the truth about abortion, were misled into
thinking that nothing but "tissue" was being removed, and relate that they would not have had an abortion if they were told the truth.
They relate that they were coerced into having the abortion by the father of the child or a
parent, and that the abortion clinics also apply pressure to have the abortion. They almost
uniformly express anger toward the abortion providers, their baby's father, or society in general, which promote abortion as a great right, the exercise of which is good for women.
They almost invariably state that they were encouraged to have an abortion by the mere fact that it was legal. They are stunned by their grief and the negative impact it has had on their lives. Many of these women are angered by grief at the loss of a child they were told never existed. One woman testified before the Task Force about three abortions she was misled into having, only to find that she was rendered infertile by the vacuum aspiration that damaged her fallopian tubes. She was distraught at having to explain to her new husband why they could never have children. Each of these women's stories is powerful.
The overwhelming majority of women testified that they would never have considered an
abortion if it were not legal. Their testimony revealed that they feel that the legalization of
abortion simply gave a license to others to pressure them into a decision they otherwise would not have made. Most of the women stated that abortion should not be legal.
====
1. Societal Effects: Rape Abortions
Since abortion advocates so often explain the need for legalized abortion by pointing to
the pregnancies that result from rape and incest, the Task Force finds that it is appropriate to
address this issue.
Dr. J. C. Willke, founder of the Right to Life organization and President of the
International Right to Life, testified before the Task Force on September 21, 2005. Dr. Willke
noted that only approximately 0.1% of rapes result in a pregnancy. In his book, he writes:
"We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected
to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the
victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent
act - that of abortion? Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed."
(Willke,
Why Can't We Love Them Both, p. 263, 2003). (See Section III of this
report for suggested legislation regarding reporting illegal sexual activity.)
Dr. Donald Oliver is a pediatrician who has practiced in Rapid City, South Dakota, for
25 years and who is board certified with the National Board of Medical Examiners and American Board of Pediatrics. In testimony to the Task Force, Dr. Oliver said:
"I was asked to share some genetic information with you regarding the issue of
incest. As many of you are aware, the union of two closely related people may
result in an infant with genetic deformities or retardation. That is why in the
United States we have laws against close relatives marrying. What you may not
be aware of is that deformities and/or retardation occur in the smallest minorities
of these instances. Ninety-seven percent of the time, these children are normal."
"Just two months ago, I personally took care of a baby boy born to a very young
teenage mother who was allegedly raped by her brother. So here we have the two
scenarios brought forth most often by those on the pro-abortion side, rape and
incest. This brave young lady carried her child to term and delivered a healthy
normal boy. Here is an interesting fact that you may not be aware of. Just as two
bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can
pair up, and the infant of this incestuous relationship, may become the brightest
person in the family"”sometimes in the genius range of intellect. They are
normal children at least 97 to 98 percent of the time. This young teenage mother
that I just spoke of, when she found out she was pregnant, felt that besides herself,
the only other really innocent person in this sad situation was her baby, and he
certainly didn't deserve capital punishment for her brother's sins. What great
insight for someone so young! I wonder how many employees of Planned
Parenthood would have encouraged and supported this young lady's courage to
choose life for her newborn son."
===
3. Economic Effects
Former South Dakota State Representative Matt McCaulley, an attorney in Sioux Falls,
presented graphs to the Task Force that showed the decrease in the number of school-age
children in the state as a result of legalized abortion from 1973. By 1996, the cumulative effect
of legalized abortion in the state was the loss of over 13,000 annually in the South Dakota K-12 school systems, and this number has remained at over 13,000 fewer students annually for the period 1996-2003. Declining enrollment is a major problem for our K-12 school system. We
cannot begin to estimate the earnings and other contributions that these citizens would have
It is a very interesting thing to read. I agree - it appears very solid in the way that it was researched and written. Even the parts about why Roe vs Wade was flawed, how that abortion clinic's don't tell the truth, how women feel lied to, and all that a woman goes through by having her baby killed.
Yes, BABY - and the facts of WHY its a baby is also written.
I look forward to Gobbler and Frost and ziekyboy etc reading thisreport and responding.
This is the report from teh South Dakota Task force on Abortion. It comes across as pro-Life
Little suprise, yes I read it, and yes it was written with a political aganda.
[align=left]
Quote:
The Task Force concludes the following:[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]1. That abortion terminates the life of a unique, whole, living human being;
[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]I am fine with the fact that the task force concluded this. But regardless of what they decide to believe and not to believe, the law of the land says your are a human being once you are born. and I never claimed life didnt exist, you keep going back to the fact that life is there, nobody disagrees with that. What I do have issue with however is the contention that it is a human being at the moment of conception. You and I both know you can find a study to back up almost any point of view. The definition of fetus, or pregnancy say nothing about a baby or human being, and legally they are still not.[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]
Quote:
[align=left]Of significance, close to 2,000 women who have had abortions provided statements[/align][align=left]detailing their experiences, trauma, and the impact abortion has had on their lives. Of these post abortive women, over 99% of them testified that abortion is destructive of the rights, interests, and health of women and that abortion should not be legal.
[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Is this any suprise????? What would they provide any statement about the trauma if they had not decided they made a mistake? Were these women selected randomly for a patient list, or were they just ones who came forward that felt they made a mistake?[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]There is nothing new here, but a partisan, bias view for a red state stronghold.[/align][/align][align=left][/align][align=left][/align]
ORIGINAL: gobbler afflicted
[align=left] ...and I never claimed life didnt exist, ...nobody disagrees with that. What I do have issue with however is the contention that it is a human being at the moment of conception.
[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Two points:[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]First, you acknowledge that it is a life. Agreed.[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Second, you deny that it is a human life.[/align][align=left] "...what I have issue with is the contention that it is a human..."[/align][align=left][/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Well, what is it?[/align]
__________________
Member of Team "REAPERS OF THE HARVEST"
I've been doing some thinking over the past couple days, and I've read some of your material. I'm starting to think that you're right. The mountain of evidence against abortion is insurmountable. Clearly, even one day after conception, there is cell division of a unique set of chromosomes - a personal identity, if you will.
In addition, as noted in one of the other threads, fingerprints develop at the end of the first trimester, dreaming and other various cognitive functions begin shortly thereafter. To deprive that fetus the right to continue to live would be unjust. It has become clear that the financial/parental interests/benefits of terminationare grosslyoutweighed bythat baby's right to be born. Constitutionally speaking, as notedin Roe v. Wade, it is acknowledged that life begins at conception, not birth.I really do feel as though I've come full-circle. I've climbed the mountain, and seen the light on the other side.
Just kiddin'. [8D]
Give it up man - you're not going to change anyone's mind.
ORIGINAL: quiksilver
I've been doing some thinking over the past couple days, and I've read some of your material. I'm starting to think that you're right. The mountain of evidence against abortion is insurmountable. Clearly, even one day after conception, there is cell division of a unique set of chromosomes - a personal identity, if you will.
In addition, as noted in one of the other threads, fingerprints develop at the end of the first trimester, dreaming and other various cognitive functions begin shortly thereafter. To deprive that fetus the right to continue to live would be unjust. It has become clear that the financial/parental interests/benefits of terminationare grosslyoutweighed bythat baby's right to be born. Constitutionally speaking, as notedin Roe v. Wade, it is acknowledged that life begins at conception, not birth.I really do feel as though I've come full-circle. I've climbed the mountain, and seen the light on the other side.
AWESOME!!!!!!!! Isn't it a great day when you realize you're not killing a baby!!! It's a great weight lifted off your conscience! Congratulations, Quik- and welcome to the bright side.
__________________
Member of Team "REAPERS OF THE HARVEST"
abortion - I have something for you to read
