Feb 24 2006
South Dakota Takes Another Step Backwards
For the eight or so years I lived in South Dakota, there was always a sense within the state of frustration that they just couldn’t break out of the ‘old west’ mold that they’d been typecast into over the years. People in the state generally seemed interested in anything that would help look modern and on the cutting edge of technology.
Every ethenol plant that went up was heralded by South Dakotans eager to prove they were leading the way in experimental fuel technology. The state universities were continually trying to attract students and research grants by showcasing what they thought were exciting new technologies. Every six story building was a triumph over the flat as a frying pan landscape… well you get the idea.
South Dakotans almost seemed desperate to prove to the rest of the nation that they and their single electoral vote should be taken seriously.
So color me surprised when they go flat out ban abortions in the state. They’ve been scratching and clawing their way out of the well of perception that they’re behind the times for decades, and in a single act of their legislature, they wipe out all of the progress they’ve made trying to convince the rest of the nation that they’re a modern and relevant state.
Realize that the law they passed outlawing abortion is itself against the current laws and court rulings. Or, that despite the 23-12 vote in their Senate, South Dakotan citizens are divided on the issue. Under this proposed law abortion is illegal even in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s health is in danger!
Talk about taking a step back into the dark age of personal freedom and women’s rights. If South Dakotans are still serious about being seen as a progressive state, as they were when I lived there at least, then they have to start behaving like a progressive state. Not one that’s controlled by a group of fringe right wing radicals who think they own the property rights to the reproductive organs of every woman within their state lines.
South Dakota has a lot of great things to offer, but unfortunately you’ll never hear about them because of issues like this. At the end of the day it’s their choice if they want to be known as the state where women’s rights are oppressed. They’re the ones that have to live with it afterall.
This ruling caught my attention way up here too. A sad day for sure.
what a shame that such a beautiful landscape doesn’t enlighten them to issues like, well, sovereignty over your body and not just your property.
you may have sovereignty over your own body, but not over the body of the baby growing in the womb. That is a separate individual and killing him/her would not be less than murder.
Well the courts and a majority of American’s disagree with you in terms of who controls a womans body and her right to make her own choices about her own health.
And the attempt to personalize a collection of cells as a real person who would be ‘murdered’ is commonly used by the anti-choice people, but like most of the canned argument from that side of the fence, it’s based more off a cicumstancial emotional respose than anything else.
I see you’re from SDSU.. Student?
it’s based more off a cicumstancial emotional respose than anything else
Can you explain this statement further?
The same reason that hostages are referred to by name when family members make pleas for their lives… it’s an attempt to personalize the situation and try to get an emotional response out of the people they’re trying to communicate with by seeing their hostage not just as that, but as a real person with a life and family. Which of course they are, and I’m not comparing a person who’s a hostage to a embryo before you make that point.. I’m talking about emotional responses.
Similar, although not exactly the same, to an anti-abortion advocate calling an embryo a ‘baby’. It’s not a baby, but they want us to think of a giggling cooing ‘baby’ and elicit the emotional response that comes along with thinking about a baby when they’re talking about abortion.
It’s not a baby
When does it become a baby?
I understand your argument - and to the be fair, your argument applies to “the left” defining abortion as “women’s rights”, “the right to choose”, etc. instead of calling it what it is.
(Thanks for your explanation, BTW)