I like to stick to the medical science determination of human viability:

WEEKS ZERO THROUGH FOUR:

• Ovulation occurs - The time is right; now you just need this egg to be fertilized!
• Conception occurs - Did you know that during your pregnancy that your uterus will increase its capacity by 1000 times?!
• Gender is determined - Immediately upon fertilization your little one is set as a boy or a girl. Ladies, this is one that you can't take credit for since it is up to the sperm to determine the sex of your baby. Sperm carries either a "X" (girl) chromosome or a "Y" (boy) chromosome. (*Hint:* You will have to hold off on picking out the pink or blue until at least the second trimester when the gender will be visible via ultrasound.)
• Implantation - Some spotting (also known as implantation bleeding) may occur about 10 - 14 days after conception. You may believe you are starting your period but generally this bleeding is extremely light and lasts only a day or so.
• Neural tube forms - It will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin). Already your baby has the foundation for thought, senses, feeling, and more!
• Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form - While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.

Week Five:

• First heartbeats begin - If you have an early ultrasound you may not be able to recognize this tiny being as a baby, but there is no mistaking what it feels like seeing your child's heartbeat on that screen. That rhythmic beat is echoed in your own heart.
• Umbilical cord develops - This is your baby's lifeline in utero. It bears the responsibility of pumping in oxygen, removing waste, and supplying the necessary nutrients for the remainder of your pregnancy.
• Blood is now pumping - All four heart chambers are now functioning, insuring your baby's body will receive all it needs over not only the remainder of your pregnancy but throughout life.
• Most other organs begin to develop - Your infant's lungs start to appear, along with her brain. Already your little one is preparing for a quest for lifelong learning!
• Arm and leg buds appear - While they may not appear to be much at this stage it is ok to dream of the future. Just imagine your ballerina twirling and jumping around your kitchen floor. Or perhaps you will have the precocious boy that throws the perfect pitch -- right through the neighbor's window.

Week Six:

• The arms and legs continue to develop - These limbs are stretching out more and more. Later on you will be feeling those feet and elbows up close and personal right in your bladder!
• Brain is growing well - Did you know that over the course of the remaining months that your baby's brain will develop over 100 billion neurons? This is just the beginning!
• Lenses of the eyes appear - If you could catch a glimpse inside, you would notice your baby's appearance becoming increasing like a newborn's.
• Nostrils are formed - The position of the nose seems to shift into its proper place as well. Soon, the nerves running from the nose to the brain appear.
• Intestines grow - Initially these are actually located outside the baby's body within the umbilical cord.
• Pancreas - Your baby is now equipped to deal with digestive enzymes and take on processing the insulin and glucagons the body needs to function.

I could go on but you get the idea, one mistake in timing and a beating heart will be stopped and the Doctor/abortionist becomes a murderer. I've seen couples grow into old age waiting for someone to decide if they would make good adoptive parents. Most go to foreign countries to find a child.

Come on people, there are too many alternatives to death. Give the kid the same chance your Mother gave you. Kids are very resilient and approach life a little different than you who say, "if I'm not born rich, I'd rather not be born." A three year old can stand a beating or worse from Mom's newest drunk boyfriend because it's crying with a 103 degree fever and be playing and happy a day later. But let one Christmas pass without a present and their little heart is broken. They're different from us, don't try to judge whether it's better to end their life before it gets started.

And, yes, I've raised three kids, four counting Linda, my Wife. They've given me four Grandsons, one of which gave me a beautiful Great Grand Daughter. So, I've had some experience.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I understand your point, but again its her body. A Husband should not dictate to his wife what to do with her body, those days are long past. If there was a disagreement whether to have an abortion or not, the ultimate decision should be hers. This could be grounds for divorce should the Husband choose.

Yes, but it is his child. Therefore, if he is willing to raise the child, she should be required to carry it to term and relinquish custody.

She should have thought about it being "her body" prior to engaging in sexual intercourse.

How is divorce going to solve the problem of his child being aborted without his consent? It isn't.

The "my body" argument is weak and is often used as nothing more than an excuse to skirt around personal responsibility.

Being pro-choice doesnt mean you want to Nuke every baby that comes into the world, it means you are given a choice. Many pro-choice people (like my family member I mentioned above) Choose to keep the baby. The point is to give the opintion for those who dont.

I guess thats a fundimental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice people. Pro-lifers see Death as a bad thing, I personally don't. Death is simply the end of life, a path all of us will walk, just some sooner than others.

When I was growing up, I knew a little girl who suffered from several Major diseases from birth, including autism, a delibilating polio, a growth disease (she never matured past age 6) and brain damage. And year after year her pain and suffering only increased to envolve blindness, deafness and terrible pain to her and her family. Finally on her 13th birthday she died. That day was the only day in my life that I was truly glad to see somebody pass on. It was Death that was the blessing.

After experiancing what my friends family went through for 13 years I could never be responisable for allowing that type of child to come into the world. Better for her she wasnt in it.

Abortion is one of those subjects that in my own mind I have some real problems with. My views on the subject changes with the individual situation. I can't see any possible law that could cover all the bases and not leave many out in the cold. Unless you're one of the zealots on one pole or the other, this is a huge gray area. I'm not saying don't voice you're opinion, or do what you feel is right. To a point.

About 20 years ago I was prostituting myself out to a local family clinic that happened to perform an average of 10 abortions a year. For a couple of months they were the target of a Radical Religious group. The administration of the clinic, fearing for the safety of their staff, patients, and the building itself, brought on guys like me to make sure that would not happen.

The following bit only relates enough detail to get my point across. I am leaving the worst unwritten, including an incident that ranks among the most horrifying that I have ever taken part in. I do this so as to mask the particular clinic, and to a point myself. I have found zealots have long memories, and are willing to kill.

During that hot summer, I found myself standing between something as I've already said that I have problems with, and a group of people that I learned to truly hate, and fear.

The average day would go something like this: Early in the morning the "protesters" would gather on the sidewalk and street in front of the clinic. As employees would arrive for work (those that did not arrive hours before their shift so as to avoid the drama) these "Christians" would mount a passive roadblock with their bodies, and scream things such as "murderer", "child killer", "Satans whore", and often suggest loudly that the staff needed to be burned alive, or otherwise "dealt with".

My madate ended at the property line. Unless I witnessed a felony being commited on the street, or these "Christians" crossed onto the property, I was powerless to protect the staff from this harassment. They, like myself had to put up with the verbal barrage, and the occasional projectile that would come out of the crowd.

When patients began to arrive, they had to pass through much the same, unless a child was being brought in (it was the only family clinic in the town after all). This is when things would get ugly. The verbal attacks would switch to the child (usually 5-10 years old). It was now that you would hear screams of "They kill kids in there", "They'll kill you", and the ever popular "You'll die if you go in there". It is at this time that projectiles such as dead fish would come sailing out of the crowd.

I'll admit I reached the point of shame. I felt dirty and ashamed almost everyday. Not because of defending something that I didn't totally believe in, but shame because I was I was legally unable to protect my principles from many of the things that were happening up to that point. The "Protesters", who by the way were for the most part from out of state, had planned the confrontation well. They knew the two local cops were overworked and didn't have time to sit and hand out misdemenant citations, and they had a crew from at least one network standing by to film any physical confrontation.

Then came the day open warfare broke out. On this day the "protesters" brought one of their own up to the property line where I was standing. The guy was bleeding from his nose. Still lucid, still standing on his own. I don't know how his nose started bleeding, and to tell you the truth I didn't much care. This guy requested to go into the clinic and get medical attention. I sent my partner in to describe the guys condition (We were EMT trained) and ask if they wanted to see the guy (It was a private clinic, they had the right to decline service in non-life threatening situations), and of course the staff pretty much said he could pound sand. I was happy to pass this message on. This guy started to make noise about his "rights" and stated that he intended to go in whatever I said. With the cameras rolling across the street, I leaned forward and whispered into the gentlemans ear that If he chose to step onto the property, I would chose to inflict a life threatening injury to make his trip into the clinic worthwhile. He chose to leave and take the 15 minute drive down the highway to the big public hospital.

Was I wrong in my actions? Yes. Would I repeat it under the same circumstances? Yes.

But now things had taken a turn. The next day a guy who I had never seen in the crowd before made his way through the group and got right in my face. With his nose almost touching mine, and with his dead eyes staring into mine, he quietly said: "We know you. Some day you'll pay for your pact with the Devil". Then he left, never to be seen again. At this time the phone calls started also. Doctors would find messages on the machines such as: "I'll be waiting for you when you leave, I'll be in the white van". And sure enough a white van would pull up to the curb just before the clinic closed. The locals never found weapons in any of the vehicles they were called to deal with, but it was unnerving all the same.

The situation continued to degenerate and finally ended in the one thing I will not write about. After that they just left.

Well back to home base.

I've already stated my opinion as it were on abortion. As for Pro-Life demonstrators, considering what I have witnessed, and the fact that some of them have taken to killing Doctors, I wouldn't wish them on any town.

Before any of you starts hopping up and down and writing about how the protest you were at was peaceful and whatnot, all I can say is good for you. My only advice for the next one you go to is this: Take a hard look around you. Look for the guys or girls with a different look in their eyes. And move as far away from them as possible.

Going to this point for point...

Yes, but it is his child. Therefore, if he is willing to raise the child, she should be required to carry it to term and relinquish custody.

The very last thing we need is more unwanted, unloved kids in Foster Homes. And thats not even counting all the not-wanted babies from abroad of which their are thousands. Thats not a solution.

She should have thought about it being "her body" prior to engaging in sexual intercourse.

So you would punish a woman to a life altering decision because she made a mistake? Espically true if it were a young 18-year-old girl? Surely you have made some errors in your past, we all have. Sometimes people deserve a 2nd chance...

How is divorce going to solve the problem of his child being aborted without his consent? It isn't.

Never said it would, I just suggesting that it could be considered as ground for divorce, its known as "unreconsiable differences"...

The "my body" argument is weak and is often used as nothing more than an excuse to skirt around personal responsibility.

Sorry but I don't think so. I'm a "liberal" on this subject and one thing liberals don't like is groups of people telling them what to do and how to run their lives. Freedom is first and foremost the ability to run our lives in the way we see fit, unless we are infriging upon somebody elses freedom. But as the courts to date have said (and reaffirmed) an embreyo, let alone a fetus, does not constitute a person.

The only thing will end this argument, and solve the problem, is to sterilize everyone at birth (as soon as we figure out a 100% method that can be reversed). And when certain criteria are met, whatever that criteria may be, a license can be issued to have the proceedure reversed. No more unwanted, or inconvienant babies.

Of course I'm not sure that I would want to live in a world like this.

Oh well, I'll go back and try to think up a plan B.

Some things we need to clarify here.

First off, the bill makes abortions legal in situations where the mother's life is in danger.

Second, the doctor's who perform abortions for planned parenthood in South Dakota are flown in from Minnesota to perform the operation. Instead of the doctor coming to South Dakota we would send the woman to Minnesota.

Third, we need to define "in danger." In my mind "in danger" means the possiblity for complications down the road. If a woman is having a miscarriage during her fifth month than the baby would not survive either way and should be taken out, better to save one than none. But to me that is not "in danger" that is dying. I also call that a miscarriage, not an abortion. To me an abortion is when a perfectly healthy woman terminates a perfectly healthy pregnancy because she does not want to have the baby for personal reasons, among them maturity and responsiblity. That is in my mind unacceptable. That, my friends, is murder, plain and simple. If the mother is not "in danger" (dying) then I see no reason to kill the baby. A life that starts by spending the first 18 years in a foster home is better than no life at all. Most foster parents are responsible parents who for one reason or another can't have babies, they truly care and want to make a difference in a child's life. They are not in it for the $10,000 a year the government supposedly gives them to take care of the child, that would be a terrible investment because I am pretty sure that it costs more than $10,000 to raise a child, especially teenagers who eat anything and everything they can get their hands on.

And just for reference, one of my co-workers had a miscarriage in her fifth month about a year ago, my aunt had five miscarriages including one set of twins. My aunt and uncle adopted my two cousins, both from Seoul, and have raised them in an environment that is far healthier than what they would have had back in Korea. There are literally thousands of families in America who are ready, willing and able to adopt children and raise them in a healthy environment. Why should we terminate the pregnancy when the child has the potential to grow up to be every bit as "normal" as you or me?

One more thing, at this moment I can't remember exactly what clause of Roe v. Wade we are challenging, but I think what my state wants to do is say that abortion should be a state by state issue, if states like South Dakota wish to ban abortion, so be it, if states like New York wish abortion to remain legal, good for them. We believe this issue should be much like public smoking bans and interstate speed limits, each state has the right to choose their own laws and if they decide that the loss if funds from congress is worth it so be it.

Originally Posted by Forrest_Gump

Oh well, I'll go back and try to think up a plan B.

You could try purchasing a $.25 insurance policy that has a 97% success rate at preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Uh, I think you are responding to the wrong poster, nothing you've addressed counters or even has anything to do with my posts.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

The very last thing we need is more unwanted, unloved kids in Foster Homes. And thats not even counting all the not-wanted babies from abroad of which their are thousands. Thats not a solution.

My sentence was clear, and said nothing about an unwanted child. It was about a father getting custody of the child once it was born. Your point is moot in this particular discussion as the child would in fact be wanted by an original parent.

So you would punish a woman to a life altering decision because she made a mistake? Espically true if it were a young 18-year-old girl? Surely you have made some errors in your past, we all have. Sometimes people deserve a 2nd chance...

Again, moot point. You are off on a tanget I've said nothing about. I stated my case very clearly. Fathers should have rights. I've said nothing about being anti or pro abortion, yet you are "going point to point" as if I had. Did you even read what I posted?

Never said it would, I just suggesting that it could be considered as ground for divorce, its known as "unreconsiable differences"...

This, as I pointed out, does not address the problem of Father's having no rights to their unborn children.

Sorry but I don't think so. I'm a "liberal" on this subject and one thing liberals don't like is groups of people telling them what to do and how to run their lives.

Freedom is first and foremost the ability to run our lives in the way we see fit, unless we are infriging upon somebody elses freedom. But as the courts to date have said (and reaffirmed) an embreyo, let alone a fetus, does not constitute a person.

I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, green, yellow or orange. Nothing I've said has anything to do with politics.

Where did I comment on at what stage it becomes a "person?" That's right! I didn't!

My entire comment was based on seeing Father's have rights to their unborn children if they want to keep the child and allow the mother to reliquish custody and rights to the child. Nothing I've said indicates any position for or against abortion.

I don't know how clearer I can get it.

At this point in your replies, I am 100% positive you didn't read anything I wrote, and that's okay, it's just your reply to my post doesn't make any sense.

Oh well, agendas always find a way to push themselves through.

I've said all I want to say on the subject anyway, Father's Rights is the only thing I really concern myself with anymore. Abortion discussion is an endless debate that just takes you 'round and 'round in circles and leaves you dizzy with nothing much accomplished.

Damien

1. Well that would be a change in the Pro-Life tactics because previously they have refused even to do that. Thats why Planned parenthood vs Casey was upheld because the fanatics of the Pro-Life group refused to even negiociate on the life of the mother. The court (Sandra Day o'Connor concurring) stated this was unconstitional.

2. I'm suspicious. Sounds like a way to try and keep people from getting a abortion legally. For example is the state willing to pay the extra travel costs? the out of state medical costs? I doubt it. Sounds like South Dakota is saying "sure you can have a abortion, but you have to Minnasota to have it". The USSC established a rule of 'free access' to abortion clinics. South Dakota setting up a clinic several hundred miles in another state doesnt seem like 'free access' to me.

3. That maybe your definition but many in the pro-life camp would disagree. The pro-lifers I know want abortion illegal no matter what. Rape, incest, danger to mother, baby to be born with serious medical problems, they simply do not care. Again, thats what pro-choice means, the right to choose. If you wanted to keep your fetus thats your choice, but telling OTHER people they must keep theirs is not your right. Thats a dictatorship, and like dictatorships (as Forest Gump pointed out) the pro-life will use every method necessary to have us bow to their demands. I wont stand for it.

4. Again you use the word 'child' and 'baby'. Thats were you are wrong, its neither until just before birth. We are talking about embreyos and fetuses the USSC as ruled that they are not babies and therefore not murder. Just like an chicken egg isnt a chick until it hatches. The only time you might call an abortion a murder is the so called late-term abortion, but those only account for 1% of all abortions nationwide. Its a very rare procedure. And while we on the subject of murder, how come most pro-lifers claim they support a culture of life but tend to be very pro military and pro-death penalty? Thats quite hypocritical...

5. I understand your question about each state want to choose its own destiny, here's the problem. At the heart of Roe vs Wade it isnt about abortion, but rather the right to privacy. The USSC states that the constution intented that people have a right to privacy (Griswald vs Connecticut). 3 other seperate cases ruled that Birth control was a private act amongst couples. So by banning abortion the state of South Dakota is essentially challenging the right to privacy, which of course would have sweeping effects on a whole host of other issues across the country. You mistaken about the Bills intent, the authors of the bill have admitted that this is an attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade, the reason they did so now was because they think Stevens will retire before Bush is out of Office. Something I doubt, unless due to a medical emergency. But then again Rehnquist never retired...


PJ24

I'm sorry but I dont think you were clear at all. The Topic here was abortion bill in South Dakota not Fathers Rights, I was trying to tie your arguement into the actual topic. If you want to talk strictly about Father's rights (its a good subject) start a new thread and I will most likely hop on and agree with you.

mmarsh

1. Well then pro-lifers need to rethink their tactics. If the options are one surviving or none then they should go with the former, not the latter.

2. We have passed dozens of laws over the years to make getting an abortion more difficult, as far as I know the only place in South Dakota where one can get an abortion is in Sioux Falls (must strees the difference between abortion and mis-carriage again.) Let me hook you up with a map.



Where I-29 and I-90 meet, that is Sioux Falls. 10 miles from the Minnesota border, hardly in a location that is accessible to all. Most people north of Watertown would probably go to Fargo (because it is closer) or maybe even Minneapolis (because they could go shopping while they are there) to have an abortion.

3. So you want to repeal laws banning the use of narcotics? DWI laws should be next right? Their body their choice.

4. Well, I guess I am a hypocrite then, but then again I only refer to myself as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion. I personally think the death penalty is a good thing, but 1.4 million a pop is a little much. I support death by firing squad for two reasons. A.) it's quicker, B.) it's cheaper than our current methods. But I also feel that if a person survives the first salvo they should be set free, kind of like a game then. Oh, I know, we could make a TV show out of it, call it Convict Run, the marketing slogan could go like this "Five snipers. Five bullets. Six Convicts. It doesn't get any more real than this." What do you think?

5. Right to Privacy? Doesn't exist in a world where the media can take all your dirty little secrets and sell them to the highest bidder. That is hypocracy in action right there. Freedom of the Press and Right to Privacy, can't have one without the other. And I supposed nobody would notice if one day a woman had a bulge the size of a basketball and the next day they had dropped 30 lbs. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what happened. So much for privacy. And you are right, I am mistaken about the intent. I guess saying that the purpose was to make this is a state by state issue, which would be the result of overturning Roe v. Wade, is totally different than what the lawmakers intended. My bad.