South Dakota Right to Life opposes forcing women who are seeking abortions to undergo sonograms and listen to the faked sounds of the fetal heart flutter. So said anti-abortion crusade chief Dale Bartscher on KELO Radio Monday in surprising opposition to Senate Bill 6:
“We are opposed to any piece of legislation that South Dakota would lose in court and wind up paying Planned Parenthood’s legal fees.”
…SB-6 would require abortion providers to show pregnant women sonograms. Bartscher says the bill would replace a perfectly good law with “vague and uncertain” mandates [Mark Russo, “Abortion Irony in Pierre Explained,” KELO Radio, 2019.01.21].
South Dakota Right to Life thus supports Planned Parenthood on this issue. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to pay any legal bills on Senate Bill 6, either. Planned Parenthood’s Kristin Hayward agrees that SB 6 is bad:
Hayward agrees that SB-6 would be challenged in court, but Planned Parenthood primarily opposes the bill because it would restrict abortions. The organization also opposes the current sonogram requirement which Right to Life strongly supports [Mark Russo, “South Dakota Right to Life, Planned Parenthood Agree,” KELO Radio, 2019.01.22].
That current law came from 2008’s Senate Bill 88, in which our Legislature, which trusts neither women nor doctors, required abortion facilities to offer a woman seeking an abortion “an opportunity to view a sonogram of her unborn child.”
Planned Parenthood understands law, medicine, and women’s rights. South Dakota Right to Life at least recognizes some limits on their theocratic intrusion into doctors’ practice and women’s lives.
Senate Bill 6 comes before Senate Health and Human Services on Friday, January 25, at 10:00 a.m. in Capitol Room 412.
To say nothing of the fact that the supposed sonogram of a five -to six month fetus so often headlining articles about this bill by the tv stations was terribly misleading and intended to be so. It was also accompanied by the statement from a legislator “that’s NOT a clump of cells!” No, and to tell the truth, it’s not a four- to-ten week embryo either. Be honest, legislators. If you have to mislead or try to mislead the public, your premise is lost.
Still waiting for the law requiring a trans-penile ultrasound before males are allowed to have unprotected sex.
Any time now. Boys in the SDGOP?
Debbo, not everything is boys versus girls. Most things aren’t. The issue of abortion is unique to women, and thus regulations surrounding it are sexist by necessity.
I know your suggestions are only jokes but they repeatedly show your mindset that you think the general abortion “battle” is about males versus females. It isn’t. Half of the idiots who want to force their opinions on other people’s bodies are women, including noem. You can’t fix stupid noem any more than cory can fix stupid novstrup.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Good that Right to Life figured out it would lose before it made a fool of itself in court.
Nope Ryan, I’m not joking. I’m talking about equality. If we’re going to regulate a woman’s body, equality demands we must also regulate males. If we are going to regulate child bearing, biology teaches us that pregnancy requires a woman or girl and a male.
If that is “boys versus girls” to you, so be it.
Ms. Geelsdottir, I know you throw your hate at me because I am a man with much man-privilege for all the hard work I have done, but I am on your side in this one and I love you despite your hate. I say we regulate away.
Robin, are those tv stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting by any chance?
Debbo is 100% right, as per usual, and Ryan, well Ryan is being Ryan when it comes to Debbo’s comments.
Wingnuts across this once great nation have taken it upon themselves to decide what is in a woman’s best interests when it comes to a woman’s reproductive rights. And since they cannot get the majority of voters behind them they decided the best way to legislate a woman’s life is to stack the judiciary with right wing idealogues with lifetime appointments and then flood the land with restrictive abortion banning bills.
This is not a male vs. female issue. It is an issue of personal rights vs. government control. to frame it any other was is disingenuous.
grudznick … I didn’t see any mention of you in Debbo’s posts, young man. Thinking a post about men in general is specifically about you shows poor self esteem, at best. After researching your record as a lobbyist, it’s apparent that many properly hate you without the qualifier of your gender.
Ryan, “The issue of abortion is unique to women, and thus regulations surrounding it are sexist by necessity.”
On this site, you have previously railed how pregnancy takes both a man AND a woman — now as the argument suits you, you stand that the woman has the burden of responsibility? Pick a lane!
It is not sexist by “necessity” it is sexist by “necessity TO YOUR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.” Debbo continually shows that there is an equal and opposite view to place responsibility on the man, but you ignore/dismiss her. Men are NOT deferring the issue of abortion to women; in fact, the opposite: men (of the right) cannot line up fast enough to regulate women. That is not of necessity; that is of political promotion. Men are not taking responsibility for unplanned pregnancies; they are leveling all that responsibility on the women. This absolutely is an issue of sexism and too many of us men are on the wrong side of the discussion and on the wrong lines of advocacy.
o makes some excellent points!
Well done o
Grandma N- if i may be so bold- Approximately 1,843 women serve in the 50 state legislatures in 2017. Women make up 24.9 percent of all state legislators nationwide.
Since it is near 100% likely those favoring anti-abortion measures are male, it is male versus female issue and males are using the government at all levels to wage war on women’s rights.
Well said O.
If the Wrong is truly interested in outlawing abortion, they would write into law limits on male sexual behavior and resulting impregnation. They would also make mandatory scientifically factual sexual education. They would not fail to punish sexual assault. They would rigorously enforce child support payments to the custodial parent, and lastly, they would make birth control readily available and free.
The GOP does none of those things. That’s how we know, without a doubt, that their “abortion” bills are, in fact, about decreasing a woman’s freedom, autonomy and power. I take that extremely personally, as do most women everywhere.
There is absolutely an institutional sexism at the core of the entire discussion of reproductive rights.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/contraceptive-justice-why-we-need-male-pill/2012-02
As Debbo (again) correctly expands the discussion to include contraception access; I would even add in the medical industry has been motivated to shift more of the burden of birth control on women for sexist marketing reasons. I still say that the GOP chooses to take legislative stances on reproduction that are onerous on women, and that more forward thinking would open up better, less onerous options. Debbo herself here and I in other posts on the topic have put out laundry lists that help to shift responsibility to men — let’s see the GOP run with those.
I have tried to submit two separate comments to this thread explaining why several of you have incorrectly conflated sexual behavior and abortion. The issues are separate.
mike, you are very far off when you presume that near 100% of people who are anti-abortion are males. Many women actively vote for and support restricting the rights of other women to obtain abortions. You are delusional if you think otherwise. Most guys I know have no opinion about abortion because we know it is a non-issue for most of us. Most women I know, on the other hand, do have an opinion about it, and most of the women who are opposed to abortion are religious nuts.
Access to contraception is not the issue. Regulating intercourse is not the issue. You know how I know? Because contraception is widely and freely available, and intercourse is not regulated. The issue is killing growing fetuses. You people are crazy if you think only men want to reduce the number of dead fetuses, and you are even crazier if you think those people will respond to actual, empirically-proven ways to reduce said fetus killing. They think killing is bad. They think scaring women into having their babies will prevent the killing. This is not about telling women not to have sex. It is not about telling boys how or when to have sex. The issue is the death of a fetus, plain and simple. Now, I don’t think the death of a fetus at the hands of its mother is worth all the hubub, but that is what the anti-abortion people are doing. You can pretend its about other things, but it isn’t. It’s about the dead fetuses.
“Access to contraception is not the issue. Regulating intercourse is not the issue. You know how I know?” I have a pretty good idea, No means No.
Jerry, your comment seems to suggest that nonconsensual sex is an issue in this conversation. No does indeed mean no, but 99.9% of pregnancies are the result of consensual sex, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say or what relevance it has to this conversation.
Ryan, I was showing that the vast majority of people in position to damage women’s reproductive rights are of the male persuasion. Don’t read more into my comment than what was there.
No, what I meant was women say NO to you, so you would be an expert on regulating intercourse as you don’t get any. I think that is why you’re so angry at women posters.
As for contraceptives being readily available and free, you may need to get up to speed – https://www.everydayhealth.com/birth-control/politics-birth-control-access-america/
Got it, jerry. Not bad. Trying to explain the joke probably took away some of the thunder but I’m impressed. More coherent than most of your mumblings. I do alright tho, since you were wondering. Not like back in the day, tho right!?
mike, I still think the vast majority of men of all races support women’s reproductive freedom. Just like with all issues, only the loud crazy ones get attention, and then that attention is unfairly applied to people who disagree with the crazy people just because they look similar.
Most white male politicians vote against this kind of stupid stuff just like all other sane politicians who are not male or not white. Lots of crazy men and crazy women support this crap. The enemy is not men. The enemy is not white people. The enemy is not politicians. The enemy is not a group of a certain color or gender. The enemy is stupidity. Stupidity is just built into the human experience and is global.
Gallop surveyed men and women on abortion rights and came up with these findings as of June 2018:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235646/men-women-generally-hold-similar-abortion-attitudes.aspx
This general information about the attitudes of men and women supports one of Ryan’s points, and does nothing to undermine mfi’s point that “the vast majority of people in position to damage women’s reproductive rights are of the male persuasion,” i.e. lawmakers.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers
Unfortunately, there seems to be no meaningful way to ascertain the motivation of the majority of men in position to seek to expand the power of government to repress reproductive decisions of women. The idea that they simply want to “control” women is too abhorent for any to admit in a survey, even if true. I didn’t see any linked surveys or article about the attitudes of male lawmakers on the issue, but it would interesting to see the results if any there be. My guess is that the majority would claim they are motivated to save lives, which is a bit ironic since expanding government power in family planning can just as easily result in ending lives by restricting births and requiring abortions as we have seen from China’s current exercise of governmental power in this field.
I’m with Debbo: if women have to wait 72 hours for abortion pills and go talk to Leslee Unruh about it first, men should have to wait 72 hours for boner pills and go talk to Debbo about it.
Might as well say that because all women deserve open and easy access to abortions that all boys should have open and easy access to physician assisted suicide. It’s all freedom, no?
Regulation of one thing is different from regulation of a different thing. You’ll notice that by the fact that you had to make up different scenarios for the regulation of the male body. Because abortion is uniquely female.
Ryan, you are totally right that being pro-life or pro choice is not relegated to one gender or the other. Lots of idiots are on what they deem the pro-life side. Where you are wrong is the easy access to contraception. Let’s be real, teenagers have sex. Guys can easily buy condoms. For girls and women there are many obstacles to obtain birth control. If there comes a point where you have to see a doctor or get your parents permission or show your drivers licenses to buy condoms, please let us know.
RJ
You’d be surprised at the number of women that buy condoms for their own protection.
Yeah condoms are pretty much everywhere for free or next to nothing. Expecting universally free and convenient prescription medication seems like a bit much. And even if it was, lots of people would not take it for many reasons. And even for those who do, it’s not without a margin of error. (Side note, I support universal healthcare, so I do ironically think prescription birth control should be free and easily accessible, however only when all prescription medications are free and convenient.)
Taking personal responsibility for our actions, both males and females, is the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
If the Wrong is truly interested in outlawing abortion, they would write into law limits on male sexual behavior and resulting impregnation. They would also make mandatory scientifically factual sexual education. They would not fail to punish sexual assault. They would rigorously enforce child support payments to the custodial parent, and lastly, they would make birth control readily available and free.
The GOP does none of those things. That’s how we know, without a doubt, that their “abortion” bills are, in fact, about decreasing a woman’s freedom, autonomy and power. I take that extremely personally, as do most women everywhere.
The enemy is not men? Take a close look at the list of life time appointee judges wingnuts are lining up to push through the Senate. 90% white, 80% male, 100% middleaged or younger. 110% religious idealogues.
You ask woman and children to take personal responsibility for rape and incest? Oh Boy.
Let’s have the assclowns tell us in their own words their thoughts on women’s rights to bodily autonomy.
https://www.bustle.com/p/13-real-things-male-politicians-have-said-about-womens-reproductive-rights-50340
They seemed nice.
I just saw this piece that seems to have a place in this discussion. The Catholic Church (in all fairness – male driven) interfered in how contraceptives were and are used by women – resulting in lower effectiveness.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/how-the-pressure-from-the-catholic-church-made-birth-control-riskier-for-the-last-70-years/
mike, no victim of rape is responsible for the action, of course. With incest, I guess I would say it depends whether or not it is voluntary. If it’s not voluntary, it’s rape, so I guess the relation between the parties doesn’t seem relevant to me. What do you think about the 99.9% of pregnancies that are the result of consensual sex? Do you think both parties should take responsibility for their joint actions? I do.
What’s funny is when people want to hold all men accountable for each sperm they release because they “need to be responsible for their actions” while simultaneously suggesting that women ought to have a freely and conveniently available “undo” option because the consequences of their actions will be burdensome. To be clear, I believe abortions should be totally legal and easy to obtain. I just think the double standard for the responsibility expected of men compared to the sympathy for women when either makes poor decisions is problematic.
While no one yet has identified any official survey of male lawmakers’ reasons for seeking to expand the power of government over family planning decisions, the anecdotes listed in mfi’s link provide pretty strong evidence that for some male lawmakers the goal of governmental regulation of reproductive rights primarily is to control women.
It is hard to come to any other conclusion when male lawmakers label women who want to exercise their right to decide whether to give birth mere “hosts,” rapists, criminals, unable to control themselves, seeking to make men subservient, and people who belong in prison. Such comments undermine the argument that these male politicians are merely trying to save lives.
To control women???? You have got to be kidding me.
Look at what happened in NY recently, coming all over America soon. Kill a baby in the womb anytime.
Barring the super low % of rape or incest. Abortion is utilized for birth control. Babies are dying, tens of millions actually.
And if you want to focus on men then where is the rights of the man? One night stand turns into the most expensive prostitute in history. You’ll say, consequences for the guy having sex. It’s so hypocritical it’s maddening.
Pearson, if you don’t mind, I have a couple short questions for you. What are you referring to that happened in NY recently that relates to this post? And do you agree with the statements of male lawmakers in mfi’s link that
Have you not seen the new law in New York regarding abortion? We are the most developed nation in the world and we resort to killing babies for birth control….
I don’t agree with that quote. But many, many people say really dumb things. Mike from Iowa leads humanity with stupid statements all the time.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxxofPZU0AAP0bR.jpg:large
New laws in New York, foam containers are being banned, more diaper changing tables are being required, it will be harder to get cigarettes, birth certificates will have an X gender for gender neutral option, minimum wage goes up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/nyregion/styrofoam-ban-new-laws-ny.html
I can see why Pearson is wetting his britches- being so afraid of women.
Pearson, Are you are referring to this new law?
https://buffalonews.com/2019/01/22/long-stalled-abortion-bill-passes-new-york-legislature/
I had not seen it yet. Thanks.
According to the news story, this new law essentially restated what the SCOTUS found to be 14th Amendment restrictions on governmental power since Roe v. Wade to legislate contrary to a woman’s right of privacy during the 1st trimester (24 weeks). But the new NY law does purport to exercise such governmental power after 24 weeks.
Do you think that the NY legislature had the power to pass such a law in light of Roe v. Wade’s constitutional restrictions on government regulation of reproductive rights? I believe the SCOTUS held that a state does have the authority after the first tri-mester to impose some restrictions on our family planning decisions, such as limiting a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy to cases that are “necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.’’ Do you think this new NY resrtriction somehow exceeded the constitutional restraints on government power identified by Roe and subsequent decisions interpreting the 14th Amendment?
Since you don’t agree with the statements linked by mfi (neither do I), can you see how they might suggest that the people making such statements seek to use government power to “control” women?
Every Democrat on this board agrees with the ability to kill a baby one day before its due date.
Just proof how anti-science Democrats and their party are.
Jason, do you have an iota of evidence that supportsd such a ludicrous statement?
Jason lies. I don’t agree at all. I also know it is none of my business, none f your business and nobody’s business except the WOMAN involved and maybe her doctor or family.
I will reiterate- the decision to have a constitutionally protected abortion is up to the WOMAN.
BTW Pearson’s twitter link goes to some whacky theologian/OBGYN guy from Tennessee, not a thing about New York in it.
See? Mike proved my point again.
Yes, the law does. People can interpret, believe whatever they want when someone makes a comment. Smart or stupid. I don’t believe for a second that most Pro-Lifers want to “control” women. They want an end to killing babies…but they aren’t babies anymore. Just tissue.
BCB,
It has been in the news for days and not one Democrat on this board has denounced it.
Pearson, all I have proven is yer a nut. As for the New York bill, it aligns with Roe v Wade in restoring 24 weeks as age of viability. That is the standard and other laws that change that are unconstitutional to my way of thinking.
I did not see a guaranteed right to end a fetus life for the hell of it in the third trimester. More right wing fang gnashing that, for all their control of the government they couldn’t agree enough to damage women the way they planned. Wah, wah, wah!
OBGYN Mike….that’s a Doctor that delivers babies.
The trolls are going to jump on McCTurtle’s bandwagon of pushing religious, white, male, young idealogues to lifetime judicial positions so minortity whites can legislate from the bench, not congress where laws are supposed to originate.
mike, do you think a person’s skin color or gender should be acceptable traits by which to judge him or her?
I see an undeniable link between the legislators in SD (who are hell bent on removing women’s right to choose) and the Catholic Church and born-again Christian Churchs. It’s as if, by proclaiming a fetus to be a victim, these “Bishop’s sheep” can petition their way past their sinful lives and into a thankful Heaven. The link is indisputable.
It’s a living human being Porter. Dehumanize it all you want but it is truth. It’s ridiculous that in 2019 we have abortion.
Steve, do you think a person’s skin color or gender should be acceptable traits by which to select him for a lifetime appointment as a judge?”
OBGYN Mike….that’s a Doctor that delivers babies. Yer doctor delivers more sermons, Steve, and none of them in New York.
Jason, I have not seen that “news.” I don’t think there have been any links to such “news” posted on this particular thread so I am unsure why anyone, for or against, would comment on something not mentioned. Can you direct us to your “news” links in favor of killing a baby one day before it is due? I could not find any such “news” anywhere in my Google search, which suggest you miight be hallucinating.
No, I think someone should be picked for a job because they have the best qualifications. But alas in our country it seems we are more caring about identity politics.
For the record I’m not the one that asked you the skin color, race question but good deflection on answering.
No it isn’t, Pearson. You’re a liar and a misfit, doing, saying and inventing anything you can to overcome your low self-esteem.
Okay, no Porter has passed Mike for idiotic comments. Baby isn’t human according to Porter.
Good one on the zingers. SMH
Pearson … It’s not a baby until it’s born and God blesses it with a soul. Until birth, the fetus is under the sole governance of the woman.
Your opinion, which like 99.9% of everything you believe is wrong.
Labeling a fetus a human and proclaiming it a victim is anthropomorphism.
Pearson, I too thought that the NY legislature enacted restrictions within governmental power as explained by the SCOTUS. Hence I am not sure I understand the nature of your comment about “the new law in New York regarding abortion.” It doesn’t seem to be a “new law” in light of Roe and whatever angst you might feel seems misdirected, given NY’s compliance with the Constitution.
Assuming perhaps you were really objecting the Roe’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment in a manner restricting the power of government, I can empathize and understand your view. I too disagree with some of the provisions of our U.S. Constitution found by the SCOTUS that restrict government power to regulate and control how we interact in other areas, such as the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance contributions. Yet I respect and fully support our form of government even though I might disagree with what the SCOTUS rules that our legislatures may or may not do. I certainly would not knowingly denigrate anyone for exercising their constitutional rights nor support a denial of those rights contrary to a constitutional restriction imposed by the 14th Amendment.
Porter, do you agree with laws where a woman that is pregnant is killed along with baby the individual can get two indictments for murder? Since they aren’t human I’m interested in knowing.
A baby developing in the womb is neither a “God,” “animal” or “object.” You are simply amazing.
Pearson and his fun bunch are amazing. They seem to think human babies-born alive and nurtured being brought to America are not worthy of life and call them names and take them from their fasmilies
My last post was not supposed to have been posted at all. I am trying a new server and it is giving me fits. Carrion.
Steve et al – we have this discussion EVERY time on this issue: human life is a legally recognized standard in American jurors prudence. You WANT to define a fetus as a human life, but the courts do not agree with that definition (and neither does the Catholic Church when it will cost them money). Do not rail on the NY policy that is based on law and pretend it is some new erosion – it is only an erosion from your political stance.
Again, the solution is for the you and the right to get your votes together and legally redefine “human life.” Then and ONLY then do you get to say what life is from a legal standpoint.
Sorry, forgot to post the Catholic link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/
If science could get us to the ability for men to carry children to term; and women were given “the right of first refusal” — they could choose not to carry a pregnancy and instead obligate the father to carry the child to term instead, how would the abortion debate be RADICALLY different? I really believe the “pro-life” crowd would dwindle SIGNIFICANTLY if it were possible to shift the ultimate responsibility to men.
Pearson and I have had this discussion on Owen Reitzel’s page, before. The law that causes a double indictment is wrong and was only passed as a compromise in women’s rights vs women’s rights deniers. I believe what the Bible says about the loss of a fetus.
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury to the woman, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury to the woman, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” – Exodus 21:22-25 in short … the death of a fetus isn’t murder.
Just to be clear, I believe that if women’s and girls’ rights to control their own bodies as fully autonomous human beings is limited, the same should be true for males. If girls’ and women’s reproduction is going to be managed by the government, male’s reproduction should likewise be managed.
The #1 reason for abortions is unplanned pregnancies. There has never been an unplanned pregnancy without the participation of a male, hence the shared responsibility.
However, our governmental entities on the state and national level ignore the male participant, focusing their efforts to manage and control solely on the woman or girl. Common sense says an equal focus on male reproductive lives would reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore, abortions. It would also foster the equality the USA has been noted for.
The GOP and the Wrong are not interested in these things, indicating yet again the nature of their institutional misogyny.
Nope, Porter goes back on top for stupid.
The nature of the existence of the fetus is simply a red herring that has been successfully drilled into the heads of members of the RCC and devotés of the Wrong. The real goal of the leaders of those sheep is control of women, half the population.
Welcome To LOSERVILLE, Pearson. POPULATION: you
This comes from a recent email from my Congresswoman, Angie Craig. (She communicates regularly with her constituents, rather than hiding out like her GOP predecessor.)
“Republicans have made turning back women’s rights such a core part of their brand; there is not one GOP member of the House who supports women’s reproductive freedom. And the White House is ready to help them make Roe a thing of the past.”
She sees it every day across the aisle. Rep. Craig gets it. The GOP and the Wrong are eager to limit the rights of girls and women.
Debbo is correct that the nature of a fetus as a “person” is in fact a red herring. This has been established in past threads, but may be worth repeating to help readers who have not seen the earlier analysis.
Even if the legislature declared a fetus to be a fully legal “person” with each and every right that every other born person enjoys, that designation would not authorize the fetus to use a woman’s body against her will for survival any more than it authorizes an adult man or woman, or a born child, to use another person’s body or property against his will for survival.
And under current law, each individual has the legal right to use deadly force if necessary to stop another person from invading bodily integrity. No “person” has any legal right to be inside the body of another individual.
Moreover, the law does not even give a “person” the right to use another individual’s property for survival. Thus if I refuse to leave an individual’s home because I cannot survive without appropriating his resources, the mere fact that the law considers me a “person” offers me no protection from his right to use deadly force to eject me (with some exceptions not relevant here, such as the availability of reasonable, alternative non-deadly means to accomplish my involuntary removal).
For example, if an individual invites me into his home (a dwelling house/occupied structure), but then I remain there without the individual’s consent with the intent to commit “any crime,” such as taking his food and provisons (theft) to survive, I am committing felony burglary. If I refuse to leave the individual’s home (dwelling house), the fact that I need to take his food (theft) for my survival doesn’t negate burglary, a felony. See SDCL ch. 22-32 (Burglary and unlawful entry).
In such cases, South Dakota law provides in part that:
SDCL 22-16-34.
Hence, the “fetus as person” argument is a red herring just as Debbo indicates. No “person” has any legal right to appropriate another person’s body or property for survival. See also SDCL ch. 22-5 Defenses to crimes (no defenses listed for appropriating the person or property of another to survive).
One element of contraception (the pill) that the Catholic Church objects to is that it is “abortion” by nature in that a fertilized egg is not allowed to gestate. Instead of railing against Debbo’s position of male accountability, why isn’t the Catholic Church also DEMANDING male birth control to prevent the fertilization of the egg – prevent the conception (the point where life begins by Catholic dogma)? Heck, we might also have less opposition to the ACA under this direction.