Last updated on 2022-09-15
KELO-TV is asking all Legislative candidates to answer two questions on abortion policy:
- South Dakota’s current abortion law makes the procedure illegal with an exception to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.” Anyone who induces an abortion is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Does this law need clarifying?
- Do any other state laws need to be changed to reflect the new post-Roe era when an individual state such as South Dakota can choose its path regarding abortion?
So far, of 158 Legislative candidates on the ballot, 60 have responded. 31 of those responses have come from Democratic candidates. Given that 48 Legislative candidates are Democrats and 106 Legislative candidates are Republicans, the Democratic response rate to these abortion questions is 63%, while the Republican response rate is 27%.
**Update 2022.09.15 06:06 CDT: Jackson tells me that KELO-TV contacted only those legislators facing opponents on the November ballot. That reduces the count of potential Republican respondents to 64. The challenged-Republican response rate is thus 45%. 42 incoming legislators, 40% of the 2023 contingent, all of them Republicans, thus escape scrutiny in this particular survey on this particularly important issue, and perhaps are relieved that the Alito Court didn’t rule or even tip its hand until after the filing deadline for candidates. End update**
Former legislators Susan Wismer (Democrat running for District 1 Senate) and Lora Hubbel (Republican running for District 13 Senate) have both responded to KELO-TV’s abortion questions. On clarifying South Dakota’s current abortion law, Wismer says simply, “It needs to be repealed.” On other state laws that may need changes to reflect the Alito Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade, Wismer says, “More than you can count. Why should women in South Dakota have less control of their lives than those in other states?”
While Democrat Wismer advocates less government control over women’s lives, Republican Lora Hubbel says more words with less substance about how we ought to clarify South Dakota’s abortion ban:
Sounds good to me. While taking Biology at USD, we saw a film of a viable 11 week old fetus being experimented on. The narrator was saying, “look at how the response is more pronounced when it is poked in the eye than when we poke it in the back”. I had to look down as I could not handle the barberry of seeing grown men poke and prod a human like boys killing a frog. The baby was obviously in pain and trying to get away from that huge needle. We now know that the younger a patient, the more sensitive they are to pain. I am 100% pro-baby [Lora Hubbel, in Jazzmine Jackson, “Most Legislative Candidates Support Clarifying SD Abortion Law,” KELO-TV, updated 2022.09.14].
Hubbel is briefly clearer on the second question—she rejects changing any other state laws to respond to the Alito decision—but then she falls into deception and threats of divine punishment:
No. Any further weakening of the law will not be the will of the people. I believe a land is blessed or cursed by the way it treats their young and their weak. I also believe God is the author of life and has to receive back those broken and bloodied babies and console their tortured little hearts. He will not tolerate their silent screams much longer before we encounter His judgment [Hubbel, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
For the umpteenth time, the will of the voters, as demonstrated in the 2006 and 2008 elections and as suggested by this summer’s Mason-Dixon poll, is that South Dakota law not ban abortion.
By phrasing the first question in terms of “clarifying,” Jackson opens the door to a lack of clarity from many candidates. That lack of clarity comes mostly from Republicans. District 2 Democrat Gary Leighton joins Wismer in clearly saying South Dakota’s abortion ban “needs to be repealed, not clarified,” but his Republican House challenger David Kull dodges the question completely: “I can only speculate on what all will come forward on any clarifications proposed, so we’ll be taking a wait and see approach at this time.” District 11 Democrats Sheryl Johnson, Kim Parke, and Margaret Kuipers all state clearly that we need to roll back the current law and leave abortion decisions in the hands of women and their doctors, but District 11 Republican Brian Mulder pretends ignorance:
I am Pro-Life, and I am not aware of the full scope and language of this law. That being said I would need much more information in order to give an opinion about potential clarification [Brian Mulder, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
District 11 Republican Senator Jim Stalzer plays less dumb but just as non-committal, saying, “We may need to make some changes to the statute that defines an abortion.”
District 15 Democratic Senator Reynold Nesiba speaks clearly for respecting the decision-making abilities of women and voters against government overreach:
This law needs to be repealed. Based on the last 50 years of history in the US and on recent polls, South Dakotans would like to have a public vote on putting Roe protections into state law. South Dakotans believe in the individual freedom that the Roe decision provided. Individuals should be allowed to make decisions about their bodily autonomy. State government in Pierre should not be forcing anyone to give birth against their will [Nesiba, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
Senator Nesiba also notes that it’s not just our abortion laws that need changing to respond to the Alito Court’s predations:
While an abortion prohibition remains in place, we ensure that all pregnant women have access to prenatal care. Eventually when the current COVID emergency ends we should make sure that moms are allowed to stay on Medicaid for one year after giving birth. We should also ensure that every eligible child has access to Medicaid and/or the CHIP Program [Nesiba, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
Nesiba’s ticketmate, Democratic District 15 House candidate Kadyn Wittman, goes bigger:
If pregnant South Dakotans are going to be forced to carry their pregnancies to term, regardless of their socioeconomic ability to provide for the child, then the state needs to expand its WIC and SNAP programs, subsidize childcare for working families, eliminate the sales tax on food, and support universal free pre-k education [Wittman, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
And don’t forget to expand Medicaid, says Democratic District 14 House candidate Wendy Mamer:
It’s vital that our state legislature prioritizes the well-being of pregnant women and children as South Dakota begins to navigate the post-Roe era. I would support legislation that makes exceptions for rape and incest and allows health care providers all of the tools needed to protect the life of a pregnant individual. Beyond those measures, the expansion of Medicaid has never been more important than it is post-Roe, as it provides health care access to individuals during and after pregnancy, ensuring the safety and health of women and children [Mamer, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
Republican District 14 Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt says she wants “conversations” about “clarifying exemptions for the life of the mother as well as fatal fetal issues and rape/incest,” but that’s not the same as saying, “I’ll vote for exemptions for fatal fatal issues, rape, and incest.” Her ticketmate, District 14 Republicans Tyler Tordsen, says he won’t introduce any abortion-related bills, but he doesn’t tell us how he’ll vote on abortion bills others bring:
I expect that the Legislature will look at this in 2023 to make sure that the lives of infants and mothers are safeguarded and physicians have clarity to act when needed to save the life of the mother.
I expect a robust debate during the upcoming session, but I have not seen any proposals at this time and I am not introducing any abortion-related bills [Tordsen, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
In District 17, Democratic House candidate Bekki Engquist-Schroeder makes clear her commitment to women’s rights and limited government:
This law needs repealing. It is certainly not an easy choice to terminate a pregnancy. There are so many variables that are involved with pre-natal care that a doctor and patient have knowledge of that we don’t. Blanket decisions like abortion bans, that this state has voted down twice before, are dangerous. It certainly isn’t the governments job to tell women what they can do with their bodies. Clarifying that women may die because of no access to safe abortions, just like history already taught us, may help people take a more nuanced approach to this issue. As currently written, it is unclear how close to death the mother has to be before she can have medical intervention. Why would South Dakota invite the state to determine such a sensitive matter? This is better left to a medical professional who is not at risk of a Class 6 Felony.
The legislature already spends too much time on personal medical decisions and should focus on things South Dakotans are saying they need. South Dakota does not limit residents options to seek medical care for any other health concern in other states. This is no different [Engquist-Schroeder, in Jackson, 2022.09.14]..
…while District 17 Republican House candidate Chris Kassin makes clear his commitment to meaningless fluff:
Constituents consistently ask for clarifications on a law that is over a decade old. They are asking for evolution of thought and medical practice to be considered. I am committed to listening to the public and reserving judgment until I’ve had the opportunity to thoroughly study how policy decisions might positively or negatively impact our state. It is important we take our time to thoughtfully and compassionately analyze the current state of our abortion laws.
Again, careful review and compassionate understanding of all aspects of this issue are what voters are asking from policymakers. This includes an opportunity to further evaluate the services and programs offered in support of women and families [Kassin, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
Good grief. If Kassin, Tordsen, and Mulder had been in Philadelphia in July 1776, our Declaration of Independence would open with, “We may hold some truths to be self-evident, but we are not aware of the full scope and language of the Townshend and Intolerable Acts, so we need to reserve judgment while the Continental Congress and Parliament have a robust discussion with compassionate understanding and thorough study of how Revolutionary decisions might positively or negatively impact these potentially united potential States.”
Clear calls for full repeal of South Dakota’s abortion ban come from 13 Democrats: Wismer, Leighton, Johnson, Parke, Kuipers, Nesiba, Engquist-Schroeder, Cole Sartell (District 7), Rep. Linda Duba (15), Jay Williams (18), Dan Andersson (21), Norma Rendon (27), Bret Swanson (30, who says “This law needs to be aborted”), and Christine Stephenson (32). District 5 Democrat Kahden Mooney doesn’t call for repeal of the abortion ban, but he does promise to “bring forward a bill to create exceptions in the current law for victims of rape and incest.” District 14 Democrat Matthew Tysdal says he would support such exceptions. No Republicans clearly endorse exceptions for rape or incest or other minor expansions of women’s access to abortion. District 1 Republican Senator Michael Rohl says, “I believe a majority of South Dakotans support exceptions for rape,” but he doesn’t see he supports such exceptions.
District 33 Republican Representative Phil Jensen has the temerity to say “Some bills are in the works but I’m not free to elaborate at this time.” Really, Phil? What legitimate circumstances justify keeping secret from voters the bills you and/or your colleagues will propose if you are elected?
Democrats are not immune to dodging this issue. District 25 Democrat Dan Ahlers, who is in a prime position to beat his woman- and democracy-hating opponent Republican Representative Jon Hansen roundly about the pate on the abortion issue, is still campaigning like it’s 1999, or maybe April 2022, and the Alito Court hadn’t lit the electorate the on fire and Lindsey Graham hadn’t poured gasoline thereupon:
Before I make any judgements or decisions on the current law, I would have a conversation with our state’s medical professionals. Their input would be essential to any changes.
Again, I would consult with our health care professionals as well as any other group that may be impacted by a new law. I think we should have public forums across that state to get input from the people of South Dakota. We are elected to represent and serve them. I would like to hear their thoughts, too [Ahlers, in Jackson, 2022.09.14].
Dan, a thousand women march up and down Phillips Avenue demanding their bodily autonomy and equal citizenship, and you still need to talk to doctors to figure out if those women are right? Good grief—go sit on the mumbledypeg bench with Kassin, Tordsen, and Mulder.
The men and women with spines who are willing to stand up for the truly largest, most downtrodden, exploited and abused minority in history- Women and Girls, possess biblical courage and they are as much a hero as any protagonist celebrated in Sunday school class.
Until all minorities have the same liberties and freedoms as the rich, white men in America, we are failing to live up to our ordained obligation to form a more perfect union as The United States of America. We have a duty to experience our own versions of liberty in this country, or all blood shed at Gettysburg and every battlefield in our history will be hallowed in vain.
One chance to seize this America the Free, Home of the Brave opportunity and share it with our countrymen.
The Gettysburg address should be one of the few Social Studies memorization requirements. Lincoln’s better angels take awhile to sink in and we need those words to resonate at times when we have disputes amongst us. We are one nation and the men and women defending the rights of over half our nation are appreciated.
Thanks for this. It’s illuminating.
(but Bret Swanson is District 30)
[I originally mistyped Bret’s District as 20—good eye, Bob! —CAH]
When I see stories like this that make no mention of 1st degree murder and the aggravating circumstance that permits imposition of the death sentence for women terminating a pregnancy and people that help her I simply have to wonder what the heck did I miss and why won’t anyone identify how or why they think the murder statute has been impliedly repealed, or otherwise is someow irrelevant when it comes to an abortion “perpetrated without authority of law and with a premeditated design to effect the death of . . . an unborn child;. . . .” SDCL 22-16-4?
I can only think of two ways to kill an “unborn child:” by commiting a violent or other act (such as drugging or poisoning) against the pregant woman, which was taken out of the 1st degree murder statute by the “fetal homicide” statute, SDCL 22-16-1.1 (which explicitly excludes consensual abortions, legal or illegal); or by an abortion, Thus, if the 1st degree murder statute doesn’t apply to an unlawful abortion, then it would no longer applies at all to any killing of an “unborn child.”
Bcb- I think they would rather you not point out their shortsighted, lazy lawmaking so they do not have to bother with difficult, valid inquiry. You are just pointing out a shortcoming and they are too shallow to address something they want swept under the rug and left in the dark. They want to follow through with state sanctioned killing, without light to show their hypocrisy to the people. They hope people like you don’t notice or bring it up. That is my answer to your question. I hope you get them to finally acknowledge your quandary and clean up the grey they feel so safe wallering in. Grey doesn’t belong where the law is concerned. It is our right to have clear expectations.
That raises the question of why before Roe was overruled an unlawful abortion was classified as 1st degree murder, but the repeal of Roe now reduces an unlawful abortion to only a Class 5 felony? The homicide laws and trigger statutes were all enacted befgore the overruling of Roe. Did the legislature consider the killing of an “unborn child” to be somehow transformed into a less serious crime if Roe was been overruled?
Thanks All Mammal. It seems that your take may well be accurate. It seems logical to conclude that so-called “pro-lifers” that want the State to be able to kill women, doctors and helpers are playing “hide the ball” for fear this attitude will lose them money and supporters.
Since Cory’s post is about comments on abortion …
“I’m a pro-life Christian and our position is that a fetus isn’t a baby or a human until God blesses it with soul.” You can pretty easily extrapolate what I believe about women’s rights.
BCB, out of the 60 respondents to Jackson’s questions thus far, only one, Rep. Tina Mullaly (R-35/Rapid City) seems to even glancingly question the possible intersection of the trigger law and South Dakota’s homicide laws. In response to Jackson’s second question, about changing laws other than the triggered ban, Mullaly says, “Yes. Unfortunately, the trigger law did not take into consideration SDCL 22-16-1.1 which refers to Fetal Homicide and states ‘This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.'” However, consistent with the obfuscation rampant in the other Republican responses, Rep. Mullaly does not make clear why she thinks the fetal homicide statute requires clarification, what she thinks that statute should say, or whether she is thinking at all about your murder question.
The state’s been captured by the likes of Hanson, Hubbell and Noem and they have no reason to compromise in any way. After fifty years, the far right has captured the Supreme Court for the next twenty five years, Thomas, Ailito, and the three Trump dimwits led by the totally unaware John Roberts. The dark night has descended on America. The only hope for us is a state wide referendum.
I wonder if data would show higher numbers of young female homicides in correlation with places where abortion is banned…? The bans leave no options for a husband’s self preservation once his young mistress becomes impregnated with the unwanted fruits of his infidelity. Pregnant women are at higher risk of violence from a known male than any other time throughout her life. Abortion ban is dangerous for women at all angles.
Well, I’m part Jewish and we believe there is life when there is breath.
“September 14, 2022 at 1:36 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 138 Comments
A woman who was denied an abortion in Louisiana after her fetus was diagnosed with the fatal condition of having no skull traveled to New York to receive the procedure earlier this month, The Hill reports.”
Should she have to bring this fetus to full term and birth it so she can watch it die?
“M” quotes Taegan Goddard:
That sounds like a tragedy, but not as much of a tragedy as the millions of American boys and girls whose perfectly healthy skulls have been deliberately crushed by greedy doctors performing unnecessary abortions.
I would support such an exception in law, that’s a horribly awful situation and needs to be made by the female involved evaluating all the facts, hopefully with guidance from her family, faith, and medical team to explore all the options in such a particularly rare and horrific scenario; clear enough? 😘
The fantasy in the conservativerse is that maternity and childbirth are always painless, bloodless, and danger free, and if not, it must be the mother’s fault. I believe this fantasy has something to do with the fact that the United States has the worst maternal mortality rate of any industrialized country. We also rank 33 out of 36 for infant mortality rate. That and the fact that the US is cheap – pro-life, but no free prenatal, maternity, or post-maternity care for anyone.
Meanwhile, as I’ve said before, I worked for a while at the Emory University genetic lab as a lowly tech, where we did amniocentesis tests on pregnant women. Most tragic fetal abnormalities weren’t found until the 2nd trimester (i.e., around 20+ weeks), and they were few but horrific. A missing skull could be the least of it. Nature doesn’t always get it right.
And then, of course, there’s preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, and a host of other problems that offer no options except either abortion or the death of both mother and fetus. Again, nature doesn’t always get it right.
I think another problem is that people conflate “life” with “soul” – “life” of some sort starts at conception, that is true; but when does the soul enter the body? At conception? Given the vast number of natural miscarriages (10-20% of all pregnancies), I can’t believe that. I incline more to the old-fashioned “quickening” definition – or with the Jewish take – with breath comes the soul.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/worsening-u-s-maternal-health-crisis-three-graphs/
https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2019-annual-report/international-comparison
You’re sick, Evans. Do you ever consider real evidence for your beliefs? Seems like you come up with projections of your favorite fetish hacker flick. Its disturbing and sometimes the oppressors are the ones we need to set straight.
The question isn’t what people do in their doctor’s examination room or who they receive parcels from. The question needs to be, why are you so obsessed with what someone else is doing?
Nobody is doing anything to you so please get tf back. Practice acceptance and get over it that most people do not agree with you. And that is ok.
I hate yellow cars. I would never buy or drive one. I will not like you if you always drive different banana cars. I will understand if you had to and I will offer you rides if you wanted. I will not demand you to change your car. I will not force you to paint over it. I will not ban you from going to buy a car without my approval. I will not dwell day and night over how to trick you into becoming a bus driver. I will not lie to get you to start driving a taxi just so I feel better about your mustard mobile. I will just be like, “I hope I never have to drive a banana”.
My dad always said, “If ya can’t help em; don’t hurt em. .” Just walk away because you are not able to help so you will only do harm. If you need to pat yourself on the back, do something the bible actually implores you to do. Not your fantasy on the projector screen.
Mr. Evans, being male, has never had to confront the complexity of a pregnancy, it seems.
There are mental and physical changes to a woman’s body that many men won’t understand, nor have to deal with.
Who am I to tell the 19-yr-old girl who’s boyfriend stealthed her that she can’t have an abortion when a pregnancy results from that situation.
Who am I to tell a 15-yr-old that she has to carry a baby to term? Most girls that age aren’t really physically or mentally ready for that.
Who am I to tell a woman that she needs to carry a dead fetus to term, risking infection and her future fertility?
Who are you? How is that your place?
M, if it won’t kill her to deliver, then in South Dakota, yup.
Fetuses, not babies.
I thought Kurt was a Libertarian.
Who are we to decide? Who are we to use the force of the state to decide such an intensely personal matter? CK sounds like the true libertarian, not to mention humanitarian.
Really want to protect a fetus? Conceive your own.
Frankly, Cory, most libertarians’ belief in freedom stops at the end of their fingers. Or property. Freedom for me, but not for thee…
“All Mammal” writes:
I won’t demand that a doctor change his car either, but I’ll generally support government punishment if he deliberately crushes a child’s skull with it.
Cory asks:
Would you say sexual abuse is “intensely personal”? Do you support using the force of the state to prevent it?
Kurt, since “sexual abuse” includes a non-consensual penetration of a woman’s vagina or the non-consensual use of a woman’s intimate body parts, if someone’s life depends on sexually abusing a woman (i.e. penetrating her vagina , or using her most intimate body parts against her will), would you support using the State’s power to force that woman to submit to the sexual abuse?
“bearcreekbat” asks me:
Of course not. Are you suggesting that an innocent, helpless little girl in the womb deserves to have her skull crushed for “sexually abusing” her mother?
Kurt Evans asks me::
No one wants any innocent person harmed.
The pregnant woman, however, is certainly innocent, unless of course she has been tried and convicted in a court of law for whatever misbehavior you might conclude makes her no longer innocent and now deserving of being sexually abused (as a libertarian you presumably support the concept of “due process of law” before the State can declare any person “guilty” and deprive that person of the same rights as everyone else). And comparing her personal power to the power of the State to imprison and even execute her, seems to make her relatively “helpless.”
Meanwhile, many believe that the Bible teaches that the individual you declare to be “an innocent, helpless little girl” is in fact already guilty of “original sin,” rather than innocent; see e.g. Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3-6. And isn’t she in fact helping herself to various contents of the pregnant woman’s body, and if not stopped, won’t she eventually forcibly penetrate the woman’s vagina, or, if not, then rupture the woman’s belly?
The question is whether you think it an appropriate use of the power of the State to subject an unconsenting innocent woman’s body to the needs of this “innocent, helpless little girl,” i.e. this fertilized egg, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus (which is how the State defines an “unborn child” at SDCL SDCL 22-1-2 (50A))?
Unless you are suggesting that the pregnant woman deserves to have her very insides appropriated against her will and her vagina eventually penetrated against her will (i.e. sexually abused), then your above answer “of course not” makes no sense. By trying to change the focus from the abuse of the pregnant woman to the crushing of the skull of an innocent, helpless littler girl you try to justify using the power of the State to allow what it chooses to define as an “unborn child” to subjugate and sexually abuse a pregnant woman.
Can you justify giving such power to a State defined “unborn child” of a pregnant woman with a rational explanation for the choice, rather than trying to trigger an emotional response with phrases like “crushing the skull” or “innocent and helpless and little?”
I’d asked “bearcreekbat”:
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Okay. So are you arguing that a guilty little girl in the womb deserves to have her skull crushed for “sexually abusing” her mother?
I guess I’m not convinced that a little girl in the womb is subjugating and sexually abusing her mother.
Kurt asks me, “So are you arguing that a guilty little girl in the womb deserves to have her skull crushed for “sexually abusing” her mother?”
This question seems to merit three potential responses.
If you are questioning why the behavior of your “little girl” (i.e. fertilized egg, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus) in the womb falls within the definition of “sexual abuse,” I am assuming we agree that the unconsented to, forcible, penetration of a woman’s vagina constitutes “sexual abuse,” and if the nonconsenting woman is denied the right of self defense that “little girl” in the womb will eventually do just that.
If you are questioning whether I advocate the technique of crushing a skull in self defense to remove a “little girl” in a woman’s womb, the answer is no as I am not a medical professional. Each situation is different for every woman. Depending on the individual circumstrances I believe a medical professional is in the best position to determine the safest and most effective way to remove the “little girl.” Obviously, at the fertilized egg or blastocyte stage your “little girl” has not yet developed an identifiable skull to crush.
Finally, I am not saying your “little girl” deserves any particular treatment, rather, I am saying at best your “little girl” deserves no greater rights or protection than the pregnant woman has and that it should be up to the woman within whose body the “little girl” resides to decide whether to consent or object to the “little girl’s” use of that particular body and genitalia penetration.
Now that I have tried to answer you queries, I again ask you to answer the 3 specific questions I posited to you in my above 01:31 comment:
I’d asked “bearcreekbat”:
“bearcreekbat” writes:
If you’re really assuming we agree, you’re assuming incorrectly. As I’d indicated in my preceding comment above, I’m not convinced that a little girl in the womb is sexually abusing her mother.
Would you say the lining of the womb commits “sexual abuse” during a woman’s period?
So you advocate crushing the little girl’s skull if a medical professional determines that’s the “safest” technique.
You’re not saying it explicitly, but you seem to be suggesting and arguing by implication that she deserves to have her skull crushed for sexually abusing her mother.
It was originally only one query, and you haven’t directly answered it yet.
Evans- the mere manner in which you use the female body for your tropes makes us ill.
Until you live in fear of being raped in the bvtt on your way home or of spending your life in a prison from being convicted of intending to ejaculate outside the purpose of procreation- it is beyond your station to impose your sadistic will onto women.
I suggest focusing on what you should prevent, like famine perhaps.
Bearcreekbat has stretched logic trying to reel you back from the brink. Is there any hope of you accepting the sovereignty of women?
Kurt, thank you for clarifying your position that I am “assuming incorrectly” you agree with the premise that the unconsented to forcible penetration of a woman’s vagina constitutes “sexual abuse.”
Your failure to address my specific inquiries also clarifies that there really isn’t any rational basis to grant greater legal protection to a fetus than a woman, namely:
in contrast to
Your lack of a rational reason for such a position is understandable. Try as I might I too cannot come up with a rational basis for the State to use the force of the law to give one person (assuming for the sake of argument and analysis that a fetus is a person) a greater right to use another’s body against her will than any other living breathing person is given to use another person’s body against his or her will.
I will concede, however, that the language you use is designed to create a strong emotional response to justify the elevation of the needs of a fetus above the needs of all living, breathing human beings, which in all liklihood stimulates the release by many human brains of endorphins that temporarily provide a state of euphoria. Taking an irrational position because it feels good certainly is not an uncommon human experience.
Coincidently, Cory published a new post today (9-20-22) that makes my very point:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/09/20/putins-propagandists-exploit-emotion-controversy-to-distract-divide-americans/
BCB- your last flaw you point out in the SD neanderthal trigger laws may have just been discovered due to Mr. Evans’s opposition to your more logical points you have presented before. But your last question no less brings yet another valid problem.
Uncovering any such discrepancies adds more proof of the inherently flawed concept of banning women’s healthcare and criminalizing it. Your ability to think through the logistics that were never considered before is valuable and could really help prevent a lot of hurt.
I it does.
All Mammal, yes, the only basis I have seen articulated so far for supporting the grant of more rights to a fetus to use another’s body against her will than granting such a right to anyone else to use the body of an another person against his or her will seems to be an emotional reaction to terms used by Kurt, or some other triggering (no pun intended) highly emotive words. I still would like to learn whether there are any actual non-emotional logical arguments for granting the fetus such extreme power over an unwilling woman if any such logical positions exist.
It’s also noteworthy that many such emotional words imply such sort of negative characteristic on the woman. If the fetus is “little” the woman must be “big.” If the fetus is “innocent” then woman must be “guilty.” If the fetus is “helpless” the woman must be “powerful.” Unfortunately, that implication can blind a person to the fact that compared the the State the woman is both quite “little” and “helpless” according to law, and that in most cases the woman is just as “innocent” as the fetus (unless, of course, the woman has been baptized and forgiven of the original sin that many Christians assert to be assigned at conception and forgiven only through Christ).
One other powerful characteritic of using purely illogical emotion is that it can often help a speaker relieve many people subjected to such emotional appeals of a good sum of their money.
Preach it, BCB! True blue. I suspect the volatile language they use arouses an advantageous response from a queer pocket of people who like to keep tally of their victories over who they look down their noses upon.
Their delusional claims are disgraceful and make me want to accuse them all of having a secret snuff film fetish. Sick pups like to project their perversions onto young women and their health providers.
Those who are convinced of the appalling accusations made from the sick pups, bank rolling the graphic and foul panderers to add another tally in your do-gooder book is superficial and won’t get you more gold in the kingdom of heaven.
“bearcreekbat” writes to me:
“Concede”? That isn’t a concession. It’s an obnoxious lie, as I generally oppose crushing the skulls of human beings outside the womb too.
Kurt, writes:
I too “generally oppose” crushing skulls both inside and outside the womb. And like you I onl;y support such crushing of skulls in limited situations. Since you articulate only a “general” disagreement with skull crushing perhaps we part ways only in identifying the specific type of situation that justifies crushing a skull?
And given your statement that you only “generally oppose” crushing the skulls of human beings, in what situations do you agree with skull crushing?
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Yes, we definitely do “part ways”…
For example, if a man is trapped in the gears of a drawbridge so that lowering it will crush his skull, the drawbridge operator has the right to deliberately crush the man’s skull to save the lives of the passengers in an approaching train.
Good point, Mr. Evans. When the lives of pregnant people are in eminent danger- gotta do what you gotta do. Except doctors aren’t making snuff flicks. They are saving lives.
BCB did not lie and that false statement is a sorry rebuttal.
Our 9th Amendment rights are being violated while the 2nd gets petted and stroked by Sméagol. “Yess. The precious will be ourss.”
-Women and girls should be 2 things: Who and what they want.
Coco Chanel?
Kurt, what if a helpless, innocent little girl instead of a man was trapped in the gears, does the drawbridge operator have the right to deliberately crush the little girl’s head?
Or what if the approaching train is being operated by a robot and carrying 100 extra frozen human embryos left over from being created to help impregnate a woman, and a helpless, innocent little girl instead of a man was trapped in the gears, does the drawbridge operator have the right to deliberately crush the little girl’s head?
*imminent
Immanent*
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Probably yes, unless the only three people on the train are each more than 90 years old. In that case it’s a complicated question, and I’d tend to give the benefit of the doubt to whatever the drawbridge operator decides as long as he doesn’t dismiss the little girl as merely a mass of cells.
It probably depends on whether the embryos are being transported to snowflake adoptions:
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2020/snowflake-babies-embryo-adoption
Kurt says:
Then Kurt, it would seem that you are in agreement with the doctors you describe as crushing an innocent, helpless girl’s skull. The difference seems to be evaluating the particular situations to determine which situations justify crushing that little girl’s skull. Such situational ethical values have been shared by many great philosophers and theologians so you are in good company. To name just a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
That claim is baseless and absurd.
That’s obviously one of the differences.
By my system of ethics, acts are judged by categorical principles.
Kurt, that is the only difference I can see, a difference in deciding which situations allow the crushing of a helpless, little girl’s skull. And as you point out your system of ethics is not based on anything other than “my [i.e. your] system of ethics” based upon principles that you personally have chosen to follow, which you label “categorical” (perhaps you are engaging in what Sarte’s calls “bad faith” in an effort to hide from your own ultimate responsibility for your choice?).
Obviously many other people also have “my [i.e. their] system of ethics” based upon principles that they personally have chosen to follow. In the end, however, you admit to being a crusher of a helpless, innocent littlr girl’s skull, in eactly ythe same way as those doctors you condemn for this action – you each make a decision based on the “situation” as evaluated by your subjective system of ethics and prinicples which you declare to be “categorical.”
“Bearcreekbat” writes to me:
That isn’t what I’d said, and it isn’t true.
Perhaps you’re a pathological liar.
That claim is absurd.
My system of ethics isn’t subjective.
Kurt, I see we have reahced the point where you now have decided to respond to my comments with name calling and and assertions that contradict your earlier comments, so there seems to be nothing more to discuss with you. If you decide uou want to pursue the discussion on a more rational basis, however, I would certainly be happy to continue the discussion. My best to you and yours.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
If I’ve contradicted any of my earlier comments, it wasn’t intentional, but I’ve definitely decided to call you a pathological liar.
Then please respond “on a more rational basis” to my most recent questions at this link:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/09/20/democrats-hosting-abortion-rights-rally-downtown-sioux-falls-sunday-2-p-m/#comment-447808
Kurt says:
I believe the use of derogatory name-calling evidences a lack of genuine ideas or arguments, and when that occurs further efforts to engage in meaningful conversations are often futile. Thus, I’ll take my leave at this point.
Who appointed the drawbridge operator? Who gave him that kind of authority?
I’d written:
Curtis Price asks:
An employee at the California Department of Human Resources.
Hey Kurt:
Just give it up already. You’re (obviously) not a woman. You have no idea what a woman deals with when she’s pregnant.
Whether or not a woman will/should end a pregnancy should be a decision left up to her, her family, and her medical provider.
“CK” writes to me:
I have some idea what a woman deals with when she’s pregnant, but I don’t know exactly. I also don’t know exactly what a woman deals with when she’s nursing a newborn.
What if the medical provider wants to kill her nursing newborn? Should that be legal? Should a male be allowed to express an opinion?
This is a gut wrenching debate to have. I have worked with many parents of developmentally disabled children and they all have very difficult and tragic stories to tell. It is so individual, it is impossible to generalize, but, my takeaway, was that the more stable the family, the older and more accepting of this cruel fate the parents are, the better off the child will be. Eve summed it up well. We should all think not just of the birth but the life the child, the parents and the child’s siblings will live.
CK’s opinion that “Whether or not a woman will/should end a pregnancy should be a decision left up to her, her family, and her medical provider” places the woman first and foremost and includes advice from her family, as well as information about her medical needs from her doctor.
In my view, this is the correct focus, the woman should have the ultimate authority to decide whether to continue or end the pregnancy, as it is her body that is directly involved. If she desires advice from her family, then it should be offered. And the medical provider can help her understand how continuing ot terminating the pregnancy will likely affect her physical and mental health. As for the zygote, blastocyt or fetus, it has not yet developed an ability to express an opinion one way or the other, and thus will not participate in the decision.
And it is quite clear that a total stranger cannot know what the zygote, blastocyt or fetus would want if it had the ability to express an opinion. Thus, when a total stranger argues for criminal laws prohibiting a woman from terminating an her personal pregnancy that argument cannot be premised on nonexistent wishes of the zygote, blastocyt or fetus. Rather, in my view, the argument is premised on a desire to control women and make them act in a way the stranger hopes will somehow benefit him or her.
For example, many such strangers use advocating for such laws as a means to obtain money or power. Others simply dislike women and feel that they are unable to make their own decisions and should be controlled. Others equate zygotes, blastocyts or fetuses to living breathing children, and anticipate feeling some personal pride (maybe even a reward in heaven) for saving the life of a zygote, blastocyt or fetus, by supporting laws that threaten prison or even a death sentence for an unauthorized abortion. Whatever the motive, in my opinion the stranger consciously or unconsciously gives his or her desire for some personal benefit greater weight than the real needs of the woman or the actual zygote, blastocyt or fetus involved.
In a comment dated October 3, “Bearcreekbat” had written:
Are you a pathological liar, or have you just not yet developed an ability to express yourself?
Now “Bearcreekbat” writes:
German Nazis used a similar argument to rationalize the mass slaughter of disabled people outside the womb.
No one gets a reward in heaven for selfishly pursuing a reward in heaven. I’ll get a reward in heaven because Christ took the ultimate punishment for my sinfulness when He was dying on the Cross. Anyone who admits his or her own sinfulness will get a reward in heaven for the same reason.
It appears that Kurt Evans did not understand my earlier comment that I would “take my leave” referenced only my further attempt to have a meaningful discussion directly with him. I will continue to interact, however, with other DFP commenters, as well as DFP comments and stories in general. Indeed I may, from time to time, even comment on something Kurt writes on DFP.
For example, his comment about who gets a “reward in heaven” is interesting. The idea that only “Anyone who admits his or her own sinfulness will get a reward in heaven” suggests that zygotes, blastocyts or fetuses are apparently excluded from heaven since they have not developed the capacity to admit their sinfulness. If accurate, they apparently don’t have much intrinsic value in the eyes of the jefe of that peculiar type of heaven.
Mr. Evans- What I am about to tell you is more true than anything you have ever written concerning what happens in heaven.
After we are dead, and whether or not we confess anything:
Not a single one of us pos sinners knows whether or not anything takes place with our souls post mortem. Not one sob on this whole good Earth in the entire span of history knows about any afterlife or heaven or hell or anything other than the emotions we feel WHILE ALIVE (the time after being born until the time right before we die). People saying they know for sure are liars. And usually scared. And very sinful. No person has sent back data after they’re dead. Or from before they came out of their mommy’s tummy. Because, guess what…. they aren’t ALIVE. Its true. Word to my mommy. Get your rewards while you are alive because nobody knows what happens after this.
Furthermore, until you live in fear of being raped in the butt on your way home and then missing your period the following month, your anti choice clatter is mighty sinful and so judgy.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
I understood that you saying you’d “take [your] leave” didn’t mean you’d take your leave, because you’re a pathological liar.
[*]The word “only” wasn’t used or implied in my comment, but you’re using it to misrepresent my comment, because you’re a pathological liar.
“All Mammal” writes:
Are you saying you know that for sure?
Can being “raped in the butt” cause a woman to miss her period?
While I have speculated that further attempts to converse with Kurt Evans about the topic of whether the State should restrict women’s rights to control their own bodies in order to protect a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus would likely be unproductive, upon reflection I believe I should acknowledge my own responsibility for this breakdown in communication.
In reviewing the history of our dialog I found that Kurt first used the label “pathological liar” after this comment on 9-27-22:
Kurt responded on 9-28-22 as follows:
Up until this point I don’t recall angry comments or name calling in our discussion. Unfortunately, however, it has become more pervasive after this interaction.
First, I agree that I lack the ability to speak for Kurt about his personal system of ethics. That is something only he can know and best describe. To the extent that my comment purported to state an incorrect fact about Kurt’s viewpoint or ethics, the comment was in error. While I intended to describe how I perceived Kurt’s ethics to be similar to my own, this was only my subjective perception. Whether Kurt acts in “bad faith’ or whether he relies on situational ethics is simply not for me to say. He is in the best position to describe his feelings about these matters. To the extent I overstepped, I hereby apologize to Kurt.
Second, Kurt’s later criticism about the weakness of my writing ability is well taken. On occasion my enthusiasm can lead to personal conclusions about what I have read that might not have been intended by the writer. I can also be mistaken about other facts. I appreciate corrections when that occurs, and I will try to acknowledge and correct any actual errors on my part.
Third, although I tried to convince myself that it did not bother me to labeled a “pathological liar,” I apparently was wrong. I have never intended to write a single lie on this blog and if and when I write something that is factually incorrect I encourage the reader to call me out on it, so I can correct my mistakes.
Finally, I apologize to Cory for drifting so far off topic on these abortion threads and getting into way too personal interactions with other commenters. I will try to do better.
Defining what type of liar Kurt Evans and Donald Trump are.
Though often used interchangeably, the terms “pathological liar” and “compulsive liar” are different. Pathological and compulsive liars both make a habit of telling lies, but they have different motives for doing so.
Pathological liars are generally motivated by a desire to gain attention or sympathy. On the other hand, compulsive liars have no recognizable motive for lying and will do so no matter the situation at the time.
Pathological liars are driven by definite, typically identifiable motives such as bolstering their ego or self-esteem, seeking sympathy, justifying feelings of guilt, or living out a fantasy. Others may lie simply to alleviate their boredom by creating drama.
Pathological liars are always the heroes, heroines, or VICTIMS of the stories they concoct.
– Their stories are fantastically outlandish.
– They are always the hero or victim.
– They really believe it.
– They don’t need a reason to lie.
– Their stories may change.
– They don’t like to be doubted.
Sources
– Dike, Charles C., “Pathological Lying Revisited,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, Vol. 33, Issue 3, 2005.
– “The Truth About Compulsive and Pathological Liars.” Psychologia.co
– Healy, W., & Healy, M. T. (1915). “Pathological lying, accusation, and swindling: A study in forensic psychology.” The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 11(2), 130-134.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Thank you.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/09/20/democrats-hosting-abortion-rights-rally-downtown-sioux-falls-sunday-2-p-m/#comment-449036
The commenter formerly known as Porter Lansing (“P. Aitch”) writes:
According to the false comments “P. Aitch” has been making under another post, my younger brother says my “Dead Daddy” denied me parental love as a child.
“P. Aitch” is an extraordinarily obnoxious type of liar.
Kurt, can you clarify why you posted that link after you quoted my statement: “I will try to acknowledge and correct any actual errors on my part.” I am not sure I understand, although I did see the two questions in your link.
The first asked if my position is that in some circumstances “a parent has the moral obligation to provide the blood donation needed to save the child’s life” and in some circumstances “a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child.”
Yes, that is my position.
Second, I see the link also repeats your question, “How would you say parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies?” The answer I gave previously was:
Are you looking for some other information with that question?
Kurt Evans needs to remember to take time from being his best keyboard warrior and do his day job…If he has one.
I’d replied to “CK”:
“CK” writes:
It’s interesting that this bit of free life-coaching would be offered by an anonymous blog troll at 12:43 a.m. on a Tuesday. Should it be legal for the medical provider to kill a nursing newborn?
Mr. Evans- hopefully you can simply accept you have just proven how dictatorial and illiberal your statements are.
CK can comment and ask you questions any hour of the day or night. Deflecting doesn’t detract from the fact you expect everyone to bow to your whackass nincompoopery. Not everyone has to agree with your religion. Nobody has to obey your beliefs. And not all people have to keep the same hours as you. Theres more than one lifestyle, and it is perfectly natural to have night owls in every society. Some people don’t like to be controlled by goofy rules that make no sense and have no consequence.
Maybe instead of dragging on about mentally retrogressive poppycock and giving people a hard time about piddly grammar in order to avoid sincere debate, try imagining walking in the shoes of those who don’t have all the wonderful advantages as you (not white American men with access to resources galore) and try acceptance…give it whirl. It doesn’t hurt and you don’t even have to repent because it is totally cool with the Big Guy.
“All Mammal” writes to me:
You’ve apparently misunderstood. “CK” is the one claiming that I need to take time away from commenting and asking questions.
I’d replied to “CK”:
“All Mammal” writes:
That’s true. Christ Himself indicated that few would ever accept His teachings.
Would you say it should be legal if the medical provider wants to kill the woman’s nursing baby girl? What if that baby girl has been conceived through incest or rape?
Killing babies is sick and wrong, Mr. Evans. We all agree babies are sacred. Sometimes, God willing, before a baby can exist, a woman or girl aborts the pregnancy. Therefore, there never was a baby. Almost every time this happens, it is the same as menstruation. She bleeds and has cramps, just like every month. Has no substance, no form, no heart.
The image you have scorched in your mind’s eye is unfortunate and shame on whoever might have shown you such a vile image. But please, try to understand- doctors and girls are not killing babies. Women need more respect and privacy and support. Not shame and jail and medical neglect.
I hope we can move far, far away from ideas like killing and the connotations falsely attached to freedom of self health.
One more quick thing, the decisions of women and girls about their own body are no person’s call but hers. We can agree that nobody likes abortion. It is not cool or trendy or just a flippant birth control method. I used to be finished with people I found out had one, but then I grew up and realized girls are not protected princesses like Disney characters and judging others is really sort of like casting a curse on someone you love. So beware.
Have a lovely weekend, Mr. E and everyone.
“All Mammal” writes:
It’s sick and wrong under most circumstances. Would you say it should be legal if the medical provider wants to kill a nursing baby girl conceived through incest or rape? Would you say a male who doesn’t know exactly what a woman deals with when she’s nursing a newborn should be allowed to express an opinion?
A female embryo obviously doesn’t have a heart yet, but her tiny body does have form and substance.
What image do you mean?
Actually we can’t. It seems to me that many people do like abortion.
To the best of my recollection, I’ve never gone through a phase of casting curses or being “finished with people” who’ve had abortions.
Kurt Evans- It is redundant to keep asking questions that I plainly answered.
Killing babies is always wrong.
Killing a nursing baby is infanticide.
I don’t feel like playing this weird, effed up game you invented. You are unwilling or unable to consider what the actual truth is and it is nothing like your preconceived, terrifying statements.
It is a trip that you say it seems to you that many people do like abortion. Maybe you prefer to think wicked things about others. I begged you to let it all go for a moment in order to understand, not necessarily agree, that your skull crushing and greedy doctor scenario isn’t the truth.
I don’t know bumpkiss, but I do know you might find answers you seek by adopting an orphaned baby mammal. Like a kitten or raccoon or something. They sell little nursing kits at the farm implement stores that have itty bitty bottles and formula packs, which last time I got one, was good for bunnies and kittens and kits, stuff like that. I’m serious. Nurse a helpless, adorable little furball and soak in the experience. Husbandry is a very cathartic thing. Working the good earth and nurturing life is the only teacher of many life lessons. I hope you go for it and wish you luck.
Kurt Evans, here’s a what if for you. What if Ravnsborg had run over/splattered you instead of Joe Boever? Would you then put a sock in your incessant religious bs?
Your god does not exist or he/she/it would have soundproofed and permanently sealed the closet you are supposed to go to to praise your lord.
Deepest apologies to Nemec family for bringing up this subject against my better judgement.
This is a perfect example of why medical decisions such as abortion should be left to the woman, her family and her medical provider.
https://themoth.org/stories/loving-grace
Tell me, Mr. Evans: What would you have made Robin do?
CK, that is a compelling and sad story. It is very lucky, however, that Robin lived in Missouri, as the cruelty of Missouri abortion laws pale in comparison to the cruelty of current South Dakota laws. As I have repeatedly documented, today in South Dakota, Robin and her doctors and family would be all subject to a charge of First Degree Murder for terminating that pregnancy since it does not appear that the “abortion [was] necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female” and thus it currently would be “unauthorized by law” in South Dakota.
Robin’s case exemplifies the cruelty of South Dakota law. The doctor explained to Robin that without an abortion the fetus most likely would slowly be crushed to death in Robin’s womb. Under South Dakota law if Robin had delayed the abortion until after the fetus was crushed to death in the womb, then her unauthorized abortion of the dead fetus could only have been charged as a Class 5 felony rather than First Degree Murder since the abortion did not result in the death of the fetus.
“All Mammal” had written to me:
I’d replied:
“All Mammal” writes:
What questions do you mean?
It’s wrong under most circumstances. Would you say everything people do that’s wrong should be illegal?
That isn’t true.
When would you say you did that?
“CK” writes:
I wouldn’t have directly made Robin do anything, but if my 30-plus-year battle to have Roe v. Wade overturned had succeeded sooner, Jim and Robin might have been required to continue caring for Grace until she was born or until she died of some cause other than being deliberately killed.
Going back to your previous remarks, would you say it should be legal if the medical provider wants to kill a nursing baby girl conceived through incest or rape? Would you say a male who doesn’t know exactly what a woman deals with when she’s nursing a newborn should be allowed to express an opinion?
Kurt, perhaps you should consider self-immolation on the steps of the US Capitol.
Yeah. What Kurtz said. Aside from the rather limited entertainment value, Evans’ posts are illustrations of a soul long in debt of being delivered to its heavenly genitor.
My close personal friend Lar and our mutual good friend Bob have an interesting proposition here, Mr. Evans. grudznick suggests you do it on that island in the pond in Woonsocket instead, so you don’t have to travel as far and blog fellows like Ms. Faribank and her female roaddogs and such could travel to observe the event.
In case you missed, long time lawyer par excellence, Jay Schultz, posted a related article on the South Dakota Standard, which begins:
https://www.sdstandardnow.com/home/ignorance-of-the-ban-on-most-abortions-in-south-dakota-can-get-you-killed
Meanwhile, here is a timely Twitter video that was posted today on Juanita Jean’s The World’s Most Dangerous Beauty Salon. Unfortunately this scenerio follows from Jay Schultz’s First Degree Murder analysis.
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1521307942577790976
I wonder what Libertarians think of this picture of SD in the near future? I haven’t noticed any posts from former gubernatorial candidate Kurt Evans addressing the appropriateness of the expansion of SD criminal homicide laws, including the substantial increase of potential defendants that the State is authorized to kill by lethal injection, such as a woman that has an unauthorized abortion, as well a her doctor, nurse, family and friends if they dare to assits her or try to keep her safe.
The video was posted on 10-18-22, not today. I just saw it today. Also sorry for my frequent typos! The last phrase obviously should have read:
. . . including the substantial increase of potential defendants that the State is authorized to kill by lethal injection, such as a woman that has an unauthorized abortion, as well as her doctor, nurse, family and friends if they dare to assist her or try to keep her safe.
Mr. Evans- you repeatedly project the images of (eez its almost too sick to repeat) crushing skulls and greedy doctors. That awful image is false.
You asked that mentally retrograde question over and over about the nursing baby getting killed by a doctor and if the man can opine. Yeah, that’s really a twisted idea and has no relevance. I’ll answer one more time since rereading past comments is too much to expect. It is wrong to kill a nursing baby. It is always wrong to kill a baby. Wtf kind of question is that anyways?
It is wrong under all circumstances! It is called murder when you kill people. (and who the heck are you, or anyone to decide the circumstances when it can be ok to kill?) It is wrong because you have no right to intervene in the process of breathing for others. I don’t care what the law says, you do not get to stop someone from breathing. Mind your own breathing and if you don’t want me to dictate when you breathe last to you, don’t do unto others. Pretty basic stuff. Universal. 4 year olds (no hyphens) know right from wrong so when you have trouble with your pretentious philosophical prompts , ask your nearest preschooler. They always know what matters and want to help.
Search through our correspondence. I have begged you to broaden your extremely narrow, forcedly constricted views for your boggling arguments every time you play your deliberately morbid game. And before nitpicking grammatical errors on my behalf, consider my suggestion in regards to nursing your own orphaned critter. Take initiative and gain your own, first-hand perspective on rearing a helpless whelp. Then you won’t have to ask cringe-worthy questions over and over. I promise, try my suggestions. You will find the experiences worthwhile.
I am finding P. Aitch’s and other’s conclusion johnny-on-the-spot when warned you may have a condition which shows the symptom of needing people to turn ugly on you. If you need me to demean you, I’m practicing restraint and it is abusive to me to instigate me to castigate you. You can pay someone to abuse you. I already have a job.
All Mammal asks Wessington Springs problem Kurt Evans, ” Wtf kind of question is that anyways?”
It’s a question serial killers ask when trying too subconsciously out themselves.
Wonder where Evans goes when he disappears for months at a time?
“All Mammal” writes:
Actually it’s true.
You still haven’t answered. Would you say a male who doesn’t know exactly what a woman deals with when she’s nursing a newborn should be allowed to express an opinion?
It’s wrong under most circumstances. Would you say everything people do that’s wrong should be illegal?
I’m Kurt Evans. Who are you?
Four-year-olds who hear about abortion generally indicate that it’s both wrong and horrifying.
No, you haven’t.
Kurt, your comments about the hypothetical woman that believed God commanded her to have an abortion indicated to me that:
You wrote that my conclusion was not accurate because:
In asking why the woman’s belief made a difference in determining morality of her choice to follow God’s command I characterized the woman’s belief as “incorrect” and you responded:
If I change the hypothetical to indicate that your belief in God was also incorrect, then would following God’s command to have an abortion also become an immoral act?
Kurt, next I am pleased to see that your last comment did not identify a single comment of mine asserting an untrue fact or law about abortion that you have accused me of lying about for years. Hence, there is no need of a retraction or defense any of the comments pertaining the actual facts or law about abortion (rather than my statements desribing my understanding of the meaning of a DFP comment).
Since personal attacks based on accusations of lying about my understanding of the meaning of a DFP comment are an unrelated distraction from a discussion of verifiable facts or laws about abortion, or why women are singled out to be denied the right to take action to protect their bodies from unwanted use by a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, I believe such attacks are off topic.
But, once again, if you can identify any specific statements you claim to be “the same tired lies about abortion over and over for years on end” involving facts or law relating to abortion, I do think that is on topic and worth clarifying whether such statements are lies.
I disagree with Kurt Evans on the issue of abortion. Kurt obviously disagrees with me; we have done the back and forth dance previously to establish this conclusion. Neither of us will move the other. All that is left is to phrase the wording of the law, put it to a vote and see whose side prevails. Democracy.
O, are you sure you disagree with Kurt Evans on abortion? In a recent DFP abortion story I commented using the term “anti-choice” individuals adding the parenthesis (like Kurt Evans) and he reponded by asserting that he is not “anti-choice.”