What's it all about, Alphie?

Progressive on the Prairie defends his opposition to Referred Law 6 here. He opposes Referred Law 6 because it doesn't allow killing of the unborn when their existence threatens the health of their mother. He claims he's stepping into the abortion debate but declines to discuss the merits of abortion.

Philosophically the vast majority of South Dakotans oppose abortion and believe that about 98% of abortions currently performed should be illegal. I suspect the core opponents to Referred Law 6 want abortion to remain legal in all cases. But, as that argument doesn't win in South Dakota, they take the debate away from South Dakotan's philospohy on abortion and suggest a new standard - the perfect law.

Referred Law 6 isn't perfect it's opponents say, so we must reject it. "We oppose abortion", many of them suggest, "but this is too much". I don't buy it. People I know who actually oppose abortion support a ban on the practice.

The "Opposed to abortion, but no on 6 without changes." argument stinks on several levels. Should Referred Law 6 pass, it could be amended in any of the many years that will pass before it becomes effective due to the lawsuits that will inevitably be filed to challenge it. If one actually opposed abortion but had problems with 1% or 2% of the abortions that would be banned by 6, or with its allowance of emergency contraception, they would have plenty of opportunities to amend the law.

If someone actually opposed abortion for the killing it is, they might reasonably accept an opportunity to save the 800+ lives lost each year to abortionist's knives and chemicals as the greater good than the lives that would be impacted, not killed, but significantly impacted by the inability to kill the child of a rapist or the inability to kill a child whose existance threatened their health, or the lives that would still be lost to emergency contraception.

Had we applied the "perfect law" standard to the US constitution or to most laws on their initial passage, we'd have no constitution, we'd have no laws.

Some think the perfect abortion law would ban emergency contraception and that Referred Law 6 doesn't go far enough. Some think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape or incest or grave threats to the health of the mother and that Referred Law 6 goes too far.

Referred Law 6 is about abortion. It's about whether we believe it is right or wrong to kill an unborn child. If you think it's wrong to kill an unborn child, you should vote yes on 6. If you think it's right to kill an unborn child, you should vote no on 6.

________________________________________________________________________________

Follow-up --

I added this comment at Progressive's blog:

I should have put my name on the bottom of my 10:06 comment.

I polished it a bit and posted it here: http://house.typepad.com/house/2006/10/its_about_abort.html

Tim, it would be interesting to see you step into the abortion ban debate. That is, Should abortion be banned in South Dakota?

Unfortunately we don't seem to be debating an abortion ban in South Dakota but rather pursuing a philsophy of "Hard cases make good law."

Leaving the question of exceptions, if any, to a follow-up debate (in legislative sessions to come) I'd like to see South Dakotans have an actual abortion ban debate: "Resolved, that abortion leads to the killing of human persons and so should be outlawed save for rare and specific cases to be determined by the people through their legislature."

Charley House

Comments

[Chad]

Charlie,

What is being debated this year is the rigid and restrictive abortion bill signed into law by Governor Rounds.

That's what being voted on.

It's not a vote on "abortion."

It's a vote on a very specific piece of legislation.

Thus, that's where the debate is sitting.

A lot of people believe in restrictions on abortion, but not to the extent that this unforgiving law goes.

--Chad.