Abortions banned in South Dakota

I love how Bush and friends don't give a shit about children (No Child Left Behind was propped up on proven false results and has been fought tooth and nail by teachers across the US), poor people, or jobs, yet saving the life of a fetus is No. 1 Priority.

It doesn't matter that the kid will grow up into a poor family, get a shit education, have increased college tuition that will put him/her in debt or avoid college, etc. Just saving that fetus is more important.

And now even women with medical conditions or rape victims can't get abortions. I love that logic - you'll die conceiving a child, but the child lives so that makes it OK.

Fuck Bush and his Nazi regime. Our goddamn founders had a seperation of Church and State for a reason.

>>24 "we are not talkin about hypotheticals, we are talking about an already concieved human being who in most cases will be born perfectly healthy, so your argument is just being silly."

My post was in response to someone who argued that fetuses/embryos/zygotes "turn into" humans, and therefore are not humans to begin with.  If you want to argue that they are humans from the point of conception, then so be it.  But don't take me out of context.

The main arguments on this issue seem to be thus:  the pro-lifers claim that the mother has no right to terminate her pregnancy because the life being ended is that of a seperate human (or at least potentially human) entity.  The pro-choicers claim the mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy because unborn baby is not yet seperate human with rights.

So how about this?  If the "baby" can be removed from the mother's womb and still manage to live, then remove it rather than abort it (assuming, of course that the mother wants an abortion).  If it isn't developed enough to do this, then abort it (or hopelessly attempt to keep it alive).  I mean, if it is truly an independant living person, then it should be able to live without sucking nutrients from another being through its naval.