Abortion Ban - South Dakota

We should all be greenlighting this - it's a crime that womens right to choose has been taken away from them. Insulting. America - you're going backwards.

Without a doubt, free speech at it's best. However, it only gives one side of the story, with 3/4 of the pod being an interview with a Planned Parenthood representative. No greenlight from me.

I declare: Do what you want with your own body! I don't need to dictate to you how you should treat yourself, your body. I don't know you, neather does Governer Mike Rounds. Why does he get to decide the women of South Dakota's fate with a flick of his signature? The question boils down to: Do you really want me, to tell you, what to do?

I disagree that the pod is one-sided. Presenting religious, anti-woman ideology as somehow 'balanced' or the 'other' side of being pro-choice is a mistake. This law proves there are zealots in South Dakota and beyond who want to control women and families with extremist views. Seems to me like they've had plenty of airtime and leeway to promote their wacky opinions.

This infuriates me. (not the actual pod of course, not the subject)

first off. it has been statistically proven that cities with large numbers of abortions are the same cities that have relatively lower crime rates. This does not mean that abortion is a crime stopper, it simply means less unwanted children = less grown up criminals. it also means that abortion to some degree is a help to society.

secondly. EVERY culture that exists on this planet practices some form of infanticide. i personaly think there is a higher moral standard in ending an unborn infants life than ending a living child's.

and lastly, this is the united states of america, not the united states of christianity. those who think that their religious ideologies are the correct ones are fine in thinking so . . . just as long as they don't impose their beliefs on to others. This seems like a case of religious influence on the american moral standard, and quite frankly i do not think the entire country has the same "high" standards. Personally i do not subscribe to them, but it seems these laws are making it difficult for anyone to have a different oppinion. Sadly, it seems that it is ultimately a religious issue to stop abortion; this not an issue of reason.

Great Pod. This greatly shows what this country is comming to, and further proving that our president is stomping on our constitution with his goals to bond the church and the state. More Pods like this need to be brought to the general public's eye. Things need to change, and good journalism like this is a step towards it.

Why did you change it for TV?

Why add the "pro-life" woman?

way to go and make it happen. love that! Getting out on the street and talking to people is what it is all about. staying current. keep it up! :)

To respond to the question below by Eric: Current actually requested for us shoot the pro-life woman as to show both sides of the argument.

what about the babies live ? what if it was you being torn apart in your mothers womb , and what about roe vs wade for Men ? Genocide Since 1973, there have been over 47,000,000 abortions in the United States. Abortion is the #1 cause of death annually in the United States...
That's 1,300,000 babies every year
That's 108,333 babies every month
That's 27,083 babies every week
That's 3,735 babies every day
That's 155 babies every hour
That's 2.6 babies every minute
That's 1 baby every 25 seconds!

Well, I'd first like to say that it's great that everybody feels so strongly about this topic, and that they are not afraid to express those feelings. However, it makes me quite sad that somebody has to take a camera around LA and interview people about the issues in South Dakota.

Being born and raised in South Dakota myself, I feel that I have a much more accurate perception of just how much this issue affects South Dakotans.

If you have lived or grown up in South Dakota in the last 10 years, then you woud understand just how skewed politics are in the state. The recent senate elections in South Dakota resulted in the loss of a great leader in Tom Daschle (senate majority leader and minority leader, and over 20 years experience) to freshman senator John Thune. In the midst of the elections, South Dakota lost sight of the true issues. At the forefront of the Republican Campaign was abortion and gay marriage. There was even a moving truck with the picture of an aborted fetus on the side (talk about propaganda.) Unfortunately, health care, education, social security, and Native American rights were put on the backburner during the elections.

Next weekend I'm going to be filming my own pod in Sioux Falls, SD, the epicenter of the abortion issue. I will be interviewing state representatives, the leader of Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, and several teenage mothers from the area. Hopefully I'll be able to properly show everyone just how much this affects South Dakotans moreso than people on the streets of LA.

I think the, "look at all the lack of babies" defense is a weak one.

why not let the babies live? Well because they're statistically more than likely to become criminals if they aren't wanted to begin with. Also, OPEN YOUR EYES, there is an overpopulation problem, we DONT NEED ANOTHER 1.3 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY YEAR.

So a hypothetical un-aborted child is MORE than likely to contribute to a city's crime rate, and MORE than likely to die a horrible crime related death. Since we currently have an unemployment rate of 5.1%, and the percentage of people under the poverty line is 12, that means (assuming that those rates do not change from the increased population) if all these babies were born, 156 thousand of them will be under poverty, and 66 thousand will be unemployed. HMmm, increased poverty and unemployment = MORE CRIME, and more crime = MORE MURDER. Why not just let these unwanted babies be born? because those of us who are already alive are extremely likely to be harmed by them.

That is of course, if the hypothetical child makes it to adulthood (again, anthropology and history of the world both prove that they are more than likely to be killed at infancy).

so which do you prefer? a child born and then soon after killed (you can't deny this doesn't happen), or a child who never had a life to lose?

Though it is a valid case to say that abortion should not be the cure for the perpetually pregnant moron; I think there should be provisions to prevent that from happening, even if by preventing irresponsible men from having the ability to leave someone pregnant. Think about this, are there 1.3 million people looking to adopt (since obviously the biological parents don't want the child)? Otherwise where would these extra babies go? i hope someone relays that fact. . .

To reiterate: more unwanted people on this earth = more crime. yes 1.3 million people aren't present, but how does that hurt you?? Throwing out a number to induce pity for an unborn population gives no foreshadowing for the repercussions of illegalizing the practice. quite frankly, they aren't here, SO WHAT! but if they were here, we would all have a higher probability of getting mugged, raped, killed, and a whole slew of other ghastly crimes.

now if you think that abortion is wrong because you're killing a child, well actually abortions are supposed to be done in the first trimester this is when they supposedly are still nothing but some genes and tissue. And, many of those aborted fetuses go to stem cell research, which potentially could reverse EXTREME brain or spinal chord damage. if you think it's wrong because you're aborting a precious gift from God; well, that's a valid argument, but it is NOT AN ARGUEMENT TO ILLEGALIZE IT. it is an argument to abstain from practicing it. COME ON this is the USA, we have separation of church and state. Religious views should have NOTHING to do with law, just because someone thinks it's wrong because their religion says so, doesn't mean that someone with a different religion should be held to the same standards. Frankly those against abortion are generally ignorant, uneducated people who have no business interjecting their values in other people's pregnancies (prove me wrong!).

there you have it. I implore someone to give me an argument other than "it's just immoral."

p.s. this isn't genocide it is INFANTICIDE. these babies are killed because they are babies, not because of their race. If anyone questions my statistics go to CIA.gov for the CIA fact book, and as far as anthropology and proven statistics:

read "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt, or "Cultural Anthropology" by Marvin Harris & Orna Johnson for factual, tangible arguments.

Wow, you obviously don't have a perception of reality. Nobody is going to get raped or murdered or mugged anymore if these babies are born. Don't forget there are MORE BABIES BEING BORN EVERY DAY THAN THERE ARE BEING ABORTED. Our chances of being victims are crime are growing daily, regardless of the number of abortions.

All your argument is doing is making you sound like an extremist from the other side of the issue. Think before you start redundant, and frankly incessant babble. You have no idea what it means to the people directly affected.

BurkNew,

it's unfortunate that you consider my views as a lack of reality, when peer-reviewed statistical data support what I claim, and I encourage you to disprove my satements. Though you claim that nobody is going to be harmed by these unwanted children, what data do you have to back this up?

what do you mean by "You have no idea what it means to the people directly affected"? I never claimed that abortion is pleasant, or that anybody should be forced to be a part of it. Maybe I should make it clear that i think that abortion should only take place if there is no other option in regards to care for the child (and along with that rape, incest, and health of the mother). All I am saying is that it should be there so that people can choose it if needed. I don't think it is wrong in choosing not to abort, but i do think it is wrong to disable that decision.

You're right about the fact that more people are born every day than those aborted. However I never said that a large population causes increased crime. I said a large UNWANTED population causes an increase of crime. I don't care if there are more people as long as those extra people are loved and properly cared for so that they are guided into our society in a fashion that will make them extremely unlikely to someday become criminals.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're bringing a good defense to the table, and regardless of how I make myself look, i'm just bringing commonly circumvented facts to the discussion. Keep in mind, i'm just stating what has been proven; not bashing anyone, or stooping to insulting anyone for the views they have to offer (unless you consider "ignorant" offensive).

Nephilim,

I completely understand what you are saying. It's just your prior argument that made is seem like you were saying "hell, all of these children are going to be a menace to society, so abortion is necessary."

Perhaps it was your word choice, but I still feel that you were a little off saying:

"Since we currently have an unemployment rate of 5.1%, and the percentage of people under the poverty line is 12, that means (assuming that those rates do not change from the increased population) if all these babies were born, 156 thousand of them will be under poverty, and 66 thousand will be unemployed. HMmm, increased poverty and unemployment = MORE CRIME, and more crime = MORE MURDER."

These statistics are directly related to the TOTAL population, not unwanted babies. It could be 66,000 unemplyed "John Doe's." There is ABSOLUTELY no way to calculate the number of unwanted children (assuming the rates do not change) that are going to be criminals. There is no way to prove that those children being "unwanted" is what contributed to their behavioral misguidance(not saying that this doesn't ever happen.) How often do you hear about criminality in the upper and middle class America on the 10 o'clock news? It's not as uncommon as you'd think.

Like I said before, you're "unwanted child" statistics are relative to several variables. Despite what you may have read, there is no ABSOLUTE connection between the two.

BurkNew,

First off let me say I'm glad to see that you're keeping up with your side of the arguement. However, yet again, you are trying to disprove evidence with oppinion.

You're right, there are middle class criminals. But unemployed and people below poverty are more likely to commit a crime. Lets face it, when the going gets tough sometimes you gotta break the rules to survive; especially if you've had an abusive live starting from in the womb. would you rather take a midnight jog through Laguna Beach or Compton?

Before I go on it seems I need to clarify my numbers. There are 1.3 million abortions per year; if abortion is illegalized that would make 1.3 million unwanted children born per year. The CIA Factbook says that currently 5.1% of our population is unemployed, and 12% is below poverty. 5.1% of 1.3 million is 66,000, and 12% of 1.3 million is 156,000. I am not a statician but I guess here is where pulling an A in my college statistics class comes in handy. A sample of a population has the same properties as the population. This is why I say there is a good chance 66 thousand unwanted babies that will grow up to be below poverty (in reality I think it would be more. More people means less jobs, and that in turn means more poverty and unemployment).

With an extra 66,000 people below poverty that will be for the most part disadvantaged while growing up (i say for the most part because a few lucky ones get adopted or get good foster care), you cannot expect that it won't cause a spike in crime rates. This is just logical; perhaps an hour or two on ProQuest will yield a few peer-reviewed studies that can back this up for me (i emphasize peer-reviewed studies because anything that isn't can easily be bullshit since nobody has taken the time to confirm the data and results prior to publishing).

the unemployed and below poverty statistics are all me just trying to make my points a bit more visual. You're right, they aren't accurate, I am not a statician. BUT, Steven D. Levitt IS A STATICIAN. This man is considered THE MOST INTELIGENT STATICIAN IN OUR COUNTRY. When I say my arguements are based off of facts, I'm not talking about the statistics I pulled from the CIA factbook and applied to this arguement, I'm talking about what Dr. Levitt has proven with his research. I originally mentioned his book so if anyone (like you) thinks my arguements are bullshit they can pick it up and read the data for themselves. What he has writtin is a little too long for me to post, so I'll just give a brief summary of what he has proved.

Remember the 90's? Well you probably remember many reports of extremely high crime rates our country. Some staticians even thought that things were getting so bad we were basically at the brink of the apocalipse. Then suddently crime dropped. What happened? Roe vs. Wade! The criminals who were running a muck during the first crime waves of the decade had already been tried and incarcerated, and the upcomming generation of criminals weren't born! You think that you can't accurately predict the number of unwanted children that will become criminals; well you can, but maybe not to the T, but you can see the difference in our society's crime rates in having legal abortion vs. illegalizing abortion through this data. Now since you doubt my arguements and the data I bring to the table, you'll probably argue that it was something else that caused this sudden drop in crime. So, go to the library and check out the book, or go to the bookstore and buy it; it's not hard to find, it's a best seller called "Freakonomics". If you're still not convinced, well then go to an IV league school become the top of your class and write your doctorate on disproving what Dr. Levitt has.