Oglala Lakhota says YES to Abortion

The president of Oglala Lakhota native reserve in South Dakota is looking to have abortion clinics on their sovereign land. South Dakota recently passed a bill that makes abortion illegal, even if it is wanted after a “simple rape.” The law makers were mostly males, and they decided that women can’t make their own decisions about what they can (and can’t) do to their bodies.

“The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women”

And for a little direct action, I encourage all females to call Senator Bill Napoli at work at 605-348-7373 for help making decisions since he thinks women can’t think. So if you don’t know if you should watch Brokeback Mountain or V is for Vendetta give him a ring!

For some more info check out BoingBoing.

If you think abortion is not a “good thing,” please leave a comment as to why. I am very curious as to why people think abortion is wrong.

7 thoughts on “Oglala Lakhota says YES to Abortion

  1. Well…since you DID ask for a comment…
    Although before I begin I would like to point out that the abortion “debate”, like most political debates, has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of the positions presented.
    The pro-choice argument is that having an abortion is a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her own body. So removing a fetus is similar to removing, say, a kidney. It was part of a living thing, it is no longer, things die all the time, no big deal.
    The American right, correctly in my view, considers this argument specious. Of course a fetus is nothing like a kidney: it’s a temporary inhabitant of the womb; it’s expected to become an adult, while a kidney is never expected to be anything more than a kidney (poor kidney). The womb itself provides a separation from the rest of the body. And what about the father? Half the fetus’s genetic material does not belong to the woman in which it resides: so there too you have an instance of the fetus not being part of the body. (Jesus, however, could perhaps have been aborted, I suppose. Another interesting question for the religious right).
    It could all be boiled down to the notion of a baby being a “someone”, not a “something” (or at least a “proto-someone”), and so we we’re dealing with the following basic question: if it’s wrong to kill someone three months after birth, why could it be right to kill someone three months before birth?
    So that’s the argument. Now I’m not saying that abortion is wrong in all cases, or that we should not discuss birth control. It’s just – for the love of humanity, if you have to argue the point, don’t fall back on such a crummy argument!

    However, as I wrote above, the abortion debate, like the French Muslim headdress-at-school debate, has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of the positions presented. I think it’s all about socio-cultural groups in a multicultural society trying to gain hegemony over each other. I think the Christian Right could ultimately live with abortion; they don’t really care about it. The abortion debate is just a veiled (a poorly veiled) way of them trying to impose an Anglo-Saxon Christian culture on other people in the country. Likewise the French don’t really care that much about Muslim headdress in itself; but by banning it they get to impose their own Enlightenment secularist ideals on others. Both examples are instances of equally reprehensible repression, and both display the basic struggle of multicultural society. In the end, when all the singing and speeches are done, can we form a society with other cultures? History would seem to suggest that a certain degree of apartheid might be more advisable.

  2. Abortions preformed within the first 14 days of pregnancy can be considered a non issue; this is because insufficient neurological development or cognitive functioning in the first 14th days for it to experience pleasure or pain. In fact, before this point, an embryo’s fate is still undetermined; it has the possibility of splitting into two (creating twins) before the appearance of the primitive streak. Until the appearance of the primitive streak, which occurs after the 14th day of pregnancy, we can not assign individuality or moral rights to the embryo. Before this point, no possibility of consciousness exists; the embryo is the most basic form of biological life: live tissue

    Women with desire to perform abortions after the 14th day of pregnancy can be seen as contemplating murder. If one believes in a soul, then it is during this time it would begin to develop, acquire a host, fly in from the sky into the embryo, whatever; considering this to be true, one logically is led to believe a life is being extinguished. Another popular variation of religious views on abortion is The Sanctity of Life; this idea argues life is created at the moment of conception. For religious individuals the issue is much more complex than for non-spiritual people, as I demonstrate below.

    For non-religious individuals the argument is still strong against abortion after the 14th day of pregnancy. During this time the first signs of human life are emerging; the primitive streak appears which is an indication of neurological development and cognitive function. To abort an embryo older than two weeks is an act parallel in immorality as murdering a mentally challenged individual, one who’s mind has suffered severe damage or is not fully developed, a ‘vegetable’. Sure the incapacitated individual shows no emotions or signs of life beyond the biological, but they are a human as any other; are we so enlightened in the 20th century that we can be certain we are not stopping their life short? When did we learn that it is mere existence we should value ignoring fundamental elements of life such as pleasure and pain.

    When making decisions about abortion it is important to remember not only the woman’s right to act upon her body as she wishes, but too the life the woman harbors within her and at which point it gains rights of its own. If we allow abortion, it supports the beginning of our slide down a slippery slope because with abortion lay many mutually inclusive issues; for example, embryo research, in-vitro fertilization and cloning.

    I replied because it sounded like you did not see any reason to appose abortions and patronizingly encouraged the notion of somebody arguing against your views. Whether I’m being the devils advocate or not, these arguments can not be ignored. I hope you enjoy this perspective.


  3. I just wanted to state that it is fantastic to see a mature and honest debate about a very complicated topic. It is too often that people feel that their opinion is the only correct possible view. This is even more present with the internet, as people feel a sense of ambiguity and therefore feel they can say whatever they please and forget about being respectful.

    I too have a difficult time deciding on my views of abortion, with my studies of the brain and early child development, I lean towards Luke’s views- but I would extend that 14-day time line to a month. Not only for neurological reasons (the brain first begins to develop at 5 weeks) but also just the basic fact that most women do not realize they are pregnant until after a few weeks. It has also been proven that the average women may conceive many times in their lives and not realize as their bodies miscarry within the first few months. I personally would prefer promotion of birth control and adoption before the use of abortion, but one must realize that this might be the best option of the women- especially where rape is concerned.

    thank you to thingsaregood.com to providing such an open forum for mature debate.

    – Shealyn

  4. I don’t think abortion should be used a form of birth control since we have access to other, safer, forms of controlling birth.

    To remove the option of abortion is plain idiotic and right-infringing. When the operation can and cannot be performed is a debate that is clearly up in the air.

    Of course, we must ask if an unwanted baby is born into a non-loving living arrangement, was the baby perhaps better off never existing in the first place?

    One thing I find curious about the American Right (and this is amazingly off-topic) is how they espouse individual freedoms, but at the same time actively limit those freedoms.

  5. If pro-choice people believe that abortion is about a woman’s right to control her own body, then consider this question: Should it be legal to abort a baby 5 minutes before natural birth?

    I would hope that most people would say, “No, it shouldn’t be legal”. If that is the case, then a woman doesn’t have a blanket right over her body. Instead, at that point in time, the baby has property rights and is protected by the law despite what the mother wants. Now ask yourself this question: Should it be legal to abort a baby 5 days before natural birth?

    After you answer that, ask a new question: How about 15 days? How about 50 days?

    At some point, as you go back through the 9-month period, you’ll establish a point in time where abortion is okay before that point and not okay after that point. Some people will say conception, others will say after 14 days, others will say 50 days, etc.

    However, if you say anything other than conception, then you are allowing for a non-zero probability that you might be allowing murder to occur. Because really, what makes a fetus a human? When it can feel pain? When it has cognition? When it grows a heart? Ask 1000 people and you’ll get 1000 answers. Since I don’t readily know when a fetus becomes a human, I’m forced to err on the side of caution, and therefore choose conception.

    Tough issue, eh?

  6. Adam,

    Your comments about individual freedom and the American Right work just as well with the American Left. They champion individual freedom but they are hostile to the 1st amendment as it relates to political speech, the 2nd amendment, and to the free market. They believe a lot of things should be rights (like healthcare and education), but something can’t be a right if you infringe others peoples’ rights in order to get it.

    Political parties in general are very inconsistent in their beliefs. They are hypocritical contradictions. Both the Right and the Left are guilty of it.

  7. Quickening used to be the official time that the soul entered the fetus, in the opinion of the Catholic church. This is when the mother first feels the baby moving. Quickening normally occurs during the middle months of pregnancy, usually between the fourteenth and the twenty-second weeks.

Comments are closed.

Scroll To Top