South Dakota outlaws abortion [Archive]

Goofball

03-07-2006, 19:43

Well my conservative friends, you are getting your wish. This will most likely end up going to SCOTUS.

What do you think?

Will your newly picked conservative judges uphold or strike down this law?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060306.wabort0306/BNStory/International/home

S. Dakota reopens abortion issue
Associated Press

Pierre, S.D. — Governor Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Mr. Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Mr. Rounds said in the statement.

The Governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Mr. Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Legislators said an anonymous donor has pledged $1-million (U.S.) to defend the ban, and the legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Mr. Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

Proletariat

03-07-2006, 19:55

Hopefully this will lead to the states deciding for themselves what they prefer. So, overall I think it's a good thing.

Major Robert Dump

03-07-2006, 20:40

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

I know getting pregnant from incest or rape has odds of like one in a million, but still, thats pretty harsh, and you may even see some deranged criminals committing such acts with the intent of getting the victim pregnant because it will punish her further, like a man who rapes a woman because she dumped him.

Of course, you could always just travel to the next state

Ice

03-07-2006, 20:47

Tribesman

03-07-2006, 20:57

Xiahou

03-07-2006, 21:40

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

Well Bill Napolli says the exceptions in cases like that are covered , lets see ...... if they were virgins and religeous and the rape was really brutal then it would be covered by the health threat to the mother bit ...feckwit politician shites .
What the hell does some victims religeon have to do with their rights in rape cases and what sort of tosspot is going to determine the level of brutality involved to see if the rape victim is really brutalised enough to be an exception .:furious3:
No, there's no health exception in the South Dakota law- only to save the life of the mother.

Hopefully this will lead to the states deciding for themselves what they prefer. So, overall I think it's a good thing.Exactly. I would hope and expect that if states were allowed to decide, most (not all) would pass similar bans and restrictions. Regardless though, at least it would be getting decided by the people instead of being handed down as a non-existant constitutional right created by a 9 member oligarchy.

Goofball

03-07-2006, 21:44

I completely agree. I would very happy with the ban, if it would make exceptions for rape and incest.

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

Goofball

03-07-2006, 21:46

Exactly. I would hope and expect that if states were allowed to decide, most (not all) would pass similar bans and restrictions. Regardless though, at least it would be getting decided by the people instead of being handed down as a non-existant constitutional right created by a 9 member oligarchy.

Unless, of course, they overturn Roe. Then they are champions of justice and freedom.

~;)

ajaxfetish

03-07-2006, 21:50

Well, from a pseudo-pro-choice standpoint, in cases other than rape there was a choice made by the mother. If she was raped, she was robbed of that opportunity. It doesn't quite fit a pro-life argument, but it does fit what I think a pro-choice one should be.

Ajax

Xiahou

03-07-2006, 21:58

Unless, of course, they overturn Roe. Then they are champions of justice and freedom.

~;)If they overturned a clearly wrong decision and left abortion to the people to decide? I dont know that Id call them 'champions of justice and freedom', but it'd certainly be making the correct decision.

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.I can sympathize with the "rape" exception crowd- but I really dont agree with it. It's not the babies fault that it's dad was human garbage, and if you believe it's a life how do you justify killing it just because it was a product of rape? I can understand how carrying a baby to term that is a result of rape could be traumatic, but having it aborted could also be quite traumatic. Instead they could give it up for adoption, or believe it or not, there are cases where the family keeps and raises the child as their own.

Now, if it were up to me to decide, I'd say no exceptions except for the life of the mother- at which point it would be up to the doctor and parents to decide who lives. However, if my choice is between free and unrestricted abortion like we have now, or only if from rape or when the mother's life is endangered- obviously I'd choose the latter since it would be such a vast improvement.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-07-2006, 21:58

Goof':

As to exceptions for rape or incest, I am unhappy to say I agree with you -- if not with the harshness of tone in your post -- the unborn has committed no crime in such cases, even where others have. Not a happy/fun scenario to contemplate at all, of course.

As to Roe v Wade:

Any SCOTUS decision that establishes a practice/action/communication event as constitutionally protected removes the issue from most legislative restriction (barring a full-on constitutional ammendment). The reversal of such a decision, however, does NOT prevent the isssue, it merely requires the states to legislate any allowance or restriction thereof.

The Warren and Burger courts were, in my opinion, far too willing to broadly interpret various issues as being protected and issue decisions regarding such issues, rather than leaving them up to the states as per the 10th ammendment. The goal of the FF in this ammendment was to leave decisions as local as practicable, in order to keep the central government from becoming too oligarchical and bureacratic in nature. THAT is the oligarchic overstep that X-man references.

Devastatin Dave

03-07-2006, 22:01

No exception for incest or rape is beyond my line. I'm pro-life to that point but you have to have an exception for the life of the mother, incest, or rape. This will and should be struck down. I would like to see this decided on the state level for the abortion issue, but with a Federal ammendment that keeps it legal for the life of the mother, rape, or incest. To do otherwise is as barbaric and backwards as partial birht abortion in my opinion.:furious3:

Big_John

03-07-2006, 22:06

time to buy some stock!

https://img461.imageshack.us/img461/4140/hanger8hj.jpg

Mongoose

03-07-2006, 22:07

Does it really deserve to die just because of something that it's father did?

If you acept that abortion is wrong, then the circumstance of the preganacy shouldn't matter as long as someone is not at risk(IE, someone is going to die anyway)

That said, I'm for very early abortions.

Ice

03-07-2006, 22:24

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.

I'm Glad I make you sick then. Please proceed and vomit.

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking. I could really care if you think others. :bow:

Big_John

03-07-2006, 22:31

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking.well, you should know that that stance is standing on what is possibly the slipperiest slope ever. just fyi.

Crazed Rabbit

03-07-2006, 22:37

It will be interesting to see how the court reacts to this. I hope they overturn Roe. They don't have to support this bill, they just have to recognize the non-existence of a right to abortion in the consitution.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

03-07-2006, 22:39

Being a child of rape or incest, may scar them their entire lives. It is unfair to the unborn child. That's the logic behind my thinking. I could really care if you think others. :bow:Yes, but in all fairness, lots of things can scar a child for life. Pedophilia can scar a child for life, but no one advocates killing the child to solve the problem. Many people have extraordinarily difficult lives, but I bet an overwhelming majority of them would take a hard life over no life at all.

Proletariat

03-07-2006, 22:46

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

From what I gather (just hearing stuff on the radio, haven't read much yet) they took a tough stance just so it would get sent up to the SCOTUS.

Btw, a life is a life is a life to me. I don't understand why people differentiate the way someone was concieved if life is their primary concern. If the mother is going to be reminded of her rape every time she looks at her child, give it up for adoption.

Anyway, the states should decide. If I already don't have or want any say in Canada's laws, why should I care what people do in West Virginia?

doc_bean

03-07-2006, 22:51

Um, wow, no exceptions for incest or rape. Wow.

I know getting pregnant from incest or rape has odds of like one in a million,

Actually, women have a higher chance of getting pregnant after being raped than after having 'normal' sex...:oops:

Goofball

03-07-2006, 23:25

How hypocritical.

I am assuming that you are in favor of banning abortion because you believe aborting an unborn fetus is that same as murder.

If that is the case, what difference would it make if that fetus was a result of rape? It would still be a human life. How does it all of a sudden become okay to kill it?

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life folks who are in favor of no abortions at any time unless there is a definite health risk to the mother. I disagree with them, but I respect their position and see the logic in it.

But those who say "no abortions ever except for rape" just make me sick.
I'm Glad I make you sick then. Please proceed and vomit.

Sorry. I admit to playing the man instead of the ball for a minute there. I will retract the part about you making me sick. However, I stand by my comment that allowing a woman to kill her baby just because she was raped is hypocritical.

If a fetus is a life, then it's a life. No matter how it was conceived, killing it is murder.

Watchman

03-07-2006, 23:36

Outlawing abortion has an unpleasant habit of driving women who for one reason or another want one to find "alternative" solutions - Big_John illustrates this quite succintly. At least in the past this went as far as outright infanticide.

And then there's the little issue that the women can go elsewhere to get it done; this happens a lot in Ireland, I understand.

Sort of defeats most of the points.

Do the damn math. Principles are fine. Stupid ones that cause people pointless grief aren't.

Ice

03-07-2006, 23:40

Yes, but in all fairness, lots of things can scar a child for life. Pedophilia can scar a child for life, but no one advocates killing the child to solve the problem. Many people have extraordinarily difficult lives, but I bet an overwhelming majority of them would take a hard life over no life at all.

It isn't fair to compare pedophilia to rape/incest. They are two completely different things.

Watchman

03-07-2006, 23:45

:inquisitive:
Care to elaborate ? I'm pretty sure most instances of pedophilia qualify as "rape", you know.

Mongoose

03-07-2006, 23:46

But that's not what we're doing...

You say that it shouldn't be protected because it would grow up damaged. Is that really any different then saying that all people who have been abused shouldn't be allowed to live? Yes, we know that they're two different things:dizzy2:

Ice

03-07-2006, 23:49

:inquisitive:
Care to elaborate ? I'm pretty sure most instances of pedophilia qualify as "rape", you know.

I didn't mean the act of raping or the act of Pedophilia. I meant, that it isn't fair to classify a child which is a result of rape/incest in the same field as "What would happen if the child was assaulted by a Pedophil?"

Watchman

03-07-2006, 23:53

:book:
:shame:
:stupido2:
...maybe it's just late and I'm tired or something, but you kinda lost me there mate.

Kanamori

03-07-2006, 23:54

To not have the exception for rape or incest seems eerily similar to the state forcing the mother to carry a child that was never hers.

At most, I think Roe would get some amending. This law is so strict though that it may be very difficult to interpret the wording differently, and apply it to the ruling with relevance. It sure may get there, but I wonder if it was too much to succeed.

Ice

03-08-2006, 00:09

Ice

03-08-2006, 00:18

:book:
:shame:
:stupido2:
...maybe it's just late and I'm tired or something, but you kinda lost me there mate.

I'm just saying, being a product of rape or incest is different then being exposed to a Pedophil when you are a child.

Watchman

03-08-2006, 00:21

Oh. No offense, but what you originally posted isn't exactly saying that... I think it's missing a few words or something.

Xiahou

03-08-2006, 00:24

At most, I think Roe would get some amending. This law is so strict though that it may be very difficult to interpret the wording differently, and apply it to the ruling with relevance. It sure may get there, but I wonder if it was too much to succeed.
The SCOTUS will never come out and say "Roe v Wade is overturned!" They'd just set new precedents that would supercede/replace parts or all of it.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-08-2006, 00:32

Two separate issues:

Abortion.

Abortion as Constitutionally protected right.

As a Catholic, I oppose the former. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose the latter.

I, personally, cannot say that a life conceived as a result of some criminal action is any less a life. To me, the murder of an unborn merely adds another crime to the list. Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this. I wish I had some Solomonically perfect answer.

The constitutionalist in me prefers a fairly straightforward reading of the Constitution, with fairly narrow bounds for interpretation. By this view, the Roe v Wade decision was too indirectly connected and should, therefore, have been out of the scope of federal control and a matter for the states as per ammendment 10.

As to the "coathanger" image, you should remember that you are indulging in a bit of exaggerated rhetorical imagery. At the time of the Roe v Wade decision, abortion was legal in a majority of the 50 states. A reversal of Roe would NOT make abortion illegal, but would put the issue back under state control. Though the state legislatures are more likely to be controlled by conservative politicians than they were at the time of the Roe decision, it is extremely unlikely that abortion would be made illegal in all states.

In fact, you will find a number of people who support abortion who oppose keeping it as a Constitutional mandate.

Major Robert Dump

03-08-2006, 00:33

Children come from sex. Forcing a woman to carry to term a child that comes from non-consensual sex is wrong, you can all blow your "the child didn't do anything" out your butts. Forcing someone to spend the next 9 months of their life carrying a child -- is akin to sending someone to jail for something they didn't do. It's hards on the body, it prevents you from being productive and working, you have to alter your lifestyle, you could be charged with manslaughter is it is a miscarriage, you now have a nice new set of baggage to accompany the baggage of the rape. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

There would need to be strict guidleines as to what qualifies a rape. You couldnt exactly require a conviction because not all rapists are cuahgt. But at the same time you would need some measure to protect from women who had consensual sex then cry rape when they find out they are pregnant. Therein lies the dilemma

Xiahou

03-08-2006, 00:39

Children come from sex. Forcing a woman to carry to term a child that comes from non-consensual sex is wrong, you can all blow your "the child didn't do anything" out your butts. Forcing someone to spend the next 9 months of their life carrying a child -- is akin to sending someone to jail for something they didn't do. It's hards on the body, it prevents you from being productive and working, you have to alter your lifestyle, you could be charged with manslaughter is it is a miscarriage, you now have a nice new set of baggage to accompany the baggage of the rape. Wrong Wrong Wrong.Do you think an unborn child is human life? If so, how can you justify killing an innocent human because of a rape? If it's not human life, why care about abortion at all?

Watchman

03-08-2006, 00:48

Do you think an unborn child is human life?I don't, incidentally. Or at least it'll need to be pretty damn far into the term to qualify (for starters it should be able to be easily told from a fish or a cow...). But when comes down to it, for better part of the pregnancy it's little more than a cluster of cells and a human being merely in potentia.

Goofball

03-08-2006, 00:49

Do you think an unborn child is human life? If so, how can you justify killing an innocent human because of a rape? If it's not human life, why care about abortion at all?

You and I are in complete agreement on this point Xiahou.

Papewaio

03-08-2006, 00:51

I, personally, cannot say that a life conceived as a result of some criminal action is any less a life. To me, the murder of an unborn merely adds another crime to the list. Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this. I wish I had some Solomonically perfect answer.

Genes.

What you are proposing is a form of eugenics in which you reward rapists with their genes being pased on to the next generation. If any component of rape is gene based then you will have a nice compounding spiral.

Why reward the criminal of one of the most horrendous crimes with a child.

And why punish the victim of the crime to carry the child of the person who commited the crime?

So you advocate punishing victims and rewarding criminals.

Tribesman

03-08-2006, 00:54

No, there's no health exception in the South Dakota law- only to save the life of the mother.

Well Xiahou , what I wrote is what the Senator said would fit the exemption clause ....if they were virgins and religeous and the rape was really brutal then it would be covered by the health threat to the mother bit ...
Oh and for some more of his rubbish..... and they were saving their virginity till they were married....and they had been sodomised ......hence...feckwit politician shites .

Where do you dig up these idiots from ?

Xiahou

03-08-2006, 00:54

Genes.

What you are proposing is a form of eugenics in which you reward rapists with their genes being pased on to the next generation. If any component of rape is gene based then you will have a nice compounding spiral.

Why reward the criminal of one of the most horrendous crimes with a child.

And why punish the victim of the crime to carry the child of the person who commited the crime?

So you advocate punishing victims and rewarding criminals.
Ive gotta say, that's a really twisted view. You're saying we should kill people based on their genetics? :dizzy2:

Edit: To be clear, this is mostly an academic debate. I'm in favor of any serious restrictions on abortion. An exception for rape is much better than abortion at will.

Kanamori

03-08-2006, 00:55

Those of you who do not believe life begins at conception may handle this whole thing differently. A mother forced to carry a baby who was the product of a crime perpetrated against her is obviously not likely to be "enriched" by the experience, so I understand why many folks are upset by this.

Life certainly begins at conception, but most argue when it becomes human. This is the Constitutional issue too; when does the embryo become a citizen, so that its right may challange the right of its mother. They just decided to say, "meh, not viable 'til 6 months."

Since life begins at fertilization, wouldn't it be wrong not to implant all of those fertilzed eggs back into their 'mothers' or just some random women that never asked for it?

Actually, what am I talking about. It's not a citizen until it's born. Is my memory totally buggered?

Ice

03-08-2006, 00:56

Oh. No offense, but what you originally posted isn't exactly saying that... I think it's missing a few words or something.

Most likely. I'm tired myself. :dizzy2:

Papewaio

03-08-2006, 01:26

Ive gotta say, that's a really twisted view. You're saying we should kill people based on their genetics? :dizzy2:

Edit: To be clear, this is mostly an academic debate. I'm in favor of any serious restrictions on abortion. An exception for rape is much better than abortion at will.

Actually either avenue will end up with a form of eugenics.

One that excludes rapists.

The other that rewards them.

So pick your flavour. Either way by having a social policy that influences who gets born in the next generation we create a eugenics program. This may be done without us even realising it.

But at the end of the day if we are choosing one gene set over another by government intervention then it is eugenics.

solypsist

03-08-2006, 01:35

heh heh heh

Bush says, "America will help women stand up for their freedom, no matter where they live," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1696387&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312).

Seriously. :tomato:

Strike For The South

03-08-2006, 01:55

I dont really think it matters I mean they going to continue no matter how sick or perverted is to kill a baby just becuase you cant make the time for it. Lazy commie welfare minorty a clowns. It dosent matter how much I hate abortion there going to continue and Id rather have 1 death than 2. Damn hippies

Watchman

03-08-2006, 02:05

Sure doesn't take much to make you go all suicidal, then...

Although I'm going to contest calling a cluster of cells functionally indistinguishable from an amoeba without a DNA check or similar a "baby".

Big_John

03-08-2006, 02:17

Although I'm going to contest calling a cluster of cells functionally indistinguishable from an amoeba without a DNA check or similar a "baby".but that's just because you are evil incarnate. :devil:

Xiahou

03-08-2006, 02:20

Actually either avenue will end up with a form of eugenics.

One that excludes rapists.

The other that rewards them.

So pick your flavour. Either way by having a social policy that influences who gets born in the next generation we create a eugenics program. This may be done without us even realising it.

But at the end of the day if we are choosing one gene set over another by government intervention then it is eugenics.
No, by definition, eugenics would only apply when you kill a baby because of its 'impure' genes. Allowing nature to run it's course could not be considered eugenics. You must be one of those people that calls a tax cut a subsidy. :wink:

Besides, what label you use is irrelevant- you're arguing for the killing of humans based on their parentage. That's ridiculous.

Watchman

03-08-2006, 02:21

but that's just because you are evil incarnate. :devil:But... I don't even kill puppies, isn't that a requirement for the job ? :shame:

Soulforged

03-08-2006, 03:26

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.It's not outlawing exactly, it only punishes cases in wich the abortion is performed without proper justification and reducing all cases of justification to "serious risk of life" to the mother. I think it's a desicion with logical strength but not very reasonable. Woman that suffer a rape or incest are usually subjects of mental problems that lead them to perform an abortion or kill their sons after they're born. WARNING: This will not make abortion as the figure is conceived any less an "abortion" it only means that the subjects are not responsable for their actions. It's true however that this is not the proper thing to put in a bill text, it's a matter of culpability and it must be evalueted case by case, but I thought it will be important to clarify it.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-08-2006, 04:07

Yay! Abortion thread!

Seriously, Goofball, Seamus, and Xiahou have all been spot on. Couldn't have expressed any of my opinions better myself. I have to say that I agree with the lack of exception for rape or incest, even though it really sucks for those who suffer from rape.

Pape - how relevant is a discussion of genetics here? Is rape a genetic tendency? How many rape victims become pregnant vs. rape victims in general? How many rape victim abortions are there vs. abortions in general?

As to the "coat hanger" argument, outlawing something will not keep people from trying to do something. We don't consider theft to be a constitutionally protected right. In fact, we make laws against that action. People still find other venues to take for themselves what belongs to others. Should we legalize stealing to eliminate "back alley theft?" What about the health of the thieves? I'm going to write my Senator!

If someone jeopordizes their life in an attempt to break the law, we don't show too many tears if they are hurt in the process, no? Same thing with back-alley abortions, if abortion were to be made illegal. And if the guilty survive, they can face murder charges.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-08-2006, 04:41

If someone jeopordizes their life in an attempt to break the law, we don't show too many tears if they are hurt in the process, no? Same thing with back-alley abortions, if abortion were to be made illegal. And if the guilty survive, they can face murder charges.

For a pro-lifer, you don't show much respect for human life.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-08-2006, 04:48

Samurai Waki

03-08-2006, 05:40

absolutely disgusting ban. Of course, I've never been a lover of children... does that make me evil as well?

Seamus Fermanagh

03-08-2006, 05:49

absolutely disgusting ban. Of course, I've never been a lover of children... does that make me evil as well?

Depends....

Being a "lover of children" can get you a mandatory 25 years in any Jessica's law state and would clearly be evil by most folks' definition.

If, as I suspect is correct, you are expressing an opinion closer to that held by that eminent 20th century sage William Claude Duchenfeld, then I suspect it isn't truly evil.

Though you are unlikely to end up with grandchildren if you continue that attitude.:laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

03-08-2006, 13:06

Kanamori

03-08-2006, 13:38

Really then, I see no reason why the State shouldn't start forcing women to carry all of the fertilized and frozen embryos out there. The life has already begun, anything else is just cheating them of their chance to life.

Crap, talk about ruining the woman's life. After being raped, she's forced to carry the child. I'd jump off a freaking bridge; how would she ever want to have legitimate children in her life?

Tribesman

03-08-2006, 13:55

The more I read of Senator Napolis comments over this abortion bill the more I wonder what he is doing in ofice instead of being locked in a padded cell , he is insane .

Kagemusha

03-08-2006, 13:57

BigTex

03-08-2006, 16:36

Wow not even an exception to a case of rape or incest. Unless the mother was highly religious, hmmm seperation of church and state?

As for when life begins, well the sperm and the egg are both a group of living cells. So all of the men out there who have spanked the monkey (I'm reminded of a montey python bit atm actually, but I wont mention a thing about selling some children to make room, that'd be to cliche.) your guilty of murder, you've prevented a human life from being born, killed the weakest of our population. To all those women who've had just one period your guilty of murder also. Now for those who say that a couple of cells is a human life, capable of all thoughts and emotions linked to being human. I would just like to get this off my chest, I'd be guilty of mass murder. This morning I washed my kitchen counters with a harsh soap, laying waste to all the innocent and helpless cells located on them, poor bacteria. Last night I cooked some steak, killed all the bacteria located on and inside of it. Also a couple days ago I spilled some bleach on the floor, chemical warfare.

I'd also like to add that in times of high stress women will alot of times naturaly abort babies, murderers! Btw popes official doctrine is life doesnt begin till about 6 weeks into the pregnancy.

Kralizec

03-08-2006, 16:49

Can somebody tell me where the whole "abortion may not be done, EXCEPT if it's a risk to the mother" position comes from?

If you accept that a fetus is a human being, equal to those already born and that therefore abortion is murder, what justificiation is there to kill the baby to protect mommy?
If a plane's about to crash, and you are charged with distributing the few parachutes you have, surely you will give them to the younger passengers?

I am pro-choice. Sovereignty over your own body and all that. While I am disgusted by those who get pregnant because they acted carelessly and then abort as if human fetuses can be thrown away like garbage (a tiny minority of cases), I think that full right to early abortions is preferable to "no abortion for you, unless..." legislation.

Mongoose

03-08-2006, 16:58

If you're going to acept that the fetus is human(some thing that I don't acept in most cases), then its right to live has priority over its mothers right to happiness.

A robber breaks into a mans home and destoys some expensive but uninsured items. You're not going to let the man steal things from other people to make up for it?! Why, you're letting the robber win!

yesdachi

03-08-2006, 17:55

Gah! So first a rapist forcefully takes control over a woman's body, followed by the state taking control of her body next.

I'll back women's right to souvereignity over their bodies and sod everything else. :furious3:
I couldn't agree more.

i am 100% pro-choice and i consider the option of abortion a freedom that shouldn't be taken away.

I don't always approve of abortion but it is not my place to tell a woman what she has to do with her body or what she does with the trash some rapist deposited in her.

If you don't like abortion then encourage women not to get one, offer them support and try to convince them that there are other options, etc. This is something that is of the greatest importance and shouldn't be decided or forcibly decided by someone that is not directly involved in the situation.

Viking

03-08-2006, 19:25

Gah! So first a rapist forcefully takes control over a woman's body, followed by the state taking control of her body next.

I'll back women's right to souvereignity over their bodies and sod everything else. :furious3:

Of course a women have the right to have control over their body; but an embryo isn`t a part of the mothers body, because it carries different DNA. If she aborts, she takes another beings life.

Personally, I don not now what to say about this matter. :book:

Sasaki Kojiro

03-08-2006, 19:37

How? I never said the result of a conviction of such murder charges would be capital punishment.

And does a pro-lifer consider the human life a murderer while they are killing their victim? Certainly it takes backseat to the goal of protecting the victim.

You seem to be saying that the fetus has more right to life than the mother. I can't comprehend caring about a cell over an actual person. Humans didn't evolve to view a cell as a human life. How can you have no empathy for the mother?

And yes, pro-life would mean caring for all life, not casually dismissing god knows how many deaths or injuries from coat hanger abortions. Your post was more along the lines of "they don't agree with my stance on abortion so they can burn in hell for all I care". :no:

Ironside

03-08-2006, 19:58

So what is the pro-lifers stand on test-tube children?

They usually get several extra fertilized eggs that is destroyed. So if you consider a fertilized egg as a human being, then you murder 7 (a number for the sake of argument) children to give birth to one child. But on the other hand, if you avoid these murderous practices then the child will never exist and thus never being born.

One life and 7 child-murders or nothing, nothing at all?

Major Robert Dump

03-09-2006, 00:14

Actually, I don't really care either way about abortion because I'm a guy and I have no rights anyway. I think its just as absurd to consider a zygote a fetus as it is to abort a developed fetus.

So yeah, I am saying kill a living human thing based on its parentage because it means one less kid trying to rob me when I'm old. You breach a whole new line when you force people to have babies for sex they were an unwilling participant of. I have a feeling you would meet a lot of women who would be enthused about stretch marks and labor for a baby put in them by a strangers penis. That sounds awesome, sign me up!!!!!!!

Fat chance this is gonna wash. I give it less than 30 days.

BTW you guys sound like chicken farmers

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-09-2006, 00:37

Sasaki - I'm operating under the position that life begins at conception. As such, a coat-hanger abortion does not kill just the pregnant mother, but the child as well. It is not a victimless crime.

And yes, pro-life would mean caring for all life, not casually dismissing god knows how many deaths or injuries from coat hanger abortions. Your post was more along the lines of "they don't agree with my stance on abortion so they can burn in hell for all I care".
Undoubtedly I could have phrased my position more clearly. What I meant to express was more along the lines of "they are committing murder so I think to some degree they take their lives into the own hands."

BigTex - I have to congradulate you. You have demonstrated an especially mature grasp of the bombastically hyperbolic for a relative Backroom newcomer. :wall:

Of course a women have the right to have control over their body; but an embryo isn`t a part of the mothers body, because it carries different DNA. If she aborts, she takes another beings life.
Right.

Soulforged

03-09-2006, 03:26

I really don't know what is the whole issue. Though there isn't, in the bill, a justification in a former rape or incest (?), they're not always a cause in wich it's presumed the lack of responsability. There has to be some degree of alterated faculties (mental or physical) to consider the individual as inimputable. The rape and the incest alone are not sufficient nor necessary. Now that I think about it, it's well written, sintetic and economic. The issues that probably could be generated in the moment of acting due to a cause (such as rape or incest) should be evalueted case by case. Considering it a presumption of "insanity" or "alterated faculties" is unreasonable because those states are to be considerated as factual. So this law is just fine in my opinion.

Xiahou

03-09-2006, 03:45

As for when life begins, well the sperm and the egg are both a group of living cells.Oh how I hate that argument... it's so tiresome. :rolleyes:

An egg or a sperm by themselves are not a seperate human life- an egg or sperm by itself will never become anything. The difference that should be painfully obvious to anyone is when the two are combined it now has a complete set of DNA that is distinct and discernable from both the mother or father. At that moment, it has the complete genetic code that will determine eye color, hair color, heigh, ect.

You seem to be saying that the fetus has more right to life than the mother. I can't comprehend caring about a cell over an actual person. Humans didn't evolve to view a cell as a human life. How can you have no empathy for the mother?Of course you think that- you dont believe a fetus is a human life. If you thought you were going to be murdering an infant instead of "aborting a fetus" I think you'd have a different view.

Navaros

03-09-2006, 03:45

Right on. Finally some sane people still alive in this day and age who have moved to stop the mass murdering of human babies.

Now if only every place on the planet followed with an end to this evil Holocaust, that would be perfect.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-09-2006, 04:33

MRD,

I have stated my philosophical disagreement with your stance. I do respect what you are saying -- I wish I had some perfect answer.

On the larger scale, this is not an insignificant issue. According to Planned Parenthood data (single largest abortion provider in the USA), over 32 million abortions of one form or another have been performed in the USA since the Roe decision was rendered. It is staggering to consider this.

yesdachi

03-09-2006, 05:06

I don't think people realize here that Women can vote in South Dakota too. This was not a tyrannical decree, this was a democratically decided law. :no:
WOMEN GET TO VOTE???

Sasaki Kojiro

03-09-2006, 05:21

I don't think people realize here that Women can vote in South Dakota too. This was not a tyrannical decree, this was a democratically decided law. :no:

And the legislature is what, 1/5 women?

They didn't have everyone in the state vote.

Of course you think that- you dont believe a fetus is a human life. If you thought you were going to be murdering an infant instead of "aborting a fetus" I think you'd have a different view.

Exactly, we aren't wired to have the same amount of empathy for a blob of cells as we have for something that looks like a baby. This is why I object to the classification of abortionists as murderers. You have to be a really nasty person to kill a baby, not so for terminating a 3 week old fetus.

Sasaki - I'm operating under the position that life begins at conception. As such, a coat-hanger abortion does not kill just the pregnant mother, but the child as well. It is not a victimless crime.

Yes, so now we have double death, and one of the deceased had a family that loved her, and possibly a husband and other children, who will now grow up without their mother :no:

Undoubtedly I could have phrased my position more clearly. What I meant to express was more along the lines of "they are committing murder so I think to some degree they take their lives into the own hands."

Ok.

Samurai Waki

03-09-2006, 06:46

Get out your Guns! We're going to war with South Dakota!

... Oh wait I remember all of you Europeans don't have them anymore:shame:

Xiahou

03-09-2006, 07:44

Exactly, we aren't wired to have the same amount of empathy for a blob of cells as we have for something that looks like a baby. This is why I object to the classification of abortionists as murderers. You have to be a really nasty person to kill a baby, not so for terminating a 3 week old fetus.Ummm, ok. Again, that's your opinion- but I was debating the 'rape exception' with those that think abortion ends a human life. Your view on it is a forgone conclusion and pretty much irrelevant to that debate. You don't think it's a human life and don't have a problem with abortion period- let alone any rape exceptions.

Banquo's Ghost

03-09-2006, 10:39

There seems to be a view (promulgated by pundits over here) that South Dakota has jumped too soon, and that whatever the result of any Supreme Court review of Roe, it will be good for the pro-choice lobby.

The analysis I have heard goes like this: Even with the new nominees to SCOTUS, 5 of the 9 justices are still on record as affirming Roe. This means that either the SC will choose not to review the case, or that there will be a majority in favour of upholding the status quo.

Should SCOTUS overturn Roe vs Wade, then the decisions on abortion rights will go back to the individual states. Since it appears that the majority of voters seem to favour abortion rights but with stricter time-limits, the likelihood is that most states will adopt laws that allow choice but only in the first and second trimesters. If that happens, the right to choice will be formally legalised by due process, rather than dependent on a court decision - which would be preferable because of the democratic argument that Gelatinous Cube noted.

One commentator from the US argued that this may be a potential problem for the religious right. One of the things that unites them is their opposition to Roe. If this goes to state legislation, and the democratically decided will of the people, they may be in for a shock, and lose their great icon of unity.

I can't say, just reporting some of the analysis over here in Europe. I suspect the Supreme Court will dodge the issue for now. A further point made was that this may make the possible retirement of another justice a very hot potato for President Bush as the squealing over another conservative nominee would be quite spectacular. :hide:

Devastatin Dave

03-09-2006, 17:15

I use to be a hardline pro life person, and I still usually lean more towards that point of the arguement. With that said, both sides, I believe need to comprimise simply because, since abortion is here much like other given "rights" it is hard if not impossible to change the lay out. I believe that if the NARAL side and the Aborion Clinic Harrasers were to stop the extreme rhetoric then there can be room to atleast come to a point where this can be stomached for both sides.
This will never happen of course because of the years and years of hatred for each other coming from both sides. My positions?
Let the States decide.
Outlaw Partial birth abortion.
Allow abortion in the cases of incest or rape.
Parental notification if someone under 18 is getting an abortion.
Mandatory councilling for women seeking abortion, including a sonogram viewd by the mother of the fetus she is carrying.
More money provided to adoption programs.
Better screening of abortion clinics and their procedures in their presurgery councilling and operations.

I don't like the fact that many use abortion as a birth control but I can't think of any way to enforce this practice as long as there is some form of legal abortion. I personnaly find abortion a very sad fact of life in the same line as war, hunger, sickness, poverty, and hopelessness. But as these problems still affect our lives and are continuosly being attempted to be "cured", we must view abortion on the same level. We all need to work on this because I'm sure that most wpuld prefer that there would never be a need for abortion, but until that time, both sides of the argument should stop going for the throat on this and strive to one day make this procedure a footnote in our history. Maybe my beliefs are wrong, but I'm willing to actually find solutions to this, unlike how i use to be. I would encourage everyone to try to do the same.

BDC

03-09-2006, 17:24

I was listening to a report on this on the radio this morning, it sounded like an abortion up to full term for any reason is still legal in most of the USA. This true? I'm pro-choice but that's horrific if it's true. Even 24-weeks like here seems a bit late.

Having said that operations on the unborn are generally carried out without an anaesthetic on the baby, with no ill-effects...

Devastatin Dave

03-09-2006, 17:57

Kanamori

03-09-2006, 18:01

Yes, well, it depends on where you are. I think in most states, it is illegal after the second trimester. Basically, Roe says that a fetus is not viable as a citizen/person in the first trimester. In the second trimester, Roe says it is slightly viable, and therefore restrictions on abortion are OK for the states to pass, but I don't think outright disallowing of abortion is OK in the second trimester. The third trimester is wide open. There are no Federal laws regarding abortion, as far as I know, and the rest is up to the states to decide, which is how most Americans like it anyway.

Crazed Rabbit

03-09-2006, 18:36

Actually, I think any restrictions on abortion, even on late term, partial birth abortion, are not allowed under Roe vs Wade.

The pro-abortion lobby pushed the 'right' of abortion to the extreme, not allowing any debate or votes on it, and they are getting their just desserts.

Crazed Rabbit

Kanamori

03-09-2006, 19:05

Huh, re-reading it, the fetus is not a citizen until birth (14th amendment), so the only thing that is vying for the fetus's existence is one of those compelling interests that aren't even in the Constitution. (We all know that when the Court talks about "compelling interests" they're just making BS for the sake of arguing their position.) My friends, there is no legal basis for the pro-life argument, besides the argument that the woman's body is not her right anyways; quite a slippery position.

Anyways, the text of Roe that's important to the trimester mumbo-jumbo:

"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

Essentially, the mother's life takes precedence, because she is a citizen, and the child is not until it is born.

Don Corleone

03-09-2006, 19:05

...While I am disgusted by those who get pregnant because they acted carelessly and then abort as if human fetuses can be thrown away like garbage (a tiny minority of cases), I think that full right to early abortions is preferable to "no abortion for you, unless..." legislation.

Actually, this law specifically relates to abortions being performed in one of the 50 United States. I don't have statistics on South Dakota specifically, but within the US as a whole, well over 90% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control (not a tiny minority at all).

As somebody mildly pro-choice (I support a woman's right of choice up to the point of medically proven viablity), I've always had serious issues with Roe v. Wade. Abortion was already legal in (I believe) 39 states in January, 1973, when SCOTUS decided to invent a right in the Constitution. The legal decision has been cited as the basis for a whole host of woes justifying granting the government at all levels powers they never hitherto possessed. Last year's Kelo v. New London, claiming that local governments have the right to seize property from one private citizen and give it to another just to gin up tax revenues is only the latest atrocity.

I find it sad and disgusting that 30 years later, the 'moving towards making it unnecessary and unheard of, but safe and legal' is a forgotten goal. Sadly, as with most 'single-issue' issues over here, it has become too much of a cash cow for either side in the US to ever even consider a reasonable compromise. So, currently, the 'in the 39th week, you still have a choice' crowd has succeeded in forcing their extremist minority view on the rest of us. It would appear that South Dakota's bipolar extremist minority is taking a shot at going equally far in the oppossite direction.

Personally, I think it should be a state by state decision. It's the only medical procedure that is governed at the federal level. If the folks in Utah want to outlaw it, so be it. Who am I to tell them what to do?

As for the whole rape argument, i have to agree with Goofy. Either a fetus is a human being or it's not. The circumstances of it's creation should have absolutely nothing to do with it's right to life. We force people to deal with the consequences of criminal actions all the time. If somebody burns down my house, the government doesn't pay to replace the entire house. Either I, or my insurance company (because I paid them premiums) does that. Hell, there's a whole school out there on the far, far left, that says rapists don't deserve to go to jail. The fetus should be killed, sure, but it's not fair to punish the rapist.... :dizzy2: WTF is that about??? At the end of the day, regardless of whether it's fair or not, if I had my way, and abortions were outlawed at 20 weeks, I wouldn't let somebody get one at 30 weeks only because they had been raped. That shouldn't have any bearing on the decision.

As for Papewaio's genetic rewards argument, boy... you're scaring me Pape! I'm not saying that to 'play the man, not the ball' as Goofball said (that's an American/Canadian football term, btw), but what in that entire argument couldn't be used as the basis to forcibly abort the unborn children of rapists from 'consensual' relations with a willing participant? Not all rapists rely solely on rape for their sexual relations. Sadly, some are husbands and fathers in committed relationships. Should we force the woman who's consenually carrying this man's child to have an aboriton because of what it might grow up to be? Does your argument lose weight if we determine the sex to be female? What about already born male children of this rapist. To 'save society the damage' as you put it, should we euthanize a generation of boys whose only crime was their parentage? Finally, if you feel so strongly about your argument (and I'm going to toss this one Louis' way as well) why don't you advocate for sterilization of convicted rapists as part of their sentancing?

mystic brew

03-09-2006, 19:15

Don Corleone

03-09-2006, 19:20

Kanamori, either you're being disingenouos, or you've been living in a hole. Surely you've heard the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that restrictions on abortions performed in the 3rd trimester are unconstitutional because such prohibitions inhibit the emotional health of the mother? There was first a Nebraska state law, then a federal law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Both laws got struck down because they didn't offer an exception for health, which includes mental health (which would effectively gut the law as it's up to abortionist who's being paid $5K to perform the procedure to determine what's in the best interests of the mental health of the mother).

Somebody up above made the statement that abortionists srape a cluster of cells, they're not inhuman monsters vivisecting fully developed babies. I'm telling you, (and I checked on this)... go look at the pictures of my daughter from when she was born. According to current US law, my wife could have chosen to have an abortion for another 3 weeks after the day she actually came out (provided she hadn't actually come out yet).

The only person I've ever seen argue in favor of 3rd trimester abortions with any sort of integrity is Soulforged. I disagree with him to the Nth degree on it, but he at least as the integrity to agree travelling down the birth canal makes no difference in the development of a 'human being' and he would allow for infanticide until self-awareness developed. Disgusting, but honest.

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:21

An all out ban is a bad idea IMO, to many what if's. I support abortion up to the unborn baby can be pulled out of the womb and be kept alive (thats when the baby is a human being IMHO). So no 3rd term abortion. Something i've never understood anyways, why wait that long for an abortion in the first place....:dizzy2: Another thing that should be done is more government support for condom use and birth control pills. Abstinence doesnt work its a bit of a ridiculous idea. Putting your hands over your ears humming a psalms and rocking back and forth isnt going to change that fact. You'd also be preventing all these abortions as a form of birth control.

Also there has been found to be an interesting gene that some rapists have. It apparently helps them find victims, allowing them to know when someone is weak, paniced, basicly an interresting survival gene. I will state that I believe firmly that nurture has more to do with how a person acts then nature. A homicidal maniac doesnt become a homicidal maniac in a day. It takes many years of practice, i've never heard of a homicidal maniac baby either. Now to go set a small memorial by my washer were the bleach fell, those bacteria will not be forgeton!:saint:

Don Corleone

03-09-2006, 19:21

it does seem crazy that there can't be some workable compromise between the hard position groups...

for example, in NZ the limit is 12 weeks... has anyone tried to legislate for these types of compromise options in the US?

If you work for NARAL or the 700 Club, there's no money to be made in compromise, as the vast majority of Americans would agree to an NZ type law and move on. If you're a politician, you don't get any money from 'comromise' groups... all of your money comes from the far left or the far right (the moderate middle generally doesn't contribute much cash either way on any issue).

Don Corleone

03-09-2006, 19:36

An all out ban is a bad idea IMO, to many what if's. I support abortion up to the unborn baby can be pulled out of the womb and be kept alive (thats when the baby is a human being IMHO). So no 3rd term abortion. Something i've never understood anyways, why wait that long for an abortion in the first place....:dizzy2: Another thing that should be done is more government support for condom use and birth control pills. Abstinence doesnt work its a bit of a ridiculous idea. Putting your hands over your ears humming a psalms and rocking back and forth isnt going to change that fact. You'd also be preventing all these abortions as a form of birth control. Now to go set a small memorial by my washer were the bleach fell, those bacteria will not be forgeton!:saint:

Amen, Brother Tex. The ONLY people I can understand taking an issue to distributing contraception to those who want it (youths included) would be Catholics, because they have moral objections to contraception in any form. Unless you're opposed to contraception at large, it's just incredibly shortsighted and hypocritical to deny it to those who need it most... teenage and college age kids.

That being said, there is a freaky statistic out there that 15% of the abortions last year were performed on women who had already had 2 or more abortions and did not use any other form of contraception :scared: I guess there's a segment of the population out there that doesn't see anything wrong with the procedure.

Kanamori

03-09-2006, 19:41

The only way a compromise would be able to work is if they (as far as I see):

A) Turned the decision of when the fetus is viable over to the states (which is a bit dangerous imo, when it comes to concepts of justice).
B) Added an amendment for when a fetus is viable.
C) Overturned Roe and say that we do not have the right to treat our bodies as we see fit, whether it be to disease or whatever, and therefore turn the decision over to the states.
D) Added an amendment to clarify the whole issue.

Kanamori, either you're being disingenouos, or you've been living in a hole. Surely you've heard the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that restrictions on abortions performed in the 3rd trimester are unconstitutional because such prohibitions inhibit the emotional health of the mother? There was first a Nebraska state law, then a federal law outlawing 3rd trimester abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Both laws got struck down because they didn't offer an exception for health, which includes mental health (which would effectively gut the law as it's up to abortionist who's being paid $5K to perform the procedure to determine what's in the best interests of the mental health of the mother).

Don, I really like you and you are generally open to different views, but you needn't make eveything two sided where there is yours, and then there is satan in the corner lying and trying to seduce everyone.

That is clearly a false dilema. I neither live in a hole, nor am I disingenuous. The 9th circuit is one circuit, there are ten others. And I quite clearly labled it with an "I think" meaning that I am quite sure that it is the case in at least one state, and probably the majority. If you want to look at the problem as it is legally, it boils down to this:

The Court has acknowledged the right of the woman to do as she pleases regarding issues of her health (not explicitly in the Constitution, but mostly a logical extension of all the other privacy related issues as they have developed). With just this, the fetus has no rights whatsoever, and abortion would have to be acceptable until the child's birth when it is obviously a non-issue. For, the child is not a citizen, and therefore does not have the rights of the rest of us until it is born. However, Roe acknowledges the state's legitimate and compelling (oh how I hate the word) interest to preserve life. So, legally, the question comes down to when the fetus is viable and fits in that interest.

It was an awful decision, because it is so inflexible and the only way to fix it well is with an amendment or a direct overturn of thirty year old precedent -- both are neither likely nor appealing.

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:43

If you work for NARAL or the 700 Club, there's no money to be made in compromise

Uhhhhg Pat Robertson and his bag of 700 idiots.
:mozambique: :samoa: :jersey: :capeverde: :paraguay: :suriname: :mali: :congo-kinshasa: :grenada: :azerbaijan: :unitednations: :fiji: :japan: :canada: :papuanewguinea: :stvincent-grenadine :maldives: :congo-brazzaville: :greenland: :austria: :unitedkingdom: :rwanda: :tibet: :mongolia: :panama: :stkitts-nevis: :malaysia: :comoros: :greece: :australia: :unitedarabemirates: :russia: :thailand: :monaco: :palestine: :srilanka: :madagascar: :colombia: :gibraltar: :armenia: :ukraine: :romania: :tanzania: :moldova: :palau: :sudan: :macedonia: :niger:

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:46

:seychelles: :kyrgyzstan: :china: :qatar: :tajikistan: :micronesia: :pakistan: :spain: :luxembourg: :netherlands: :senegal: :kuwait: :chile: :puertorico: :taiwan: :mexico: :oman: :southvietnam: :malawi: :nepal: :scotland: :kiribati: :cherokeenation: :portugal: :syria: :mauritius: :norway: :southkorea: :lithuania: :nauru: :saudiarabia: :kenya: :chad: :poland: :switzerland: :mauritania: :northkorea: :southafrica: :liechtenstein: :namibia: :saotome-principe: :kazakhstan: :centralafricanrepub :egyptflag: :iran: :botswana: :cotedivoire: :guatemala: :bahrain: :uruguay:

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:48

:france: :albania: :trinidad-tobago: :ecuador: :india: :bosnia-herzegovina: :zambia: :northernireland: :solomonislands: :liberia: :finland: :afghanistan: :tonga: :easttimor: :iceland: :bolivia: :yugoslavia: :nigeria: :slovenia: :lesotho: :morocco: :saintlucia: :togo: :dominicanrepublic: :hungary: :bhutan: :yemen: :nicaragua: :slovakia: :lebanon: :faroeislands: :jamaica: :cameroon: :dominica: :hongkong: :bermuda: :wales: :newzealand: :singapore: :latvia: :ethiopia: :italy: :cambodia: :djibouti: :honduras: :benin: :virginislands: :netherlandsantilles :sierraleone: :laos:

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:50

:estonia: :israel: :burundi: :denmark: :haiti: :belize: :vietnam: :ghana: :argentina: :uganda: :eritrea: :isleofman: :burkinafaso: :czechrepublic: :guyana: :belgium: :venezuela: :germany: :antigua-barbuda: :tuvalu: :equatorialguinea: :ireland: :bulgaria: :cyprus: :guinea-bissau: :belarus: :vaticancity: :georgia: :angola: :turkmenistan: :england: :iraq: :brunei: :cuba: :guinea: :barbados: :vanuatu: :gambia: :andorra: :turkey: :elsalvador: :indonesia: :brazil: :croatia: :guernsey: :bangladesh:

BigTex

03-09-2006, 19:52

:uzbekistan: :gabon: :algeria: :tunisia: :zimbabwe: :philippines: :sweden: :marshallislands: :northernmarianas: :somalia: :libya: :myanmar: :sanmarino: :jordan: :caymanislands: :peru: :swaziland: :malta: :costarica: :guam: :bahamas: :unitedstates:

Did i miss any countries with leaders on Pat Robertsons and his Mythological Diety (Yes i do consider the diety Pat Robertson worships different from the rest of the christians.) has on their hit list?:shame: :no: That guy makes the :unitedstates: look like a bunch of christian zealots.

Don Corleone

03-09-2006, 19:58

A lot of wise stuff.

Apology sir, I suppose I got a little carried away there. :bow:

I just get a little torqued off by the absurdity of the situation. I didn't mean to fling any mud your way. You are of course correct on many accounts. The only thing that I'll say that even remotely disagrees with your recent post is that while yes, there are 9 other federal circuit courts, none of the other 9 can contradict the 9th, only the Supreme Court has that authority, so their ruling is the de facto law of the land until they get overturned, by SCOTUS (or not).

Why we cannot have reasonable abortion policy in this country is beyond me. Surely, even the most rabid pro-lifer would agree that ending abortions beyond 26 weeks, by itself, is worthy of it's own law and would stop with the 'all-or-none' approach that always leads to all. Likewise, I cannot imagine anyone that doesn't have a vested financial interest (politician or abortionist) that believes post 26 elective abortions are anything but an abomination.

Yet, because we all want the whole ball of wax, and won't settle for anything else, we're stuck in the situation we're in. It's just the most blatant (but hardly the only) example of that old adage in US politics "issues are what you use to talk the voters into giving you money for your campaign".

Upxl

03-09-2006, 20:01

Slyspy

03-09-2006, 20:04

If this becomes a trend across the States then I'm going to start investing in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

As far as I'm concerned life begins when the offspring can survive outside of the womb. Up until then I have no problem with women (or indeed couples) deciding for themselves.

This SD case is simply an example of playing politics with other peoples lives.

Viking

03-09-2006, 20:08

I’m very much pro abortion.

If a 16 year old girl is pregnant and she can’t afford to raise the child properly, then that life is pretty much ruined for her and the child she carries.
This is how you create the real low level proletariat.

Rather see no live then a bad, doomed to get even worse life.

So you`d prefer to never had been born, rather than living a harsh life?

Sasaki Kojiro

03-09-2006, 20:32

Prove it.

Even if that is the case, South Dakota uses the Oregon System. You know, Recall, Intitiative, Referrendum? Sound familiar? Unpopular laws on the state-level can be dealt with at the level of the people. You all need to stop being such hypocritical liberals.

"Liberty for all! Except when that liberty entails the right to self-determination on moral grounds we disagree with, of course..."

Count them yourself: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/mem.htm

You have a whacked up view of democracy if you think it means "the majority voted for this therefore I have to agree with it and can't argue against it".

Kanamori

03-09-2006, 20:38

Apology sir, I suppose I got a little carried away there.

Accepted, and I owe one for the same charge, upon reinspection -- it's funny how that works.:balloon2:

Major Robert Dump

03-10-2006, 02:09

Kaiser of Arabia

03-10-2006, 02:43

I’m very much pro abortion.

If a 16 year old girl is pregnant and she can’t afford to raise the child properly, then that life is pretty much ruined for her and the child she carries.
This is how you create the real low level proletariat.

Rather see no live then a bad, doomed to get even worse life.
Easy solution:

DON'T GET PREGNANT AT AGE 16!

Very simple. It's caused... don't **** every last **** you find. And if you do, use a condom. That always helps. Even if only a little bit.

Big_John

03-10-2006, 02:46

Ice

03-10-2006, 03:55

JAG

03-10-2006, 07:07

Easy solution:

DON'T GET PREGNANT AT AGE 16!

Very simple. It's caused... don't **** every last **** you find. And if you do, use a condom. That always helps. Even if only a little bit.

The advice of someone who clearly doesn't understand why/how/reasons for people getting pregnant at 16. I would suggest you take a look / read up on the people who tend to get pregnant at younger ages, I am sure you will then come to the conclusion that there is a strong correlation with deprived areas and families / disrupted and unhappy families. The solution to stopping pregnancy at 16 is therefore not simply stating 'condoms, condoms, condoms' - which incidently YOUR religion states is not allowed - but to actually stop the circle of deprivation and help those who are at the most vulnerable and bottom of society. And you do that by following sensible socialist policies, not the crazed rabid right wing policies you suggest - if indeed you still suggest them, you might have grown up in the months I have been away.

As to banning abortion, it is the single stupidest thing any anti choicer could want. Do you think by banning abortion you stop the act of getting rid of fetus'?! The FACT remains by banning abortion all you do is prevent the safe and sensible abortion process and leave it open to back alleys with a whole array of nasty objects and dodgy 'doctors' who charge fees in old stinking houses. You put the life of the mothers at further risk and save no fetus', you are in effect killing people. If you care for life you would allow abortion as a necessary evil, this decision simply makes no sense.

This too is ignoring scientific fact and simple basic common sense, which clearly points to a fetus only becoming a human at around 24 weeks. It is not a human at the second of conception, there is no valid basis for it.

Watchman

03-10-2006, 14:47

I'm kind of in the opinion that so long as the fetus is dependent upon its connection with its mother for survival (ie. it cannot survive outside the womb even with assistance), it's pretty much a part of the mother's body and if she wants to get rid of it she's free to. Once it can conceivably survive quasi-independently (if only in a glass box for a while) it IMHO has become enough of a "human" that this is no longer the case - and by that time the mother ought to have damn well made her mind up anyway.

'Course, defining the limits of viablity is then a whole another issue but that one's up to the medical experts.

Kralizec

03-10-2006, 15:22

Late term abortions are sick. People who do it with little more justification than "I don't want a baby right now" have serious issues, and I hope the act plagues them for the rest of their life

They have to put a rape or incest exclusion into laws like this, and it has to have clear defintions. Rape can be used as a weapon, and something like this makes it more potent.

IIRC during the Balkan wars, Pope John Paul II explicitly forbode that Kroatian women who were raped would get an abortion.

Is there any state in the USA that allows late term abortions? That's just sick.

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 15:37

Jag, without radically altering society as we know it there's not enough resources to mollycoddle every deprived child in the UK. Parents used to be expected to do that, but I guess that's me being right wing again ~:rolleyes:

I heartily agree that banning abortions is a position that only the blinkered would view as sensible, but as I've said before I've met girls at 16 who use abortion as a form of contraception. Thus irresponsibility on their part is dealt with by the state time and time again.

People want self respect? EARN IT. Get a job, earn some cash and come home being able to view one's possessions as one's own, not state given freebies. Possibly then people might respect what they've got and what belongs to others.

Yeah, I'm a poncy rich Doctor. What the hell do I know? My parents were teachers. They worked hard. My grandparents were plumbers. Their parents were miners.

So, broadly speaking each generation has worked their balls off so the next can have a better life than they did. It wasn't without upset along the lines, but that is what's happened. Although I've got the best of it I don't see why others can't similarly do likewise.

NO, you DON'T get everything in your own lifetime. You work so your descendents do. That's life. It's not fair, but it is achievable.

~:smoking:

Watchman

03-10-2006, 15:53

It's also a lot more acheivable if the society helps you get back up should you trip along the way.

Viking

03-10-2006, 19:39

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 19:57

if you trip up in the UK:jails are lovely - inmates get more spent on them than shcool children. Courses to do whilst an inpatient. When you get out the usual variety of work schemes including benefit whilst you work.

Free healthcare, low cost housing also present.

What more for these trip ups? Everyone else pays to ensure that these trips are as painless as possible. Indeed, so comfortable is it, that better to do what the hell you want as tripping up now and again is far easier than trying to live without tripping up.

~:smoking:

Kagemusha

03-10-2006, 20:03

I just have one question to those who think that abortion should be outlawed.Should it be also outlawed in China or better in whole World or just USA?

Crazed Rabbit

03-10-2006, 20:23

Is there any state in the USA that allows late term abortions? That's just sick.

Every state. The Supreme Court has made the 'right' to any abortion, including partial birth, up to the second the entire baby exits its mother's womb legal.

The solution to stopping pregnancy at 16 is therefore not simply stating 'condoms, condoms, condoms' - which incidently YOUR religion states is not allowed - but to actually stop the circle of deprivation and help those who are at the most vulnerable and bottom of society.
Hmm, I sense a suggestion to spend more of other people's money.

And you do that by following sensible socialist policies, not the crazed rabid right wing policies you suggest - if indeed you still suggest them, you might have grown up in the months I have been away.

Yup. Tell me, with all of Labor's great policies, have teen pregnancies and abortions gone down since the 80s? Maybe you need to realize not every problem should be dealt with by throwing more money at unresponsible people.

Yeah, I'm a poncy rich Doctor. What the hell do I know? My parents were teachers. They worked hard. My grandparents were plumbers. Their parents were miners.

Damn straight. My grandfather was a plumber; he put 6 kids through college.

Crazed Rabbit

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 23:07

Nooooo, I disagree. The state is forcing women to have children against their wishes. The women don't have the oppourtunity to decide their fate. Many people are pushing their views on others - and the fact that these are religious is ironic in a matter of state law.

Oh lovely summarising all the views into what you think ~:rolleyes

~:smoking:

Lemur

03-10-2006, 23:10

Hmm, I sense a suggestion to spend more of other people's money.
Let's have a little rule for the remainder of the year, shall we? No Republican is allowed to chastize anybody for talking about spendind other people's money. I mean, there's garden-variety hypcrisy, and then there's Republicans talking about fiscal responsibility. Raise a glass to the old debt cap, everyone.

Louis VI the Fat

03-10-2006, 23:12

This thread celebrates South Dakota's ability to self-determine.Aye, when it ought to be about women's ability to self-determination instead.

Oh well, I think the pro-life movement have overplayed their hand. They are too early, they should've waited for a clear conservative majority in the Supreme Court. They may well find themselves one judge short.

I think - and certainly hope - that this will end in SCOTUS reaffirming abortion rights.

Louis VI the Fat

03-10-2006, 23:13

Finally, if you feel so strongly about your argument (and I'm going to toss this one Louis' way as well) why don't you advocate for sterilization of convicted rapists as part of their sentancing?I advocate for whatever cruel and unusual punishment anybody can come up with for rapists.

Louis VI the Fat

03-10-2006, 23:20

Let's have a little rule for the remainder of the year, shall we? No Republican is allowed to chastize anybody for talking about spendind other people's money. I mean, there's garden-variety hypcrisy, and then there's Republicans talking about fiscal responsibility. Raise a glass to the old debt cap, everyone.Oh come on Lemur. The republicans are not spending other people's money at all.

They are spending the money of America's unborn children.

And as this thread has shown, all those liberals don't consider the unborn 'people'.

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 23:20

I think some caveats are required there. A 16 year old "raping" their 15 year old partner? Sterilise them?? I'd not.

"Raping" a 15 year old you met whilst drunk at a 18+ club? Sterilise them?? I'd not.
Perhaps there would have to be ages where it is stricter than others - very young children is a far more inexcusable example.

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

03-10-2006, 23:24

wtf? wtf is wrong with you people who continue this argument? Women can vote in south Dakota. If it is an unpopular bill they have the means to fight it very effectively. Research the laws and systems in the state before making utterly bullshit statements like that.'Women' is not a monolithic entity. Women can choose to restrict the rights of other women. Or even their own.

Hey, I didn't even need a Ph.D in south Dakotan law for that. :idea2:

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 23:25

Kagemusha

03-10-2006, 23:26

Maybe they should just pass of a law of general sterilization of population in South Dakota.That would stop all the abortions in the area.~;)

rory_20_uk

03-10-2006, 23:32

Democracy can not be blindly followed. What if the whites in the UK decided to throw out the others. As it's "democratic" we should do it? ~:rolleyes:

Liberals have enough brains to realise that sometimes blindly following the wills of the masses is not the right thing, ESPECIALLY when democracy is going to adversely affect other people's lives for no benefit for the state whatsoever.

And GC you are a right hypocrite: the rights to bear arms, but no rights to not have kids that are not wanted. The freedom of the individual when it suits you, but not when it doesn't.

Louis VI the Fat

03-10-2006, 23:42

So? You mean to say you speak for the secret desires of all women for the right to abortion? No. I mean to speak for the rights of individual women. For individual rights to be upheld against the wishes of whatever majority of other women.

Typical modern liberal B.S. Democracy only when it suits you.Majority rule is but one aspect of democracy. I can think of quite a few outlandish dictatorial regimes that were supported by a majority of the population. Fifty-one percent cannot vote to kill the remaining forty-nine and claim to be a democracy.

One other important aspect of democracy is human rights.

One of these human rights is self-determination over one's body. It can be upheld against rapist. It should be upheld against those who want to force rape victims/survivors to bear the consequences of their assaulters heinous act.

Redleg

03-10-2006, 23:44

Abortion is one of those derailers of the political machine and even of individuals. Two extremes have the most voice and no-one will listen to reason.

What my view on abortion is - is that I would rather see the woman give the child up after its birth then abort it, but its not my place to say that they can not have one, until the point and time in the pregancy that the fetus is no longer a fetus but a human being. (ie I totally support making 3rd Trimester abortions (late term abortions) illegal and a criminal offensive unless one can prove emergancy and compiling medicial reasons for such a procedure.)

Until then the South Dakota law is just as ridiculous as the previous Supreme Courts decision in Roe, so it will be struck down by the courts as soon as it is brought forth.

Its a medical procedure that can be regulated and controled by the medical profession and those who elect to do the procedure. Since its an elective procedure - tax monies should not be used to support clinics or doctors who preform abortions. That is really the only state or federal legislation that should apply in the case of most abortions IMHO

Lemur

03-10-2006, 23:50

Redleg's right. Abortion is a crazy issue, and the moderate middle doesn't get listened to by the shouting heads on either side.

Interesting side note -- now that couples can use ultrasound and genetic testing to tell a lot about their child-to-be, there has been an upsurge in elective abortions for damaged fetuses. Can't find the article I read about it, but one of the interesting points was that these procedures are actually *more* common in traditional red states.

I have pretty mixed feelings about this. I figure everybody should have a chance to live, and I'm dead-set against late-term abortions. But what if you know that the kid has a debilitating genetic disease, and will only live a few weeks in intense pain? Are you (you personally) ready to raise a severely retarded child?

Haven't made up my mind on this one. I may never. And I hope I never have to make such a choice. Only thing I'm certain of is that the various State Legislatures should stay the hell out of it. A family is going to be much more likely to make the right decision than a bunch of sweaty, bribe-taking politicians.

Brenus

03-10-2006, 23:57

“tax monies should not be used to support clinics or doctors who preform abortions”. Great, only the wealthy and rich teenagers will be able to exercise their right. The others will go for the nettles like in the good 19th century… We are on the road of progress…

DemonArchangel

03-11-2006, 00:02

Louis VI the Fat

03-11-2006, 00:06

Two extremes have the most voice and no-one will listen to reason.I'm on one side of the extremes, a shouting head.

But I would listen to reason. This seems perfectly reasonable:
What my view on abortion is - is that I would rather see the woman give the child up after its birth then abort it, but its not my place to say that they can not have one, until the point and time in the pregancy that the fetus is no longer a fetus but a human being. (ie I totally support making 3rd Trimester abortions (late term abortions) illegal and a criminal offensive unless one can prove emergancy and compiling medicial reasons for such a procedure.)

Until then the South Dakota law is just as ridiculous as the previous Supreme Courts decision in Roe, so it will be struck down by the courts as soon as it is brought forth.Now tax-fund abortions and I would be totally happy. :balloon2:

rory_20_uk

03-11-2006, 00:09

Yeah, I agree. I'm going to have 2 to 4 kids. Animals abandon genetic abberations to cleanse their geen pool, and we have the more socially acceptable system of aborting the fetuses before they are born. I do not want to have 1/2 to 1/4 of my resources in bringing up an evolutionary dead end.

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

03-11-2006, 00:18

In my opinion, elective abortion for damaged fetuses should be entirely legal, especially if the child will die after birth anyway. In any case, we should at least abort the mentally retarded, our modern world depends far too much on intellect and reasoning and they would just hold us back.The mentally retarded do not seem to suffer from their affliction. They lead valuable lives. So what if it isn't a productive live? I'd rather spend my tax-money on providing for them then on..well whatever.

If however an echo showed that my unborn child would have a debilitating genetic disease, one that would seriously affect it's well-being, I think I would have it aborted.
May God have mercy on my soul. :embarassed:

rory_20_uk

03-11-2006, 01:12

So people can own a pistol. A rifle. A minigun, a tank, a howitzer, a sniper rifle, rocket propelled grenades. Stinger missiles... Where do you draw the lines? Are all these things self determination?

I can see you're blinkered on this one. More guns is of course better. Armour piercing bullets are the right of the individual... ~:rolleyes:

I fail to see an argument in your post, merely a hissy fit followed by toys out of the pram, then for some reason denigrating your own judicial system.

There is only one president. He can speak for the entire country. Does that make him 1/9th of the judges? Oh, and they're trained lawyers with a long experience of their profession. The President is merely the latest flash in the pan.

Please, try to be more coherant. Is the blood flowing to the fingers grasping your gun limiting that available to your brain? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

rory_20_uk

03-11-2006, 01:32

God has no place in local of federal laws.

I'd've put money you didn't vote for Bush. He's for centralised power. You strike me as a lone gunman in the wilderness type. But without centeral government how does the state not fragment? California might want to go it alone - it would be the 5th largest economy in the world by itself.

America is far more decentralised than the UK for example, but there is still a very effective police and armed forces. The individual in many areas will have far more armed law enforcement officials than are present in the UK.

Pro choice is what people state they don't know what's best for everyone. It lets people make their own minds and not force all to do one thing.

Stating the laws as they are is not an argument, it is stating a fact. It does not mean that the status quo is a good or a bad thing, nor states if it should be altered.

How the hell can we get so heated when we are agreeing??? :laugh4:

~:cheers:

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

03-11-2006, 01:35

As for my argument, it was that guns are protected on the state level, and abortions are not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the right to bear arms protected on the federal level, and regulated at the state level?
And does the same not hold true for abortion? Albeit that it's not protected on the federal level by an amendment but by a Supreme Court verdict?

I'm not disagreeing, just asking.

rory_20_uk

03-11-2006, 01:48

Perverse though this may sound, as a VERY reluctant sideliner in the EU I look with envy towards how the USA works with both federal and state laws. The EU should be better as it should study and improve on what the USA does.

True to form, Europe has copied all the bad parts and ignored the good: massive beaurocracy with states ignoring laws as they wish with poor control of deficits, and practically everything else, but still no damn international voice as we don't agree with each other.

It appears you wish that the USA was more like Europe before the EU was created! :dizzy2:

Small states can be crushed if all there is are small weapons. The Civil War showed that I thought. And for a more modern example of true "dedication" the USSR in latvia crushed the geurillas by the sheer number that were killed. Even in Iraw the marines would have the place sewn up in a month if they were allowed to: just kill everyone!

Large states can afford to loose more ground, have more powerful weapons and have more reserves. Look at how Yugoslavia was managed? If hot air was a weapon NATO worked. Else, it was American weaponry that won the day.

~:smoking: