South Dakota outlaws abortion

Quote:

---

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:

: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:

: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:

: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:

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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".

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

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're a glass-half-full kind of guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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.

---

:surrender:

Good Advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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.

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

---

Someday in the future, "children" can survive outside their mothers womb from the very second the egg cell has fused with the sperm cell. :book:

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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'.

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: