South Dakota outlaws abortion

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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...

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?

[rory_20_uk]

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???

[Louis VI the Fat]

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]

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!

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.

[Tribesman]

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.
Is someone planning another 1000 year Reich ?