South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill by Arcadia

Keep the Shiny side up

My initial response was less restrained than your's and somewhat more unprintable. I'm having a hard time expressing how utterly stupid this is without descending into explicit language. And to ice the cake of farce, the bill's main sponsor was a Democrat? And a woman?

All I can think of to do now is do a web search on what goods are made in South Dakota, so I can boycott them. Maybe I'll have rational comments later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 3:50 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay. So the people of South Dakota, as represented by their state legislature, are dumbasses. They have the right in a democracy to be dumbasses, and they have excercised that right (to be dumbasses). If there are any South Dakotans on the board who don't support this dumbassery, then you're not dumbasses. Congratulations.

I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has already got their challenge to this (dumbassed) legislation primed and ready to go as soon as the (...you know) governor of that (ibid) state signs it. You can bet their suit (concerning this dumbass legislation) will be on the express fast track straight to the Supremes.

Enough about the dumbasses in South Dakota (those dumbasses). The next phase of the assault on Roe v. Wade won't be their (Dum...No! Enough of that!) legislation, but the late-term abortion law challenge that's already on the Supreme Court calendar. This case is where we'll find out how Justices Roberts and Alito are going to go. In fact, I'm not sure how many of the sitting Justices have had to rule on Roe cases, so we'll see where the Court as a whole will settle.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:10 PM

CARTOON

Whether one agrees with a law or not, the thing is -- it is the duly-elected legislatures which have the rights to make the laws -- not the courts.

If a legislature makes a law you don't like, you have every right to vote in people who agree with your views to have the law changed.

However, when an unelected judge (or panel of judges) legislates from the bench, we the people have no legal recourse to change the law.

I'd rather see legislators make stupid laws than judges. At least we can vote them out. We have no such recourse with non-elected judges.

And, btw, I'm pro-life, so I don't think this is stupid. However, regardless, the theory works for laws I disagree with as well as those I agree with. If we disagree with a law, we should change them in the legislatures via elections, not the courts -- which have no right to legislate from the bench (and which, unfortunately, they've been doing for several decades now).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Whether one agrees with a law or not, the thing is -- it is the duly-elected legislatures which have the rights to make the laws -- not the courts.

If a legislature makes a law you don't like, you have every right to vote in people who agree with your views to have the law changed.

However, when an unelected judge (or panel of judges) legislates from the bench, we the people have no legal recourse to change the law.
I'd rather see legislators make stupid laws than judges. At least we can vote them out. We have no such recourse with non-elected judges.

And, btw, I'm pro-life, so I don't think this is stupid. However, regardless, the theory works for laws I disagree with as well as those I agree with. If we disagree with a law, we should change them in the legislatures via elections, not the courts -- which have no right to legislate from the bench (and which, unfortunately, they've been doing for several decades now).

The way I understood it, legislatures make the laws, and if the laws are challenged (in court) as to Constitutionality, the various Courts determine if they're Constitutional or not, based on their interpretations of the State or Federal Constitution. If the legislature isn't happy with the court's decision, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. So there is recourse if the Court overturns a law. And to carry it further, if later on the legislature decides a previous legislature was wrong in amending the Constitution, they can fix it, e.g. Prohibition. So there's always a remedy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:34 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The way I understood it, legislatures make the laws, and if the laws are challenged (in court) as to Constitutionality, the various Courts determine if they're Constitutional or not, based on their interpretations of the State or Federal Constitution. If the legislature isn't happy with the court's decision, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. So there is recourse if the Court overturns a law. And to carry it further, if later on the legislature decides a previous legislature was wrong in amending the Constitution, they can fix it, e.g. Prohibition. So there's always a remedy.

Exactly.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had quite a few activist judges in the past few decades, seeing "constitutionality" where it heretofore never existed.

That's why I'd prefer to trust the elected legislators. We can always get rid of them if we disagree with them. The judges answer to no one, and can act with impunity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:16 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
That's why I'd prefer to trust the elected legislators. We can always get rid of them if we disagree with them. The judges answer to no one, and can act with impunity.

But legislature, by amending the Constitution, always trumps the Court. You just have to get enough people to vote for the Constitutional Amendent. Consider the attempt at the Equal Rights Amendment 30 or so years ago. I expect that, sooner or later, there will be a Constitutional Amendment put forward concerning abortion, either for or against, and the people will get to decide for keeps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:22 PM

I’ve not read the actual law, so I don’t really know if its dumbass or not. However I don’t think that abortion should necassarily be illegal, so I probably wouldn’t be inclined to agree with the law even if I did read it.

But the deciding factor for me is that I think the State of South Dakota has a Constitutional right to make whatever law on abortion their people or legislation deem important, whether I agree with it or not, as long as said law doesn’t interfere egregiously with the health or rights of the mother or the child.

That’s not to say that I don’t think there isn’t some Constitutionality to the issue of abortion, indeed my feeling that it should be legal, at least to some degree, is based on my belief that there is some implied Constitutional ‘Right’ to privacy to some extent applicable to the issue of abortion.

But I’m leery that an implied ‘right’ in the Constitution should supercede the explicit right of the Tenth Amendment, so I tend to think that the Supreme Court should take this issue carefully and avoid overturning it, unless they truly believe that there is some “egregious offense.” The belief that abortion is “right” is not an egregious enough offense.

But if the law was indeed meant to challenge Roe V. Wade, then it may intentionally be overly strict in its restrictions of abortion, and therefore possibly not really representing the opinions and beliefs of the People of South Dakota. That would make it an irresponsible law, and on that basis, I’d have to agree that it’s probably a dumbass law.

But then this is largely just supposition.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl was seeds to grow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:48 AM

It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.

Attack me, not my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

Now. Now. Let’s be fair. It’s not really “baby”-murdering. It’s just “fetus”-murdering. (Except in the case of partial birth abortion. That might actually be baby murdering.)

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:32 AM

GAMMARAYGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.

Attack me, not my opinion.

I can't tell if you're joking. Even if you are, it isn't very funny.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:36 AM

Ain't joking.

Attack me, not my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve not read the actual law, so I don’t really know if its dumbass or not.

Makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. No exceptions for preserving the health of the mother, or for rape or incest.

Text of the SD Senate bill can be found here:

[url] http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215SST.pdf [/url]

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. No exceptions for preserving the health of the mother, or for rape or incest.

Well it seems too restrictive to me.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.

So you consider pregnancy as punishment for unprotected fornication, and don't want to see anyone escape their sentence?

How about victims of rape and incest, or married women who's health will be damaged?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So you consider pregnancy as punishment for unprotected fornication, and don't want to see anyone escape their sentence?

How about victims of rape and incest, or married women who's health will be damaged?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Is it worth bothering Geezer? The statement obviously has no basis in logic, intelligence or anything else you could hope to construct a logical argument against. I doubt Jonus would be satisfied unless we beheaded these evil sinners.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:25 PM

I really think that this is a devisive thread. I don't think the poster originally intended that, but it has turned into that. I think I said that my position was RTL a while ago, and while I think Geezer's logic would ultimately okay the murder of adults who were the children of incest, there's no point in an argument like this.

At some point I posted an RTL thread for RTLers to say how far they thought the concept extended, and if people want to discuss among pro-choicers how to forward their agenda, fine.

But anything that pits one camp against the other serves for no purpose other than to divide. Usually, when people are divided, it's ultimately not leading to anything good.

At some point in the past on some other political forum I suggested the idea that an system be set up for adopting unwanted children domestically, and that the money paid now by parents to overseas human trafickers, could help offset the woes of the unwanted pregnancy. Such a system would be more effective, IMHO, in the stopping of abortion than a flat out legal ban.

But this is a game, and it's one played by our parties to put us in an all or nothing battle over an issue that quite frankly is most likely not going to effect us in our individual lives. The vast majority of women will never have an abortion. The majority if not the entirety of everyone we vote for in popular election will never have any impact on the legality, which might have little or no impact on the reality. It's just not the major issue which should affect our political concerns, and it serves only to split people into republicans and democrats.

As a footnote, I would like to add that I know on of the people at the RNC, a delegate, who was physically at the meeting where it was decided to make this a partisan issue. The GOP was attempting to find a way to draw a new large voting group in during the 70s, and it was quickly decided that church groups would be best. Abortion was decided on as a single belief that church groups had a singular point of view on, and that generally, these were people who were much more divided than unified. Fortunately for the republicans, the democrats blindly opposed it, which is one of the key flaws with the democratic party, strategically speaking, that we on the right can say "euthanasia is wrong" and the democrats will respond with "euthanisia is right" as a knee jerk response. It's like saying "don't jump."

Anyway, it serves to take our sites off of the actual issues which our elected officials are deciding at the moment, or any moment. We have all remarked here that the two parties leadership is very far from the people in a way which is not left-right.

THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.

That's because if we focus on a collection of minor issues which are sure to be right-left splitters, like abortion, we ignore how the govt. is running away from us on other issues.

I would really say, which ever side you're on, put it back in your pants, and let's talk about any of the myriad things the governmental '*THEY*' do not want us to talk about. Our policy towards Darfur, for example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:37 PM

DINKY

Well I'm pro-life and a huge Catholic. And I think Abortion is wrong.

I understand that people think abortion should be allowed and I don't necessarily agree with their opinion, but I RESPECT their opinion. And I don't go ranting off calling them dumbasses. They're allowed to think and say whatever they want and I respect that.

Other people should respect that too, but it's their RIGHT to think and say whatever they want. And calling other people dumbasses is part of this right.

But I myself think this is a good thing abortion is going away :). I understand how bad it must feel to give birth. But think how bad it would feel to be conciously given life, then have it taken away from you. God says you only get one chance in life. That's why I, as a Catholic hate Abortion.

Abortion in my opinion is extremely selfish, and it should be a crime. Because it really is murder.

"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:55 PM

CARTOON

I liked Dinky's response in that it was unapologetic, yet non-antagonistic -- and would be a fine example for us to follow on issues like this where there is firm disagreement on both sides. We're not likely going to change anyone else's minds. As such, we should respectfully disagree without the insults and name-calling.

I understand that both sides are entrenched in their views, and vehemently oppose anyone who feels differently.

However, I have to say that I don't think that abortion is a secondary issue. Sure, other issues are extremely important, and require our attention and action, as well -- but the fact that the government sanctions the murder of human life prior to birth is equally as important in my opinion -- particularly as this number has grown into the tens of millions in the past three decades.

The prime duty of government is to maintain order and protect the people under its jurisdiction. And in this case, our government is failing to protect the most helpless, defenseless human beings.

Regarding a right to choose what you do with your own body -- I fully agree. Choices regarding what's done to your own body should be yours (or your legal guardian's if you're mentally incompetent or a minor). However, abortion is not rhinoplasty. The right of personal choice over one's body ends where one's body comes into contact with another person's body -- particularly when one's choice will harm or end the life of the other person.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on this issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:53 PM

It's not a secondary issue, it's a non-issue. We don't have the power, it's a supreme court issue, and even if we we did have the power to elect people who did have the power to change the laws, would that have altered the actual behavior?

I'm right to life too, and I think that this debate exists for one reason, and one reason only, regardless of which side you are on: It's a bright shiny thing dangled in your face to keep you from seeing that all of your rights are being taken away.

Even if one side *could* win, it would choose not to, because winning would kill the debate which has us all so distracted. I'm sure the timing of this decision was geared to do exactly what it did do. We're not talking about Dubai like we should, we're talking about this same old dead issue.

If you want to help, go help. Politics is not going to solve this issue for anyone. It's a bright shiny dangly thing in front of your face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:09 PM

I don’t necessarily disagree with your characterization of abortion as the murdering of defenseless human beings, but the whole issue is often so esoteric. When does a fetus stop being part of the woman’s body and become an independent entity with rights all of its own? That is the question that is at the heart of the matter. Some argue that those rights begin at conception, but at conception the fetus is nothing more then a single celled organism, yet its merit as human is undeniably entwined completely within its potential as developing into a human being. Destroying that fetus might effectively destroy a human being. But should the human potential inherit in a single celled organism have rights that supercede or equal the rights of a fully realized human being? Then again, human offspring are essentially born underdeveloped and completely dependent upon the external support. So human offspring are also very much defined by their potential. Do the rights of a fully functioning adult human supercede the rights of naturally undeveloped human children? Few can argue that in this country today, we do not grant human children the same level of rights enjoyed by human adults, so the answer to that question would seem to be yes.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:27 PM

I think that the debate is overrun already, and needs to be ignored. ultimately there are some undeniable realities:

1. Foetus can't survive on it's own.
2. If you don't do anything to stop it, the foetus will become a human, so where life actually begins is irrelevant.
3. The world is overpopulated.
4. Poor people can't always afford to raise kids.

These all way on the issue, and people's positions. I think normally people's arguments come from pragmatic points of view:

Pro-choice pragmatism: Pregnancy can hinder your freedom, babies can hinder your economic situation.

Pro-life pragmatism: Youdon't want my grandchildren to be killed because your son marries some girl who thinks abortion is okay.

It's pretty simple, and then there are some folks who have a more faith-based position, which is where I fall. My position is essentially, don't f^&k with mother nature.

Objectively, I think there's no difference between abortion and this:

(This is a really disturbing story. Don't click on it if you're at all squeamish.)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/god-commanded-mother-to-sever-baby
s-arms/2006/02/21/1140284047884.html

If you read the the link address you will be spared clicking on the story. I know that those on the left probably think that's a reprehensible statement, but I just think it's objectively true. I used to not feel that way, I learned more about it an now I do. It's not a male/female thing. I've met many more female RTLers and more male pro-choicers overall.

Basically, the sentience issue falls apart as well. The foetus' brain starts developing on week three, and steadily develops physically until the child is 2 years old. Thus, the two year old has a physically fully developed brain, and is fully aware, but the 1 year old has only a partial brain, and is partially aware.

This is one of the peculiar things about humans. In most animals, the brain the animal is born with is the complete brain. Our slower brain build makes us more intelligent adults, and much stupider babies. A 6 week old kitten is far more intelligent and functional than a 6 week old baby. Some species of animal can outperform a 1 year old child within minutes of birth.

But given that, there is a period there, between 3 weeks into pregancy and 2 years after birth, in which the developing potentially fully aware human has a state of semi-awareness, in varying degrees.

Probably everyone thinks that the mother in the story should be taken out and shot, (and this is the sort of story that makes me really have problems with christians) but objectively, that's an RTL position. The baby is not a fully aware human being. (This is a really disturbing story.)

Regardless, it's not the issue we should be focusing our attention on. It's a distraction from the issues we can affect. Everyone in the world is going to get screwed if we play this game, and that is what it is there for, to keep us all dazzled. Everyone has their position, and great, but I've found in the past, this is one of the few issues which are so emotionally charged that no one is going to change their position.

Does everyone remember last election when the gay marriage thing kept cropping up, helping to kill Kerry? I did some reading about it, and came to the conclusion that is was not, as would seem logical, Bush stirring up the gays to activism to help Kerry collapse, but really gay rights groups acting up to try to get Kerry to support their single issue.

Here's what I came up with, as I understood it, to be the basic way this unfolded:

Bush started it with his anti-gay marriage stance, which had been going on since long before the election. He wanted to dole out a few doggy treats to the christian right, and he didn't want to give them an abortion ban, because that would end the debate. He gave them Terri Shaivo, and that was a disaster, a true Harriet Myers moment, because Bushes both, JEB and George, totally failed to swoop in and save the day.

But he also gave them a potential gay marriage ban, like the '96 bill. I don't think he orchestrated the ensuing disaster for the democrats.

Kerry, being weak, pulled a 'Me too'ism, and made a fair number of statements to distance himself from what might become the 'fag ticket.'

Gay groups got scared, they thought that they might become one of those groups like the anti-zionists or the black nationalists with no one supporting their position in either party. 'Nightmare' voting blocks that no one will touch.

So they organized a defiance. Far left activists with no connection to Bush organized gay pride marches, and got a Green here in New Paltz to okay gay marriage, and someone in San Francisco.

If Bush had orchestated this, it would have all been Massachusets democrats. There was a little noise about that, but I think it was media spin. Mostly it was traditional far lefties, led by gays who were actually afraid of being deserted.

As a result, they truly doomed Kerry. They got caught staring at the shiny thing, and helped re-elect George W. Bush. Who is probably as gay as pirate news says he is, but isn't going to be good for gays legislatively.

I remember listening to one of those NPR radio shows where intellectual know it alls blather at you about their existentialist literary analysis of Fiona Apple lyrics, because they're too anal to admit that they just want to boink her.

Anyway, this clearly gay guy was talking about the problem with America, and why we as a nation sucked. He was some sort of prominent liberal, but clearly not a Bush plant. He went into crooked Carlyle conspiracies and Michael Moore stuff that Bush would never have someone do. But then he came to his argument of where we went wrong.

His analysis went basically like this: America has gotten addicted to action. They watch terminator and hot (hetero) sex, they like sci-fi flicks with stuff blowing up, and they do all of this because hollywood tells them too. It's not some natural human tendency, but a media machine, and it leads us to like beating up bad guys and chasing girls and George W. Bush. If only we used our heads and read particular feminists, gays and communists, we would realize that America sucks, football is stupid, and we don't really want space ships and scantily clad girls, and then we'd do the right thing and elect Dennis Kuccinich president.

The thing is, whatever underlying logic there was in this rant was completely lost when he lost all of the audience probably somewhere around the word 'terminator.' By the end of his diatribe, he had split the world into two types of people:

1. Those who liked Football, America, Sex, Scifi and George W. Bush.
2. Those who like intellectualism, gays, commies, self-loathing, and Dennis Kuccinich.

This is the sort of person (and I swear I'm absolutely sure that the guy was not a plant) that makes republicans say "the gift that just keeps on giving.

Bush in reality doesn't have a lot in common with Arnie, they're not even on speaking terms, haven't been for years. In '04 Arnie couldn't even bring himself to campaign for Bush. In one speech he urged people to vote for a long list of particular republicans in '04, but he left Bush's name off the list. And wouldn't meet with him when he came to CA. I suppose Bush is like the Terminator I, but that guy, though cool, was evil, and I wouldn't want to elect him. Blowing stuff up may look cool, but there's a lot of random civilians being blown up, in fact, it was random civilians to the absolute exclusion of anyone else, because, lets face it, if someone came to the USA and started blowing up random civilians, and I don't care what they're reason is, even if their reason was that they wanted to force Bush or Cheney, who I despise, to resign, if they came here and started bombing civilians, I would become the anti-them insurgent right away. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Al Sadr. Who seems to be negotiating that cease fire on the civil war. Good for him. And if anyone is still reading this post, I'll be amazed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that the debate is overrun already, and needs to be ignored.

I say we start with your post.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:20 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia:
from cnn.com

link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html

Quote:
PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."

Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.

Whether you take the pro or con position on the abortion debate, this is an important developement in the abortion debate, so I thought I'd post in here to spread the word (if anyone hasn't heard already).

As a young woman whose views are generally liberal, usualy votes democrat, and does consider herself a feminist (though I don't affiliate with NOW or any other national groups) my first reaction to this article was: AHHH!!!

Other (perhaps more intelligent and well stated) thoughts?

"Objects in Space"
River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...

yes I'm aware of this and I don't know wether to laugh or cry, its sad, it seems were not moving foward in this country but backward. 1rst they try and teach creationism in schools, and now they are trying to take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Basically I see it as the government trying dumb us down more then we already are. makes me wonder whats next.

Its just to bad men can't get pregnant, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:32 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.

Attack me, not my opinion.

hmmm, drinking a bottle a vodka could potentially make the baby retarded. if your talking about the old fashion way of having an abortion , the coat hanger, and various concoctions of herbs was how it was done. Women have always found a way of terminating unwanted pregnancies, and we always will no government will ever stop that, this is about control, basically men wanting to control women, and the government enforing that control.

Most educated industrialized contries have low birth rates. its mostly the poor and uneducated who have more children then they need or can aford and those are the women who need to have access to abortions, rich and upper middle class have always found ways to get an abortion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:05 AM

Actually, beheading them is a great idea. "A life for a life." Of course, I'm joking about that. I'm just wondering what the fuck happened to morality? It was replaced by selfishness. Nobody thinks about what they do anymore.

Attack me, not my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:47 AM

STARSONG

DreamTrove -- thanks for the political "shiny thing in front of your face" point.. makes a lot sense.

Bother....politicians. Can't live with 'em... can't shoot 'em.

Quote:
this is about control, basically men wanting to control women, and the government enforing that control.

That's the party line, but like so many party lines, it's untrue. I mean really, have you ever spoken to someone on the other side of the issue? The pro-lifers I've talked with could care less about the woman, much less had any vested interest in "controlling" her.. their sole focus was on the kiddo inside, and not wanting it killed. And like DT said, there's at least as many chicks on the pro-life side.

So hey.. believe what you believe.. but make sure you believe it for real reasons.

Now.. as to abortion itself?

Like Firefly

it really reminds me of the Civil War era. Particularly the slavery debate that was so strong 1850's-1860's. You could take an abolitionist and a slaveholder, and ask them both about Freedom, and they'd both likely give a "mom and apple pie" speech to bring a tear to your eye. EVERYONE believed in the "inalienable rights to Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The difference wasn't a belief or denial of freedom -- it was a difference in who they thought of was human, and thus who possessed those inalienable rights. Pro-slavery folks thought of black folks as something other than human, some lesser race.. and thus not deserving of basic human rights, any more than the mule or the horse next door in the barn.

Thankfully, we've come as a society to the point where we realize what a truly horrific idea that was.

Anyhow, the abortion debate is similar. Is a baby that ain't born yet human, and thus deserving of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? (Or even just Life?) ... or is it just a clump of cells, to be flushed out with no more thought than you'd take having a hair cut?

A human, or a mule? That's the question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:57 AM

This is my last thought on this subject.

If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.

But if you get pregnant by accident just because you were drunk and horny or just "wanted to have fun", you should not have the right to an abortion. You should just deal with it like a strong human being. So many people are so weak.

Attack me, not my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:30 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
This is my last thought on this subject.

If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.

Ah, but you see Jonus, that's where the trouble starts to creep in for you. At first, you called us all liberal whores and implied that we were immoral baby-killers. But now suddenly you add the caveat that rape is an exception. But as I am aware, there is no rape exception in the SD bill, nor is there in the eyes of many pro-lifer groups out there. There is no incest provision, nor is there a provision for interminable pregnancies (ie, birth defects in the womb so serious that the baby would be born stillborn or live for moments, things that are not covered in the health of the mother clause). How would you like to be a 13 year old incest victim having to fight the courts - in public no less - to get rid of a pregnancy? Would you be man enough (or woman enough, I'm just assuming maleness) to tell her to her face that she couldn't have one, and that she'd have to face a life as a ward of the court and probably lose her baby to DCFS as well?

You forget that there are more reasons than just "convenience" to getting an abortion, and even "convenience" abortions aren't often as convenient as you think they are. What say you to children of extreme poverty, who are doomed to grow up malnourished, mistreated, and fall through the cracks in the system? It's usually the pro-lifers (if you can call them that) that want to cut welfare programs, education, and other social mechanisms that would help those children. When that child turns to theft or drugs later down the road, the "pro-lifers" are the fastest to call for the death penalty.

And on a final note, when is a fetus a fetus? How far back must we go now? Some pharmacists are having trouble prescribing the morning after pill, which prevents conception. It's not even an abortion pill! When will the government hold our testicles (and ovaries, ladies) at gunpoint, telling us to only use them for baby-making?

Would I like to see fewer abortions? Certainly. Do I want government or religious control over me or my spouse?

no.

7%'s 2c

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:35 AM

There's always been the same amount of immorality and selfishness. This is the problem when people look back, they only ever see the good stuff that they want to see and they rarely see the bad. Back in the day our church leaders got us to burn witches and violently punish people who did things 'immoral' while doing these immoral things themselves, because they were untouchable and made the law.

We're no less moral than we have ever been, it's just that now it's more open and instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending it isn't happening we regulate it and deal with it as a society and a group, rather than just throw individuals aside so we can continue to ignore the situation as a whole. Frankly this is a whole lot better than the 'fingers in ears' solution, no matter how you cut it.

I don't take issue with you being anti-abortion, but I do take issue with the way you voice it and your choice of language. I'll tell you a story; a friend of mine got pregnant once and had an abortion. Immoral evil baby killing liberal whore you'd say, right? Well the actual story goes that her controlling manipulative abusive boyfriend didn't give her much choice over the use of contraception, nor did he give her much choice over having the abortion. Do you think it would have been better for her to have been forced to go to some backstreet butcher who could have killed her or made her infertile instead of the licensed clinic? A proposition which, BTW, would have meant my two god children wouldn't be alive today. Is their right to life lower than that other foetus which would have been aborted anyway?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:40 AM

7%, good point, and it can't make sense, if you take the 'abortion is murder' position, then you can't say 'but it's okay if it's the child of rape or incest, because then you've essentially said "killing the products of crime is okay" which is like saying "killing the unclean is okay" which is the very dangerous point that societies which then descend into hellish chaos get to.

But, and this is my main point, Arcadia, no offense, but you done gone and killed the forum.

I was trying to make peace, and a little, hey everyone, fight over this corner.

So here's where I am. I'm right to life, if I want to forward that goal I can help some adoption network. If you're pro-choice, you can help transport people to places where they can get abortion. It's legality therefore becomes totally irrelevant, and can we PLEASE remove this from the political debate. It's here to distract us, and to help evil to prevail in unrelated areas, and it's working like a charm. I hope no one here thinks that this S.D. decision was just a random coincedence.

I'm not saying this because I think I would lose the political debate. It's that this is an issue which can be dealt with from either side in a non-legislative manner. And it's a ploy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:53 AM

FLAUTISTFIRST

Just for fun, I'm going to comment

I'm from South Dakota. I've lived here all of my life.

I have an opinion on this issue, and it isn't a popular one.

I feel that if a person wants to stop abortion, the efforts need to be put to preventing the DESIRE for the abortion. How does one prevent that? Through education, prevention of unplanned pregnacies, and support of the mother and child. Legality, or illegality, of abortion won't stop a person who really wants to terminate a pregnancy.

Here, in SD, people tend to be conservative, politically speaking. (I'm not) And if you've all noticed, there simply aren't that many people in SD. Our population is somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000. That is for the entire state, counting men, women, children, and hopefully not livestock. Should the legislature in this one relatively low population state get to decide for the entire country whether abortion is legal or not?

That is actually the heart of the matter. People from outside of SD have decided that this smallish state with conservative politics would be the state that could pass the legislation that would challenge Roe v. Wade. It took years, but it looks like this year the bill will finally pass. Then it will end up in front of the US Supreme Court, whom they are hoping will uphold it and thus make abortion illegal in all the land.

I have a problem with this. I don't like being used. I don't like that the entire cost of the court battle is on the backs of so few. And I don't like that a minority opinion can control it for everyone.

Should Roe v. Wade be challenge? Well, okay. But should that challenge, and its outcome, be taken on by a vast minority?

Also, as to dumbass status:

The same legislature considered, and then tabled, a measure that would require abstinence only sex ed in our public schools.

I think dumbass fits us South Dakotans. We want to legislate that people not be taught about sex, birth control, or other sexuallity issues. We want to make abortion illegal. We want to deny welfare to hungry children. It seems to me that something in this logic qualifies as dumbass.

Truly, I'm prolife. I think all people should have a good life--I'm very pro on that. Should my government be so intrusive as to dictate when I have sex, what kind and how, and if I use birthcontrol? Now that is definitely not a prolife attitude.

There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:02 AM

FLAUTISTFIRST

7%--I agree with your point that abortion is an issue used to distract from the really important political things.

I don't think this discussion will kill the forum, though. At least, that is how I'm voting.

There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:14 AM

KNIBBLET

I'm a firm believer in the right of a woman to control her own body.

As for those busybodies who must control the lives of others, if you don't like abortion (or birth control or thinking) don't have one.

South Dakota is a sparsly populated place. The folks who live there seem pretty cool to us Minnesotans. We also know that there's not a lot of resources to go around in SoDak and that's why SoDak is 31st in infant mortality and 33rd in children living under poverty.

I also think it's quite telling that radical controllists from around the country are donating to the SoDak legislature to give them funds to fight the court battle.

If you want to help babies with your money, how's about donating that money to charities which help children. Of course, that only works if your main interest is children and not forcing your religious beliefs on others.

The people who are attempting to manipulate American politics and force anti-choice upon the rest of us aren't interested in improving the lvies of children in SoDak. These backwards ass controllists aren't pro-life they're just pro-fetus.

Yeah, I'm a little angry right now.

What we need is a clearly written line in the constitution which states: A woman's uterus is her own business. Now ... go mind your own.

BTW, even when abortion was illegal, there were legal abortions.

All you needed was money and a doctor to say that it was for the mother's improved health to have an abortion. The rich have never had to worry in America. They never will.

The only people who suffered back in those days were poor women. Remember ... God made the poor to serve the rich. Remember your place and keep pumping out more generations of poor folk to do the ironing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:27 AM

KNIBBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.

But if you get pregnant by accident just because you were drunk and horny or just "wanted to have fun", you should not have the right to an abortion.

Listen to what Jonus is saying here. This is "Pro-life" is really about.

It has never had anything to do with respect for life.

What it is all about is punishing women for having sex.

Thank you for clearing up the morality wars, Jonus. Here's your torch, go burn a witch or two. While you're judging people and creating new generations of poverty, are there any other activities you'd like to add to the hit list?

Perhaps if someone gets hurt in an auto accident, we should just let them die because they made a choice to drive and get hit by a drunk.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:29 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by flautistfirst:
7%--I agree with your point that abortion is an issue used to distract from the really important political things.

I don't think this discussion will kill the forum, though. At least, that is how I'm voting.

That wasn't me, that was DT that called it a distraction, I think (not that I disagree, though).

On another note though FF, you brought up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What about the fact that many of the rabid pro-life (not all, but there are a LOT) folks are against sex education? It creates a situation where the people playing the game don't know the rules, but the penalties for breaking the rules are pretty damn severe. Abstinence-only sex education has been proven ineffective at preventing the spread of STD's, and it certainly hasn't proven to be great at pregnancy prevention, either (don't believe me? Google it, or look up some med journals).

On another note, though, I don't think the GOP wants this to go before the Supremes and get Roe overturned. They galvanize their base through 2 core issues - abortion and gays - and if you take that away, you do two things; 1) Piss off lots of women voters that might have been centrist GOP, as well as galvanize the Dem base, and 2)Lose a distraction issue that takes focus off Iraq and the economy. And frankly, this is not a time for that to happen for GW, especially not with the ports deal looming.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Listen to what Jonus is saying here. This is "Pro-life" is really about.

It has never had anything to do with respect for life.

What it is all about is punishing women for having sex.

Jonus’ uses of inflammatory language in this thread isn’t any different then the anti-Bush crowd using allusions to Nazi Germany when describing Bush or the Bush administration. Jonus’ ill chosen words do not represent an intelligent Pro-Life thought, anymore then calling Bush “evil” represents an intelligent critical thought on Bush’s policies. In fact the respect for life argument is a very strong pro-Life argument. The fact is that most abortions are preformed as a substitute for simple contraception, which raises a very valid question, should we being using abortion in this way? Is terminating the life of a potential human being a morally valid substitute for careful contraception? These are legitimate questions raised by the Pro-Life debate.

Quote:
Originally posted by flautistfirst:
I feel that if a person wants to stop abortion, the efforts need to be put to preventing the DESIRE for the abortion. How does one prevent that? Through education, prevention of unplanned pregnacies, and support of the mother and child. Legality, or illegality, of abortion won't stop a person who really wants to terminate a pregnancy.

The best way to prevent abortions is an aspirin held firmly between the legs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:26 AM

GAMMARAYGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Ah, but you see Jonus, that's where the trouble starts to creep in for you. At first, you called us all liberal whores and implied that we were immoral baby-killers. But now suddenly you add the caveat that rape is an exception. But as I am aware, there is no rape exception in the SD bill, nor is there in the eyes of many pro-lifer groups out there. There is no incest provision, nor is there a provision for interminable pregnancies (ie, birth defects in the womb so serious that the baby would be born stillborn or live for moments, things that are not covered in the health of the mother clause). How would you like to be a 13 year old incest victim having to fight the courts - in public no less - to get rid of a pregnancy? Would you be man enough (or woman enough, I'm just assuming maleness) to tell her to her face that she couldn't have one, and that she'd have to face a life as a ward of the court and probably lose her baby to DCFS as well?

You forget that there are more reasons than just "convenience" to getting an abortion, and even "convenience" abortions aren't often as convenient as you think they are. What say you to children of extreme poverty, who are doomed to grow up malnourished, mistreated, and fall through the cracks in the system? It's usually the pro-lifers (if you can call them that) that want to cut welfare programs, education, and other social mechanisms that would help those children. When that child turns to theft or drugs later down the road, the "pro-lifers" are the fastest to call for the death penalty.

And on a final note, when is a fetus a fetus? How far back must we go now? Some pharmacists are having trouble prescribing the morning after pill, which prevents conception. It's not even an abortion pill! When will the government hold our testicles (and ovaries, ladies) at gunpoint, telling us to only use them for baby-making?

Would I like to see fewer abortions? Certainly. Do I want government or religious control over me or my spouse? no.

7%'s 2c

Very well said, thank you 7%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:44 AM

SASSALICIOUS

Did you know that there is a supreme court case, aside from Roe vs. Wade, that upholds the right to abortion?

I can't think of the name right now, so if anyone knows it that'd be great, but it basically said an individual does not have to do anything with his or her body that he or she does not want to do, even if another person dies as a result. The actual case involved a guy who needed a transplant or something similar and a second person who would not give the first what he needed. The first person would die without the transplant and the court ruled that the second person did not have to give the transplant, despite the fact that person #1 was going to die.

Therefore, assuming a fetus is a full person, with as equal of a right to live as someone who is already born, then the mother does not have to use her body as a vessel. Even if the fetus/baby/person dies.

Seriously though, it would be great if someone could tell me the name of this court case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:11 PM

Sassalicious:
Good argument. My own centres around the fact that abortions won't be stopped by making them illegal, they'll just kill more people, ergo banning abortions is against RTL, but yours stands on it's own, I wish I'd come up with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:33 PM

I don’t think that is true. To believe that, one must believe that banning abortions would result in more then 43 million deaths/aborted fetuses, over 30 years. Certainly, back alley abortions might increase, but the difficulty of getting an abortion would likely prevent many if not most abortions that might have occurred under legalized abortion. Not only is abortion legalized but we have special clinics set aside that make abortion not only legal but convenient. It’s counter intuitive to believe that the number of deaths/aborted fetuses would be higher by making abortion illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:50 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now. Now. Let’s be fair. It’s not really “baby”-murdering. It’s just “fetus”-murdering.

This seems to assume that there's a moral distinction between killing a fetus w/in the womb and killing a baby outside it. Not everyone agrees that there is such a distinction.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:04 PM

Yep. That’s true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:05 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When does a fetus stop being part of the woman’s body and become an independent entity with rights all of its own?

My thought on the issue, for what it's worth, is that since the thing has fully unique DNA right from the get go, it's a fully distinct entity--a new human being, irrespective of its developmental stage. Being that that's the case, I don't see why the fact that it is inside a woman should be grounds for killing it.

My trouble with this issue is that the two sides aren't even arguing about the same thing. The left shouts, "Get your laws off my body!" They're concerned that the government not mandate what they can and cannot do in terms of medical procedures. The right shouts, "Abortion is murder!" They're concerned that the government is not protecting the rights of the innocent. These aren't the same issue! And since the two sides aren't even talking about the same thing, it's obvious (to me, anyway) that no progress is going to be made anytime soon. Regardless of what happens in South Dakota (and in possible subsequent Supreme Court brawls), about half the country is going to be very, very angry.

My concern on this board are those people who are not able to discuss the issue rationally. It's understandable, of course: things really start getting heated when the government is perceived alternatively as oppressive (laws-off-my-body) or immoral (abortion-is-murder). But those heated emotions can be kept in check, if you really work at it. Come on, folks! Let's at least keep this civilized. I'm looking at both sides here: "dumbass", "whore". These are your opinions, and you're welcome to them, but they do not make for a reasonable discussion. They make for flame wars. And pardon my unbridled optimism, but I think we can do better than this.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:10 PM

Well Finn my experience with abortion has been stated already. As I'm aware most backstreet abortions end in the mother either being dead (two deaths instead of one) or infertile. From my experience that means that two or three people would not be alive right now if abortions were illegal.

Frankly, that's enough for me.

Edit:
And yeah, I think making abortions illegal will ruin or end more lives than keeping them legal, I have no real empirical evidence to back this position up, but the opposition has no real empirical evidence to dispute it either. Though maybe saying 'the fact' was a poor choice of words, I should have said my opinion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well Finn my experience with abortion has been stated already. As I'm aware most backstreet abortions end in the mother either being dead (two deaths instead of one) or infertile. From my experience that means that two or three people would not be alive right now, instead of one.

Frankly, that's enough for me.

That’s fine, but you can’t use that argument to say that there would be more deaths/aborted fetuses if abortion were illegal. Just because back alley abortions may be more risky to the mother’s health, in general, does not mean that the mother will die all the time or even most of the time. And all the evidence, that I’ve seen, concerning the number of such abortions occurring prior to 1973 suggests that abortion occurred much less then it has during legalized abortion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
My concern on this board are those people who are not able to discuss the issue rationally. It's understandable, of course: things really start getting heated when the government is perceived alternatively as oppressive (laws-off-my-body) or immoral (abortion-is-murder). But those heated emotions can be kept in check, if you really work at it. Come on, folks! Let's at least keep this civilized. I'm looking at both sides here: "dumbass", "whore". These are your opinions, and you're welcome to them, but they do not make for a reasonable discussion. They make for flame wars. And pardon my unbridled optimism, but I think we can do better than this.

Well, “whore” and “dumbass” aside, this has been pretty a civil debate as far as abortion debates go. But I do agree that such comments don’t really help the discussion or one's own argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:52 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, “whore” and “dumbass” aside, this has been pretty a civil debate as far as abortion debates go. But I do agree that such comments don’t really help the discussion or one's own argument.

After some thought, I'll take the "dumbass" back, or at least change it to irresponsible. Here's the logic:

Putting aside the whole "life begins at X point" thing, criminalizing abortion as the SD law does forces pregnant women who have no desire to have children to have them. Their reasons for not wanting to bring a particular pregnancy to term might range from simple inconvenience, to economic or societal factors, to not wanting to bear the child of a rapist or relative, to not wanting to bear a child who will have severe physical problems, to not wanting a pregnancy which will cause physical problems for the woman, or possibly prevent further child-bearing.

Since the government of SD, acting for the people, requires all these types of pregnancies to produce a child, you'd hope they might have taken some action to deal with the results of these births. Shouldn't they provide for children who they force to be born into bad economic or family conditions. How about providing homes for children born due to rape, and all necessary counseling for the mother? Maybe pay the medical bills for children born with severe physical or mental problems which were diagnosed early in the pregnancy? Will they pay medical bills of women injured by dangerous pregnancies they were required to go through? I don't see anything in the SD legislation that takes responsibility for the imposition of their will in any of these cases.

Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.

A little research into the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, who provided the recommendations for the bill, shows that(aside from the fact it was stacked with RTL members) it excluded any references to family planning or sex education from it's final report. Even the task force chairman, Dr. Marty Allison, an avowed RTLer, walked out of the final meeting, and stated,

"It got to the point at the end that part of the task force members, as well as the vast majority of our public audience, left the meeting because it just got so ridiculous. It was an embarrassing end, to tell you the truth. I was disappointed in the process...The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated"

Google "South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion" for more info.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:14 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

45-million mass-murdered Americans since Roe v Wade legalized genocide. How can America survive that? Jewish eugenics cult have really got their Death Camps crankin out the corpses. Reaverism is on the rise, like that cannibal abortion doc arrested for microwaving feti for lunch. I guess that's how to make room for 100-million illegal aliens... Do YOU want to murder YOUR children? Can you live with that? Why not sell them ALIVE for adoption, at $30,000 each? Why not cut taxes by 90%, like it was for previous generations, so wives can afford to stay home and raise the kids, rather than try to work a slave job for zero pay (by giving all wages to greedy govt)? Aren't these better options?

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:14 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Citizen-

Thanks.

Along with your position, there was an interesting panel discussion at my school that I was unable to attend titled "When Abortion Was Illegal".

But anyway, I found a link to one of the court cases that I based my statement off of

http://www3.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/hsbioethics/units/cases/unit
2_4.html

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it's interesting because a 12 year old died as a result of the half-siblings' mother not wanting the procedure performed.

Furthermore, the 7th point on this publication is an interesting read (as is the whole thing): http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:28 PM