Abortion is now illegal in one state in the USA [Archive]

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 05:32 PM

ShelleBink wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: And BTW... I'm not 100 percent pro-choice, and I'm not 100 percent pro-life. I have had a lot of personal dealings in my life that make me sway and see both sides of the story.I had a friend of mine abort because she was date-raped 10 years ago, and my cousin and her husband successfully adopted a beautiful little girl because the mother of their child decided NOT to abort even when pressured by the father. It's a touchy issue. There are good reasons and loads evidence in favor of pro-choice and pro-life. I don't think making abortion illegal is the answer though.   I don't think making abortion illegal is the answer either.  However, everyone freaks out thinking that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will become illegal nationwide, when that is simply not the case.

bobrobot

02-22-2006, 05:37 PM

Open for business & walk ins &  house calls...<img height="156" src="http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers/h12.gif" width="275" border="0" />welcome back to the age of unelightenment!

Dudeman

02-22-2006, 05:42 PM

<div align="left">
 i couldnt disagree more. first of all, thats alot of money.
not to mention missing work? what if she doesn't have a car? what if
shes a teenager? and what about follow up beta hCG checks; what if she
needs a D&C or D&E, etc? just running off to ny or ca is not an
option for a poor girl in missouri.
 
as an example, here is an excerpt from a recent Time article:
"Consider, for example, the case of a 22-year-old unmarried woman we will call
Lisa, who missed her period last November. Lisa, who was managing a restaurant,
decided to have an abortion. Her timing could have been better. Just the
month before, Springfield's only abortion provider, which had been operating
five days a week just 15 minutes from her home, closed its doors. "The
environment here in Missouri is so hostile," its administrator told
the local paper. With four abortion doctors left in the state, compared with
10 as recently as 1996, Lisa's closest alternative turned out to be the Planned
Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, an eight-hour round trip by car. That meant
Lisa, who has no car, not only had to ask a friend to drive her but also
had to come up with an excuse for missing two days of work, because she was
afraid to tell her boss the truth. Two weeks later, she had to make the trip
again, for a follow-up exam that lasted about five minutes. She figures the
whole episode--the clinic's bill, the prescription for the abortion drug
mifepristone, gasoline, food and incidentals--cost her a little more than
$600. "It was all very frustrating," Lisa told TIME a month after
her abortion. "I only recently paid back everyone I borrowed money from."" 

</div>
  Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Even
if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it turns over the laws back to the states
- it doesn't outlaw abortion. And I can rattle off a bunch of states
that'll never outlaw abortion. California, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusettes, Vermont, Nevada, etc.Not to sound incredibly
cold and callous - yet I will anyway - if you decide to get an
abortion, you can also fly/drive/take the bus to a state where abortion
is legal. We live in different times than before Roe v. Wade. Women
(and people in general) are smarter, more-informed, and we have the
internet.The days of the back-alley hack job abortion is over.   <blockquote />

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 06:29 PM

Dudeman wrote: 
 i couldnt disagree more. first of all, thats alot of money.
not to mention missing work? what if she doesn't have a car? what if
shes a teenager? and what about follow up beta hCG checks; what if she
needs a D&C or D&E, etc? just running off to ny or ca is not an
option for a poor girl in missouri.Again, not to be cold or callous, but $600 bucks is nothing compared to hospital costs for actually having the baby.  Wild guess - "Lisa" doesn't have health insurance.  Lisa is complaining more about having to repay her debts than wondering about her own personal responsibility in the first place.If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you should be responsible enough to take precautions, or you learn the REALLY hard way. <blockquote /> [/quote]

The Jays

02-22-2006, 06:33 PM

Dudeman wrote: <div align="left">
 i couldnt disagree more. first of all, thats alot of money.
not to mention missing work? what if she doesn't have a car? what if
shes a teenager? and what about follow up beta hCG checks; what if she
needs a D&C or D&E, etc? just running off to ny or ca is not an
option for a poor girl in missouri.

state can make it's own laws. you might not like it, but you don't have much say in the matter. and if you're gonna have sex before being ready to have a kid, you really oughta be more keen on where you're local abortion clinic is, and how business is doing there, or whether there's one around at all.

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 06:35 PM

My last post made me just realize something, and it's a cornerstone of a personal belief - personal responsibility.If Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and maybe this is just me thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that it may be the kick that people need to start taking even more personal responsibility in their own lives.Just a though.

ADF

02-22-2006, 06:36 PM

Sometimes you get pregnant even while taking precautions.  Six hundred dollars may not seem like a ton of money, especially when compared to having a baby, but six hundred dollars may as well be a million dollars to some of the people who need access to these services the most.  Abortion should be cheap, legal nationwide, and easily accessible to the poor.

HBox

02-22-2006, 06:38 PM

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and
maybe this is just me thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that
it may be the kick that people need to start taking even more personal
responsibility in their own lives.Just a though.AIDS, Herpes, and all the other STDs didn't accomplish that, but THIS will? I tend to the pro-life side, but even I don't believe this will have any effect. People have sex, always have, always will.

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 06:42 PM

ADF wrote: Sometimes you get pregnant even while taking precautions. Six hundred dollars may not seem like a ton of money, especially when compared to having a baby, but six hundred dollars may as well be a million dollars to some of the people who need access to these services the most. Abortion should be cheap, legal nationwide, and easily accessible to the poor.    Isn't that what Planned Parenthood does already?I have a feeling that if RvW is overturned, there will be even MORE resources to help the poor get abortions.The funniest thing about this whole thing is that two states that are guaranteed to make it illegal - Texas and Florida - will have it's welfare system completely decimated because of the large cities, lack of abortions, etc.  It's a totally vicious cycle.

Dudeman

02-22-2006, 06:44 PM

what if, due to no fault of your own, you grow up in a
single parent household, your mom has a drug problem, you certainly
dont go to a obgyn with any regulaity, dont have access to ocp's, etc.
yes, that girl needs to do something to not get pregnant, but it
happens- thats a fact that we may never be able to stop 100%. ive
spen the last few weeks delivering babies in the bronx and dealing with
kids and moms in a peds er in manhattan. the problems leading to
abortion are much bigger than having teenage girls take some "personal
responsibilty." and until this society deals with them, abortion will
be a necessary evil.  Tenbatsuzen wrote: My last post made me just realize something, and it's a cornerstone of a personal belief - personal responsibility.If
Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and maybe this is just me
thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that it may be the kick that
people need to start taking even more personal responsibility in their
own lives.Just a though.  <blockquote />

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 06:44 PM

HBox wrote: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and
maybe this is just me thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that
it may be the kick that people need to start taking even more personal
responsibility in their own lives.Just a though. AIDS, Herpes, and all the other STDs didn't accomplish that, but THIS will? I tend to the pro-life side, but even I don't believe this will have any effect. People have sex, always have, always will.   It's a lot easier to get pregnant than it is to get AIDS or Herpes.  And most STD's are curable.  Herpes has become more of a nuisance than a threat, and AIDS has evolved from a death sentence to a managable (but still ultimately fatal) condition in less than 20 years.

spoon

02-22-2006, 07:41 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Dudeman wrote: i couldnt disagree more. first of all, thats alot of money. not to mention missing work? what if she doesn't have a car? what if shes a teenager? and what about follow up beta hCG checks; what if she needs a D&C or D&E, etc? just running off to ny or ca is not an option for a poor girl in missouri.  Again, not to be cold or callous, but $600 bucks is nothing compared to hospital costs for actually having the baby.  Wild guess - "Lisa" doesn't have health insurance.  Lisa is complaining more about having to repay her debts than wondering about her own personal responsibility in the first place.If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you should be responsible enough to take precautions, or you learn the REALLY hard way.  I am pro-choice, but I couldn't agree more with Tenbats here.  It's people such as these that make the case for pro-life nuts.  And by nuts I mean the over the top zealots who turn to violence, not others like my religious based mother and father.

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 07:50 PM

Dudeman wrote: what if, due to no fault of your own, you grow up in a
single parent household, your mom has a drug problem, you certainly
dont go to a obgyn with any regulaity, dont have access to ocp's, etc.
yes, that girl needs to do something to not get pregnant,   YES ITS CALLED NOT HAVING SEXShe can't control the single parent, the drug problem, or the lack of obgyn.  She CAN control giving it up. <blockquote />

spoon

02-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  ADF wrote: Sometimes you get pregnant even while taking precautions. Six hundred dollars may not seem like a ton of money, especially when compared to having a baby, but six hundred dollars may as well be a million dollars to some of the people who need access to these services the most. Abortion should be cheap, legal nationwide, and easily accessible to the poor.    Isn't that what Planned Parenthood does already?I have a feeling that if RvW is overturned, there will be even MORE resources to help the poor get abortions.The funniest thing about this whole thing is that two states that are guaranteed to make it illegal - Texas and Florida - will have it's welfare system completely decimated because of the large cities, lack of abortions, etc.  It's a totally vicious cycle. There is a book that I read a few years back.....I just can't remeber the name of it forgive me, that spoke of the financial and criminal impacts of Roe vs. Wade in today's society.  It was mainly written to address the dropping crime rates around the country, especially in big cities/urban communities.  They looked at the number of unwanted pregnancies that were aborted since the ruling and those estimated before and extrapolated the difference from there.  The financial implications based on welfare figures (already brought into the picture by TB) were impossible to argue, but they went further.  They claimed that Guliani (sp) and other political figures may have done well to reduce crime in their respective areas, but the lack of misinformed, unwanted, unfortunate youth due to legal abortion over the those years since the ruling made for a much more stable society.  The financial implication of this lessened crime was also covered.  A very interesting read if only I could remember the name of it.  I'll find the book soon and list it.   Anyone see this one?

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 07:57 PM

spoon wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: ADF wrote: Sometimes you get pregnant even while taking precautions. Six hundred dollars may not seem like a ton of money, especially when compared to having a baby, but six hundred dollars may as well be a million dollars to some of the people who need access to these services the most. Abortion should be cheap, legal nationwide, and easily accessible to the poor. Isn't that what Planned Parenthood does already?I have a feeling that if RvW is overturned, there will be even MORE resources to help the poor get abortions.The funniest thing about this whole thing is that two states that are guaranteed to make it illegal - Texas and Florida - will have it's welfare system completely decimated because of the large cities, lack of abortions, etc. It's a totally vicious cycle. There is a book that I read a few years back.....I just can't remeber the name of it forgive me, that spoke of the financial and criminal impacts of Roe vs. Wade in today's society. It was mainly written to address the dropping crime rates around the country, especially in big cities/urban communities. They looked at the number of unwanted pregnancies that were aborted since the ruling and those estimated before and extrapolated the difference from there. The financial implications based on welfare figures (already brought into the picture by TB) were impossible to argue, but they went further. They claimed that Guliani (sp) and other political figures may have done well to reduce crime in their respective areas, but the lack of misinformed, unwanted, unfortunate youth due to legal abortion over the those years since the ruling made for a much more stable society. The financial implication of this lessened crime was also covered. A very interesting read if only I could remember the name of it. I'll find the book soon and list it. Anyone see this one?  Wasn't this mentioned on the R&F show?  I seem to vaguely remember it.

HBox

02-22-2006, 07:59 PM

<img width="173" height="250" border="0" src="http://www.englishrules.com/images/blog/freakonomics-cover.jpg" />This may not have been the book you were talking about Spoon, but the same thing was addressed in here,

spoon

02-22-2006, 08:02 PM

That's it Boxy!  Thanks, as it was pissing me off that I couldn't remember it.  I have two boxes emptied on the floor as we speak.  As for the mention on the show, I didn't catch it.  When was it brought up and why?  Thanks again H!

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 08:05 PM

spoon wrote: That's it Boxy! Thanks, as it was pissing me off that I couldn't remember it. I have two boxes emptied on the floor as we speak. As for the mention on the show, I didn't catch it. When was it brought up and why? Thanks again H!  I seem to remember the argument of abortion economics brought up - using much of the same wording that you just spoke about - and then Ron just discrediting it because it was a theory and there wasn't any real-world numbers to back it up.I could be wrong.  I'm not sure.

TheMojoPin

02-22-2006, 08:09 PM

and AIDS has evolved from a death sentence to a managable (but still ultimately fatal) condition in less than 20 years.Temporarily, at best.  This is the prevailing mindset about AIDS these days, and it's incredibly dangerous.  The current "drug cocktail" treatments are stopgaps that will be moot within the next 25 years as long as the virus keeps mutating.  Cocktails used a decade ago often are now useless for people newly infected.  AIDS is far, FAR from being "managable."And as for the topic of the thread, I'll have to concede to the state here.  Abortion, along with guns, drugs and gay marriage, is one of the key issues that should be decided on a state by state basis these days, not through federal legislation.  State's rights is a huge sticking point of mine, and like it or not, this is how they're supposed to work.

legroommusic

02-22-2006, 08:22 PM

first it's abortion. then it's the sodomy laws. where can a fella put his dick these days?

FUNKMAN

02-22-2006, 08:31 PM

legroommusic wrote: first it's abortion. then it's the sodomy laws. where can a fella put his dick these days? <img height="490" src="http://www.regcen.com/blenderrecall/blender.jpg" width="347" border="0" />

Tenbatsuzen

02-22-2006, 08:36 PM

FUNKMAN wrote: legroommusic wrote: first it's abortion. then it's the sodomy laws. where can a fella put his dick these days? <img width="347" height="490" border="0" src="http://www.regcen.com/blenderrecall/blender.jpg" />  now I'm starvin'

FUNKMAN

02-22-2006, 08:44 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  FUNKMAN wrote: legroommusic wrote: first it's abortion. then it's the sodomy laws. where can a fella put his dick these days? <img height="490" src="http://www.regcen.com/blenderrecall/blender.jpg" width="347" border="0" />  now I'm starvin'  one penis colada coming up...

Doogie

02-22-2006, 10:37 PM

I made a great reply to Mojo saying this is about states rights and made a reference to Article IV section 1 of the Constitution about full faith and credit. But for some reason when I hit post message the whole thing got deleted andit did not publish and I am too pissed to retype the whole thing. Basic summary, make sure you copy your shit before ya hit publish.

spoon

02-22-2006, 11:04 PM

That happened to me before and being the verbose crazy peep that I am, I refused to retype my book!  However, one cannot copy while in the reply mode in r/f.net.  Perhaps my comp just really blows, but I've tried here and there. 

FMJeff

02-22-2006, 11:17 PM

bobogolem wrote:  Open for business & walk ins &  house calls...<img height="156" src="http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers/h12.gif" width="275" border="0" />welcome back to the age of unelightenment!you're so edgy

bobrobot

02-23-2006, 04:34 AM

FMJeff wrote: you're so edgy <img title="OUCH!!!" height="489" alt="OUCH!!!" src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/bobogolem/ouch.jpg" width="500" border="0" />

This message was edited by bobogolem on 2-23-06 @ 8:37 AM

fezident

02-23-2006, 05:49 AM

Nobody puts Baby in a corner.

angrymissy

02-23-2006, 06:32 AM

I'm not going to go into my usual argument here... but I'm still amazed that any man seems to think they can tell a woman how to handle a pregnancy. These women will now have to travel farther for an abortion, which is going to increase the rate of complications, because they are not going to want to go for follow up visits, and they are going to have to wait longer to travel long distances for the abortion, which is going to make women riskier later term abortions. It is oh so very easy to judge a young girl getting pregnant, and saying they should have just closed their legs, when you yourself will never have to be in that situation.It's coming down to the fact that safe abortion will only be available for the rich.

This message was edited by angrymissy on 2-23-06 @ 10:32 AM

Doogie

02-23-2006, 06:37 AM

Shit, it will be even worse than that. It means the return of the backalley abortions cause there is no rights in place for that woman. And too all those people who quote "personal responsibility", face the facts that shit doesnt always work. The important thing is that their is a CHOICE to be made by that person. End of discussion.

Furtherman

02-23-2006, 06:50 AM

angrymissy wrote: I'm not going to go into my usual argument here... but I'm still amazed that any man seems to think they can tell a woman how to handle a pregnancy. Exactly.A man has no right to tell any woman what to do with her body.  Would any man want a woman telling him what to do with his?  Idiots.

Tenbatsuzen

02-23-2006, 06:53 AM

Missy and Doogie, I respect your opinions and I'm not telling anyone anything.  As I said, I'm not 100 percent pro choice or pro life.  Each situation is different, and I just present my opinions.The only thing I am adamant about is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal, it just becomes a state's right issue.  That seems to get lost in the furor.I have my own personal opinions on the matter, but I'd never stand in the way of a woman's right to choose.

ShelleBink

02-23-2006, 06:56 AM

Doogie76 wrote: Shit, it will be even worse than that. It means the return of the backalley abortions cause there is no rights in place for that woman. And too all those people who quote "personal responsibility", face the facts that shit doesnt always work. The important thing is that their is a CHOICE to be made by that person. End of discussion.   Agreed.  I may be echoing some things already said... If you are pro-life, then by all means you may state your opinion for a woman to keep the baby, but ultimately its ideal for a woman to have options and choices.  This is why personally, I'm pro-choice.  This does not mean I'm pro-abortions, but I feel it should be allowed and offered legally and decided by the parents ((although, the woman would most likely have the final say just from a biological standpoint)).

A.J.

02-23-2006, 06:58 AM

but I'm still amazed that any man seems to think they can tell a woman how to handle a pregnancy. Yeah but Missy, some would argue that a man isn't telling women how to handle a pregnancy; God is. Of course, these are the same people that believe God would find it just dandy when doctors who perform abortions are shot and when abortion clinics are blown up.

Furtherman

02-23-2006, 07:01 AM

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:07 AM

A.J. wrote:  but I'm still amazed that any man seems to think they can tell a woman how to handle a pregnancy.  Yeah but Missy, some would argue that a man isn't telling women how to handle a pregnancy; God is. Of course, these are the same people that believe God would find it just dandy when doctors who perform abortions are shot and when abortion clinics are blown up.  Although I'm not pro-life, I think they would put their position a little differently. Clearly, the government is entitled to tell parents how they can treat their children.  For example, I don't think that anyone would argue that a parent is entitled to abandon their child in a garbage can after birth.  The reason is because the child herself has the right to live, and the government must punish her killer, like it would the killer of any other individual.  A pro-life individual believes that a child exists, and therefore has the right to live, at the point of conception.  For most if not all pro-lifers, this belief is based upon religious teaching.  However, if that belief were true, the government should protect the child whether it is within the mother's body or not, because the child would have a right to live.   

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-23-06 @ 11:15 AM

TheMojoPin

02-23-2006, 07:21 AM

And that very possibly could be true.  Personally, I don't believe that's the case, but it's totally subjective at this point, and anyone on either side who tells you they KNOW when life begins is lying like there's no tomorrow.Let me ask this to the other people who are adamantly pro-choice...if conclusive and indisutable proof came out that showed life as we know it begins at conception, would you still support the option to choose in situation other than one where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?  Honestly, I wouldn't anymore.  And you have to at least consider that as a legitimate possibility as long as this debate remains without either side being 100% proven right.  That's why I feel more comfortable with individual states within the country ruling on issues like this until a more conclusive answer can be found.  The government ruling on issues like this for the whole country really does not fall under what they should be able to do.

angrymissy

02-23-2006, 07:24 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: And that very possibly could be true.  Personally, I don't believe that's the case, but it's totally subjective at this point, and anyone on either side who tells you they KNOW when life begins is lying like there's no tomorrow.Let me ask this to the other people who are adamantly pro-choice...if conclusive and indisutable proof came out that showed life as we know it begins at conception, would you still support the option to choose in situation other than one where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?  Honestly, I wouldn't anymore.  And you have to at least consider that as a legitimate possibility as long as this debate remains without either side being 100% proven right.  That's why I feel more comfortable with individual states within the country ruling on issues like this until a more conclusive answer can be found.  The government ruling on issues like this for the whole country really does not fall under what they should be able to do.Yes.  It should be a woman's decision whether or not she has to birth and support anything.  Anyway, it has already been proven that before 22 weeks or so, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, effectively making it a parasite.  I should have to right to make the choice to not support that fetus anymore if I want to.

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:28 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: The government ruling on issues like this for the whole country really does not fall under what they should be able to do.I disagree. The Constituation is designed to protect inalienable individual rights from federal and state government infringement.   If there is a right to privacy and control of one's own body recognized by the Constitution, then it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to rule on that issue.

suggums

02-23-2006, 07:31 AM

what's worse than a dump truck full of dead babies?

TheMojoPin

02-23-2006, 07:32 AM

angrymissy wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: And that very possibly could be true.  Personally, I don't believe that's the case, but it's totally subjective at this point, and anyone on either side who tells you they KNOW when life begins is lying like there's no tomorrow.Let me ask this to the other people who are adamantly pro-choice...if conclusive and indisutable proof came out that showed life as we know it begins at conception, would you still support the option to choose in situation other than one where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?  Honestly, I wouldn't anymore.  And you have to at least consider that as a legitimate possibility as long as this debate remains without either side being 100% proven right.  That's why I feel more comfortable with individual states within the country ruling on issues like this until a more conclusive answer can be found.  The government ruling on issues like this for the whole country really does not fall under what they should be able to do.Yes.  It should be a woman's decision whether or not she has to birth and support anything.  Anyway, it has already been proven that before 22 weeks or so, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, effectively making it a parasite.  I should have to right to make the choice to not support that fetus anymore if I want to.  So if someone can't survive without some kind of medical equipment, they no longer have any right to life?  Or if a mother decides a year or so after having the kid she doesn't want it, she can just bash its head in and toss it out?  That's a very slippery slope you're proposing there, Missy...And so is 22 weeks a magic absolute number?  Could abortion be banned from that point on unless it was medically necessary?  What I'm talking about is BEYOND that....the issue of when life itself begins is something neither side actually knows.I disagree. The Constituation is designed to protect inalienable individual rights from federal and state government infringement.Which is fine if we're all on the same page that abortion is an inalienable right.  And that's VERY questionable as of where we stand on the issue today.

A.J.

02-23-2006, 07:33 AM

Let me ask this to the other people who are adamantly pro-choice...if conclusive and indisutable proof came out that showed life as we know it begins at conception, would you still support the option to choose in situation other than one where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?Yes.  I'm for thinning the herd, be it infant or adult.

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:35 AM

angrymissy wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: es.  It should be a woman's decision whether or not she has to birth and support anything.  Anyway, it has already been proven that before 22 weeks or so, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, effectively making it a parasite.  I should have to right to make the choice to not support that fetus anymore if I want to.  You also have the right not to support a child if you choose not to.  However, you can't kill the child, and have to give it up for adoption.  I don't think that we have the science to make this completely analogous to an unwanted pregnancy, but I wonder that if we had the science, this debate would go away.  If a woman is pregnant early enough the "being" (for lack of a better word) created can be removed and stored to be provided to a woman willing to bear the child.

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:39 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Which is fine if we're all on the same page that abortion is an inalienable right.  And that's VERY questionable as of where we stand on the issue today.Under our system, the question as to whether something is an inalienable right and thus protected by the U.S. Constitution, is for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.   Many people may question their judgment on this issue, but the Supreme Court is the body to decide this issue.

TheMojoPin

02-23-2006, 07:41 AM

(This is a response to the post above your previous one)In an ideal world, that's the perfect solution.But as to your first part, then why can't a woman give birth and then give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want it?  Then you're getting down to the issue that she probably just doesn't want to be pregnant period, which brings up even cloudier issues in terms of the "why's" of abortion.  Again, I'm not telling women what they can or can't do, just tossing out hypothetical questions.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-23-06 @ 11:47 AM

TheMojoPin

02-23-2006, 07:44 AM

EliSnow wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Which is fine if we're all on the same page that abortion is an inalienable right.  And that's VERY questionable as of where we stand on the issue today.Under our system, the question as to whether something is an inalienable right and thus protected by the U.S. Constitution, is for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.   Many people may question their judgment on this issue, but the Supreme Court is the body to decide this issue.Or re-review the issue.Personally, I don't think it is an inalienable right as long as the issues involved are still so vague.  I think it should be an option, but the mindset that it is A-OK without even bit of doubt strikes me as woefully arrogant.  And until there are more concrete answers, I'd perfer if it was decided state by state.

suggums

02-23-2006, 07:48 AM

all joking aside, i'm really in favor of post-natal abortions

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:49 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: In an ideal world, that's the perfect solution.But as to your first part, then why can't a woman give birth and then give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want it?  Then you're getting down to the issue that she probably just doesn't want to be pregnant period, which brings up even cloudier issues in terms of the "why's" of abortion.  Again, I'm not telling women what they can or can't do, just tossing out hypothetical questions.With my first statement, I did not intend to argue that women should go through pregnancy and give up their child if they don't want it.  What I was trying to do was make the point that if a fetus had rights equivalent to a child who was born, then arguably they are to be treated the same.  You may not want to support the fetus, but, just as you can't kill a born child, you can't kill the fetus.  Again, I'm not saying that I believe that a pre-20 week fetus is alive, and thus have rights.  I'm just saying that if we knew for certain that it was, under our system, the baby would have to be protected.

angrymissy

02-23-2006, 07:52 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: angrymissy wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: And that very possibly could be true.  Personally, I don't believe that's the case, but it's totally subjective at this point, and anyone on either side who tells you they KNOW when life begins is lying like there's no tomorrow.Let me ask this to the other people who are adamantly pro-choice...if conclusive and indisutable proof came out that showed life as we know it begins at conception, would you still support the option to choose in situation other than one where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?  Honestly, I wouldn't anymore.  And you have to at least consider that as a legitimate possibility as long as this debate remains without either side being 100% proven right.  That's why I feel more comfortable with individual states within the country ruling on issues like this until a more conclusive answer can be found.  The government ruling on issues like this for the whole country really does not fall under what they should be able to do.Yes.  It should be a woman's decision whether or not she has to birth and support anything.  Anyway, it has already been proven that before 22 weeks or so, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, effectively making it a parasite.  I should have to right to make the choice to not support that fetus anymore if I want to.  So if someone can't survive without some kind of medical equipment, they no longer have any right to life?  Or if a mother decides a year or so after having the kid she doesn't want it, she can just bash its head in and toss it out?  That's a very slippery slope you're proposing there, Missy...And so is 22 weeks a magic absolute number?  Could abortion be banned from that point on unless it was medically necessary?  What I'm talking about is BEYOND that....the issue of when life itself begins is something neither side actually knows. I disagree. The Constituation is designed to protect inalienable individual rights from federal and state government infringement.  Which is fine if we're all on the same page that abortion is an inalienable right.  And that's VERY questionable as of where we stand on the issue today.I know that my opinion is shocking to some people, but yes.  That person on medical equipment is already a person.  They can control their fate with a DNR if they do not want to be kept alive.  The fetus is a potential person depending on a woman for life.22 weeks is probably the absolute point the fetus could survive outside the womb.  Without medical intervention it would be even later in the pregnancy.  AT 22 weeks, that fetus is going to have major medical issues and will not be kept alive without serious medical intervention.Abortion is already illegal in most states after 24 weeks (the others go up to 26 weeks).  The only exceptions made are if the mother's life is in danger, or there are severe birth defects.  I'm fine with those limitations.  Pro Lifers will say that a woman can walk into a clinic at 8 months and abort.  That does not happen.

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 07:57 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Or re-review the issue.Personally, I don't think it is an inalienable right as long as the issues involved are still so vague.  I think it should be an option, but the mindset that it is A-OK without even bit of doubt strikes me as woefully arrogant.  And until there are more concrete answers, I'd perfer if it was decided state by state.Let me put it this way.  Your belief that it should be up to the states is fundamentally based upon your view that it is not a clearly inalienable right.   Under our system, that question as to whether it is an unalienable right is for the Supreme Court to decide, especially given the importance of the issue.  So what I'm saying (and maybe we are saying the same thing)  is that you can't argue that the Supreme Court does not have the power to make the decision as to whether it is an unalienable right.  Rather, the argument which you can make (and Justices like Scalia do) is that their decision should be that it is not an inalienable right protected by the Constitution.  As a result, they cannot find that any abortion statutes are unconsitutional.

Dudeman

02-23-2006, 01:45 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Dudeman wrote: what if, due to no fault of your own, you grow up in a
single parent household, your mom has a drug problem, you certainly
dont go to a obgyn with any regulaity, dont have access to ocp's, etc.
yes, that girl needs to do something to not get pregnant, YES ITS CALLED NOT HAVING SEXShe can't control the single parent, the drug problem, or the lack of obgyn. She CAN control giving it up.
<hr width="100%" size="2" />  
 
that's all nice an easy to say when youre typing on a message
board. but what do you tell the 18 year old girl sitting two feet from
you in the ER or in clinic and her LMP was 6 weeks ago and you just got
a positive UPT for her??? tell her she shouldnt have had sex, pat her
on the butt, and kick her out the door???? 
   <blockquote />

spoon

02-23-2006, 02:16 PM

Somebody loves acronyms huh?  English please! Do it for those of us who haven't had a kid or are the normal ignorant male.

SouthSideJohnny

02-23-2006, 02:46 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: The only thing I am adamant about is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal, it just becomes a state's right issue.  That seems to get lost in the furor.  I repect all of the opinions on this issue, and I agree with Tenbatsuzen on just about everything in his posts but this.  I think you need to take it one step further. If the Supreme Court reverses Rowe v. Wade, it would be great if the issue fell back to the states. Unfortunately, it won’t. The only reason there is not a federal law banning abortions is because Rowe v. Wade says that almost any law banning abortions in the first two trimesters is unconstitutional .  As soon as the Supreme Court reverses Rowe, it opens the door for Congress to establish a law since it will no longer be unconstitutional.  I agree that the issue SHOULD fall back to the individual states, but it won’t. Think about it, there is no way that the Senators and Congressmen that want to ban abortion are going to be happy with people going to Cali or Nevada for abortions. They want it banned altogether, and the best way to do that is a uniform federal law.  Having some states ban it is not enough. In my experience, very few people have actually read the Constitution, and with most of those that have, it was in a middle school civics class. Our founding fathers would shit if they saw how large our federal government has become. Based on my reading of the Constitution, it was never intended that the federal government would legislate in as many areas as it already has. With the amount of existing, wide-reaching federal legislation, there is no doubt in my mind that Congress would jump on an opportunity to pass a federal law.

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 02:58 PM

SouthSideJohnny wrote: I repect all of the opinions on this issue, and I agree with Tenbatsuzen on just about everything in his posts but this.  I think you need to take it one step further. If the Supreme Court reverses Rowe v. Wade, it would be great if the issue fell back to the states. Unfortunately, it won’t. The only reason there is not a federal law banning abortions is because Rowe v. Wade says that almost any law banning abortions in the first two trimesters is unconstitutional .  As soon as the Supreme Court reverses Rowe, it opens the door for Congress to establish a law since it will no longer be unconstitutional.  I agree that the issue SHOULD fall back to the individual states, but it won’t. Think about it, there is no way that the Senators and Congressmen that want to ban abortion are going to be happy with people going to Cali or Nevada for abortions. They want it banned altogether, and the best way to do that is a uniform federal law.  Having some states ban it is not enough. I haven't taken a look at this since law school, but I don't believe that Congress can constitutionally make such a law.  Under the Constitution, Congress can't make anything it wants a crime.  The law has to touch on a federal issue such as interstate commerce.  For instance, kidnapping someone to bring them over state lines.   As another example, in 1995, the Supreme Court held that a federal law making it ilegal to knowingly possess a firearm in schools was not constitutional because the law did not relate to interstate commerce.   Furthermore, I don't think that there are enough votes in Congress, even with a Republican majority to pass such a law.  A state, like South Dakota, may have enough legislators to pass such a law applying to their state, but I don't think that there is enough federally.   Also remember, that Republican philosophy is that most things should be handled by the states, and not the federal government.  While this philosphy has changed somewhat, it still is pretty welll held by many republicans.  So many of them would not vote on such a federal law for those reasons.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-23-06 @ 7:04 PM

Hottub

02-23-2006, 03:04 PM

Eli, just throwing this out...Wasn't Scott Petersen charged (and convicted) with murder for the death of his unborn son?

EliSnow

02-23-2006, 03:06 PM

Hottub wrote: Eli, just throwing this out...Wasn't Scott Petersen charged (and convicted) with murder for the death of his unborn son?His wife was 8 months pregant.  As others have mentioned here, abortions aren't legal past a certain time.  And I don't know if you were making this point, but he was convicted under California law, not federal.

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-23-06 @ 7:07 PM

spoon

02-23-2006, 03:10 PM

That's a whole other argument hot.  I just don't think the republicans truly want this issue off the table.  Even if they could reverse it, do you think most of them would?  This is a constant power issue for the right.

Hottub

02-23-2006, 03:13 PM

No, not making a point, just trying to refresh my memory. (and maybe stir the shit a little bit)I have not made my opinion known in this thread yet. I am currently in a transitional battle with my God, my religion, my kids future beliefs and my Faith in general.

Bulldogcakes

02-23-2006, 03:27 PM

HBox wrote:AIDS, Herpes, and all the other STDs didn't accomplish that, but THIS will? I tend to the pro-life side, but even I don't believe this will have any effect. People have sex, always have, always will.    <img width="158" height="175" border="0" src="http://www.cdshakedown.com/0999/carlin_photo.jpg" />"You know, between Herpes and AIDS I dont care if I ever get laid again. And I certainly wont be Humping any Haitian Hemophiliac Homosexual Heroin addicts"

Bulldogcakes

02-23-2006, 03:51 PM

A.J. wrote:Of course, these are the same people that believe God would find it just dandy when doctors who perform abortions are shot and when abortion clinics are blown up. You've raised a very interesting subject here, one that I dont think most people have thought through. First let me get your attention. Those people may be right. IF you truly believe that a fetus is a baby (and it is of course at some point), and there is a place in your hometown where those babies are being killed on a regular basis. The state supports the practice and all legal efforts to change the laws have been futile. Babies are being brutally killed every day. Isn't it the decent, moral thing to do to stop the killing? Justifiable homocide. If someone shot and killed Colin Ferguson on the LIRR as he was trying to execute everyone on his train, no one would complain, actually they'd probably cheer. Its a fundamental flaw in the Pro-Life argument. If it truly is a human life, then we are witnessing a Holocost in our country and extreme actions to stop the slaughter of innocents is completely justified. If its not a human being, then its a medical procedure that should be left up to the doctor and patient.Now we just need to figure out when life begins. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-23-06 @ 8:09 PM

Bulldogcakes

02-23-2006, 04:04 PM

angrymissy wrote:Yes. It should be a woman's decision whether or not she has to birth and support anything. Anyway, it has already been proven that before 22 weeks or so, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, effectively making it a parasite. I should have to right to make the choice to not support that fetus anymore if I want to. The parasite at 22 weeks<img width="240" height="248" border="0" src="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/22-weeks.jpg" /> Weighs a few pounds, about the size of a man's hand legnthwise.  Feel free to Google "fetus 22 weeks" to view what they look like aborted. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-23-06 @ 8:05 PM

Mike Teacher

02-23-2006, 04:42 PM

ok a highly charged topic, but the teacher has some rhethorical stuff, meaning i'm not taking sides, just spitting out stuff...yeah the parasite thing is weird, but valid, meaning in biology, strictly speaking, it does fill much of what parasites' are.now, also remember, a newborn baby, also an not survive w/o help from mother/others. Human babies are born on the far end of the scale that runs from totally helpless dependent newborns to animals whose newborns are up and walking minutes from birth. Some argue the explosive increase of the skull volume we see in human evolution forces this; thats heads gotta come out while it still can, and thats in a state where the baby is waaaaaaaaaaaay far from being able to move around/feed itself. So: Can the case be made that a newborn baby, and even for a while longer after that, also fits much of the description of 'fetus'?As to when life begins; I see it as a continuum that started 4 billion years ago and goes on. Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' and all that. At the molecular level; its always been going and going and going. Some argue we're just the host organisms for the genes to have their party in.So! Can a person be both pro-choice and pro-life?

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 2-23-06 @ 8:45 PM

Hottub

02-23-2006, 04:53 PM

Quite a conundrum! Does life begin at the moment of conception? Does Life begin when a fetus can be incubated and come to maturity? Does life begin with the newborn, wrapped in a towel and put in the garbage can outside of the Eastside deli?I am a Proud father, so naturally, I have a slant. But morally, I am still battling my inner Demons.

Bulldogcakes

02-23-2006, 04:54 PM

Mike Teacher wrote:So! Can a person be both pro-choice and pro-life? I think so. I think I am. In the first trimester, I think it's really none of my business.  In the second trimester, I have serious concerns that its no longer just about the mother, that there is clearly (see above) at some point another being involved. At that point the state should regulate when the procedure should be allowed. And 2nd trimester abortions should be a far higher standard than first trimester. You should have a damn good reason at that point. If you dont, carry to term and give it up for adoption if you dont want it. 3rd trimester is infanticide, in my opinion, whatever the reason. You want to argue "Justifiable infanticide" because the life of the mother's involved? Fine. But lets agree its infanticide and go from there. <blockquote />

Dudeman

02-23-2006, 05:10 PM

spoon wrote: Somebody loves acronyms huh? English please! Do it for those of us who haven't had a kid or are the normal ignorant male.  
<hr width="100%" size="2" />lmp= last menstrual period. upt= urine pregnancy test. 
  <blockquote />

A.J.

02-24-2006, 03:14 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  A.J. wrote: Of course, these are the same people that believe God would find it just dandy when doctors who perform abortions are shot and when abortion clinics are blown up.  You've raised a very interesting subject here, one that I dont think most people have thought through. First let me get your attention. Those people may be right. IF you truly believe that a fetus is a baby (and it is of course at some point), and there is a place in your hometown where those babies are being killed on a regular basis. The state supports the practice and all legal efforts to change the laws have been futile. Babies are being brutally killed every day. Isn't it the decent, moral thing to do to stop the killing? Justifiable homocide. If someone shot and killed Colin Ferguson on the LIRR as he was trying to execute everyone on his train, no one would complain, actually they'd probably cheer. Its a fundamental flaw in the Pro-Life argument. If it truly is a human life, then we are witnessing a Holocost in our country and extreme actions to stop the slaughter of innocents is completely justified. If its not a human being, then its a medical procedure that should be left up to the doctor and patient.Now we just need to figure out when life begins.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-23-06 @ 8:09 PM I'm familiar with that argument, sure.  Then by the same logic, corrections officers can become fair game because they are murdering people too (albeit convicted felons) -- if you buy the "only God can take life argument".I'm NOT attacking what you're saying -- just throwing another argument out there for debate.  You can go around and around forever on the abortion/death penalty debate.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 03:23 AM

A.J. wrote: 
 I'm
familiar with that argument, sure. Then by the same logic, corrections
officers can become fair game because they are murdering people too
(albeit convicted felons) -- if you buy the "only God can take life
argument".I'm NOT attacking what you're saying -- just throwing
another argument out there for debate. You can go around and around
forever on the abortion/death penalty debate.
That is one thing that drives me nuts about a lot of (but not all)
conservatives.  They are 'Pro-Life' but at the same time they will
not hesitate to sentence a person to death.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 08:14 AM

Weighs a few pounds, about the size of a man's hand legnthwise.  Feel free to Google "fetus 22 weeks" to view what they look like aborted First off, if you google 22 week abortion blah blah, you're not getting real pictures.  Most of those are almost full term premature births.  EDIT:  I just checked, and I assume you would be talking about that second picture on google image search, and that is most CERTAINLY not a 22 week old fetus.  That is an almost full term baby.  When an abortion is performed at around 22-24 weeks, you do not have a full baby like that.  The fetus is not whole when it comes out.  And yes, a 22 week old fetus looks like the ultrasound image you posted, and yes IMO, if it is unwanted, it is a parasite.  Sorry.  You could never understand, because you are not a woman and will never have to go through an unwanted preganancy.  I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's mine.  I am planning on having children soon, and I will not consider my fetus a "parasite", as I will be wanting it.Abortions after 15 weeks are not the norm, and there is usually a pretty damned good reason when they happen that late term (birth defect, father dies, person loses job, mothers health is compromised).  Here are the CDC statistics on what stage in pregnancy abortions are performed:From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions was obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. 3rd trimester is infanticide, in my opinion, whatever the reason. You want to argue "Justifiable infanticide" because the life of the mother's involved? Fine. But lets agree its infanticide and go from there. 3rd Trimester Abortions are not legal in any state.  I THINK it might be Kansas that goes up to 26 weeks (have to check on that).  A doctor will not perform a 3rd Trimester abortion (which would be induced labor) unless the woman's health was in imminent danger, or there were severe birth defects.Now, back to the original subject matter... Most people who are on the fence about abortion are not as opposed to abortions performed earlier in a pregancy.  Banning abortion in South Dakota is only going to make later term abortions more common, as poorer people will need to pool resources to get to a neighboring state to obtain an abortion.

This message was edited by angrymissy on 2-24-06 @ 12:26 PM

furie

02-24-2006, 12:16 PM

Abortion is now illegal in one state in the USA

well, that's a bit misleading, it's not illeagal yet.

curtoid

02-24-2006, 12:35 PM

I personally believe it's a women's health issue and men and governments should really shut their pie hole, but what do I know - i just feel that this, the death penalty and gay marriage put us in the company of some of the worst countries in the world.  spoon wrote: I just don't think the republicans truly want this issue off the table.  Even if they could reverse it, do you think most of them would?  This is a constant power issue for the right.  I was about ready to post the same thing, almost word for word. It generates too much money in the campaign cycles, and most of them don't even believe it really is Murder.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 12:49 PM

On the statement about conservatives being pro-life and pro-death penalty, one could say that an unborn child is innocent while a convicted murder, well, obviously isn't. Just a thought.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 12:52 PM

And how do you know that the person on death row is truly guilty?"Since 1973, 122 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence."

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 12:56 PM

I guess you don't. I wasn't really stating my opinion one way or the other on the matter.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 12:58 PM

keithy_19 wrote: On
the statement about conservatives being pro-life and pro-death penalty,
one could say that an unborn child is innocent while a convicted
murder, well, obviously isn't. Just a thought. Its not about guilt or innocence.  If you truly value human life and believe that killing is wrong, then I don't see how you can support the death penalty.  To me, its not justice, its revenge.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 12:58 PM

I'm curious as to the amount of people on death row being released since, I don't know, 1997 or 2000. I think as technology increases so does the accuracy of arrests.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 12:59 PM

Anyway, if you are a Catholic, that baby isn't innocent anyway, because they have that spiffy "original sin"!

This message was edited by angrymissy on 2-24-06 @ 5:00 PM

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 01:01 PM

I disagree with the Catholics there.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 01:05 PM

keithy_19 wrote: I'm curious as to the amount of people on death row being released since, I don't know, 1997 or 2000. I think as technology increases so does the accuracy of arrests. Since 1997, 53.  <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109">http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109</a> .  Sometimes it's not even due to DNA evidence53 innocent people that could have been killed.

Furtherman

02-24-2006, 01:06 PM

Catholics are silly.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 01:09 PM

53. That's horrible. Thank God we have a justice system that allowed us to stop the wrong doing. One could say nothing is going to stop the "wrong doing" of killing an unborn child though.  This is why there is no end to this kind of discussion. It's point counter point and I don't ever see there being an end. Nor do I see RvW being overturned.

booster11373

02-24-2006, 01:15 PM

Maybe once SD bans abortion, It will wake up the rest of the sleeping masses in this country and then they will realize what the conservative republican leadership is trying to do this country they will vote them out during the mid-term elections. Just a thoughtAnd remember 51% of voters, voted for Bush not 51% of the country

kevcala

02-24-2006, 01:24 PM

And remember 51% of voters, voted for Bush not 51% of the country What does that mean?

EliSnow

02-24-2006, 01:32 PM

kevcala wrote: And remember 51% of voters, voted for Bush not 51% of the country  What does that mean? It means that not every person in the United States voted (whether they were eligible or not).  Thus, because 100% of the country didn't vote, the people who did and voted for Bush did not equal 51% of the country.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-24-06 @ 5:38 PM

booster11373

02-24-2006, 01:34 PM

It means not everyone who can vote voted in the last election. There wasn't 100% voter turnout.<table height="98" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="499" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="657" colspan="4" height="19">Summary</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="113" height="19">Bush</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="90" height="19"><pre>62,041,268</pre></td><td valign="top" align="right" width="156" height="19">50.73%</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="298" height="19"> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="113" height="19">Kerry</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="90" height="19">59,028,548</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="156" height="19">48.27%</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="298" height="19"> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="113" height="38">Total  (all candidates)</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="90" height="38">122,293,720</td><td valign="top" align="right" width="454" colspan="2" height="38">Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%</td></tr></table>by this chart there's another 39.7% of eligible voters who did not vote. Who knows what would have happened if they had botered to show up.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 01:35 PM

EDIT: This satement was made pointless by the graph. 

This message was edited by keithy_19 on 2-24-06 @ 5:37 PM

HBox

02-24-2006, 01:36 PM

If your own vote isn't important enough to yourself to get out and vote at least once every four years, I don't fucking care about it, and I don't see why anyone else should care either.

EliSnow

02-24-2006, 01:37 PM

keithy_19 wrote: 51% of the country that cared enough did though. That's Booster's point which was that this development may make other persons care enough to vote.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 01:40 PM

If it makes more people vote, than good. I would love to see this country have a greater turn out for elections. Something we seem to take for granted.

booster11373

02-24-2006, 01:46 PM

keithy_19 wrote: If it makes more people vote, than good. I would love to see this country have a greater turn out for elections. Something we seem to take for granted. I agree right now both parties are ruled by there fringe elements. Which lead to what we are seeing in SD.More people voting, no matter what your feeling on abortion, would be a good thing.

Hottub

02-24-2006, 02:04 PM

Anyway, if you are a Catholic, that baby isn't innocent anyway, because they have that spiffy "original sin"!I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago, but it definitely should be repeated.The Catholic Church also considers it a MORTAL sin if you have intimacies while using birth contol... WITH YOUR WIFE! Not a hooker, but the one the Catholic Church oversees a "Blessed Sacrament"I guess I am more financially saavy than the church. I cannot afford to bring up 10 kids. It is just unrealistic, and out of the realms of sanity. I also refuse to confess these "sins" so I guess I am now Damned to Hell.Hey, if all goes well, I'm going to commit another Mortal Sin tonight.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 02:19 PM

HBox wrote: If
your own vote isn't important enough to yourself to get out and vote at
least once every four years, I don't fucking care about it, and I don't
see why anyone else should care either. Elections occur more often than just every 4 years.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 02:53 PM

Elections occur more often than just every 4 years.No shit, that is why he said vote "AT LEAST every 4 years".

HBox

02-24-2006, 02:53 PM

cupcakelove wrote: HBox wrote: If
your own vote isn't important enough to yourself to get out and vote at
least once every four years, I don't fucking care about it, and I don't
see why anyone else should care either. Elections occur more often than just every 4 years.   I realize that, I was just setting the bar low.

spoon

02-24-2006, 03:06 PM

angrymissy wrote: Anyway, if you are a Catholic, that baby isn't innocent anyway, because they have that spiffy "original sin"!This message was edited by angrymissy on 2-24-06 @ 5:00 PM No way missy!  That original sin thing is all you and the rest of you crazy lasses!  At least that's what the right of the catholic church teaches.  Opus Day baby!  <-- Wasn't that the sect of the church in The Dia Vinci Code?  So I guess it depends on the sex of the unborn child.  If it's a girl, feel free to flush it.

keithy_19

02-24-2006, 03:09 PM

Just for the record, I disagree with the Catholic church on many things, including the stances you have brought up here.

spoon

02-24-2006, 03:11 PM

booster11373 wrote: keithy_19 wrote: If it makes more people vote, than good. I would love to see this country have a greater turn out for elections. Something we seem to take for granted. I agree right now both parties are ruled by there fringe elements. Which lead to what we are seeing in SD.More people voting, no matter what your feeling on abortion, would be a good thing.I disagree with this statement in regard to the Dems.  They're not being led by the fringe elements, but rather the gutless and pandering fools.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 03:25 PM

angrymissy wrote: Elections occur more often than just every 4 years.No shit, that is why he said vote "AT LEAST every 4 years".I know that.  I just wanted to make sure that it was pointed out, beacause most people don't seem to realize it.  Just look at how low the turnout numbers are during the non-presidental election years.

Bulldogcakes

02-24-2006, 03:28 PM

booster11373 wrote: Maybe once SD bans abortion, It will wake up the rest of the sleeping masses in this country and then they will realize what the conservative republican leadership is trying to do this country they will vote them out during the mid-term elections. Just a thought  Actually a very good thought. I think the most dangerous thing you can do in politics is motivate the "sleeping masses" to get off their asses and vote. And most of them will vote for the staus quo, whatever it is. Ask Bill Clinton about when his genius wife tried to nationalize health care. Cost the Democrats their 40+ straight years of being in the majority in the House. Remember the old Soviet saying, "If you put a lobster in a pot of boiling water right away, it'll jump out. If you put it in warm water and turn up the heat slowly, by the time it realizes its being cooked, its too late" Republicans from Newt to Bush have yet to learn this, Bush's Social Security reform bust being the latest example.     One other thing I want to address. Many posts from men and women on this board have said that "Men should shut up" about this issue. If we have no say in this matter, then dont bitch when we dont feel like paying child support either. Since acording to you, this process is "none of our business". Men and women in a civilized society have a stake in preserving innocent life, regardless of its "location" at the time. And in exercising their values in a democracy, whether their roots are religious or secular. I suspect you want people to shut up because you know your arguments only go so far, and you dont want to go there.

Bulldogcakes

02-24-2006, 03:45 PM

HBox wrote: If your own vote isn't important enough to yourself to get out and vote at least once every four years, I don't fucking care about it, and I don't see why anyone else should care either.  I agree completely. Why do we want people who dont give a shit about politics to be voting? I think that 60% is too high. We've all seen Jay Leno ask the average person on the street who Dick Cheney is, and they dont even know. (I know they have a bad history, but) BRING BACK THE LITERACY TESTS!!! I'd rather have quality than quantity.  <blockquote />

Tenbatsuzen

02-24-2006, 03:50 PM

EliSnow wrote: SouthSideJohnny wrote: I repect all of the opinions on this issue, and I agree with Tenbatsuzen on just about everything in his posts but this. I think you need to take it one step further. If the Supreme Court reverses Rowe v. Wade, it would be great if the issue fell back to the states. Unfortunately, it won’t. The only reason there is not a federal law banning abortions is because Rowe v. Wade says that almost any law banning abortions in the first two trimesters is unconstitutional . As soon as the Supreme Court reverses Rowe, it opens the door for Congress to establish a law since it will no longer be unconstitutional. I agree that the issue SHOULD fall back to the individual states, but it won’t. Think about it, there is no way that the Senators and Congressmen that want to ban abortion are going to be happy with people going to Cali or Nevada for abortions. They want it banned altogether, and the best way to do that is a uniform federal law. Having some states ban it is not enough. I haven't taken a look at this since law school, but I don't believe that Congress can constitutionally make such a law. Under the Constitution, Congress can't make anything it wants a crime. The law has to touch on a federal issue such as interstate commerce. For instance, kidnapping someone to bring them over state lines. As another example, in 1995, the Supreme Court held that a federal law making it ilegal to knowingly possess a firearm in schools was not constitutional because the law did not relate to interstate commerce. Furthermore, I don't think that there are enough votes in Congress, even with a Republican majority to pass such a law. A state, like South Dakota, may have enough legislators to pass such a law applying to their state, but I don't think that there is enough federally. Also remember, that Republican philosophy is that most things should be handled by the states, and not the federal government. While this philosphy has changed somewhat, it still is pretty welll held by many republicans. So many of them would not vote on such a federal law for those reasons. 

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-23-06 @ 7:04 PM  To follow up on this, just because you are Republican doesn't make you automatically pro-life.  Republicans are big on personal responsibility, and aren't exactly big fans of increasing the welfare system, and they would probably have the sense to realize that if they pulled that stunt, they'd have another issue on their hands.

Tenbatsuzen

02-24-2006, 03:50 PM

Dudeman wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Dudeman wrote: what if, due to no fault of your own, you grow up in a
single parent household, your mom has a drug problem, you certainly
dont go to a obgyn with any regulaity, dont have access to ocp's, etc.
yes, that girl needs to do something to not get pregnant, YES ITS CALLED NOT HAVING SEXShe can't control the single parent, the drug problem, or the lack of obgyn. She CAN control giving it up.
<hr width="100%" size="2" /> 
 
that's all nice an easy to say when youre typing on a message
board. but what do you tell the 18 year old girl sitting two feet from
you in the ER or in clinic and her LMP was 6 weeks ago and you just got
a positive UPT for her??? tell her she shouldnt have had sex, pat her
on the butt, and kick her out the door???? 
    Is she hot?  Give her my phone number. <blockquote />

Bulldogcakes

02-24-2006, 03:56 PM

Another thing, lets not act like this is a done deal. It's not.  <a href="http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/NEWS/60224007/1001" target="_self" title="Link">Link </a> The bill would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota. That’s
unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the goal
of the legislation is to force the high court to take a fresh look at
its 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. Both chambers of the Legislature now have passed the bill, and it could be delivered to the governor by early next week. If Rounds signs the bill, abortion rights advocates have said they plan to file a lawsuit to keep it from taking effect July 1.

angrymissy

02-24-2006, 04:06 PM

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Doogie

02-24-2006, 11:44 PM

It is just unrealistic, and out of the realms of sanity. I also refuse to confess these "sins" so I guess I am now Damned to Hell.To this I must quote Confuscious "We dont know enough about life, how can we possibly know about death?"And as for the whole rape incest item, how else do you expect South Dakota to keep itself populated??

The Jays

02-25-2006, 12:44 AM

Don't want babies? Don't have consensual sex. Abortion should be a last resort. I don't like this attitude of "oops, I got pregnant, guess I gotta get an abortion." It shouldn't be treated as a method of birth control.

phillybri76

02-25-2006, 02:56 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: My last post made me just realize something, and it's a cornerstone of a personal belief - personal responsibility.If Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and maybe this is just me thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that it may be the kick that people need to start taking even more personal responsibility in their own lives.Just a though. Yeah, Tenbat.  A teenage girl that gets raped and impregnated by her own FATHER should exercise a little more "personal responsibility".  Good call.Before you jump on me, remember that these conservative zealots in South Dakota had several opportunities to amend this abortion ban to except cases of rape and/or incest and they rejected every one...

sr71blackbird

02-25-2006, 05:45 AM

They need it there, with all the inbreeding and all.  No biggie. And its not like they have the biggest population issues in the Dakotas.

spoon

02-25-2006, 10:28 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  One other thing I want to address. Many posts from men and women on this board have said that "Men should shut up" about this issue. If we have no say in this matter, then dont bitch when we dont feel like paying child support either. Since acording to you, this process is "none of our business". Men and women in a civilized society have a stake in preserving innocent life, regardless of its "location" at the time. And in exercising their values in a democracy, whether their roots are religious or secular. I suspect you want people to shut up because you know your arguments only go so far, and you dont want to go there. Holy fuck, I agree with a BDC post!  This may truly be the end!

spoon

02-25-2006, 10:30 AM

angrymissy wrote: Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. I saw that too and almost shit myself.  Why the need to control others so much in a "free democracy"?

Tenbatsuzen

02-26-2006, 09:28 AM

phillybri76 wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: My last post made me just realize something, and it's a cornerstone of a personal belief - personal responsibility.If Roe v. Wade is overturned, perhaps - and maybe this is just me thinking, ruminating, whatever, out loud - that it may be the kick that people need to start taking even more personal responsibility in their own lives.Just a though. Yeah, Tenbat. A teenage girl that gets raped and impregnated by her own FATHER should exercise a little more "personal responsibility". Good call.Before you jump on me, remember that these conservative zealots in South Dakota had several opportunities to amend this abortion ban to except cases of rape and/or incest and they rejected every one...  Please.   Didn't I just say in one of my first posts in this thread that EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT?Did you read when I say that one of my good friends had to abort because she was DATE RAPED?It's a completely different situation than a girl who has sex willingly.

Dudeman

02-26-2006, 05:43 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: 
 phillybri76 wrote: 
 Yeah,
Tenbat. A teenage girl that gets raped and impregnated by her own
FATHER should exercise a little more "personal responsibility". Good
call.Before you jump on me, remember that these conservative
zealots in South Dakota had several opportunities to amend this
abortion ban to except cases of rape and/or incest and they rejected
every one... Please. Didn't I just say in one of my first posts in this thread that EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT?Did you read when I say that one of my good friends had to abort because she was DATE RAPED?It's a completely different situation than a girl who has sex willingly. 
 <hr width="100%" size="2" /> 
 yeah, but you also wrote this:
 
 Dudeman wrote: 

 <hr width="100%" size="2" />
 
 
 that's
all nice an easy to say when youre typing on a message board. but what
do you tell the 18 year old girl sitting two feet from you in the ER or
in clinic and her LMP was 6 weeks ago and you just got a positive UPT
for her??? tell her she shouldnt have had sex, pat her on the butt, and
kick her out the door???? 
 
 
 
 Is she hot? Give her my phone number.
 
 

 

 
 

This

Tenbatsuzen

02-26-2006, 05:47 PM

Dudeman wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: 
 phillybri76 wrote: 
[quote] Yeah,
Tenbat. A teenage girl that gets raped and impregnated by her own
FATHER should exercise a little more "personal responsibility". Good
call.Before you jump on me, remember that these conservative
zealots in South Dakota had several opportunities to amend this
abortion ban to except cases of rape and/or incest and they rejected
every one... Please. Didn't I just say in one of my first posts in this thread that EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT?Did you read when I say that one of my good friends had to abort because she was DATE RAPED?It's a completely different situation than a girl who has sex willingly. 
 <hr width="100%" size="2" /> 
 yeah, but you also wrote this:
 
 Dudeman wrote: 

 <hr width="100%" size="2" />
 
 
 that's
all nice an easy to say when youre typing on a message board. but what
do you tell the 18 year old girl sitting two feet from you in the ER or
in clinic and her LMP was 6 weeks ago and you just got a positive UPT
for her??? tell her she shouldnt have had sex, pat her on the butt, and
kick her out the door???? 
 
 
 
 Is she hot? Give her my phone number.
 
 

 

 
 </st

Tenbatsuzen

02-26-2006, 05:57 PM

Let's just review this real quick. I have already said several times that I will never stand in the way of a woman's right to choose.  I have my own OPINIONS on the matter, but if I was presented with a vote to be pro-life or pro-choice, I would vote pro-choice.  In any sort of election, that is the selection that best serves the public on a whole, not your personal interests.HOWEVER.I am a big fan of personal responsibility.  You fuck up, you own up to it.   Dudeman has called me out about the fact that he sees pregnancies that come through his hospital/office/whatever all the time.Back in the day, I did a presentation on AIDS and safer sex, and how AIDS has evolved into less about a disease of tragedy and more of a disease of stupidity.  AIDS is one of the few diseases (outside of blood transfusions and passing it from mother-to-child in utereo) that you have FULL AND COMPLETE control over getting.  clean needles, trust in partners, use condoms. Although the end result of AIDS and Pregnancy is completely different, in fact, they are complete opposites, the same theory stands - men and women have a choice about getting pregnant.  And it's not just the woman's responsibility - the men have control as well if they don't want to be a baby daddy.You want to talk about making abortion cheap and easily accessible to the poor - which I don't have a problem with anyway - then you can also apply the same needs to birth control in the first place.  And even if you have a situation about a condom failing, then you have the grey area of the day-after pill.   If something happens - then you have to learn the hard way.

Death Metal Moe

02-26-2006, 06:01 PM

Gotta go with Tenbats on this one.  I am 100% PRO CHOICE.  But, it's fucking vile when some cunt uses abortion as birth control over and over again.

TheMojoPin

02-26-2006, 06:03 PM

Bottom line, my biggest in all of this is the same I have with AIDS...lack of sexual education in this country due to our almost puritanical take on actual sexuality.  Kids hit 13, they NEED to be taught about the science and ESPECIALLY the risk of sex.  They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).  You teach kids about what exactly can happen and give them the chance to protect themselves, boom, you'll cut WAY down on people even wanting or needing abortions in the first place.

Death Metal Moe

02-26-2006, 06:06 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bottom line, my biggest in all of this is the same I have with AIDS...lack of sexual education in this country due to our almost puritanical take on actual sexuality.  Kids hit 13, they NEED to be taught about the science and ESPECIALLY the risk of sex.  They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).  You teach kids about what exactly can happen and give them the chance to protect themselves, boom, you'll cut WAY down on people even wanting or needing abortions in the first place. Never gonna happen when Catholics see condoms as a sin and just about every religion I know of treats sexual urges as a sin.Fucking religion.

Tenbatsuzen

02-26-2006, 06:09 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bottom line, my biggest in all of this is the same I have with AIDS...lack of sexual education in this country due to our almost puritanical take on actual sexuality. Kids hit 13, they NEED to be taught about the science and ESPECIALLY the risk of sex. They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko). You teach kids about what exactly can happen and give them the chance to protect themselves, boom, you'll cut WAY down on people even wanting or needing abortions in the first place.   DING DING DING DING We have a winner.

TheMojoPin

02-26-2006, 06:12 PM

Death Metal Moe wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bottom line, my biggest in all of this is the same I have with AIDS...lack of sexual education in this country due to our almost puritanical take on actual sexuality.  Kids hit 13, they NEED to be taught about the science and ESPECIALLY the risk of sex.  They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).  You teach kids about what exactly can happen and give them the chance to protect themselves, boom, you'll cut WAY down on people even wanting or needing abortions in the first place. Never gonna happen when Catholics see condoms as a sin and just about every religion I know of treats sexual urges as a sin.Fucking religion.Which just highlights their blatant stupidity and hypocrisy.  One could essentially solve the other, less people would suffer and die, but they pick the option that just ups the misery for everyone.Brilliant.

A.J.

02-27-2006, 03:27 AM

They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).I'm with you on the education part but come on...is it THAT hard to walk to a CVS and pay for condoms out of your own pocket?

angrymissy

02-27-2006, 06:22 AM

I just started reading a book "How the Pro Choice Movement Saved America - Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex" (yes, I felt like a gross feminazi buying that one).The book doesn't really focus on abortion per se, but basically on how the Pro Choice movement PREVENTS abortions, by campaigning for access to birth control, the morning after pill, etc.The majority of the Right to Life organizations campaign not only against abortion, but against access to birth control, which THEY CONSIDER TO ALSO BE ABORTION.  They campaign against legislation that was trying to require health insurance to cover birth control (insurance companies that already cover Viagra), they campaign against access to the morning after pill for rape victims, they campaign in favor of pharmacists and CASHIERS being able to not fill or ring up your birth control purchases.  They speak of the Unborn "holocaust" of 500 million dead, caused not by abortion, but by BIRTH CONTROL pills.The reality of it is, these organizations are upping the abortion rate themselves by preventing access to birth control and sex education.  They are waging a war on SEX, not abortion.  In their minds, sex is for PROCREATION only.  If you get pregnant, too bad, it’s God’s Will.

This message was edited by angrymissy on 2-27-06 @ 10:41 AM

angrymissy

02-27-2006, 06:43 AM

A.J. wrote:  They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).  I'm with you on the education part but come on...is it THAT hard to walk to a CVS and pay for condoms out of your own pocket?  Growing up in a Metropolitian area, I would have thought the same thing.  But in a small, rural town, when your only option could be to go to the CVS where everyone knows you and your family, I can understand why a teenager would not want to do that.  In my area when I was a teenager, you could get condoms at Planned Parenthood, you just walked in and there was a basket, you didn't have to give your name or anything.  We also started sex ed in, I think, 7th grade.

booster11373

02-27-2006, 06:49 AM

Very good points made by most above.The Pro-life movement will not go away if abortion is ever banned. Birth control will be there next (and all ready is) target.Sex education being taught in schools has been a thorn in there side since it's beginings. And the Anti abortion crowds have pretty much suceeded in watering down what ever is taught in schoolsRemeber the uproar when the Surgeon General recommended that masterbation be taught as a safe sex. My memory is a little fuzzy about the specifics of that but that is the jist I think.Bottom line. there is a very loud minority in this country that believes that sex is extremely dangerous and the least said about it the better This might be a stupid comparision but I got more Drivers ed then Sex ed when I was in school.

A.J.

02-27-2006, 07:36 AM

angrymissy wrote: A.J. wrote:  They need to be schooled on condoms and birth control and any kind of sexual protection...hell, that stuff needs to be made available for anyone between 13 and 18 courtesy of federal health care (well, EVERYONE should have it provided, but whatever, I'm a pinko).  I'm with you on the education part but come on...is it THAT hard to walk to a CVS and pay for condoms out of your own pocket?  Growing up in a Metropolitian area, I would have thought the same thing.  But in a small, rural town, when your only option could be to go to the CVS where everyone knows you and your family, I can understand why a teenager would not want to do that.  In my area when I was a teenager, you could get condoms at Planned Parenthood, you just walked in and there was a basket, you didn't have to give your name or anything.  We also started sex ed in, I think, 7th grade. I understand your point about the small-town aspect and the lack of privacy.  Still, I'm sure that despite the embarassment of walking into a CVS where everyone knows you and your family, small-town kids as just as likely to talk openly about their sex lives among their friends so word will get around regardless.

EliSnow

02-27-2006, 07:46 AM

I've been wondering if this entire thing will lead to a fragmentation of the Republican party as we know it now.  I know it sounds crazy given that it looks like they are getting what they want, but here's why.I'm not entirely convinced that, even with Bush's new justices, that the Supreme Court will overrule Roe v. Wade.  However, even if they do, I believe that a good number of Republicans in state government will not move forward with anti-abortion laws.  I think that there are a lot of Republicans who are republican because they share conservative economic, security, and political views that the parties do.  But they don't share the same religious/moralistic views that the pro-lifers do.If either of the two scenarios happen (which I think is a good possibility), the religious portion of the republican party may splinter the party, or at least leave.  As an example of a similar situation, look at what happened to the democratic party when they pushed the civil rights issue, and in particular when they won on the 1964 Civil Rights act.  They succeeded on that issue, but as a result, they lost the support of the South to the republican party.  Other Democrats against that issue tried to form their own parties.  Now, the religious right is not going to splinter out and join the democratic party, but we could see a number of republicans who disagree with this policy do this very thing.  And if the religious right doesn't get their way fully, now at their best chance, this may make them leave the party.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 2-27-06 @ 12:00 PM

EliSnow

02-27-2006, 07:49 AM

I understand your point about the small-town aspect and the lack of privacy.  Still, I'm sure that despite the embarassment of walking into a CVS where everyone knows you and your family, small-town kids as just as likely to talk openly about their sex lives among their friends so word will get around regardless.As someone who grew up in a small Midwest town (less than 3,000 people), word doesn't get around like that.  It is a huge embarassment to go into a public place and pick up condoms when your neighbor (and I mean that literally) is the person selling them.   Yes, kids may talk about their sex lives with each other, but NO ONE talked about sex lives with adults.

Bulldogcakes

02-27-2006, 04:35 PM

And if the religious right doesn't get their way fully, now at their best chance, this may make them leave the party.  And go where? 3rd party? Good luck if thats their strategy. If they think they're not getting enough done now, look at how much the Libertarian party gets done. Zilch. I still think everyone's over reacting to this. Its a ham-handed approach to restricting abortion. These exact provisions/laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court numerous times. And both Roberts and Alito said they give alot of consideration to precedence as a guide. This isn't a close call, like Casey vs Penn was a few years back. I'd be shocked if they upheld this law, and be very interested to see their reasoning if they do. And I'd expect the Pro-Choice ND movement to be VERY active in the upcoming elections, and I'll bet most of these clowns are booted from office. Which will put the chill on like-minded pols, just like no one will ever touch National Health Care again after Hillary's debacle.    

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-27-06 @ 8:36 PM

Bulldogcakes

03-01-2006, 02:32 PM

<h1><a href="http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984932.htm" target="_self" title="bill to ban most abortions in Miss">bill to ban most abortions in Miss</a></h1>JACKSON, Miss. - Republican
Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to
ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.
The state already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the
nation. The bill that passed the House Public Health Committee on
Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It
would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was
intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.<h1>Actually, I'm only surprised they weren't first. Very anti abortion state. Only one clinic in the whole state. Again, I'll be very surprised if the Supreme court upholds it. But the way this is spreading so fast makes me think they know something I dont. </h1>

EliSnow

03-01-2006, 02:45 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <h1>  Actually, I'm only surprised they weren't first. Very anti abortion state. Only one clinic in the whole state. Again, I'll be very surprised if the Supreme court upholds it. But the way this is spreading so fast makes me think they know something I dont.  </h1>No, I think that we'll see a bunch of these bills in order to make a decision by the Supreme Court more likely.  In its discretion, the Supreme Court does not have to take an lawsuit challenging any of these laws.  However, if you get a bunch of them from all over the nation, and have different rulings by the the lower courts, the more liklely that the Supreme Court will hear such a lawsuit.

A.J.

03-02-2006, 03:33 AM

<a title="bill to ban most abortions in Miss" href="http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984932.htm" target="_self">bill to ban most abortions in Miss</a>And if there was a state that needed MORE abortions...

Bulldogcakes

03-06-2006, 03:36 PM

<img border="0" alt="" src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Steve/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-8.jpg" /><img border="0" alt="" src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Steve/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-9.jpg" /><img border="0" alt="" src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Steve/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-10.jpg" /><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-03-06T201036Z_01_N06391054_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-ABORTION.xml&rpc=22" target="_self" title="South Dakota governor signs key anti-abortion law">South Dakota governor signs key anti-abortion law</a>Rounds, who has described the legislation as a "frontal assault" on
Roe v. Wade, had vetoed a similar measure two years ago, saying it
would have wiped out existing restrictions on abortion while it was
fought in the courts.The new law bans abortion in virtually all cases, punishing doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison.The
measure bans abortion even in cases where a woman is pregnant as a
result of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of
the mother. It creates a narrow exemption in cases in which a
physician's effort to save a pregnant woman's life results in the
accidental death or injury of her fetus. In a related story, President Bush announced the Gov Rounds will be his next Supreme Court nominee.

booster11373

03-06-2006, 03:45 PM

And so another war begins......

Bulldogcakes

03-24-2006, 03:41 PM

<a href="http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060324/2006-03-24T123907Z_01_N23280960_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html" target="_self" title="story">Story </a>The measure bans nearly all abortions,
even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's
life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the
fetus as well as the woman. When you hear "There's no exception for the life of the mother" it sounds like they're letting the woman die, and thats clearly not the case. And its misleading for abortion rights activists to phrase it that way. 
With two conservative justices recently appointed, and
Republican President George W. Bush expected to get at least
one more appointment before leaving office, abortion opponents
believe the court would be primed to overturn the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision that established the right to abortion.

But officials with Planned Parenthood, which operates the
only clinics in South Dakota that provide abortions, said a
lawsuit may not be filed immediately.

Instead, abortion rights supporters may try to take the
issue before South Dakota voters in November. State law allows
ballot referendums seeking to overturn legislation.

"When you take things to the courts you don't have the
opportunity to engage the public in the process. You don't have
the ability to build a movement," said Planned Parenthood
spokeswoman Kate Looby.

If they choose to pursue a referendum, abortion rights
supporters must collect more than 16,700 signatures by June 19
to get the issue on the ballot for the November 7 election. An interesting approach. I'd love to see this issue decided by referendum nationwide. Localities that do/dont want it get to decide for themselves. But somehow I suspect if they lose at the ballot box they'll be back going with the legal route. Just a hunch.

booster11373

03-26-2006, 02:05 PM

An interesting little loophole with reguards to the ban in SD<h1>Tribal leader rallies for abortion clinic on reservation</h1>Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakota’s new abortion ban goes into effect. <a href="http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/25/news/top/news02.txt" target="_self">http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/25/news/top/news02.txt</a>

Tenbatsuzen

11-08-2006, 09:26 AM

Well... <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abort8nov08,1,6567772.story?coll=la-news-a_section" target="_self">You can kill babies, but the gays can't marry...</a> You'd think both would pass.  South Dakota is weird.

johnniewalker

11-08-2006, 09:35 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Well... <a target="_self" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abort8nov08,1,6567772.story?coll=la-news-a_section">You can kill babies, but the gays can't marry...</a> You'd think both would pass. South Dakota is weird.  I really think that the Supreme Court has a large influence on people's ideas.  You may not agree with the decision about abortions, but it did lay out the argumetns and debates.  I would have to say the majority of people in SD don't agree with abortions, but respect the existence of privacy rights.  Its easier to see the gay marriage ban b/c the supreme court hasn't been clear on it and we haven't really embraced rights for sexual preference.  Sexual preference is clearly not a protected constitutional right.  It starts to blur into whether a democracy can embrace a social norm for traditions or is somthing more needed.  Its easy to see why race legislation may need scrutiny, but in other areas there are clear arguments and its starts to question what a democracy should do and shouldn't do.

Yerdaddy

11-08-2006, 10:25 AM

Europeans have told me several times that they can't understand why we're so whacked out about abortion. They can't believe the extremism of the pro-life side, yet they can't understand how we haven't outlawed late-term abortions. Apparently most of Europe permits abortions in the first trimester, but nothing after that. And nobody shoots abortion doctors there.

A.J.

11-08-2006, 10:28 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Europeans have told me several times that they can't understand why we're so whacked out about abortion. They can't believe the extremism of the pro-life side, yet they can't understand how we haven't outlawed late-term abortions. Apparently most of Europe permits abortions in the first trimester, but nothing after that. And nobody shoots abortion doctors there. Ironic isn't it?  People left Europe to flee religious oppression and America turns out to be more conservative than Europe.

Yerdaddy

11-08-2006, 10:36 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Europeans have told me several times that they can't understand why we're so whacked out about abortion. They can't believe the extremism of the pro-life side, yet they can't understand how we haven't outlawed late-term abortions. Apparently most of Europe permits abortions in the first trimester, but nothing after that. And nobody shoots abortion doctors there. Ironic isn't it?  People left Europe to flee religious oppression and America turns out to be more conservative than Europe.and look where I fled too!

ShelleBink

11-08-2006, 10:57 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Europeans have told me several times that they can't understand why we're so whacked out about abortion. They can't believe the extremism of the pro-life side, yet they can't understand how we haven't outlawed late-term abortions. Apparently most of Europe permits abortions in the first trimester, but nothing after that. And nobody shoots abortion doctors there. Ironic isn't it? People left Europe to flee religious oppression and America turns out to be more conservative than Europe.and look where I fled too!  Showoff.

ChimneyFish

11-08-2006, 11:48 AM

Death to the Christians.That's how we start "the cleansing".Jefferey Goines had the right idea.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smoke.gif" border="0" />

keithy_19

11-08-2006, 12:06 PM

tend to lean pro-life based ont he principal that once you start having sex you assume the responsibility that comes with it. I'm for congress passing a new law. If you don't have enough money for condoms, you shouldn't be allowed to have sex. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smoke.gif" border="0" />

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:21 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Well... <a target="_self" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abort8nov08,1,6567772.story?coll=la-news-a_section">You can kill babies, but the gays can't marry...</a> You'd think both would pass. South Dakota is weird.   Well that makes no sense at all. Who has less abortions than Gays? You'd think the Right Wing Evangelicals and Gays would have an alliance on this one.

keithy_19

11-08-2006, 02:43 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Tenbatsuzen wrote: Well... <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abort8nov08,1,6567772.story?coll=la-news-a_section" target="_self">You can kill babies, but the gays can't marry...</a> You'd think both would pass. South Dakota is weird.     Well that makes no sense at all. Who has less abortions than Gays? You'd think the Right Wing Evangelicals and Gays would have an alliance on this one.   You fool. The gay community sacrifices babies to their paegan God's.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <a title="story" href="http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060324/2006-03-24T123907Z_01_N23280960_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html" target="_self">Story </a>The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.     When you hear "There's no exception for the life of the mother" it sounds like they're letting the woman die, and thats clearly not the case. And its misleading for abortion rights activists to phrase it that way.   With two conservative justices recently appointed, and Republican President George W. Bush expected to get at least one more appointment before leaving office, abortion opponents believe the court would be primed to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established the right to abortion.But officials with Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinics in South Dakota that provide abortions, said a lawsuit may not be filed immediately.Instead, abortion rights supporters may try to take the issue before South Dakota voters in November. State law allows ballot referendums seeking to overturn legislation."When you take things to the courts you don't have the opportunity to engage the public in the process. You don't have the ability to build a movement," said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kate Looby.If they choose to pursue a referendum, abortion rights supporters must collect more than 16,700 signatures by June 19 to get the issue on the ballot for the November 7 election.    An interesting approach. I'd love to see this issue decided by referendum nationwide. Localities that do/dont want it get to decide for themselves. But somehow I suspect if they lose at the ballot box they'll be back going with the legal route. Just a hunch. I guess now we'll really find out and I bet you're right.