South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 2 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.
If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.
Attack me, not my opinion.
I can't tell if you're joking. Even if you are, it isn't very funny.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ain't joking.
Attack me, not my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve not read the actual law, so I don’t really know if its dumbass or not.
Makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. No exceptions for preserving the health of the mother, or for rape or incest.
Text of the SD Senate bill can be found here:
[url] http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215SST.pdf [/url]
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well it seems too restrictive to me.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. No exceptions for preserving the health of the mother, or for rape or incest.
The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.
If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.
So you consider pregnancy as punishment for unprotected fornication, and don't want to see anyone escape their sentence?
How about victims of rape and incest, or married women who's health will be damaged?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So you consider pregnancy as punishment for unprotected fornication, and don't want to see anyone escape their sentence?
How about victims of rape and incest, or married women who's health will be damaged?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Is it worth bothering Geezer? The statement obviously has no basis in logic, intelligence or anything else you could hope to construct a logical argument against. I doubt Jonus would be satisfied unless we beheaded these evil sinners.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really think that this is a devisive thread. I don't think the poster originally intended that, but it has turned into that. I think I said that my position was RTL a while ago, and while I think Geezer's logic would ultimately okay the murder of adults who were the children of incest, there's no point in an argument like this.
At some point I posted an RTL thread for RTLers to say how far they thought the concept extended, and if people want to discuss among pro-choicers how to forward their agenda, fine.
But anything that pits one camp against the other serves for no purpose other than to divide. Usually, when people are divided, it's ultimately not leading to anything good.
At some point in the past on some other political forum I suggested the idea that an system be set up for adopting unwanted children domestically, and that the money paid now by parents to overseas human trafickers, could help offset the woes of the unwanted pregnancy. Such a system would be more effective, IMHO, in the stopping of abortion than a flat out legal ban.
But this is a game, and it's one played by our parties to put us in an all or nothing battle over an issue that quite frankly is most likely not going to effect us in our individual lives. The vast majority of women will never have an abortion. The majority if not the entirety of everyone we vote for in popular election will never have any impact on the legality, which might have little or no impact on the reality. It's just not the major issue which should affect our political concerns, and it serves only to split people into republicans and democrats.
As a footnote, I would like to add that I know on of the people at the RNC, a delegate, who was physically at the meeting where it was decided to make this a partisan issue. The GOP was attempting to find a way to draw a new large voting group in during the 70s, and it was quickly decided that church groups would be best. Abortion was decided on as a single belief that church groups had a singular point of view on, and that generally, these were people who were much more divided than unified. Fortunately for the republicans, the democrats blindly opposed it, which is one of the key flaws with the democratic party, strategically speaking, that we on the right can say "euthanasia is wrong" and the democrats will respond with "euthanisia is right" as a knee jerk response. It's like saying "don't jump."
Anyway, it serves to take our sites off of the actual issues which our elected officials are deciding at the moment, or any moment. We have all remarked here that the two parties leadership is very far from the people in a way which is not left-right.
THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.
That's because if we focus on a collection of minor issues which are sure to be right-left splitters, like abortion, we ignore how the govt. is running away from us on other issues.
I would really say, which ever side you're on, put it back in your pants, and let's talk about any of the myriad things the governmental '*THEY*' do not want us to talk about. Our policy towards Darfur, for example.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I'm pro-life and a huge Catholic. And I think Abortion is wrong.
I understand that people think abortion should be allowed and I don't necessarily agree with their opinion, but I RESPECT their opinion. And I don't go ranting off calling them dumbasses. They're allowed to think and say whatever they want and I respect that.
Other people should respect that too, but it's their RIGHT to think and say whatever they want. And calling other people dumbasses is part of this right.
But I myself think this is a good thing abortion is going away :). I understand how bad it must feel to give birth. But think how bad it would feel to be conciously given life, then have it taken away from you. God says you only get one chance in life. That's why I, as a Catholic hate Abortion.
Abortion in my opinion is extremely selfish, and it should be a crime. Because it really is murder.
"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I liked Dinky's response in that it was unapologetic, yet non-antagonistic -- and would be a fine example for us to follow on issues like this where there is firm disagreement on both sides. We're not likely going to change anyone else's minds. As such, we should respectfully disagree without the insults and name-calling.
I understand that both sides are entrenched in their views, and vehemently oppose anyone who feels differently.
However, I have to say that I don't think that abortion is a secondary issue. Sure, other issues are extremely important, and require our attention and action, as well -- but the fact that the government sanctions the murder of human life prior to birth is equally as important in my opinion -- particularly as this number has grown into the tens of millions in the past three decades.
The prime duty of government is to maintain order and protect the people under its jurisdiction. And in this case, our government is failing to protect the most helpless, defenseless human beings.
Regarding a right to choose what you do with your own body -- I fully agree. Choices regarding what's done to your own body should be yours (or your legal guardian's if you're mentally incompetent or a minor). However, abortion is not rhinoplasty. The right of personal choice over one's body ends where one's body comes into contact with another person's body -- particularly when one's choice will harm or end the life of the other person.
Anyhow, that's my opinion on this issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not a secondary issue, it's a non-issue. We don't have the power, it's a supreme court issue, and even if we we did have the power to elect people who did have the power to change the laws, would that have altered the actual behavior?
I'm right to life too, and I think that this debate exists for one reason, and one reason only, regardless of which side you are on: It's a bright shiny thing dangled in your face to keep you from seeing that all of your rights are being taken away.
Even if one side *could* win, it would choose not to, because winning would kill the debate which has us all so distracted. I'm sure the timing of this decision was geared to do exactly what it did do. We're not talking about Dubai like we should, we're talking about this same old dead issue.
If you want to help, go help. Politics is not going to solve this issue for anyone. It's a bright shiny dangly thing in front of your face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME