South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 4 of 9
7%, good point, and it can't make sense, if you take the 'abortion is murder' position, then you can't say 'but it's okay if it's the child of rape or incest, because then you've essentially said "killing the products of crime is okay" which is like saying "killing the unclean is okay" which is the very dangerous point that societies which then descend into hellish chaos get to.
But, and this is my main point, Arcadia, no offense, but you done gone and killed the forum.
I was trying to make peace, and a little, hey everyone, fight over this corner.
So here's where I am. I'm right to life, if I want to forward that goal I can help some adoption network. If you're pro-choice, you can help transport people to places where they can get abortion. It's legality therefore becomes totally irrelevant, and can we PLEASE remove this from the political debate. It's here to distract us, and to help evil to prevail in unrelated areas, and it's working like a charm. I hope no one here thinks that this S.D. decision was just a random coincedence.
I'm not saying this because I think I would lose the political debate. It's that this is an issue which can be dealt with from either side in a non-legislative manner. And it's a ploy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just for fun, I'm going to comment 
I'm from South Dakota. I've lived here all of my life.
I have an opinion on this issue, and it isn't a popular one.
I feel that if a person wants to stop abortion, the efforts need to be put to preventing the DESIRE for the abortion. How does one prevent that? Through education, prevention of unplanned pregnacies, and support of the mother and child. Legality, or illegality, of abortion won't stop a person who really wants to terminate a pregnancy.
Here, in SD, people tend to be conservative, politically speaking. (I'm not) And if you've all noticed, there simply aren't that many people in SD. Our population is somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000. That is for the entire state, counting men, women, children, and hopefully not livestock. Should the legislature in this one relatively low population state get to decide for the entire country whether abortion is legal or not?
That is actually the heart of the matter. People from outside of SD have decided that this smallish state with conservative politics would be the state that could pass the legislation that would challenge Roe v. Wade. It took years, but it looks like this year the bill will finally pass. Then it will end up in front of the US Supreme Court, whom they are hoping will uphold it and thus make abortion illegal in all the land.
I have a problem with this. I don't like being used. I don't like that the entire cost of the court battle is on the backs of so few. And I don't like that a minority opinion can control it for everyone.
Should Roe v. Wade be challenge? Well, okay. But should that challenge, and its outcome, be taken on by a vast minority?
Also, as to dumbass status:
The same legislature considered, and then tabled, a measure that would require abstinence only sex ed in our public schools.
I think dumbass fits us South Dakotans. We want to legislate that people not be taught about sex, birth control, or other sexuallity issues. We want to make abortion illegal. We want to deny welfare to hungry children. It seems to me that something in this logic qualifies as dumbass.
Truly, I'm prolife. I think all people should have a good life--I'm very pro on that. Should my government be so intrusive as to dictate when I have sex, what kind and how, and if I use birthcontrol? Now that is definitely not a prolife attitude.
There's no place I can be since I found serenity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
7%--I agree with your point that abortion is an issue used to distract from the really important political things.
I don't think this discussion will kill the forum, though. At least, that is how I'm voting.
There's no place I can be since I found serenity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a firm believer in the right of a woman to control her own body.
As for those busybodies who must control the lives of others, if you don't like abortion (or birth control or thinking) don't have one.
South Dakota is a sparsly populated place. The folks who live there seem pretty cool to us Minnesotans. We also know that there's not a lot of resources to go around in SoDak and that's why SoDak is 31st in infant mortality and 33rd in children living under poverty.
I also think it's quite telling that radical controllists from around the country are donating to the SoDak legislature to give them funds to fight the court battle.
If you want to help babies with your money, how's about donating that money to charities which help children. Of course, that only works if your main interest is children and not forcing your religious beliefs on others.
The people who are attempting to manipulate American politics and force anti-choice upon the rest of us aren't interested in improving the lvies of children in SoDak. These backwards ass controllists aren't pro-life they're just pro-fetus.
Yeah, I'm a little angry right now.
What we need is a clearly written line in the constitution which states: A woman's uterus is her own business. Now ... go mind your own.
BTW, even when abortion was illegal, there were legal abortions.
All you needed was money and a doctor to say that it was for the mother's improved health to have an abortion. The rich have never had to worry in America. They never will.
The only people who suffered back in those days were poor women. Remember ... God made the poor to serve the rich. Remember your place and keep pumping out more generations of poor folk to do the ironing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
If you're raped or if the pregnancy endangers your health you have the right to an abortion.
But if you get pregnant by accident just because you were drunk and horny or just "wanted to have fun", you should not have the right to an abortion.
Listen to what Jonus is saying here. This is "Pro-life" is really about.
It has never had anything to do with respect for life.
What it is all about is punishing women for having sex.
Thank you for clearing up the morality wars, Jonus. Here's your torch, go burn a witch or two. While you're judging people and creating new generations of poverty, are there any other activities you'd like to add to the hit list?
Perhaps if someone gets hurt in an auto accident, we should just let them die because they made a choice to drive and get hit by a drunk.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by flautistfirst:
7%--I agree with your point that abortion is an issue used to distract from the really important political things.
I don't think this discussion will kill the forum, though. At least, that is how I'm voting.
That wasn't me, that was DT that called it a distraction, I think (not that I disagree, though).
On another note though FF, you brought up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What about the fact that many of the rabid pro-life (not all, but there are a LOT) folks are against sex education? It creates a situation where the people playing the game don't know the rules, but the penalties for breaking the rules are pretty damn severe. Abstinence-only sex education has been proven ineffective at preventing the spread of STD's, and it certainly hasn't proven to be great at pregnancy prevention, either (don't believe me? Google it, or look up some med journals).
On another note, though, I don't think the GOP wants this to go before the Supremes and get Roe overturned. They galvanize their base through 2 core issues - abortion and gays - and if you take that away, you do two things; 1) Piss off lots of women voters that might have been centrist GOP, as well as galvanize the Dem base, and 2)Lose a distraction issue that takes focus off Iraq and the economy. And frankly, this is not a time for that to happen for GW, especially not with the ports deal looming.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jonus’ uses of inflammatory language in this thread isn’t any different then the anti-Bush crowd using allusions to Nazi Germany when describing Bush or the Bush administration. Jonus’ ill chosen words do not represent an intelligent Pro-Life thought, anymore then calling Bush “evil” represents an intelligent critical thought on Bush’s policies. In fact the respect for life argument is a very strong pro-Life argument. The fact is that most abortions are preformed as a substitute for simple contraception, which raises a very valid question, should we being using abortion in this way? Is terminating the life of a potential human being a morally valid substitute for careful contraception? These are legitimate questions raised by the Pro-Life debate.
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Listen to what Jonus is saying here. This is "Pro-life" is really about.
It has never had anything to do with respect for life.
What it is all about is punishing women for having sex.
Quote:The best way to prevent abortions is an aspirin held firmly between the legs.
Originally posted by flautistfirst:
I feel that if a person wants to stop abortion, the efforts need to be put to preventing the DESIRE for the abortion. How does one prevent that? Through education, prevention of unplanned pregnacies, and support of the mother and child. Legality, or illegality, of abortion won't stop a person who really wants to terminate a pregnancy.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Ah, but you see Jonus, that's where the trouble starts to creep in for you. At first, you called us all liberal whores and implied that we were immoral baby-killers. But now suddenly you add the caveat that rape is an exception. But as I am aware, there is no rape exception in the SD bill, nor is there in the eyes of many pro-lifer groups out there. There is no incest provision, nor is there a provision for interminable pregnancies (ie, birth defects in the womb so serious that the baby would be born stillborn or live for moments, things that are not covered in the health of the mother clause). How would you like to be a 13 year old incest victim having to fight the courts - in public no less - to get rid of a pregnancy? Would you be man enough (or woman enough, I'm just assuming maleness) to tell her to her face that she couldn't have one, and that she'd have to face a life as a ward of the court and probably lose her baby to DCFS as well?
You forget that there are more reasons than just "convenience" to getting an abortion, and even "convenience" abortions aren't often as convenient as you think they are. What say you to children of extreme poverty, who are doomed to grow up malnourished, mistreated, and fall through the cracks in the system? It's usually the pro-lifers (if you can call them that) that want to cut welfare programs, education, and other social mechanisms that would help those children. When that child turns to theft or drugs later down the road, the "pro-lifers" are the fastest to call for the death penalty.
And on a final note, when is a fetus a fetus? How far back must we go now? Some pharmacists are having trouble prescribing the morning after pill, which prevents conception. It's not even an abortion pill! When will the government hold our testicles (and ovaries, ladies) at gunpoint, telling us to only use them for baby-making?
Would I like to see fewer abortions? Certainly. Do I want government or religious control over me or my spouse?no.
7%'s 2c
Very well said, thank you 7%.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you know that there is a supreme court case, aside from Roe vs. Wade, that upholds the right to abortion?
I can't think of the name right now, so if anyone knows it that'd be great, but it basically said an individual does not have to do anything with his or her body that he or she does not want to do, even if another person dies as a result. The actual case involved a guy who needed a transplant or something similar and a second person who would not give the first what he needed. The first person would die without the transplant and the court ruled that the second person did not have to give the transplant, despite the fact that person #1 was going to die.
Therefore, assuming a fetus is a full person, with as equal of a right to live as someone who is already born, then the mother does not have to use her body as a vessel. Even if the fetus/baby/person dies.
Seriously though, it would be great if someone could tell me the name of this court case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sassalicious:
Good argument. My own centres around the fact that abortions won't be stopped by making them illegal, they'll just kill more people, ergo banning abortions is against RTL, but yours stands on it's own, I wish I'd come up with it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME