South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill

POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 1 of 1

ARCADIA

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:50 AM

from cnn.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other (perhaps more intelligent and well stated) thoughts?

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

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 3:28 PM

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:50 AM

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:10 AM

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

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

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

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

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

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:34 AM

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:16 AM

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:22 AM

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

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

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

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

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

But then this is largely just supposition.

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

JONUS

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:48 PM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:08 PM

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

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

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

GAMMARAYGIRL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:32 PM

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.

JONUS

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:36 PM

Ain't joking.

Attack me, not my opinion.

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:07 PM

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"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:47 PM

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

Well it seems too restrictive to me.

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

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:53 PM

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"

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:56 PM

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

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:25 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.

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

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

DINKY

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:37 PM

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

CARTOON

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:55 AM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:53 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:09 AM

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:33 AM

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

I say we start with your post.

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

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

-- Cicero

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, February 26, 2006 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia:
from cnn.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other (perhaps more intelligent and well stated) thoughts?

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

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

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

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, February 26, 2006 7:32 AM

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

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

Attack me, not my opinion.

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

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

JONUS

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:05 PM

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

Attack me, not my opinion.

STARSONG

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Now.. as to abortion itself?

Like Firefly

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

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

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

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

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

JONUS

Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:57 PM

This is my last thought on this subject.

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

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

Attack me, not my opinion.

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

no.

7%'s 2c

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

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

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:35 PM

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

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

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:40 PM

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.

FLAUTISTFIRST

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:53 PM

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.

FLAUTISTFIRST

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:02 PM

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.

KNIBBLET

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:14 PM

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.

KNIBBLET

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:27 PM

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.

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:29 PM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:52 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAMMARAYGIRL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:26 PM

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%.

SASSALICIOUS

Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:44 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:11 PM

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

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:33 PM

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

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

CAUSAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:50 PM

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

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

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:04 AM

Yep. That’s true.

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

CAUSAL

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:05 AM

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

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

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

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

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

CITIZEN

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:10 AM

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

Frankly, that's enough for me.

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

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:25 AM

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

Frankly, that's enough for me.

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

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

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

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

GEEZER

Monday, February 27, 2006 2:52 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PIRATENEWS

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:14 AM

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

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

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

SASSALICIOUS

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:14 AM

Citizen-

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:28 AM

Quote:
7%: I don't think the GOP wants this to go before the Supremes and get Roe overturned.

Absolutely correct. Neither side wants a showdown. It's a great divisive issue for both parties. And yes, it was me that called it a distraction. At the moment, RTLers represent 51% of the country and Pro-Choicers 49% according to a recent poll I read. That's about as close to a 50-50 split as you're going to get. It's perfect for the purpose of dividing the country and setting us at each other throats. Once done, they can distract us with other issues. Since only two democrats in the history of the presidential election have actually gotten a majority of the vote, it's safe to assume that the democrats aren't playing for a majority. They're playing to lock in their 49%. They intend to win not by getting a majority, but by splitting the conservative vote, probably with a candidate like Pat Robertson.

I wish it weren't so, but alas, we're sheep. Look at what happened to McCain in 2000. Steve Forbes who was working for Cheney in PNAC, who in turn was working for Bush, virtually cloned McCain's platform, causing an even split. It was an obvious ploy, and it obvously worked. All the democrats would need to do is splinter off 5% or so of the christian right and it's in the bag.

I suspect Hillary is going to run DiFi in the primary to split Feingold's vote, and then someone like Robertson, maybe someone younger, in the general election. She seems pretty sure she can win, she's got a strategy. I suspect that Bush is going to make major strides in the next 2 years on abortion because Hillary wants him to, whether or not they are, as I suspect, working together. It's Ideal for Hillary if the abortion issue is in a precarious balance in '08, not just for the election, but for the political arena afterwords. No one knows this sentence is here. That way she gets all the democratic pro-choicers lined up behind her on her fight to restore abortion rigths, and meanwhile everyone ignores her war in Iran. Remember, when Bill Clinton went to war he did it very low key. We actually went to war four times, and everyone here can name them, but how many of the general public can? I imagine Hillary will be much the same. Subtely taking action in Iran with little or no reporting.

Clinton war was waking up one day and saying "what, we're at war? where was I?"

Bush war, like his dad's is "WE'RE GOING TO WAR-WAR-WAR-WAR!!! WE'RE GOING TO WAR-WAR-WAR-WAR !!!"

So, everyone keep busy with this abortion thing. Don't lose sight, it's very important. Very very important. Nothing's ever been so important. Remember: Narrow is the path.

RUE

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:06 AM

If surgical abortions become illegal then the alternative is laminaria.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:25 AM

My guess is that this one will fail. Reason: the law doesn't make exceptions on issues even conserative justices might find extreme.

Point 1: Health of the Mother has to be respected. The argument is that the child has a similar right to life as the adult, it can not have a superior right, because the body of Constitutional law is that we have equal rights. So if the life of the child would destroy the life of the mother the Constitution would seem to side with her.

Point 2: In general the law does not let people benefit from their crimes. The Burgler does not get to keep what he steals, the drug dealer has his assets ceased. A man forcing a woman to bear his child through rape or incest would benefit from his crime if she was forced to keep it. Further it would mean the government is siding with the perp against the victim, hardly justice.

Therefore any law without at least provision for these two instances is unlikely to pass even conservative constitutional muster.

CARTOON

Monday, February 27, 2006 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.

I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?

Lord knows I'll be criticized for believing in such an antiquated concept, but maybe that's the problem with our progressive, "feel good" society today. We're all spoiled, and expect what we want when we want it, and everyone and everything else be damned that gets in the way of our instant, selfish gratification.

Frankly, I'm not the least surprised that we've come to murdering babies in the tens of millions. Sadly, I think it's only going to worse.

This is what happens when morals become relative and people do whatever they please without regard for others.

HERO

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My guess is that this one will fail. Reason: the law doesn't make exceptions on issues even conserative justices might find extreme.

Point 1: Health of the Mother has to be respected.

Point 2: In general the law does not let people benefit from their crimes.

Well said. I was going to make the same point. These are the reasons a number of the "limited" abortion bans have been passing or failing in recent years.

I think that the Court will be revisiting Row and rightfully so. Having read the Row decision a number of times I am always struck by its reliance on decades old science and statistics. Casey v. Planned Parenthood reaffirmed the underlying principal (right to privacy, etc), but the application in Row is based on outdated science.

I used to be in favor of overturning Row, until I read O'Conner's decision in Casey (and a few other cases, not to mention attending a lecture by the woman back in lawschool). Now I am in favor of periodically revisting Row to review and account for the advances in science since the decision was made. I realized that Row contains the seed of its own destruction. If science advances to the point when viability and conception meet, then Row can be used against abortion rather then in its favor. So rather then pushing the court to overturn Row and upset the applecart on the abortion issue, it should revisit the case, reaffirm, again, the right to privacy, and push the limits Row imposes on abortion based on thirty year old viability science back a few weeks or a trimester.

H

GEEZER

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.

I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?

Too bad you didn't actually read my post, and just went for your keywords. You might want to try again and read the whole thing this time.

A woman who became pregnant due to rape or incest has no choice in the matter. Neither does a woman who wished to bear children but finds out during early screening that the fetus has severe medical problems, or that the pregnancy is a danger to her health.

In effect SD is saying:

"Yes, we understand that your fetus will produce a brain damaged baby that will only live a short time after birth, and that the pregnancy will damage your health and prevent you from ever having a healthy child, and that an early-term abortion would avoid all that - but, hey, that's the law. Hope you have good health insurance because we won't pay a cent."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:28 PM

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

I think a fair few of illegal abortions won't be in the statistics, strangely enough

.

But it's not just death, figures I've seen put infertility at quite a high rate, so many subsequent children that would have been born don't.

You know the potential for creating a child is there, whether there is a child or not, so making a Woman infertile, based on the RTL argument as I see it, is as bad as abortion.

In fact random thought, shouldn't hysterectomies be banned for the same reasons?

But what about all the babies that are born that are left too die or are killed, or abandoned, or died as a result of genetic deficiency, or the Mothers that died during child birth, shouldn't they also be counted in the figures?

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

CITIZEN

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:35 PM

Geezer:
Well said.

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

FLAUTISTFIRST

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:55 PM

Geezer:

Good research. Yes, it is true. All of that did happen.

Native South Dakotan who is greatly disappointed in the current state politics.

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

FLAUTISTFIRST

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:15 PM

Citizen,

Glad you brought up the slippery slope of this issue.

Birth Control (other than abstinence), hysterectomies, and other medical procedures are on this slippery slope called prolife.

My daughter is developmentally disabled to the point that she'll never be able to "consent" to sex, or understand where babies come from. Unfortunately, if radical prolifers get their way, birth control pills will be illegal to use with her because they would be considered a "chemical abortion." With pharmacists refusing to fill RX for plan B and others refusing to fill any RX for birth control, this is certanly an issue.

Shouldn't the issue be what is in her best health interest? Not what some legislative body half a continent away decides?

I'm not trying to bring up a totally different issue (the rights of the disabled), but the whole prolife/prochoice issue is a slippery slope to a whole range of reproductive health issues in my opinion.

Oh, for those who are curious, I didn't know prior to her birth that she would have the issues she does. Nothing I did caused it; nothing I didn't do caused it. And I wouldn't have aborted her if I new before hand that she would be as disabled as she is. But, I truly value that it was my choice--not a government issisting that I had to abort cuz of the disability or a government issisting that I had to carry to term. Not everyone is this 'verse gets to have that choice.

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

CARTOON

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.

I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?

Too bad you didn't actually read my post, and just went for your keywords. You might want to try again and read the whole thing this time.

A woman who became pregnant due to rape or incest has no choice in the matter. Neither does a woman who wished to bear children but finds out during early screening that the fetus has severe medical problems, or that the pregnancy is a danger to her health.

Actually, I did read your post. And I'm left to believe that abortions performed for the reasons you stated above are likely to be a minimal number. (Anyone have such figures?) I'd guess that the vast majority (if not nearly all) abortions are done as a means of birth control (convenience)(i.e. the selfish reason I stated above), and not for the reasons you mentioned above.

Although, I know better than to expect anyone to agree with a comment that we're a selfish, morally relavant society that only wants our instant gratification. You neither agreed nor disagreed with that comment, but conveniently misdirected the argument towards reasons for abortion which I'm guessing would likely comprise less than 1% of all those performed.

DINKY

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:57 PM

I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.

It's supposed to be. I, as a Catholic believe that God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.

It's just one of those tough choices that people have to face that's just part of life. I just think that a new younger life is more important than the life of the older more mature woman. Though the woman who is carrying the child is still very important.

I understand how a lot of you won't agree with me, I just wanted to add my opinion :).

And as for not being able to afford to take care of a child, there's always those Adoption companies. It's better than killing the poor baby.

"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks

ARCADIA

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:26 PM

Quote:

Actually, I did read your post. And I'm left to believe that abortions performed for the reasons you stated above are likely to be a minimal number. (Anyone have such figures?) I'd guess that the vast majority (if not nearly all) abortions are done as a means of birth control (convenience)(i.e. the selfish reason I stated above), and not for the reasons you mentioned above.

These are stats posted on about.com ( http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm). The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. I'll search for a more realiable source, but, for now...

Quote:

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Most women who have abortions do intent to have children at one point in their life, or already have children.

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

AGENTROUKA

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:39 PM

In my opinion, the problem of abortion will never be a simple one. It's just not black and white.

a) It is true that it's an entirely selfish act at the expense of a developing life. That can't be denied away and most pro-choice people will admit that.

b) It's also true that "Don't have sex!" is an over-simplified counter-argument.

People have always had sex for reasons that were not "Let's have children". Always. No matter how officially prude the society. It's a fact that won't ever change. It's human nature to have sex for pleasure.

(These days, it's simply that women get to enjoy it with an amount of freedom that approaches that of men.)

It's an issue that has to be approached with pragmatism. Everything else is like trying to ban alcohol. Pointless.

Fact: Not every pregnancy is planned or wanted.

When unwanted, it's at the very least a big inconvenience, worse it can be mentally traumatizing (rape, incest, etc.), at worst life-threatening.

And it's not even touching the burdens of either raising the kids or giving them away.

That's not nothing.

(Aside: It's a consequence of sex that men do not have to deal with. I think that point is of some meaning.

If the consequences of sex were more equally distributed in nature, maybe we as intelligent thinking creatures would find it easier to deal with an unwanted consequence. As a society certainly, but maybe also as individuals. But that's pure speculation.)

Anyway. So long as women are [unequally] burdened with the consequences of sex, some will strive for options to avoid that. Which is forever. Hence that fact that abortion has been around since the dawn of time, as well.

My suggestion: artificial wombs for all. Science, march ahead!

Call me cold, but as long as a human life requires one specific other person to survive, it remains that person's choice whether they want to play along. Just like with the kidney transplant comparison further above, except that denial of service becomes an act, not a lack of one.

People who feel that every fetus needs to be saved should start working on viable alternatives to the natural womb. It's the pragmatic solution.

Not to mention: contraception improvement, sex education, transparent and encouraging options for unwanted children that ARE born and so on. It's easy to point the finger and punish. It's more effective to prevent.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dinky:
I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.

It's supposed to be. I, as a Catholic believe that God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.

To that I say, what choice?

pregnancy by rape + abortion is immoral = no choice at all.

It's not even a sacrifice, because that, too, involved choice. It's a bad thing that happens to you with no asking for your input, whether you're filled with mild serenity or bitter hate.

That's more comparable to the hardships he rained down on Job, if compare you must.

Quote:

It's just one of those tough choices that people have to face that's just part of life.

Again, I ask where in the equation of rape and pregnancy it is that you set the concept of choice.

Quote:

I just think that a new younger life is more important than the life of the older more mature woman.

Why, though? What did the poor woman do to rate second? Equal worth I could deal with, but less?

Basically, if a woman is raped, is pregnant as a result and then is in danger of dying during childbirth, then you stand by and say "tough luck, no help for you, God wants you to die", did I get that right?

CARTOON

Monday, February 27, 2006 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dinky:
I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.

But not today, Dinky. Today, it's "do what's best for me at the moment".

That's why a lot of marriages fall apart, everything is the convenience of the moment. Sacrifice (or heaven forbid -- actually thinking about someone else above ourselves) is a thing of the past -- or for prudes.

We're foolish and/or naive if we actually believe that a society raised on instant gratification will ever embrace a concept like sacrifice (or delayed gratification, or life-long committment, or any other such antiquated notions)...

Welcome to the progressive, enlightened 21st century. At this rate, I'm glad I won't be around to see the 22nd.

P.S. Arcadia, thanks for those figures. Even if they're remotely accurate, they're enlightening.

P.S.S. Geezer, I wasn't trying to take you out of context or pick on you. I disagree with you on much of this issue, but I have to respect someone who served their country -- as I'm imagining you have (if that pic is of you -- and I'm guessing the Corps). No matter what I think of your views, I'm grateful for your service.

GEEZER

Monday, February 27, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
P.S.S. Geezer, I wasn't trying to take you out of context or pick on you. I disagree with you on much of this issue, but I have to respect someone who served their country -- as I'm imagining you have (if that pic is of you -- and I'm guessing the Corps). No matter what I think of your views, I'm grateful for your service.

Although I did serve my country in the late south-east Asian unpleasantness (Vietnam conflict), the picture is of a youngish Robert Heinlein, although he does look strangely like my father's WWII photos.

And I got no problem with you having your own opinion of morality or immorality in the 21st century. When you attempt to force it, and its results, on other folks who have different opinions, I do have a problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Although I did serve my country in the late south-east Asian unpleasantness (Vietnam conflict), the picture is of a youngish Robert Heinlein, although he does look strangely like my father's WWII photos.

I, myself, have never been called to serve (and haven't volunteered). I missed Vietnam by 5 or 6 years, so I'm probably a few years younger than you (although, undoubtedly, a lot of folks in here would find me "geezerly", as well).

My thanks to you and your brothers in arms is sincere. I have always respected our military and those who serve. Thank you very much. I do not envy what it must have been like for you.

I wasn't sure about the pic, but I thought it was a bit "older". Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And I got no problem with you having your own opinion of morality or immorality in the 21st century. When you attempt to force it, and its results, on other folks who have different opinions, I do have a problem.

I don't believe in forcing my morality on anyone, although I'm aware that others would like to if they could. While I am deeply sorrowed that so many today seem to be devoid of any morality (or even a sense of common dignity), I know from my own experience that one has to want to do something from their own heart. It wouldn't be geniune if forced, so I wouldn't force it if I could.

I do, however, believe it's the government's responsibility to protect all those living under its jurisdiction (as I stated above), and I believe that unborn humans deserve that protection as much as the rest of us (if not more, because they are the most defenseless of human beings). On that, I'm afraid, it seems as though we're going to respectfully disagree.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think a fair few of illegal abortions won't be in the statistics, strangely enough .

But it's not just death, figures I've seen put infertility at quite a high rate, so many subsequent children that would have been born don't.

You know the potential for creating a child is there, whether there is a child or not, so making a Woman infertile, based on the RTL argument as I see it, is as bad as abortion.

In fact random thought, shouldn't hysterectomies be banned for the same reasons?

Infertility is not abortion, and a fetus never conceived cannot be killed so it cannot add to the causality list. You’re just grasping at straws now.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But what about all the babies that are born that are left too die or are killed, or abandoned, or died as a result of genetic deficiency, or the Mothers that died during child birth, shouldn't they also be counted in the figures?

What about them? Children die of genetic deficiencies, abandonment, neglect, and murder today. But I still say that illegal abortions and all that went with it preformed in the years prior 1973 do not add up to the number of abortions preformed in the years since.

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

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Infertility is not abortion, and a fetus never conceived cannot be killed so it cannot add to the causality list. You’re just grasping at straws now.

Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

Actually, an embryo is alive, but that’s not the point. You’re trying to pad the numbers with abortions that could never have occurred. By your argument masturbation is tantamount to abortion. How many sperm exists in an ounce of semen? Millions I would guess. Hustler and Playboy then become responsible for conceivably billions or trillions of aborted fetuses every year. And every women between puberty and menopause have abortions every month.

The reality is that between c. 1950 and 1973 there were on average around a couple hundred deaths due to illegal abortions per year. I don’t know that anyone knows how many illegal abortions occurred during that time, but considering the difficulty of getting such abortions problaby not as many as today, when all you have to do is go down to the local clinic.

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

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How many sperm exists in an ounce of semen? Millions I would guess. Hustler and Playboy then become responsible for conceivably billions or trillions of aborted fetuses every year.

Already covered by Monty Python in "the Meaning of Life"

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs,
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

An mp3. from the movie here:

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SASSALICIOUS

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.
Actually, an embryo is alive, but that’s not the point.

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

Scientifically I have to disagree. Not on your claim of an embryo as "alive" per se, but on the jump from 4 cells to embryo. 4 cells does not an embryo make. 4 cells isn't even a blastocyst. At the 4 cell stage, the cells haven't even implanted in the endometrium and the legal definition of "pregnancy" is implantation. Hell, the 4 cell stage hasn't even left the fallopian tube yet. The embryo doesn't exist until the inner cell mass of the blastocyst starts to differentiate and that occurs about a week or so after fertilization.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:38 AM

No Finn, thats their argument, not mine.

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

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:59 AM

Quote:
God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.p

what God are you talking about???, because I've read the bible and the God in the Christian Bible isn't a very nice, good, or loving being,creature. if I had to attach a label to it, manaic would be a perfect discription, he's playing mind games telling people to murder their children, actually murdering children, and starting wars and conflicts, and manipulating people , seems pretty blood thirsty to me, so this statement doesn't add up.

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

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

Thats what the pro-lifers tell you, but how honest are they being. not very honest at allthere are all sorts of issues that have to do with the abortion issue thats not really being discussed, alot of it has to do with , sex, control of women, and race.

but on another note, the pro-lifers are a joke. if they put their money where their mouth is abortion probably wouldn't be an issue. Support programs and legistlation that benifit children, make a college education available to anyone who qualifies, up the minium wage, have a state run healthcare system, make it desireable for women to have children and they will.But thats not likely to happen, like I said before its mostly the poor and uneducated who have high birth rates, Latino and Blacks make up that majority. Most of the low birth rates come from educated white women who can't have or who don't want children or not very many Children. Behind it all race like so many things in America is the hot button issue behind the abortion issue. Thats why they want to teach creationism in schools, they want to see women dumbed down, barefoot an pregnant just like it was back in the good old days ( which was the horrible old days for most women.

and the more complicated a society becomes, the more industrialized, and the more educated the lower the birth rate.

Also I presume that most of the posters in this thread are men, which I find interesting.

every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy in a safe and healthy manner if she chooses, nobody should have to be forced to have or care for a child they don't won't or can't afford. I've never had an abortion and hope that I never will have to , but if I woke up and found myself pregnant tommrow I most defintely would have one without a doubt.

and don't tell me that alot of this isn't about men wanting to control women. because it is, just reading some of the comments in this thread its pretty obvious wether your conscious of it or not, some of the comments have been downright hateful. Its our bodies not yours and we can do what we like with it.

Don't hate me because I have the power to give life and take it away and you don't

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateJenny:
what God are you talking about???, because I've read the bible and the God in the Christian Bible isn't a very nice, good, or loving being,creature. if I had to attach a label to it, manaic would be a perfect discription, he's playing mind games telling people to murder their children, actually murdering children, and starting wars and conflicts, and manipulating people , seems pretty blood thirsty to me, so this statement doesn't add up.

I imagine that's because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all off shoots of the Cult of YHWH, who was/is a war god. Just a rough guess but maybe that's why those religions are just the slightest bit violent.

Quote:
but on another note, the pro-lifers are a joke. if they put their money where their mouth is abortion probably wouldn't be an issue. Support programs and legistlation that benifit children, make a college education available to anyone who qualifies, up the minium wage, have a state run healthcare system, make it desireable for women to have children and they will.But thats not likely to happen, like I said before its mostly the poor and uneducated who have high birth rates, Latino and Blacks make up that majority. Most of the low birth rates come from educated white women who can't have or who don't want children or not very many Children. Behind it all race like so many things in America is the hot button issue behind the abortion issue. Thats why they want to teach creationism in schools, they want to see women dumbed down, barefoot an pregnant just like it was back in the good old days ( which was the horrible old days for most women.

That's a good point. I think creationism in schools is a little wider than keeping Women under the boot, more to do with keeping the masses down and a backlash from Christian fundamentals over their loss of power and control. Most likely they see the Middle East, and the religious control that militant fundamentalist have over their fellow man and think "I want that too".

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Scientifically I have to disagree. Not on your claim of an embryo as "alive" per se, but on the jump from 4 cells to embryo. 4 cells does not an embryo make. 4 cells isn't even a blastocyst. At the 4 cell stage, the cells haven't even implanted in the endometrium and the legal definition of "pregnancy" is implantation. Hell, the 4 cell stage hasn't even left the fallopian tube yet. The embryo doesn't exist until the inner cell mass of the blastocyst starts to differentiate and that occurs about a week or so after fertilization.

Well, I show my ignorance of biology. Thank you for correcting me. But my point was that the 4-cell stage, whatever you biology-types want to call it, is a living organism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Already covered by Monty Python in "the Meaning of Life"

Monty Python is great. I had never heard the sperm song before. I must have not watched “the Meaning of Life,” but I thought I had. My favorite was the Holy Grail, and the reading from the Book of Armaments:

Quote:
Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No Finn, thats their argument, not mine.

Yep. That is the extreme Right of the argument.

As for it not being yours, it certainly seemed like you were trying to use it that way, but perhaps I misunderstood.

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

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:21 PM

Finn, I'm not pro-abortion ban.

Every Sperm is sacred is a song from "The meaning of life". I can't decide if The life of Brian or The Holy Grail are my favorite though.

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:19 PM

Causal:

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

DNA does not a human make. Every cell in your body contains the full complement of DNA. Each cell is "potentially" capable of producing a human being- that's what cloning is all about. Some of your cells, through random mutation and uneven distribution of mitochondrial DNA, are even "unique", but I don't hear about the poor unique "potentially" human cells that are lost during an intensive facial scrub or a biopsy or a particularly violent attack of diarrhea.

I keep coming back to why we make such a fuss over an undeveloped bunch of cells: It's not because it's so inherently human. In fact, I believe it's quite the opposite- it is a blank slate for all of our fondest hopes and dreams. We imagine a chubby smiling idealized version of reality and we want to protect our desires, not the reality. I've noticed that once a baby is actually born, in the minds of many social-Darwinists (who most often are right-wing Republicans) it becomes just another mouth to feed, and if born brown, black, addicted, defective or poor- then it's "Tough luck, kiddo".

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

PIRATEJENNY

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:
That's a good point. I think creationism in schools is a little wider than keeping Women under the boot, more to do with keeping the masses down and a backlash from Christian fundamentals over their loss of power and control. Most likely they see the Middle East, and the religious control that militant fundamentalist have over their fellow man and think "I want that too".

well of course it is, I was generalizing. while I'm sure your right its not all just one reason, but basically what it comes down to is dumbing people down. religion is a tool it always has been and its mostly used to control people. control what they do, how they think, etc..

and it never ceases to amaze me just how little most people really know about the religion they follow.

SASSALICIOUS

Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:57 PM

The following is a quote from Senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota regarding the only instance in which an abortion should be allowed:

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

The full transcript from Newhour with Jim Lehrer can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

More insight into Napoli's character: "When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to bebrought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. â€¦ I don't think we're so far beyond that, that we can't go back to that."

With this information, it's pretty obvious that for this man (and most likely many others) banning abortion is more about putting a woman in her place and controlling her.

I hope most people don't think like him because this line of thought makes me sick.

GOJIRO

Friday, March 24, 2006 1:52 AM

Fortunately, the Sioux come to the rescue:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060323_sioux_abortion_ba
n/

-------
Are you an Ohio Browncoat? If so, join our Yahoo group for news and events: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio/

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, March 24, 2006 7:38 AM

Yay!

Thank you for the link.