South Dakota bans most abortions

Originally Posted by Joe Wiewel

I follow what you're saying here, and in the context of free speech and debate, that makes sense. However, when it comes to the current situation, it doesn't work like that.

See, right now in every other state in the US, Canada and probably most of Europe, people who believe in pro-life have the choice not to get an abortion. And those that need an abortion also have have the choice to get an abortion. Everyone has a choice and almost everybody's happy, except the pro-lifers that complain about the people that get abortions.

But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion. The pro-lifers, the people who wouldn't have gotten an abortion in the first place, are happy because they've made it so everybody else in the state can't get an abortion. The people that need an abortion, such as victims of rape, incest and poverty, are screwed unless they can get an abortion in a surrounding state.

I think the issue we're arguing over here is more democracy than abortion. I mean, if democracy is working, then the majority of people in whatever state are against abortion. Now, to make a generalization, most pro-lifers equate abortion with murder. So, from the perspective of the religious right, South Dakota just made murder illegal. Harder to argue against that.
I think the point Zio was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that all government, no matter what side or spin, authoritarian or anarchist, is, when it comes down to it, forcing your view on other people. That's what law is. And with anarchy, forcing absence of law is equally distressing for some. The point is, all sides of this argument are equally valid.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

To me it's kinda like with prohibition. I can't figure for the life of me figure out how those temperists would have their rights taken away by the drunken hordes when, you know, they don't drink alcohol and aren't being forced to.

It really is easy. The government should outlaw any issue of questionable moral judgement. Enforcing your morals on someone else is as old as Christianity.

Plus, we're gonna need all the soldiers we can get.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I think the issue we're arguing over here is more democracy than abortion. I mean, if democracy is working, then the majority of people in whatever state are against abortion. Now, to make a generalization, most pro-lifers equate abortion with murder..

And most pro-lifers are for the death penalty. So, like how can you be pro-life if you're for the death penalty?!

Originally Posted by Watts

And most pro-lifers are for the death penalty. So, like how can you be pro-life if you're for the death penalty?!

Thats cause babies=good, convicts=bad.

I call bullshit.

Abortion is as much a purely religious right issue as Pork is purely unkosher for Jews. The Abortion issue is a huge one in America because it crosses political camps, and impacts the moral views of even the non-religious. I myself have a hard time determining whether or not abortion really is murder, and simply default to the trust of the individual.

Abortion should also not be legislated when the government is purely female. That's horseshit. Women have had the right to vote coming near a century now, and the people they elect to legislative positions are the ones that they want representing them. If they elect some Dudley Doo Right who wants all legal abortions eradicated, then that's what they want to happen. Oddly enough, Women's Suffrage itself caused a huge division in the fairer sex, as wealthy and overbearing women felt that they'd lose more influence without being able to influence their husbands decisions.

While the driving force behind this is most certainly religious, legislation based on moral principles do not violate your freedom of religion, as morality transcends religious principles. Stop reaching out for strings in the dark, and debate about this like somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

That said, this is a fruitless venture. There is no way that this will get past the Lower Courts, and assuming that it does, I doubt the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case. Even with some Conservatives on the bench, that doesn't guarantee that they are looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or that they don't even consider the outcome of Roe v. Wade to be constitutionally sound.

Originally Posted by Cat9

Thats cause babies=good, convicts=bad.

Yeah I guess. It's still state sanctioned murder. Let's teach all those convicts that killing is wrong by killing them!

But somebody's gotta finish the war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Watts

And most pro-lifers are for the death penalty. So, like how can you be pro-life if you're for the death penalty?!

I agree. Just playing devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by Watts

Yeah I guess. It's still state sanctioned murder. Let's teach all those convicts that killing is wrong by killing them!

But somebody's gotta finish the war in Iraq.

Send the convicts to Iraq. In two hundred years, it'll be just like Australia.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I agree. Just playing devil's advocate.



Send the convicts to Iraq. In two hundred years, it'll be just like Australia.

We're kinda doing all that already. With the relaxed Army recruiting standards of allowing people with multiple felonies on their record join up.

I don't think they'll be up to snuffs though. So bring on the baby soldiers.

This is typically an issue that will never be resolved but women get abortions with or without clinics. I'd rather have clean procedures done by trained professionals than hear about back alley coat-hanger up the cooch deaths rising.

Quote:

I think we're missing the point here. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about passing laws that majorly affect people, in this case women who aren't ready for a child.

So they will go, vote and revoke it simple as that.

Quote:

With that being said, I couldn't disagree with you more.

The religious right has been expressing their disapproval of abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That's all fine and good, but in South Dakota, they've crossed the line by going beyond expressing their views and passing a law that forces their beliefs on the public body.

How is acting on thier beliefs bad? If it's such a bad law then it'll get reversed by the process of democracy.

Quote:

Yes, I said it. It forces the belief of the religious right that one "sin" doesn't make another "sin" right onto women who aren't ready- emotionally, financially, whatever, to have a child.

Um, I'm Lutheran and I don't find aboration really a sin or anything. I'd think it's more of sin to abandon your child, have unwanted children or to be able NOT to care for your child in all needs.

But I am NOT discussing what I believe in.

Quote:

I follow what you're saying here, and in the context of free speech and debate, that makes sense. However, when it comes to the current situation, it doesn't work like that.

See, right now in every other state in the US, Canada and probably most of Europe, people who believe in pro-life have the choice not to get an abortion. And those that need an abortion also have have the choice to get an abortion. Everyone has a choice and almost everybody's happy, except the pro-lifers that complain about the people that get abortions.

I'm not pro-lifer and don't clump all pro-lifers all the same mainly cause not all the same. That is like saying all Muslims are terroists, which is wrong.(Sorry I coudln't think of a better analogy[sp?])

Quote:

But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion.

Well, they'll either find a way(rather legal or not) to get it done OR they will reverse the decision.

Quote:

The pro-lifers, the people who wouldn't have gotten an abortion in the first place, are happy because they've made it so everybody else in the state can't get an abortion.

Good, I'm glad they actually acted on thier beliefs rather or not it was right. They actually stood up for what they believe in no matter what. I tip my hat to them really.

Quote:

The people that need an abortion, such as victims of rape, incest and poverty, are screwed unless they can get an abortion in a surrounding state.

I could possibly understand rape or incest but if you are rather poor or any other condition and want sex. There is always something called a vesectomy or getting your tubes tied. There are always alternatives or even not having sex.

Quote:

Basically, the law that a woman has the right to a medical procedure worked fine because it gave women the right to choose. But now in South Dakota, those that would have chose to have an abortion can't.

So? Then they'll work hard to get it that they'll have the choice again. Use the system, go for it.

Quote:

If you can't see that that's forcing one's belief on the entire public body, then I'm not sure what is.

Because silencing someone for what they believe is far worse and rather zealous IMO, especially if you believe in one thing and dare not listen to anyone else.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Is it really forcing abortions on them if they're not going to use the procedure anyway?

To me it's kinda like with prohibition. I can't figure for the life of me figure out how those temperists would have their rights taken away by the drunken hordes when, you know, they don't drink alcohol and aren't being forced to.

RR, that isn't what I am trying to say but I do agree with you trust me.

But then again, what about the abuse of it? I mean the gov't had thier hearts in the right place, just wrong laws and etc.

Quote:

I think the issue we're arguing over here is more democracy than abortion. I mean, if democracy is working, then the majority of people in whatever state are against abortion. Now, to make a generalization, most pro-lifers equate abortion with murder. So, from the perspective of the religious right, South Dakota just made murder illegal. Harder to argue against that.

Perhaps but then again is every pro-lifer religeous? Probaly not. Is every pro-lifer zealous or even burning heart -insert whatever- more then likely not. Try not to clump people together please.

Quote:

I think the point Zio was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that all government, no matter what side or spin, authoritarian or anarchist, is, when it comes down to it, forcing your view on other people. That's what law is. And with anarchy, forcing absence of law is equally distressing for some. The point is, all sides of this argument are equally valid.

Wow, someone actually gets what I am talking about. Rather any side you play on, you are really forcing your views onto anyone but then again, you do have the freedom to get an abortation or not, you aren't forced to.

Trust me, I agree that the law is stupid and that abortation does help in certain terms but you guys are going about the wrong way by ATTACKING the people and not the idea.

Originally Posted by Devo

This is typically an issue that will never be resolved but women get abortions with or without clinics. I'd rather have clean procedures done by trained professionals than hear about back alley coat-hanger up the cooch deaths rising.

You are right but I highly doubt that many did the coat hanger thing. I just think people blow that out of proporinate but it was true though, I don't doubt that, trust me on that one.

Quote:

That said, this is a fruitless venture. There is no way that this will get past the Lower Courts, and assuming that it does, I doubt the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case. Even with some Conservatives on the bench, that doesn't guarantee that they are looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or that they don't even consider the outcome of Roe v. Wade to be constitutionally sound.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

Man, I remember when I was a kid and I first heard this, the first thing I thought was "I'd rather be alive and unwanted then dead and unwanted."

Don't worry; I'm certain you wouldn't care by the time you're dead.

Quote:

Good, I'm glad they actually acted on thier beliefs rather or not it was right. They actually stood up for what they believe in no matter what. I tip my hat to them really.

Isn't this a pretty bad position to take, though? If you don't particularly care for whether somebody thought about if their actions are right, that'll leave you tipping hats to despicable actions that were made in the name of their beliefs.

Quote:

Man, I remember when I was a kid and I first heard this, the first thing I thought was "I'd rather be alive and unwanted then dead and unwanted."

Of course, that would've been an observation made as a wanted child.

Originally Posted by Sing

Isn't this a pretty bad position to take, though? If you don't particularly care for whether somebody thought about if their actions are right, that'll leave you tipping hats to despicable actions that were made in the name of their beliefs.

Anther country's freedom fighters are anther country's terrorists.

So, Singularity is one hundred percent correct, is this what you're trying to say?

That's not my point, Zio. I'm attacking the idea of praising people based on their correlation of actions with their beliefs without regard for what's right. That essentially leads you down the path of praising suicide bombers because they're more concerned about their beliefs than in what's right.

So...if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and Roe is overturned the issue gets sent to where it belonged in the first place. States will be able to vote on abortion and democracy will work. Constitutionally, Roe is bad law. Its a stretch by anyones standards to find abortion addressed in the Constitution. Whats the big concern with putting this issue up for a vote of the people. If your side is the right side make a case and sell it to the majority of the people in your given state.

The "what ifs" can be taken to all kinds of extremes, with poor women, abused women, etc. The same what-ifs can apply to lots of other laws too. In texas I can shoot a burglar in my house..if I move to New Jersey, I can be arrested for the same thing. Different laws, different states.

Originally Posted by Sing

That's not my point, Zio. I'm attacking the idea of praising people based on their correlation of actions with their beliefs without regard for what's right. That essentially leads you down the path of praising suicide bombers because they're more concerned about their beliefs than in what's right.

I'll resay what I just said. Sucide bombers could be doing what they believe in. Rather it's right or wrong they are passion enough to risk thier lives for thier religeon or whatever.

And Brady knows what I am talking about but that is to a certain degree.