South Dakota bans most abortions

Originally Posted by Minion

Who said I don't believe in rights? Someone has to determine what our rights are. Who could possibly do this?

Cue arguement about the right to privacy ad tedium.

We have processes in which this is determined, like you know the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the constitution.

By the way your majority is right only works when you're in agreement I guess.

No, it works regardless. I see you're having trouble fathoming the idea that I am consistent in my beliefs, so you'll just have to take my word I guess. Or not.

Originally Posted by Minion

No, it works regardless. I see you're having trouble fathoming the idea that I am consistent in my beliefs, so you'll just have to take my word I guess. Or not.

No it doesn't because you fail to realize people are fickle and easily swayed by bullshit. Our founders knew this and that's why there are so many roadblocks for legislation and a Supreme Court.

Right, you only believe in the rights set by the majority, and that minority rights, the ones that secure our basic freedoms are secondary to the wishes of the majority, which can be construed in any manner, including one where the "Majority Opinion" isn't actually embraced by the majority (Bolsheviks).

If we don't want niggers in our town, then by God we should be able to vote on it.

Originally Posted by Cat9

Quite a presumptuous statement dont you think? Once again, if pro-lifers cannot act upon thier own beliefs, then are they really free?

Well not only that but why should only the pro-choice get to make the laws or voice thier opinions? I think people are thinking too shallow on this one.

Quote:

If we don't want niggers in our town, then by God we should be able to vote on it.

Well, I also think everything should be legislated from the federal level. States are an outdated concept.

Originally Posted by Zio

Well not only that but why should only the pro-choice get to make the laws or voice thier opinions? I think people are thinking too shallow on this one.

Pro-life has been able to restrict the methods and timing of abotion. It's not like people are turning a deaf ear to their ideals.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Wonderful.

Make's you feel good now doesn't it? Honestly I doubt I'd have much trouble telling you which side will vote Republican and which side will vote Democrat. I doubt you would either.

Originally Posted by Minion

Well, I also think everything should be legislated from the federal level. States are an outdated concept.

Then you've just underminded our system of checks and balances. I couldn't think of a better way to kill the American Republic.

This is why abortion is a important issue. Not because of morality, religon, or rights. But because we're trying to maintain a balance of government.

Originally Posted by Joe Wiewel

South Dakota's conservative voters and government are doing this because they hope that abortion will be made illegal on a national level. Which is just what this country needs. Babies being born to mothers that aren't ready, resulting in increased levels of poverty and everything else that follows from that, such as increased levels of crime. -__-

Very good point. Dr. Henry Morgentaler first began the woman's right to choose here in Canada,

Originally Posted by From CBC.ca

A Polish Jew who survived the Auschwitz death camp (where he was tattooed with number 95077), Morgentaler has pointed many times to what he saw as one of the root causes of Hitler’s death machine – unwanted children who were fighting back against a family that abused them. "Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps, do not rape and do not murder," Morgentaler said in June 2005 at the University of Western Ontario, where he was awarded his first honorary degree.

I agree with this, unwanted children are treated differently, some are loved because the parents accept it, others do not. Not only that, what the court and the anti-abortion group needs to understand is that not all abortions happen because the mother wants to, on the first ultrasound more can be determined about the baby besides the sex, life threatening disease and conditions to the baby can occur, which can result in a very poor quality of life or may even be a still born. In most cases it is not a easy decision to make.

Again what the Courts and anti-abortion groups also need to understand is that t the beginning of the pregnancy, the embryo is a group of cells, it is not a baby... like a egg is not a chicken and a blue print is not a building. It has the capability to become one, but not is you do not want to contribute the time.

Late term abortion is also another factor, here is a good artical that sums it up pretty good.

Wrestling with late term abortions

Originally Posted by Watts

Then you've just underminded our system of checks and balances. I couldn't think of a better way to kill the American Republic.

This is why abortion is a important issue. Not because of morality, religon, or rights. But because we're trying to maintain a balance of government.

The hell are you talking about? We have an executive branch, a Congress and a Supreme Court all at the Federal level.

Checks and balances go beyond merely the different branches of government. The different levels of government also play a major role, as do the levels and types of law.

Yeah see, I don't know if that's necessary. We're not a conglomeration of independant states anymore. We're one country. The whole system is pretty ridiculous and seems to be completely unique to the US.

I work in the insurance industry and I can tell you firsthand that the difference in laws from state to state is just stupid. There's no reason for it and if insurance weren't so complicated, insurance companies wouldn't have to hire so many employees to deal with it and maybe it wouldn't cost so much.

Germany and Switzerland, to name two, both maintain similar federal systems.

And besides, if you're really so keen to practice something closer to actual democracy, a federalized system is a better place for it than a centralized one. The larger a population gets, the less ability there is to get 50%+1 to agree on something without concessions, which the more extreme elements of that majority aren't keen to see adpoted; this is a big reason why so many parliamentary governments need to call frequent elections.

In a federal system, the whole is also divided into smaller sovereignties, which can act independently of each other. This serves to both simplify matters for the central government and lets multiple solutions to a problem be adopted where there is disagreement as to what the right one is. This is excellent for such social issues as abortion, since there isn't a one size fits all solution. If the people of one state are aghast at the idea of aborting a child, they can outlaw the procedure in their state, while if the people in another state are aghast at the idea of denying a woman the right to choose whether she wants to keep the child or not, they can protect that right in their state.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the central government imposing a solution to social issues that will incense a large segment part of the population. That serves to poison discourse, discourage compromise on the issue, and make social issues that were of little importance before into issues of national import, whether they should be or not. Such is not in the best interests of the nation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I see happening with this system is extreme polarization, which degerates social issues into political battles that are more about staying in office than doing the right thing.

Oddly enough, the extreme polarization on the social issue of abortion, which has turned it into the kind of political battle you described, began when the central government imposed a solution on the country.

Originally Posted by Minion

In a well run democracy, I don't see freedom as being as important, let alone more important, than the majority's opinion. It's pretty clear what the people of South Dakota want. If you're saying that your freedom is more important than the majority's decisions, why have any laws at all?

To protect said freedom?

I thought that was the entire point of America - to protect the individual's liberty.

Originally Posted by Minion

Well, on the basis of legality, it should be whatever the hell the majority thinks. Why is this so hard to swallow?

This doesn't make sense for issues which the majority doesn't fully understand.

If you ask the majority at what stage after conception is too late to get an abortion, you'll get all manner of answers. If you ask the same question to medical experts, you'll get a much smaller variance in answers. It makes sense to me that on medical issues doctors might know better than farmers.

Another example, if you ask the majority if their taxes should be halved, or eliminated you are guaranteed to have them say yes more often than not. Does that mean it's wise? Of course not, it's because they are misinformed or ignorant of the issue.

Same goes for the abortion issue. A lot of people have opinions. These are founded on any number of things, influenced by people who misinform them (itentionally or not), or pull their opinion out of their ass and base it one nothing at all. This is true for all sides of the issue. So, does the majority picking a side mean that is what they really believe, considering how few likely understand the facets of the argument?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Zio

Pug, if you don't like a law that was passed then you know what you can do to stop it or even reverse the law.

You can lobby or reverse any law you wish to... Atleast try to.

If I really wanted to, I could rally and reverse the decision about segregated schools.

They acted on thier beliefs, were organized, and started the ball on possibly banning it. Now that takes some guts to stand up(despite proscution and etc other things that will come.) and do something about a law that they don't think is right.

Pro-lifers think that allowing abortation is forcing wrong beliefs on everyone.

Pro-choice thinks that not allowing is.

Either way you slice it, someone's toes are going to get stepped on.

What horseshit. Being persecuted for being pro life? This isn't standing up against 'the man' or anything close to it. It's the relatively safe stance to take, you aren't going to be called a killer for it as opposed to being pro choice.

Also, despite every imaginable attempt to portray themselves as victims, pro lifers are not the ones potentially being put upon here. If 'allowing abortion was forcing beliefs on everyone' was really the case, those who didn't believe in having abortions would be forced to have one. See how retarded that argument is? No one is forcing the pro lifers to do anything they don't want to do, or trying to limit what they may do, or what they may say.

And another thing, your stance on passing laws is quite unique. Of course one can lobby for any law they wish, and that law may or may not be passed. But praising the passing of laws just for the hell of it seems odd. If you don't support it, then you shouldn't be too happy that it happens. And just waiting for it to get democricized out after a while is a pretty lame way to solve the issue. Maybe heading off things before they get passed would be more efficient, and cheaper than sitting back and applauding any and all changes made?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Checks and balances go beyond merely the different branches of government. The different levels of government also play a major role, as do the levels and types of law.

Bingo. Which is why everytime the State of Oregon brings precedents such as; "doctor assisted suicides of the terminally ill" or "legalization of medicinal marijuana", the Federal Government is on one side, and the State of Oregon stands on the other. And it always make's it to the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Minion

The only thing I see happening with this system is extreme polarization, which degerates social issues into political battles that are more about staying in office than doing the right thing.

One of the big reasons why social issues degrade into political battles is because of politicians actions, especially around election time. They typically appeal to people's ego. Quite effective too. If you believe you're in the right, you certainly won't harbor much sympathy for the other side's perspective. Or any other perspective. You are right, and everyone else is wrong. Which is the basis on which I called everybody 'tools of a political agenda'. Although I'm just as guilty as anyone in that regard.

Unfortunately abortion is a much bigger issue then that. Hence, I said morality, religion, and rights don't really have anything to do with it. Furthermore in cases that define our system's balance of power there is no 'right answer', except maintaining the status quo that's been established. Which is unlikely to change under ANY Supreme Court.

Nobody wins, nobody's happy. But the fight goes on... but only during election years.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Oddly enough, the extreme polarization on the social issue of abortion, which has turned it into the kind of political battle you described, began when the central government imposed a solution on the country.

A solution needed to be imposed regardless of the long term consequences. Still doesn't make it any less ironic.