[Spliffdaddy]

With not enough time left to prevent South Dakota's new anti-abortion law from going into effect - the USA will be taking a monumental step forward in the advancement of human rights. Pro-abortion activists have until June 19th to gather the required signatures in order to suspend the new law until the November elections (at which time it will become law, regardless, because it will be upheld in a referendum). Currently, they only have 40% of the required signatures.

For those who haven't heard, South Dakota's new law makes it a felony for anyone to help a woman end her pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest or when the woman's physical or mental health is at risk. The law only permits abortion when it is necessary to save a woman's life.

I hope it applies to anybody who drives a woman across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion.

And the good news?

It won't even put a single doctor out of business!

South Dakota only has one abortion clinic which is staffed part-time by a lone doctor who commutes from Minnesota.

One down, forty-nine to go.


Told you so. Told you so.

[xenu]

In non-faith based democracies, women have the freedom of choice to access abortion clinics and the so-called abortion pill.

Their choices are not denied by a vocal religious minority.

I know which society I would prefer to live in.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm just concerned about children. Adults wants, needs, and desires are secondary.

It's not a religious thing.

"Vocal minority"? Not hardly. Almost 70% of Americans would support some form of restriction on abortion.

It ain't a South Dakota thing, either:

Nationally, lawmakers in Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky and Mississippi considered but failed to approve South Dakota-like abortion bans before their legislative sessions ended this year. Six states--Rhode Island, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana--continue to consider bills that defy Roe v. Wade by banning most abortions. Louisiana lawmakers are considering an abortion ban that would take effect only if Roe v. Wade were overturned or the U.S. Constitution were amended to allow states to prohibit abortion. Proposed bans in Ohio, Rhode Island and South Carolina are even more restrictive than the South Dakota law, prohibiting all abortions with no exceptions.

Lots of majority-Democrat states, huh? Not exactly a "Christian conservative" belief.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm just concerned about children. Adults wants, needs, and desires are secondary.

If your are concerned, don't have an abortion.

I'm amazed at how some people are incapable of understanding the concept of personal choice.

Like I say, give me a non-faith based society any day, over the kind you advocate. Fortunately for the people of this country, we have the freedom to choose.

[Spliffdaddy]

Update:

South Dakota's new abortion legislation would make it a felony to transport a mother under the age of 18 across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion.

PS, it isn't an issue of "personal choice". There are quite a lot of things which laws exclude us from making choices. Murder being one of them.

Women can still choose to abort a child in South Dakota after July - and they can't be prosecuted. The law only applies to anyone that helps a woman to end her pregnancy.

The mother's mythical "right to choose" is unimpeded.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Update:

South Dakota's new abortion legislation would make it a felony to transport a mother under the age of 18 across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion.

PS, it isn't an issue of "personal choice". There are quite a lot of things which laws exclude us from making choices. Murder being one of them.

Women can still choose to abort a child in South Dakota after July - and they can't be prosecuted. The law only applies to anyone that helps a woman to end her pregnancy.

The mother's mythical "right to choose" is unimpeded.

This is good to know that women can still have an abortion; They just have to
do it themselves. Yippee!!! I think I will start investing in coat-hanger stocks.
</sarcasm>

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

This is good to know that women can still have an abortion; They just have to
do it themselves. Yippee!!! I think I will start investing in coat-hanger stocks.
</sarcasm>

There is a word there that doesn't belong. Or isn't factual.

I even gave you a hint.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by xenu

If your are concerned, don't have an abortion.

I'm amazed at how some people are incapable of understanding the concept of personal choice.

If you are concerned, don't kill people

I'm amazed at how some people are incapable of understanding the personal choice of murder.

The people who are against this aren't so because they want to take a choice away. But because they think that murder shouldn't be an option in the first place. That it ever was is absurd. esp when people use it as birth control.

Like I say, give me a non-faith based society any day, over the kind you advocate. Fortunately for the people of this country, we have the freedom to choose.

Hate to tell you but, before I became a Christian, I was pro-life as well.

So are many other non-faithers.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is a word there that doesn't belong. Or isn't factual.

I even gave you a hint.

I understand your cute phrasing and you are correct, most women do not have to have an abortion (say, to protect their health). And I don't care whether or not a woman has to have an abortion, I want her to be able to get one if she wants to, even if she is using it as birth control.

BUT
I am correct as well. If a woman in South Dakota wants to get an abortion in South Dakota then yes she does have to do it herself as no one can a) do it for her or b) help her do it.

So, we are both correct. Yippee!!!

[Kevin]

Again, she doesn't HAVE to. No one HAS to. It's always a CHOICE.

You HAVE to breath. You HAVE to poop.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, she doesn't HAVE to. No one HAS to. It's always a CHOICE.

You HAVE to breath. You HAVE to poop.

Ooh, are we going to have another debate about the meaning of words. This should be fun. Who gets to go first, your or me? Do you want to go look up the meaning of the word "have" or should I?

You do realize the word "have" has more than one meaning, don't you? There is the connotation of compulsion (your usage) as well as the connotation of necessity (my usage). And yes, in case you were wondering, compulsion != necessity. So we can both use the word in our respective contexts and both be using correctly the word "have". Besides, I already stated that I think it is a choice and that it should be a choice women should be allowed to make, even in cases of abortion-as-birth-control. So, get your finger off the shift key, take a few deep breaths, and THINK about how words can have different meanings.


<edited to add.>
Because I am feeling charitable tonight, I will re-phrase my sentence for you so there will be no doubt as to what I meant to say.
"If a woman in South Dakota wants to get an abortion in South Dakota then it is necessary for her to do it herself as no one can a) do it for her or b) help her do it."
See, I made my point--the choice to have an abortion requires the woman to do it by herself for herself--in the state of South Dakota.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Almost 70% of Americans would support some form of restriction on abortion.

If your referring to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, the 69% referred to those favor of requiring minors to get parental consent to have an abortion.

However, most people polled believe that abortion should be legal under varying circumstances, which is something that can at least be debated unlike the for or against argument.

However, in the US, nothing close to a majority is in favor of it being banned to the degree that it is in South Dakota.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<edited to add.>
Because I am feeling charitable tonight, I will re-phrase my sentence for you so there will be no doubt as to what I meant to say.
"If a woman in South Dakota wants to get an abortion in South Dakota then it is necessary for her to do it herself as no one can a) do it for her or b) help her do it."

Nothing to do with being charitable. It has to do with being honest.

No one HAS to have an abortion. most of the time It's a selfish act.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm just concerned about children. Adults wants, needs, and desires are secondary.

What children ?

[smacintush]

If a woman is willing to mutilate herself in order to perform an abortion on herself, then she needs mental help. I believe that abortion should be legal, but I do NOT believe that it is, or should be a right protected by our constitution. I think that allowing states to decide is the best way and I support South Dakota's right to pass this law.

The idea that there will be an epidemic of coat-hanger self-mutilations is one made of whole cloth. There is no way know that will be the case other than to say that it will happen "because you say so."

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by xenu

If your are concerned, don't have an abortion.

I'm amazed at how some people are incapable of understanding the concept of personal choice.

Like I say, give me a non-faith based society any day, over the kind you advocate. Fortunately for the people of this country, we have the freedom to choose.

And maybe someday, with a lot of activism, we can get to this point.

"The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects. Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects. Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits. Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy."

[Kevin]

AKA shallow people that don't care about anyone but themselves.

[SpaceMonkey]

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen, 73-year-old candidate, Bob Dole.
Kang: Abortions for all!
[crowd boos]
Very well, no abortions for anyone!
[crowd boos]
Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

-The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror VII

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Kang: Abortions for all!
[crowd boos]
Very well, no abortions for anyone!
[crowd boos]
Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

That just about sums it up

[Monique]

Women are going to have abortions no matter what; they just going to die from back alley abortions, and the pro-lifer are going to laugh about it; just like before.

The very vast majority of women do not have use abortions as a method of birth control.

[Spliffdaddy]

BS.

Post some proof.

because all data suggests that nearly 90% of women have abortions primarily because they don't want the baby.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Women are going to have abortions no matter what; they just going to die from back alley abortions, and the pro-lifer are going to laugh about it; just like before.

You have a sick, sick mind Monique.

The very vast majority of women do not have use abortions as a method of birth control.

WRONG

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You have a sick, sick mind Monique.

WRONG

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

It does not prove your point, even though this report is made by a religious organization, women do not use abortions because they decided it would be fun to have one or well I am not going to use contraception continuously and keep having abortions. It only prove my point, I do not want to be a parent now, I do not have the money to raise a child. Since you never had an abortion and you do not care about the women since you are from the right, I can tell you that a woman do not take this decision lightly and it is so rare that she will use abortions as the sole mean of contraception. Have you followed each and every case afterward to know if they use contraception after that abortion?? I guess not you are too busy to judge others especially women.

[BRussell]

So the voters of S. Dakota have halted this law. It won't go into effect as planned, and instead will be on the ballot in November.

[Spliffdaddy]

The people will *finally* get to decide on the legality of abortion.

That only took 35 years and a lot of kicking and screaming.

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, no. The relevant court cases are still the law of the land, and they're not subject to mere statewide ballots.

[Spliffdaddy]

So you don't believe the voters should determine the legality of abortion?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So you don't believe the voters should determine the legality of abortion?

We're only a "democracy" when it's supportive of liberal ideas, Spliff. Haven't you read the playbook?

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So you don't believe the voters should determine the legality of abortion?

This is what the Supreme Court said, and I agree:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

[Spliffdaddy]

Abortion isn't a "fundamental right".

So Americans can, indeed, vote on its legality.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The people will *finally* get to decide on the legality of abortion.

That only took 35 years and a lot of kicking and screaming.

Abortion is something it's very easy to just say no to, but when faced with reality most people will go through a complete change of mind. It's a bizarre fact that a lot of pro-life/anti-choice women actually have had abortions themselves.

EDIT:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

There should be done more studies on this

[cpt kangarooski]

Spliffdaddy--

Abortion isn't a "fundamental right".

The Court has found that privacy from governmental intrusion is. This right arises frequently. If you decide to use contraception or not when you have sex, then you have a fundamental right of privacy that prevents the government from interfering with that decision unduly. You have similar freedom from intrusion in your choice of sexual partner, which is why the Court recently overturned laws prohibiting sodomy.

Abortion is another decision where the people who engage in it are free to make that decision without the government unduly getting involved. So you're wrong: there is a fundamental right.

[Spliffdaddy]

What does any of that have to do with abortion?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's a part of the fundamental right of privacy; a right that, like freedom of religion to name one, should not be subject to voting. We don't just have civil rights guarantees in the Constitution to protect ourselves from the government, but also to protect ourselves from ourselves. The framers were just as concerned with tyrrany on the part of our government as they were with a tyrrany of the majority.

South Dakota voting to ban abortion is no different than if they voted to ban Jews, or homosexuals, or blacks.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

South Dakota voting to ban abortion is no different than if they voted to ban Jews, or homosexuals, or blacks.

Yet another "Let's throw race into the argument in a weak attempt to validate something totally absurd!"

No one's personal freedoms can override another's. When conception occurs, the process of life begins. Calling it "choice" and claiming that someone isn't human until birth is a simple way to justify selfishness and grant one's self freedom from respsonsibility.

[Monique]

Again Jawbone when you get pregnant next; you make the choice.

If men had babies, abortions would have legal a long time ago and never challenge.

[Jawbone54]

Monique, I expected your rant to be at least one paragraph long.

If you're willing to take a look at the results of the aborted baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it...then feel free to have as many abortions as you'd like. It's easy to detach one's self from the reality of an abortion as long as the results of one's selfishness are kept at arm's length.

I've sounded like a broken record saying this, but if you don't want to get pregnant, then take birth control. If you REALLY don't want to get pregnant, then DON'T HAVE SEX!

***WARNING***
What I've posted below is very graphic, but I wish that some of you would look at it.
http://www.crusadeforlife.org/what_is_abortion.htm

[cpt kangarooski]

Jawbone54--

Yet another "Let's throw race into the argument in a weak attempt to validate something totally absurd!"

Wrong. I'm simply pointing out, as the Supreme Court did, that democracy only goes so far; our government was established in such a way that some things are not subject to voting. For exactly the same reason that the people of South Dakota could not vote to kick out black people, they cannot vote to ban abortion. Whatever the outcome of their ballot is, it basically doesn't mean anything.

Racial discrimination is merely an example. I also listed examples of religious and sexual orientation discrimination. You're reading too much into it.

No one's personal freedoms can override another's.

If that's what you think, then it leads inevitably to the conclusion that any right of a fetus to live cannot override the right of a pregnant woman to not carry that fetus to term.

Personally, I would disagree with your initial premise. It might not be ideal, but sometimes the real world forces us to prioritize. We just have to avoid having to do so, and to be careful when we do so.

[Monique]

What do you think it looks like? Not the propaganda of your church group but reality. Reality the big majority of abortions are done within 8 weeks, the feotus is nothing but a tiny a very tiny egg and it looks like nothing, and there is more uterin material than anything else. The pictures you are showing is a lie. If the baby was that big during the first trimester, it would be the size of a toddler when it comes out, which would be impossible.

And it does not bother me, because it is a lie, and I feel for the women not the foetus.

By the way 13 weeks cannot be the first trimester, trimester is 3 months, not 4. If a trimester was 4 months it would mean that a woman carries the baby 12 months not 9.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Wrong. I'm simply pointing out, as the Supreme Court did, that democracy only goes so far; our government was established in such a way that some things are not subject to voting. For exactly the same reason that the people of South Dakota could not vote to kick out black people, they cannot vote to ban abortion. Whatever the outcome of their ballot is, it basically doesn't mean anything.

Racial discrimination is merely an example. I also listed examples of religious and sexual orientation discrimination. You're reading too much into it.

If that's what you think, then it leads inevitably to the conclusion that any right of a fetus to live cannot override the right of a pregnant woman to not carry that fetus to term.

Personally, I would disagree with your initial premise. It might not be ideal, but sometimes the real world forces us to prioritize. We just have to avoid having to do so, and to be careful when we do so.

The right of that fetus to live DOES override the right of a pregnant woman to not carry that fetus to term. The moment of choice doesn't take place after one is pregnant, but before one decides to crawl into bed either without protection or without taking birth control. And it's not just the female's responsibility. It's both the man and woman's job to make sure preventive measures have been taken.

The Supreme Court has legalized murder. Part of the country sees it that way, the other part doesn't. I realize the disagreement, but pro-abortionists look at pro-lifers as ignorant religious nuts, simply because they place sanctity on human life.

The people protesting for their "freedom of choice" were birthed by people who chose to let them live.

In America today, it's a blessing to simply make it into this world.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Monique

What do you think it looks like? Not the propaganda of your church group but reality. Reality the big majority of abortions are done within 8 weeks, the feotus is nothing but a tiny a very tiny egg and it looks like nothing, and there is more uterin material than anything else. The pictures you are showing is a lie. If the baby was that big during the first trimester, it would be the size of a toddler when it comes out, which would be impossible.

And it does not bother me, because it is a lie, and I feel for the women not the foetus.

This is a fetus at 8 weeks. It's nice to know that you feel comfortable chopping it into very small pieces and sucking it out of a woman's womb.

The problem with modern day feminism is that it place's women not EQUAL to men, children, or the unborn, but on a completely different level, where your own interests are taken into consideration over everyone elses. If you're looking for equality, then allow the child to be born, and put it up for adoption.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This is a fetus at 8 weeks. It's nice to know that you feel comfortable chopping it into very small pieces and sucking it out of a woman's womb.

Seems like your pic is tampered with

[Monique]

I have done that and the result of it was that I had a nervous breakdown; there was not one day for many many years that I did not miss that child, that I did not feel an emptiness in my life. During my pregnancy I was treated like dirt, and had very lousy care during the delivery, why because I was a single mom. You are talking like someone that have absolutly no idea of what is going on in a woman's mind. Oh! I forgot you are a conservative man.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Seems like your pic is tampered with

Considering the pic you posted says "Week 6" I don't think so.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Monique

I have done that and the result of it was that I had a nervous breakdown; there was not one day for many many years that I did not miss that child, that I did not feel an emptiness in my life. During my pregnancy I was treated like dirt, and had very lousy care during the delivery, why because I was a single mom. You are talking like someone that have absolutly no idea of what is going on in a woman's mind. Oh! I forgot you are a conservative man.

Monique, I'm very sorry that you've missed your child. But imagine that he/she would have never had a chance to live had you aborted him/her.

If you were treated like dirt because you were a single mom, then certainly the people that helped deliver your baby were any but Christian-like in their treatment of you. I don't condone that one bit.

I've counseled teenage girls who have had an abortion, and I've counseled 2 who have had unwanted pregnancies. The ones who had an abortion have regretted it horribly. The boyfriend of one (they broke up shortly after the abortion) has talked to me about how he thinks of what they did every single day. He said, "I feel bad for having been so selfish. I'll never be able to stop thinking about it. What it would've looked like, and all that."

The girls that went through with the pregnancies have been greatly inconvenienced, but I've watched both children with their mothers over the past year, smiling, laughing, and crying. To think that one choice could've been made to end their lives before they were ever seen is as somber of an image as I can imagine.

No, Monique. I can't fully understand a woman's thinking any more than you can understand a man's. What I can understand is that pregancy, aborted or not, is an incredibly emotional and trying experience, one which should not be taken lightly. And because of that I still stand by my original response: if a person is not ready for a pregnancy, then either use birth control or even safer, don't have sex.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Considering the pic you posted says "Week 6" I don't think so.

Evidently you weren't supposed to notice that, Kevin.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Considering the pic you posted says "Week 6" I don't think so.

At week 8 of the pregnancy, the age of the fetus is considered 6 weeks old. See, the pic is from week 8:
http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/week8.html

Evidently you weren't supposed to notice that, Kevin.

Well, I can tell you, the sky ain't blue inside the womb

[cpt kangarooski]

Jawbone54--

The right of that fetus to live DOES override the right of a pregnant woman to not carry that fetus to term.

Then why did you say "[n]o one's personal freedoms can override another's" just a minute ago?

I realize that it's perfectly fine for people to change their positions on matters after reflection, on the discovery of new information, after exposure to persuasive arguments, etc. But when you turn on a dime in the way that you just did, I can't help but think that you're really putting in much thought.

The moment of choice doesn't take place after one is pregnant, but before one decides to crawl into bed either without protection or without taking birth control. And it's not just the female's responsibility. It's both the man and woman's job to make sure preventive measures have been taken.

Well, no. The issue is whether the government can force women who are pregnant to remain pregnant, or whether women can make their own medical decisions for themselves, in conjunction with their doctors. It's similar to how the government used to force some people to be sterilized, and forced other people to not use contraception if they were going to have sex.

I don't think that the government should be involved with these private matters, unless there is a really good reason. Viability is a good reason; if the fetus can be delivered, albeit prematurely, then the woman can elect to do that and still avoid being pregnant any longer. The health of the woman is an even stronger countervailing reason even if there is viability.

The people protesting for their "freedom of choice" were birthed by people who chose to let them live.

That's right. And I would rather have my mother have deliberately chosen to have me than for her not to have been able to make that decision.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Then why did you say "[n]o one's personal freedoms can override another's" just a minute ago?

I realize that it's perfectly fine for people to change their positions on matters after reflection, on the discovery of new information, after exposure to persuasive arguments, etc. But when you turn on a dime in the way that you just did, I can't help but think that you're really putting in much thought.


Well, no. The issue is whether the government can force women who are pregnant to remain pregnant, or whether women can make their own medical decisions for themselves, in conjunction with their doctors. It's similar to how the government used to force some people to be sterilized, and forced other people to not use contraception if they were going to have sex.

I don't think that the government should be involved with these private matters, unless there is a really good reason. Viability is a good reason; if the fetus can be delivered, albeit prematurely, then the woman can elect to do that and still avoid being pregnant any longer. The health of the woman is an even stronger countervailing reason even if there is viability.


That's right. And I would rather have my mother have deliberately chosen to have me than for her not to have been able to make that decision.

The implication is that you do not have a RIGHT to commit murder. Don't play word games.

Abortion is not a "medical decision," so much as a moral decision. "Oh, I don't feel responsible or mature enough to handle pregnancy?" Well, the woman and her partner sure felt responsible and mature enough to have sexual intercourse. If they didn't realize that pregnancies were the result of sexual intercourse...then we have a much larger problem on our hands.

What if I took a gun and blew my mother's brains out because she insulted me? It was a private matter. Should I be charged with murder? It's ridiculous to call abortion a private matter when a life is being terminated.

Make a list of all the influential and world-changing people that were unwanted in their youth. Beethoven is a good place to start.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

The implication is that you do not have a RIGHT to commit murder. Don't play word games.

Abortion is not a "medical decision," so much as a moral decision. "Oh, I don't feel responsible or mature enough to handle pregnancy?" Well, the woman and her partner sure felt responsible and mature enough to have sexual intercourse. If they didn't realize that pregnancies were the result of sexual intercourse...then we have a much larger problem on our hands.

Yes, raped women had a choice to not get pregnant. She shouldn'tve been walking through the park or had that drink with the sleeping pill. I'm sure it was prefectly concentual between the 13-year-old and her stepdad or uncle.