S. Dakota legislature passes abortion ban

[bones_IV]

This law advocates murdering children in the case of saving the life of the mother. Pro-abortionists are those who vote for laws that 100% pro-abortion. Those who vote for a partial ban on abortion is pro-abortion. And those who vote for HB 1215 are still pro-abortionists.

 

[bones_IV]

bones_IV:

This law advocates murdering children in the case of saving the life of the mother. Pro-abortionists are those who vote for laws that 100% pro-abortion. Those who vote for a partial ban on abortion is pro-abortion. And those who vote for HB 1215

 

[Liberalsaved]

msproule:

That’s cute. Obviously, this is not a question of religion. Show me a religion that advocates the killing of babies.

Meanwhile, consider the mindset of much of this great nation before (and for quite a while after) the Dred Scott decision. It went something like this:
“How dare that evil government tell me that my slave is a human being worthy of (almost) the same rights as me! Why should they try to impose their morality upon me?”
Your pseudo-patriotic arguments are absurd and ignorant of one very important fact: Abortion denies the most fundamental right guaranteed by this country, LIFE.

Is it more important to change the minds of misguided people about abortion instead of imposing a restriction upon them? Sure it is. But, under a obstinately false idea of freedom, this is much harder to do.

An unborn fetus is not a life capable of thought, in scientific terms, which makes it not bound by your morals. And, comparing the legalization of abortion to something that was illegalized 140 years ago is not valid.

 

[Liberalsaved]

vluvski:

Let’s see… “One nation under God.”

America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, not moral freedom. Does this make sense to no one anymore?

Except that is part of a pledge that was added much later after the founding.

 

[Liberalsaved]

mlchance:

No, you’d rather people be allowed to kill babies than admit you’re wrong. Everything you typed is just more sophistry to justify grave evil. Killing unborn children is grotesquely immoral. No one has a right to kill unborn children. Note the period.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’ll note the period and ignore it, and as well as all the other Nazi attitudes you give me when you follow me around to every thread I post in.

 

[Liberalsaved]

vluvski:

Perhaps not in this life…

Then that is their choice. We cannot control what they choose to do here one arth simply because we think they are doing the wrong thing in the eyes of somethig beyond the earth.

 

[buffalo]

Liberalsaved:

An unborn fetus is not a life capable of thought, in scientific terms, which makes it not bound by your morals. And, comparing the legalization of abortion to something that was illegalized 140 years ago is not valid.

No? At what point is the unborn baby capable of thought?

 

[Liberalsaved]

buffalo:

No? At what point is the unborn baby capable of thought?

According to science, at birth, and science and hard facts govern the law in this country. That’s just the way it is. It isn’t that way everywhere. Subjective morals are the law in a lot of countries, and this i one time you guys cannot spin this: you’ve seen how horrible it is to live in all of those countries. I wouldn’t wish the things that happen when morals become laws on anyone.

As someone said, the job of government is not to legislate morals. I’m not even disagreeing with this one, necessarily. But that isn’t the government’s job. Their job is to keep society running smoothly, and as far as I can see, the only people related to abortion who ever disrupt society are the protesters. Murder is illegal because it interferes with the whole right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on a LEGAL scale, not a moral scale.

 

[buffalo]

Liberalsaved:

According to science, at birth, and science and hard facts govern the law in this country. That’s just the way it is. It isn’t that way everywhere. Subjective morals are the law in a lot of countries, and this i one time you guys cannot spin this: you’ve seen how horrible it is to live in all of those countries. I wouldn’t wish the things that happen when morals become laws on anyone.

As someone said, the job of government is not to legislate morals. I’m not even disagreeing with this one, necessarily. But that isn’t the government’s job. Their job is to keep society running smoothly, and as far as I can see, the only people related to abortion who ever disrupt society are the protesters. Murder is illegal because it interferes with the whole right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on a LEGAL scale, not a moral scale.

You are kidding right? At birth? That was science in the 70’s perhaps. Everyone knows better, that just the passage from the mothers womb does not turn on the thought switch.

 

[Liberalsaved]

buffalo:

You are kidding right? At birth? That was science in the 70’s perhaps. Everyone knows better, that just the passage from the mothers womb does not turn on the thought switch.

Everyone does not know better. Some people claim to know better.

So you’re going to ignore the point that government isn’t here to legislate morals, I take it?

 

[buffalo]

Liberalsaved:

Everyone does not know better. Some people claim to know better.

So you’re going to ignore the point that government isn’t here to legislate morals, I take it?

Representative government does legislate morals by making laws. It represents the will of the people. When it fails to represent the will of the people and take it upon itself to legislate from the bench it violates this most basic rule.

 

[msproule]

Liberalsaved:

An unborn fetus is not a life capable of thought, in scientific terms, which makes it not bound by your morals.

I am not trying to bind that unborn baby with my morals, but that is probably not what you were intending to say. Anyway, where is the scientific definition of “thought” found in the law? That is not even what Roe v. Wade is about; It has little to do with science…

And, comparing the legalization of abortion to something that was illegalized 140 years ago is not valid.

Why not? Please explain your reasoning…

 

[Liberalsaved]

msproule:

I am not trying to bind that unborn baby with my morals, but that is probably not what you were intending to say. Anyway, where is the scientific definition of “thought” found in the law? That is not even what Roe v. Wade is about; It has little to do with science…

Why not? Please explain your reasoning…

1. I am not a scientific person. I just know that anti-abortion is primarily a moral judgement that does not affect the so-called breakdown of society the way a robbery or murder does, and therefore NO MATTER MY PERSONAL VIEWS on it is not subject to judgement by government. I shudder to think of the consequences of illegalizing abortion. Do i really need to go into the gruesome ways that women used to abort their own babies before the legalization? I hope not because just thinking about it gives me the shivers.
2. Because it’s gone. We fixed it. The people who brought slavery into law are long dead and we’ve paid for it ever since with an unfortunately highly fractured society. We have to learn from the past, let it go, and then focus on what challenges are happening to us today.

Look. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. Were I a woman, it is not a choice I’d make. But there’s that word: CHOICE. Pro-choice people are NOT pro-abortion. I’m proof. We simple feel we have absolutely no right to regulate what someone else does with their life and body if it is not infringing upon the rights of someone else. Pro-abortion is a scheme to make us all seem like drooling, baby-killing monsters, and it’s just another sick piece of propaganda designed to make those who disagree with the person spreading it look like less than human, the way the derogatory names “Japs” or “gooks” have served a propaganda purpose in the past. My thinking are much deeper and more complex than the stereotype of liberals, as I hope most of yours are deeper than the stereotypes of Conservatives. Speaking of which, does being for the war in Iraq mean you are a slavering maniac who wants to kill all muslims? Because that’s in the same vein.

 

[buffalo]

1. I am not a scientific person. I just know that anti-abortion is primarily a moral judgement that does not affect the so-called breakdown of society the way a robbery or murder does, and therefore NO MATTER MY PERSONAL VIEWS on it is not subject to judgement by government. I shudder to think of the consequences of illegalizing abortion. Do i really need to go into the gruesome ways that women used to abort their own babies before the legalization? I hope not because just thinking about it gives me the shivers.

1. Because it’s gone. We fixed it. The people who brought slavery into law are long dead and we’ve paid for it ever since with an unfortunately highly fractured society. We have to learn from the past, let it go, and then focus on what challenges are happening to us today.

Look. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. Were I a woman, it is not a choice I’d make. But there’s that word: CHOICE. Pro-choice people are NOT pro-abortion. I’m proof. We simple feel we have absolutely no right to regulate what someone else does with their life and body if it is not infringing upon the rights of someone else. Pro-abortion is a scheme to make us all seem like drooling, baby-killing monsters, and it’s just another sick piece of propaganda designed to make those who disagree with the person spreading it look like less than human, the way the derogatory names “Japs” or “gooks” have served a propaganda purpose in the past. My thinking are much deeper and more complex than the stereotype of liberals, as I hope most of yours are deeper than the stereotypes of Conservatives. Speaking of which, does being for the war in Iraq mean you are a slavering maniac who wants to kill all muslims? Because that’s in the same vein.

Murdering the most vulnerable in any society surely is a breakdown. It is worse than murder or robbery. No mature civilization advocates it.

And the number of women dying was a total fabrication admitted by Dr. Nathanson who is now a pro-life advocate. Read his story.

Choice - The choice a woman wants to murder her unborn child who she deprives of the choice to live.

Why can’t we love them both?

 

[msproule]

1. I am not a scientific person. I just know that anti-abortion is primarily a moral judgement that does not affect the so-called breakdown of society the way a robbery or murder does…

I am a scientific person, although I do not claim to be an expert in the field of medicine. Regardless, why do you now cower away from science when in post #42 it was the foundation of your argument against the humanness of an unborn, human child?

As to the societal effect of abortion, I suppose you might argue that had all those babies had been allowed to “think” , there would be even more violent crimes per capita than now due to overpopulation, poverty, and despair?

1. Because it’s gone. We fixed it. The people who brought slavery into law are long dead and we’ve paid for it ever since with an unfortunately highly fractured society. We have to learn from the past, let it go, and then focus on what challenges are happening to us today…

Interesting choice of arguments…although it seems to support the other side. The only reason abortion might not produce a “highly fractured society” is because the victims are being killed off. I predict in a few generations there will be a conversation, perhaps among scientists, that goes something like this: “It’s gone. We fixed it. The people who brought abortion into law are long dead…”

 

[mlchance]

Liberalsaved:

An unborn fetus is not a life capable of thought, in scientific terms…

Absolute nonsense. There isn’t a shred of truth to this statement, or this one about when a child is capable of thought:

Liberalsaved:

According to science, at birth, and science…

BTW, you’ve been reported for calling me a Nazi.

Since you brought up the National Socialists, here are their views on abortion.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

Liberalsaved:

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion.

This is also untrue. Women, especially young women, are frequently forced to have abortions in the U.S., as this article emphasizes.

It’s no wonder that 81 percent of women surveyed in a 1992 study reported in the Journal of Social Issues said they felt victimized by the abortion process, and that they were either coerced into the abortion or that information about alternatives or the actual procedure had been withheld.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

How Abortion Hurts Women: The Hard Proof

Over the last three decades, the abortion debate has been characterized as the clashing of rights: the human rights of the unborn on the one hand and the reproductive rights of women on the other. This decades-long rhetorical deadlock has left a good number of Americans — the great majority of whom understand that an individual human life is taken in each abortion — personally opposed, yet unwilling to “impose their beliefs” on anyone else. The popularity of this so-called pro-choice position is due, in large measure, to the success abortion advocates have had in convincing Americans that abortion is a necessary precondition to women’s well-being and equality. If you want to stand for women’s progress, the line goes, then you have to stand for abortion. Indeed, in our current cultural milieu, to oppose abortion is to risk being called anti-woman — and few, regardless of their sense of the moral wrongness of abortion, can withstand that accusation. “Personally opposed, but can’t impose” seems to many the only pro-woman option.

I once numbered myself among the ranks of “personally opposed” pro-choicers, though I must admit to being more “pro-choice” than “personally opposed.” I penned the following words during my junior year at Middlebury College while one of the leaders of our women’s center: “The state’s suppression of a woman’s right to choose [was] simply a perpetuation of the patriarchal nature of our society… To free women from [the] gender hierarchy, women must have a right to do what they please with their bodies.”

more…

 

[Horab]

every law on the books is based on morals and ethics, from tort laws to traffic laws, laws are supposed to legislate morality.

and it’s just semantics, this “pro-choice/pro-abortion” thing, a choice has no intrinsic moral value

why is abortion on demand considered advanced?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Horab:

every law on the books is based on morals and ethics, from tort laws to traffic laws, laws are supposed to legislate morality.

and it’s just semantics, this “pro-choice/pro-abortion” thing, a choice has no intrinsic moral value

why is abortion on demand considered advanced?

1. That’s just not true. If that were true adultery would be a federal crime. Traffic laws are based on keeping people safe. Murder laws are based on keeping people safe. Robbery laws are based on a right to property.
2. You all speak of abortion on demand as though it’s a drive thru service. Do you even KNOW what it entails? How long people have to wait for one? The paperwork and legal agreements? Abortion on demand is a gross overstatement, a phrase designed to sound worse than it is and thus further the cause of those individuals who care less about the truth and more about their own POV being enforced for everyone.