S. Dakota legislature passes abortion ban

[zootjeff]

mlchance:

You blather constantly about not forcing this, that, or the other thing, but think nothing of using lethal force against the unborn.

Men consistantly use leathal force on hundreds of millions of sperm per week.

Women consistantly use lethal force on about 1 egg a month, unless they’re on the pill, then they don’t ovulate. Thus a reason by your argument why Birth Control should be promoted.

If life begins at conception, why stop there? Can’t you say half of life happens every month. If you want to stop the dying of cells you can remove the gonads.

 

[Ham1]

Viki59:

I take it you would have disapproved of the Boston Tea Party too?

Yes. Civil disobedience is one thing. Destroying property that belongs to another in order to make a political point is unacceptable.

 

[Bella3502]

Dredgemate:

This just in:cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

Now it’s law in S. Dakota!

It’s not quite “law” in S.Dakota… One can still get a legal abortion there.

 

[Horab]

Liberalsaved:

Drug are debateable, but the effects of going into public stoned, such as behind a wheel, are still affecting those around you. Prostitution targets weak, vulnerable women and is a breeding ground for sexually transmitted disease.

I don’t think anyone should be able to go through with something as complex as an abortion immediately upon request. And, abortions are, in most places banned after a certain point in the pregnancy and NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. Sorry, wanted to emphasize that. No one. Nada. Not even pro-choice people if they know anything about science at all, they’d know it’s far far far too dangerous. Once again, I think the problem is the majority of members of this Church deal in absolutes, and see everything in terms of “nothing or everything”. Just because I am pro-choice doesn’t mean I think absolute abortive freedom should be granted. I’m considerably more intelligent than to think that is even feasible or safe, and so are 99% of people like me.

And medication has always been a sticky area. In order to prevent such dangerous actions, or any dangerous actions with medications, we would have to stop selling medicine.

hi, just wanted to reply and hope u clarify your position, i get that it falls somewhere in between the extremes, but where

of course if u wait long enough there is no abotion, time expires. u were legistlating morality when u advocate a waiting period

u seem a little defensive, sorry, i’m not questioning your intelligence, or anything like that. pro-life people think it’s 2 seperate human beings, pro-choice dont, except at some point maybe until the birth if it happens.

i dunno, do u like the way it is in the US and not change the law?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Horab:

hi, just wanted to reply and hope u clarify your position, i get that it falls somewhere in between the extremes, but where

of course if u wait long enough there is no abotion, time expires. u were legistlating morality when u advocate a waiting period

u seem a little defensive, sorry, i’m not questioning your intelligence, or anything like that. pro-life people think it’s 2 seperate human beings, pro-choice dont, except at some point maybe until the birth if it happens.

i dunno, do u like the way it is in the US and not change the law?

I would not change the current law, no. There is certainly a scientifically proven point before which a fetus is just a fetus, and a point during the process of growing when it becomes a human. And anyway, were I a woman, I wouldn’t do it. My reasons for it are 2:

1. The people who call themselves pro-life are often only pro-life until the child is born. At that point, it is implicit that they are supposed to make do without help from anyone but family. But oftentimes families cannot support them. Often times they are crack babies or premature or have other issues, and the incidence of responsible parentage is lessening and lessening, and it cannot be blamed on any of the issue buzzwords that people like to throw around. What it is is, many pro-lifers don’t care after the baby is born. They don’t want to pay any more taxes to get these sorts of kids homes, because they aren’t their kids. Their kids are happy with a room of their own in a nice house or at least a nice apartment. They don’t want to pay more to fund schooling for these kids who likely can’t afford it. Why should they? Their kid’s education is provided for.

You see what I am saying? If you want to be “pro-life” it takes more than waving a sign or marching in a crowd. I have utmost respect for the relatively few people who put their money where their mouth is and go out and help kids they don’t have to help. But the majority of people would rather yell and holler about the injustice of abortion, then look the other way once it comes time to be something called a community and actually help provide for those who aren’t as fortunate.

1. It’s not my decision. Plain and simple. If it were me, if it were my wife, I’d have to put my foot down. But that’s me. That’s who I can handle. And when I see the ways that these rabid pro-life people act…as stated above…I just can’t live with telling people I do not know what to do, when I know I don’t have the means to back it up later. This is responsibility. Knowing what you can do and what battles really need fighting. Abortion is a buzz-word. It’s an easy issue for politicians to trot out. A one-word issue, often greeted by not many more words in response. But very few people actually understand the implications. The complexities of the issue. And those that don’t, don’t want to. This forum is proof of that. They don’t want to know and they don’t want to learn, they just want to spout. This is a generalization, but in this case it’s more often true than it is false.

It comes down to whether you think you have the answers. I don’t think so. I have no answers except one: forcing your morals on everyone is wrong. Plain and simple, it’s not what America is.

 

[BlindSheep]

Liberalsaved:

http://www.savvycenter.com/explorer/roadside/bigfishpole2small.jpg

Please stop doing this.

Oh, I see. Asking you to think is “baiting” you, “spinning” what you say, “putting words in your mouth”…
You could not demonstrate any more clearly that you have no answer. In fact, your last several posts repeat things you’ve already said, things I and others on this board have already responded to several times and had you refuse to answer us. Clearly you care more about remaining pro"choice" than you do about ethics, reason, or honesty. Since you like pictures, and to prefer emotional rather than logical decision making, visit this link and look at what you defend the legality of: abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
I don’t think there is much point in further discussion with you, since instead of responding to the points I make, you claim they are somehow out of bounds (baiting, spinning, etc.).
:

 

[mike182d]

Liberalsaved:

And, abortions are, in most places banned after a certain point in the pregnancy and NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.

That is not true. Abortion is allowed up to term, including partial birth abortions. The Government tried to ban abortion past a certain point in the pregnancy but it was struck down.

 

[mike182d]

Horab:

maybe someone could help me figure out these state laws that say if i shoot a woman that’s three months pregnant, i get charged with two counts of murder, that makes no sense to mme?

It’s interesting that no one from the opposition has addressed this.

 

[mike182d]

siamesecat:

Well if people go about ignoring the Supreme Court I doubt that helps uphold American government…

True. But the Supreme Court making a decision without legitimate Constitutional grounds is just as harmful to the system.

 

[BlindSheep]

Liberalsaved:

I would not change the current law, no. There is certainly a scientifically proven point before which a fetus is just a fetus, and a point during the process of growing when it becomes a human. And anyway, were I a woman, I wouldn’t do it. My reasons for it are 2:

1. The people who call themselves pro-life are often only pro-life until the child is born. At that point, it is implicit that they are supposed to make do without help from anyone but family. But oftentimes families cannot support them. Often times they are crack babies or premature or have other issues, and the incidence of responsible parentage is lessening and lessening, and it cannot be blamed on any of the issue buzzwords that people like to throw around. What it is is, many pro-lifers don’t care after the baby is born. They don’t want to pay any more taxes to get these sorts of kids homes, because they aren’t their kids. Their kids are happy with a room of their own in a nice house or at least a nice apartment. They don’t want to pay more to fund schooling for these kids who likely can’t afford it. Why should they? Their kid’s education is provided for.
   You see what I am saying? If you want to be “pro-life” it takes more than waving a sign or marching in a crowd. I have utmost respect for the relatively few people who put their money where their mouth is and go out and help kids they don’t have to help. But the majority of people would rather yell and holler about the injustice of abortion, then look the other way once it comes time to be something called a community and actually help provide for those who aren’t as fortunate.

**Ad Hominem Fallacy **http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

1. It’s not my decision. Plain and simple. If it were me, if it were my wife, I’d have to put my foot down. But that’s me. That’s who I can handle. And when I see the ways that these rabid pro-life people act…as stated above…I just can’t live with telling people I do not know what to do, when I know I don’t have the means to back it up later. .

Just one question (though I doubt you’ll answer- probably paste your “baiting” picture, right? Or your code for “I don’t want to think about that”.). Would you agree with the above statement if it referred to killing a newborn baby, instead of an unborn one?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Liberalsaved:

I would not change the current law, no. There is certainly a scientifically proven point before which a fetus is just a fetus, and a point during the process of growing when it becomes a human. And anyway, were I a woman, I wouldn’t do it. My reasons for it are 2:

1. The people who call themselves pro-life are often only pro-life until the child is born. At that point, it is implicit that they are supposed to make do without help from anyone but family. But oftentimes families cannot support them. Often times they are crack babies or premature or have other issues, and the incidence of responsible parentage is lessening and lessening, and it cannot be blamed on any of the issue buzzwords that people like to throw around. What it is is, many pro-lifers don’t care after the baby is born. They don’t want to pay any more taxes to get these sorts of kids homes, because they aren’t their kids. Their kids are happy with a room of their own in a nice house or at least a nice apartment. They don’t want to pay more to fund schooling for these kids who likely can’t afford it. Why should they? Their kid’s education is provided for.

You see what I am saying? If you want to be “pro-life” it takes more than waving a sign or marching in a crowd. I have utmost respect for the relatively few people who put their money where their mouth is and go out and help kids they don’t have to help. But the majority of people would rather yell and holler about the injustice of abortion, then look the other way once it comes time to be something called a community and actually help provide for those who aren’t as fortunate.

1. It’s not my decision. Plain and simple. If it were me, if it were my wife, I’d have to put my foot down. But that’s me. That’s who I can handle. And when I see the ways that these rabid pro-life people act…as stated above…I just can’t live with telling people I do not know what to do, when I know I don’t have the means to back it up later. This is responsibility. Knowing what you can do and what battles really need fighting. Abortion is a buzz-word. It’s an easy issue for politicians to trot out. A one-word issue, often greeted by not many more words in response. But very few people actually understand the implications. The complexities of the issue. And those that don’t, don’t want to. This forum is proof of that. They don’t want to know and they don’t want to learn, they just want to spout. This is a generalization, but in this case it’s more often true than it is false.

It comes down to whether you think you have the answers. I don’t think so. I have no answers except one: forcing your morals on everyone is wrong. Plain and simple, it’s not what America is.

Regarding what I bolded above: You are using anecdotal experience to generalize against an entire “class” of people of whom you know very little personally. This is bigotry. If I were to say all black people were thugs because the few I’ve met were thieves or because of what I see on the news of the people being led to and from court were significantly people of color, I’d deservedly be called a racist.

My daughter is an occupational therapist working with children with the most severely disabalities. When this bill was signed, my daughter observed that 100% of the people who she works with and the volunteers who come to help them were ecstatic with Governor Rounds and the South Dakota legislature. Rhetorically I ask you, where were the pro-abortion people that you impy are concerned about the kids you accuse the pro-lifers of not caring about?

Regarding your second point. I agree the solutions to the challenges surrounding unwanted pregnancies are complex. But the issue is not complex. As Christians we are called to defend the defenseless. Who are more defenseless than children in the womb when faced w/ mothers who consider them burdens? As people who believe that God means what He says, we need to consider that God called each of us by name and loves us equally and profoundly at the moment of our conception. Even though the pregnancy is not wanted by the mother/ those around her, God loves and wants this child.

Regarding what I underlined above, you seem to imply that these people have less right to live than healthy babies. As Christ said, what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to Me.

I do find it ironic that you’d prevent your wife from killing your child but you do nothing to prevent a troubled young girl from killing her child. Do you think your child is more worthy? I guess by extention, if a potential killer tried to kill your born child, you’d defend your child but if the target was someone’s child who you didn’t know, you’d idly stand by. Heck, based on your comment regarding “crack babies or premature or have other issues”, you might even help them.

 

[TarAshly]

the mass murder of babies is wrong wrong wrong. Its not about religion here, its about murder that is illegal anyway you slice it. I am praying hard that someday the murder fo the innocent unborn will be outlawed and women who use it as birth control will learn what it means to make your bed and lay in it.

Liberalsaved:

And the government doesn’t have to answer to them just because we think it’s right, or that they are there. Beauty of America.

 

[TarAshly]

My best friend is a neo natal nurse, you can detect certain disorders such as down syndrome while a baby is in the womb, I believe its through a blood or fluid test, but there are ways to tell and some disgusting human beings abort them because they are less than perfect. its a sin against God and a sin against humanity.

m134e5:

There is no way to detect autism by sonogram- none whatsoever.

 

[TarAshly]

seriously have you ever seen a picture of an aborted baby? its horrifying and anyone who can justify it must have a heart of pure stone and an empty conscience and no soul to speak of.

Liberalsaved:

I’d rather die an American free to live my life according to whatever religion I choose than live under the yoke of someone else’s idea of what I am allowed to be. If America does what America was made to do and it still goes down, then we gave it our best shot, and it’s the rest of the world that had the wrong idea. If we don’t do that, then we can’t even look back and say “At least we tried.”

America isn’t like other nations. Even ignoring that this would not lead to the country’s undoing, we do not exist just to keep existing. If we fail in our purpose of providing a free place to worship from whatever Church you wish, of allowing people to live without having views forced on them, then we have failed.

If we allow any one beleif system to have sway over our country, then our country will be dead in spirit long before it dies in body. And I’ll still be on her side, if I’m there for it. But I won’t be on the side of an America that other people would make her. I’ll be on the side of a real America. What we were meant to be. What we should be. And what it will be, as long as someone stands up and points to the would-be contollers and says “This is wrong.”

If we can do that, we’ll have run our course bravely and truely. And we’ll still be The United States of America.

 

[TarAshly]

There is a study we reviewed in my Child development class. a fetus at the zygote stage responded to a needle pricking its little foot, it responded to light, it responded to sound. Life begins at conception and there is scientific proof behind it now. All the pro murderers want to hide that like no no no their just kidding a fetus cant feel pain or discomfort. When my sister was pregnant if she laid on her side the baby would kick furiously, the doctor said the baby probably felt squished and didnt like being on its side. When she went into labor, while my niece was still inside her, the doctors said the baby was in distress and upset, you tell me a baby cant feel pain? back it up! show me some proof! what do you think it is a mass clump of cells until it comes out and then its like “whoa hey im out now time to live and be a human!” how can you be so cold and ignorant on the subject?

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?

 

[TarAshly]

The government has to legislate morals, for example Polygamy: Ilegal, Murder: Ilegal, Insest: Ilegal, Slavery:Ilegal. a lot of people would think its ok to commit a lot of these crimes and some can back it up with religious beliefs, but at some point the government has to step in and say This is WRONG! you can’t have 5 billion people pulling the country 5 billion different ways, thats why the government is there and I for one am SICK of the minority ruling the majority on these types of issues. Majority should rule and the majority of this country want abortion OUT.

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?

 

[Orionthehunter]

TarAshly:

The government has to legislate morals, for example Polygamy: Ilegal, Murder: Ilegal, Insest: Ilegal, Slavery:Ilegal. a lot of people would think its ok to commit a lot of these crimes and some can back it up with religious beliefs, but at some point the government has to step in and say This is WRONG! you can’t have 5 billion people pulling the country 5 billion different ways, thats why the government is there and I for one am SICK of the minority ruling the majority on these types of issues. Majority should rule and the majority of this country want abortion OUT.

While I generally agree w/ the substance of your position, majority is not the only standard. The Constitution is there to protect our rights bestowed on us by our Creator (if an atheist, rights that are bestowed on us by our inherent dignity as a person).

If a majority of the people vote to kill all Asians, the government has no right to do so despite the will of the majority as it violates our basic inalienable right to life. Frankly, even if I was a voice of one, the right to kill an innocent defenseless person as a matter of convenience is not a power delegated to the government as it voilates our basic dignity as a person.

 

[TarAshly]

and we should ignore the fact that before Brown V. Board of Education segregated schools were legall and thought to be a good idea. The SC has been wrong before and decisions have been overturned. We all just have to pray hard the Roe V. Wade will be overturned.

mike182d:

You’re right. We should have adhered to the Supreme Court’s decisions on slavery in the early 19th Century too. It was just unconstitutional, unlawful, and just downright stupid for people to try and obtain freedom for slaves…

 

[TarAshly]

I agree with you Orion, I should have been more clear. I meant as far as issues such as abortion, prayer in school, decisions like Lemon V. Krueger and such. Sorry for any confusion. I got a little carried away and forgot to be clear. God Bless.

Orionthehunter:

While I generally agree w/ the substance of your position, majority is not the only standard. The Constitution is there to protect our rights bestowed on us by our Creator (if an atheist, rights that are bestowed on us by our inherent dignity as a person).

If a majority of the people vote to kill all Asians, the government has no right to do so despite the will of the majority as it violates our basic inalienable right to life. Frankly, even if I was a voice of one, the right to kill an innocent defenseless person as a matter of convenience is not a power delegated to the government as it voilates our basic dignity as a person.

 

[BioCatholic]

TarAshly:

The government has to legislate morals, for example Polygamy: Ilegal, Murder: Ilegal, Insest: Ilegal, Slavery:Ilegal…

Its not about morals, it is about ethics.

notice that there is no law requiring a person (who has no duty to act i.e. doctor/paramedic on duty) to provide medical assitance to another.

i am a paramedic, and while off duty, i can pass right on by a person bleeding to death. i am required to notify proper authorities, but after that, i am allowed to stand there and watch them bleed, or even leave.

the government cannot compel a person who has no duty to act to provide assistance to anyone.

while morally wrong, it isnt illegal or unethical.

murder, rape, incest, all provide direct harm to another person’s life and freedom. that is, a person chooses to exercise their rights and actions in a manner that seriously infringes on another person’s rights. polygamy really doesnt directly hurt anyone, and is an example of an attempt to legislate morality. the whole point of our system is to have the maximum amount of rights without infringing on the rights of others. what anyone does in their bedroom sexually with one or more consenting adults is none of our business.

a major sticking point in abortion is how can the government compel a woman who was raped and became pregnant against her will, to continue to “assist” to fetus? she did not choose to be in that situation, so why should she be forced to spend 9 more months dealing with the unwanted pregnancy? unless the government finds a way to extract the fetus and develop it themselves, they dont have a legal means to force a woman to carry to term.