S. Dakota legislature passes abortion ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Fi_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok not only was that juvenille but that made absolutely ZERO sense.
40.png
zootjeff:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Ok that answers 99.999% of my confusion. youre a MAN! how can you possibly understand the irreparable damage abortion and its very existence does to women. Feminism was the biggest lie ever sold to American women and with it comes abortion. one abortion can bring cancer, sterility and death. Not to mention that God made WOMEN to have an instinct with children. Most women have a maternal instinct wether or not they have children. I think the men who are pro choice dont have a CLUE what they are talking about. Abortion hurts women and unless you are a woman you cant get that. Abortion hurts men as well, men who have had a child aborted against their will because feminazis yell and scream “my body my choice!” NO ITS NOT! your body is on loan to you from God, and its not a choice its a CHILD! a human being, that is why Scott Peterson was charged with two counts murder, not just one, thats why Conners Law is such a God sent, it was the first step in recognizing the unborn as living breathing human beings. NO WOMAN should take away a fathers rights from his child or a childs rights to live. Abortion is undeniably selfish and evil and the choice of life or death is God’s and God’s alone. how dare a woman compare herself to God and decide whether the child she is carrying (and if she aborts it, undeservably carrying.) lives or dies. In my opinion, if a woman has an abortion, she ought to have a hysterectomy as well. take away her right to reproduce as she has taken away the childs right to live. Obviously this would be an extreme measure which would benifit NO one, but it would make a woman think twice before she has her baby ripped apart rather than give that child to couples like my husband and myself who cant have children. what a waste of a God given gift that is reproduction.
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BioCatholic:
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.
Click to expand...
Bio, you did a great job of describing the issue in terms legitimate for political debate of legitimate power. It is rare for a person to advocate that individuals have the right to act as judge, jury, executioner on whether another person should live or die or that it isn’t a proper role of government to defend the innocent defenseless.

Government is hard pressed to “compel” free individuals to make the right decisions but is able to usually with ease to prevent free individuals from taking action and provide consequences for taking prohibited actions.

The question comes down to when the Government should compel certain action against an innocent, free person. In the example, you cite about a rape victim the issue gets more difficult as compared to the other times taht abortion is used (birth control, sex selection, avoiding having a disabled child, etc.) when the man and woman freely had sex knowing that there a chance pregnancy.

We all know that the moral decision as we are directed by God to sacrificially carry the child to term. The legitimate debate is whether the rights of the innocent rape victim supercede the innocent rights of the unborn child.

Personally, I’m comfortable w/ asserting that the right to life supercedes but I understand the alternative argument. I do not understand the arguments in all other instances of the abortion debate.

If I pull the trigger on a gun that may or not be loaded pointed into a crowd, I should face the consequences if a person is harmed. If a couple has sex and then choose to kill the resulting baby, they should face the consequences. But if I’m forced to pull the trigger by a “rapist”, I should not be held legally responsible. I might morally feel obligated to visit and comfort the family of the person harmed but not punished as a matter of law.
 
40.png
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.
Ok, personally I have no problem providing for children but I dont want to provide for some crack head or for some lazy fool who doesnt want to work. I think Welfare is a crutch far too many lean on and should be reformed so that people are forced to actively look for work day in and day out until they find a job. I have no problem providing for a child but not for their no good parents who expect a handout everytime they turn around. and I am not well off by ANY means. I am wealthy in love and thats about it. But I work 45 hours a week and go to school 12 hours a week at night and my husband works two full time jobs so we can get by and better ourselves. Thats what it takes. I have no problem providing for those who want to provide for themselves, especially the children. If you can catch them early enough and teach and encourage them perhaps you can end the cycle of poverty that you speak of. Thats why I am going into education, because i am tired of seeing children fall victim to their parents ignorance and/or lazy attitudes.
  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.
You have NO idea how wrong you are. while this place may have the fringes of that, its not a broad brush issue you can paint us all with. some of us dont believe in handouts, but most all of us believe in charity and all of us believe murder is wrong.

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.
Click to expand...
**we have the answer, live your life as God would have you live it, do no evil to mankind, protect the innocent and all will be well. live by your own misguidings and that will be a sure recipe for disaster. **
 
40.png
BioCatholic:
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. And abortion does not?

that is, a person chooses to exercise their rights and actions in a manner that seriously infringes on another person’s rights. IE: A mother imposing her rights over that of a baby. OK…

polygamy really doesnt directly hurt anyone, and is an example of an attempt to legislate morality. you dont think Polygamy hurts anyone??? I’d do my research on the subject before making a statement like that. Child brides, countless sex partners etc… perhaps it doesnt hurt men…

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.

As a day care teacher I had a student who was biracial, his mother was white and his father was white. I was obviously confused…then one afternoon the mother whom I had grown very close to, told me that her son was a product of rape. To this day i consider that woman the bravest woman ever born, at the time I was an idiot pro choicer and asked her how she could do that, she said plainly “it wasnt my sons fault. why should I punish him for the crimes of another man.” she was by far the bravest woman and the best mother I ever came in contact with. And if a woman cant gather the guts to do something like that, then thank the good lord in heaven above that there is adoption.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, I have asked before and I will ask again: Please provide a link or reference to this scientific “evidence”.

Anything or anyone that claims to be definitive on this subject is simply stating their opinion and nothing more. It all goes back to semantics and how one defines “human”. That fetus cannot develop into a dog, a bacteria, or a dinosaur. It is *Homo sapiens…*human. It is a human fetus.
 
40.png
BioCatholic:
Its not about morals, it is about ethics.
Click to expand...
Right. Abortion is unethical.
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.
Click to expand...
True. However, you will note that parents are considered to have a duty with regard to their own children. I cannot simply abandon my child, I have a duty to see to it the child will be cared for, and until that is possible, I have a duty to care for my own children.
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.
Click to expand...
When is a mother “off duty”?
the government cannot compel a person who has no duty to act to provide assistance to anyone.
Click to expand...
Again, this is where a person has no duty. Also, this refers to actively assisting someone; not to refraining from actively ending someone’s life.
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed. So does abortion. If a pregnant woman does nothing, the baby will live. A woman could be in a coma, and the baby would live - therefore, remaining pregnant is not actively providing assistance - rather, abortion is a direct, artificial intervention to take life.
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?
Click to expand...
As I’ve said, she is not actively doing anything. It is the abortion, not the pregnancy, that constitutes active intervention. Furthermore, the duties of a mother do not exist only because of the choices of the mother; they are an expression of the rights of the child. Just as a mother cannot abandon her born child if there is no suitable substitute care available, it is unethical for her to “abandon” her unborn child, for whom no substitute care can be provided now; furthermore, it is even more unethical when we are talking about an active destruction of the child’s life as opposed to a passive withdrawal of care. All abortions are active, not passive, since gestation is not a conscious, deliberate activity but a natural process which occurs even if the woman is unaware of it.
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?
Click to expand...
Like I said, it’s not a matter of forcing someone to do something. It is a matter of stopping her from doing something. Abortion is a direct action against the child, and not only that, against her *own *child. This is why your analogy does not apply at all. The force involved was the rape; this is illegal, and therefore, the fault of the rapist, not the government, and certainly not the child, who has no control over the circumstances of his or her conception. The abortion would constitute a second act of violence and force, not an undoing of the first (which cannot be undone), and the victim is not the rapist, but the innocent child.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
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.
Click to expand...
That would only be true if I said everyone of that group was like that. Did you read the rest of the post? The part about how if a pro-lifer does go and do more I respect them?
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point entirely. By a mile. The point is, I CANNOT CHOOSE WHAT THOSE PEOPLE DO. Whether I like it or not isn’t the issue, it’s the fact that I choose not to get involved in their actions. Please don’t make me out to say I’m superior or anything else I didn’t say.
 
I would like to note I was unaware that late-term abortions are still legal. That’s another can of worms.
 
40.png
TarAshly:
Ok that answers 99.999% of my confusion. youre a MAN! how can you possibly understand the irreparable damage abortion and its very existence does to women. Feminism was the biggest lie ever sold to American women and with it comes abortion. one abortion can bring cancer, sterility and death. Not to mention that God made WOMEN to have an instinct with children. Most women have a maternal instinct wether or not they have children. I think the men who are pro choice dont have a CLUE what they are talking about. Abortion hurts women and unless you are a woman you cant get that. Abortion hurts men as well, men who have had a child aborted against their will because feminazis yell and scream “my body my choice!” NO ITS NOT! your body is on loan to you from God, and its not a choice its a CHILD! a human being, that is why Scott Peterson was charged with two counts murder, not just one, thats why Conners Law is such a God sent, it was the first step in recognizing the unborn as living breathing human beings. NO WOMAN should take away a fathers rights from his child or a childs rights to live. Abortion is undeniably selfish and evil and the choice of life or death is God’s and God’s alone. how dare a woman compare herself to God and decide whether the child she is carrying (and if she aborts it, undeservably carrying.) lives or dies. In my opinion, if a woman has an abortion, she ought to have a hysterectomy as well. take away her right to reproduce as she has taken away the childs right to live. Obviously this would be an extreme measure which would benifit NO one, but it would make a woman think twice before she has her baby ripped apart rather than give that child to couples like my husband and myself who cant have children. what a waste of a God given gift that is reproduction.
Click to expand...
You know, I don’t call you wrong because of arbitrary judgements. So until you can get over that, I’m not even going to respond. You don’t listen to the point and consider it, you just try to find reasons I’m inarguably wrong. I don’t play that way.
 
The content of the following audio files is the property of Relevant Radio®. Rebroadcast of any part of this audio is prohibited without written permission or acknowledgement of the source.

**New Audio:****Update 3-3-06 ****Harold Cassidy **The Challenge to Roe v. Wade in South Dakota

Listen (requires Windows Media Player)

**Harold Cassidy March 3****Audio:**Harold Cassidy- The Challenge to Roe v. Wade in South Dakota.

Listen (requires Windows Media Player)

Download mp3 of the interview:

Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 1Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 2Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 3

**Additional information: **

Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion: A Closer Look

South Dakota Abortion Task Force Report

www.haroldcassidy.com (Under Construction)
e-mail: cassidylawinfo@verizon.net
relevantradio.com/docs/index.asp?categoryid=606
 
Globe columnist Ellen Goodman adds her very liberal two cents to this issue and she predictably slams Gov. Rounds and the state of South Dakota. By the way, Goodman’s daughter is a comedianne and has a satiric political musical out that is currently running in Boston. Like all good secular progressives she parodies and cuts up all the moral issues of the day - her favorite issue is to criticize abstinence. She even has an utterly offensive song entitled, “I’m saving my hymen for Jesus”. In a more “serious” interview with the Globe she calls abstinence ridiculous and dangerous - I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/10/in_south_dakota_at_least_the_pretense_is_finally_over/
 
40.png
Riley259:
Globe columnist Ellen Goodman adds her very liberal two cents to this issue and she predictably slams Gov. Rounds and the state of South Dakota. By the way, Goodman’s daughter is a comedianne and has a satiric political musical out that is currently running in Boston. Like all good secular progressives she parodies and cuts up all the moral issues of the day - her favorite issue is to criticize abstinence. She even has an utterly offensive song entitled, “I’m saving my hymen for Jesus”. In a more “serious” interview with the Globe she calls abstinence ridiculous and dangerous - I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/10/in_south_dakota_at_least_the_pretense_is_finally_over/
Click to expand...
The bottom line is, if you can’t stand to have your beleifs criticized or made fun of or questioned, good luck finding someplace bearable to live where they won’t be.
 
Have You Seen Information on The CHALLENGE TO ROE V WADE IN SOUTH DAKOTA?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=102903
**Compiled with the Testimony of Over 2,000 Post Abortive Women

**Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion: A Closer Look

The South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, commissioned by the state legislature during the 2005 session, has released its official report.
**WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF ROE V WADE. **

Sheila Liaugminas from Relevant Radio Interviews Harold Cassidy Leading Attorney in the Nation Protecting Pregnant Mothers). This Interview is something you must here!!

Click Here to Listen to the March 3 Interview with Harold Cassidy (Be Patient: It takes about 5-10 minutes to load)

Listen** (requires Windows Media Player)**

MP3 Downloadable Files

Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 1

Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 2

Harold Cassidy Jan 26 Part 3

Harold Cassidy March 3

relevantradio.com/docs/i…?categoryid=606
 
typical…you have yet to give one argument worth considering on this debate.
40.png
Liberalsaved:
You know, I don’t call you wrong because of arbitrary judgements. So until you can get over that, I’m not even going to respond. You don’t listen to the point and consider it, you just try to find reasons I’m inarguably wrong. I don’t play that way.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TarAshly:
typical…you have yet to give one argument worth considering on this debate.
Click to expand...
Because the only arguments you see as worth considering are ones that prop up yor viewpoints.
 
No, not true at all. If you would present something with some fact behind, some weight and value, I would be more than happy to consider it. I enjoy these types of debates which is why I joined these forums over a year ago. There are millions of Catholics in the world and we dont always see things the same. you and I tend to agree for the most part of the issues of homosexuality, but IMO abortion, no matter what is murder. present evidence to the contrary and I will be more than happy to consider your point of view.
40.png
Liberalsaved:
Because the only arguments you see as worth considering are ones that prop up yor viewpoints.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Unfortunately, there will always be a backlash from this sort of legislation

mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html

Sweet Jesus, this is depressing. 😦
Click to expand...
Actually how S. Dakota deals with self induced abortions or abortions by non-medical people would be very interesting legally. The law, as I understand it, says women attempting to have abortions would not be prosecuted. Why? And what if abortion is self induced? Non medical people performing abortions could be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. But could they be prosecuted for manslaughter too? Self induced abortions can not be prosecuted by the anti-abortion law. Again, should the laws for murder be used? Undoubtedly, many cases of women convicted of at least manslaughter would make other potential law-breakers think twice.

The South Dakota law gives women seeking abortion a free pass. It shares this fault with the various early 20th century anti-abortion laws. So the demand is legal but not the supply. Hardly a situation to shut down an illegal activity. The law criminalizes both the the user and the pusher in narcotic (Schedule 3) drugs. Why not abortion?

If South Dakota believes abortion is murder then prosecute the crime the same as murder. There are various degrees of this crime so women don’t have to always have to face charges of premeditated murder. Convictions of various degrees of manslaughter will keep these homicidal women in prison for a good long time. Other potential murderers might think twice before getting an abortion.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
If South Dakota believes abortion is murder then prosecute the crime the same as murder. There are various degrees of this crime so women don’t have to always have to face charges of premeditated murder. Convictions of various degrees of manslaughter will keep these homicidal women in prison for a good long time. Other potential murderers might think twice before getting an abortion.
Click to expand...
Maybe South Dakota doesn’t believe abortion is murder. 5 years a a little fine is hardly a sentence for murder. South Dakota probably thinks abortion is just a little annoying and they want to get tourist money for being the only state that went from 800 abortions a year to 0.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top