D
- Status
J
Jeffrey
Guest
YaY!
:clapping:
Dredgemate:
:clapping:
B
BioCatholic
Guest
no it isnt “law”. there is already decisions issued that expressly prohibit this. the Legislature just ignored Federal decisions. not one citizen in South Dakota is obliged to obey this law, challenge or not.
- even if there were no challeges to this law in Federal courts, any doctor arrested under this law would automatically have charges dismissed by state courts under Roe. state courts are bound by federal precedent as well.
- this was designed to challenge Roe from a different stanpoint. notice that NO CRIMINAL CHARGES are aimed at women, but at doctors that perform them.
-people are free to travel in and out of the state to take women other places to circumvent laws. thats the great thing about the US. dont like a law where you live? just go somewhere else where it is legal.
-this assigns no civil pentalty aimed towards doctors in other states who perform abortions on South Dakota women. SD knows it is powerless beyond its borders. Missouri tried that, and it will be struck down so hard the Legislature will cry.
M
mike182d
Guest
Personhood is strictly a religious/theological question, it cannot be determined by objective scientific means. Thus, to deny States the right to ban abortion and likewise denying an unborn human being “personhood” is *imposing *a religious/theological belief.
If you really believe in freedom and the seperation of Church and State, you would not allow the Federal Government to establish religious/theological truths and give the States the freedom to rule on it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Liberalsaved said:
States can enact their own laws, so it doesn’t have to be federal.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
This is a direct challenge to a federal law, or else it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
It IS law in S. Dakota (which is what I said in my post)
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
Finally, someone else who realizes the future of this law is a legal issue and that it will not hold.
I’m not trying to say that anyone’s personal morals are stupid or worthless. All I’m saying is if you want to be an American citizen, you have to live in reality and deal with the laws that are in place.
M
mike182d
Guest
Liberalsaved said:
Actually, adultery is, by definition, a crime. When one enters into a marital union civily they enter into a contract recognized by the State. Having an affair is a breach of this contract. Adultery is just so incredibly rampant, especially those within power-circles, that no one would ever write a penalty for breaking the contract.
What are laws taxing the middle-class into oblivion to help the poor and feed the welfare state? Helping the poor is a moral maxim introduced by Christianity.
And yet… about 143 million babies have been aborted with all this paperwork. Apparently, its not as difficult to get an abortion as you think.
If its alright, I’m going to deduce from your nickname that you are of the liberal persuasion and so I’ll appeal to your liberal sensabilities.
What Government can adequately fund the well being of its poor and retired elderly on Social Security when they kill of 1/3 of its future workforce that would have fed into this system? Morality aside, using simple economics demostrates that this is a recipe for bankruptcy.
M
mike182d
Guest
It is an unjust Federal Law based upon your own principles of the Government not imposing its moral beliefs on anyone. By forbiding people to ban abortion, it has imposed a fundamentally religious/theological belief on society. Your own convictions clearly dictate opposition to the Federal ruling.
M
mike182d
Guest
Actually, the American Revolution that gave birth to this nation was the fight against laws that were already in place. It is *quite *American to fight against and have no respect for unjust laws.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
But you want to forbid peopel TO have one. The government doesn’t want to limit rights; you do. If the government was forcing Catholic churches to condone abortion and birth control and forcing people to get them, then it would be the same thing. But it isn’t. You are the only ones trying to force anyone to do or not do anything.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
But how can you be sure they’re actually people?
M
mike182d
Guest
You’re forcing me to help the poor. We forced Charles Manson to go to prison. We throw pedophiles in prison. We *impose *our world-view on people *all *the time.
People just like to pick and choose which things we impose based upon the whim of society and to participate in such lunacy does not help in securing a stable foundation for society.
Look, bottom line:
The Federal Government has decided that it is illegal to kill a human being.
The question of abortion isn’t whether or not its ok to kill a unborn fetus, its whether or not the unborn fetus is a human being. If it is true that the fetus is a person, than it is automatically protected by thousands of laws already on the books, namely the U.S. Constitution. If the fetus is not a human person, then it is not entitled to the protection of existing laws and for the U.S. Government to define who is a person and who is not is *imposing *a theological/philosophical belief system without any objective, scientific evidence. In other words, the Supreme Court has already done what you’re criticizing South Dakota for doing.
H
Ham1
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the main point to the SD law is that abortion is a procedure which is always deeply harmful to women and, as such, should not be permitted. There are all sorts of activities that are extremely harmful that have been made illegal. Abortion is no different.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
http://www.savvycenter.com/explorer/roadside/bigfishpole2small.jpg
Please stop doing this.
M
mike182d
Guest
Well, we conservatives often have to fish for an answer from liberals because they have no way to rationally defend abortion. We’re nearly deep-sea fishing at this point…
B
BioCatholic
Guest
im just interested in how SD and other states plan to prevent women from having abortions elsewhere. post state troopers at borders? have “sonogram” checkpoints for women drivers headed out of state?
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
No, we do, you just ignore them and beleive what you want. So I’m just going to post my “baiting” pic:
http://www.savvycenter.com/explorer/roadside/bigfishpole2small.jpg
Whenever I get this “Liberals have no reason” crud.
M
mike182d
Guest
Well, you’ve certainly given me no reason to believe that you can defend it here on this thread.
That’s kind of like saying “I’ve got a Lambourgini. You can’t see it, and I won’t show it to you, but I’ve got one!”
In fact, you’ve taken a textbook move from the Liberal Defense Playbook.
Chapter 3 section 1: “Whenever you are challenged beyond the ability to defend your position, change the topic as quickly as possible with a) a cliche one-sentence bumper sticker slogan or b) name-calling.”
- Status