NEWS: abortion illegal in SD effective 7/1

[glademaster]

...And with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. There's a fine line.

Yes, the responsibility to protect the right of the people to make choices.

Heil Bush!

[nutcase]

...And with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. There's a fine line.

What sort of responsibility? Responsibility to act like you want me to act?

[Dr. Gaper]

Yes, the responsibility to protect the right of the people to make choices.

Heil Bush!

And the people of SD made their choice.

I knew someone would make the stock fascist statement soon enough, though.

[cj001f]

And the people of SD made their choice.

They voted on it? Really? I guess i missed that.

[MassLiberal]

yeah, um, the people of SD are actually pretty split on this one. Just because a legislature does something doesn't mean it has the support of the people.

[glademaster]

And the people of SD made their choice.

I knew someone would make the stock fascist statement soon enough, though.

The people of SD did not make the choice, their elected representatives did, and there lies the inherent flaws in a two party, republican system. America is no longer a democracy or a republic, the nation has effectively been hijacked by our legislative bodies, and this is yet another sign.

[danimal's dead]

State's rights= good thing, states need more freedom from federal laws, states represent people at a more local level.

Taxes= bad thing, too many taxes are killing the middle class

Big Federal Government= bad thing, don't forget that the federal government, not the state of Idaho, or Wyoming etc... got us into Iraq.

Federal foreign policy= bad thing, we need to stop trying to police the entire planet, not to mention all the money the feds spend on foreign aid and defense, ie. troops in Asia, troops in Europe.

Abortion= no right answer, no wrong answer, in a free country you can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but is abortion a good thing, no probably not.

[Rontele]

Federal foreign policy= bad thing.

In my six months on this board this is easily the dumbest thing said by any maggot.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your jongness. Go study some Realpolitik and get back to me superstar.

[MassLiberal]

Danimal, we didn't become the most powerful nation on the face of the earth by being isolationist, so I take exception with your sweeping dismissal of the federal government.

Plus, taxes are not what is killing the middle classes in america. On average, the middle class recieved a $301 tax cut w/ Dubya's plan. If we really wanted to help the middle classes, we would roll back some of the tax break on the upper 2% of society and in turn eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. Amongst other things. However, the middle class is pretty easy to manipulate using issues such as abortion, same sex marraige etc on the right and fear of corporate power on the left, so doing anything to help them is pretty useless politically since they don't make up a large donor base.

[teledave]

State's rights= good thing, states need more freedom from federal laws, states represent people at a more local level.

Taxes= bad thing, too many taxes are killing the middle class

Big Federal Government= bad thing, don't forget that the federal government, not the state of Idaho, or Wyoming etc... got us into Iraq.

Federal foreign policy= bad thing, we need to stop trying to police the entire planet, not to mention all the money the feds spend on foreign aid and defense, ie. troops in Asia, troops in Europe.

Abortion= no right answer, no wrong answer, in a free country you can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but is abortion a good thing, no probably not.

Maybe the most lucid post in the whole thread. Especially the part regarding the topic at hand.

[BLOODSWEATSTEEL]

The people of SD did not make the choice, their elected representatives did, and there lies the inherent flaws in a two party, republican system. America is no longer a democracy or a republic, the nation has effectively been hijacked by our legislative bodies, and this is yet another sign.

Well then, sounds like it's time to move away while you still know it all.

[Kya]

Yes, the responsibility to protect the right of the people to make choices.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[MeatPuppet]

Yes, the responsibility to protect the right of the people to make choices.

Yes, and also the responsibility to protect those who are not able to protect themselves. This is the crux of the issue.

glademaster, when do you believe human life begins in the womb? At what point does that mass of tissue become a human being?

[Cono Este]

.... Mississippi? I've heard one of them never even made it past the Chappaquidick.

I have to throw the flag on this one.

Personal Foul!

LOL

[MeatPuppet]

Abortion= no right answer, no wrong answer, in a free country you can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but is abortion a good thing, no probably not.

Wrong! There is a right answer. We, as a society have just decided to ignore it. You can't tell a woman what to do with her own body, but laws are already in existance that protect peoples lives from the actions of others.

Once we define what is, and is not, a human life, this whole debate goes away.

[fez]

A common misconception is that if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would immediately outlaw abortion everywhere. Not true; unless there was a federal law put in place which outlawed abortion outright the decision would still be up to the states. Granted, some states would outlaw it but I very much doubt that more liberal states would be ok with that at all.

while not everywhere, something like eleven states have what are called trigger laws. as soon as RVW is overturned then abortion will become illegal in those states.

[MeatPuppet]

while not everywhere, something like eleven states have what are called trigger laws. as soon as RVW is overturned then abortion will become illegal in those states.

Not directing this at you fez, your post just made me think.


I find it interesting that the free choice crowd is all for freedom of choice as long as you choose to agree with them. But if the people of a state believe that human life begins at xyz point and want to outlaw abortion after that point(because they believe that it takes a human life), than these same people who are screaming about freedom of chioce have no problem imposing their morals on the people of that state and taking away their right to choose what laws they want to live under.


I don't think either side wants to resolve this issue. Both sides would rather have a self-righteous club they can use to beat on anyone who disagrees with them.

[summit]

SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade (1973) 7-2?

Last time I can think that SCOTUS reversed its own precedent was when Brown v BOE (1954) 9-0 overturned Plessy v Ferguson (1896) 7-1 on de jure segregation.

Roe v Wade greatly drew upon precedent set by SCOTUS decisions Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 7-2 and Eisenstadt v Baird (1972) 6-1 ruling that privacy protected access to birth control.

On the issue of when a fetus becomes a de jure life, all 9 members of the 1973 SCOTUS refused to touch that with a ten foot pole.

It seems to me like the USA IS STARTING Armagedon.

fixed it for you

Go read Revelations... first they have to round up all the Jews and send them to Israel.

[Mcwop]

SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade (1973) 7-2?

Last time I can think that SCOTUS reversed its own precedent was when Brown v BOE (1954) 9-0 overturned Plessy v Ferguson (1896) 7-1 on de jure segregation.

Roe v Wade greatly drew upon precedent set by SCOTUS decisions Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 7-2 and Eisenstadt v Baird (1972) 6-1 ruling that privacy protected access to birth control.

On the issue of when a fetus becomes a de jure life, all 9 members of the 1973 SCOTUS refused to touch that with a ten foot pole.



Go read Revelations... first they have to round up all the Jews and send them to Israel.

When the hell is privacy going to protect access to Weed?

That is all.

[summit]

There is a simple reason why people are so adamant on the issue. It comes down to the highest crimes in humanity: taking the life of another. The devil is in the details of what is a human life. The anti-choice people believe that the fetus is a person and those involved in abortion are murderers. While certain pieces of religious or philosophical doctrine are possible to overlook when those who do not believe as you do violate that doctrine, murder is virtually impossible to ignore. This is why anti-choice people get so worked up over the pro-choice people (and there is a great spectrum between the two).

This argument is only about two basic questions with a partially irrelevant follow up:

1. When does the potential for human life become de jure human life?

Prior to the act of sex when there is a potential for sperm or egg getting into position where they could at some point be available to meet should the act of sex occur?
During the act of sex when there is a potential for sperm and egg meeting?
Upon fertilization? After implantation?
During pregnancy? When? The start? When a certain point of mental development is reached? When the life can be self sustaining?
The point of natural birth?

If you decide de jure human life occurs prior to natural birth, then
2. Under what circumstances can this de jure life still be terminated?

Threat to mothers life? How certain of a threat?
Rape?
Incest?
Threat to mother's health? How great and how certain? Does it just have to be a physical threat?
Severe birth defect? How severe? Even if it is survivable? Even if the parents can afford the financial burden?
Unfit parents? Legalyl unfit? Culturally by age and maturity? Financial means?
Overpopulation rules? (think Chinese mandatory abortion law)

How do you draw your answers to these questions?
Religious doctrine?
Personal philosophy?
Some sort of logic or scientific reasoning?
Enlightened cultural pragmaticism?
The voices in your head (or on the AM talk radio)?

[fez]

Not directing this at you fez, your post just made me think.


I find it interesting that the free choice crowd is all for freedom of choice as long as you choose to agree with them. But if the people of a state believe that human life begins at xyz point and want to outlaw abortion after that point(because they believe that it takes a human life), than these same people who are screaming about freedom of chioce have no problem imposing their morals on the people of that state and taking away their right to choose what laws they want to live under.


I don't think either side wants to resolve this issue. Both sides would rather have a self-righteous club they can use to beat on anyone who disagrees with them.

That's a rather weak argument. Pro-choice simply means that a woman can make her own personal choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. By outlawing abortion, the anti-choice group is foisting their beliefs (frequently couched in religious terms) on everyone. Even if a state allows a woman to make her own personal choice in regards to her personal beliefs and situation, the state is not forcing those who are against abortion to have them.

[MeatPuppet]

On the issue of when a fetus becomes a de jure life, all 9 members of the 1973 SCOTUS refused to touch that with a ten foot pole.

Yup, and that is exactly the issue that needs to be tackled. This debate will rage until somebody has the courage to do that.

[marshalolson]

Yup, and that is exactly the issue that needs to be tackled. This debate will rage until somebody has the courage to do that.

last time i checked, your legal date of birth was NOT the date of conception, but rather the date you were delivered. this also means that the fetus is not eligible for any federal support (medicare, tax breaks etc..), rather the MOTHER is. a mother cannot file for a dependant child on her tax form while pregnent, only once the baby has been delivered.

this means that you were NOT LEGALLY ALIVE according to the government.

edit (directed at summit): also, the last time i checked, the biggest proponents of capital punishment are the biggest advocates for the repeal of abortion. and don;t toss around words like "murder"... the irony is way to glaring.

[Will]

Yup, and that is exactly the issue that needs to be tackled. This debate will rage until somebody has the courage to do that.

You mean the courage to arbitrarily impose an unsettled philosophical/religious on others? Hell... I can do that:

(Achem)

We shall place the highest value on those forms of life which are aware of their own existence, of their own past, of the possibilities of their future, and of similar experience in others. All other forms of life shall be valued to a lesser degree.

Huh.... not everyone is happy? Why not?

[Cono Este]

[QUOTE=Will]You mean the courage to arbitrarily impose an unsettled philosophical/religious on others? Hell... I can do that:



Isnt that the same philosophical logic used to overtax people? People imoposing their moral and ethical beliefs onto others as to what working people "owe" society in return for their achievements.