Wtg Sd!!!

[Gunslinger]

Hang if the FEDERAL govt got involved and banned all handguns (the opposite here but the point is still valid) and a state passed a law allowing them in order to overturn the federal ban as unconstitutional and return the issue to the states isn't that less govt in our lives?  My veiws on abortion aside I don't think a woman has a constitutional RIGHT to one and it should be left up to the state and local govts to decide if at all.

[Octavius]

Originally posted by Eagler

if they can outlaw it on Gallatica why not SD?

cos we're not on the verge of extinction!  49,589 is three times the population of both Dakotas... so maybe they're on the right track.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Hang if the FEDERAL govt got involved and banned all handguns (the opposite here but the point is still valid) and a state passed a law allowing them in order to overturn the federal ban as unconstitutional and return the issue to the states isn't that less govt in our lives?  My veiws on abortion aside I don't think a woman has a constitutional RIGHT to one and it should be left up to the state and local govts to decide if at all.

Another Strawman. Again.. who's body is it? You have no right to decide, or instruct the government to decide about anything pertaining to my body.. or her body, or anybody's body BUT YOUR OWN.

I hate the concept of allowing, ON ANY LEVEL, government intrustion into any decison regarding the sanctity of personal posession of one's body.

If you don't approve of abortions, well and good; sponsor legislation that removes government sponsorship of abortion doctors and clinics. I detest them, I'm infuriated that government is funding such practice and I'd like to see it stopped. I will not however condone attacking the problem by attacking the rights to one's body. Get government outta the decison process, get overnment out of the funding process and get govenment outta my gawdamned face on every issue that's personal and private.

[icemaw]

break out the burkas boys and get ready the stone pile cause middle ages here we come woo hoo!!

[storch]

Originally posted by Stringer
Hehe Storch, but who is Weezy??  Movin' on up....

the only one that immediately comes to mind would be MT, he's the sensible one it seems.  then skuzzy could be thelma 'cus nothing gets by him.  MP8 could be token white guy married to roxie roker.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Another Strawman. Again.. who's body is it? You have no right to decide, or instruct the government to decide about anything pertaining to my body.. or her body, or anybody's body BUT YOUR OWN.

I hate the concept of allowing, ON ANY LEVEL, government intrustion into any decison regarding the sanctity of personal posession of one's body.

If you don't approve of abortions, well and good; sponsor legislation that removes government sponsorship of abortion doctors and clinics. I detest them, I'm infuriated that government is funding such practice and I'd like to see it stopped. I will not however condone attacking the problem by attacking the rights to one's body. Get government outta the decison process, get overnment out of the funding process and get govenment outta my gawdamned face on every issue that's personal and private.

your missing the point.  Agree or disagree with it I don't think it's a constitutionaly protected right.  It's not just about a woman's body......what about my daughter?  Here in california she can go and get this MEDICAL procedure done  AS A MINOR with out my consent as a parent because it's construed as a RIGHT.  I'm not making the decision now to allow or dissallow her to do that (god forbid) but I at least want that right as a  parent to help decide what's best for my children.  Again, for or against it, it should be a local issue.

To further my point, I doubt the people of any bible belt state want california politics deciding local issues and same for Kalifornia.  It should be a state issue if an issue at all.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by icemaw
break out the burkas boys and get ready the stone pile cause middle ages here we come woo hoo!!

right, a women can't shuck her responibility (ie raising the life she created through her own action) = middle ages LOL

[GtoRA2]

Boy another thread about about one of the most retarded issues ever on a ballot.


I really hope the supreme court decides in favor of abortions... if not we are going to have a ugly lesbian revolt to deal with and they are worse then zombies.

[Samiam]

Shuck her responsibility?


Correct me if I'm wrong Eagler, but I believe you would also:


Oppose teaching sex-ed, including proper use of contraception, in public schools

Oppose the use of contraception altogether (at least if you're Catholic)

Oppose the use of emergency contraception, even in cases of rape - and also oppose informing women of this option


If you provide a person with no tools or opportunity to take responsibility, then you can't claim that they are shucking it.


Anybody who is anti-abortion on strictly secular humanitarian grounds should, logically, also be pro- everything that can possibly be done to prevent the perceived need for them.


If this isn't the case, then it becomes clear that your anti-abortion stance is purely religiously motivated - more about controlling women and assigning them their biblical place in the world than preventing needless "deaths".  And therefore has no place in legislative debate.

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by Eagler
look at the percentages please ...
abortion is birth control for the sleezy and the lazy ..

don't throw the less than 10% in my face .. actually I think it is closer to 5% than 10%...

if they can outlaw it on Gallatica why not SD?  

I'm not arguing about abortion being a detestable form of birth control, on that we agree.  What I take issue with is your insinuation that it's always a woman's fault that she's pregnant.  I also think that if the government is going to make an all encompassing law, it needs to take all situations into account, even if those situations only occur 5% of the time.

You made a general statement about woman.  If you would like to modify it I'm all ears.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Samiam
Shuck her responsibility?
Correct me if I'm wrong Eagler, but I believe you would also:
Oppose teaching sex-ed, including proper use of contraception, in public schools
Oppose the use of contraception altogether (at least if you're Catholic)
Oppose the use of emergency contraception, even in cases of rape - and also oppose informing women of this option
If you provide a person with no tools or opportunity to take responsibility, then you can't claim that they are shucking it.
Anybody who is anti-abortion on strictly secular humanitarian grounds should, logically, also be pro- everything that can possibly be done to prevent the perceived need for them.
If this isn't the case, then it becomes clear that your anti-abortion stance is purely religiously motivated - more about controlling women and assigning them their biblical place in the world than preventing needless "deaths".  And therefore has no place in legislative debate.

No.  Abstinence is the ultimate tool.  I believe that teaching about contraception really early makes it seem like it's ok to randomly have sex.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
No.  Abstinence is the ultimate tool.  I believe that teaching about contraception really early makes it seem like it's ok to randomly have sex.

Unless you're talking about forever abstinence like becoming a nun, there's going to be a time when - in order to own up to her responsibility - a woman needs to have a thorough understanding of the options available to her if she doesn't wish to have a child.  Surely you would like to avoid an unwanted pregnancy even in wedlock by ensuring that the woman has been educated in the use of contraception and is empowered to share in the decision?

If your belief is that you raise a girl to be abstinent until mariage, never informing her of proper use of contraception, and then after mariage she should not use contraception because it really shouldn't be her choice whether to get pregnant (ala the Catholic church), then you are absolving her of ALL reproductive responsibility and can not claim that she's shucking it if she later decides she'd rather not have the child.

I respect anyone who is anti-abortion based on rational humanitarian grounds.

Anyone who is anti-abortion that is also anti- sex-ed, anti-birth control, anti-emergency contraception, and anti- woman's right to decide if she want's to be pregnant in wedlock is a hypocrite who is not very far removed from those who stone women to death for adultery.

[lazs2]

this is so silly.... "bleeding and battered rape victim"   Isn't there a morning after pill?  Why wouldn't she just take that?  

lazs

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by lazs2
this is so silly.... "bleeding and battered rape victim"   Isn't there a morning after pill?  Why wouldn't she just take that?  

lazs

Since you are quoting me, I can only assume you are responding to my post.

If you go back and read the context of my first post, you will find it had nothing to do with abortion and had everything to do with a previous statement insinuating that it's always a woman’s fault for getting pregnant.

I agree in a case like that the morning after pill would be the best solution but some would even deny her that.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Agree or disagree with it I don't think it's a constitutionaly protected right.  

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All rights are Constitutionally protected, unless the Constitution specifically states otherwise.