Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on February 22, 2006, 10:19:29 PM
-
South Dakota passes abortion ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/pl_nm/rights_abortion_dc)
it's a start ...
-
That's unfortunate.
-
Hicks.
-
Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters
Politicians.
-
political brown shirt republicrat hicks.
-
ok safe to say there is gonna be no more hookers in south dakota
-
I read somewhere that it was written the way it was for one purpose only:
To get the issue to the Supreme Court.
The writers know it will be immediately challenged, they deliberately omitted the "health of the woman" clause.
This is it. They are going for Gary Cooper in "High Noon". Or maybe Jimmy Stewart in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".
It's the big SHOWDOWN.
-
Yup, Toad is correct. It's going to be appealed all the way to the supreme court.
-
Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.
The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.
I read that to mean that abortions aren't allowed period, even in the case that the pregnancy might affect the health of the mother - the last sentence referring to a fetus dying as a result of complications from some other procedure to save the mother's life.
Pathetic as a political ploy. Pathetic as a law. Toad is right though, obviously it's a setup for a showdown.
-
I think quite a few politicians are going to be suprised at the ruling if this actually goes up before the U.S. supreme court.
-
Welcome back to the 19th century South Dakota! wtg indeed!
-
Woot! More government!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yup, Toad is correct. It's going to be appealed all the way to the supreme court.
like I said, it's a start ... could backfire though ..
-
we need to kick off one more justice to be sure, then our domination of the liberals will be complete at the top. now to start working on the congress to abolish many of the lower courts especially the 9th circuit.
-
WTG SD!
I'm glad they didn't waste any time starting down the path to get rid of that POS Roe v Wade.
One of if not the worst ruling by the USSC.
-
But you can still drive to the next door state and get it done there cant you? or will you be arrested when you go back?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
But you can still drive to the next door state and get it done there cant you? or will you be arrested when you go back?
You can't be arrested if the state you do it in says it's legal. The crime has to be commited in the state were it is a crime.
As long as none of the people that cross the state line is a minor then it should be ok.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
But you can still drive to the next door state and get it done there cant you? or will you be arrested when you go back?
yep, or she can just close her legs in the first place
-
WTG SD?
Birthrate will go up and also the expenditure on welfare. Well till you neocons get welfare repealed anyway and then we can look forward to workhouses and child labor again?
-
Read the article westy.
-
In a bit. From experience here I already know my view and opinion on the subject will be 180 degrees from Eaglers.
-
Read it.
Interesting bit: "Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters."
All I can say is the red states can reap what they have sown.
-
wow... can we call that tunnel vision?
Read the part about abortion, as it stands, in SD today.
-
Why not just make your statment instead of playing idiotic word games?
Are you refering to the statement that 800 are done each year at one PP clinic with Drs' from Minnesota? What of it? What is your point?
My point is the hypocrisy. I'm personally against abortion. Deeply against it but I'm not against the means to help make it unnecessary nor would I tune my back on those who make mistakes.
I just find it ludicrously funny to see the lunies try to ban abortion again. While pursue killing welfare, cutting college aide, slashing Medicare/Medicaid, Veterans bennies and at the same time burn sceince books and work to get sex education tossed out of schools.
It's thier own sons and daughters they are spiting. As the 3rd poster put it, "stupid hicks."
-
Ok.. I am not in favor of killing a human based on the inconvienience it might cause a woman... I will not give women the absolute right to choose life or death for another human...
Having said that... I am not entirely against abortion when it can be proven that it is all about a fetus that is not yet a human. when does that happen? I don't know. I can guess but as a people....
I think we need to come to some decision as to when that point is... I think that forcing the cowardly skirt wearing supreme court to make a decision is the only thing we can do... SD may be doing us all a favor... probly is.
As for "endangering the life of the mother" How many times does having an abortion save a mothers life? I know abortions have caused death... how many documented lives have they saved?
If government has any duty to it's people it would be first to give them a right to live without someone else killing them for no reason.
our rights are erroding because they are incramentaly being destroyed... perhaps we need more efforts like the SD one to force the SC to uphold the constitution.
I would love to see a state make laws that followed the second amendment and forced the SC to rule on the second for instance...
for abortion... let them rule that... say... so long as the fetus can't survive outside the womb...it is not a human and has no rights... after that... the lazy slut that is carrying it has no right to murder it. If it comes to a choice.... life or death late in a pregnancy... then let the mother and doctor decide.
lazs
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/19_1140704504__41359378_uncle_sam_riddell.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yep, or she can just close her legs in the first place
Eagler,
You have more in common with those intolerant muslims than you realize.
Sure, it's all HER responsibility. I mean, the male should have kept his fly zipped in the first place.
-
Eagler is Archie Bunker. Not kidding.
-
westy is edith bunker, saw is gloria, stringer is the meathead and I'm george jefferson so what?
-
where did monkeys come from?
lazs
-
More monkeys!
-
"westy is edith bunker"
lol. Storch finally has a funny :)
-
I think this is a good thing. Not that I want ALL abortions banned but I hope Rowe V Wade gets overturned and abortion laws themselves are left up to the states.
-
that would be good guns... I would also like to see firearms laws left to the states.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
westy is edith bunker, saw is gloria, stringer is the meathead and I'm george jefferson so what?
Hehe Storch, but who is Weezy?? Movin' on up....
-
oh, this makes sense.
i mean, how we gonna get the borders secure, win the war on terror and the troops home with abortions being legal, 'n all.
this is just what the nation needs. more empowerment of government in our daily lives. i mean, they've done so much to endear themsleves to the citizens of this nation with the frank honesty and up-front dealings so far.. sure; lets give 'em even more power to make life and death decisons.
note: Hey Guns.. why should this be a 'states' rights or 'federal' issue? Ain't this decision an individuals? Yank the federal and state funding; all of it. Get the governments nose outta the crotches of our women.
-
Hangtime, you make the work day so much brighter. :lol :aok
-
It'll be a private issue Hang, the moment people aren't killed by abortions.
-
which people?
-
Millions and Millions of babies.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
oh, this makes sense.
note: Hey Guns.. why should this be a 'states' rights or 'federal' issue? Ain't this decision an individuals? Yank the federal and state funding; all of it. Get the governments nose outta the crotches of our women.
Sure that sounds all rosey and peachy but iworld if a woman has the "right" to it than she also can't be denied it.....even as a prisoner......in wich case the govt can be made to pay for it. Personally I think this is getting the govt out of it. Make this a states right issue and leave it up to the state/people to decide.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
oh, this makes sense.
i mean, how we gonna get the borders secure, win the war on terror and the troops home with abortions being legal, 'n all.
this is just what the nation needs. more empowerment of government in our daily lives. i mean, they've done so much to endear themsleves to the citizens of this nation with the frank honesty and up-front dealings so far.. sure; lets give 'em even more power to make life and death decisons.
note: Hey Guns.. why should this be a 'states' rights or 'federal' issue? Ain't this decision an individuals? Yank the federal and state funding; all of it. Get the governments nose outta the crotches of our women.
Why stop there? We have laws that protect Gays so shouldn't they be thrown out also? I mean it's all about the crotches right?
What power are you talking about BTW? Bush wants Roe v Wade overturned so it can be left up to the states. How is that more power for him?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yep, or she can just close her legs in the first place
How about the underage battered and bleeding rape victim? Is it her fault that she's now pregnant?
I'd like to see you walk up to her and say that to her face.
-
if men could get pregnant the entire issue would be non-existent.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
How about the underage battered and bleeding rape victim? Is it her fault that she's now pregnant?
I'd like to see you walk up to her and say that to her face.
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?
:)(http://scifi.about.com/library/graphics/bgs1.jpg)
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
break out the burkas boys and get ready the stone pile cause middle ages here we come woo hoo!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
this is so silly.... "bleeding and battered rape victim" Isn't there a morning after pill? Why wouldn't she just take that?
lazs
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
All rights are Constitutionally protected, unless the Constitution specifically states otherwise.
Yes all RIGHTS are protected......but it was the Court that decided that abortion was a right......not the congress or the state. If Rowe Vrs. Wade were to be overturned by the SC then it would be up to the states to decide unless the congress steped in and made a federal law.
-
chickenhawk
the huge majority of abortions today are done for birth control reasons ... period .. or the lack of one.. pure and simple
rapes/incest are a very small percent but you'd think they were the majority as loudly as that cry is bellowed in defense of this gruesome and horrific act. It is the first words out of just about every supporter of abortion when the "right" is challenged
it turns my stomach
do I think RvW is going anywhere anytime soon? nope .. we as a civilization are not enlightened enough to get rid of it today...
should we continue to fight against it? at every opportunity ..
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes all RIGHTS are protected......but it was the Court that decided that abortion was a right......not the congress or the state. If Rowe Vrs. Wade were to be overturned by the SC then it would be up to the states to decide unless the congress steped in and made a federal law.
The courts didn't need to decide that abortion is a right; it is made so by default when the Constitution stated that the Feds had no power to regulate it - just like all the other rights not specifically listed in the catch-all 10th Amendment.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html
"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.
Crazy liberal Democrats at it again, trying to push big government into taking away citizen rights.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
chickenhawk
the huge majority of abortions today are done for birth control reasons ... period .. or the lack of one.. pure and simple
rapes/incest are a very small percent but you'd think they were the majority as loudly as that cry is bellowed in defense of this gruesome and horrific act. It is the first words out of just about every supporter of abortion when the "right" is challenged
it turns my stomach
do I think RvW is going anywhere anytime soon? nope .. we as a civilization are not enlightened enough to get rid of it today...
should we continue to fight against it? at every opportunity ..
So what your saying is that the rape victims should have kept their legs together and because they didn't they should now be thankful that they have a child born out of hate and violence that they now have to raise.
They are only a small percentage after all.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
The courts didn't need to decide that abortion is a right; it is made so by default when the Constitution stated that the Feds had no power to regulate it - just like all the other rights not specifically listed in the catch-all 10th Amendment.
Well then Rowe Vrs Wade is a horbile application of the tenth amendment as it WOULDNT gauruntee a right to choose just leave it up to the states.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
So what your saying is that the rape victims should have kept their legs together and because they didn't they should now be thankful that they have a child born out of hate and violence that they now have to raise.
They are only a small percentage after all.
you put words in my mouth...
you seem sensitive about your subject matter, I'll respect that
-
Originally posted by storch
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.
LOL.. I'm picturing myself keeping Storch in line with a rolling pin.
-
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.
IT ISN'T ???? :rolleyes:
-
What's the rate of pregnancies or STD's for those who abstain from sex?
(In case you are really thick, that's a rhetorical question, don't look it up.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What's the rate of pregnancies or STD's for those who abstain from sex?
Depends on how you define "sex".
Plenty of college and high school age girls consider themselves to be virgins even after smoking the man meat.
-
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
There is lazs.
Ask Eagler and Lasersailor if they think it should be legal.
Or, given that it *is* legal, ask them if they think a hospital treating a rape victim should even tell her about it as an option. Catholic hospitals are refusing to perscribe it or even discuss it with rape victim patients.
-
That's their choice, isn't it?
A friend of mine summed it up rather well for me.
"I rather don't like the idea, but if you are going to do it, do it as soon as possible."
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Depends on how you define "sex".
Plenty of college and high school age girls consider themselves to be virgins even after smoking the man meat.
don't forget the poop chute. Many stay "technical virgins" that way.......bless their hearts!;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Depends on how you define "sex".
Plenty of college and high school age girls consider themselves to be virgins even after smoking the man meat.
thank billyjeff for that. the only good thing to come from that presidency was when the whitehouse staff was finally able to dig up and discard the half buried tractor tires from the driveway on pennsylvania avenue.
-
Ok... at some point we simply need to comprimise.... throwing them in the dumpster the first time they cry is extreme abortion..
:morning after" pill should be fine with everyone so long as it is as safe as other non perscription drugs or... relatively safe... and no samiam... I do not think that hospitals should be required to tell rape victims about it... they should not have to do anything but treat the injury. If they want to that would be Ok to me.
so... between those two points when is it a form of birth control and when is it just selfish slovenly murder of another human being by some worthless and lazy slut?
Most of us will form our answers I am afraid on either some religious belief or some selfish or lazy one... the ultra religious will base it on all sex being bad and some sort of punishment issue... the ultra stupid and liberal and the selfish will base it on.. "if there is no abortion my girlfriend (if I ever get one) will have a good reason to not put out.
my opinion.... if not done really early.... abortion is simply murder. Test kits are cheap and accurate... there are morning after pills. Maybe they should be more available.. I don't know. Maybe people should be a little more careful in their sex lives... stick with partners longerand one at a time and use a little abstinence when away...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... at some point we simply need to comprimise....
Compromise is a concept unfamiliar to religious fanatics, be they islamic fundamentalists or christian fundamentalists.
:morning after" pill should be fine with everyone so long as it is as safe as other non perscription drugs or... relatively safe... and no samiam... I do not think that hospitals should be required to tell rape victims about it... they should not have to do anything but treat the injury. If they want to that would be Ok to me.
This is a reasonable and rational position. One with which a majority of anti-abortionists would strongly disagree - believing that emergency contraception is equivalent to abortion.
so... between those two points when is it a form of birth control and when is it just selfish slovenly murder of another human being by some worthless and lazy slut?
In many cases, it's not a worthless and lazy slut. It's an ill-informed girl, possibly pressured into sex by some jerkwad feeding her a line.
And the reason she is ill informed is because some religious zelot has decided that it's god's will that she remain ignorant about sex and contraception.
Because we all know that keeping people ignorant about contraception is the best way to prevent them from having sex. Oops, that should read "prevent them from having protected sex."
-
Originally posted by storch
thank billyjeff for that. the only good thing to come from that presidency was when the whitehouse staff was finally able to dig up and discard the half buried tractor tires from the driveway on pennsylvania avenue.
This notion has been around longer than Billy Jeff.
-
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
Because the Christian Fanatics are trying to get that pill banned too...
-
Originally posted by Silat
Because the Christian Fanatics are trying to get that pill banned too...
More like they want to have the right not to give it out.
-
I see... so those who would try to ban the morning after pill are "fanatics" while those who want no impediment to abortion under any circumstances are not?
I say that there are fanatics on both sides.
That you only see the few pro lifers who have extreme views but don't see things like late term abortions or even partial birth abortions as extereme puts you square into the extremeist catagory as far as I can see.
you scare me just as much as the no "morning after pill" people do. maybe worse since at least if they err they err towards the side of life while you would err toward the side of murder.
lazs
-
No. no. I'm with you, Lazs. I think it is also fanatical to have the position that there should be no restrictions whatsoever upon abortion.
But at some point we have to accept that women should have control over their own bodies and that it's in society's best interest to ensure that they are well equiped to handle that responsibility. That's were the anti-abortion crowd become fanatical hypocrites.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
....But at some point we have to accept that women should have control over their own bodies ...
it's the body inside her body which I think require his/her rights protected as they cannot speak for themselves yet..
-
Well, one of the other problems is the availability of the morning after pill. I think that as long as you're not the only pharmacy in town, you can choose whether or not to carry it.
But recently a lot of places have been getting sued to force them to carry it.
I will concede that women have control over their bodies only if you concede that the fetus at some point is a person that cannot be killed on a whim. Until then I will not agree with you at all.
-
sami.... you are not saying anything. platitudes and soundbites.... worthless to the discussion... I have no idea about how you think except that you hate fanatics on the pro life side... this is not useful.
You seem to be saying that since there are fanatics on the pro life side that there can be no discussion.... you seem to dismiss the fanatics on the pro abortion side.
saying that women should be able to control their own bodies is silly crap.
Of course they should... get a boob job... die of cancer or get treatment... try some holistic medicine or acupuncture or exercise... get laid or don't... eat cheese till they are so constipated it kills em... I have no problem with women controling their own bodies..
We are not talking about that at some point in an abortion tho... we are talking about them controling life or death for another human being...
we just need to come to some comprimise on when that is... when it isn't a lump of crap that a woman can have removed like so much body fat at a liposuction.... or... when it is no longer her choice.... when it becomes the killing of another human being.
The fact that she had it or, at the very least, carried it to the point that it became a viable human being is enough for me to tell her that she has to tough it out the rest of the way. I have little or no sympathy for her or the father at that point.
Lets get brutaly honest here.... it is not some right wing conspiracy that gets the stupid slut pregnant... more likely a left wing one but... that asside...it most certainly has nothing to do with right wingers that she carry it to the point that it is waving at you in a sonogram.... it is simple slovenly lazyness. She is not a "victim"... she has created a couple tho..
so lets get realistic and set some real guidelines for being somewhat moral human beings.
My guidlines would be that if the thing is vieable outside the womb then it is too friggin late... it's a citizen of the U.S. and it's life needs to be protected.... before that.... killing it is simply repugnant for the most part and maybe.... at the very best.... the best of a bad situation in some cases.
I can not think of any woman who didn't have some deep regrets about any abortion they have had unless they are less than human themselves... there are degrees of course but... I can't think of one of em who felt like they had simply exercised their right to remove a lump of crap from their womb.
Play it anyway you like in your mind but that is what I see and how I feel about it.
lazs
-
Well said lazs. I think we are in complete agreement on this subject.
-
Laz usually cuts to the chase and nails it down.
Did it again right there.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We are not talking about that at some point in an abortion tho... we are talking about them controling life or death for another human being...
we just need to come to some comprimise on when that is... when it isn't a lump of crap that a woman can have removed like so much body fat at a liposuction.... or... when it is no longer her choice.... when it becomes the killing of another human being.
I believe Roe v Wade adresses this already, lazs:
(7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.
So yeah.... while it seems like such a classic lazsical plain spoken novel idea to finally get down to brass tacks and come to some sort of concensus as to when abortion passes from the realm of the acceptable to the unnacceptable, it turns out that it's already been uhm... considered? What exactly is new about your idea?
The fact is, the pro-choice camps are fine with the existing law wrt when abortion is acceptable and unnacceptable, while the pro-life camps will have none of it. They want zero abortion whatsoever, as evidenced by their support of laws that would make abortion illegal even when it comes to rape or the health of the mother, and no matter any issue of viability as you put it.
Don't believe me? Just ask them.
"My guidlines would be that if the thing is vieable outside the womb then it is too friggin late." - lazs
..... Go ahead and ask the pro-lifers if they'd accept those terms. Moderation? An agreement as to when a fetus becomes "viable?" Feh... yeah okay.
The reason we're even talking about this is because the pro-lifers consider cells in a petri dish "viable." This is a conversation the pro-choice camp is perfectly willing to have. But go ahead, I'd like to see how far you'd get on this with Eagler and Mighty et al.
It's all or nothing with them, and you're barking up the wrong tree for blaming liberals for this.
-
Actually... lazs, I think your idea is brilliant. (mmphht)
So brilliant in fact, that I will stick my neck out and ask the question for you.
Lets, for the sake of argument, say that the overwhelming consensus of health professionals is that a fetus could be considered viable, with a 60% chance of survival outside of the womb at 6 months.
Lets say that those odds drop to 30% at 5 months.
Lets say that those odds drop to 0% at 4 months. Not viable.
Would the pro-lifers here accept abortion at 3 months and prior?
(oops, watch as your little epiphany and "nailed down" entrance into this debate becomes a little less nailed down.)
A question to pro-lifers: Considering the above, would you accept abortion at 3 months and prior, but no later than 3 months? And... what does the term "viability" mean to you with respect to this debate, if anything?
Do you agree with lazs, along with a whole lotta Liberals, that if "the thing is viable outside the womb then it is too friggin late?" And that if it is not, then it isn't too late?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I believe Roe v Wade adresses this already, lazs:
But, of course, you realize the purpose of the SD law is to challenge Roe v Wade at the SC level.
-
Sure. Yeah.
What of it?
-
I can't speak for the pro lifers any more than I can speak for the pro abortion people.
I am fine with what you say tho. 3 months... I would even give a plus or minus a few weeks if the doctor agreed...
I do know that there are fanatics on both sides... hell... I was raised a catholic and they believe(ed) that any form of birth control was wrong much less abortion.
I have also been around radical feminists (who themselves were in no danger that I could see of ever becoming pregnant in any case) who felt that partial birth abortions were a womans right to choose.
The fact that such diametricaly opposed (politicaly and philisoiphicaly) people as nash and myself can come to an agreement says to me that the vast majority of people would welcome some black and white guidelines that made sense. I believe the majority of us would be relieved to have such guidlines and simply ignore the fantatics on both sides.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sure. Yeah.
What of it?
Well, you pointed out:
Originally posted by Nash
some sort of concensus as to when abortion passes from the realm of the acceptable to the unnacceptable, it turns out that it's already been uhm... considered
True enough.
However, the whole point of the SD law is to have that concensus uhm.... reconsidered.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe the majority of us would be relieved to have such guidlines and simply ignore the fantatics on both sides.
lazs
If only it were so.
You are not going to get even the hardest of hardcore Liberal to support the abortion of a perfectly conceived fetus at like, 7 or 8 months unless the carrying of it to its term meant the serious jeopordizing of the life of the mother at the advice of her doctor.
This is not a matter of pregnant women putting it off until they show signs of fat.
-
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You are not going to get even the hardest of hardcore Liberal to support the abortion of a perfectly conceived fetus at like, 7 or 8 months unless the carrying of it to its term meant the serious jeopordizing of the life of the mother at the advice of her doctor.
Right! (mmphht)
In the current "Supreme court to re-visit late term abortion ban " thread
Originally posted by Silat
Ludrious examples Seagoon. A pregnant woman isnt a communicable disease Sea.
Sea your faith and beliefs are yours. Quit trying to make them law. My daughters body is her own. Until the baby takes a breath outside of my daughters body she is in charge..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sami.... you are not saying anything. platitudes and soundbites.... worthless to the discussion... I have no idea about how you think except that you hate fanatics on the pro life side... this is not useful.
You seem to be saying that since there are fanatics on the pro life side that there can be no discussion.... you seem to dismiss the fanatics on the pro abortion side.
saying that women should be able to control their own bodies is silly crap.
Of course they should... get a boob job... die of cancer or get treatment... try some holistic medicine or acupuncture or exercise... get laid or don't... eat cheese till they are so constipated it kills em... I have no problem with women controling their own bodies..
We are not talking about that at some point in an abortion tho... we are talking about them controling life or death for another human being...
we just need to come to some comprimise on when that is... when it isn't a lump of crap that a woman can have removed like so much body fat at a liposuction.... or... when it is no longer her choice.... when it becomes the killing of another human being.
The fact that she had it or, at the very least, carried it to the point that it became a viable human being is enough for me to tell her that she has to tough it out the rest of the way. I have little or no sympathy for her or the father at that point.
Lets get brutaly honest here.... it is not some right wing conspiracy that gets the stupid slut pregnant... more likely a left wing one but... that asside...it most certainly has nothing to do with right wingers that she carry it to the point that it is waving at you in a sonogram.... it is simple slovenly lazyness. She is not a "victim"... she has created a couple tho..
so lets get realistic and set some real guidelines for being somewhat moral human beings.
My guidlines would be that if the thing is vieable outside the womb then it is too friggin late... it's a citizen of the U.S. and it's life needs to be protected.... before that.... killing it is simply repugnant for the most part and maybe.... at the very best.... the best of a bad situation in some cases.
I can not think of any woman who didn't have some deep regrets about any abortion they have had unless they are less than human themselves... there are degrees of course but... I can't think of one of em who felt like they had simply exercised their right to remove a lump of crap from their womb.
Play it anyway you like in your mind but that is what I see and how I feel about it.
lazs
Anyone who has spoken personally to their God and he/she has told them the answer to the abortion question please raise their hand.
I thought not.
Therefore it is her body and until your GOD clues us in to when life starts the woman is in charge.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, you pointed out:
True enough.
However, the whole point of the SD law is to have that concensus uhm.... reconsidered.
Right.
And lazs says that it needs to be reconsidered in order to evaluate what "viable" constitutes. You give him a high-five for that.
Yet, Roe v Wade already considers that.
The debate now is about tossing out that "consideration" in order that no consideration take place.
If you support that, then you along with lazs et al need to say exactly on what terms abortion should be acceptable, and what terms it should not.
Because the pro-lifers are in the ZERO camp. Are you in that camp with them?
-
Actually, I'm in my camp.
Haven't seen a camp I like better.
I think it's a personal decision up until the baby is a person. Then the state has a duty to protect the new "person".
So far, I haven't seen anyone prove unequivocably when the new entity becomes a "person".
Obviously, and as I've stated before, a fertilized egg becomes a person sometime between fertilization and birth. Again though, there is no definitive proof of the timing of "personhood", no moment the scientists or theologians can point to and say "right there".
Therefore, me in my camp thinks, in the absence of any provable moment of "personhood", the individual state legislatures should decide this issue for their own state. In each state, a woman would decide to abort or not to abort within that state's law. I do not think the state should be involved in funding abortions in anyway shape or form. If one chooses abortion, let one pay for one's abortion. Don't ask the rest of the state's citizens to help you pay for your decision to abort. I don't think the Feds have a place in the argument. Women would be free, of course, to travel to another state if they so chose.
That's pretty much my camp.
What's your camp?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I'm in my camp.
I think it's a personal decision up until the baby is a person. Then the state has a duty to protect the new "person".
So far, I haven't seen anyone prove unequivocably when the new entity becomes a "person".
Therefore, me in my camp thinks, in the absence of any provable moment of "personhood", the individual state legislatures should decide this issue.
That's pretty much my camp.
What's your camp?
LMAO.
You and your reliance on the State legislature to tell you how you should think. At least you're consistent, but it cracks me up every time.
Anyways...
I've seen some good governers, and some pretty horrid ones... verging on tragic comedy. But hey! They are your elected officials so they speak for you. Heh.
Lol..... Kansas....
I wish I were in the same mental and spiritual place as you - leaving everything up to your elected officials, with no voice of your own. I bet you sleep well.
-
Originally posted by Silat
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
I have...
-
Abstinence is for the ultimate tool.
Sex among consenting adults is one of the best things in life if not the best. If more people would have good sex and less people would be stuck up with their moral perversions, there would be less violence in this world.
How many agressive thoughts have you had right after having a good sex act?
Now compare it to the amount of agressive thoughts you've had after not having a good sex act for ages. :D
-
LMAO at you chum.
Decisions on this issue are going to be made, either by the Feds or the State.
I prefer decision making as close to the people as possible. The State is closer than the Feds.
Your leap into thinking I rely on the on the State legislature to tell me how I should think shows how out of touch you are, how preformed your predjudices have become.
The people of any State have a far greater chance of convincing the State legislature to reflect their will than they do of making the US Congress reflect their will.
It's not "leaving up to the elected officials", it's quite the opposite. It's bringing the decision down to the level at which the common people of a State might actually be able to influence the decision.
Are you against that?
Oh, and I missed your declarative statement of what "camp" you are in. Please do enlighten us.
-
We may be straying off the point here.. I am merely saying how I feel about it and how as a people we need to come to some compriomise between no moring after pill and partial birth abortions (or late term).
We are schitzo right now.. it is murder to kill a fetus in the womb by say... kicking a pregnant woman in order to kill her fetus.
To get back to the point.... Roe v wade needs to be addressed... to me... it is a states rights issue and a citizen issue.
does a viable citizen in the womb have the same rights as the rest of us or is their life in the hands of their mother?
does a person on a dialisis machine or iron lung lose his rights as a citizen?
To me, this is all about states rights... RvW should be looked at as a minimum protection for life... not for a womans right to choose but for a babies (humans) right to live.
If RvW says that no abortions after 3 months... that is the minimum federal protection in my opinion.... it is the point that states can not go past... They can not kill past that point for the fun of it.
A state should be able to outlaw all abortions not meant to save the mother if they so desire. Don't like it? move to another state or...
Take a morning after pill. No state could tell you that you were circumventing an abortion ban if you did... it would have to be proved that the egg were fertilized at the time and that you knew it and that would be impossible.
To me... states rights are important... so long as they do not conflict with the constitution... firearms bans for instance, are unconstituional but... a state that observed the letter of the constitution and circumvented all the machine gun laws and "destructive device" laws would help to get the cowardly supremes to rule.... just as what SD has done brings up the issue of when a person is a person.
lazs