South Dakota bans most abortions

Well, my first question is. Who regulates things like aboration or things related to children? The state or federal?

Cause certainaly if it's a state thing, they'll have to lobby to the states, not to the feds. Much like marriage(Marriage is based on states decision[Actually the votes of the people who reside in the states.].)

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

The government should not have a say on abortions until the day it is comprised entirely of females.

No one should have a say about it, not even females. You should have say for YOUR BODY. I don't care if a female president rallies and as well gets a bill going for pro-life, no aborations bill.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, has any say on what ANYONE should do with thier body.

Quote:

The US was founded on Freedoms, Freedom of Religion being one. The Religious Right feel it is their right to force everyone to follow their beliefs. Freedom of speech is going down the toilet, because of these religious idiots, and they want everyone who has sex to have a baby even if they don't want one, because they feel sex should only be for procreation, not fun. There is no reason for someone how doesn't want to have a baby, to have one. The freedoms of this country are slowly being destroyed by people who feel that everyone needs to follow their beliefs only. Hence, things this country was founded on being screwed up.

Stop bashing religeon. Thier beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Second, this country is a democracy, thus being if you don't like it then lobby for it and fix it. Everyone has a say if they actually TRY to have a say.

They aren't forcing thier beliefs on anyone by expressing them and saying hey, we think aboration is bad and we want to prove it and have a vote on it.

You call that forcing? If thier forcing thier beliefs on you, then you are techincally forcing your morals and beliefs by saying FUCK YOU, I'm right, your wrong and your a fucktard.

That is how I see your arguement EUN.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by magi

Your right ends where my nose begins, dude. Just by saying that has no physical ramifications on you, but to pass a law and regulate has very real ramification's on the body of those who are being regulated, its not merely forcing a view on another person.

Dude, I am not saying they should or not but they have a right IN THIS COUNTRY, to try to get a law passed. Rather it's a good or bad law.

All I am saying is why should they be forced to shut up? That is forcing your views onto them, IMO.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

I think we're missing the point here. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about passing laws that majorly affect people, in this case women who aren't ready for a child.

So they will go, vote and revoke it simple as that.

Quote:

With that being said, I couldn't disagree with you more.

The religious right has been expressing their disapproval of abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That's all fine and good, but in South Dakota, they've crossed the line by going beyond expressing their views and passing a law that forces their beliefs on the public body.

How is acting on thier beliefs bad? If it's such a bad law then it'll get reversed by the process of democracy.

Quote:

Yes, I said it. It forces the belief of the religious right that one "sin" doesn't make another "sin" right onto women who aren't ready- emotionally, financially, whatever, to have a child.

Um, I'm Lutheran and I don't find aboration really a sin or anything. I'd think it's more of sin to abandon your child, have unwanted children or to be able NOT to care for your child in all needs.

But I am NOT discussing what I believe in.

Quote:

I follow what you're saying here, and in the context of free speech and debate, that makes sense. However, when it comes to the current situation, it doesn't work like that.

See, right now in every other state in the US, Canada and probably most of Europe, people who believe in pro-life have the choice not to get an abortion. And those that need an abortion also have have the choice to get an abortion. Everyone has a choice and almost everybody's happy, except the pro-lifers that complain about the people that get abortions.

I'm not pro-lifer and don't clump all pro-lifers all the same mainly cause not all the same. That is like saying all Muslims are terroists, which is wrong.(Sorry I coudln't think of a better analogy[sp?])

Quote:

But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion.

Well, they'll either find a way(rather legal or not) to get it done OR they will reverse the decision.

Quote:

The pro-lifers, the people who wouldn't have gotten an abortion in the first place, are happy because they've made it so everybody else in the state can't get an abortion.

Good, I'm glad they actually acted on thier beliefs rather or not it was right. They actually stood up for what they believe in no matter what. I tip my hat to them really.

Quote:

The people that need an abortion, such as victims of rape, incest and poverty, are screwed unless they can get an abortion in a surrounding state.

I could possibly understand rape or incest but if you are rather poor or any other condition and want sex. There is always something called a vesectomy or getting your tubes tied. There are always alternatives or even not having sex.

Quote:

Basically, the law that a woman has the right to a medical procedure worked fine because it gave women the right to choose. But now in South Dakota, those that would have chose to have an abortion can't.

So? Then they'll work hard to get it that they'll have the choice again. Use the system, go for it.

Quote:

If you can't see that that's forcing one's belief on the entire public body, then I'm not sure what is.

Because silencing someone for what they believe is far worse and rather zealous IMO, especially if you believe in one thing and dare not listen to anyone else.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Is it really forcing abortions on them if they're not going to use the procedure anyway?

To me it's kinda like with prohibition. I can't figure for the life of me figure out how those temperists would have their rights taken away by the drunken hordes when, you know, they don't drink alcohol and aren't being forced to.

RR, that isn't what I am trying to say but I do agree with you trust me.

But then again, what about the abuse of it? I mean the gov't had thier hearts in the right place, just wrong laws and etc.

Quote:

I think the issue we're arguing over here is more democracy than abortion. I mean, if democracy is working, then the majority of people in whatever state are against abortion. Now, to make a generalization, most pro-lifers equate abortion with murder. So, from the perspective of the religious right, South Dakota just made murder illegal. Harder to argue against that.

Perhaps but then again is every pro-lifer religeous? Probaly not. Is every pro-lifer zealous or even burning heart -insert whatever- more then likely not. Try not to clump people together please.

Quote:

I think the point Zio was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that all government, no matter what side or spin, authoritarian or anarchist, is, when it comes down to it, forcing your view on other people. That's what law is. And with anarchy, forcing absence of law is equally distressing for some. The point is, all sides of this argument are equally valid.

Wow, someone actually gets what I am talking about. Rather any side you play on, you are really forcing your views onto anyone but then again, you do have the freedom to get an abortation or not, you aren't forced to.

Trust me, I agree that the law is stupid and that abortation does help in certain terms but you guys are going about the wrong way by ATTACKING the people and not the idea.

Originally Posted by Devo

This is typically an issue that will never be resolved but women get abortions with or without clinics. I'd rather have clean procedures done by trained professionals than hear about back alley coat-hanger up the cooch deaths rising.

You are right but I highly doubt that many did the coat hanger thing. I just think people blow that out of proporinate but it was true though, I don't doubt that, trust me on that one.

Quote:

That said, this is a fruitless venture. There is no way that this will get past the Lower Courts, and assuming that it does, I doubt the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case. Even with some Conservatives on the bench, that doesn't guarantee that they are looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or that they don't even consider the outcome of Roe v. Wade to be constitutionally sound.

Agreed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Sing

Isn't this a pretty bad position to take, though? If you don't particularly care for whether somebody thought about if their actions are right, that'll leave you tipping hats to despicable actions that were made in the name of their beliefs.

Anther country's freedom fighters are anther country's terrorists.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Sing

That's not my point, Zio. I'm attacking the idea of praising people based on their correlation of actions with their beliefs without regard for what's right. That essentially leads you down the path of praising suicide bombers because they're more concerned about their beliefs than in what's right.

I'll resay what I just said. Sucide bombers could be doing what they believe in. Rather it's right or wrong they are passion enough to risk thier lives for thier religeon or whatever.

And Brady knows what I am talking about but that is to a certain degree.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Sing

So, are you praising people for killing other people, or what?

Yes, Sing I am. Cause they are fighting for WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.

You have to see both sides of the fence, methinks.

If one person does something, almost everyone can see it as evil or wrong but to that person it might be right... but then again there are degrees. And I am saying that so you can't say some psyco or any other mental illness says some dog or some weird thing told them to do it, they believed and did it.

Rather it's stupid or not to you Sing but I'm sure as well if we were invaded there would be a lot of people driving thier cars or whatever into the enemy troops or even blowing them up to save their country, way of life and etc.

FELIPE NO

Pug, if you don't like a law that was passed then you know what you can do to stop it or even reverse the law.

You can lobby or reverse any law you wish to... Atleast try to.

If I really wanted to, I could rally and reverse the decision about segregated schools.

They acted on thier beliefs, were organized, and started the ball on possibly banning it. Now that takes some guts to stand up(despite proscution and etc other things that will come.) and do something about a law that they don't think is right.

Pro-lifers think that allowing abortation is forcing wrong beliefs on everyone.

Pro-choice thinks that not allowing is.

Either way you slice it, someone's toes are going to get stepped on.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Cat9

Quite a presumptuous statement dont you think? Once again, if pro-lifers cannot act upon thier own beliefs, then are they really free?

Well not only that but why should only the pro-choice get to make the laws or voice thier opinions? I think people are thinking too shallow on this one.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Pro-life has been able to restrict the methods and timing of abotion. It's not like people are turning a deaf ear to their ideals.

Indeed, this is true but all I am saying is that whenever someone tries to do something they belief such as pro-life situation where they TRY to get something done such as a law. It turns into that they are stupid, forcing thier beliefs and etc. Tis all I am saying.

Quote:

What horseshit. Being persecuted for being pro life? This isn't standing up against 'the man' or anything close to it. It's the relatively safe stance to take, you aren't going to be called a killer for it as opposed to being pro choice.

You are reading too much into it. I mean standing up for your beliefs even if persecuted and mind you, it can be verbal abuse as well.

I never said being pro-choice means your a killer nor does being pro-life means your a religeious fanatic eitehr.

Quote:

Also, despite every imaginable attempt to portray themselves as victims, pro lifers are not the ones potentially being put upon here. If 'allowing abortion was forcing beliefs on everyone' was really the case, those who didn't believe in having abortions would be forced to have one. See how retarded that argument is? No one is forcing the pro lifers to do anything they don't want to do, or trying to limit what they may do, or what they may say.

I could have swore I already said that I agree that no one is forcing ANYONE to get a aboration and that I already agree that the law is stupid.

I am TIPPING MY HAT TO THEM CAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING THE SYSTEM AND TRYING. Even though they are not going to win and I agree the law is stupid.

Quote:

And another thing, your stance on passing laws is quite unique. Of course one can lobby for any law they wish, and that law may or may not be passed. But praising the passing of laws just for the hell of it seems odd.

That is because someone actually wasn't lazy enough to do something. That is why I am praising it.

Quote:

If you don't support it, then you shouldn't be too happy that it happens.

And if that happens then I'll be the one who rallies and tries to reverse the decision.

Quote:

And just waiting for it to get democricized out after a while is a pretty lame way to solve the issue. Maybe heading off things before they get passed would be more efficient, and cheaper than sitting back and applauding any and all changes made?

I don't live in South Dakota or else I would more then likely if the law became a law, then I'd be the one who would vote or even rally to get it reversed cause obviously it's a stupid law.

Like I have said, if anyone wanted to get one should be able to but those who don't, don't have to.

Simple as that.

All I am applauding to them is they actually weren't lazy, and sat back and said, fuck, I hate aborations but I'm going to sit here and do nothing.

If people want to retain thier rights to actually have them, then they will reverse and or prove that they acutally need it such as unwanted children being problems and any other thing. Yanno?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The problem with the situation remains a complete revitilization of the religious right in the US.

People can still be against it and not be religious. Why does everyone still assume pro-life = religious views?

Quote:

Still, the Supreme Court would shoot this down should it reach it, there is a 5-4 pro Wade vote already, and that assumes both Bushies vote nay.

I highly doubt that Bush has any say on the manner and evne if he did, it'd be pretty hard to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

The Partial Birth bill is also coming up soon, although I'm not sure how that will fare as well.

I thought they signed that bill? O.o;

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.