|
Originally Posted by Joe Wiewel
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.
But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion. 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. 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 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.
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.
Most amazing jew boots