South Dakota has put into law banning all abortions unless it is necessary to save the womans life. This law is sure to be met and heard by the Supreme Court. And when the Supreme Court does rule on this South Dakota law, it could very well also change the Roe v. Wade Decision. Because of the two new justices in the Supreme Court, this South Dakota law could be a great test case to try to overturn the Roe Decision. And let the debate begin...... Pro-Choice? Pro-Life? Roe v. Wade?
South Dakota Anti-Abortion Law
I don't think it'll stand muster if it comes to be challenged.
I also look at it like this: Making it legal means that it's going to be policed and not risk people's lives to begin with, making it illegal means:
A: It'll force women that don't want to have that child to go to another state... or
B: It'll be forced underground.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Where I think abortion is murder of the most innocent and should be stoped Gam is 100% correct. Just becasue you outlaw it doesn't mean it will go away. There is no way to convince some of these women that its murder so they will continue to do it and never care about the life they just ended. I wonder, was the cure for AIDS locked away in the unborn mind of an aborted baby? Who knows.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
So sad. Both sides really..
I am against abortion unless there is no other option, but at the same time, back alley abortions are much worse.
Maybe this new legal approached could be augmented with an incentive program.
Carry the child to term then give it up for adoption and we'll cover all of your maternity costs, and something.. That causes a new problem though.. People having babies for a cheque. It really is a difficult problem. There is no easy answer.
Before the Pro-choice camp get's all uppity. I used to be pro-choice, until I witnessed the birth of my own child. I don't think anyone who has been through that will walk away in favour of abortion.
I know there are cases where abortion is the best option. That is sad but true. I don't think the current level of abortions is acceptable at all though either. People are using it as a form of birth control and that's just plain wrong.
PAX
I can think of some very GOOD cases for abortion--and in some instances, forced abortion.
GWB is pretty high on that list.
Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.
^ ^ ^ ^ ( rolls eyes ) Good cases to kill an innocent un born baby? Mmm Hmm. Unless they involve insest, rape, the mothers life in danger, or the baby would die anyway or be horribly deformed and possibly die there's no such thing as a good reason for an abortion. Just because mom can't keep her legs shut is not a reason.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
when abortions were illegal, they still happened in kitchens and basements, women and their fetuses died in the resulting infections and intenal bleeding from the crap they tried. coat hangers were often used in attempted abortions. Complications often resulted in the woman becoming unable to have a child later in life without complications.
aoulawing abortions won't make them go away, it will just make people unable to goto legitimate hospitols and clinics to get them. And, in the case of people who are too young/stipid/crazy/rapped/molested/incest chances are the child won't exactly be growing up in the best situtation either.... so are they going to make adoption mandatory in those cases where the mothers life isn't at risk but she isn't capable or fit to care for the child or just have a bunch of trash raising kids who will grow up to be trash..
._____________________________.
hostis humani generis - Causa latet vis est notissima
You have been banned from posting on this site as of 2005-12-11 18:21:36. This ban will expire 2005-12-18 18:21:36 Pacific Time.
Reason: Your comment about Grim Raven's wife was completely uncalled for and way over the top.
My other car is a boat.
Supermotors
Free FlatScreens, IT WORKS!
And that's the whole problem.
You can't win for losing.
PAX
We're not debating the morality of it gents.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:We're not debating the morality of it gents.
That's true, but maybe we should. My g/f's mom says the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Well I have a slightly different opinion. My body is a loaner from God, and when my time here is done I'll have to give an account for what I did with it. It wont matter what the government says is ok then.
mike crawford wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:We're not debating the morality of it gents.
That's true, but maybe we should. My g/f's mom says the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Well I have a slightly different opinion. My body is a loaner from God, and when my time here is done I'll have to give an account for what I did with it. It wont matter what the government says is ok then.
my gods can beat up your god
._____________________________.
hostis humani generis - Causa latet vis est notissima
You have been banned from posting on this site as of 2005-12-11 18:21:36. This ban will expire 2005-12-18 18:21:36 Pacific Time.
Reason: Your comment about Grim Raven's wife was completely uncalled for and way over the top.
My other car is a boat.
Supermotors
Free FlatScreens, IT WORKS!
Jackalope wrote:^ ^ ^ ^ ( rolls eyes ) Good cases to kill an innocent un born baby? Mmm Hmm. Unless they involve insest, rape, the mothers life in danger, or the baby would die anyway or be horribly deformed and possibly die there's no such thing as a good reason for an abortion. Just because mom can't keep her legs shut is not a reason.
I've said it before and I'l, say it again--------it is a VERY slippery legal slope between banned abortions and forced donations.
If the fetus has a legal right to be be a "protected" parasite---then somebody in need of a transfusion has a legal right to be a parasite, then a kidney---then a lung. Or a testicle
Its not a fantasy or that much of a stretch of the imagination. Look at the world around ya man--its one @!#$ scary place thanks mostly to "laws" and "bans" and the pieces of garbage that make, administrate and enforce them.
I for one have absoloutly no intention of being forced into anything or being subsevient to anyone. Maybee I am a cruel dude when it comes to things like that, but the way I see it freedom MEANS freedom. no I'f buts or maybees.
(well, except for my ex and her feminist lawer, mind ya, thats nothing a Freightliner cant cure
Now--I have ONE HELL of a suggestion...............If some chick having an abortion bothers you----keep your nose in your own life and mind your own @!#$ business. (rant at nobody in particular, just blowing an opinion)
Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.
mike crawford wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:We're not debating the morality of it gents.
That's true, but maybe we should. My g/f's mom says the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Well I have a slightly different opinion. My body is a loaner from God, and when my time here is done I'll have to give an account for what I did with it. It wont matter what the government says is ok then.
IF you want to get into the morality issue, find another thread.
The simple fact right now is that a small group of men are instiuting their will on a state of women. They are removing choice from the table because women obviously have no ability to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.
What will happen when they start making decisions for you, that you're perfectly able to make on your own?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
well--when desions are made four you...........
we will call it a democracy.
always rember--if you believe in democracy...........and 51% of your neigbors think you should drive a ford---tehn you dont get a j-body. If 51% decide they want chinese for lunch---you dont get a pizza.
hey, its democracy---its the system you support...............
@!#$ that
Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.
The argument could be raised that the infant needs a voice as well. I'm pretty sure they would not choose death by vaccuum cleaner.
So how's that for someone making choices for you? They don't even get a voice?
PAX
What about a woman that is raped? Should she have to carry that unwanted child because she was raped? I am against abortion but i do believe that rape is one reason why they should allow it, not because someone can't keep their legs shut and gets pregnant. Abortions should only be legal when there is danger to the baby's or mother's life or RAPE.
LOVED BY FEW, HATED BY MANY, RESPECT BY ALL....
Hahahaha wrote:The argument could be raised that the infant needs a voice as well. I'm pretty sure they would not choose death by vaccuum cleaner.
So how's that for someone making choices for you? They don't even get a voice?
PAX
No, they dont. Unless and untill they are self-sustaining.
Slavery is slavery, plain and simple---and it dont matter if the "master" is some rich @!#$, some faggot in black robes--or a fetus.
Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.
Carrying a child to term is not slavery (99% had a choice) and a fetus is not a "parasite" as you so ignorantly called them in one of your previous posts. They are tiny people. You were one once too ya know.
I will conceed that there are times when abortion my be the best option. Perhaps in rape cases (should be assessed individually) or where medical concerns are primary. I also don't think children should be raised by people who don't want them. So it's a tough call.
Should the government dictate whether a person has abortion as an option? Wow, that is even tougher. If you allow anything and eveything, people will do anything and everything. That means abortion as birth control, babies for sale, etc etc. If you restrict people's freedoms, well that's just wrong too. I certainly don't think huge profits should be available to anyone regardless of what the law states. Abortion doctors should not be allowed to advertise and their profits should be capped. We don't need them encouraging business that's for sure.
On the other side of the fence, if the government doesn't protect the lives of the little ones, who will?
PAX
Quote:
I for one have absoloutly no intention of being forced into anything or being subsevient to anyone. Maybee I am a cruel dude when it comes to things like that, but the way I see it freedom MEANS freedom. no I'f buts or maybees.
if you want to get into freedoms and rights and what not, the fetus has the right to life. i believe that just because they cant speak for themselves doesnt forfeit that right. everyone should have an equal oppurtunity at life.
Check out my build thread!
Get back on topic folks.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Why don't you read the original post by the thread starter? This is on topic.
If you want to talk about the new law only, it will be a short debate.
If the law passes, it will stand as long as it takes to get a case to the supreme court, then it will either stand or fall. Given the past, it will fall.
But that isn't what the thread starter limited to when they started the discussion. They asked, pro-choice or Pro-life? Roe Vs. Wade?
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it was really about weather a father had any right to his unborn child. Given that it was a fight between two adults and one was carrying the child, the decision that the woman had the right to abort should be in context. She had more right to decide the fate of the unborn child than the father did. That's what that decision really meant. The rights of the unborn fetus were not considered?
PAX
Ashley Becker wrote:What about a woman that is raped? Should she have to carry that unwanted child because she was raped? I am against abortion but i do believe that rape is one reason why they should allow it, not because someone can't keep their legs shut and gets pregnant. Abortions should only be legal when there is danger to the baby's or mother's life or RAPE.
I believe I said the exact same thing.
91Sunbird its already law that if someone kills an unborn baby during the commision of a crime they are charged with murder. how is it that we can say which unborn baby has that right and which has the right to die? You speek of a slipery slope well thats what happened when abortion became a means of birth control. If abortions are legal as a means of BC then how can we charge someone with murder if an unborn baby dies when he robs the mom and hits her in the stomach? Its the same result the unborn baby dies why do we think we should be able to or have the right to deside which babies live or which babies die? And if we continue down this path whats to say in the future a mom can abort a baby if its the wrong sex? Or if it can be told that the baby may be gay when it grows up? Or it has the wrong hair color? Either its one way or the other it can't be both.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Hahahaha wrote:Why don't you read the original post by the thread starter? This is on topic.
If you want to talk about the new law only, it will be a short debate.
Not as I see it, because there wasn't a question about what do you think of morality of this law. Take it how you like, but discussion was straying from the original topic.
Quote:
If the law passes, it will stand as long as it takes to get a case to the supreme court, then it will either stand or fall. Given the past, it will fall.
With 2 newly minted neo-con justices? More "Republicans" meeting on the first monday than "Democrats." Let's not forget that... This, and I may be wrong, but there is no longer a female voice on the US Supreme Court after Sandra Day-O'Connor retires.
Quote:
But that isn't what the thread starter limited to when they started the discussion. They asked, pro-choice or Pro-life? Roe Vs. Wade?
Again, no implication of why you choose that, or your take on the moral footing of the law.
Quote:
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it was really about weather a father had any right to his unborn child. Given that it was a fight between two adults and one was carrying the child, the decision that the woman had the right to abort should be in context. She had more right to decide the fate of the unborn child than the father did. That's what that decision really meant. The rights of the unborn fetus were not considered?
PAX
The Fetus has no rights until it is actually born. It's not a person, it's the potential for life. I don't like to be that callous about it, but that's pretty much it. Putting limits on the term is foolishness IMHO. Even in the bible, was it not said that if someone assaults a pregnant woman, and kills the child in utero, that the person assaulting owes debt only for the assault of the woman? Basically, it's stating that until the child breathes on it's own, it's not a person.
I do not agree with using abortion as Birth Control. But putting the glove on the other foot, I don't think that you ought to saddle a woman (and the child) with that. Truth be told, until we can fix the problem of unwanted pregnancies, Abortion is going to be a reality, and forcing it underground (to the coat-hanger and bicycle spoke hell-days) is only going to endanger the lives of the women in the offing.
I don't like that it's being used for the wrong reasons or as retroactive BC, but I'm not going to say it's an unrealistic alternative.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
It gets even more slippery:
by textbook definition, it's a parasite.
however, if you take the intangible feeligns of happiness along with a planned parenthood, it becomes symbiosis.
Plus, not all fetuses make it to full term.
However, if a woman is raped, and must carry the child to full-term, she is then left with the damage that preganancy does to her body as a reminder and scars she didn't deserve. Plus, psycologically speaking, how hard is it to give up your baby? Jack, could your wife simply have given up your child for adoption? there's deeper psycological underpinnings there.
Even so, I would need a better argument then morality to convince me that all abortions are wrong and should never be done.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Hahahaha wrote:Carrying a child to term is not slavery (99% had a choice) and a fetus is not a "parasite" as you so ignorantly called them in one of your previous posts. They are tiny people. You were one once too ya know.
Parasite:
Par-a-site- N.
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.
See parasitism:
par·a·sit·ism-
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures.
It says usually injures, but it doesnt have to be. Just because it is a human doesnt mean it cant be a parasite to its mother. Dictionary>you.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
