South Dakota: "Screw Roe v. Wade" [Archive]

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 24th, 2006, 03:01 PM

I can't comment on abortion, because I've never had one. In fact, I've noticed that most of the people screaming about abortion are men...and I persoanlly believe that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

The rolling eyes emoticon just doesn't suffice here.

First of all, it's an absolute fallacy that only men staunchly support banning abortion. Most polling data ever done on the matter shows that a diverse cross sections of Americans are pretty evenly divided on the matter.

I know two women who both have mental and physically challenged children. Both were advised that abortion would be "an option," because there was no guarantee of the child's quality of life. They chose, thankfully, to have those children ,and are both staunchly pro-life.

These right to life maniacs are quick to condemn abotion as murder, but you never see them protesting when these children are left in squalor after their "mom's" are forced to carry them to term and neglect them afterwards.....you never see these self rightious assholes lining up to adopt these fetuses they save.

Oh really? Hmm, do you really believe that adoption isn't in high demand? I guess pro-life Chiristians NEVER adopt, huh?

They call women who have abotions and the doctors who perfom them Murderers, but when they kill and main those doctors and women in those clinics, where is the outrage? Murder is murder, right?

Oh, good lord. How often does this happen, Cosmo? Tell me, how many abrtion doctors are murdered every year? How many clinics are burned? What do you think the ratio is compared to people who peacefully protest outside of abortion clinics???

MLE

Feb 24th, 2006, 04:01 PM

There have been no female posts in this thread up until now.

The practice will go underground if it's illegalized, and more people (that are actually cognizant of their existance) will die because of it.

I'm female. I have sex. I've had scares. Making a choice on this issue is more than just LIFE OR CHOICE. Honestly, you people in here have no room to talk until you have been through it. I don't think Chojin would even be able to talk, being in the scare with me. If it happens it is my body and my child. This is something that when you have this scare, it kills something inside of you to even think about the decision.

That being said, I'm Pro-choice. If someone makes the choice to abort and makes it so adamantly, they'll still do it. They still have that choice, and many people are so distraught that they would rather just commit suicide. I'm not going to take that choice of abortion away from them, no matter what my choice or stance happens to be.

Fathom Zero

Feb 24th, 2006, 04:10 PM

Why can't we be against abortions, but for eating babies like Maddox?

After that poor attempt at humor, I feel that men should have no say in what a woman does with herself. It doesn't affect your life in any way, why should you care? But this opens up the problem of the unborn child. As women are the majority on this Earth anyway, I feel that they should be those who have the say.

People tell me, "Well this child could be the person who cures cancer one day. ". I ask them if that is the only argument they have, it implies that the child does not matter to them if it has no effect on society, that it doesn't matter if it works at Burger King forever, that it doesn't matter, even if it is the most precious and fragile part of life, unless it provides some durastic service later in life to the rest of the planet.

All children matter to me. I would gladly trade my own death for a life of suffering. But it's not up to me. I shouldn't be allowed to impede upon someone else's rights. That is the basis of the Constitution. I don't deserve a stance on this issue, so I stand by my original statement, I feel that men should have no say in what a woman does with herself or her child.

Cosmo Electrolux

Feb 24th, 2006, 04:14 PM

I know two women who both have mental and physically challenged children. Both were advised that abortion would be "an option," because there was no guarantee of the child's quality of life. They chose, thankfully, to have those children ,and are both staunchly pro-life

I can only speak for myself, but I cannot understand why anyone whould knowingly bring a severely handicapped child into this word. To me that seems the height of cruelty.

Oh really? Hmm, do you really believe that adoption isn't in high demand? I guess pro-life Chiristians NEVER adopt, huh

I’m sure Christian do adopt, but the assholes I’m talking about are the ones picketing outside the abortion clinics, stalking employees, making death threats, etc.

Oh, good lord. How often does this happen, Cosmo? Tell me, how many abrtion doctors are murdered every year? How many clinics are burned? What do you think the ratio is compared to people who peacefully protest outside of abortion clinics??

How often, according to religioustolerance.org, a lot. Just in Florida alone:
1984-JUN: An abortion clinic was bombed

1984-DEC: The same clinic was bombed again

1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK, and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.

1993-MAR: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic. Griffin's lawyers claimed that Burt had brainwashed Griffin into committing the killing. (There is a consensus among mental health professionals that this sort of "Manchurian Candidate" programming is impossible). Griffin was convicted and given a life sentence.

1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges.

1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

That’s just on one state during a ten year period. That may be acceptable to you but I'd be willing to bet the people those "Pro lifers" killed would think otherwise
That fact is that these people are supposedly PRO-LIFE, and yet they think it’s acceptable to kill to further their own religious agenda…or in their own words, to save the unborn.
It's bullshit, pure and simple

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 24th, 2006, 04:32 PM

I can only speak for myself, but I cannot understand why anyone whould knowingly bring a severely handicapped child into this word. To me that seems the height of cruelty.

Luckily, you only speak for yourself.

that's just on one state during a ten year period. That may be acceptable to you but I'd be willing to bet the people those "Pro lifers" killed would think otherwise

SIX occassions over the course of TEN years!!! And furthermore, not all of those cases were these horrible murders you're talking about. In fact, not even half of them appeared to be.

And this one: " 1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month."

OMG, WHAT HYPOCRITES PRO-LIFERS ARE!!? FIVE KKK GUYS PROTEST IN FLORIDA, WHAT ABOUT THAT PRO-LIFERS!!?

Ridiculous.

That fact is that these people are supposedly PRO-LIFE, and yet they think it’s acceptable to kill to further their own religious agenda…or in their own words, to save the unborn.
It's bullshit, pure and simple

Out of the six you cited, TWO resulted in murder. Pro-life activists protest EVERY SINGLE DAY, all across America.

Thanks for proving my point!

ItalianStereotype

Feb 24th, 2006, 06:02 PM

how can women possibly say that men have no say in the abortion issue? half the responsibility for the pregnancy lies with men! besides that, men should have a say in an issue that involves EXTINGUISHING HUMAN LIFE ON A LARGE SCALE. fuck, in 2000 alone over 600,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. this is not a minor issue. those reasons aside, why should the state sanction killing to alleviate the pain of personal irresponsibility?

this is highly simplified, I know. this abortion thing has been done so many times and there's nowhere new to really go with it.

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 24th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Eye Tie, you damn well better grow some breasts before you post in this thread again.

ItalianStereotype

Feb 24th, 2006, 06:15 PM

do they have to be real?

Fathom Zero

Feb 24th, 2006, 06:27 PM

I don't want to have a say in something like this, this is the kind of business that starts wars and divides nations. I want no part in it.

Kulturkampf

Feb 24th, 2006, 09:49 PM

I am pro-life as fuck.

'always outnumbered, but never outgunned.'

sspadowsky

Feb 24th, 2006, 11:14 PM

MLE

Feb 24th, 2006, 11:51 PM

My point is that you have no idea what a horrifying thought it is to kill your own unborn child, and any person that thinks about it lightly has never had to actually give it serious consideration or is fucked up.

Men do not have the child growing inside of them. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I'm saying you I don't believe it's right to make the decision to not give the choice to the woman. You have no clue what happens to us. As a man, you never have and never can experience having a child in you. It is much different than fathering a child.

In my opinion, this is the hardest decision with which to be faced for women.

DeadKennedys

Feb 25th, 2006, 12:27 AM

It is her right to decide whether she wants to have one- not whether anyone else can.

There are no rights.

Agora, Anarchy, Action!

maggiekarp

Feb 25th, 2006, 01:50 AM

There's a girl in my class who might be pregnant, and she's been worrying about it alot lately. Some of the kids discussed stressing her into a miscarriage, but I think they were just joking.

Mostly we were wondering why she wasn't on birth control or didn't take the morning-after pill. Really, abortion wouldn't be such a problem if pregnancy was better prevented and people were better educated, but that's beating a dead horse.

I don't have to worry a lot about whether I'd have an abortion or not (hurhur no penis would want to hurhur), so I just support people in whatever choice they make. They're the ones who have to live with it.

Big Papa Goat

Feb 25th, 2006, 03:36 AM

I'm tired of mud-people and jews thinking they can understand the pain that an aryan such as myself feels when I see a mixed race couple and have to stab them both to death. Unless you're an aryan, you really can't understand what I'm feeling, and even if you are an aryan, that only gives you the right to decide whether or not to murder the untermenschen, not to question my decision to do so. Seriously, you think it's easy for me to gut a white woman for her impure sexual deeds? It's really not, but unless you know the pain my racially pure soul knows, how can you possibly judge me?

to be perfectly honest, I don't really care about abortion that much, but the idea that certain groups of human beings fundamentally cannot understand or judge the actions of other groups of human beings seems to me to have some frightening implications. If different groups of humans cannot morally judge the actions of other groups of humans, then how can the same moral rules apply to all humans? And if there is no morality that can apply to all humans, then doesn't that kind of undermine all the ideas of human equality? Why should we recognize different groups of humans if these different groups cannot recognize the rightness or wrongness of eachothers' behavior? I hope I don't come off as being a dick about this, because I genuinely don't think I have satisfactory answers to these questions myself, and would like to see if there are any serious answers. In any case I guess it could be that I'm making too big a deal of women saying that certain actions of women are beyond the ethical understanding of men. It may be that since it's pretty much just women saying such things about pretty much just abortion that it's not a really significant issue.

Cosmo Electrolux

Feb 25th, 2006, 12:28 PM

Luckily, you only speak for yourself.

Put yourself into their place, Kevin. How would you like to live your life severely deformed, a walking vegetable relying on your mom and dad, or the state to feed you and wipe your ass for span of your entire life? Not for me, man.

SIX occassions over the course of TEN years!!! And furthermore, not all of those cases were these horrible murders you're talking about. In fact, not even half of them appeared to be.

And this one: " 1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month."

OMG, WHAT HYPOCRITES PRO-LIFERS ARE!!? FIVE KKK GUYS PROTEST IN FLORIDA, WHAT ABOUT THAT PRO-LIFERS!!?

Ridiculous.

Six occasion in ten years IN ONE STATE.

Basically what I’m getting from you is that since the ratio of killing to the number of protesters is so low, it’s acceptable? So I guess in your view, the number of people killed at Columbine was acceptable since the ratio of those killed to the total number of students enrolled in Colorado schools was so low. I was under the impression that pro life meant PRO LIFE, not just the life that adheres to the same ridiculous superstition you do.

Thank YOU for proving my point.

Ant10708

Feb 25th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Nah Cosmo you are still losing the debate pretty badly.

So a couple pro lifers go agaisnt their proclaimed beliefs. That doesn't prove anything about the majority of pro lifers. Its just like using the actions of a radical minority to critcize an entire religion.

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 25th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Six occasion in ten years IN ONE STATE.

Basically what I’m getting from you is that since the ratio of killing to the number of protesters is so low, it’s acceptable?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. :rolleyes

Cosmo, you're the one who made this a matter of being consistently PRO-LIFE. You're the one who said these people who kill abortionists are hypocrites.

Then I called you out on the fact that not even HALF of the examples you cited involved homicide, and you twist the argument around.

Of course murder is wrong. Good grief. Are all anti-war protestors hypocrites because one out of every 10,000 might vandalize property or set fire to a military recruiting station? That's just absurd, much like your argument!

So I guess in your view, the number of people killed at Columbine was acceptable since the ratio of those killed to the total number of students enrolled in Colorado schools was so low. I was under the impression that pro life meant PRO LIFE, not just the life that adheres to the same ridiculous superstition you do.

Please, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

So in Cosmo's world, if 0.00000001% of a "movement", organization, or cause believes and/or does something wrong, then the entire group is hypocritical.

That means the civil rights movement (Black Panthers), the anti-slavery movement (John Brown), the womens rights movement (Barbara Streisand), and the environmental protection movement (ELF) are ALL immoral and hypocritical, simply because of those bad apples!!!

Ant10708

Feb 25th, 2006, 12:53 PM

Kevin open your eyes man. Pro lifer's are some of the most violent people in the United States. They only want abortion outlawed so they can kill the babies after they taste the deliciousness of life.

sadie

Feb 25th, 2006, 01:44 PM

barbra streisand is a bad apple in the women's rights barrel? what's that about?

maggiekarp

Feb 25th, 2006, 01:45 PM

I think it's more that sane pro-lifers don't really seem to be trying to stop the wackos :/

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 25th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Sadie, it was a joke.

Maggie, why should they? That's like saying every vegetarian should be held accountable for the one guy who breaks into a animal testing laboratory. That's just silly.

Furthermore, Pro-lifers HAVE come out in opposition to such terrible acts. The friggin' Pope himself condemned targeting doctors and bombing clinics, pointing out the obvious fact that it's counter-productive, and ,uh, pretty un-Christian to say the least.

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 28th, 2006, 10:05 AM

"Rounds refused to sign a similar bill two years ago because he said there were technical issues. However, if the bill is written correctly, Rounds said he intends to sign it. The governor has 15 days from Monday to either sign or veto the bill. He said he will probably not take that long.

"If the bill is correctly written than I will seriously consider signing the bill," he said. "It is a direct frontal assault on Roe v. Wade.""

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1661266&page=1

Nobody can know for sure, but it looks and sounds like Rounds will sign this bill.

I'm troubled by this legislation for a couple of reasons. 1. I think it was a collective effort by one party, in one state, to simply challenge the national legal structure....to hell with the women of South Dakota. They introduced the bill right after the nomination of Alito. This is sort of a product of Roe vs. Wade to begin with, taking the issue away from the people, and putting it in the courts. Ideolouges control the issue.

Another thing that pisses me off is that I CANNOT for the life of me find the full language of the bill online, so if any internet P.I.'s can handle that, that'd be super. I have a feeling it lacks any sort of comprehensive support in the state for daycare, womens health clinics, GRADS programs (or whatever they're called in SD), etc.

However, I did learn that an amendment in SD is called something like "hoghounding", or something like that.

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 28th, 2006, 01:00 PM

Nevermind: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/1215.htm

glowbelly

Feb 28th, 2006, 03:27 PM

having been pregnant, i'm going to have to agree with mle.

sorry, guys. you can have your opinion and you can yell at me until you're blue in the face about the life growing inside my belly and how horrible abortion is, but you will never, ever be pregnant and know what it's like to COMPLETELY LOSE YOURSELF AND YOUR BODY for the rest of your life.

this may come as a surprise to most of you, but i don't think abortions are a good thing. i'm pretty sure that i'm in line with kevin here, save for one thing: i'm pro-choice. i do, however, think that we (society) need to work towards a day where abortion doesn't have to exist. i'm not quite sure how that should happen, but banning abortion outright doesn't seem like the first step here.

my mom had an abortion. my aunt did, too. my sister? yup. all of them were under the age of 20 when they got pregnant. they didn't have reliable income, a place of their own or men in their lives that gave two shits about them, let alone the life-experience that is needed to raise a child. i'm not making excuses for them, but it was their choice to make. the only person who regretted her decision was my aunt and that's because 5 years later she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and had to have all her baby-making parts taken out rendering her barren (raising arizona ;)).

yeah so, i've rambled and not said much. oh here's another personal antedote: i got pregnant when i was 22. i decided to have the baby even though i was clueless and my boyfriend beat the shit out of me. i thought it would bring us closer together, you see. well, i thank god everyday that pregnancy ended in a miscarriage because there's no fucking way in hell that i'd want to be tied to that asshole (the ex) for the rest of my life. that's one of those things that a lot of people don't think about. you have a baby with someone and you are stuck with them forever. they may not be your husband, or your boyfriend, but they are your child's father...and that can be a very unpleasant situation if daddy is a jackass.

ok. the end.

glowbelly

Feb 28th, 2006, 03:52 PM

ok. not the end.

i read the bill and i have this to say about it:

in regards to the section about not giving a pregnant woman any drug or chemical that can terminate a pregnancy (as defined by the bill):

they better take vitamin c, black cohash, and dong quai off the market, because i can tell you right now that the correct dosage of those supplements taken shortly after unprotected sex can make the uterus a hostile environment for a fertilized egg.

also: why isn't there an exception for cases of rape or incest?

and...

adoption. ok. i hear this talked about a lot as an option for unwanted pregnancies, but i don't think it's the answer for a lot of women. it is not so easy to decide that you are going to carry a child for 9 months only to give it up. once that baby is born, no matter what age the mother is, certain innate responses kick in (biological? i don't know) and there is a connection there. after my son was born and i got home from the hospital, my aunt and my husband took over caring for him so i could get some rest. he was out of my sight for just over 2 hours and i started to freak the hell out. i was crying, shaking, and sick to my stomach. i felt like i was dying and i'm not over-exaggerating this sensation. i had no idea what was wrong with me until my aunt brought my son in to see me. that's all i needed. the separation from him was unbearable. 2 hours, ladies and gents. that's all it took for me to have a severe nervous breakdown from being away from my kid. now granted, i wanted this child, but i can't help to think that a lot of what i was going through was biological. what do you do with a mother who gave her kid up and is going through that pain?

MLE

Feb 28th, 2006, 04:33 PM

You know, it's about time someone else started talking from a woman's point of view. My mother had an abortion when she was under 20, and she was in no shape to care for a child. She was not told the gender of the child, but when she let me know she had one later on, she said "I know it was a girl and as far as I'm concerned, her name is Becky", and started crying. After over 25 years later, it still pains her to think about it. It is not an easy decision, and I'd like to send a hearty fuck off on this subject to the people not even giving a shit about the supposed mother.

Dole

Feb 28th, 2006, 04:36 PM

If its not happening in your body, you don't have any say in what happens whatsoever.

mburbank

Feb 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM

It's all a matter of approach.

To appeal to the Republicans, abortion should be re-named Fetal Eviction and argued to in terms of property rights. If life begins at conception, than an individual is squatting illegally in a womans womb. While the child may have rights or not, certainy the actual, physical womb space is property owned by the woman. She can choose to rent it, gift it, or withold it as private property. The fetus has no rights allowing it to live there any more than a homeless child taking up residence in the womans garage.

The woman has every legal right to 'evict' the fetus. What becomes of it after that is no more her concern than it would be a landlords when a Katrina refugee can no longer pay their rent, or takes up residence in an empy building which is not for rent. It's very sad, but it is not the landlord's problem.

If we allow Fetuses to be able to sieze a womans property immediately upon conception, where will it stop? What prevents a homeless man from siezing an apartment, since without it exposure to the elements might cause his death? Why can't I simply move into any emoty house and claim it as my own for at least nine months? No decent Republican wants to set that sort of precedent, no matter how pro-life they may be.

Pharaoh

Feb 28th, 2006, 06:33 PM

The woman may have a right to do what she wants with her body but the abortion is carried out by someone else outside the woman's body and they have no automatic right to do that.

And fetuses can survive outside the woman's womb at an earlier and earlier age due to medical advances, so the baby should be kept alive after it's 'evicted' whether the mother wants it or not. The baby has a right to be kept alive if possible once it's been 'evicted'.

KevinTheOmnivore

Feb 28th, 2006, 11:06 PM

sorry, guys. you can have your opinion and you can yell at me until you're blue in the face about the life growing inside my belly and how horrible abortion is, but you will never, ever be pregnant and know what it's like to COMPLETELY LOSE YOURSELF AND YOUR BODY for the rest of your life.

I think this is absolute crap. Sorry, ladies.

Giving grants to Planned Parenthood is actually providing support to the largest purveyor of abortion in the world. I agree with funding for abtsinence programs of course,but funding the education of kids about artificial contraception is not going to help. Artificial contraception actually leads to more abortions. Many of the types of contraception are themselves abortifacient,e.g. the low dose pill and IUD both allow fertililization but make the uterus hostile to implantation. They also foster a more cavalier and more casual attitude towards sex, which is not part of God's plan for society.

Those are the words of a relative of mine. She has in fact had five babies. So glow, by your math, her 5 to your 1 makes her the rightest.

This is absurd, and it trivializes the issue. I'm sorry, but I think this issue is about more than the nine months of pregnancy. We want men t take responsibility and to be fathers when they get a woman pregnant, yet we cultivate an attitude in society that those same men A. ultimately have no say in the matter, and B. have sevral levels of escape from their mistake. This encourages their shitty behavior, and in my opinion, leaves it as the "mother's problem."

If we allow men to act like alley cats, constantly providn them with an escape hatch, then they will continue to act that way.

this may come as a surprise to most of you, but i don't think abortions are a good thing. i'm pretty sure that i'm in line with kevin here, save for one thing: i'm pro-choice. i do, however, think that we (society) need to work towards a day where abortion doesn't have to exist. i'm not quite sure how that should happen, but banning abortion outright doesn't seem like the first step here.

This isn't surprising at all. Nobody that I know of actualy supports the actual practice of abortion, BUT thinks it is a necessary evil.

I don't think overturning Roe is going to end abortion, but I do think it was a poor ruling. It made it so Americans couldn't have any policy debate over it, and instead made it a wedge issue for petulant interest groups to use in order to raise cash.

I do want to see Roe overturned, and I don't mind seeing states addressing this issue as they see fit. However, I would rather see a more comprehensive plan to stop abortion, which in my mind would include funding social programs, making contraception readily available, and making adoption a smoother, less bureacratic process at the state level. This legislation is totally devoid of anything like that, and is simply a political move to take advantage of a conservative court. It shows no regard for real people, and shows quite clearly how the GOP in South Dakota is using the state for nothing more than ideology.

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 12:12 AM

kevin, i don't want to argue with you. i told you that you have a right to your opinion on this matter and i've told you my opinion AND we've heard your very experienced with babies relative's opinion. it doesn't change the fact that you, as a man, will never know what it's like to have to make a decision on whether or not to have an abortion.

that's all i'm saying.

also, i never said it was only about the pregnancy. you must have missed the part where i said that a child changes you for the rest of your life. that includes a child that you carry to term and decide to give up for adoption. it changes you in ways that you, AS A MAN, will never be able to understand.

you just can't comprehend it. i wish there was some kind of analogy for you, but there isn't.

i'm not trying to trivialize anything here. :(

and i think cosmo's point about men having babies is kinda true. there's no way in hell that abortion would be illegal if men were having kids. i'm sorry buddy, but i don't know a man who could handle being preggo, let alone giving birth.

ok, that was a bit of trivialization ;)

psst: it is a mother's problem. always will be. ya know why? cause we're the ones having babies. (TRIVIALIZATION?)

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 12:17 AM

glowbelly: women don't get knocked up just to have an abortion

MrAdventurePants: you are right there, unless maybe the baby is made out of diamonds and you are scrooge mcduck?

:lol mr adventure makes everything better :lol

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 12:28 AM

it doesn't change the fact that you, as a man, will never know what it's like to have to make a decision on whether or not to have an abortion.

Jesus tap dancing Christ, I give up.....

it changes you in ways that you, AS A MAN, will never be able to understand.

Awesome, and there's many, many, many, many, many, many,many, many, many, many, many, many, many, mnay....MANY women who HAVE gone through that experience, who HAVE felt that change, and who ARE PRO-LIFE AS FUCK!!!

And there was nothing valid about Cosmo's point.

Nevermind, I give up....

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 03:06 AM

I didn't think I'd ever imagine Scrooge McDuck hanging around the Planned Parenthood, rubbing his hands together greedily.

Having the babies were that woman's choice, and what's right for some isn't necessarilly right for others.

Saying that men don't understand having that sort of decision is valid, but to say that only women should be able to make that sort of decision based on the ability to make babies doesn't make alot of sense. What about infertile women, or crazy baby-factory women?

I'm pro-choice because, although I know I wouldn't personally have an abortion unless it was one of those necessary situations, there are people who really really shouldn't be procreating and should be allowed to make that choice.

Pharaoh

Mar 1st, 2006, 07:27 AM

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:04 AM

Having the babies were that woman's choice, and what's right for some isn't necessarilly right for others.

this is exactly what i mean.

i don't know what else to say. it scares me to think what's going to happen if roe is overturned. there goes my right to choose what to do with my body. men can't possibly comprehend that.

and i say again: where's the exception in this bill in cases of rape or incest? not that i would feel any better about it, but come on. you mean to tell me that you think it's ok for women to have to have babies that they DEFINITELY DID NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE?

that's ok with you? because they can just give them up for adoption, right? no biggy, huh? well, all i have to say to that is fuck ya. fuck ya right in the ear. that's damn bullshit. :eek

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 10:08 AM

glowbelly, you seem to be forgetting that men are changed by having children too, and you as a WOMAN will never know what it's like to be a father. And you'll never know what it's like to have your healthy child aborted even though you want to keep it. A child is made by a woman and a man, so whether you like it or not men have a right to say what they think about abortion, it effects them as well as women.

The change in men is more of a mental thing, and with some abortions the man doesn't even know about it.

Besides, the father isn't the one renting out the space. If he really wants to keep the child, then he can try to convince the mother to keep it. Simple as that.

What's worse than bringing a child into a loveless life?

mburbank

Mar 1st, 2006, 10:09 AM

In the ear and up the butt with a splintery tent peg.

Anyone mention the fact (haven't read the whole thread yet) that rich girls will continue to be able to have safe abortions and face no penalities?

Someone ought to tell Focus on the Family that they are unintentionally going to fill this country full of horrid little mud babies.

Miss Modular

Mar 1st, 2006, 10:52 AM

One of my best friends had an abortion a few years back. The "baby daddy" was a total jackass, and my friend was in no shape to be bringing a child into the world. I can't imagine having to bear to share custody for the rest of her life with a guy like him. Now, you could point out that couples divorce all the time and the split itself is amicable, and that's valid. She's still in the process of getting her shit together, but that guy is out of her life now, and things are going well.

Guys, do you think you could handle the physical aspects of being pregnant? I mean the hot flashes, weight gain, morning sickness, mood swings--and I'm mentioning only a few things here. Glowbelly I'm sure could point out more.

Royal Tenenbaum

Mar 1st, 2006, 11:06 AM

Of course we could handle it, but don't have to so it works out great for us.

But I still strongly support abortion so women who don't want to go through that don't have to.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 11:28 AM

In the ear and up the butt with a splintery tent peg.

If this is what I have to go through in order to speak in this thread, then sign me up!

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 01:02 PM

Guys, do you think you could handle the physical aspects of being pregnant? I mean the hot flashes, weight gain, morning sickness, mood swings--and I'm mentioning only a few things here. Glowbelly I'm sure could point out more.

I think there is a fundamental problem here, and I blame a great deal of it on what I feel are the excesses of the feminist movement.

Mod, if this whole issue is merely about the 9 months of pregnancy, than no, men can't handle the physically aspects of actually being pregnant.

But that to me is a part of the problem. The way this debate has been framed has turned sex, pregnancy, and birth into bodily functions, rather than the very serious and life altering decisions that they are. You all seem to repeat the example of the asshole dad, who shouldn't be a father, who can't be responsible, and who the potential mom could never envision sharing a child (these things used to be called "families" I hear) with.

Well here's a question-- why was she with that guy to begin with? If he was good enough to have sex with (with the obvious exception being rape or incest), why is he all of a sudden a bad father? Sex is a reproductive act. It isn't a constitutionally guaranteed pleasure. It is an action with MASSIVE consequences, which should probably be considered before it's done.

I think abortion is too often viewed as a final method of contraception. I have no doubt that it's something no woman could go through easily, although the cases of multiple abortions are increasing in NYC, which I believe has the highest rate of abortion in the country.

You ladies seem to be arguing that because men can be lazy, unaccountable, abusive, and potentially bad fathers, well then there needs to be easy access to abortion to prevent that mistake. I think that abortion only protects and encourages that sort of behavior, and if that asshole man (who probably doesn't want to be a father anymore than you want him to be) knows that abortion will always be an option, then he will continue to be unaccountable for his behavior.

I'm all in favor of "choice", but how about holding people to the choices they make before the abortion??? Whose choice was it to have sex?? Or, whose choice was it to have unprotected sex??? We all seem to agree that abortion is a difficult and tough decision to make, yet we say absolutely nothing about the circumstances that brought it to that point. This of course requires sex education, and access to contraception. And although teen pregnancy for example is lower, it is still quite prevalent in rural and urban America. I think Americans are making smarter decisions, which is encouraging. So how low does the abortion rate (as well as the rate of unwanted pregnancies) need to be before we start calling a necessary evil simply evil???? How much longer do we need to excuse ignorance and poor decision making??

Pharaoh

Mar 1st, 2006, 03:38 PM

What's worse than bringing a child into a loveless life?

The majority of babies that are aborted wouldn't have a loveless life though. Only a few women wouldn't love their baby once it was born.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children, and if they had an extra child they wouldn't not love it because it was unplanned.

Women now use abortion as a form of contraception. Most of them for money/career reasons, or just that they want to postpone having a baby, it's not that they don't ever want a baby though. The easier and more acceptable abortion is, the more it will be used and if things continue as they are women will be having abortions because the expected birth date doesn't fit in well with their holiday plans.

Only 6% of abortions are for health reasons and those are the only cases that are really justifiable.

Link here (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 03:48 PM

Overall, those numbers are interesting, although I think that 6% figure is sort of suspect. What does it define as a "health" issue....?

Pharaoh

Mar 1st, 2006, 03:55 PM

3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

The rest of the reasons are:

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.

mburbank

Mar 1st, 2006, 04:08 PM

"The majority of babies that are aborted wouldn't have a loveless life though. Only a few women wouldn't love their baby once it was born. "

Uhm... How could you know that? And what are the stats on babies that DO get born and have loveless lives? And how woud you collect those stats?

"60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children"

Okay. Your ability to draw conclusions about the emotional, physical, economic state of these women or the circumstances of their pregnancy derives from what?

"Women now use abortion as a form of contraception."

How could you know that? Would you undergo a surgical procedure if you could easily avoid it? What's your source? The link you provided doesn't feature a percentage of women who used abortion as contraception, which would be zero in any case, since contraception is a method of preventing conception, not terminating pregnancy. You know girls are different from boys 'down there', right? And it's not just the whole 'pole vs. hole' thing either! It's even more complicated!

"Most of them for money/career reasons, or just that they want to postpone having a baby, it's not that they don't ever want a baby though."

How could you know that? Where were the stats for Rape and Incest?

"The easier and more acceptable abortion is, the more it will be used and if things continue as they are women will be having abortions because the expected birth date doesn't fit in well with their holiday plans. "

Enemas are easy and accesible, but I prefer to use a toilet. I could easily pay someone to pull my hair out, but I prefer to have it cut. I'm sure I could have my face sanded down, but I shave. Do you know any women? Do you tell them what you think? Or are you a closet idiot?

"Only 6% of abortions are for health reasons and those are the only cases that are really justifiable."

Thanks, God.

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 04:57 PM

Well here's a question-- why was she with that guy to begin with? If he was good enough to have sex with (with the obvious exception being rape or incest), why is he all of a sudden a bad father? Sex is a reproductive act. It isn't a constitutionally guaranteed pleasure. It is an action with MASSIVE consequences, which should probably be considered before it's done.

oh for fuck's sake, get off your friggin high horse for a second. you can't tell me that you've never had sex strictly for pleasure, which, by the way, is one of it's purposes. sex also isn't a constitutionally guaranteed reproductive act. what are you saying? that you want all sex to only happen when two people are ready to have children together? are you insane?

I think abortion is too often viewed as a final method of contraception. I have no doubt that it's something no woman could go through easily, although the cases of multiple abortions are increasing in NYC, which I believe has the highest rate of abortion in the country.

this is the most insulting thing i have ever read. you actually think that women go out, have unprotected sex, get pregnant and don't worry about it because they can just get an abortion? you're the one trivializing this, now. ever think that these women don't have access to contraception? do you have any clue how expensive the pill can be if you don't have health insurance? do you know how hard it is to tell your parents that you need to be on contraceptives because you are sexually active? did you ever think that OH MY FUCKING GOD that not all contraceptives are 100%!!??

You ladies seem to be arguing that because men can be lazy, unaccountable, abusive, and potentially bad fathers, well then there needs to be easy access to abortion to prevent that mistake. I think that abortion only protects and encourages that sort of behavior, and if that asshole man (who probably doesn't want to be a father anymore than you want him to be) knows that abortion will always be an option, then he will continue to be unaccountable for his behavior.

my husband told me recently that there is not a man alive who really wants children.

ugh. kevin, you seem to think that getting rid of abortion is going to make certain men better. no. instead they are just going to be lazy, unaccountable, abusive, bad fathers.

here's the problem, kevin. the choice to get an abortion is a very personal decision that is based on many different circumstances that you could never possibly understand. you know why. i'm not going to say it again. there are so many different circumstances that only the person that has to make that decision can know...here's a few off the top of my head:

did you know that not all women can take contraceptives?
did you know that condoms sometimes break?
did you know that sex is a natural act that feels good and is also a way of emotionally connecting with a human being on a spiritual level and to deny that to a person because they don't want to have a baby is what i consider to be EVIL?
did you know that responsible people with careers and lives sometimes make mistakes?
do you have any idea how expensive it is to raise a child?
do you know how much a can of formula costs? do you know how long that can lasts at the height of your child's formula intake? did you know that not every woman can breastfeed?
do you know how much it costs to go to the doctor while you are pregnant and how much it costs to give birth? (i'll give you a hint, my very first midwive's appointment cost me $1000 and no, i didn't have health insurance...and guess what? a lot of people don't; the total bill on my emergency caesarean was close to $20,000, which included a mandatory 3 day hospital stay.)

i understand your points about education and social programs, but the problem is they are being underfunded right now. wic funding, for instance, is being cut. i think there are a record number of people out there without health insurance, so not only can they not afford to have babies, they can't afford to buy birth control. your answer is to tell them not to have sex. that's pretty simple-minded, if you ask me.

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:04 PM

oh and i just wanted to add that i was on wic, that i still qualify for wic and i choose not to go there because it's friggin degrading. while i was pregnant, these non-doctors, were weighing me every month, tracking how many pounds i had gained and telling me that i was gaining weight too quickly and needed to be more on *this* curve instead of the one i was on.

do you know how that makes a pregnant woman feel?

after cub was born, they wanted me to come in to the office, with the baby (at a week old...mind you, i couldn't drive or barely walk because i had just undergone major surgery) so they could weigh him and see what kind of a nutritional risk he was at. ugh. it was horrible.

and it was the dirtiest place i've ever set foot in.

i'm lucky because i have family that helped a lot. there's no way i could have afforded to feed this child without them. a lot of people don't have that and they are forced to go into these places and be degraded by non-professionals so they can get food for their kids.

it's disgusting.

mburbank

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:05 PM

Shut up, Karen, SHUT UP! I AM PUTTING MY FINGERS IN MINE EARS AND SINGING!! LA LA LA LA LA!!

Having a baby is just like having a doll, it's just like HAVING A DOLL, IT'S JUST LIKE HAVING A DOLL!!

SEX IS ONLY FOR HAVING DOLLIES, IT'S BADBADBADBADBAD, ONLY BAD GIRLS HAVE SEX, DIRTY DIRTY PLEASURE SEX BAD I SENTENCE YOU TO MAKE A DOLLY!

Bad bad bad welfare whores 'oh, I can do sex whenever if I get pregnant i'll just have a easy-peasy abortion or else I'll have another baby JUST FOR THE WELFARE MONEY!

BAD WOMEN BAD!! if you have the SEX you make the DOLLY, get down BAD LADY I WANT SEX but the women who has MY dolly will NEVER have bad sex with me. I MAKE THE LAWS, I MAKE THE LAWS! YOU ARE MY DOLLY OVERN BAD GIRL!

glowbelly

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:30 PM

:lol

Pharaoh

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:36 PM

Butwank, those are my conclusions drawn from the abortion statistics. No doubt you will draw your own conclusions, but you obviously haven't got a clue about abortion statistics if you think rape and incest could have any effect on my conclusions. Because less than 1% of abortions are for that reason. Proof that you're an idiot who doesn't know at all what he's talking about.
Link here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

I'm married with two kids and I know lots of women here who think abortion should be controlled more.

And here's the proof Butface, from official liberal leftie newspaper, The Observer:

Women demand tougher laws to curb abortions
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer

A majority of women in Britain want the abortion laws to be tightened to make it harder, or impossible, for them to terminate a pregnancy.

Evidence of a widespread public demand for the government to further restrict women's right to have an abortion is revealed in a remarkable Observer opinion poll. The findings have reignited the highly-charged debate on abortion, and increased the pressure on Tony Blair to review the current time limits.

The survey by MORI shows that 47 per cent of women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks, and another 10 per cent want the practice outlawed altogether. Among the population overall, reducing the upper limit was the preferred option backed by the largest proportion of respondents, 42 per cent, made up of a 36-47 per cent split among men and women.

Increased awareness of the realities of abortion, and the impact of ultrasound images of a 23-week-old foetus smiling and grimacing, have made people change their views, said Ivereigh. The latter 'very dramatically showed that what had been depersonalised in many people's minds as a foetus was clearly seen to be a baby, a human being in formation, and that has come as a shock to many people', he added.
Link here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1697424,00.html)

OK?

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:39 PM

you can't tell me that you've never had sex strictly for pleasure, which, by the way, is one of it's purposes.

Really? The biological purpose of sex is for human beings to have a good time?

sex also isn't a constitutionally guaranteed reproductive act. what are you saying? that you want all sex to only happen when two people are ready to have children together? are you insane?

That's not what I said, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying (as i'm sure I don't need to point out to you) that sex is important. It's risky (never 100% safe), it's potentially life threatening (if not practiced safely), and can change a persons life forever....whether they have the baby or ont (another thing I'm certain you know).

People can have sex all they want, but if they do it, especially if they do it stupidly, what entitles them to an abortion? I hate to admit it, but a point Pharaoh made earlier is accurate-- a woman is entitled to control her body, but the state is entitled to dictate what they feel is the threshold that the public is willing to bear. For example, states have varying laws for what passes as acceptable and unacceptable cosmetic surgery, which is certainly less significant than abortion, right?

this is the most insulting thing i have ever read. you actually think that women go out, have unprotected sex, get pregnant and don't worry about it because they can just get an abortion? you're the one trivializing this, now.

Are you serious? Really? Wow, I'm sort of honored. Like, if I sent you a link to Nazi hate speech, my comment would still top it? Neato.

Anyway, as I said, I think abortion is a tough choice for any woman (although to assume that it is for every single woman would be sort of silly, and not really supported by data). If a woman is on her second, even her third abortion, when does it stop being a really tough choice, and simply just contraception?

Where is YOUR line on acceptable abortions, glow? You claim, like everybody does, that you'd like to see a world without abortion. Yet you also think it's ok if a woman has had multiple abortions. How do you reconcile that?

ever think that these women don't have access to contraception? do you have any clue how expensive the pill can be if you don't have health insurance? do you know how hard it is to tell your parents that you need to be on contraceptives because you are sexually active? did you ever think that OH MY FUCKING GOD that not all contraceptives are 100%!!??

Which is why men and women should think hard about having sex, and OMFG, in this day and age, how hard is it to get a condom? i mean REALLY? If you live somewhere where you can't get a condom, them maybe you shouldn't have sex!

I'm not a supporter of the pill for personal reasons, but I agree with you that it should be easier to access if you don't have health insurance.

my husband told me recently that there is not a man alive who really wants children.

Well your husband doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Sorry, but I personally plan to have a family one day, and I know I'm certainly not alone in that. There's a lot of bad men/fathers out there, but they are not the standard.

ugh. kevin, you seem to think that getting rid of abortion is going to make certain men better. no. instead they are just going to be lazy, unaccountable, abusive, bad fathers.

So then answer my previous question-- do these men pull of their masks after sex, revealing the evil super villains that they are? Why do men who are lazy, unnaccountable, and abusive seem to be having all these babies???

I think stupid men will take sex a lot more seriously if they have fewer escape routes from the consequences.

the choice to get an abortion is a very personal decision that is based on many different circumstances that you could never possibly understand. you know why. i'm not going to say it again.

Good, cuz I'm really tired of hearing them. i'm just not sure what it'll take to get by this argument, glow. You've had actual data presented to you, when I have time I'll dig up more. You keep reverting to this anecdotal stuff about me being a man. Then I tell you about pro-life women who have large families, or who have even HAD abortions and now regret it.....maybe what you should say is you really can only understand abortion if you're a woman who happens to be a pro-choice liberal, because that's what it sounds like.

did you know that not all women can take contraceptives?

Then don't have casual sex.

did you know that condoms sometimes break?

True, I think it even says something like that on the wrapper (or something like it's 99.99% safe). Maybe people, I dunno, should not have frequent, casual sex???

did you know that sex is a natural act that feels good and is also a way of emotionally connecting with a human being on a spiritual level and to deny that to a person because they don't want to have a baby is what i consider to be EVIL?

I'm glad the Church of glowbelly considers sex deprivation evil, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. I agree with you on the spirituality of sexual intercourse, but i'd rather keep all of that stuff out of this discussion (unless you want me to start saying what God supposedly wants, etc.).

Meth feels pretty good, too. At least that's what I hear....

did you know that responsible people with careers and lives sometimes make mistakes?

Which is all the more reason to take sex more seriously, and also make contraception readily available to people.

do you have any idea how expensive it is to raise a child?

Not yet, although I have a good idea. I personally wouldn't be able to do it right now, which is why I'm not going to get married yet, and more importantly, I'm not goingto get a girl pregnant!

do you know how much a can of formula costs?

drugstore.com has Nestle Good Start formula at $25.99 for like a 25 oz. can. Is that the market average, I didn't really get to shop around....?

do you know how long that can lasts at the height of your child's formula intake? did you know that not every woman can breastfeed?

Well, yes. Why? My mom couldn't, btw.

do you know how much it costs to go to the doctor while you are pregnant and how much it costs to give birth? (i'll give you a hint, my very first midwive's appointment cost me $1000 and no, i didn't have health insurance...and guess what? a lot of people don't; the total bill on my emergency caesarean was close to $20,000, which included a mandatory 3 day hospital stay.)

I think healthcare, particularly related to maternity and childcare, needs to be totally revamped in this country. One of the problems i have with the pro0lifers in this country is that they show very little regard for matters like these, which IMO lacks consistency.

i think there are a record number of people out there without health insurance, so not only can they not afford to have babies, they can't afford to buy birth control. your answer is to tell them not to have sex. that's pretty simple-minded, if you ask me.

Right, because the first thing people who have no insurance, no access to good contraception, and no knowledge on the subject should be doing is FUCKING!!! Isn't that like the very DEFINITION of simple-minded?????

Healthcare is a totally different thread, ESPECIALLY when it comes to childcare. We could also touch upon education, like how not every state even has universal Pre-k yet, and still uses these inefficient tax credit things......but that's another subject.

mburbank

Mar 1st, 2006, 05:52 PM

"Butwank, those are my conclusions drawn from the abortion statistics."
-Fagraoh

I got that they were your conclusions, I'm just pointing out I think they are really stupid conclusions.

"A majority of women in Britain want the abortion laws to be tightened to make it harder, or impossible, for them to terminate a pregnancy. "

There's kind of a world between 'harder' and impossible. 'Harder' could mean a three day waiting period. Impossible? Well, impossible only has one meaning. I'm not familiar wiith "The Observer", but if that's the kind of writing that passes for liberal, I think I get the whole Tony Blair as Labor a little better. A 'liberal' newspaper ought to know btter than to headline a story on the majority of respondents (below 50% in this case) to a given study with the words 'A majority of women in Britain'. Your lefties need a better official lefty read.

I'm very, very pleased for you that you are married and have reproduced twice! Me too! See how much we have in common? When your wife says she favors 'tightening' does she mean 'impossible'? How does she think women who have abortions after this 'tightening' should be punished? I think we should sew them shut so they can never use their dolly ovens again.

I've never met anyone who thinks abortion is a form of contraception. I've never even met anyone who thinks they are nice. I've never heard of anyone who said "I think I'll have an abortion for fun."

Did you see where I called you 'Fagroah'? Hah hah! It has the word 'Fag' in it! I don't mean a cigarette, either! I mean a gay person!

Pharaoh

Mar 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM

Ah yes, the ultimate insult, to be gay. Well done Butcrank.

And once again you've proved yourself to be really dumb.

" A 'liberal' newspaper ought to know btter than to headline a story on the majority of respondents (below 50% in this case) to a given study with the words 'A majority of women in Britain'. Your lefties need a better official lefty read.

'The survey by MORI shows that 47 per cent of women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks, and another 10 per cent want the practice outlawed altogether.'

47% plus 10% equals 57%. That's a majority of women in Britain who want the abortion laws to be tightened.

OK? :troutslap

Kulturkampf

Mar 1st, 2006, 06:33 PM

I am pro-life as fuck.

'always outnumbered, but never outgunned.'

:lol

Say, that's cute. I'll bet your colors don't run, and if I burn your flag, you'll burn my ass, too. I'll bet a large percentage of what you post here can probably be found on bumper stickers. Your rifle fires more often than your synapses.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!
It's a child, not a choice!
Git-R-Done!

I do not know where the motto comes from but it was on Brutal Attack's "20 Years: always outnumbered, never outgunned."

It is a good band.

Kahljorn, the former skinhead, should be able to tell you about Brutal Attack.

kahljorn

Mar 1st, 2006, 06:44 PM

Please don't talk about me, I don't like you very much, and I don't really care about your taste in music that was probably derived by the concept that it "makes you cool" and your friends will like you for it too!!!.
I guess sspad was right, what you say can be found on bumper stickers and, in this case, album covers. Not that I expected to be surprised.

sspadowsky

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:06 PM

The survey by MORI shows that 47 per cent of women POLLED believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks, and another 10 per cent OF THOSE POLLED want the practice outlawed altogether.'

47% plus 10% equals 57%. That's a majority of women POLLED in Britain who want the abortion laws to be tightened.

Fixed.

And Kulty, I give less than a shit where it came from. Knowing where it came from doesn't make it any less stupid. It's the kind of incantation relied upon by mental midgets who think that every important topic can be summed up with a bumper sticker.

ziggytrix

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:10 PM

You guys all need to shut the fuck up. >:

Either abortion is homicide or it is not.

There is NO conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Neither camp is going to convince the other until there is irrefutable evidence, or until the point is renderned irrelevant by some magical not-yet-invented technology that makes abortion obsolete.

How many times are we going to have this stupid argument where not one damn person ever says something different than the last time? It is so fucking tired.

Immortal Goat

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:17 PM

Wow, there's some intense debate going on in here. Now I just HAVE to put in my 2 cents!

On the whole "You're a guy, you'll never understand" thing, I only agree to a point. Kevin has a point in that if they guy would make a shitty dad, don't fuck him. Better yet, leave the son of a bitch. Maybe this is another one of those "You're a man, you'll never understand" things, but I just can't believe that it is THAT FUCKING HARD for a woman to leave an abusive man. He hits you, you leave the fucker when he's sleeping. You never look back. If you already haven't made the mistake of having kids with that guy, then you have no major reason to stay with him.

Still, it's none of MY business what you do with YOUR vagina. I may dislike the decision (p.s. I'm only pro-choice before the second trimester. 3 months is plenty of time to decide if you want a think living inside you), but that doesn't mean that your position is less valid. But honestly, if you want to guarentee that you don't get pregnant, don't fuck. I know that can be hard to do, but there are plenty of vibrators on the market that can do things no man ever could, so just rely on that until you are emotionally/physically/financially able to handle a baby. I don't think that's too unfair to ask. Having sex when you're unable to handle the consequences is more than just unfair to you, it's unfair to the life that you may unwillingly bring into this world.

Ant10708

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:19 PM

Kevin are you serious? Sex has consquences? No one should ever have to face consequences for their actions! That is horrible!

Kevin as a man you will never know what it feels like to make a poor decision and have some guy fuck you without a condom only to realize you are too young to have a baby, nto ready to have a baby, not have the income to have a baby yadaa yadda yadda. But if that woman has the baby us men will be paying her monthly checks until that should of been an abortion turns 18, weather or not our income agrees or not.

* I also know it happens with condoms on. My friend cherie got pregnant at 15 while using a condom. Good thing NY allows girls to commit abortions without their parents ntotifications because they are obviously mature enough to make these types of decisions alone but you have to be 19 to buy a mother fucking lighter in Suffolk county.

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:43 PM

Really? The biological purpose of sex is for human beings to have a good time?

THE CLITORIS IS A MYTH

And the "Don't fuck a dude if he won't make a good dad" thing, alot of people can seem like decent human beings and change, even without sex. While that's my personal motto, you're acting like guys have never had sex with a woman who wouldn't make a good mother.

Are you people saying you want people uneducated in sex, like a 15-year-old-girl unfamilar with the consequences, to take care of a baby?

[edit] People should be weened off of abortion, but to cut it off completely will only lead to worse problems

kahljorn

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:45 PM

I agree with immortal goat and ziggy, and refrained from posting in this thread because I thought it would be too redundant ;(

However, seriously. You can't reasonably respect either of the following: girl acts like jackass, aborts the mule with no moral consequences (reward system) ; person carries around object in belly they don't want and goes through an immense amount of pain for it. Either way I feel bad :(

Maybe every abortion should come with 50 lashes for free, or put them on some kind of probation, maybe even have mandatory community service for "Planned parenthood" or another equivalent pregnancy preventing organization.
Also, if a woman has had multiple abortions and has been found to be incapable of controlling her vagina, maybe it should be considered some kind of mental disease and she should have it kept off-limits, by force. She's sexually incompetent, they could say, she has no rights to be making decisions regarding it because they could be decisions against her own welfare.
Then even the business women with important careers(because I think most people target this at underage teens) who don't have out-of-control vaginas could get abortions.

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:46 PM

Not every girl that gets an abortion is jumping back in line :/

Ant10708

Mar 1st, 2006, 08:57 PM

No i don't want her to take care of the baby but I want the state to require here to educate herself on the subject so she doesn't end of in the same position she was in.

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:03 PM

(double post :( )

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:03 PM

You can't cut off abortion first then do all the stuff that would prevent it later. What happens in the meantime? That's right, kids asking their boyfriend to bash their belly with a baseball bat.

Abortion isn't a subject that can be closed for repairs, but things still have to be fixed. Birth control, health care, making a damn abortion bill that has all the exceptions and people can agree with it (partial birth abortion = >:), etc.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:33 PM

Are you people saying you want people uneducated in sex, like a 15-year-old-girl unfamilar with the consequences, to take care of a baby?

If a 15 year old girl is having sex, then there are a LOT of problems there to discuss. Let's start with her parents, and then work our way down to what she should or shouldn't do......

People should be weened off of abortion, but to cut it off completely will only lead to worse problems

But what does this even mean? Pro-choice groups like NARAL are oposed to EVERY kind of anti-abortion legislation that gets proposed.

Maggie, how do you feel abot banning partial birth abortion? What about parental consent letters? How about the Lacy Peterson legislation, which charges people for double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman...?

Do you support those things, and if not, what would "weening" then consist of???

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:47 PM

You can't cut off abortion first then do all the stuff that would prevent it later. What happens in the meantime? That's right, kids asking their boyfriend to bash their belly with a baseball bat.

When I was younger, I actually knew a girl who did this (he just used his fist though). I cringed at the thought, and had no idea that such a practice was commn in a society with abortion.

The thing is, although I thought she was a great girl and really cool, she was, well.....a slut. She cheated on her boyfriend allthe time, and bragged openly about having unprotected sex.

I mean, she was 16, a stupid kid. It was her mom's fault really. But if a girl like her gets pregnant because of bad parenting, poor education, and just an overall shitty outlook towards sex, why is it then society's responsibility to provide her with an easy out? Is "she might have her boyfriend punch her in the stomach" a good enough excuse to provide someone like her with an abortion? Does a state have to accept that???

Maggie, how do you feel abot banning partial birth abortion? What about parental consent letters? How about the Lacy Peterson legislation, which charges people for double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman...?

Do you support those things, and if not, what would "weening" then consist of???

maggiekarp

Mar 1st, 2006, 09:59 PM

I mean that if more effort is put into preventing abortion, like actually educating people instead of saying "DON'T DO IT", there will be much less abortions. Abortion shouldn't be outlawed, but it can certainly be decreased. People will still need abortions even if they're illegal, and I'd rather them do it in a safer environment.

I think that partial-birth should be banned (except for mother health yadda yadda) because it's so pointless. Why carry it just to kill it when it's an actual baby?
Parental consent letters shouldn't be required; that's a private thing, and a girl can decide if she tells her parents or not. It depends on the relationship, and there's probably a good reason a girl wouldn't want her parents to know, like if they're psychos.
The Lacy Peterson thing should depend on how pregnant the woman is, I guess. Kind of like how abortions shouldn't be allowed past a certain point in the pregnancy (third trimester, right?)

Preechr

Mar 1st, 2006, 11:53 PM

I'm sorry, but some of you guys really need to look at what Roe v Wade really says. There's plenty of allowances for individual states to set up education and notification requirements however they choose. It's still very bad law, and on that grounds I wish it would be overturned. I do wish for more states to utilize their rights within Roe to implement some education requirements... If you feel the need to take a life, I think I'm Ok with an assuption you might need a refresher course on it's value.

Personally, I think a society that clings to abortion "rights" as much as does ours is pretty sick. I once knew a mentally retarded girl that had an abortion ala wooden spoon per her parents on the kitchen table back when abortion was banned here in Georgia, but I'm pretty sure it's obvious there was some much more fucked up stuff going on in that particular household at that particular time. I'm not quite ready to admit that the ban on abortion was the true evil there.

I also do not believe there should be a fedral ban on abortion, however. The nation is pretty much split on the subject, as is pretty much every state. What in the world is accomplished with one rule, either way, when it's governing such a sensitive and divisive part of life? Oh yeah... I guess it keeps us fighting and distracted... Governments have a long history of this kind of thing, don't they?

If any of you are so sure that were Roe overturned tomorrow you'd suddenly find yourself amongst a group of animals with no regard for lives of mothers, I'm thinking the problem doesn't really lie in law. The problem is your neighbors... and quite possibly your view of most other people. Even something as drastic as overturning Roe would not necessarily mean abortion would be made illegal under any circumstances everywhere. If each of us is so sure that this one particular thing is so pivotal to life itself, either way, shouldn't we be ready to offer the practice up to the Gods of competition, via the Republic of States in which we live, in order to finally prove the "other side" definitively wrong?

Everything else being just the same as it is now, were Roe to be overturned tonight at midnight, wouldn't it be fun to advance ahead about 10 years and see the correlation between which states outlawed abortion and which states became better or worse places to live, in a general sense?

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:57 AM

I'm sorry, but some of you guys really need to look at what Roe v Wade really says.

:rolleyes

Thanks, dad!

There's plenty of allowances for individual states to set up education and notification requirements however they choose. It's still very bad law, and on that grounds I wish it would be overturned. I do wish for more states to utilize their rights within Roe to implement some education requirements... If you feel the need to take a life, I think I'm Ok with an assuption you might need a refresher course on it's value.

States have done this, which is why some states (predominantly southern) have the things you've mentioned.

I also do not believe there should be a fedral ban on abortion, however. The nation is pretty much split on the subject, as is pretty much every state. What in the world is accomplished with one rule, either way, when it's governing such a sensitive and divisive part of life? Oh yeah... I guess it keeps us fighting and distracted... Governments have a long history of this kind of thing, don't they?

This is my point exactly, and you're right. There is a large, sensible, and moderate position on abortion in this country. It's actually, IMO, quite encouraging. Roe pretty much limits how much say those sensible people can have on the issue, and only enhances the role these fake interest groups take in it all. Thanks, Judge Blackmun!!

If each of us is so sure that this one particular thing is so pivotal to life itself, either way, shouldn't we be ready to offer the practice up to the Gods of competition, via the Republic of States in which we live, in order to finally prove the "other side" definitively wrong?

Always have to get the Libertarian angle in, don't ya??? :)

I think most folks here understand that abortion wouldn't end, but it would become increasingly hard in "some" states for their women to access abortion. The free market is all well and good, but that doesn't help women who may A. lack transportation, B. lacks any kind of health coverage, or C. HAS a shithead husband who keeps her under lock and key. So, IF abortion were somehow this inalienable right that people are entitled to, I could see the argument made by the other side (about access, class, etc.).

I'm questioning the degree to which a state really needs to entitle anybody to an abortion, especially if it isn't conducive with the dominant values of that state.

Everything else being just the same as it is now, were Roe to be overturned tonight at midnight, wouldn't it be fun to advance ahead about 10 years and see the correlation between which states outlawed abortion and which states became better or worse places to live, in a general sense?

I think that would be a pretty rough correlation.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 07:18 PM

Wow... I really thought I'd get fired on for that. Just one response?

Not that I don't love it when you assume I'm only talking to you, Kevvy-Wevvy. I actually went back and put "SOME OF" in that first line just so you wouldn't think I was referring to you, but that didn't work. Next time, I will try to be more explicit when painting with my wide brush.

I live in a southern state. We can't even teach kids basic math here, dude. You really think we are teaching responsible parenting? I honestly don't know where you are getting the idea that we have taken advantage of the ruling in that regard. I would be willing to bet that Planned Parenthood is MORE active in the legislatures of the states that had banned abortion before Roe, wouldn't you?

My point is, none of the states have really stepped up to the plate on the issue because it's so politically radioactive. Think about it: If you were a legislator in your state, do you think you could make any substantial headway on the handling of abortions within four years? That's all you'd have. I promise. There's just no way you'd get anything done because any measure you might propose would cause riots, whether you wanted to tighten or loosen restrictions on it. Your fellow legislators would have nothing to do with you at that point.

Oh, wait. Before you could realistically place yourself in that position, you'd have to actually move back to a real state. I forgot they allow you guys to self-govern... (haha)

And, YEAH... Of course I'm throwing the libertarian spin on anything I'd bother to discuss. I'm a libertarian! Have we met?

So it becomes hard in some states, maybe even impossible. Do you think for one minute that were Roe overturned Planned Parenthood would just give up and fade away? If Mississippi banned abortion, and Britney Spears' cousin, still living in a trailer park though everything else is just about the same as Britney herself, got knocked up and wanted an abortion, I promise you one e-mail to one of many heavily advertised groups would have a limo docking at her porch within minutes, ready to whisk her away to the next state, where abortions are still legal and grape popsicles grow from trees.

I think that takes care of worries A and B, and as for C, wouldn't that situation exist now as well as then?

I didn't get that next part about it being a right...

BUT, your next statement, about "questioning the degree to which a state really needs to entitle anybody to an abortion," is directly in line with my libertarian solution. I told you I'd convert you, buddy. Welcome to the dark side!

"I think that would be a pretty rough correlation."

I did say "Everything else being just the same," which is unrealistic and makes the question hypothetical, but I do think the differences would be trackable in a hypothetical world almost like ours. Whether or not to condone abortion is a purely moral decision, and the legislation of morality has a profound effect on the general morality of those being governed by it. I made the question hypothetical for a specific point, but I know that were Roe to go away, the lawsuits that would immediately choke the legal system of any state that tried to restrict abortion at all, as well as the political rioting that would ensue in every governing body in the country, would lock our nation down completely.

That is why we've allowed Roe to live so long after it was proven to be such bad law. The consequences of fixing it now would be deadly. The best we can hope for at this point is to learn from that mistake and try our best not to let SCOTUS put us in this kind of situation over any other issue.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 08:40 PM

I keep seeing people mis-state things in all these philosophy threads. you take the opposing view's sentence, rephrase it to be comepletely ludicrous and radical, and then oppose that instead of listening to the actual point being raised.

i also think that more of the females on this board need to pay attention to this thread. don't just shut up because the guys are talking. that's how we got into this kind of legislative mess.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:09 PM

I actually went back and put "SOME OF" in that first line just so you wouldn't think I was referring to you, but that didn't work. Next time, I will try to be more explicit when painting with my wide brush.

Whatever dude, you have a crush on me. It's ok....don't hide it any longer!

Oh, wait. Before you could realistically place yourself in that position, you'd have to actually move back to a real state. I forgot they allow you guys to self-govern... (haha)

Fuck you, prick. This speck will be a state by the time I'm through with it....btw, the mayor wants all subsuquentmayors to be called "governor."

I didn't get that next part about it being a right...

BUT, your next statement, about "questioning the degree to which a state really needs to entitle anybody to an abortion," is directly in line with my libertarian solution. I told you I'd convert you, buddy. Welcome to the dark side!

I think the debate revolves around what rights women have to perform this procedure on their bodies. If it were an entitlement, or an absolute freedom, than it would be criminal to restrict it in various states, right? My argument (probably not too unlike your own) is that this entitlemen doesn't exist.

but I know that were Roe to go away, the lawsuits that would immediately choke the legal system of any state that tried to restrict abortion at all, as well as the political rioting that would ensue in every governing body in the country, would lock our nation down completely.

That is why we've allowed Roe to live so long after it was proven to be such bad law. The consequences of fixing it now would be deadly. The best we can hope for at this point is to learn from that mistake and try our best not to let SCOTUS put us in this kind of situation over any other issue.

I think groups like PP would have to pick their battles. They would have to pick the legislatures where they could secure friendly legislation in the aftermath of a Roe reversal, and they obviously wouldn't start with the south.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:11 PM

I keep seeing people mis-state things in all these philosophy threads. you take the opposing view's sentence, rephrase it to be comepletely ludicrous and radical, and then oppose that instead of listening to the actual point being raised.

Uh, ok.

i also think that more of the females on this board need to pay attention to this thread. don't just shut up because the guys are talking. that's how we got into this kind of legislative mess.

Yes! Where are the ladies at!!? Please remind us that you can have babies.....we've nearly forgotten!

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:14 PM

take some extra special time getting my first point, then reread my second.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:20 PM

Abortion is bad?

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:27 PM

I never said abortion was good. It's never a good thing to resort to it. There are cases in which it might be the best choice, though. I'd rather you don't try to take that away from those cases.

While saying "you don't understand cause you're a guy", I don't mean that in the feminist "You don't have the mind of a woman so you will never understand" way. I mean that in the same way that I'd tell the same thing to a female that has never been through a pregnancy scare.

This comes down to the murder-or-not-murder arguement. The best support for the murder claim is based on religious belief. The best support for the murder-but-only-after-a-timeframe claim is scientific. I understand where the Pro-life people are coming from. I don't tell them that they can't believe what they want to. This comes down to beliefs, not rights.

Don't take away someones rights because of your beliefs.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:45 PM

This comes down to the murder-or-not-murder arguement. The best support for the murder claim is based on religious belief. The best support for the murder-but-only-after-a-timeframe claim is scientific. I understand where the Pro-life people are coming from. I don't tell them that they can't believe what they want to. This comes down to beliefs, not rights.

No, actually,it doesn't have to come down to religious beliefs at all. Abortion is a destructive, often risky, procedure. As everyone has said here, it's only even considered by a woman as a last resort.

Also, this is about process and democracy. You seem to think that because Roe vs. Wade exists, well then a majority of people must believe that you are alway entitled to an abortion. That isn't the case, and MOST Americans believe that while abortion should be legal, it should aso be more regulated.

Don't take away someones rights because of your beliefs.

Where is this supposed right enumerated?

maggiekarp

Mar 2nd, 2006, 09:59 PM

You shouldn't be able to take away people's last resorts, no matter how risky they are. By that argument there shouldn't be chemotherapy.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:01 PM

Horrible comparison.

What about suicide?

maggiekarp

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:04 PM

I think suicide is acceptable in many situations.

ziggytrix

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:07 PM

Also, this is about process and democracy. You seem to think that because Roe vs. Wade exists, well then a majority of people must believe that you are alway entitled to an abortion. That isn't the case, and MOST Americans believe that while abortion should be legal, it should aso be more regulated.

The American judicial process does not attempt to determine "the will of the people". We live in a Republic, a nation of law, and I know you know that.

The law stated that having or trying to perform an abortion is a crime, except by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The suit claimed that the laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged the rights guaranteed to pregnant women by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Dallas County, Texas the district attorney Henry Wade was the defendant in the case. A three-judge district court ruled for "Jane Roe", but refused to grant against the enforcement of the laws.

Basically, if we're gonna make it law that women can only have abortions when they are raped or if the pregnancy will result in a fatality, then women will what - have to prove they were raped to get an abortion? Is that all they'd have to do? That's so easy. Men never get away with raping women, so this should be no problem.

OK, I'm in the pro-life camp now guys, you've changed my mind through the Democratic process! Hurrah. Now if we can just convince Glow and MLE we can lock this thread and call it a day.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:15 PM

I think suicide is acceptable in many situations.

Isn't attempted suicide still a felony in like six states? What about physician-assisted???

So you're cool with abortion being regulated on a state-by-state level, similar to the way forms of suicide are...?

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:26 PM

We live in a Republic, a nation of law, and I know you know that.

So we're in agreement! When a conservative court overturns the ruling of a liberal one, you will thus be in absolute agreement, right?

Basically, if we're gonna make it law that women can only have abortions when they are raped or if the pregnancy will result in a fatality, then women will what - have to prove they were raped to get an abortion? Is that all they'd have to do? That's so easy. Men never get away with raping women, so this should be no problem.

I'm sure it'll vary by state, but sure. It's probably harder in the south, so hurrah!

Welcome to the Christian Right. You're wealthy now.

maggiekarp

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:27 PM

I think the felony-type suicide should be wrong. I'm talking about entirely hopeless situations where the only choices are death or inhuman suffering. Some people can't deal with it, and I think they should be allowed to take their own life.

And yeah, state regulated.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 10:56 PM

You're putting words into my mouth, Kevin. I do agree that it should be more regulated, much like the welfare situation in Baltimore City. It should not be a spur of the moment "oh fuck i got knocked up, better go to planned parenthood". I don't get where you get off putting words into mine or anyone else's mouths.

The right came about because of Roe vs. Wade, I believe.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:09 PM

Supreme Court rulings get overturned. I'm sure if this court reversed Roe you'd protest it.

ziggytrix

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:11 PM

So we're in agreement! When a conservative court overturns the ruling of a liberal one, you will thus be in absolute agreement, right?

My awareness of the law does not imply my agreement with the law. There are lots of laws I don't agree with on a personal level. Since I like to stay out of trouble though, it does imply my compliance with the law. On the other hand, since I can't get pregnant and since I don't think of a fetus as a full-fledged human, I'm not really worried about it.

As far as state regulation goes, it is an economically unfair practice, since someone who can afford a plane ticket can just go to a state where what they want is legal. But our US Constitution is based on States' Rights so I manage to cope with it.

El Blanco

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:12 PM

Actually, a right isn't given to you by government. Its something you have. Governments can either protect them or restrict them. But, that goes into theories about government and thats not what this is about.

Don't take away someones rights because of your beliefs.

The problem with that argument is that if I believe that the child is a living person, I think you are violating his/her right to life for your beliefs. And its just not religious people who oppose abortion on that ground.

I know a very vocal athiest who opposes abortion.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:13 PM

In nine months, you can walk completely across this country several times. Didn't you see Forrest Gump?

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:13 PM

Thanks for the assumption! I feel honored.

I think that we have an innate right to choose what happens to us, if possible. This just might mean that I don't agree with how the government is run. I'll read through Roe sometime soon to get a better bearing on this. I was initially just coming in to actually have a female view represented in this thread, but you're being too ridiculous to let this go.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:14 PM

I keep seeing people mis-state things in all these philosophy threads. you take the opposing view's sentence, rephrase it to be comepletely ludicrous and radical, and then oppose that instead of listening to the actual point being raised.

That's called a straw man argument. It's quite common among those that are losing arguments.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:16 PM

It's also a blatant arguement fallacy.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:16 PM

Each side believes their beliefs are based in inherent rights.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:17 PM

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:18 PM

I can see that, but if either side is interested in what is right/true/whatever, they're going to have to stop with the flawed arguements and actually listen to each other. I'm willing to listen to someone as long as they're not being absolutely ridiculous.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:20 PM

Sweetheart, you are TOTALLY preaching to the choir.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:22 PM

We should talk sometime!

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:22 PM

Aren't we?

haha

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:23 PM

Trouble is, most people are scared of the actual truth

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:40 PM

I'd like to have an idea about it instead of just skirting around it and having other people influence my beliefs and values more than I can for myself.

ziggytrix

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:43 PM

I'm willing to listen to someone as long as they're not being absolutely ridiculous.

But you take two people - one who believes that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before it becomes a child, and another woman who thinks a pregnancy is already a child, and each is going to think the other is absolutely ridiciulous.

This is, I firmly believe, an irreconcilable difference of opinion. We can argue the what-ifs and conditions for what we each think is an OK abortion and what's not til page 10, but someone who thinks abortions are as much a right as any elective surgery and someone who thinks that every sperm is sacred are not going to agree. And the amount of clinical evidence or logical arguements it would take for someone to go from one side of the issue to the other would certainly take more than 10 pages.

Hell, even if Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue isn't going to be over. That would only be the first page in a whole new chapter of people shouting at and calling each other ridiculous.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:43 PM

Most folks' belief systems are based in stuff that sounded good to them when they were children. Those that can bring themselves to question those foundations, unfortunately, generally wind up questioning everything a bit too much. I've said before that I post on message boards to be proven wrong. That would just rock.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:44 PM

Each side believes their beliefs are based in inherent rights.

Preechr

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:47 PM

Ziggy, you are taking the only logical path through this. We all need to find a way to agree to disagree and get on with our lives. That we cannot do that is why Roe v Wade is bad law, just as a Federal law banning abortion would be stupid.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:49 PM

Do you think a better choice is a middle ground where no one is really happy with the law?

ziggytrix

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:55 PM

Congress needs to draft a law defining human life.

That would be a hoot.

MLE

Mar 2nd, 2006, 11:57 PM

That would be ridiculous, Ziggy! That would mean that onl-- oh hey that was a joke wasn't it?

That would be awfully scary if it happened :<

Preechr

Mar 3rd, 2006, 12:02 AM

No. We live in a republic, which is comprised of 50 different states in which we can live. I'm a convinced free-marketeer, so I like everyone to be able to make their own choices, and I love the idea of the republic. If I had to pick a dog in this fight, I guess I'd have to go pro-life, but that's the anti-choice side, isn't it? sooo confused....

I'd prefer each state being able to make their own rules in this regard. Maybe we should have a nationwide allowance for the sake of the mother's life, but each state being free to set up the rest however they see fit.

Unfortunately, as I said before, I just don't see Roe v Wade being challenged. Ever. Our legal system is so fucked right now, even IF DC could get a challenge through the legislature, the legal battles that would ensure right thereafter would probably shut us down. That's what it means when conservative judges shrug and say "it's the law of the land, and I have to respect that." It won't be changing any time soon.

That being said, I'm perfectly willing to put my beliefs up against anyone else's. I really do think that state's that would honor the sanctity of life over the costs of mistakes... not talking about the life of the mother bit here, either... would be quantifiably better off than the states that would treat abortion as just another meaningless and inconsequential procedure.

ziggytrix

Mar 3rd, 2006, 12:08 AM

Not if everyone just border hopped bringing the consequences back with them to their home state.

Big Papa Goat

Mar 3rd, 2006, 02:17 AM

it made me sad that no one responded to my post
I guess it was pretty dumb, but I just wish someone would have told me it was dumb :(

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 3rd, 2006, 08:53 AM

As far as state regulation goes, it is an economically unfair practice, since someone who can afford a plane ticket can just go to a state where what they want is legal. But our US Constitution is based on States' Rights so I manage to cope with it.

This is what Preechr and I were saying, and if I believed that it was a woman's inherent right to have an unfettered abortion, then I would be in agreement with you. I don't believe in that right however, I simply acknowlege the current law.....see!?

I think you made the point earlier that this is an irreconcilable moral issue. I guess that's true, which is sort of the reason I don't think it's an entitlement. However (and this is sort of in step with Preechr), we aren't free to do whatever we want to our bodies. There is precent is state and federal law which sets limitations on what we can do to ourselves. The level of access a woman has to abortion should be left to the states, and should reflect the mood of the people. I would PERSONALLY then like to see groups like PP take to the state houses, and try to improve services at that level. That would be fun, and IMO, more democratic. States like Ohio, for example, have spent money investing in programs to decrease their pregnant teenage population. I'd like to see that happen at the state level, too.

You wouldn't want a constitutional ban, or congressional edict, on a moral isue like gay marriage, right???

Preech, you made a comment earlier that PP and groups like that would do their hardest work (or already are) in the states that are least friendly to abortion. I think that's interesting, although I'd be willing to wager that they aren't. Roe has made these organizations lazy. They don't need to appeal to real people in real states, because they can simply raise cash off their website and at dinners from big donor liberals.

kahljorn

Mar 3rd, 2006, 12:21 PM

"If different groups of humans cannot morally judge the actions of other groups of humans, then how can the same moral rules apply to all humans? And if there is no morality that can apply to all humans, then doesn't that kind of undermine all the ideas of human equality? Why should we recognize different groups of humans if these different groups cannot recognize the rightness or wrongness of eachothers' behavior?"

I read your post and found it to be interesting, big papa goat. The only thing I can imagine telling you as a solution is that morals are incredibly relativistic(as you've noted), and the only way to build a good moral system is objectively, they can have nothing to do with the human situation itself.
Nobody really wants human equality, every race/nation (anything, really) wants to feel better than every other nation. We even have that kind of competition on these message boards.
As to your last question, maybe we shouldn't. They really aren't different, they suffer from the same anxiety as everybody else, and the same desire for their beliefs to be right(and their beliefs were all likely forged in similar situations). These are innate feelings every human being feels, a sort of an identity crisis.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 6th, 2006, 04:08 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1692737

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds Signs Into Law a Ban on Almost All Abortions
By CHET BROKAW

The Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 6th, 2006, 05:11 PM

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

Now he initially said he'd only sign it were it "written right." Wouldn't signing it, while knowing that it would never see the light of day as an actual policy, go against that claim?

ziggytrix

Mar 6th, 2006, 05:15 PM

"Written right" could mean a lot of things, depending on the context. Written right so as to provide a challenge to the Roe vs. Wade decision? Then he was totally truthful. Written right so as to immediately go into effect? Then he was totally lying.

There's a shitload of wiggle room in that statement.

KevinTheOmnivore

Mar 9th, 2006, 07:57 PM

This story from Tennessee:

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/17880.asp

Senate Passes Abortion Ban Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2006 4:17:00 PM
Updated: 3/9/2006 4:23:33 PM

Despite emotional protest from several lawmakers, the Senate passed a proposed abortion ban amendment to the constitution by a vote of 24 to 9.

People on both sides of the abortion debate converged on the state capital Thursday.

The state Senate debated a proposed amendment to Tennessee's constitution.

Critics say it would lead to new restrictions on abortion.

Supporters say the amendment would allow voters to decide whether abortion should be legal.

Thursday’s debate was a big first step.

They came out in force. People on both sides of the issue came with signs and buttons and they packed the senate gallery to hear the emotional debate.

“We are about to make a decision in this room that affects women’s lives,” said Sen. Rosalind Kurita, D-Clarksville.

The debate boiled down to a proposed constitutional amendment which read: "Nothing in Tennessee's constitution secures or protects the right to an abortion or funding of an abortion."

“Can we say that every 11-year-old girl that has been raped should be forced to bear the rapist’s child?” said Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden.

Some Democrats proposed adding cases of rape incest and life of the mother as exceptions in the constitution, but that attempt failed. “Leave that question of abortion for rape, incest and health of the mother for another time,” said Sen. Raymond Finney, R-Maryville.

Anti-abortion activist Joi Wassil said she came to hear the debate and says the amendment will allow voters to decide about abortion. “The main thing is: ‘Do we believe that human life inside the womb is a human life and worth equal protection under the law?’” she said.

“If we really want to prevent abortion,” “We can eradicate poverty. Provide for child care,” said Sen. Rosalind Kurita, D-Clarksville.

Pro-abortion groups held a rally afterward and promised to fight the proposed amendment in the House. But anti-abortion groups said this was a critical first step.

The big fight will be in the House. The Senate passed a similar resolution last year, but then it failed in the House.

If the bill passes in the House, it would still have a long way to go before the wording is in the constitution. It would have to pass the House and Senate again next year.

Then voters would have to approve the amendment in 2010.