|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 15th, 2006 12:35 PM | ||
| Skulhedface |
It sucks that my input comes so late in the thread but alas... Personally I abhor the fact that the government feels the need to step in and make a deeply personal choice for anyone. I consider myself wishywashy on the prolife/choice issue (while I wouldn't deny any prospective mother-to-be from making the choice herself, I in no way would condone a child conceived of my own sexual stupidity to be aborted) and in respect to the issue, I think the Moral Majority need step back. Won't happen, but that's my two cents. As if making a woman feel like shit because she chose abortion is their Suck God's Nuts ticket to Heaven. |
|
| Mar 9th, 2006 07:57 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
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. |
|
| Mar 6th, 2006 05:15 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
"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. |
|
| Mar 6th, 2006 05:11 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 6th, 2006 04:08 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter...ory?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. |
|
| Mar 3rd, 2006 12:21 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"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. |
|
| Mar 3rd, 2006 08:53 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
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. |
|
| Mar 3rd, 2006 02:17 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
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 
|
|
| Mar 3rd, 2006 12:08 AM | ||
| ziggytrix | Not if everyone just border hopped bringing the consequences back with them to their home state. | |
| Mar 3rd, 2006 12:02 AM | ||
| Preechr |
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. |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:57 PM | ||
| MLE |
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 :< |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:55 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Congress needs to draft a law defining human life. That would be a hoot. |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:49 PM | ||
| MLE | Do you think a better choice is a middle ground where no one is really happy with the law? | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:47 PM | ||
| Preechr | 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. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:44 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:43 PM | ||
| Preechr | 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. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:43 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
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. |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:40 PM | ||
| MLE | 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. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:23 PM | ||
| Preechr | Trouble is, most people are scared of the actual truth | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:22 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Aren't we? haha |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:22 PM | ||
| MLE | We should talk sometime! | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:20 PM | ||
| Preechr | Sweetheart, you are TOTALLY preaching to the choir. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:18 PM | ||
| MLE | 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. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:17 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man |
|
| Mar 2nd, 2006 11:16 PM | ||
| Preechr | Each side believes their beliefs are based in inherent rights. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
