South Dakota: "Screw Roe v. Wade"

[MLE]

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]

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

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

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]

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]

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

[MLE]

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]

Originally Posted by MLE

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]

It's also a blatant arguement fallacy.

[Preechr]

Each side believes their beliefs are based in inherent rights.

[Preechr]

Agreed.

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

[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.

[Preechr]

Sweetheart, you are TOTALLY preaching to the choir.

[MLE]

We should talk sometime!

[Preechr]

Aren't we?

haha

[Preechr]

Trouble is, most people are scared of the actual truth

[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.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by MLE

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Each side believes their beliefs are based in inherent rights.

[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.

[MLE]

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

[ziggytrix]

Congress needs to draft a law defining human life.

That would be a hoot.

[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 :<

[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.

[ziggytrix]

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