South Dakota: "Screw Roe v. Wade"

[kahljorn]

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]

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

[Ant10708]

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]

(double post )

[maggiekarp]

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]

Originally Posted by maggiekarp

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Preechr

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

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Preechr

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]

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.

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]

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

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Abortion is bad?

[MLE]

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]

Originally Posted by MLE

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]

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]

Horrible comparison.

What about suicide?

[maggiekarp]

I think suicide is acceptable in many situations.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

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]

Originally Posted by maggiekarp

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]

Originally Posted by ziggy

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]

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.