Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old 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
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #127  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 3rd, 2006, 08:53 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old 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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #129  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2006, 04:08 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 6th, 2006, 05:11 PM       
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old 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.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old 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.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Skulhedface is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2006, 12:35 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:11 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.