PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - 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.
Posted by DWE on :
If you run for President in 2008, I'll be sure to vote for you!
Posted by Team Sleep on :
I'm sure this ruling will be tied up in litigation for years...
There's one thing pro-abortion people have never been able to answer me on -- if the baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it is not a living human until it's born, why is it not OK to kill it up until the day it's born?
I don't understand this kind of hypocrisy in the pro-abortion camp.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Nobody is "pro abortion." They are only against the State telling a woman what to do with her own body.
Simple.
Posted by DWE on :
I think justices like John Roberts will most likely take care of the rest.....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
It won't happen.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Nobody is "pro abortion." They are only against the State telling a woman what to do with her own body.
Simple.
I believe at the point of conception it's a living, growing life. Science has proven that. The baby/fetus has no choice when the doctor sucks it out with the razor-blade vacuum.
My question is, most people who believe in the legalization of abortion think it's wrong to abort a fetus at 7-9 months, but don't think it's wrong up until the sixth month. Why?
Their whole argument is that it's not a human until it's born, well, if that's the case why not make it legal to abort at 9 months? What difference does it make?
Posted by jordanreed on :
it would be much better to have women perform the abortions themselves...or some "back-alley" doctor...or just toss it in the dumpster..does anyone really think that by banning abortions that will stop women from having them?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That's right. You think abortions will stop if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Not a chance! Attempting to legislate morality is idiotic.
If men got pregnant this wouldn't even be an issue.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
No, I don't think banning them will stop them, but it's more of the principle of the matter.
I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God. I can't imagine God is very happy with babies being carved out of the womb.
You could make the same argument for rape... rape is illegal but it still happens so we should just legalize it and not worry about it, right?
As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Are you for the death penalty?
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God.
Posted by LEO on :
Team Sleep, I have wondered the same thing. A human life is what it is at any age. I'm glad this is going to court, it's going to get ugly, and I hope we can come up with a compromise that works. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, yet making it illegal will only recreate the black market, back alley abortion scenario. Is it possible that presenting women AND men with workable options (sex education, abstinance, safe birth control, etc.) could help to make abortion a nearly non-issue?
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Attempting to legislate morality is idiotic.
Really? Why have any laws on moral issues? Drugs, murder, rape, robbery, those are all moral issues.
Any act that involves the mind, will, and emotions can be classified as a moral issue. Doing drugs is a moral issue. It's a choice of the will and emotions. Blowing somebody's brains out is a moral issue. Many murderers kill because they have no moral conviction against it.
Same with robbery... i.e. Enron. Those thugs had no moral conviction against lying and scamming, that's why they did it and that's why they are spending millions to prove they're right. So why even prosecute them since "legislating morality is idiotic"?
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: No, I don't think banning them will stop them, but it's more of the principle of the matter.
I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God. I can't imagine God is very happy with babies being carved out of the womb.
You could make the same argument for rape... rape is illegal but it still happens so we should just legalize it and not worry about it, right?
As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
By that same warped logic, masturbation should be illegal as well right? I mean come on, each one of them little sperms has the spark of life right? So each time you "choke the chicken", your committing mass murder by your logic.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Abstinence is a joke in most cases, and as long as safe birth control and sex education are discouraged or banned by fundamentalist idiots, abortions will continue.
Perhaps everyone who would stand in the way of a woman's right to choose should be forced to adopt that woman's child.
Posted by DWE on :
LoL! It goes to show how liberals with ultra liberal minds think.....
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Are you for the death penalty?
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God.
I am for the death penalty when that form of punishment fits the crime.
I know where you're going with this question, So let me ask you, what crime has an unborn fetus committed?
The death penalty is not intended for the innocent, helpless humans, is it?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Abstinence is a joke in most cases, and as long as safe birth control and sex education are discouraged or banned by fundamentalist idiots, abortions will continue.
Perhaps everyone who would stand in the way of a woman's right to choose should be forced to adopt that woman's child.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Didn't Jesus caution against an eye for an eye?
Yep.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:38-42
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: I am for the death penalty when that form of punishment fits the crime.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
[/QUOTE]By that same warped logic, masturbation should be illegal as well right? I mean come on, each one of them little sperms has the spark of life right? So each time you "choke the chicken", your committing mass murder by your logic. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I said conception. Maybe you should re-read your 6th grade health book to understand the difference between conception and a puddle of sperm.
Posted by LEO on :
Abstinence wouldn't be such a joke if our society didn't try to make it one in it's mission to use sex as a selling tool (quite effectively, I might add). And you're right, sex education and safe birth control would be more readily available and used if funamentalists didn't have such a widespread 'my way or go to hell' approach. It's the forest for the trees, until we realize that we're all different and what works for some doesn't make sense to others. It ain't rocket science, but it sure seems to get complicated.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Your view of the death penalty is in direct opposition of the teachings of Jesus, TS.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: You're foavoring of the death penalty is in direct opposition of the teachings of Jesus.
Taking scripture out of context is not proving your point here... Christ was talking about forgiveness and bitterness in that passage.
His message in that passage that no matter how a person hurts or offends us, we're expected to forgive and not hold a root of bitterness against that person.
This has nothing to do with CONSEQUENCES. While we are all commanded to forgive, there is no scripture in the Bible that commands against consequences for our actions.
God is loving and forgiving, but there are always consequences for our wrong doing. And while we are commanded to forgive those who murder or rape, we are not commanded to withold consequences for the act.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Murder is murder. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
A little common sense goes a long way.
quote:Originally posted by LEO: Abstinence wouldn't be such a joke if our society didn't try to make it one in it's mission to use sex as a selling tool (quite effectively, I might add). And you're right, sex education and safe birth control would be more readily available and used if funamentalists didn't have such a widespread 'my way or go to hell' approach. It's the forest for the trees, until we realize that we're all different and what works for some doesn't make sense to others. It ain't rocket science, but it sure seems to get complicated.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Here's a Christian Church that gets behind the argument.
ADVOCATING education and abstinence wont work for the little ghetto kids who run the streets looking for fun...tell the brother to use a condom?...aint gonna happen. sex will happen and thousands of unwanted kids will be born everyday.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
The same goes for rich white kids.
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: ADVOCATING education and abstinence wont work for the little ghetto kids who run the streets looking for fun...tell the brother to use a condom?...aint gonna happen. sex will happen and thousands of unwanted kids will be born everyday.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Murder is murder. You can't have it both ways.
If you truly believe that statement, how could you support babies being sucked out of wombs with razor-blade Hoovers?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: No, I don't think banning them will stop them, but it's more of the principle of the matter.
I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God. I can't imagine God is very happy with babies being carved out of the womb.
You could make the same argument for rape... rape is illegal but it still happens so we should just legalize it and not worry about it, right?
As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
By that same warped logic, masturbation should be illegal as well right? I mean come on, each one of them little sperms has the spark of life right? So each time you "choke the chicken", your committing mass murder by your logic.
Hey, yeah! And let's add taking a hot bath and swimming in the Gulf of Mexico, since both kill off millions of the little critters.
Then there's jockey shorts!
If God had meant for you to have warm nads he'd a took care of it naturally.
Which brings up a question.
If god hadn't meant you to use your mind to figure out how to control things, then why'd he give you all that creativeness?
Don't we know that an unused mind looses grey matter. It's been proved.
Think, man!
Don't we believe everything here was set up by god when he made all this?
He knew!
You weren't meant to stagnate in the intellect of the 0th century! He planned this.
Posted by LEO on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: ADVOCATING education and abstinence wont work for the little ghetto kids who run the streets looking for fun...tell the brother to use a condom?...aint gonna happen. sex will happen and thousands of unwanted kids will be born everyday.
I would like to see all three tried at the same time before assuming that it won't work. Smart people live in the ghetto, too.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I don't "support" that, but I hope you'll agree that it's preferable to a coat hanger or poison induced abortion, which would be the only alternative for many women if Roe V. Wade were to be overturned.
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Murder is murder. You can't have it both ways.
If you truly believe that statement, how could you support babies being sucked out of wombs with razor-blade Hoovers?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That's right. It's not a class or a race issue.
quote:Originally posted by LEO: I would like to see all three tried at the same time before assuming that it won't work. Smart people live in the ghetto, too.
Posted by ruthie on :
As far as the death penalty goes, it is not an eye for an eye, There is a thing called justice, and the Holy Scriptures let us know the difference. Our God is a God of justice.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Our God, perhaps. Our Government? No.
Posted by ruthie on :
As for the abortion issue, it is only the far left who say that if abortion was banned that women would be forced to go to alleys and be butcherd by quacks. Most abortions performed today are done so as a convenience to women and not because they Need to have them done. Unfortunately planned parenthood is not the friend to women that they portray themselves to be. Most abortions would not even be considered if abortions were not so readily availabe and accepted. I would argue that Most women who have had abortions could go back and change things, they would NEVER go the same route again.
Posted by Upside on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
But forcing the rapists victim to carry an unwanted child to term is not a violation of another defenseless life?
Posted by LEO on :
While I would hope the same thing Ruthie, it's just not true. Most women who have had abortions would not change things and many women have had multiple abortions. Sad but true, and I believe you are right, abortions are too readily available as a form of birth control (albeit a very expensive one).
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Abortions must always be readily available if we are to call ourselves a compassionate society.
Posted by LEO on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Abortions must always be readily available if we are to call ourselves a compassionate society.
Not as a routine form of birth control. Condoms, the pill, education, abstinence, etc., yes, acceptable\preferable forms of birth control (I know, big joke).
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I agree, they are preferable but are they realistic? In some cases yes. In others, no.
Safe abortion must always be readily available.
Posted by LEO on :
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Both liberals and conservatives have abortions.
quote:Originally posted by ruthie: it is only the far left who say that if abortion was banned that women would be forced to go to alleys and be butcherd by quacks...
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside:
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
But forcing the rapists victim to carry an unwanted child to term is not a violation of another defenseless life?
I don't know that I have a complete opinion on this issue regarding abortion.
I totally and completely understand how painful it would be for a raped woman to carry the child of her attacker. I'm sure that would be horrific.
But how would it help the woman by having the child pulled limb-by-limb from her womb? Would that really take away the pain and hurt from the rape? Would killing that child heal her wounds? Or would it be better to allow the innocent child to live and give it up for adoption?
I don't know...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Interesting indeed. Hopefully sanity will prevail. (Not always likely these days.)
quote:Originally posted by LEO: It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court.
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by ruthie: As for the abortion issue, it is only the far left who say that if abortion was banned that women would be forced to go to alleys and be butcherd by quacks. Most abortions performed today are done so as a convenience to women and not because they Need to have them done. Unfortunately planned parenthood is not the friend to women that they portray themselves to be. Most abortions would not even be considered if abortions were not so readily availabe and accepted. I would argue that Most women who have had abortions could go back and change things, they would NEVER go the same route again.
Obviously you have never lived in the ghetto and seen the life their as it truly is..children having children..babies in dumpsters...6-7 kids, from one mother and 6 fathers, running the streets..Mothers doing and selling crack while their daughters are whoring and druggin just like momma.. This is prevalent!!.. little girls killing their babies every day,by numerous methods. a 5 min abortion or a 5 year abortion. the unwanted kids go unloved and unsupervised.,,growing up to do the same things or worse..how many people are in jail because of their mother NOT having an abortion?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Since you are deciding her life choices for her, perhaps you should adopt it?
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: ...would it be better to allow the innocent child to live and give it up for adoption?
I don't know...
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Read a little closer... I said I don't have an opinion this issue. I'm not deciding anything for anyone, because I don't know.
A part of me thinks a raped woman should be able to kill the baby but another part of me says that maybe it would be best to give it up for adoption instead of punishing the baby for a crime it didn't commit.
Like I said, I just don't know...
Posted by Upside on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
quote:Originally posted by Upside:
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
But forcing the rapists victim to carry an unwanted child to term is not a violation of another defenseless life?
I don't know that I have a complete opinion on this issue regarding abortion.
I totally and completely understand how painful it would be for a raped woman to carry the child of her attacker. I'm sure that would be horrific.
But how would it help the woman by having the child pulled limb-by-limb from her womb? Would that really take away the pain and hurt from the rape? Would killing that child heal her wounds? Or would it be better to allow the innocent child to live and give it up for adoption?
I don't know...
Put yourself in the shoes of the woman. She's just been through one of the most violent, humiliating acts a human can be put through. Now you're going to force her to carry that child? If I'm deciding it, it comes down in favor of the living, breathing, person that's been violated. She should have every right to an abortion if she so chooses.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: No, I don't think banning them will stop them, but it's more of the principle of the matter.
I think a nation that does not allow people to murder innocent, helpless humans will be blessed by God. I can't imagine God is very happy with babies being carved out of the womb.
You could make the same argument for rape... rape is illegal but it still happens so we should just legalize it and not worry about it, right?
As with rape, I believe abortion is a violation of a helpless, defenseless life.
By that same warped logic, masturbation should be illegal as well right? I mean come on, each one of them little sperms has the spark of life right? So each time you "choke the chicken", your committing mass murder by your logic.
Hey, yeah! And let's add taking a hot bath and swimming in the Gulf of Mexico, since both kill off millions of the little critters.
Then there's jockey shorts!
If God had meant for you to have warm nads he'd a took care of it naturally.
Which brings up a question.
If god hadn't meant you to use your mind to figure out how to control things, then why'd he give you all that creativeness?
Don't we know that an unused mind looses grey matter. It's been proved.
Think, man!
Don't we believe everything here was set up by god when he made all this?
He knew!
You weren't meant to stagnate in the intellect of the 0th century! He planned this.
Another thing comes to mind. Exactly where in the bible is there any express mention of abortion with an expectant mother wanting the abortion? I think the claims of abortion being against scripture or being against the direction of God or of Jesus are ficticious, as there is no statement in the bible by either saying that abortion is evil or wrong, except as it is performed against the wishes of the woman. And in that case it is the forceful denial to the woman her birthright that is being condemned.
Doesn't the same God that makes little humans make little calves and little pigs? If God didn't want those little cows and little pigs he wouldn't have let the cow or the sow get pregnant. Isn't that obvious? Yet, we kill them and eat them. Are you telling me this God doesn't care about anthing he made except humans? I find that far fetched, at best.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Interesting article in the paper today.
A study was undertaken to see what difference in abortion rates there were between states that have parental notification laws and states that don't. Oddly enough, states that have parental notification laws have seen an increase in abortion rates where those that don't have not. Many of the abortion clinics contacted have stated parental pressure as one of the main reasons for the increase in abortions.
What is a simple moral issue in the general context seems to have a wholely different context when it turns into the "Family's little dirty secret."
The Bigfoot
I don't tell my female friend's what to do with thier bodies...they don't tell me what to do with mine. But if they ASK me, I advocate adoption.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
In the Bible God says humans are above animals. God made animals to be in subjection to man.
The problem with abortion is the killing of a human life, which, we all know is clearly forbidden in scripture.
So, you can argue that the Bible never says "thou shalt not abort," but it's pretty clear when it says "thou shalt not kill".
Murder is the taking of an innocent life against their will and wishes. Can you show me scientifically how aborting a living baby/fetus is not the taking of an innocent life against its will or wishes?
Posted by jordanreed on :
what are the wishes of a 2 week fetus?
Posted by Upside on :
Define life. Your definition of it might be at the point of conception, others might be when it's able to sustain itself outside the body.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
All sins hurt God. If you are going to use a religious arguement than I would suggest...
Take the plank out of your own eye before you point out the splinter you see in another's.
The Bigfoot
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what are the wishes of a 2 week fetus?
??
Posted by bdgee on :
What would I do if my 15 year old daughter came to me and said she was pregnant and wanted me to provide a "parental notification" so she could get and abortion?
First, I'd think of the child that never would get a life and how sad that would be.
Second, I'd think of the child that would loose a life not well started and how sad that would be.
Then, I'd weigh the sads involved and the facts that the one would never have to suffer for the life that would not be and second would never have the chance of a normal happy life and that, in turn, would, in all probability deny the one any hope of a life that wasn't a misery.
I'd consent in a flash!
And anyone that would not isn't thinking, just reacting out of hatred and ignorance.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what are the wishes of a 2 week fetus?
A 2 week fetus obviously does not have the mental capacity to have "wishes" but it is a living being, innocent, helpless, and cannot fight for its own life.
And I'm sure a 7, 8, or 9 month old baby/fetus doesn't have any wishes either, so why not abort them too? Why is that considered wrong?
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: What would I do if my 15 year old daughter came to me and said she was pregnant and wanted me to provide a "parental notification" so she could get and abortion?
First, I'd think of the child that never would get a life and how sad that would be.
Second, I'd think of the child that would loose a life not well started and how sad that would be.
Then, I'd weigh the sads involved and the facts that the one would never have to suffer for the life that would not be and second would never have the chance of a normal happy life and that, in turn, would, in all probability deny the one any hope of a life that wasn't a misery.
I'd consent in a flash!
And anyone that would not isn't thinking, just reacting out of hatred and ignorance.
So your basically saying your daughter is so worthless to the point that you don't think she'd ever have the ability to provide a decent home and life for her baby.
I'd like to give you the "parent of the year" award.
No wonder kids have so much trouble when their parents have such low opinions of them...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: What would I do if my 15 year old daughter came to me and said she was pregnant and wanted me to provide a "parental notification" so she could get and abortion?
First, I'd think of the child that never would get a life and how sad that would be.
Second, I'd think of the child that would loose a life not well started and how sad that would be.
Then, I'd weigh the sads involved and the facts that the one would never have to suffer for the life that would not be and second would never have the chance of a normal happy life and that, in turn, would, in all probability deny the one any hope of a life that wasn't a misery.
I'd consent in a flash!
And anyone that would not isn't thinking, just reacting out of hatred and ignorance.
So your basically saying your daughter is so worthless to the point that you don't think she'd ever have the ability to provide a decent home and life for her baby.
I'd like to give you the "parent of the year" award.
No wonder kids have so much trouble when their parents have such low opinions of them...
What a presumptive ignorant assumption. You really need to go find someone to teach you to read instead of replacing what is said with imagination from your bigoted psyche. You are crude, both intellectually and socially,
You need to learn some respect and manners, too.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what are the wishes of a 2 week fetus?
A 2 week fetus obviously does not have the mental capacity to have "wishes" but it is a living being, innocent, helpless, and cannot fight for its own life.
And I'm sure a 7, 8, or 9 month old baby/fetus doesn't have any wishes either, so why not abort them too? Why is that considered wrong?
Because a 7,8,9 month old fetus can survive outside the womb. A 2 week old fetus cannot. That is why late term abortion is considered wrong.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Here are your words:
"Then, I'd weigh the sads involved and the facts that the one would never have to suffer for the life that would not be and second would never have the chance of a normal happy life and that, in turn, would, in all probability deny the one any hope of a life that wasn't a misery."
You are clearly saying that the child would never have a normal, and happy life. You are basically saying it would never have a normal and happy life because your daughter would be incapable of providing a life for the child.
What else could you possibly be saying here? Does your daughter know you have such a worthless opinion of her? Does she know that if she got pregnant you'd rather her kill her baby because you think there's no way she could give her kid a good life?
What a shame you are!!! Why do you hate your child? Why do you think so low of her? It's no wonder you support the killing of unborn babies because you don't even love your own child.
How sad...
Posted by Team Sleep on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what are the wishes of a 2 week fetus?
A 2 week fetus obviously does not have the mental capacity to have "wishes" but it is a living being, innocent, helpless, and cannot fight for its own life.
And I'm sure a 7, 8, or 9 month old baby/fetus doesn't have any wishes either, so why not abort them too? Why is that considered wrong?
Because a 7,8,9 month old fetus can survive outside the womb. A 2 week old fetus cannot. That is why late term abortion is considered wrong.
And a legally abortable fetus can survive outside the womb too. A 5 month old fetus can survive outside the womb, yet it's OK to vacuum them up in the razor-blade Hoover.
But no fetus/baby can survive outside the womb on their own because they are helpless and innocent.
Posted by jordanreed on :
So?... thats why they can be aborted
Posted by Team Sleep on :
All I want to know is, why do pro abortion people think it's OK to kill a 5 month old fetus but not a 9 month old one?
They are both still unborn, and according to their own logic, not yet a child. So, what's the difference?
Posted by jordanreed on :
not sure it is 5 months,,but you have to make the cut-off{no pun meant} somewhere and its not just pro abortion people...its a law!!
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: All I want to know is, why do pro abortion people think it's OK to kill a 5 month old fetus but not a 9 month old one?
They are both still unborn, and according to their own logic, not yet a child. So, what's the difference?
It's not "pro-abortion" as you keep trying to sling about. It's "pro-choice". It's the idea that a woman should have control over her own body.
You keep saying killing the innocent and helpless. What about the millions of children who die every year due to disease and starvation. We can't even take care of "all" of the children already here in the world
You seem to just want to spit out the same vile rhetoric all neo-cons do. "Razor-blade hoover", "ripped out a limb at a time", "let's go blow up another abortion clinic", etc, etc. Same sad scare tactics and no solution. And banning all abortion is not a solution IMO.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Amen.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Call it whatever you want...
For sake of argument, we'll call it pro choice. I guess that makes you feel more comfortable.
Anyway, I just want an answer to my question. And nobody here can give me a good answer. Why is a 5 month old fetus worthy of death but a 6 month old fetus is not worthy of death?
The pro choice argument is that it's not a life until it's born. So why not abort a 9 month fetus? A 5 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus have all the same organs, bone structure, pysiological make-up, etc.
I just want a good, scientific and logical answer. It's not too much to ask.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
What makes you think you or your Government have the right to decide for her?
I just want a good, scientific and logical answer. It's not too much to ask.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Call it whatever you want...
For sake of argument, we'll call it pro choice. I guess that makes you feel more comfortable.
Anyway, I just want an answer to my question. And nobody here can give me a good answer. Why is a 5 month old fetus worthy of death but a 6 month old fetus is not worthy of death?
The pro choice argument is that it's not a life until it's born. So why not abort a 9 month fetus? A 5 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus have all the same organs, bone structure, pysiological make-up, etc.
I just want a good, scientific and logical answer. It's not too much to ask.
Yes it is too much to ask. Because you are not open to any view other than your own. You would not accept any answer to the contrary of your pre-existing ideals.
And it's not a level of comfort as far as postions. Pro-choice means that I am not telling another human being what they can or cannot do with their own body. I am leaving that choice up to the individual. That is pro-choice. And your point of view is so contstricted as to be unable to distinguish the differnce or accept another point of view without prejudice.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Republicans are for smaller government, remember?
What a joke.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep:
Anyway, I just want an answer to my question. And nobody here can give me a good answer.
The pro choice argument is that it's not a life until it's born. So why not abort a 9 month fetus? A 5 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus have all the same organs, bone structure, pysiological make-up, etc.
I just want a good, scientific and logical answer. It's not too much to ask.
"Anyway, I just want an answer to my question. And nobody here can give me a good answer."
You haven't beeen denied an answer, you have denied listening to them.
"The pro choice argument is that it's not a life until it's born."
That statement isn't true. It's just the mutterings of a stilted mentality trying to handle questions far deeper than it is capable of discerning or willing to acknowledge. You need to get over the notion that you can restate other's positions in ways you want them to sound, so as to over simplify them. If you actually think that the so called "pro choice" people are defining life as birth, you are way off base. They have a legal argument.
Correctly, until it is born in this country or is naturalized or is granted some form of legal status, the Constitution says it has none of the rights or privileges of a citizen and does not exist as a legally recognized individual holding rights or privileges, i.e., it does not have a right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. There is no provision of the Constitution granting rights of any kind to "life".
"I just want a good, scientific and logical answer. It's not too much to ask."
Yes! It is too much to ask for anyone to explain things you are determined to misunderstand or misrepresent. If you actually wanted "a good scientific and logical answer", you would pay respect to the fundamental precepts of science and logic. You don't, apparantly because you can't handle them and they prove things contrary to the outcomes you desire.
If you wish to base your arguments against abortion on not interfering with God's work, then lets take that to a logical and scientific end. Without the meddling of men in the processes of pregnancy and birth, way more than half of all fetuses never get to birth and of those that do, way less than half live to 6 years old.
We'll all stop interfering and supplying the benifits that man's efforts have brought to the process and and we can have a booming business in funerals for babies. We sure could use the increas in jobs that would bring about to make up for those good paying jobs outsourced to non-democracies around the world by the policies of the Administration.
Posted by DWE on :
Does it help if I say I'm "PRO-LIFE"? Posted by jordanreed on :
abortion is pro-life
Posted by DWE on :
Yeah... Abort this!!!
Posted by jordanreed on :
Abortion Rights are Pro-Life by Leonard Peikoff (January 23, 2003)
Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.
Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.
There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer.
If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.
If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.
Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.
Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.
The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."
Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."
The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.
Posted by DWE on :
Oh God! I'm so glad you copied and pasted that onto this thread. Because if it was "Badgedee" replying, she would of thought all of those words up herself and all I would of read would of been "blee blee blah blah blee blah"! Thank you, Jordan Knight!
Posted by jordanreed on :
read it dammit!!
Posted by DWE on :
Now now... Take those muscle relaxers your doc gave you today..... Just relaaaax... Relaaaaax..... Feel better???
Posted by jordanreed on :
Si...thanks...now i need some more smoke
Posted by DWE on :
Jordan Knight..... GO SING ME A SONG!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: I'm sure this ruling will be tied up in litigation for years...
There's one thing pro-abortion people have never been able to answer me on -- if the baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it is not a living human until it's born, why is it not OK to kill it up until the day it's born?
I don't understand this kind of hypocrisy in the pro-abortion camp.
where do you get this "quote" from????
modern science has moved mountains to save premature babies as young as 4 months....
BUT? they don't have a very good survival rate....
the State Legislatures that are passing these laws are doing the "liberals" a favor....
the "conservatives" are going to self-destruct over this issue.... it all sounds good in Church, but out in the REAL world? you can't afford "ooopses", they are too expensive...
yeah this is sane: get rid of welfare, and make abortiuon illegal....
oh yeah, and while you're at it? make everybody pay for their own health care too... just another example of people not in touch with reality... and people aren't gonna stop making love... period..
if Roe v Wade gets overturned? you'll see a major social upheaval like we had in the sixties again...
buncha fools...
the polls are clear and always have been.. 60%plus favor abortion being legal and available to SOME degree... it just shows how out of touch some people are with society in general.
women in SUBURBIA aren't going to go back to being barefoot and pregnant... maybe in SD and MS and a few other states where agriculture is still important? this will go over, but these guys have just set into motion a political machine that will CRUSH the GOP....
[ March 06, 2006, 22:32: Message edited by: glassman ]
Posted by Jelly on :
Yeah, if they pass a no abortion law, we'd have girls in alleys with hangers up them trying to get an abortion from god knows who. Instead of losing a fetus, we'll lose alot of human life.
Posted by DWE on :
Did I mention I love little babies? But I also love little baby ducks, old pick-up trucks, slow movin' trains, and rain.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by DWE: Did I mention I love little babies? But I also love little baby ducks, old pick-up trucks, slow movin' trains, and rain.
why don't you go live in South Dakota then... you'll love the winters there... i know all about 'em...
Posted by DWE on :
Nope. Movin' to Miami, Florida hopefully by the end of 2006! I "CAIN'T" WAIT!!! Look out JEB BUSH!!! Here comes D.W.E.!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
There isn't a lot "human" about people that claim a demand of life over the right to live a good or healthful life for a woman, then support and give money to funds that hire and support the assasination of physicians working in hospitals and clinics where abortions are not turned away.
Mostly the exact same hypocrites scream about abortions that stand outside prisons and cheer during the carrying out of death sentences. They are a sick sick bunch of evil, much like a festering pocket of puss in the heart of civilization. Death is death, no matter what the reason. If it is your contention that it is sacred, then have the honor and integrity to deny any and all killing.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by DWE: Nope. Movin' to Miami, Florida hopefully by the end of 2006! I "CAIN'T" WAIT!!! Look out JEB BUSH!!! Here comes D.W.E.!!!
i wooold thank y'all ud wanner be wiff folks o'like mind, yaknow whattamean thankin jess liken yurseff?? miami is BLUE buddy.... blue blue blue
Posted by DWE on :
YOU'RE RIGHT! BLUE WATER, PALM TREES, WHITE SAND AND SUN.. LOTS OF SUN! WAS THERE IN FEBRUARY FOR A WEEK MET SHAQUILLE "THE SHAQ" OF THE MIAMI HEAT. LOTS OF BEAUTIFUL CUBANAS IN MIAMI, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTH BEACH. BEATS THE HELL OUT OF CALIFORNIA ANY DAY! I'M ON MY WAY, MIAMI!!!
Posted by Upside on :
Assuming they're still alive, and now have the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I wonder how Mom and Dad DWE feel about the issue of abortion?
Posted by bdgee on :
hahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That's a very interesting question.
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Assuming they're still alive, and now have the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I wonder how Mom and Dad DWE feel about the issue of abortion?
Posted by DWE on :
I make em PROUD! Also.....
And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me. And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. ‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.
UNLIKE ANY OF YOU HATERS AND TRAITORS OF AMERICA!
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
It's Hard To Be A Republican by Subway Serenade
(Sung to the tune of 'Proud To Be An American')
When tomorrow all the things are gone, We've worked for all our lives, And the Right has saved the Nation, From homosexuals and their wives,
I'll wish on every star, We'd had Clinton here today. Or perhaps to hear that Howard Scream And make it go away.
And it's hard to be a Republican, Where I thought my lunch was free. And I won't forget the ones who lied, And sold that crap to me.
And I'd give my tax cut if I could, But my job moved to Bombay. 'Cause there ain't no doubt I bought the scam, That screwed the USA.
From the words of Bill O'Reilly, That I heard on my TV, From Bob Novak, and Rush Limbaugh, It all made sense to me.
Anyone who spoke against us, Was playin' a dangerous game. But now my country's become a laughing stock, And the GOP's to blame.
And it's hard to be a Republican, Where I thought my lunch was free. And I won't forget the ones who lied, And sold that crap to me. And I'd take my vote back if I could, Now my grandkids have to pay.
'Cause there ain't no doubt I bought the scam, That screwed the USA.
[ March 07, 2006, 13:11: Message edited by: Gordon Bennett ]
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by DWE: I make em PROUD! Also.....
And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me. And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. ‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.
UNLIKE ANY OF YOU HATERS AND TRAITORS OF AMERICA!
Genes.....
Ya can't pass 'em along if ya ain't got 'em.
Posted by DWE on :
I'm playin' the violin, Tony Bennett!! You prove to me time and time again, you're a broken 45... Or are you a 33?....... Or perhaps a 78.... Well anyhow, YOU BORE ME!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)