posted
Woah. I'm watching as the Right managed to ban all non--life-threatening abortion in the state of South Dakota! The bill passed their legislature and their govonor says he'll sign it into law.... The story.
Wanna bet school prayer and creationism are up next?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Just before women are declared property...then witches.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As the resident right-winger, let me congratulate the state of South Dakota for banning the unecessary slaughter of unborn children and also that said ban was passed by the people's democratically elected state legislature rather than by the judicial autocracy.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Explain that- The elected officials did not put it to a popular vote, rather they decided that what was in their own people's best intrests was the same as what private intrests (campaign contributors) wanted.
There's going to be a lot of women sneaking across the border to other states to have a medical procedure every other woman is entitled to.
Nothing like rich white overly-religous men deciding what's best for mostly poor women. I'd wonder how many voting for this bill are women? Any?
Any moral issues aside, the people shuld have voted directly on any issue with such braod ramifications. I mean, they people vote on such "concerns" as weither to legalize gambling, why not this? Because it would have never passed. Not even in South Dakota.
This is only the "foot in the door" for the Right to try this shit in other states now.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Women? Voting? Them words' gonna get you killed, mah boy!
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:The elected officials did not put it to a popular vote, rather they decided that what was in their own people's best intrests was the same as what private intrests (campaign contributors) wanted.
The idea of representative democracy is that the will of the people should be carried out by their chosen representatives. If their representatives don't act according to the will of the people, they aren't reelected. As for campaign contributors, no amount of money can reelect a politician who has sufficiently angered his or her constituants.
quote:There's going to be a lot of women sneaking across the border to other states to have a medical procedure every other woman is entitled to.
How is someone entitled to an abortion? I would agree that you could say that someone is entitled to life-saving medicine or care, but an abortion? Rarely is an abortion needed to preserve a mother's life, and that procedure was not banned in South Dakota. Abortions are generally performed to avoid inconveniences or some sort of vaguely defined mental or emotional harm.
Rather than killing the child, there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception and adoption after.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I wonder how much popular outrage there would be if this "representive" leglislature banned guns in such fashion.
Or beer.
Or pickup trucks.
It's a yee-haw state, and it's -unfortunately- going to start a huuuge legal shitstorm once the first doctor is arrested. Why, it might even (gasp!) force the issue to the Supreme Court! (an unintended outcome, I'm sure)
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:The elected officials did not put it to a popular vote, rather they decided that what was in their own people's best intrests was the same as what private intrests (campaign contributors) wanted.
The idea of representative democracy is that the will of the people should be carried out by their chosen representatives. If their representatives don't act according to the will of the people, they aren't reelected. As for campaign contributors, no amount of money can reelect a politician who has sufficiently angered his or her constituants.
quote:There's going to be a lot of women sneaking across the border to other states to have a medical procedure every other woman is entitled to.
How is someone entitled to an abortion? I would agree that you could say that someone is entitled to life-saving medicine or care, but an abortion? Rarely is an abortion needed to preserve a mother's life, and that procedure was not banned in South Dakota. Abortions are generally performed to avoid inconveniences or some sort of vaguely defined mental or emotional harm.
Rather than killing the child, there are always various forms of birth control prior to conception and adoption after.
No amount of votes can keep a politician in office past their term either- that's where those campaign contibutions, connections and money come in- to further a political career.
As to "entitlement", it's her body and (as defined by both science and national law) the thing growing in her is not "a person" for quite some time after conception.
This is where the moral issue comes into play, and is aside from my point, but if you wnat to go there, why not hammer the issue home and give all unwanted children automatic custody (and financial liability) to the father then?
After all, it's the menfolk making the decisions as to weither the woman should have the child.
Or should the state care for them all? South Dakota is not exactly booming ecomomicaly as it is.
It's always easy to sit in judgement when it's someone else's problem.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"How is someone entitled to an abortion?"
In the same way women are entitled to any other medical procedure, up to a point that should not ever be set by bible-thumpers.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:As to "entitlement", it's her body and (as defined by both science and national law) the thing growing in her is not "a person" for quite some time after conception.
The fetus is a genetically unique individual and, without any further active input from the parents, grows into a fully developed infant capable of living outside of the womb. The baby may be connected to the mother and drawing nutrients from her, but it's an otherwise self-contained system and not really the mother's body anymore.
quote:After all, it's the menfolk making the decisions as to weither the woman should have the child.
Women typically participate in the creation of a child too, so it's not as if whether or not they conceive one is decided by just the man. Also, there is no great schism between men and women's opinions regarding abortion: the percentage of men who support abortion is nearly identical to the percentage of women who support abortion.
quote:In the same way women are entitled to any other medical procedure...
Abortion is not just "any other medical procedure". Gall bladder surgery, cancer removal, face lifts, etc. do not snuff out a developing human life.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Neither does abortion. You can't use the Frankenstein argument (i.e. "It's aliiiiiive!") without some evidence. And, obviously, you can't use the Christian scriptures as that evidence since, one, we're not all Christians, and, two, the bible says the unborn aren't people, too. So, where's your scientific evidence that an embryo is a sentient person?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:So, where's your scientific evidence that an embryo is a sentient person?
I never said that an embryo is a sentient person. If sentience is a requirement to be accorded status as a human being, since a child isn't truly self-aware until some time after birth, should we allow the abortion of those who have already been born?
Additionally, animals (the vast majority anyway) aren't sentient either, yet they are accorded some legal protection, especially the endangered ones.
quote:And, obviously, you can't use the Christian scriptures as that evidence since, one, we're not all Christians...
I had not intention of bringing the Bible into this since it's futile to try to defend your position using a text that not all the arguing parties agree on as an authoratative source.
However...
quote:...the bible says the unborn aren't people, too...
I honestly can't find any scripture that supports this statement, however Jeremiah 1:5 says: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This verse certainly seems to suggest that the Lord considered Jeremiah to be a person long before he was physically born.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote: I honestly can't find any scripture that supports this statement, however Jeremiah 1:5 says: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This verse certainly seems to suggest that the Lord considered Jeremiah to be a person long before he was physically born.
I don't know if one can really use that quote as a reason for not having an abortion since I believe the saying was aimed at a specific person who would play an important role in the bible. I don't think it applies to the common man.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I would have to agree with Zefram in that they were elected, and do have the right to change the law- it will soon be up to the electorate to change who is making the laws however, and if that law should be reversed.
I wish some common ground could be found. I think when it's early on and we are debating about a collection of cells I would agree with the left in that it is the woman�s right to decide if she wishes to have a baby�. But when it is late in the pregnancy I would agree with the right that the abortion should not be allowed- if labor could be induced and the baby could be born and live outside the mother, I think it�s far too late to come to the decision not to have it- With that said though, there must be concession for the life of the mother at all points.
So in conclusion: Allow abortion in the first month; deny it in the last month (except if the mother�s life is in jeopardy). This deal would please 60% of the country- the other 35% could then continue to fight over the seven months in the middle. Leaving a remaining 5% to be really mad that everyone else made a concession to the other side, but as they are fewer in number.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
