REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill

POSTED BY: ARCADIA
UPDATED: Thursday, March 23, 2006 21:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2088
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:06 PM

RUE


If surgical abortions become illegal then the alternative is laminaria.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:25 PM

FLETCH2


My guess is that this one will fail. Reason: the law doesn't make exceptions on issues even conserative justices might find extreme.

Point 1: Health of the Mother has to be respected. The argument is that the child has a similar right to life as the adult, it can not have a superior right, because the body of Constitutional law is that we have equal rights. So if the life of the child would destroy the life of the mother the Constitution would seem to side with her.

Point 2: In general the law does not let people benefit from their crimes. The Burgler does not get to keep what he steals, the drug dealer has his assets ceased. A man forcing a woman to bear his child through rape or incest would benefit from his crime if she was forced to keep it. Further it would mean the government is siding with the perp against the victim, hardly justice.

Therefore any law without at least provision for these two instances is unlikely to pass even conservative constitutional muster.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:42 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.


I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?

Lord knows I'll be criticized for believing in such an antiquated concept, but maybe that's the problem with our progressive, "feel good" society today. We're all spoiled, and expect what we want when we want it, and everyone and everything else be damned that gets in the way of our instant, selfish gratification.

Frankly, I'm not the least surprised that we've come to murdering babies in the tens of millions. Sadly, I think it's only going to worse.

This is what happens when morals become relative and people do whatever they please without regard for others.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:30 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
My guess is that this one will fail. Reason: the law doesn't make exceptions on issues even conserative justices might find extreme.

Point 1: Health of the Mother has to be respected.

Point 2: In general the law does not let people benefit from their crimes.


Well said. I was going to make the same point. These are the reasons a number of the "limited" abortion bans have been passing or failing in recent years.

I think that the Court will be revisiting Row and rightfully so. Having read the Row decision a number of times I am always struck by its reliance on decades old science and statistics. Casey v. Planned Parenthood reaffirmed the underlying principal (right to privacy, etc), but the application in Row is based on outdated science.

I used to be in favor of overturning Row, until I read O'Conner's decision in Casey (and a few other cases, not to mention attending a lecture by the woman back in lawschool). Now I am in favor of periodically revisting Row to review and account for the advances in science since the decision was made. I realized that Row contains the seed of its own destruction. If science advances to the point when viability and conception meet, then Row can be used against abortion rather then in its favor. So rather then pushing the court to overturn Row and upset the applecart on the abortion issue, it should revisit the case, reaffirm, again, the right to privacy, and push the limits Row imposes on abortion based on thirty year old viability science back a few weeks or a trimester.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.


I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?




Too bad you didn't actually read my post, and just went for your keywords. You might want to try again and read the whole thing this time.

A woman who became pregnant due to rape or incest has no choice in the matter. Neither does a woman who wished to bear children but finds out during early screening that the fetus has severe medical problems, or that the pregnancy is a danger to her health.

In effect SD is saying:

"Yes, we understand that your fetus will produce a brain damaged baby that will only live a short time after birth, and that the pregnancy will damage your health and prevent you from ever having a healthy child, and that an early-term abortion would avoid all that - but, hey, that's the law. Hope you have good health insurance because we won't pay a cent."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:28 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
That’s fine, but you can’t use that argument to say that there would be more deaths/aborted fetuses if abortion were illegal. Just because back alley abortions may be more risky to the mother’s health, in general, does not mean that the mother will die all the time or even most of the time. And all the evidence, that I’ve seen, concerning the number of such abortions occurring prior to 1973 suggests that abortion occurred much less then it has during legalized abortion.


I think a fair few of illegal abortions won't be in the statistics, strangely enough .

But it's not just death, figures I've seen put infertility at quite a high rate, so many subsequent children that would have been born don't.

You know the potential for creating a child is there, whether there is a child or not, so making a Woman infertile, based on the RTL argument as I see it, is as bad as abortion.

In fact random thought, shouldn't hysterectomies be banned for the same reasons?

But what about all the babies that are born that are left too die or are killed, or abandoned, or died as a result of genetic deficiency, or the Mothers that died during child birth, shouldn't they also be counted in the figures?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:35 AM

CITIZEN


Geezer:
Well said.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 7:55 AM

FLAUTISTFIRST


Geezer:

Good research. Yes, it is true. All of that did happen.

Native South Dakotan who is greatly disappointed in the current state politics.



There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 8:15 AM

FLAUTISTFIRST


Citizen,

Glad you brought up the slippery slope of this issue.

Birth Control (other than abstinence), hysterectomies, and other medical procedures are on this slippery slope called prolife.

My daughter is developmentally disabled to the point that she'll never be able to "consent" to sex, or understand where babies come from. Unfortunately, if radical prolifers get their way, birth control pills will be illegal to use with her because they would be considered a "chemical abortion." With pharmacists refusing to fill RX for plan B and others refusing to fill any RX for birth control, this is certanly an issue.

Shouldn't the issue be what is in her best health interest? Not what some legislative body half a continent away decides?

I'm not trying to bring up a totally different issue (the rights of the disabled), but the whole prolife/prochoice issue is a slippery slope to a whole range of reproductive health issues in my opinion.

Oh, for those who are curious, I didn't know prior to her birth that she would have the issues she does. Nothing I did caused it; nothing I didn't do caused it. And I wouldn't have aborted her if I new before hand that she would be as disabled as she is. But, I truly value that it was my choice--not a government issisting that I had to abort cuz of the disability or a government issisting that I had to carry to term. Not everyone is this 'verse gets to have that choice.





There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 8:47 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The responsibility side seems to be missing in this case.


I agree. But, the time for responsible choice is before the "unwanted" pregnancy, not after.

But people want to have what they want without bearing any responsibility for their actions. They want to eat their cake and still have it.

It's very simple. If you don't want to have a child, don't engage in the activity that produces a child.

What ever happened to self control?




Too bad you didn't actually read my post, and just went for your keywords. You might want to try again and read the whole thing this time.

A woman who became pregnant due to rape or incest has no choice in the matter. Neither does a woman who wished to bear children but finds out during early screening that the fetus has severe medical problems, or that the pregnancy is a danger to her health.


Actually, I did read your post. And I'm left to believe that abortions performed for the reasons you stated above are likely to be a minimal number. (Anyone have such figures?) I'd guess that the vast majority (if not nearly all) abortions are done as a means of birth control (convenience)(i.e. the selfish reason I stated above), and not for the reasons you mentioned above.

Although, I know better than to expect anyone to agree with a comment that we're a selfish, morally relavant society that only wants our instant gratification. You neither agreed nor disagreed with that comment, but conveniently misdirected the argument towards reasons for abortion which I'm guessing would likely comprise less than 1% of all those performed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 8:57 AM

DINKY


I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.

It's supposed to be. I, as a Catholic believe that God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.

It's just one of those tough choices that people have to face that's just part of life. I just think that a new younger life is more important than the life of the older more mature woman. Though the woman who is carrying the child is still very important.

I understand how a lot of you won't agree with me, I just wanted to add my opinion :).

And as for not being able to afford to take care of a child, there's always those Adoption companies. It's better than killing the poor baby.

"Th3re !s n0 spo0Ne." -The Matricks

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 9:26 AM

ARCADIA


Quote:


Actually, I did read your post. And I'm left to believe that abortions performed for the reasons you stated above are likely to be a minimal number. (Anyone have such figures?) I'd guess that the vast majority (if not nearly all) abortions are done as a means of birth control (convenience)(i.e. the selfish reason I stated above), and not for the reasons you mentioned above.



These are stats posted on about.com ( http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm). The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. I'll search for a more realiable source, but, for now...


Quote:


* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.



Most women who have abortions do intent to have children at one point in their life, or already have children.

"Objects in Space"
River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 9:39 AM

AGENTROUKA


In my opinion, the problem of abortion will never be a simple one. It's just not black and white.

a) It is true that it's an entirely selfish act at the expense of a developing life. That can't be denied away and most pro-choice people will admit that.

b) It's also true that "Don't have sex!" is an over-simplified counter-argument.

People have always had sex for reasons that were not "Let's have children". Always. No matter how officially prude the society. It's a fact that won't ever change. It's human nature to have sex for pleasure.

(These days, it's simply that women get to enjoy it with an amount of freedom that approaches that of men.)

It's an issue that has to be approached with pragmatism. Everything else is like trying to ban alcohol. Pointless.

Fact: Not every pregnancy is planned or wanted.

When unwanted, it's at the very least a big inconvenience, worse it can be mentally traumatizing (rape, incest, etc.), at worst life-threatening.

And it's not even touching the burdens of either raising the kids or giving them away.

That's not nothing.


(Aside: It's a consequence of sex that men do not have to deal with. I think that point is of some meaning.

If the consequences of sex were more equally distributed in nature, maybe we as intelligent thinking creatures would find it easier to deal with an unwanted consequence. As a society certainly, but maybe also as individuals. But that's pure speculation.)


Anyway. So long as women are [unequally] burdened with the consequences of sex, some will strive for options to avoid that. Which is forever. Hence that fact that abortion has been around since the dawn of time, as well.

My suggestion: artificial wombs for all. Science, march ahead!

Call me cold, but as long as a human life requires one specific other person to survive, it remains that person's choice whether they want to play along. Just like with the kidney transplant comparison further above, except that denial of service becomes an act, not a lack of one.

People who feel that every fetus needs to be saved should start working on viable alternatives to the natural womb. It's the pragmatic solution.


Not to mention: contraception improvement, sex education, transparent and encouraging options for unwanted children that ARE born and so on. It's easy to point the finger and punish. It's more effective to prevent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 9:53 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Dinky:
I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.

It's supposed to be. I, as a Catholic believe that God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.



To that I say, what choice?

pregnancy by rape + abortion is immoral = no choice at all.

It's not even a sacrifice, because that, too, involved choice. It's a bad thing that happens to you with no asking for your input, whether you're filled with mild serenity or bitter hate.

That's more comparable to the hardships he rained down on Job, if compare you must.

Quote:


It's just one of those tough choices that people have to face that's just part of life.



Again, I ask where in the equation of rape and pregnancy it is that you set the concept of choice.

Quote:


I just think that a new younger life is more important than the life of the older more mature woman.



Why, though? What did the poor woman do to rate second? Equal worth I could deal with, but less?

Basically, if a woman is raped, is pregnant as a result and then is in danger of dying during childbirth, then you stand by and say "tough luck, no help for you, God wants you to die", did I get that right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:34 PM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by Dinky:
I'd like to add some more 2 cents and say that I believe Pregnancy is a sacrifice.



But not today, Dinky. Today, it's "do what's best for me at the moment".

That's why a lot of marriages fall apart, everything is the convenience of the moment. Sacrifice (or heaven forbid -- actually thinking about someone else above ourselves) is a thing of the past -- or for prudes.

We're foolish and/or naive if we actually believe that a society raised on instant gratification will ever embrace a concept like sacrifice (or delayed gratification, or life-long committment, or any other such antiquated notions)...

Welcome to the progressive, enlightened 21st century. At this rate, I'm glad I won't be around to see the 22nd.

P.S. Arcadia, thanks for those figures. Even if they're remotely accurate, they're enlightening.

P.S.S. Geezer, I wasn't trying to take you out of context or pick on you. I disagree with you on much of this issue, but I have to respect someone who served their country -- as I'm imagining you have (if that pic is of you -- and I'm guessing the Corps). No matter what I think of your views, I'm grateful for your service.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 1:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:
P.S.S. Geezer, I wasn't trying to take you out of context or pick on you. I disagree with you on much of this issue, but I have to respect someone who served their country -- as I'm imagining you have (if that pic is of you -- and I'm guessing the Corps). No matter what I think of your views, I'm grateful for your service.



Although I did serve my country in the late south-east Asian unpleasantness (Vietnam conflict), the picture is of a youngish Robert Heinlein, although he does look strangely like my father's WWII photos.

And I got no problem with you having your own opinion of morality or immorality in the 21st century. When you attempt to force it, and its results, on other folks who have different opinions, I do have a problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:17 PM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Although I did serve my country in the late south-east Asian unpleasantness (Vietnam conflict), the picture is of a youngish Robert Heinlein, although he does look strangely like my father's WWII photos.


I, myself, have never been called to serve (and haven't volunteered). I missed Vietnam by 5 or 6 years, so I'm probably a few years younger than you (although, undoubtedly, a lot of folks in here would find me "geezerly", as well).

My thanks to you and your brothers in arms is sincere. I have always respected our military and those who serve. Thank you very much. I do not envy what it must have been like for you.

I wasn't sure about the pic, but I thought it was a bit "older". Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
And I got no problem with you having your own opinion of morality or immorality in the 21st century. When you attempt to force it, and its results, on other folks who have different opinions, I do have a problem.


I don't believe in forcing my morality on anyone, although I'm aware that others would like to if they could. While I am deeply sorrowed that so many today seem to be devoid of any morality (or even a sense of common dignity), I know from my own experience that one has to want to do something from their own heart. It wouldn't be geniune if forced, so I wouldn't force it if I could.

I do, however, believe it's the government's responsibility to protect all those living under its jurisdiction (as I stated above), and I believe that unborn humans deserve that protection as much as the rest of us (if not more, because they are the most defenseless of human beings). On that, I'm afraid, it seems as though we're going to respectfully disagree.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:44 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I think a fair few of illegal abortions won't be in the statistics, strangely enough .

But it's not just death, figures I've seen put infertility at quite a high rate, so many subsequent children that would have been born don't.

You know the potential for creating a child is there, whether there is a child or not, so making a Woman infertile, based on the RTL argument as I see it, is as bad as abortion.

In fact random thought, shouldn't hysterectomies be banned for the same reasons?

Infertility is not abortion, and a fetus never conceived cannot be killed so it cannot add to the causality list. You’re just grasping at straws now.
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But what about all the babies that are born that are left too die or are killed, or abandoned, or died as a result of genetic deficiency, or the Mothers that died during child birth, shouldn't they also be counted in the figures?

What about them? Children die of genetic deficiencies, abandonment, neglect, and murder today. But I still say that illegal abortions and all that went with it preformed in the years prior 1973 do not add up to the number of abortions preformed in the years since.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:53 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Infertility is not abortion, and a fetus never conceived cannot be killed so it cannot add to the causality list. You’re just grasping at straws now.


Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:38 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

Actually, an embryo is alive, but that’s not the point. You’re trying to pad the numbers with abortions that could never have occurred. By your argument masturbation is tantamount to abortion. How many sperm exists in an ounce of semen? Millions I would guess. Hustler and Playboy then become responsible for conceivably billions or trillions of aborted fetuses every year. And every women between puberty and menopause have abortions every month.

The reality is that between c. 1950 and 1973 there were on average around a couple hundred deaths due to illegal abortions per year. I don’t know that anyone knows how many illegal abortions occurred during that time, but considering the difficulty of getting such abortions problaby not as many as today, when all you have to do is go down to the local clinic.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How many sperm exists in an ounce of semen? Millions I would guess. Hustler and Playboy then become responsible for conceivably billions or trillions of aborted fetuses every year.



Already covered by Monty Python in "the Meaning of Life"

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs,
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.


An mp3. from the movie here:

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 8:24 PM

SASSALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Not really, four cells with slightly differing genetic code to the host aren't exactly alive either. Even the RTL argument supports that, they say that it has the potential to become life, well so does a Sperm, so does an Egg, and by extension destroying fertility is destroying this potential, it's not grasping a straws, it's taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

Actually, an embryo is alive, but that’s not the point.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero



Scientifically I have to disagree. Not on your claim of an embryo as "alive" per se, but on the jump from 4 cells to embryo. 4 cells does not an embryo make. 4 cells isn't even a blastocyst. At the 4 cell stage, the cells haven't even implanted in the endometrium and the legal definition of "pregnancy" is implantation. Hell, the 4 cell stage hasn't even left the fallopian tube yet. The embryo doesn't exist until the inner cell mass of the blastocyst starts to differentiate and that occurs about a week or so after fertilization.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 10:38 PM

CITIZEN


No Finn, thats their argument, not mine.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2006 10:59 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

God made it this way, he knew that rapes were going to happen and problems at birth were going to happen. But he probably made it this way so it wound up being a choice that was made in the goodness of our hearts.p


what God are you talking about???, because I've read the bible and the God in the Christian Bible isn't a very nice, good, or loving being,creature. if I had to attach a label to it, manaic would be a perfect discription, he's playing mind games telling people to murder their children, actually murdering children, and starting wars and conflicts, and manipulating people , seems pretty blood thirsty to me, so this statement doesn't add up.

Quote:

That's the party line, but like so many party lines, it's untrue. I mean really, have you ever spoken to someone on the other side of the issue? The pro-lifers I've talked with could care less about the woman, much less had any vested interest in "controlling" her.. their sole focus was on the kiddo inside, and not wanting it killed. And like DT said, there's at least as many chicks on the pro-life side.

So hey.. believe what you believe.. but make sure you believe it for real reasons.



Thats what the pro-lifers tell you, but how honest are they being. not very honest at allthere are all sorts of issues that have to do with the abortion issue thats not really being discussed, alot of it has to do with , sex, control of women, and race.


but on another note, the pro-lifers are a joke. if they put their money where their mouth is abortion probably wouldn't be an issue. Support programs and legistlation that benifit children, make a college education available to anyone who qualifies, up the minium wage, have a state run healthcare system, make it desireable for women to have children and they will.But thats not likely to happen, like I said before its mostly the poor and uneducated who have high birth rates, Latino and Blacks make up that majority. Most of the low birth rates come from educated white women who can't have or who don't want children or not very many Children. Behind it all race like so many things in America is the hot button issue behind the abortion issue. Thats why they want to teach creationism in schools, they want to see women dumbed down, barefoot an pregnant just like it was back in the good old days ( which was the horrible old days for most women.

and the more complicated a society becomes, the more industrialized, and the more educated the lower the birth rate.

Also I presume that most of the posters in this thread are men, which I find interesting.

every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy in a safe and healthy manner if she chooses, nobody should have to be forced to have or care for a child they don't won't or can't afford. I've never had an abortion and hope that I never will have to , but if I woke up and found myself pregnant tommrow I most defintely would have one without a doubt.

and don't tell me that alot of this isn't about men wanting to control women. because it is, just reading some of the comments in this thread its pretty obvious wether your conscious of it or not, some of the comments have been downright hateful. Its our bodies not yours and we can do what we like with it.



Don't hate me because I have the power to give life and take it away and you don't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:26 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny:
what God are you talking about???, because I've read the bible and the God in the Christian Bible isn't a very nice, good, or loving being,creature. if I had to attach a label to it, manaic would be a perfect discription, he's playing mind games telling people to murder their children, actually murdering children, and starting wars and conflicts, and manipulating people , seems pretty blood thirsty to me, so this statement doesn't add up.


I imagine that's because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all off shoots of the Cult of YHWH, who was/is a war god. Just a rough guess but maybe that's why those religions are just the slightest bit violent.
Quote:

but on another note, the pro-lifers are a joke. if they put their money where their mouth is abortion probably wouldn't be an issue. Support programs and legistlation that benifit children, make a college education available to anyone who qualifies, up the minium wage, have a state run healthcare system, make it desireable for women to have children and they will.But thats not likely to happen, like I said before its mostly the poor and uneducated who have high birth rates, Latino and Blacks make up that majority. Most of the low birth rates come from educated white women who can't have or who don't want children or not very many Children. Behind it all race like so many things in America is the hot button issue behind the abortion issue. Thats why they want to teach creationism in schools, they want to see women dumbed down, barefoot an pregnant just like it was back in the good old days ( which was the horrible old days for most women.

That's a good point. I think creationism in schools is a little wider than keeping Women under the boot, more to do with keeping the masses down and a backlash from Christian fundamentals over their loss of power and control. Most likely they see the Middle East, and the religious control that militant fundamentalist have over their fellow man and think "I want that too".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Scientifically I have to disagree. Not on your claim of an embryo as "alive" per se, but on the jump from 4 cells to embryo. 4 cells does not an embryo make. 4 cells isn't even a blastocyst. At the 4 cell stage, the cells haven't even implanted in the endometrium and the legal definition of "pregnancy" is implantation. Hell, the 4 cell stage hasn't even left the fallopian tube yet. The embryo doesn't exist until the inner cell mass of the blastocyst starts to differentiate and that occurs about a week or so after fertilization.

Well, I show my ignorance of biology. Thank you for correcting me. But my point was that the 4-cell stage, whatever you biology-types want to call it, is a living organism.
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Already covered by Monty Python in "the Meaning of Life"

Monty Python is great. I had never heard the sperm song before. I must have not watched “the Meaning of Life,” but I thought I had. My favorite was the Holy Grail, and the reading from the Book of Armaments:

Quote:

Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."





Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:54 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
No Finn, thats their argument, not mine.

Yep. That is the extreme Right of the argument.

As for it not being yours, it certainly seemed like you were trying to use it that way, but perhaps I misunderstood.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:21 AM

CITIZEN


Finn, I'm not pro-abortion ban.

Every Sperm is sacred is a song from "The meaning of life". I can't decide if The life of Brian or The Holy Grail are my favorite though.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Causal:
Quote:

My thought on the issue, for what it's worth, is that since the thing has fully unique DNA right from the get go, it's a fully distinct entity--a new human being, irrespective of its developmental stage. Being that that's the case, I don't see why the fact that it is inside a woman should be grounds for killing it.
DNA does not a human make. Every cell in your body contains the full complement of DNA. Each cell is "potentially" capable of producing a human being- that's what cloning is all about. Some of your cells, through random mutation and uneven distribution of mitochondrial DNA, are even "unique", but I don't hear about the poor unique "potentially" human cells that are lost during an intensive facial scrub or a biopsy or a particularly violent attack of diarrhea.

I keep coming back to why we make such a fuss over an undeveloped bunch of cells: It's not because it's so inherently human. In fact, I believe it's quite the opposite- it is a blank slate for all of our fondest hopes and dreams. We imagine a chubby smiling idealized version of reality and we want to protect our desires, not the reality. I've noticed that once a baby is actually born, in the minds of many social-Darwinists (who most often are right-wing Republicans) it becomes just another mouth to feed, and if born brown, black, addicted, defective or poor- then it's "Tough luck, kiddo".

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:00 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

That's a good point. I think creationism in schools is a little wider than keeping Women under the boot, more to do with keeping the masses down and a backlash from Christian fundamentals over their loss of power and control. Most likely they see the Middle East, and the religious control that militant fundamentalist have over their fellow man and think "I want that too".


well of course it is, I was generalizing. while I'm sure your right its not all just one reason, but basically what it comes down to is dumbing people down. religion is a tool it always has been and its mostly used to control people. control what they do, how they think, etc..

and it never ceases to amaze me just how little most people really know about the religion they follow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:57 PM

SASSALICIOUS


The following is a quote from Senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota regarding the only instance in which an abortion should be allowed:

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

The full transcript from Newhour with Jim Lehrer can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

More insight into Napoli's character: "When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to bebrought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. … I don't think we're so far beyond that, that we can't go back to that."

With this information, it's pretty obvious that for this man (and most likely many others) banning abortion is more about putting a woman in her place and controlling her.

I hope most people don't think like him because this line of thought makes me sick.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:52 PM

GOJIRO


Fortunately, the Sioux come to the rescue:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060323_sioux_abortion_ba
n
/

-------
Are you an Ohio Browncoat? If so, join our Yahoo group for news and events: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:38 PM

SASSALICIOUS


Yay!

Thank you for the link.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kaci Hickok - Don't Tread On Me!
Fri, October 31, 2014 13:33 - 6 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Fri, October 31, 2014 12:37 - 602 posts
You can't take the sky from me
Fri, October 31, 2014 11:05 - 71 posts
Lindsey Graham steps in shit
Fri, October 31, 2014 09:44 - 5 posts
Ebolagate?
Fri, October 31, 2014 06:34 - 117 posts
What New Zealand Could Teach US About Indigenous Culture
Fri, October 31, 2014 04:56 - 37 posts
Election fraud.
Thu, October 30, 2014 22:55 - 2 posts
Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, people leave early
Thu, October 30, 2014 21:44 - 10 posts
Coffee - Cheers!
Thu, October 30, 2014 21:13 - 142 posts
Lava flow?
Thu, October 30, 2014 21:01 - 2 posts
Marijuana On The Ballot In Florida
Thu, October 30, 2014 20:38 - 2 posts
Obama hindsight
Thu, October 30, 2014 19:57 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS