South Dakota passes Abortion BanFollow

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200602%5CCUL20060210d.html

Looks like Roe v. Wade will be coming to a SCOTUS near you in the future.

Seems pretty straight forward to me...

"The South Dakota House has approved a bill banning almost all abortions in the state, and the state Senate is next to take up the proposed ban."

Tare said

[quote]****************

Seconded.

Actually, I respect that position more than I do the mealy-mouthed "We'll allow exceptions so we don't look like we lack compassion" guys. I disagree with it, but I do respect its consistency.

We'll see how it goes. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle, but obviously not impossible.

I'll admit I haven't taken any Political Science courses in about 10 years, so I may be a bit rusty. However, I'm pretty sure that quote means that it's passed through the House, but to become a law it still has to go through the Senate. So it's still just a bill, not a law. So your title is in err.

At least, that's what I recall from Schoolhouse Rock.

Actually, I respect that position more than I do the mealy-mouthed "We'll allow exceptions so we don't look like we lack compassion" guys. I disagree with it, but I do respect its consistency.
----------------------------------------------------------

a man rapes a women and gets 5 years. the woman who was raped gets 1 year of pregnancy, and 18 years of responsibility raising a child that will remind her she was raped all over again every day she lays eyes on him/her.

and if she gives the child away, will feel guilty for the rest of her life for abandoning a child that came from her.

if you can respect that, then why would any of you have a problem with the way Islamic extremist treat women. their way is more merciful. one shot to the back of the head vs mental torture for the rest of her life.

i will lay good money not a single Woman supported this bill. and if we are going to allow men to decide what is best for women, then how are we any better than Islamic extremist?

i do not respect it.

it is no better than what the Taliban did to Afganistan. Forcing a mans point of view of religion on the entire population.

it is wrong. it is against everything this country is about.

it is the republican party.

Unfortunately abortion is not murder, which means the debate is not over integrity, but over simple misunderstanding of our justice system. Just because the religious wacks beleive something, doesnt mean everyone else has to follow it. They can call it murder all they want, but our government has deemed otherwise. And frankly im getting tired of all the jackass politicians continuing to bring this up to grab a few conservative votes.

These people will go as far as you let them to push their views onto others. I for one am not interested in what they have to say about jesus/muhamud/krinsa etc.. Why cant they abstain from the carnal pleasures of life and let others enjoy life to the fullest.

As for the "ethical" issue of abortion, because it is NOT a universally classified "evil deed", and reagardless of what the religious nuts say, its not, the only fair thing we can do is look to science to give us a reasonable answer of where life begins and set the guidline by that. This allows the mother and father to decide if they wish to raise this child, or if they wish to discard the undeveloped genetic tissue. Only when people start believing that the little cells have souls does the argument become clouded with superstitious meandering.

Apparently I need to type slower. I said I respect the integrity of the argument itself - of the debate stance. They are consistent in their treatment of the question at hand.

Couldnt have put it better myself.

Whether abortion is murder in the true sense of the word (universally accepted by mankind as wrong, mandated as law, like walking into a school and killing half a dozen people, which lacks any real debate as to whether the students were indeed "alive"), its just not an issue. Abortion is NOT murder, whether by universal standards, or by standard legal standards, or even rational thought(i know the rational thought one is a bit offbase, but i have yet to find someone opposed to abortion with adequate knowledge of fetal development or without some spiritual connections implied, though im sure they exist).

This country IS a democracy, and im not objecting to the fact that laws are made by the representitives of the people, but i beleive(and hope), that the representitives are open minded enough to consider the issue on a non-religious manner, and our judges fair enough to not decide based on opinion, but rather evidence and justice.

When we allow our laws to be swayed by the daily public opinion, then the protection we have for minorities(race, religion, general beleif) tend to vanish. Our government is the voice of the people, but it is also the regualtor of it. Our constitution sets forth guidelines, our laws help regulate, and our representives help redefine these laws for each generation. I just hope we dont get so far into the conservative/liberal polarization that we loose sight of justice and liberty, as we desperately fight for public opinion.

:(

Not that I'm arguing in favor of the bill or anything--It's just that I can't pass up a good dose of irony.

Anyway, it makes sense to not allow exceptions. I mean, if you're under the [rather silly] impression that abortion is murder, then why would the fact that it came from a rape make it ok? Murder's murder. The logic is there, although I can't quite say I "respect" such a standpoint, since the whole thing is in fact utterly ridiculous to begin with.

Oh, and...
...am I the only one who was extremely bothered by this? A US polititian just reminded me of a phrase I hadn't heard since grade 5.

Edited, Mon Feb 13 04:01:49 2006 by CAustin

And remember: it's legal to eat road kill here!

Edited, Mon Feb 13 07:08:14 2006 by Nadenu

To hell with slaves, I think children should be relegated back to chattel status. If they're under 18*, they're the property of the parent - if they act out, the parent is held liable and responsible for failure to control them. If they're over 18*, they're legal adults and completely culpable for any actions they take.


*: This arbitrary age, set by our legal system, should likely be amended. Whether it goes up (to ~24, as scientists are finding our brain's changes don't settle down until approximately that age) or down (to ~15, when our lovely precocious teeny-boppers like to tell us they're not kids anymore) should be settled by lively discussion, the results of which will be purely academic, as nobody is going to adopt my system anyway.


Given my stance on children I'm not in favor of giving embryos the power of the vote just yet. Most days I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I favor mandatory sterilization, reproduction licensing, and a pre-requisite IQ test to keep future Varrus clones from spawning.

Again though. You make that distinction purely because you believe that a black person is a human deserving of rights and an embryo isn't.

A collection of cells in your pee isn't an embryo, and neither is an unfertilized egg. So both of those analogies fail completely. I'm not aware of any pro-life folks arguing that peeing or menstuating constitute murder.



That's totally irrelevant though. What other things many pro-life people may or may not believe has absolutely no relevance to the validity of *this* particular issue. You're also picking and choosing in any case. Those same people also believe in things like not killing, lying, or stealing. As a group, they constitute by far the largest contributors to charities.

And that's also assuming that all pro-life proponents do so purely as a result of organized religion. A questionable position to take IMO.


If the village idiot tells you not to jump off a cliff, does that mean you should do it anyway because he's wrong about everything else? You need to assess each issue on its own merits, and in this case the absolutely most critical issue is the debate over whether or not an embryo constitutes "human life" and should be protected as such. If the citizens of S. Dakota believe as a group that it does, shouldn't they have the right to write their laws in accordance with that?


I'm pro-choice, but I do happen to believe that the SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade was wrong. By making that call by judicial fiat, they robbed the entire society of working though the decision on our own. They robbed "the people" from the right to determine the laws they should live under. The sad part is that at the time "the people" were already leaning heavily in the direction of changing laws to legalize abortion. Many states had already done so and many more had bills in the pipe when the Roe v. Wade decision came down. As a result, we never got to finish the process of legistlation on this issue. The decision was not made by people hashing it out in their towns and legistlatures across the country, it was handed to us all on a silver platter from on high. Had we simply allowed the social movement to finish, we'd likely have ended with most or all states legalizing abortion in a manner that would have satisfied the masses. I believe this because the argument would have continued on the issue at a time when the social direction was decidedly pro-choice. Today, it's the other way around, so if Roe v. Wade does get reversed, we're very likely to see a backlash.


And it was just a bad ruling to begin with. We didn't need it, and it set a horrible precident for those types of cases.