Indians Defeat South Dakota Abortion Bill

[RightinNYC]

Because for centuries the white, straight, male, christian conservative has been screwing the world up. In the last couple of centuries, other people have wised up and stood up for their own rights. I say it is about time. The white, straight, male, christian conservative thinks he owns to much. Now that is changing and they are a dying breed.

Thank god, I hate WSMCC's, all they do is tell me what I can do with MY body. Fascists.

BALL's FOREVER!!!!!!

(Black Atheist Liberal Lesbians)

 

[Alex]

It really was quite a racist christian gender bashing comment.

That was reprinted from another member's post. Not my words. As a matter of fact, it was a response to the very member who called ME a racist.

 

[Donkey1499]

That was reprinted from another member's post. Not my words. As a matter of fact, it was a response to the very member who called ME a racist.

Heard of a joke before?

 

[Alex]

Thank god, I hate WSMCC's, all they do is tell me what I can do with MY body. Fascists.

BALL's FOREVER!!!!!!

(Black Atheist Liberal Lesbians)

LMAO!

BALLs Forever!

I got one...

Pagan Homo Asian Greens!

PHAG Forever!

 

[Alex]

I support anything that will lower the high rate of feticide. There's really just no reason for it. No I wouldn't support ridiculous laws that would force a women to carry a baby to term despite real genuine health risks, but outside of that I'd like to see surgical abortion disappear. I support sex ed, contraceptives, and the MAP. I do not support the government giving women the right to kill developing humans on demand. I also don't support the deceptive notion that what is developing in utero is not a human being.

I agree that is important to support sex education and contraceptives, but that is not a foolproof way to end unwanted pregnancies. Accidents happen and when they do, a woman has the right to choose what she will do about it.

Supporting a ban on abortion would also support higher taxes. Are you willing to pay more taxes for all the unwanted children? Or better yet, take as many as possible into your home to care for?

Supporting a ban on abortion would also support back-alley abortions. Are you willing to feel the heat for women risking their lives to get illegal abortions just because you could not stop interfering with their personal choices?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I wouldn't throw a picture of a dead fetus in front of a woman whose had an abortion. But that doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion on the subject and my concerns that feticide is inherently wrong.

And you do that very eloquently.
I respect your position. My problem is with those who would enforce that position on me with a change in the law. I'll never force abortion onto another woman, in return I expect that no other human being seeks law change to stop me acting by MY consience.

 

[steen]

How to Win Friends and Influence People
By Urethra Franklin

:roll:

Well, she certainly is winning me over. :2razz:

 

[steen]

However I don't think the governments job is to offer women and men sex without consequences.

Is it the Government's job to offer ANY help to people from the result of their own actions? Shouldn't they just face the consequenses from their driving, their diet, their smoking etc? Shouldn't we just shut down most healthcare so people can live with the consequenses of their actions instead?

Oh, I forgot. You only want pregnant women to be denied such health care as to resolve unwanted outcomes. I forgot how hypocritical you pro-lifers are

So if a pregnancy results that's not the governments fault nor should the government set up laws to make consequences disappear

Well, it seems like you advocate the Government completely staying out of the Abortion issue or provision. That sounds like a great idea. No Government involvement, no laws at all, leaving it to the woman and the physician. DAMN, I am proud of you. Pro-choice in one fell swoop. Impressive.

particularly when the consequence is the development of a new life that the government has decided may be killed. Abortion on demand is currently a right in the US. I am well aware of that. But I still think its awful, nasty, ugly business.

There are lots of awful, nasty, ugly stuff going on. Some people are allowed to push conservative policies, f.ex. Awful, nasty, ugly business. Are you saying we should outlaw Conservatives?

And yeah if my neighbor next door decides to kill her kids I'd probably interfere.

And have at it, by all means. Irrelevant to abortions, of course, but 2 points for hyperbole.

Abortion in undoubtedly completely different, legal, and socially acceptable. But heck I still see it as a human mother killing her kid! Guess I'm old fashioned that way.

Yes, rather out of touch with reality on that one.

 

[steen]

Why thank you sweetie, I just got my hair did so I figured I'd show off a bit.

FUgly barbie crap, as bad as Brittney Spears.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The only way to resolve this issue is to answer one question: When does personhood begin?

The question has always been "when does life begin," but scientists have answered that already. Life begins at conception. It stands to reason that when two living cells merge together, the resulting cell will also be living. But in reality that cell is less of a life than the ants and spiders we happily kill with bug spray. So we can't really define our laws based on whether or not "life" has begun in the womb, not without being hypocritical at least. Laws don't protect cells, they protect "persons." So when does personhood begin?

The rights of women to choose what happens to their own bodies should not be in question, by either side of the debate. But considering that pro-lifers naturally have assigned a "personhood" status to the unborn fetus, how could they possibly be compelled by an argument which stresses that the mother has a right to kill that "person?" Again, the disconnect happens because both sides answer that begging question differently: When does personhood begin?

I personally can't rationalize drawing the line at the moment of conception. That's a slippery slope (no pun intended) that makes me feel like I should care about sperm too. If an abortion must happen, it should be as early as possible, preferrably before three months (IIRC) when the central nervous system is developed. I think it's a "person" when it can feel pain.

 

[hipsterdufus]

How can a state law to ban something be defeated if the people actually consider the new law onerous? That is easy. Let the Indians violate the law, except they are not violating it. I just heard on a radio show that the Native American tribes in North Dakota are setting up abortion clinic, and since tribal areas are autonomous, there is nothing that the government can do about it.

I have tried to find a link about what I just heard on the radio, but cant find one yet. If anyone else finds something on this issue, put it here.

Meanwhile, I did find this discussion on the issue.

That's interesting. I wonder if that's a loophole in the legislation. Will it be a felony to drive to a Native American clinic for an abortion?

 

[Columbusite]

Friday's are awesome. But not all indians (feather) live in tee-pees. Some lived in wigwams, like my tribe the Iroquois.

What? You're Iroquois? For real? (Remember, that 1/16 BS doesn't count)

 

[RightinNYC]

FUgly barbie crap, as bad as Brittney Spears.

ey esse don chu be makin fun o mah hairdid o ima come over theah and smack you silly ya heard?

 

[alphamale]

How can a state law to ban something be defeated if the people actually consider the new law onerous? That is easy. Let the Indians violate the law, except they are not violating it. I just heard on a radio show that the Native American tribes in North Dakota are setting up abortion clinic, and since tribal areas are autonomous, there is nothing that the government can do about it.

The state can put a fence around the reservation, and keep U.S. citizens from entering for the purpose of an abortion.:2razz:

 

[steen]

ey esse don chu be makin fun o mah hairdid o ima come over theah and smack you silly ya heard?

:allhail

:surrender

 

[steen]

The only way to resolve this issue is to answer one question: When does personhood begin?

Not really. If you are a person, does THAT alone give you the right to use a person's bodily resources against their will, even if it is for your survival? Can you force me to give blood or donate bone marrow or a kidney? How does your personhood affect such "rights"?

The question has always been "when does life begin,"

It has NEVER been that. Pro-lifers make that claim, but it is still irrelevant, for the same reason as above.

The question has always been "Do persons have the right to control their bodily resources." That is the ONLY question that has relevance.

but scientists have answered that already. Life begins at conception.

And so, a twin is not life, as it becomes an individual cell sometime after conception? And then also, the hydatidiform mole must be considered "life."

It stands to reason that when two living cells merge together, the resulting cell will also be living.

So there is life BEFORE conception.

But in reality that cell is less of a life than the ants and spiders we happily kill with bug spray. So we can't really define our laws based on whether or not "life" has begun in the womb, not without being hypocritical at least.

In that, we agree.

Laws don't protect cells, they protect "persons." So when does personhood begin?

At birth. The laws and rulings are clear on that.

The rights of women to choose what happens to their own bodies should not be in question, by either side of the debate.

only pro-lifers question this.

But considering that pro-lifers naturally have assigned a "personhood" status to the unborn fetus, how could they possibly be compelled by an argument which stresses that the mother has a right to kill that "person?"

Do we care?

Again, the disconnect happens because both sides answer that begging question differently: When does personhood begin?

And that remains irrelevant. No person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, even if it is to stay alive.

I personally can't rationalize drawing the line at the moment of conception. That's a slippery slope (no pun intended) that makes me feel like I should care about sperm too. If an abortion must happen, it should be as early as possible, preferably before three months (IIRC) when the central nervous system is developed.

The CNS is not fully connected until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, at which point the number of abortions done is vanishingly small and done for medical emergencies.

I think it's a "person" when it can feel pain.

That would be sometime in the 3rd trimester. And yet the law still disagrees with you, showing it to be a person at birth, not before.

 

[steen]

The state can put a fence around the reservation, and keep U.S. citizens from entering for the purpose of an abortion.:2razz:

Not without violating treaty laws.

 

[danarhea]

The only way to resolve this issue is to answer one question: When does personhood begin?

The question has always been "when does life begin," but scientists have answered that already. Life begins at conception. It stands to reason that when two living cells merge together, the resulting cell will also be living. But in reality that cell is less of a life than the ants and spiders we happily kill with bug spray. So we can't really define our laws based on whether or not "life" has begun in the womb, not without being hypocritical at least. Laws don't protect cells, they protect "persons." So when does personhood begin?

The rights of women to choose what happens to their own bodies should not be in question, by either side of the debate. But considering that pro-lifers naturally have assigned a "personhood" status to the unborn fetus, how could they possibly be compelled by an argument which stresses that the mother has a right to kill that "person?" Again, the disconnect happens because both sides answer that begging question differently: When does personhood begin?

I personally can't rationalize drawing the line at the moment of conception. That's a slippery slope (no pun intended) that makes me feel like I should care about sperm too. If an abortion must happen, it should be as early as possible, preferrably before three months (IIRC) when the central nervous system is developed. I think it's a "person" when it can feel pain.

You are, of course, offering up a scientific reasoning, which is good. However, scientists are divided on whether a fetus is truly a living human being.

But the scientific arguments are not what the religious right (fake right) is offering up for their arguments. They are basing their arguments against abortion solely on what they consider to be the Word of God. So, in that context, let us see what God himself has to say about the subject.

Genesis, Chapter 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

As you can see, a man was fully formed, but did not become a living soul until he took his first breath. After he became a living soul, he was named Adam. Until he took his first breath, he was not a person.

If that is not enough to convince you, then perhaps this will be:

Exodus, Chapter 21

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman' husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

As you can see, the punishment for causing a woman to abort her fetus is a fine of amount to be dermined by the judges. So, if abortion is murder, as the Religious right (fake right) claims, then why isnt God demanding a life, as he does in the case of murder? That is because, according to the Word of God, a fetus is NOT a person.

As you can see, the religious right (fake right) is going against God's word on this issue. When you combine their advocacy for things non living with their callous disregard for the living (as in the women and children who are murdered each and every day in Iraq), then any reasonable person, as well as any truly non-hypocritical religious person, can only conclude that the religious right (fake right) is blaspheming God.

But Jesus did say that, before his second coming, there would be a great falling away from the faith, where doctrines of devils would be preached instead of God's word.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

You are, of course, offering up a scientific reasoning, which is good. However, scientists are divided on whether a fetus is truly a living human being.

But the scientific arguments are not what the religious right (fake right) is offering up for their arguments. They are basing their arguments against abortion solely on what they consider to be the Word of God. So, in that context, let us see what God himself has to say about the subject.


As you can see, a man was fully formed, but did not become a living soul until he took his first breath. After he became a living soul, he was named Adam. Until he took his first breath, he was not a person.

If that is not enough to convince you, then perhaps this will be:


As you can see, the punishment for causing a woman to abort her fetus is a fine of amount to be dermined by the judges. So, if abortion is murder, as the Religious right (fake right) claims, then why isnt God demanding a life, as he does in the case of murder? That is because, according to the Word of God, a fetus is NOT a person.

As you can see, the religious right (fake right) is going against God's word on this issue. When you combine their advocacy for things non living with their callous disregard for the living (as in the women and children who are murdered each and every day in Iraq), then any reasonable person, as well as any truly non-hypocritical religious person, can only conclude that the religious right (fake right) is blaspheming God.

But Jesus did say that, before his second coming, there would be a great falling away from the faith, where doctrines of devils would be preached instead of God's word.

But you're quoting from what many believe to be a fairy story. If you believe that rot, it's your right to do so, but those of us don't shouldn't have it thrust upon us by law.

 

[danarhea]

But you're quoting from what many believe to be a fairy story. If you believe that rot, it's your right to do so, but those of us don't shouldn't have it thrust upon us by law.

My purpose in using the Bible is to expose the religious right (fake right) for the hypocrites they are, using the very source they base their politics on.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

My purpose in using the Bible is to expose the religious right (fake right) for the hypocrites they are, using the very source they base their politics on.

But that's playing their game. The bible proves nothing and exposes nothing, because it's as much the "truth" as a Fox news report. Use it to prove ANY point and you fall into their trap of giving the bible legitimacy. It should be exposed for the heavily doctored, loose account of events that it is - nothing more. I know we're coming from the same angle, and I'm sorry I wasn't too clear in my first post. I take your points, but I just don't believe we should be giving ANY credence to ANY of the crud that's written in the bible.

 

[danarhea]

But that's playing their game. The bible proves nothing and exposes nothing, because it's as much the "truth" as a Fox news report. Use it to prove ANY point and you fall into their trap of giving the bible legitimacy. It should be exposed for the heavily doctored, loose account of events that it is - nothing more. I know we're coming from the same angle, and I'm sorry I wasn't too clear in my first post. I take your points, but I just don't believe we should be giving ANY credence to ANY of the crud that's written in the bible.

I believe the Bible IS legitimate.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I believe the Bible IS legitimate.

Then that's where we differ

 

[alphamale]

Not without violating treaty laws.

Treaty laws say the U.S., can't control which of it's citizens can enter the reservation? Doubt it.

 

[Synch]

Abort would be liberal babies! Go Indian tribes!

:soap :cheers: