• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

South Dakota congress bans Abortion accept when mother's life is endangered

steen said:
Why would they? If nobody cares, then there wouldn't be a law.
Because society as a whole does, and thus passed laws regulating the matter. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that the legislature has the power to pass laws regulating how people live their lives.

That only about 1% of abortions happen at around viability matters because the state's ability to limit abortions is very limited up to that point.

Uh.....what's your point? The court STILL said that the states DO in fact have the power to "enslave" women by forcing them to provide their bodily resources to the clump of cells living in their body. So even the most liberal SC of the 20th century agreed that at some point, the state has the power to control what women do with their body. Why do you disagree? And if you don't, then your whole argument about a higher moral principle just went out the window. Now we're just arguing about the date.

And also you do realize that perhaps the reason that so few abortions happen after viability is because the state regulates abortion at that point?

You chose to walk out and pick berries that day and was caught and sold into slavery. That is as relevant as the woman's decision to have sex is somehow giving you the right to enslave her by preventing her from abortion an unwanted pregnancy that uses her bodily resources against her will.

I don't have the RIGHT to do anything to her, but the STATE has the POWER to force her to "use her bodily resources" at some point.
 
steen said:
Well, per what Roe vs Wade laid down. I believe RvW is an overly intrusive regulation of that physician/patient relationship. Not the state, nor fundies should have any rights in that area.

Int hat sense, RvW is the compromise position. If you want to get rid of the compromise, then you have an all-out culture war. And such tend to escalate. RvW keeps the US at moderate peace. If you want to see the US dragged down in an expensive, costly and possibly bloody battle after its overturning, then rest assured that the rest of the western world will look on in amusement, while they concentrate on educating engineers and scientists instead of having a part of the population try to force the rest to live by their unique and intolerant moralistic theocracy. That won't happen, but if you want your next years consumed by an all-out nationwide battle, have at it.

Hahahahaha, you're trying to make the argument that the US is somehow a backwards nation because it has people who try to limit abortion? You do realize that the US has one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world, right? There are only 5 other countries that permit abortion up to viability: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zambia, and Canada. Great company there, don't you think?

The rest of the civilized world managed to place limits on abortion that are much more stringent than ours, seemingly without the "all out war" that you predict. If you claim that the US following the lead of our European allies would cause a war, then by your own implication, its not going to be the conservatives who cause that war, but rather extreme leftists who refuse to accept the decision.
 
steen said:
It does not have such control as you say, as that would violate commerce and civil rights clauses.

Yes it does. The state can choose to revoke the license of doctors for performing unauthorized procedures, or for performing them in unauthorized places. The FDA regulates what medicines can be used. How can you refute this?
 
steen said:
And right now it is not, and as such it is the law. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing your wishful thinking from reality?

No, right now Roe is precedent. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing a court decision from LAW, which can only be passed by the legislature. Although, to be fair, your mistake is understandable, given the sad state of affairs the judiciary has found itself in as of late.
 
Abortion is a decision of conscience. It should be protected under Roe v Wade.

Left to the hands of states, it becomes yet another "moral" issue for the radical right fundammentalists in this country. Couple their anti-abortion stand with their applauding Bush's ct backs in Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch programs, and it gives me pause to try understand their compassion.

Taking away this right for women in America is likened by me to the way the Taliban chattel their women. It's oppression and it's second class citizenry...typical treatment by patriarchal religions, however.
 
RightatNYU said:
The way I would justify it is by acknowledging that society can and does pass laws outlawing behavior that they find immoral.

Certainly. My point is that "moral legislation" still needs to have a firm basis in agreed upon moral and legal principles-- or it's no different from legislation by whim.

I don't mind aesthetic legislation, such as laws concerning public decorum or decency-- barring conflict with freedom of speech-- but any issue this controversial demands higher standards of logical consistency. Considering the life-changing implications of reproduction and abortion, I don't consider the normal standards of sloppy moral argumentation acceptable.

RightatNYU said:
There are already laws preventing other types of abuse, but the penalties are made harsher when the crime is committed against someone who society views as especially vulnerable.

As well they should-- it's a form of recognizing the innate responsibility of adult citizens to their own self-defense.

RightatNYU said:
I agree, the return that could be achieved in terms of increased intelligence, health, and development by implementing comprehensive pre-natal and early infancy public health programs would FAR outweigh the costs.

If you'll pardon me, I believe that's an appropriately conservative thought process.

Saw a recent study showing that every $1 spent on pre-school programs gave an $18 return in increased tax revenue and savings on Welfare and law enforcement. Absolutely baffles me how anyone save a Libertarian can be opposed to that.

RightatNYU said:
I've always been interested in stuff like this, but right now I'm taking a fantastic seminar... Each week is a different hot button issue, abortion rights, gay marriage/private conduct, capital punishment...this week it's hate speech. Woo!

You're killing me, here. By the gods, I do miss school.
 
Cookie Parker said:
Abortion is a decision of conscience. It should be protected under Roe v Wade.

The problem is, what isn't a decision of conscience? You could apply that to nearly any law on the books.

Cookie Parker said:
Left to the hands of states, it becomes yet another "moral" issue for the radical right fundamentalists in this country.

How is that different than handling it at the Federal level? At least at the State level, you can choose to live in a State more to your liking, morally. I know they don't always do things the way I want here in Wyoming-- but I don't have to put up with the kind of inane interference here that I would in New York, Georgia-- or, increasingly, even twenty miles south of here in Colorado.

Cookie Parker said:
Couple their anti-abortion stand with their applauding Bush's cutbacks in Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch programs, and it gives me pause to try to understand their compassion.

It does strike me as odd that the people who claim to be most concerned with the protection of "innocent children" are also the ones who cut off every program designed to allow those "innocent children" to grow up to be productive and successful members of society.

I won't speak to the moral principles of any right-to-lifers here-- since I've unfortunately not engaged them on too many other issues here-- but it seems awfully damned inconsistent in national politics.

Cookie Parker said:
Taking away this right for women in America is likened by me to the way the Taliban chattel their women. It's oppression and it's second class citizenry...typical treatment by patriarchal religions, however.

Ad hominem by association. This isn't logically any different than all the people who call me a Nazi-- though it's probably more rhetorically effective since Americans have recent memories of the Taliban.
 
My least favorite quote on this page:

jamesrage said:
It sounds like a load of horseshit.It sounds like these women/monsters did not want to look like bigger skanks so they used the "oh the condum broke" excuse justifying the murdering their child.


My most favorite quote on this page:

Korimyr the Rat said:
Certainly. My point is that "moral legislation" still needs to have a firm basis in agreed upon moral and legal principles-- or it's no different from legislation by whim.

I don't mind aesthetic legislation, such as laws concerning public decorum or decency-- barring conflict with freedom of speech-- but any issue this controversial demands higher standards of logical consistency. Considering the life-changing implications of reproduction and abortion, I don't consider the normal standards of sloppy moral argumentation acceptable.
 
And update on this issue is the Governor of South Dakota has signed the bill outlawing abortion with the exception of if the mothers life is endangered....

The appeal should take a couple of years to get to the SCOTUS and by that time we should have another conservative justice to swing the court.......

Stand by for heavy rolls to port............
 
RightatNYU said:
Because society as a whole does, and thus passed laws regulating the matter.
In which case somebody DO care. I rest my case.

Uh.....what's your point?
That it has no real bearing on abortions.

The court STILL said that the states DO in fact have the power to "enslave" women by forcing them to provide their bodily resources to the clump of cells living in their body. So even the most liberal SC of the 20th century agreed that at some point, the state has the power to control what women do with their body. Why do you disagree?
because it is none of their business, It is a medical decision involving doctor and patient and not anybody else who want to oppress and enslave woemn.

And also you do realize that perhaps the reason that so few abortions happen after viability is because the state regulates abortion at that point?
Or because women who go through a pregnancy that far DO want the pregnancy carried to term!

I don't have the RIGHT to do anything to her, but the STATE has the POWER to force her to "use her bodily resources" at some point.
So the state also has the power to force YOU to use YOUR bodily resources, f.ex. to save a life by giving blood.
 
RightatNYU said:
Hahahahaha, you're trying to make the argument that the US is somehow a backwards nation because it has people who try to limit abortion?
Very much so. It is by far the most backwards western country on this issue, and incidentially, coupled with the fundies anti-sex-ed, anti-contraception culture war, has also lead to the highest abortion rate in the western world.

You do realize that the US has one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world, right? There are only 5 other countries that permit abortion up to viability: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zambia, and Canada. Great company there, don't you think?
Could you elaborate on the abortion laws of Denmark and Holland, f.ex.?
 
Cookie Parker said:
Abortion is a decision of conscience. It should be protected under Roe v Wade.

Left to the hands of states, it becomes yet another "moral" issue for the radical right fundammentalists in this country. Couple their anti-abortion stand with their applauding Bush's ct backs in Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch programs, and it gives me pause to try understand their compassion.

Taking away this right for women in America is likened by me to the way the Taliban chattel their women. It's oppression and it's second class citizenry...typical treatment by patriarchal religions, however.
Exactly. Great post.
 
RightatNYU said:
One could just as easily argue that Democrats are stupid for supporting abortion. Think of the 40,000,000 additional poor minorities that you guys would have to vote for you.

Are you guys stupid, ignorant, or just trapped by your irrational desire to kill babies?:mrgreen:

I'm Republican, which is why I want abortion to be legal, less Democratic voters in the future, plus it will curb the effects of Affirmative Action. It also lowers taxes, less people on welfare to feed.:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I couldn't care less about 40 million aborted if it saved me tax dollars and lessened discrimination among our workplace and colleges around the nation, curbing racism.

Also, technically/realistically they're not babies yet, only fetuses, since the Roe V Wade jurisdiction made a fact that fetuses aren't human, or else the SC couldn't have ruled that way since abortion would be murder if the law or precedent set stated fetuses are babies.
 
Last edited:
PHP:
People who murder the most defenseless children are reprehensible. Those using such slander to attack defenders of the unborn even more so. You have provided absolutely NOTHING to support your POV, NOTHING! Are you so anti-intellectual that you can't accept something as authoritative as a simple dictionary definition?

I have my two beautiful little girls right here (2 yrs 3mos, and 9mos.) And to think you would advocate their murder prior to birth. Truly sickening and dispicable.

ludahai...now this is a bit of stretch, don't you think? How'd you go from abortion choice to killing your children?

It's typical of your thinking. Never on target nor on the fact abortion is a decision of conscience. It is a choice with a woman.

I doubt every woman thinks she's going to get pregnant when she has sex. Does every man? Of course not.

Typical of those who want to abolish a woman's right to decide her fate and future, and typical of those who support decreases in tax dollars for the poor, your argument has no merit when you throw out straw man arguments.
 
Cookie Parker said:
PHP:
People who murder the most defenseless children are reprehensible. Those using such slander to attack defenders of the unborn even more so. You have provided absolutely NOTHING to support your POV, NOTHING! Are you so anti-intellectual that you can't accept something as authoritative as a simple dictionary definition?

I have my two beautiful little girls right here (2 yrs 3mos, and 9mos.) And to think you would advocate their murder prior to birth. Truly sickening and dispicable.

ludahai...now this is a bit of stretch, don't you think? How'd you go from abortion choice to killing your children?

It's typical of your thinking. Never on target nor on the fact abortion is a decision of conscience. It is a choice with a woman.

I doubt every woman thinks she's going to get pregnant when she has sex. Does every man? Of course not.

Typical of those who want to abolish a woman's right to decide her fate and future, and typical of those who support decreases in tax dollars for the poor, your argument has no merit when you throw out straw man arguments.

You know if a pregnancy only affected the mother then I could care less what she did but that is not the case.........It also affects a defenseless, innocent baby in the womb.......I hear all this compassion for the mother and rightfully so but my question to you is who speaks for that baby in the womb? Where is the compassion for him and her?
 
steen said:
In which case somebody DO care. I rest my case.

...........I think you must have missed something.

That it has no real bearing on abortions.

HOW does it have no real bearing on abortions?!?! You claim only 1% of abortions are post viability. At 40,000,000 since Roe, that's 400,000 women who the court agreed could be "forced into slavery" according to your claim.

You can't just ignore facts because you don't like them or they don't support your argument.

because it is none of their business, It is a medical decision involving doctor and patient and not anybody else who want to oppress and enslave woemn.

But the court disagrees with you. And as you so love to claim, the decision of the court is the law. So tough deal.

Or because women who go through a pregnancy that far DO want the pregnancy carried to term!

That's one theory. Got any support for it? And if that's the case, then you're in support of statutes that ban abortion after viability?

So the state also has the power to force YOU to use YOUR bodily resources, f.ex. to save a life by giving blood.

I swear to god, its like repeating myself over and over. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herring. Strawman. Flawed argument. Apples and oranges. Whatever you want to call it, its a bad argument.

The court has ruled that states can restrict womens right to an abortion after viability. They have not ruled that they can take my blood if they need it. How is this so hard to understand?
 
steen said:
Very much so. It is by far the most backwards western country on this issue, and incidentially, coupled with the fundies anti-sex-ed, anti-contraception culture war, has also lead to the highest abortion rate in the western world.

Could you elaborate on the abortion laws of Denmark and Holland, f.ex.?

You are so incredibly wrong that it's mindboggling. You claim that we are "by far the most backwards western country on this issue"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sharing.pdf
http://www.womenonwaves.org/set-1020.245-en.html

The ONLY SIX COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD to allow abortion up to the point of viability are the US, China, Canada, North Korea, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Abortion in Denmark is restricted after 12 weeks. Thats much more restrictive than in the US.
Abortion in Holland is only permitted with the approval of a doctor in what is determined to be an "intolerable situation." There is also a mandatory 5 day waiting period.

And highest abortion rate in the western world? How do you define western world? We're below Turkey, Russia, China, Brazil, Hungary, Chile, Bulgaria, Cuba, and about 30 other countries. And we're barely above Australia, South Korea, Sweden, New Zealand, and Denmark.

Guess you just don't know what you're talking about?
 
Synch said:
Also, technically/realistically they're not babies yet, only fetuses, since the Roe V Wade jurisdiction made a fact that fetuses aren't human, or else the SC couldn't have ruled that way since abortion would be murder if the law or precedent set stated fetuses are babies.

Roe v Wade actually completely sidestepped the issue of the possible "rights of the fetus." It made no mention of that path of thinking.
 
Synch said:
I couldn't care less about 40 million aborted if it saved me tax dollars and lessened discrimination among our workplace and colleges around the nation, curbing racism.

That's funny... because I get called all sorts of terrible names when I say that.

Navy Pride said:
I hear all this compassion for the mother and rightfully so but my question to you is who speaks for that baby in the womb? Where is the compassion for him and her?

Why does your compassion for that child end at birth?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
That's funny... because I get called all sorts of terrible names when I say that.



Why does your compassion for that child end at birth?

It doesn't but that is another thread...........We are talking about killing in the womb here..........
 
South Dakota congress bans Abortion accept when mother's life is endangered

One down. Forty-nine to go.

:2party:

Why does your compassion for that child end at birth?

You do bring up a good point. The right really wants to outlaw convenience abortion (as do I.) Is it beacuse they love the little babies like I do? If so, why then, after the baby is born, they kick the lil fella to the street in terms of child welfare, health, education, etc???

"OK...you're born. Now you're on your own you little shi*!!!" Just don't make sense sometimes.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
It doesn't but that is another thread... We are talking about killing in the womb here...

Perhaps I was too presumptuous. However, from some of your other posts, I've gathered the impression that you want to cut programs that assist the children of impoverished single mothers.

You're not willing to accept poor mothers killing them in the womb, but you don't object to them growing up malnourished, uneducated, and denied access to healthcare.

That does not fit within my understanding of the word "compassion".
 
Captain America said:
One down. Forty-nine to go.

:2party:



You do bring up a good point. The right really wants to outlaw convenience abortion (as do I.) Is it beacuse they love the little babies like I do? If so, why then, after the baby is born, they kick the lil fella to the street in terms of child welfare, health, education, etc???

"OK...you're born. Now you're on your own you little shi*!!!" Just don't make sense sometimes.:confused:

One down. Forty-nine to go.

Wrong again although there are a lot of states that are adopting similar measures.........It only takes one case to go to the SCOTUS to get Roe thrown out........

You do bring up a good point. The right really wants to outlaw convenience abortion (as do I.) Is it beacuse they love the little babies like I do? If so, why then, after the baby is born, they kick the lil fella to the street in terms of child welfare, health, education, etc???

Wrong again, there are huge waiting lists for new born infants
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Perhaps I was too presumptuous. However, from some of your other posts, I've gathered the impression that you want to cut programs that assist the children of impoverished single mothers.

You're not willing to accept poor mothers killing them in the womb, but you don't object to them growing up malnourished, uneducated, and denied access to healthcare.

That does not fit within my understanding of the word "compassion".

To be honest with you I don't think its the federal gov. business to be in the welfare business...........I think that churches and charitable organizations like Catholic Charitites and the Salvation Army should fill these needs........I think its tje Federal Gov job to fight our wars and protect us.........


I bet if it was possible if you could ask one of those kids in the womb would they rather be butchered or be born with all those needs you mentioned....I think we know what they would say.........You see my friend where there is life, there is hope.........When you butcher in the womb there is no hope........
 
Wrong again although there are a lot of states that are adopting similar measures.........It only takes one case to go to the SCOTUS to get Roe thrown out........

Wrong? Maybe. I suppose you would know about being wrong as often as you rehearse.

I dunno. Maybe you're right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure stranger things have happened.

But I can hope can't I?

I voted for Bush the first time around for two reasons and two reasons only.
1: He wasn't Al Gore
2: I thought he'd do something about the runaway abortion industry.

If Mr. Bush is sucessful with the abortion issue, (stacking the supreme Court) I will most likely be able to forgive him for all of his other stupid shi+.

Wrong again, there are huge waiting lists for new born infants

I'd bet a dollar to a donut they are mostly kind hearted liberals too.:rofl
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom