• 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

Genetic descendant.

Your response suggests the issue and decision of abortion is taken lightly.

That's a man for you. You don't carry life. You don't understand the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, especially in the face of this morally judgmental society in which we live

It's her decision and one for which she must make on behalf of her "genetic descendant." Much like the decisions she will make for any children she births.
 
Cookie Parker said:
PHP:
And to think you would advocate their murder prior to birth.

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

Try reading what I actually typed. It might help you sometime.
 
Pro abortion people? Websites to Fox News? That's why this issue is never discussed with any intelligence, thought or studies and credible information. All these name-calling Limbaugh techniques and scare tactics FOX news articles, people are more anti-Democrat than they are knowledgeable about issues of choice, the Constitution, and our individual liberties.
 
star2589 said:
but what about her "genetic descendant."?

does she have a duty to her genetic descendant?
Only after birth and only if she didn't seek out an abortion. I clarified that allready
 
Cookie Parker said:
Genetic descendant.

Your response suggests the issue and decision of abortion is taken lightly.
It is the seeking a correct and accurate term.

That's a man for you. You don't carry life. You don't understand the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, especially in the face of this morally judgmental society in which we live
I understand that very well. That is why I am pro-choice.

It's her decision and one for which she must make on behalf of her "genetic descendant." Much like the decisions she will make for any children she births.
She has the right and is the only one with that right, yes.
 
Cookie Parker said:
Pro abortion people? Websites to Fox News? That's why this issue is never discussed with any intelligence, thought or studies and credible information. All these name-calling Limbaugh techniques and scare tactics FOX news articles, people are more anti-Democrat than they are knowledgeable about issues of choice, the Constitution, and our individual liberties.
It is all part of the pro-life deceptive and dishonest revisionist lingusitic hyperbole.
 
ludahai said:
Laws are passed by legislatures. This "right" to murderan unborn child was invented by judicial fiat.

Finding a state law un-Constitutional is a judicial fiat? I hope no law is passed in your state that is un-Constitutional and restricts you personally, because, according to the above, the Supreme Court would be activists if they found the law illegal. So, in order to avoid a legal 'fiat' you would probably decline to sue and continue to be deprived of your right. I salute you. You are obviously a stoic, and an altruist.

There was a right to abortion in this country until the 19th century, when some states began enacting abortion laws. This right existed when the big laws were passed via the Constitution, and weren't addressed. Abortion was not the issue then that it is now.
 
Cookie Parker said:
Genetic descendant.

Your response suggests the issue and decision of abortion is taken lightly.

I only use that phrase with steen, we agreed to it on the "why ban abortion" thread.

star2589 said:
it is discriminatory. I discriminate between people who don't take care of strangers, and people who dont take care of their offspring.

steen said:
steen Well, there really isn't an "offspring" until it has sprung off, been born.

star2589 said:
I was trying to think of a word that refers to both a fetus's relationship to its mother, and a born childs relationship to its mother, that hasnt gotten you upset yet. :p

do you have a better suggestion?

steen said:
As the two are not the same, I am not sure ther is one, other than perhaps "genetic descendant." Of course, anything that is so generalized as to fit both of these would also encompass all sorts of other things such as the hydatidiform mole. ;-)

Cookie Parker said:
That's a man for you. You don't carry life. You don't understand the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, especially in the face of this morally judgmental society in which we live

you know, thats very presumptuous of you. I dont believe i've ever disclosed my gender on this forum.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Federal law trumps state law, this will be overthrown.

This is overly simplistic and not factually accurate.

First of all, the "right" to murder your unborn child is not a federal law, it is a "right" manufactured by an activist court. Find me the law that says this. There isn't one.

Second of all, federal law doesn't always trump state law. There have been countless cases where SCOTUS has ruled actions of the federal legislature as infringing on the Constitutional rights of State legislatures. Of course, with the modern liberal bent of the Count, that has happened with less frequency. However, now with a court that may actually return to the intended design of the Constitution, we may see a return to the protection of States from the Unconstitutional intrusions of the federal government.
 
tryreading said:
Finding a state law un-Constitutional is a judicial fiat? I hope no law is passed in your state that is un-Constitutional and restricts you personally, because, according to the above, the Supreme Court would be activists if they found the law illegal. So, in order to avoid a legal 'fiat' you would probably decline to sue and continue to be deprived of your right. I salute you. You are obviously a stoic, and an altruist.

There was a right to abortion in this country until the 19th century, when some states began enacting abortion laws. This right existed when the big laws were passed via the Constitution, and weren't addressed. Abortion was not the issue then that it is now.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you have the right to murder your unborn child? If there is no Constitutional right, the right belongs to the States to issue appropriate legislation, as occurred when States began enacting anti-abortion laws in the 19th century, as you refer to. Society had advanced to the point to knowing that murder of the unborn child is immoral and simply wrong. It is too bad that as a society we have since DEVOLVED into accepting killing the unborn child as something that is ok. We as a society should be judged by how we protect the most vulnerable, and on that count, we do an appalingly poor job.
 
ludahai said:
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you have the right to murder your unborn child?

Like I said, abortion was legal when it was written, and it wasn't deemed important enough to address directly.
 
tryreading said:
Like I said, abortion was legal when it was written, and it wasn't deemed important enough to address directly.

Abortion was legal when the constitution was written? Or do you just mean there were no laws about it one way or the other?

Also what about the constitution saying it protects the welfare of our posterity?
 
tryreading said:
Like I said, abortion was legal when it was written, and it wasn't deemed important enough to address directly.

Opium and slavery were legal too.

Heck, it being the weekend and all, does anybody know where I might could buy me a slave that might have a little crack to share?:rofl
 
talloulou said:
Abortion was legal when the constitution was written? Or do you just mean there were no laws about it one way or the other?

If there's no laws one way or the other, wouldn't you say that it's legal by default?

No law saying I can't wear a necktie in public.

talloulou said:
Also what about the constitution saying it protects the welfare of our posterity?

Try arguing that that's Constitutional justification for Federally funded daycare and pre-schools. I don't think that clause has any legal weight attached.
 
talloulou said:
Abortion was legal when the constitution was written? Or do you just mean there were no laws about it one way or the other?

Also what about the constitution saying it protects the welfare of our posterity?

Abortion was legal then, however you describe the situation.

Our country will be here into posterity regardless of abortion.
 
Captain America said:
Opium and slavery were legal too.

Heck, it being the weekend and all, does anybody know where I might could buy me a slave that might have a little crack to share?:rofl

Opiates are very legal now, by prescription.

There were many people against slavery then, but the 13 colonies would not have united if the Constitution abolished slavery. Doesn't make slavery right, but that's the way it was. The Civil War shows what happened when the battle was chosen over slavery, the nation was torn apart. What do you think would have happened in the 1780's during the Constitutional Convention if there were eleven original amendments, and the eleventh ended slavery? The United States would not have been formed.
 
tryreading said:
Abortion was legal then, however you describe the situation.

Yes but did Drs. perform abortions back then? I'm not asking to prove or disprove anything I'm actually just curious if it was done and when it first starting being done by Drs. not for health reasons but because a women did not wish to continue with her pregnancy?
 
talloulou said:
Yes but did Drs. perform abortions back then? I'm not asking to prove or disprove anything I'm actually just curious if it was done and when it first starting being done by Drs. not for health reasons but because a women did not wish to continue with her pregnancy?

well, here's a bit of information...

Abortion before Roe

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence. In some cases, it was governed by English common law, which found abortion to be legally and ethically acceptable if occurring before 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt. Laws against abortion began to appear in the 1820s. Connecticut outlawed post-quickening abortions in 1821, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. Many of the early laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure. Indeed, many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion, favoring birth control instead. The former wrote:

"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime." ("The Revolution", July 8, 1869) [2]

The movement accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 abortion was largely illegal in every state. Some states did include provisos allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or pregnancies due to rape or incest. Abortions continued to occur, however, and increasingly became readily available. Illegal abortions were, however, often unsafe.

Some activist groups developed their own skills to provide abortions to women who could not obtain them elsewhere. As an example, in Chicago, a group known as "Jane" operated a floating abortion clinic throughout much of the 1960s. Women seeking the procedure would call a designated number and be given instructions on how to find "Jane."

In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy on demand. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being," essentially allowing abortion on demand. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama allowed abortions in cases of the woman's physical health. Thirty-one states still allowed abortion to protect the woman's life only. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to states where it was legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
 
Deegan said:
I answer them the same way I answer you Navy, unfortunately, morality can not be legislated, nor can I expect to convince another to act, and feel the way I do. I believe the best way to address this issue is by example, keep doing what you feel is right, keep teaching those you love the morals that have made you the person you are, this is all we can do. I can still not agree with abortion, but I can't stand in it's way, we tried that, and Navy, it failed miserably.


Actually, we legislate morality every day, examples would be murder, stealing, fraud, battery, slavery, descrimination etc. Aren't all laws based on some sort of moral code? Each society legislates it's moral boundaries. The abortion issue is really no different. The people of the individual states should decide. Regardless of the individual state's decisions, in no way should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's abortion.
 
taxedout said:
Regardless of the individual state's decisions, in no way should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's abortion.
Should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's war?
 
steen said:
Should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's war?
Depends on which war.....
 
steen said:
Should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's war?


Are the two topics somehow connected ?
 
Back
Top Bottom