South Dakota bans abortion. Full stop.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

RA-D

War Child
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
936
Location
Leeds, UK
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/rights_a...FK.zPI8qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ


(am i really the first to notice this? If there's another thread I apologise, please remove this one)

this, to me, is the very worst bit, the bit at which you realise that there is none of the peoples' interests at heart:

"Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down."


I'm not going to go into a lengthy rant or arguement, hopefully someone else here will, as I can't think of an arguement for the other side (don't give me religious bull****) and that would make a somewhat pointless read.


There is a petition in support of the Roe v. Wade 1973 abortion legalisation case here http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/roberts_roeCall2 if you do disagree with this, not that it will acheive much.



:sad:
 
Last edited:
I was wondering what was taking so long.

It's not law yet. Time to make some serious noise in South Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky.

While I don't support abortion, I also STRONGLY oppose outlawing it.
 
That's a ridiculous law. Abortion should be available for everyone if they feel they need it. People have the right to choose in the 21st century.
 
While I am not fond of abortion, being a Roman Catholic, I am opposed to making it illegal. We'd just end up with a bunch of botched back-alley abortions, very dangerous. I hope they throw this damn law out where it belongs.
 
1stepcloser said:
That's a ridiculous law. Abortion should be available for everyone if they feel they need it. People have the right to choose in the 21st century.

I am against abortion, but I cant do anything since it is law. But this has always puzzled me. This is just an opinion so please dont flame me.

People who are for abortion saying it is a woman's choice. Yet they are against the death penalty.

So then why not have capital punishment. The person made the choice in killing someone.

The child has no choice in these matters. The only time I would fully support and abortion is in rape/incest cases.
 
Justin24 said:


I am against abortion, but I cant do anything since it is law. But this has always puzzled me. This is just an opinion so please dont flame me.

People who are for abortion saying it is a woman's choice. Yet they are against the death penalty.

So then why not have capital punishment. The person made the choice in killing someone.

The child has no choice in these matters. The only time I would fully support and abortion is in rape/incest cases.



do you have a womb?
 
Justin24 said:



People who are for abortion saying it is a woman's choice. Yet they are against the death penalty.

So then why not have capital punishment. The person made the choice in killing someone.

The child has no choice in these matters. The only time I would fully support and abortion is in rape/incest cases.

It's also always puzzled me how someone can be against abortion and for the death penalty. If God is who decides who must live or die that doesn't add up for me :confused:
 
nope. Now I am not saying all woman are like this but I am sure there are some who go out have sex, get pregnant, abort, repeat. I mean if you have unprotected sex there is a thing called the pill/day after also.

This goes for guys to who go out and have sex and then when they find out they want to abort the baby, because they are irresponsable.
 
redkat said:


It's also always puzzled me how someone can be against abortion and for the death penalty. If God is who decides who must live or die that doesn't add up for me :confused:

That is a separate topic - but a determination of guilt is needed for a death penalty, not for an abortion.
 
redkat said:


It's also always puzzled me how someone can be against abortion and for the death penalty. If God is who decides who must live or die that doesn't add up for me :confused:

The difference is the baby has no choice, unlike the killer who had the choice of killing or not. God gave us free will, that includes judging. If that means abortion also then when that woman dies and goes to meet the maker I wonder if god would look at her as a person who took the life of their child?
 
Justin24 said:


The difference is the baby has no choice, unlike the killer who had the choice of killing or not. God gave us free will, that includes judging. If that means abortion also then when that woman dies and goes to meet the maker I wonder if god would look at her as a person who took the life of their child?


I think when speaking of first term abortion or even the morning after pill (which many people argue is still abortion) the argument can be made that those cells are not yet a life.

I'd like to add I'm not pro abortion I just don't want to see the option taken away.
 
like I said god gave us free will and that person will have to answer to the maker.
 
redkat said:

a) It's also always puzzled me how someone can be against abortion and for the death penalty.

b)If God is who decides who must live or die that doesn't add up for me :confused:


a) it depends at what point you think life begins. I know what the reply will be, but I still consider it a part of the mother until birth.

b) that's a big "if"
 
Every single one of us is going to have meet our Maker. If we committed many sins, including drunkeness and lewd behavior, then we'll be asked about this stuff.
 
redkat said:
I think when speaking of first term abortion or even the morning after pill (which many people argue is still abortion) the argument can be made that those cells are not yet a life.

When does life begin? That is the $1Million dollar question here.

At conception? At birth? Some measurable event in between?




Given some of the arguments I've seen presented, life begins when the child is old enough to be shipped off to school. :wink:
 
nbcrusader said:


When does life begin? That is the $1Million dollar question here.

At conception? At birth? Some measurable event in between?




Given some of the arguments I've seen presented, life begins when the child is old enough to be shipped off to school. :wink:

a agree that's the big question and I don't know. I'm all for birth control and the morning after pill though :up:
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
Given some of the arguments I've seen presented, life begins when the child is old enough to be shipped off to school. :wink:



my mother always said that life begins the day a child graduates from medical school.







:wink:
 
Ok, how about a compromise? Let's KEEP abortion, but increase time limit for aborting, to say.. 60 years old? So the law would allow abortions 60 years from the conception. You get your death penalty (equivalent), liberals keep their abortion. I don't think there can be a better deal than this! It's the perfect solution.

Justin24 said:


I am against abortion, but I cant do anything since it is law. But this has always puzzled me. This is just an opinion so please dont flame me.

People who are for abortion saying it is a woman's choice. Yet they are against the death penalty.

So then why not have capital punishment. The person made the choice in killing someone.

The child has no choice in these matters. The only time I would fully support and abortion is in rape/incest cases.
 
nathan1977 said:


I'm not black. Does that mean I can't oppose racist legislation?



are you in danger of getting pregnant anytime soon?

this seems far more fundamental to the issue -- i think the racial analogies are strained, at best.
 
Irvine511 said:
are you in danger of getting pregnant anytime soon?

this seems far more fundamental to the issue -- i think the racial analogies are strained, at best.

would it be better to discuss the argument that was put forward instead of attacking the credentials of the person who put it forward?

or is this valid? are we really not allowed to argue issues that we ourselves do not personally participate in?
 
nbcrusader said:


When does life begin? That is the $1Million dollar question here.

At conception? At birth? Some measurable event in between?

Actually, for me it's an issue of rights (both in dealing w/ abortion and capital punishment). I believe everyone has the right to LIVE, everyone. That means no death penalty and that means no abortion. I don't care whether an embryo or fetus is not a fully functional child, it was INTENDED to be. You can't make the argument that a fetus is not a person because it is supported by the mother without believing that it's then OK to lop off the heads of babies until they can eat solid foods on their own and reach that point where they are not susceptible to death without physical touch from the parents (even if fed and kept warm, babies can die simply from lack of physical contact). Personally I don't believe the rights of a woman automatically supercede the rights of a potential child. Yes, I am religious, but for me it's a basic issue of rights, which religion (for me) only supports, not determines. All people - regardless of their age, their physical and mental advancement, their past crimes - have the fundamental right to live.

I also support stem cell research and medicine because a lot of it can be done without a fertilized egg. To me, a fertilized egg is a potential human life. An unfertilized egg is no different than any other organ that is only an organ outside of the human body. So using unfertilized eggs is like donating one of your kidneys.

See, you CAN examine all of these issues without religion. :shrug:
 
Irvine511 said:


are you in danger of getting pregnant anytime soon?

this seems far more fundamental to the issue -- i think the racial analogies are strained, at best.

Extrapolate it further then. Should citizens of first-world countries not campaign on behalf of poverty-stricken third-world ones? Should non-death-row inmates not campaign on behalf of those on death-row? Should straights not advocate for gay rights?

To advocate for causes that only affect one's own rights seems to be a remarkable way of sticking one's head in the sand.

And :up: to LivLuv's post.
 
nathan1977 said:


Extrapolate it further then. Should citizens of first-world countries not campaign on behalf of poverty-stricken third-world ones? Should non-death-row inmates not campaign on behalf of those on death-row? Should straights not advocate for gay rights?

To advocate for causes that only affect one's own rights seems to be a remarkable way of sticking one's head in the sand.

And :up: to LivLuv's post.



my point was that you make a mistake by equating civil rights for african-americans and the rights (so to speak) of a fetus.

there are compelling arguments to be made from the pro-life standpoint, however, equating two very different struggles (for lack of a better word) will work to weaken your argument.

i understand LivLuv's post, but i think its' vastly crueler to essentially condemn a woman to death if having the baby will kill her.

there are myriad reasons for why a woman gets an abortion, and probably the least common is as a method of brith control. it's vastly complicated, and the issue is far, far easier to simplify when you aren't in possession of a womb.

ultimately, i take Hillary's position on this -- we can view each and every abortion as a tragedy, yet know why it remains legal (to prevent further tragedy), and we should work towards a world where every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy.
 
Originally posted by nathan1977
To advocate for causes that only affect one's own rights seems to be a remarkable way of sticking one's head in the sand.
You are missing the point--Irvine was not suggesting that men have no right to an opinion on the legal status of abortion, rather he was pointing out that men's lives would be far, far less affected by the illegalization of abortion then women's would be, and that that is not an acceptable consideration to dismiss from a women's rights standpoint. Any more than it would be for straight people to dismiss gay people's welfare as a concern and advocate against gay rights knowing it won't affect them, or for First Worlders to adocate against fair trade measures because they don't really care whether it affects Third Worlders adversely or not so long as our businesses don't suffer. A solution of "Well women can always just give up their babies for adoption, end of story" is not analogous to supporting gay rights or fair trade and doesn't even begin to address the social, physical, financial and job status strains (quite apart from the psychological ones) that being forced to bear an unwanted child would impose on many women, or for that matter our adoption and foster care systems.
 
Irvine511 said:
there are myriad reasons for why a woman gets an abortion, and probably the least common is as a method of brith control.

Really? I thought the majority of abortions were not related to the compelling reasons of rape, incest or harm to mother.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
See, you CAN examine all of these issues without religion. :shrug:



you can. and so few people do.

i bet you'd find a more receptive audience if the pro-life/anti-choice movement as a whole removed religion from their rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom