NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems a bit premature to me, but it's here...

South Dakota passes abortion ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/rights_abortion_dc;_ylt=Al1FjOrFAPMotOt7MCedHx6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

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. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.


Perhaps the case keeps coming back because the argument has been heard and found wanting before, and it still doesn't quite work?

Consider the pro-choice argument:

The whole difficulty is manufactured by a small religiously based minority trying to impose its morality on everybody else. The Evangelical congregation’s preachers draw huge crowds with their anti-choice sermons and propaganda, but theirs is not the only Christian view.

In the other camp, different denominations strongly support a person's right to freedom of choice. Who are the anti-choicers and their fanatic minions to impose their own views on so many other unwilling citizens?

The law does not say that a person must get an abortion. It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.

The anti-choice forces say that a fetus is a full human being with all the rights of everyone else. The Supreme Court says otherwise. In the (Roe vs. Wade) decision, the court clearly stated that fetus are not equal and that the unborn are not entitled to full civil rights. If the anti-choice forces are allowed to alter the Constitution or the courts to change, will any of our rights be safe? If they can take away the right to get an abortion, they can take away any right. It is a Pandora's box to change the Constitution or overturn established legal precedent.

Now consider the pro-choice argument from it’s original content (circa 1859):

The whole slavery question is just a matter of a small religiously based minority trying to impose its morality on everybody. The northern Congregationalist, Unitarian and Quaker preachers draw huge crowds with their anti-choice sermons, but theirs is not the only Christian view.

In the south, the Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist denominations strongly support a person's right to own slaves. Who are Henry Ward Beecher and his fellow agitators to impose their own views on so many other unwilling Christians?

The law does not say that a person must own slaves. It is a matter of choice. Those who believe slavery is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.

The anti-choice forces say that a slave is a full human being with all the rights of white people. The Supreme Court says otherwise. In the Dred Scott decision, the court clearly stated that Negroes are not equal and that slaves are not entitled to full civil rights. If the anti-choice forces are allowed to alter the Constitution to change Dred Scott, will any of our rights be safe? If they can take away the right to own slaves, they can take away any right. It is a Pandora's box to change the Constitution or overturn established legal precedent.

Well, South Dakota's going to eventually experience one of or all of two things. Neither are incompatible with each other and may in fact compound:

1) An exodus of desperate women making Canadian Field Trips out of state to seek abortions just about elsewhere.

2) Small time or organized crime starting up an illegal abortion industry within South Dakota.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

Great! About time someone challanged that murderous law. Always makes me smile when I see one of the very few conservative beliefs that I support actually go somewhere. Still, despite the new justices, the Supreme Court is known to dodge controversial issues and I'm sure this law will get slapped down in Appellate Court anyway. I doubt this will go anywhere.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.
Something foul indeed. If your against abortion DONT GET ONE! dont make everyone else not get one else, I would think this would come from a bible belt state, not from South Dakota. Supreme Court better do the right thing here.

Comparing the fetus to a slave?
Yeah, that's a bit too riduculous, and completely passes over the core of the argument that fetus =/= full grown human.
But sure, I guess people can celebrate about making the women have to take a trip to get the abortion, or go back to using coathangers. That's a really great accomplishment.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

Theres nothing wrong with forcing a challenge to a supreme court ruling by passing a law that is clearly against it, its bound to be snet to trail soon and if the supreme court still thinks it's ruling in the past stand they wont waste much time on it.

On another note, I personally dont understand how someone couldnt consider abortion murder. A baby before its born shouldnt somehow be less than one after, simply because it came out of a woman's uterus- people are sometimes convicted of double-murders for killing a pregnant woman. And the "my body, my choice" argument doesnt really work here either since the government hasnt ever allowed people to do whatever they want with thier own bodies. Suicide and the taking of many drugs is illegal even though its your own body. I disagree with abortions in any case(and I know most people arnt extreme as me), this is because no one has ever had the right to murder unless equally threatened by the intended actions of others, and then only if killing the other person was absolutely neccesary.

Something foul indeed. If your against abortion DONT GET ONE! dont make everyone else not get one else, I would think this would come from a bible belt state, not from South Dakota. Supreme Court better do the right thing here.

Youre right, all those people who think murder and rape and stealing should just leave me alone and let me do it, since I dont share their view that its wrong- I should be allowed to do those things.

Seriously though, its not like we're forcing them to keep it. There are adoption agencies, govt org. etc.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

It doesn't work that way. States can pass unconsitutional laws. It happens not infrequently, but there is nothing written down that says they can't act this way. Admittedly, it is not quite as blatant as this, but it happens. They do, for a variety of reasons retain their own soveriegnty.

What happens next is that if this law is enforced, it will be ruled on by the state courts. If, in the unlikely event, it is upheld, then an appeal will be made to the federal district court. Which will strike it down. The state can appeal to the 8th circuit, which will uphold it being struck down.

Only then can the matter go before the supreme court. And the SC can refuse to hear it. Only if the SC is intent on overturning Casey/Roe. will they grant a hearing. (Or conversly, if the 8th circuit finds it constitutional, they may choose to hear it and re-affirm Roe/Casey.)

Comparing the fetus to a slave?
Yeah, that's a bit too riduculous, and completely passes over the core of the argument that fetus =/= full grown human.
But sure, I guess people can celebrate about making the women have to take a trip to get the abortion, or go back to using coathangers. That's a really great accomplishment.

youre right, since children arent fully grown humans either, if im their mother I should be able to kill you and not have anyone be able to do anything about it(including your father). In fact, this would be the fact until 21 or older for some men and prolly as late as 18 for women.

-snip-
So what's the point then if they don't have a chance to even get close to overturning the original SC-ruling?

Youre right, all those people who think murder and rape and stealing should just leave me alone and let me do it, since I dont share their view that its wrong- I should be allowed to do those things.

Seriously though, its not like we're forcing them to keep it. There are adoption agencies, govt org. etc.
If you cant see the different between enforcing laws that allow us to live in a civil society and opposing laws that enforce certain(mostly religious views) on an entire population that largely disargees, than you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Oh yeah, we all know foster and adoption agencies are great and dont screw up kids for life:rolleyes: Id rather never be born than be born to a very poor family or with a drug addiction. Id also prefer death to being pass around foster homes like peace pipe.

So what's the point then if they don't have a chance to even get close to overturning the original SC-ruling?

There has been a recent change in the composition of the SC - as I am sure you know. Because of this, I imagine that they hope that their own courts won't just strike it down (which I imagine is a possibility), and then they can go all they way up the federal appeals process, and hopefully the 'new' court will grant a hearing on the matter.

In other words, it is not impossible that they could get the SC to re-rule. My point was that they can't force it to happen. Personally, I don't think it is likely either. Overturning Roe would be a disaster for the republicans politically, and for more than just the fact that it would make them extremely unpopular.

Part of the problem is that the judiciary in the US isn't really independant in the A.V. Dicey apolitical sense. It is highly politicized in fact, as I am sure you have noticed.

In a larger sense of course, you are correct. It is bullshit. This should have been settled thirty years ago. (Well it was really, but people didn't seem to get the memo).

youre right, since children arent fully grown humans either, if im their mother I should be able to kill you and not have anyone be able to do anything about it(including your father). In fact, this would be the fact until 21 or older for some men and prolly as late as 18 for women.

Yeah, except a child =/= fetus either. There's a reason they don't do abortions later on in the prengnancy, it's all about development. Abortions that take place before the fetus is self-contious or able to move can't be placed in the exact same category, it's not the same thing.

On another note, I personally dont understand how someone couldnt consider abortion murder. A baby before its born shouldnt somehow be less than one after, simply because it came out of a woman's uterus- people are sometimes convicted of double-murders for killing a pregnant woman.

I agree that killing a baby one day before it would have been born simply is murder. So do many other pro-choice advocates (though definately not all).
Yet I see very little problem with killing something that was just conceived.

Why this seeming contradiction ? Simple. At those late moments in the pregnancy you are killing something capable of having experiences, something that can feel and maybe even dream a little. By killing it, you are taking that all away from it - and maybe it doesn't want that.

Early in the pregnancy however the embryo/foetus does not have those capabilities. It doesn't experience anything - it is just a clump of cells. Looking from its perspective (something "pro-lifers" always refuse to do) there is therefor no difference between being aborted and never actually having been conceived. What it would want is an irrelevant question - it doesn't want anything. It in fact cannot want anything.

Where to draw the line ? I personally say at the moment a neural net is developed- since then it can feel. But that is me.

I just love it when people cry for federalism on a state wide level in order to infringe rights.

I would normally say give them the government they deserve, if they weren't screwing over so many people in the process.

If Roe Vs Wade is over turned it will be good for the tourism industry of California, New York and the rest of the blue states.

Where to draw the line ? I personally say at the moment a neural net is developed- since then it can feel. But that is me.
I think the line is when it can survive outside the mother without a great deal of support. But when its still cell goop or has gills and a tail, thats certainly NOT murder.

I just love it when people cry for federalism on a state wide level in order to infringe rights.

I would normally say give them the government they deserve, if they weren't screwing over so many people in the process.

*shrug* everyone is a federalist, until they aren't.

The same people who find states rights the natural order of things about abortion (which is really a medical issue) are the same people who are happy about the federal governments position on medical marjinuana (which is really a medical issue). And vice versa.

*shrug* everyone is a federalist, until they aren't.

The same people who find states rights the natural order of things about abortion (which is really a medical issue) are the same people who are happy about the federal governments position on medical marjinuana (which is really a medical issue). And vice versa.

And just imagine the fuss created if a county or two within South Dakota voted to allow abortion.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

It's hardly a new thing. The NAACP used similar tactics to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, only they challenged a constitutional law instead of instituting an unconstitutional one.

Because the Supreme Court can overturn its own decisions, it's a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Edit: Not at all trying to defend South Dakota. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be idiotic.

And just imagine the fuss created if a county or two within South Dakota voted to allow abortion.

Have you ever been to Kentucky?

Most of it is dry, except for a few places like bowling green. Personally, I think they like it that way, because they can act pious without actually cutting off their access to booze.

Have you ever been to Kentucky?

Most of it is dry, except for a few places like bowling green. Personally, I think they like it that way, because they can act pious without actually cutting off their access to booze.

I am from So. Illinois, so I have some experience with that, both in Kentucky and in Illinois.

And knowing the area like I do, that sounds exactly right.

Hooray for equality now woman will know what is like to be forced to have a child against your will and have to pay for it for 18 years. I now hope they go after those evil deadbeat mothers who gave their kids up for adoption and make them pay child support. They should be thrown in jail for not supporting a child they never wanted and are unable to see.

youre right, since children arent fully grown humans either, if im their mother I should be able to kill you and not have anyone be able to do anything about it(including your father).

damn straight.
please join me in supporting post natal abortions, up to Two Years!

oh, and then after they grow up,
(if we haven't killed them already)
let's send them to war or imprison them and then kill them
or we could just dehumanize them so they aren't really living anymore anyway.



"And it confuses me because I've never seen any ProLifers going around shooting known cocksuckers with a history of swallowing.
I mean each load could be holding the next Einstein… but that person will never be, they’ve been dissolved in stomach acid; or maybe they’ve be fossilized in the folds of your boys thrown away tissue paper.
So I guess it’s more tragic when a woman’s possibility for life dies. Men, we kill people by the millions..."
~Shane L. Koyczan

potential for life?

somebody should attach an amendment stating that any killing of humans/fetus, be it by citizens doctors or the state is illegal. Oh wait .... i guess the death penalty would become illegal. watch how far republican politicians run from that minefield.

all peoples lives are sacred, yet some are more sacred than

This is truly horrible. So much for liberty...

I find yet another reason to be happy I don't live in America...

I can't see this doing anything but compounding the problems of a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.Now on top of all the other issues she has to come up with the means of going out of state for a termination

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

This caught my eye. I would really like to see what "medical advances" they are referring to here. The ones that say you need a nervous system for consciousness? The ones that say that 1/3 of all conceptions are spontaneously miscarried anyway?

Better start locking up potential mothers for manslaughter if they happen to misscarry by drugs/alcohol/falling down stairs.

And to the back alleys we go... Or to the next state.

Youre right, all those people who think murder and rape and stealing should just leave me alone and let me do it, since I dont share their view that its wrong- I should be allowed to do those things.

Seriously though, its not like we're forcing them to keep it. There are adoption agencies, govt org. etc.
Adoption is VERY VERY VERY rare. And foster homes are nothing but hell on earth. Or hey let it be born to a very poor family THAT DOESN'T WANT THEM and let it grow up abused and hungry, hey perhaps they'll have kids of their own to Rape and beat. Sounds great.

There are some people that because they were forced to be born have a life full of nothing but suffering and misery, some end up killing themselves, so in a way you just pospond the Abortion. Real smart you idiots are. Take your Beliefs and shove up right up your...

I believe a ban on third-trimester abortions is okay, but they should be legal during the first and second, with obvious exceptions made for the health of the mother-to-be (or not-to-be, perhaps?).

In any case, South Dakota has decided they don't agree with that, and as this is a democracy, we have to respect that decision. Long live democracy, friends.

Plus the Canadian abortion clinics are going to make a killing off the unhappy mothers once this goes through. No pun intended, but it is kinda funny, don't you think? :P

The whole abortion debate is kind of depressing. Each side ascribes the worst motives to the other, and 'never the twain shall meet'. It might help if they understood that the motives and reasoning are simply different worlds.

It never ceases to amaze me what a fucked up system the US has.

...
Plus the Canadian abortion clinics are going to make a killing off the unhappy mothers once this goes through. No pun intended, but it is kinda funny, don't you think? :P

Nah, I read in there that the entire state only has about 800 abortions performed per year, by medical professionals that come to the state from Minnesota (the twin cities I imagine) on scheduled visits.

That would hardly be a big enough group to alter anyones economic status, hardly enough to keep even one clinic open.

I imagine this bill is more for 'making a point' than anything else.

GW Bush must be happy about this new predecent and Pat Robertson must be dancing.

How extremely pitiful :mad:
That's the result when some religious fanatics get too much power! :sniper:

It never ceases to amaze me what a fucked up system the US has.
Same here! :rolleyes:

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

OMG thats right.... these Republicans have too many tricks up their sleeves! Oh well, it will bite them in the ass in 18 years time when all those would be aborted liberal babies grow up.

i live in sioux falls south dakota and I havent heard anything in any sioux falls news about this.

Yep, South Dakota has just committed political suicide

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.

Smart move actually. With 2 new justices on the court, it could very well be overturned. Ya just never know.

Great! About time someone challanged that murderous law. Always makes me smile when I see one of the very few conservative beliefs that I support actually go somewhere. Still, despite the new justices, the Supreme Court is known to dodge controversial issues and I'm sure this law will get slapped down in Appellate Court anyway. I doubt this will go anywhere.

It might get slapped down in the appelate court but watch out for that supreme court.

So what's the point then if they don't have a chance to even get close to overturning the original SC-ruling?

Its called a political Statement. There's another state doing the samething as SD.

*shrug* everyone is a federalist, until they aren't.

The same people who find states rights the natural order of things about abortion (which is really a medical issue) are the same people who are happy about the federal governments position on medical marjinuana (which is really a medical issue). And vice versa.

Not always. I'm very much pro choice, but I'm also very much pro states-rights. I think if the people of South Dakota want to ban abortion, let them. And then set up a blue state emigration fund to help people move out of red states and into blue states.

This truly is tragic. For a nation that considers itself pre-eminent on earth, you are astoundingly moronic at times.

This truly is tragic. For a nation that considers itself pre-eminent on earth, you are astoundingly moronic at times.

Despite the fact that most nations don't even have abortion legal?

Despite the fact that most nations don't even have abortion legal?

Yet a nation who does legislates for one region to interdict it:rolleyes:

Yet a nation who does legislates for one region to interdict it:rolleyes:

SD does not constitute a region. Its only 1 state of 50. This will get appealed and odds are it'll get overturned.

SD does not constitute a region. Its only 1 state of 50. This will get appealed and odds are it'll get overturned.

I interchanged state and region, since region is essentially ambiguous.

As for the appeal, I am a tad ignorant of the intricacies of the US administration, therefore I thank you for such illumination. However, the principle remains the same no?

SD does not constitute a region. Its only 1 state of 50. This will get appealed and odds are it'll get overturned.

This is a political maneuver, pure and simple. By taking this action, the republican leadership in South Dakota is kicking this issue back up to the Supreme Court because they believe that, now that O'Connor is gone, the judges will take the issue up and overturn Roe v Wade.

This is a political maneuver, pure and simple. By taking this action, the republican leadership in South Dakota is kicking this issue back up to the Supreme Court because they believe that, now that O'Connor is gone, the judges will take the issue up and overturn Roe v Wade.

And here we have the correct answer!

*hands Auranai a cookie*

And here we have the correct answer!

*hands Auranai a cookie*

*munches happily*

LETS JUST GET THIS STRAIT EVERYONE. Just because some christians are dead against it does not mean all are, so just shut up on the biblebelt crap ok. I do not like abortion personally, but I am not against people who do not care about life to have one, just as long as you all do not get the stupid idea to use tax dollars which I pay to get abortions for free. That is what really started the stupid abortion arguments in the first place. Pres Clinton and his wife wanted to use tax dollars to give people free abortions. THAT IS THE CRAPPY THING I DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN. Just keep your little life to yourself and use the abortion clinics and pay for them yourself. KEEP ME OUT OF THE KILLING.

Question for everyone of you fellow great and wise..... when does life begin? when you can answer me that and prove it then go ahead to abort to your content and I would be willing to flip the bill on that as well, but until you or anyone else can answer this one question, I will be dead against it when it comes to our tax dollars......

SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT ANYMORE>.....

Question for everyone of you fellow great and wise..... when does life begin?

Planned Parenthood aparently believs that life begins at conception.

according to the "american death camps" webpage, there is only ONE abortion provider in south dakota anyway-- planned parenthood of souix falls. http://www.ldi.org/DeathCamps/DeathCamps.cfm#SD

although i suppose some physicians might provide services in their offices.

Whatever. Massachusetts will legalize it if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade. No doubt if that happens, the White House will try to push through that ban on abortion. Then, a state like Massachusetts will challenge it exactly like South Dakota is challenging the current law. And conservatives from across the country will demonize liberal Massachusetts for attempting to circumvent federal law, and will never realize how hypocritical they sound.

Whatever. Massachusetts will legalize it if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade. No doubt if that happens, the White House will try to push through that ban on abortion. Then, a state like Massachusetts will challenge it exactly like South Dakota is challenging the current law. And conservatives from across the country will demonize liberal Massachusetts for attempting to circumvent federal law, and will never realize how hypocritical they sound.

Nature of politics.

Nature of politics.

Yeah, well, these anti-abortion types are all about state's rights to self-rule and limiting federal interference, as long as that means that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. As soon as that happens, those same people are all going to be gung-ho about federal interference and overruling state laws if it means banning abortion. Fucking hypocrites.

Only then can the matter go before the supreme court. And the SC can refuse to hear it. Only if the SC is intent on overturning Casey/Roe. will they grant a hearing. (Or conversly, if the 8th circuit finds it constitutional, they may choose to hear it and re-affirm Roe/Casey.)
Or they can choose to hear it for the express purpose of reaffirming Roe even if the lower courts strike down this law.

Granted, that's not too likely for a Supreme Court that skirted the central issue in the Newdow case, but that happened before Roberts joined the Court. For anyone who wonders what I'm on about, the Supreme Court didn't address the issues brought up by Michael Newdow because he didn't have full custody of his daughter; they sidestepped the issue.

Yeah, well, these anti-abortion types are all about state's rights to self-rule and limiting federal interference, as long as that means that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. As soon as that happens, those same people are all going to be gung-ho about federal interference and overruling state laws if it means banning abortion. Fucking hypocrites.

Despite the fact that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it does not make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the issue back to the states for them to decide.

there is only ONE abortion provider in south dakota anyway-- planned parenthood of souix falls.

well, there are really only the two cities anyway.


i'm sure that outlawing abortion is the best way to attract college educated young people into the state (and convince their own not to leave quite as quickly). it's what the kids these days are clamoring for.

Despite the fact that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it does not make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the issue back to the states for them to decide.

No, but it will give the administration the impetus to go forth with a federal ban on abortion, which all the people currently screaming for state's rights will support with glee.

No, but it will give the administration the impetus to go forth with a federal ban on abortion, which all the people currently screaming for state's rights will support with glee.

We shall see. I think this will stay a state's issue if R v W is overturned.

We shall see. I think this will stay a state's issue if R v W is overturned.

Of course you do. You have blinders.

No, but it will give the administration the impetus to go forth with a federal ban on abortion, which all the people currently screaming for state's rights will support with glee.

Again, not all states' rights supporters are anti-abortion.

Of course you do. You have blinders.

Actually no since this case will be at least a year getting to the highest court in the land. We are about 3 months or so away from the end of the current term. This will probably be on the docket for next year depending on how the appellent process is done.

I feverently hope that it stays a state issue because this should only be a state issue and not one done by either the Federal Courts or by the Federal Government.

I have a question for all of these people that are for banning abortion. If I'm pregnant and simply cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest I do?

Despite the fact that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it does not make abortion illegal. All it would do is send the issue back to the states for them to decide.

However, it does take the issue away from women and give it to the states. People don't realize that Roe v. Wade did not federalize abortion rights. It made them personal. You are taking rights away from women and giving them to the state. This has NOTHING to do with federal rights v state's rights.

I have a question for all of these people that are for banning abortion. If I'm pregnant and simply cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest I do?

Standard option: Adoption

However, it does take the issue away from women and give it to the states. People don't realize that Roe v. Wade did not federalize abortion rights. It made them personal. You are taking rights away from women and giving them to the state. This has NOTHING to do with federal rights v state's rights.

Are you trying to say that the states don't protect personal rights?

What I would like to know is just how many anti-abortion people don't believe the Bible (or some other Holy Book) to hold the truth etc.? What say? How many of you are Social Darwinists, militarists, collectivists, fascists, or stalinists? How many of you oppose it on grounds OTHER than religion?

Again, not all states' rights supporters are anti-abortion.

No, not all. But enough. Many are only "states' rights" supporters as long as it serves their cause. Many of the same people who are all for returning abortion to a state level are also fervently against states like the one I live in legalizing gay marriage, calling for a ban on a federal level. It's not states' rights, it's legislating their opinion. Strike down Roe v. Wade, but let's not pretend like these people fighting for it are doing it in the interests of states' rights.

Are you trying to say that the states don't protect personal rights?

Some don't, no. Banning gay marriage, for example.

Are you trying to say that the states don't protect personal rights?

I'm saying that if it's a personal right then it is not up for vote by the states. Roe v Wade didn't say the states couldn't protect this right, they said they can't abridge it. The only reason to protest Roe v Wade is to make it possible for the the state to abridge the right because that is all the decision prevents.

No, not all. But enough. Many are only "states' rights" supporters as long as it serves their cause. Many of the same people who are all for returning abortion to a state level are also fervently against states like the one I live in legalizing gay marriage, calling for a ban on a federal level. It's not states' rights, it's legislating their opinion. Strike down Roe v. Wade, but let's not pretend like these people fighting for it are doing it in the interests of states' rights.

Exactly. I wonder how many of those people are fighting to defeat DOMA as it fundamentally limited the states rights as allowed for by Article IV of the constitution.

I have a question for all of these people that are for banning abortion. If I'm pregnant and simply cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest I do?You do what you feel is best for you.

Regarding the pregnancy, there's two opitons.
Terminating the pregnancy, or carrying to term.

Regarding the possible birthing, there's also two options.
Fight against odds, and try to raise the child(ren), or give the child(ren) up for adoption.

Considering there's (according to the latest stats I've found) somewhere around 500.000 children in the US alone, up for adoption, something stinks.
Every child a wanted child, my "donkey".

To quote George Carlin.
If you're pre-born, you're fine,
if you're pre-school, you're fucked

We shall see. I think this will stay a state's issue if R v W is overturned.

Again, but it will by definition make it no longer a personal right. Once you open that can of worms, it's very difficult to put them back in the can.

R v W should have never been brought forth to the Supreme Court. It is not a constitutional issue. Therefore it should be overturned.

You do what you feel is best for you.

Regarding the pregnancy, there's two opitons.
Terminating the pregnancy, or carrying to term.

Regarding the possible birthing, there's also two options.
Fight against odds, and try to raise the child(ren), or give the child(ren) up for adoption.

Considering there's (according to the latest stats I've found) somewhere around 500.000 children in the US alone, up for adoption, something stinks.
Every child a wanted child, my "donkey".

To quote George Carlin.

No odds. I cannot afford a child. Period. Abortion is illegal as is the desire of those who wish to overturn Roe v Wade. The option is that I allow my child to suffer with me or to enter the adoption system and suffer there. Now, of course, the same people who wish to outlaw abortion are limiting the people who can take children out of that pool so my child has a decreasing chance of being adopted, particularly if the child is a minority.

So my question to all of these champions of justice is are you willing to have your taxes increased to bolster our welfare, medicaid and foster care systems?

The arguments being made are so short-sighted and simplistic that it's almost embarassing to argue against them. Is anyone proposing what we're going to do to deal with the problems that will definitely arise from these policies? NOPE.

As said, the religious right only cares about children until they exit the birth canal.

R v W should have never been brought forth to the Supreme Court. It is not a constitutional issue. Therefore it should be overturned.

Personal rights aren't a constitutional issue? Hmmmm... and here I thought there we these amendments that addressed just such a thing.

Again, but it will by definition make it no longer a personal right. Once you open that can of worms, it's very difficult to put them back in the can.

In the states where abortion will still be legal, and there will be, the choice is there so this is an incorrect statement to make.

Personal rights aren't a constitutional issue? Hmmmm... and here I thought there we these amendments that addressed just such a thing.

But if you read the constitution literally, privacy issues are not covered at the Federal Level.

This stopped being a state's rights issue a long time ago--if the federal government had never passed restrictions on abortion (like the one that's going to be heard by SCOTUS this year), then state's rights advocates might have an argument that overturning Roe would send the issue to the states, but the Congress has already shown a willingness, more than once, to restrict abortion on the federal level. To think that this will go back to the states if Roe goes is the height of naivete.

In the states where abortion will still be legal, and there will be, the choice is there so this is an incorrect statement to make.

When it's up for the vote of the people, it's no longer a right. You wish to make control over their body a privelege for women, not a basic right.

But if you read the constitution literally, privacy issues are not covered at the Federal Level.

Good thing this didn't federalize privacy issues, it personalized them. As you'll note in the literal interpretation, some rights are reserved to the people. Because it is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not a personal right. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is an amendment that says just that.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

How's that for a literal interpretation? This specifically states that some rights are held by the people that ARE NOT enumerated in US Constitution. Guess whose job it is decide which ones. Hint: It not the states.

This stopped being a state's rights issue a long time ago--if the federal government had never passed restrictions on abortion (like the one that's going to be heard by SCOTUS this year), then state's rights advocates might have an argument that overturning Roe would send the issue to the states, but the Congress has already shown a willingness, more than once, to restrict abortion on the federal level. To think that this will go back to the states if Roe goes is the height of naivete.

Roe v. Wade does need to be amended and I don't see any reason whatsoever for a Partial Birth Abortion. Heck, even congress voted for it overwhelmingly because it is a barbaric procedure.

To me abortion should only be done in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. That is my own personal belief.

When it's up for the vote of the people, it's no longer a right. You wish to make control over their body a privelege for women, not a basic right.

If a state legalizes it, you have a choice if you want to get one or not. So yes, you will still have that choice. Just like you have a choice of crossing state lines to get an abortion. The choice is still yours wether you want to believe that or not.

Good thing this didn't federalize privacy issues, it personalized them. As you'll note in the literal interpretation, some rights are reserved to the people. Because it is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not a personal right. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is an amendment that says just that.

There really isn't. But if you want to get technical, there is an amendment that says that nothing can be taken away without due process of law. So if a mother wants to kill her unborn baby then there should be a trial to see if an abortion is warrented. That way, we know that the abortion was done legally.

Personal rights aren't a constitutional issue? Hmmmm... and here I thought there we these amendments that addressed just such a thing.

Where's the amendment addressing R v W? Until there's an amendment this should not be an issue. The only related amendment is X which makes it a state's rights issue, not a federal gov't issue. Read you constitution.

Roe v. Wade does need to be amended and I don't see any reason whatsoever for a Partial Birth Abortion. Heck, even congress voted for it overwhelmingly because it is a barbaric procedure.

To me abortion should only be done in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. That is my own personal belief.
None of which addresses the point of my post, Corneliu. You keep saying this will be a state issue--it won't. Every time a federal abortion ban has been overturned, it's been done because there was no health of the mother exception. Federalism has not been mentioned, and the assumption from there is that Congress does have the right to legislate on the matter, within the limits of the right to privacy set out in Roe. Remove Roe and all you remove is the privacy issue--federalism still remains and the Congress will then be able to pass a federal ban if it so wishes.

Where's the amendment addressing R v W? Until there's an amendment this should not be an issue. The only related amendment is X which makes it a state's rights issue, not a federal gov't issue. Read you constitution.

Check the 9th Amendment.

Where's the amendment addressing R v W? Until there's an amendment this should not be an issue. The only related amendment is X which makes it a state's rights issue, not a federal gov't issue. Read you constitution.

Ha. Um, you missed a little part of X. I'll help you out.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Whoops.

No odds. I cannot afford a child. Period. Abortion is illegal as is the desire of those who wish to overturn Roe v Wade. The option is that I allow my child to suffer with me or to enter the adoption system and suffer there.Selfaborting, or crossing statelines into a state that allow for abortions.

Speeding is illegal, yet some people speed, just to take one thing.
Criminalise abortions will not end, neither the desire to obtain one, nor the actual termination.
All that will happen is that a majority of abortions will be performed out of the spotlight.

None of which addresses the point of my post, Corneliu. You keep saying this will be a state issue--it won't. Every time a federal abortion ban has been overturned, it's been done because there was no health of the mother exception.

And guess what is in this bill? A health of the mother clause in it! Abortions shall be legal unless the health of the mother is at stake.

That is what the bill states.

Federalism has not been mentioned, and the assumption from there is that Congress does have the right to legislate on the matter, within the limits of the right to privacy set out in Roe. Remove Roe and all you remove is the privacy issue--federalism still remains and the Congress will then be able to pass a federal ban if it so wishes.

Actually it has been mentioned by Jocabia.

I don't see any reason whatsoever for a Partial Birth Abortion

and since there tain't no such thang, i don't either. but you can't outlaw imaginary boogeymen.

To me abortion should only be done in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. That is my own personal belief.

I love people with this belief....

Why, in your estimation, should abortions be legal in only those three instances? Is the value of the life of the unborn child somehow worth less if it is the result of a rape or incestual relationship? All lives are precious, and all unborn children deserve the right to life, except for when it's because of rape or incest, or because the mother might die? What makes it different in those cases? Certainly we should not punish the unborn child for the crimes of another?

There really isn't. But if you want to get technical, there is an amendment that says that nothing can be taken away without due process of law. So if a mother wants to kill her unborn baby then there should be a trial to see if an abortion is warrented. That way, we know that the abortion was done legally.

Again, that removes the right. You pretend you want to make this a state's issue, but you actually want to ban abortion. At least be honest about it.

Also, your ridiculous statement about the made-up type of abortion is just that, ridiculous. D&X and D&E abortions are not available for elective abortions in nearly every state. They are used for life-saving procedures and for cases where the fetus is either already deceased or definitely dying (yes, at that point, I consider a child to be alive). You really should do some research before making such absurd statements.

Ha. Um, you missed a little part of X. I'll help you out.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Whoops.

The IX amendment states that amendments should not be limited if it is the will of the people. So far I have not seen any type of vote by the people to amend this to the constitution. I don't think I missed any part of X. As of to date, this is not a federal issue.

Whoops.

Selfaborting, or crossing statelines into a state that allow for abortions.

Speeding is illegal, yet some people speed, just to take one thing.
Criminalise abortions will not end, neither the desire to obtain one, nor the actual termination.
All that will happen is that a majority of abortions will be performed out of the spotlight.

Ha. I asked this question of people who wish to ban abortion. Are you actually claiming that people who wish to ban abortion consider illegal abortions as the alternative?

All that will happen is that a majority of abortions will be performed without the current safety measures and healthy practices that are currently required. Yep, that's something we should celebrate.

Again, that removes the right. You pretend you want to make this a state's issue, but you actually want to ban abortion. At least be honest about it.

Do I want abortion to be illegal? Not totally no.

Also, your ridiculous statement about the made-up type of abortion is just that, ridiculous. D&X and D&E abortions are not available for elective abortions in nearly every state. They are used for life-saving procedures and for cases where the fetus is either already deceased or definitely dying (yes, at that point, I consider a child to be alive). You really should do some research before making such absurd statements.

Show me that Partial Birth Abortions are myth.

The IX amendment states that amendments should not be limited if it is the will of the people. So far I have not seen any type of vote by the people to amend this to the constitution. I don't think I missed any part of X. As of to date, this is not a federal issue.

Whoops.

Um, could you quote where it says that in IX? It doesn't. IX and X say that certain rights are not up for vote whether they are mentioned in the US Constitution or not. Allowing a vote would specifically undermine the intent of the amendments since a vote of the people was always an option on any issue that is not a protected right.

Do I want abortion to be illegal? Not totally no.

You just want to control who can get it. You are a champion of human rights if I've ever seen one. You actually believe it's a life but you want to select when lives are valuable and when they aren't through legislation. You should be ashamed.

Show me that Partial Birth Abortions are myth.

It's a made-up term. There is no medical option of a partial-birth abortion. It's a term made up by oponents to make it sound different than it is. Show many any abortion clinic that allows for a partial birth abortion. Show me any medical book that says that they are a clinical option. I can't show you it doesn't exist. Show me that it does.

I have a question for all of these people that are for banning abortion. If I'm pregnant and simply cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest I do?

Well you eat it of course. Unless you are a vegetarian, then you leave it in the gutter.

It's what the good lord wants.

And guess what is in this bill? A health of the mother clause in it! Abortions shall be legal unless the health of the mother is at stake.

That is what the bill states.

Wrong.

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. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Wrong.

Thank you. I was trying to find that.

I love people with this belief....

Why, in your estimation, should abortions be legal in only those three instances? Is the value of the life of the unborn child somehow worth less if it is the result of a rape or incestual relationship? All lives are precious, and all unborn children deserve the right to life, except for when it's because of rape or incest, or because the mother might die? What makes it different in those cases? Certainly we should not punish the unborn child for the crimes of another?

abortion is not punishing the unborn child, however not being able to have an abortion is punishing the mother. everytime the mother looks at the child she will remember the crime.

The legislators who passed this are violating the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. They are leading their State contrary to the law of the land, openly and without shame. Bring these bastards up on charges of Treason.

What's next, repealing women's rights to vote? Executing all the homosexuals? Re-segregating black people? Witch hunts?
Is it just me, or does it seem like we're going BACKWARDS.

What's next, repealing women's rights to vote? Executing all the homosexuals? Re-segregating black people? Witch hunts?
Is it just me, or does it seem like we're going BACKWARDS.

also in the process of banning abortion why not ban the morning after pill or ban the use of contraception

Thank you. I was trying to find that.

I wonder what he'll do now.

abortion is not punishing the unborn child, however not being able to have an abortion is punishing the mother. everytime the mother looks at the child she will remember the crime.

So do you think that abortions should be legal for whomever wishes to have one, or only in specific cases?

So do you think that abortions should be legal for whomever wishes to have one, or only in specific cases?

whomever wishes to have one

The legislators who passed this are violating the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. They are leading their State contrary to the law of the land, openly and without shame. Bring these bastards up on charges of Treason.

Um, it doesn't work that way. You are permitted to pass laws that challenge past rulings. It's pretty much the only way to challenge those rulings. While I disagree with what they're doing, they can do it and it's not treason.

whomever wishes to have one

Then my post wasn't really directed at you. I'd like to know, from someone who thinks that abortions should be restricted to certain situations, what makes the unborn children in those instances worth less than others. What is it about a child conceived in incest that makes it okay to abort?

If "life starts at conception" shouldn't all the anti-choicers be trying to ban contraception as well? "By wearing a condom you are murdering an unborn child!"
Or what about anal/oral sex and/or masturbation? All that sperm goin to waste, either in a gym sock, a tissue, or someone's mouth/ass. Why aren't they trying to ban that?
You know what, I think they're just trying to pull a 1984 and take all the fun out of sex. "SEX IS FOR BABIES ONLY, YOU DON'T DO IT FOR FUN!!!111one"
Either that, or they just hate women.

Um, it doesn't work that way. You are permitted to pass laws that challenge past rulings. It's pretty much the only way to challenge those rulings. While I disagree with what they're doing, they can do it and it's not treason.

Well that's downright silly. It probably does work that way, but still.

Maybe my intense desire to see South Dakota bombed and these theocrats drawn and quartered(You know, old school treason penalties:p ) is interfering with my analysis of this situation.

At any rate what they're doing is not right. I'm not sure what we can do though.... other than *shudder* trust these new Bush appointees to make the right decision. I predict political chaos and fallout neither side can imagine should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

If "life starts at conception" shouldn't all the anti-choicers be trying to ban contraception as well? "By wearing a condom you are murdering an unborn child!"
Or what about anal/oral sex and/or masturbation? All that sperm goin to waste, either in a gym sock, a tissue, or someone's mouth/ass. Why aren't they trying to ban that?
You know what, I think they're just trying to pull a 1984 and take all the fun out of sex. "SEX IS FOR BABIES ONLY, YOU DON'T DO IT FOR FUN!!!111one"


You just summarised the position of many Churches quite accurately.
Of course, since about 50% of all fertilisations is aborted naturally (the body rejects it) they should also check every tampon and all womens panties for eggs.

If "life starts at conception" shouldn't all the anti-choicers be trying to ban contraception as well? "By wearing a condom you are murdering an unborn child!"

Well there are Religous groups working on that too. They're not, thank Allah, influential enough to ban contraceptives, but they've done a hell of a good job destroying Sex Education in the United States.

You know what, I think they're just trying to pull a 1984 and take all the fun out of sex. "SEX IS FOR BABIES ONLY, YOU DON'T DO IT FOR FUN!!!111one"
Either that, or they just hate women.

You're probably correct on all counts. I'm not sure the Religious Right will be happy until we're all partying like it's 1984.

Could someone here who has an anti-abortion argument that is not religious in nature please explain their position? I do not say this sarcastically, but as a genuine question, as I have not yet fully formed my own opinion.

Could someone here who has an anti-abortion argument that is not religious in nature please explain their position? I do not say this sarcastically, but as a genuine question, as I have not yet fully formed my own opinion.

Their main argument is that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder. It often has a religious basis, but it doesn't absolutely require one.

Now the problem with that is they cannot possibly prove that life begins at conception, or that even if it does, that the 'life' is in any way a human being and entitled to protection from 'murder.'

Hooray for equality now woman will know what is like to be forced to have a child against your will and have to pay for it for 18 years. I now hope they go after those evil deadbeat mothers who gave their kids up for adoption and make them pay child support. They should be thrown in jail for not supporting a child they never wanted and are unable to see.


Three words: wear a condom.
Another three: have a vasectomy.
Another two: practice abstinence.

It never ceases to amaze me what a fucked up system the US has.

Specifically in what way, relating to abortion?

Three words: wear a condom.
Another three: have a vasectomy.
Another two: practice abstinence.

I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you can't have this operation.
Why not? Well you could have prevented your condition. I mean come on - if you had exercised more, eaten less fatty foods... oh and not been struck by that car, you wouldn't even be here.
Ergo, you have no right to this procedure.

Three words: wear a condom.
Another three: have a vasectomy.
Another two: practice abstinence.

Condoms always work?

If Roe Vs Wade is over turned it will be good for the tourism industry of California, New York and the rest of the blue states.similar to the netherlands, who generate a lot of tourism by allowing marihuana or qatar, where a lot of travel is due to the fact that unlike elsewhere in the arab world alcohol is legal.Could someone here who has an anti-abortion argument that is not religious in nature please explain their position?it is the governments task to protect the lifes of its subjects, if the state allowed subjects to be killed because they are not fully develloped, then the argument could be made, that euthanizing disabled, maybe people with down syndrome, whose brains werent fully develloped from birth, must be permissable as well.

it is the governments task to protect the lifes of its subjects, if the state allowed subjects to be killed because they are not fully develloped, then the argument could be made, that euthanizing disabled, maybe people with down syndrome, whose brains werent fully develloped from birth, must be permissable as well.

If someone is underdeveloped to a degree comparable to a just fertilised egg I really see no problem with that whatsoever. I shed skincells with that level of development daily.

I wonder what he'll do now.
What he always does--ignore it for a couple of pages then emerge and claim that no one has yet refuted him, declare victory and continue spouting his rehearsed talking points.

<snip>


you Seriously underestimate the support against abortion (pro-choice)... your not talking about some small fringe group off in hicksville touting their obscure religious belifs...

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

According to Gallop polls 42% of the country identifies themselves as "Pro-Life"

While 66% of americans DONT want to see Roe vs Wade overturned 50% of people polled in a CBS poll said they wanted abortions only in cases of rape incest or only in cases where the mothers life is in danger as opposed to the 27% who said abortion should be legal in ALL cases.

Many of these polls tell you one thing, the Pro Life movement is VASTLY larger and more influenical then you give it credit for.. and that Americans largely wouldn't have a problem with stricter restrictions on Aboritons.

you Seriously underestimate the support against abortion (pro-choice)... your not talking about some small fringe group off in hicksville touting their obscure religious belifs...

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

According to Gallop polls 42% of the country identifies themselves as "Pro-Life"

While 66% of americans DONT want to see Roe vs Wade overturned 50% of people polled in a CBS poll said they wanted abortions only in cases of rape incest or only in cases where the mothers life is in danger as opposed to the 27% who said abortion should be legal in ALL cases.

Many of these polls tell you one thing, the Pro Life movement is VASTLY larger and more influenical then you give it credit for.. and that Americans largely wouldn't have a problem with stricter restrictions on Aboritons.You know what that polling really proves? Most people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to abortion. They've been so sucked in by buzzwords by both sides that they really have no idea about what's at stake in this debate.

You know what that polling really proves? Most people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to abortion. They've been so sucked in by buzzwords by both sides that they really have no idea about what's at stake in this debate.

well even though not by much, i give the average citizen more credit then you do.. on the contrary, I think this polling shows us the average american does know what he/she feels on this issue, and that this feeling is more complex then either side would like to admit. People are willing to restrict the process (moderation is key) but still feel it to be a "Right"

These ideas of course throw both hardcore feminists and religious fanatics into frenzys.

On the other hand, i feel the fanatisim is required inorder to move public opinion.. if everyone just debated these complex issues in very centrist tones, people would be unable to differentiate the two sides and would be content to stay where they are. If you want change in the end, radicialism is required to catch attention.

Specifically in what way, relating to abortion?

Oh, the fact that such an important right to one's own body is not legislated anywhere, but rests on an interpretetion by a Supreme Court, whose rulings can apparently be ignored if you don't like them, by just passing a new law that has to wind its way through the system once more, and then to perhaps have the old interpretation rescinded, thus removing this right, until the next time someone like RvW comes along to have the circle repeat itself.

Also, the fact that the abortion debate is so 70 years ago. You people really need to step into the 21st century.

Oh, the fact that such an important right to one's own body is not legislated anywhere, but rests on an interpretetion by a Supreme Court, whose rulings can apparently be ignored if you don't like them, by just passing a new law that has to wind its way through the system once more, and then to perhaps have the old interpretation rescinded, thus removing this right, until the next time someone like RvW comes along to have the circle repeat itself.

Also, the fact that the abortion debate is so 70 years ago. You people really need to step into the 21st century.

if supreme court decisions were never challenged we'd still have segregation... Brown vs Board of ed overturned a previous decision by the court >.>

if supreme court decisions were never challenged we'd still have segregation... Brown vs Board of ed overturned a previous decision by the court >.>

See. Ridiculous. The laws in your country are such a mess, they can say two diametrically opposed things at once, and you need 9 permanent salaried judges to change their minds as to which one of the two positions is the one du jour. It's just fucked up.

SD does not constitute a region. Its only 1 state of 50. This will get appealed and odds are it'll get overturned.

Huh? What the hell is a region then?

See. Ridiculous. The laws in your country are such a mess, they can say two diametrically opposed things at once, and you need 12 permanent salaried judges to change their minds as to which one of the two positions is the one du jour. It's just fucked up.

Its called an evolving system, which has the ability to change and stay in line with what its public feels conforms to their general ideology. This is why our legal system is among the most pronouned and successful worldwide.

You want to talk about screwed up laws, look at England who doesn't even have a written constitution.. they rely on "common law" or unwritten law.. which when push comes to shove can take a back seat to government control. And France whose gone through, how many constitutions in the last 100 years ?? If something doesn't fit, they just throw everything out the window and start from scratch (with one or two revolutions in between each) These risks are far less likely in the American system

See. Ridiculous. The laws in your country are such a mess, they can say two diametrically opposed things at once, and you need 9 permanent salaried judges to change their minds as to which one of the two positions is the one du jour. It's just fucked up.

Other countries don't have supreme courts that can strike down laws?

Its called an evolving system, which has the ability to change and stay in line with what its public feels conforms to their general ideology. This is why our legal system is among the most pronouned and successful worldwide.
How do you define the success of a legal system?

You want to talk about screwed up laws, look at England who doesn't even have a written constitution.. they rely on "common law" or unwritten law.. which when push comes to shove can take a back seat to government control. And France whose gone through, how many constitutions in the last 100 years ?? If something doesn't fit, they just throw everything out the window and start from scratch (with one or two revolutions in between each) These risks are far less likely in the American system
So the US law, "when push comes to shove", takes a back seat to "what the public feels" like at the current time, or more accurately, what the Supreme Court judges feel like at the current time. Now that is better than it taking a back seat to an (at least elected) government body how?

How about this?
An Amendment is proposed that would prevent all states and the federal government from ruling on all Philosophical issues, until such time that the majority of philosophers can agree on the issue.

No government should legislate morality (either directly or judicially).

As for the potential acts of treason; is it not an act of treason for the Supreme Court to allow treaties to be signed by which there very nature places them above the constitution.

Personally, I am a Libertarian/Constitutionalist. Yes I am a Christian and personally vehemently opposed to abortion (I have personal reasons for this). I also am one who is strongly for states and even local governments rights, that way if they piss me off I can easily find them and give them a large piece of my mind. It is the place of the church to take care of the poor and the parentless. We can thank greed and evangelicalism (the majority of the Religious Right) for the fact that this isn't happening.

Its called an evolving system, which has the ability to change and stay in line with what its public feels conforms to their general ideology. This is why our legal system is among the most pronouned and successful worldwide.
Yeah, it's just peachy. All your over crowded prisons and execution frenzies just scream intelligence.

Other countries don't have supreme courts that can strike down laws?
Other countries don't have juries establishing precedents (that is, even if they have juries). Other countries (dare I say it?) have the Napoleonic Code.

Wait a minute. You have it too. Just in Louisiana...

Also for FASS just to give you one quick lesson on how the US supreme court works, its quite ingenious because we use a system of presidence. So for every case that comes challengeing a previous law that fails, a presidence for that law is set reaffirming it, making it more difficult to overturn in the future.

Also for FASS just to give you one quick lesson on how the US supreme court works, its quite ingenious because we use a system of presidence. So for every case that comes challengeing a previous law that fails, a presidence for that law is set reaffirming it, making it more difficult to overturn in the future.
How's about having a legislature that establishes clear codes of conduct, all the way to the Supreme Court? And decisions that turn previous legislation into toilet paper and nothing more? Would that be an unbearable concept?

Yeah, it's just peachy. All your over crowded prisons and execution frenzies just scream intelligence.

while im not in favor of capital punishment, does it make so much more sense having serial killers sit in jails doing nothing but stare at the walls all day, under the "illusion" that they are some how suffering more thinking about what they did ? :rolleyes: .. or that they are soem how being reformed ? :rolleyes:

I would say an intellegent society would either kill them off or put them to use.

well even though not by much, i give the average citizen more credit then you do.. on the contrary, I think this polling shows us the average american does know what he/she feels on this issue, and that this feeling is more complex then either side would like to admit. People are willing to restrict the process (moderation is key) but still feel it to be a "Right"

These ideas of course throw both hardcore feminists and religious fanatics into frenzys.

On the other hand, i feel the fanatisim is required inorder to move public opinion.. if everyone just debated these complex issues in very centrist tones, people would be unable to differentiate the two sides and would be content to stay where they are. If you want change in the end, radicialism is required to catch attention.My point is that you have people who say they support Roe but also want abortion restricted to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If I remember Roe correctly, those two positions are contradictory. They don't really know what Roe means.

And here's the thing about the whole rape and incest bit, and how it's related to controlling sexual expression. If you go to the root of the issue, people who support a rape and incest exception are saying that the reason a woman should have the option of abortion is that they're a victim of having sex pushed upon them and therefore shouldn't be burdened with being forced to raise a child that came from that union. Now, if the fetus is really the primary concern, then how the woman comes to be impregnated is really irrelevant to the issue--a fetus is a fetus is a fetus, after all.

That they make the distinction means that they're really arguing that a woman who is sexually active and unashamed of it should be forced to bear the burden of a pregnancy, even if she took precautions against pregnancy and those precautions failed, because she took control of her sexuality. If she's not a victim, they argue, then she loses her rights to terminate the pregnancy. That's why I continually say that this debate is not about the fetus--it's about women's sexual independence, and the attempt by a minority of people in this country to deprive women of that independence. They pretty it up by claiming it's about the fetus, but if that were the case, there would be no rape or incest provision--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex.

This is just as bad as that damned activist judge trying to push the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers in New York. It is certainly a breech of court rulings and should be treated as such.

On this, how about I propose something here. How about boot these kinds of people out of office for doing something so blantantly a abuse of power to get thier ways. We would certainly get rid of these damned renegade politian/activists who push through on thier own agenda. If you want to change the law do it through legal channels, not by slamming it on overnight to something which is a abuse of power.

while im not in favor of capital punishment, does it make so much more sense having serial killers sit in jails doing nothing but stare at the walls all day, under the "illusion" that they are some how suffering more thinking about what they did ? :rolleyes: .. or that they are soem how being reformed ? :rolleyes:

I would say an intellegent society would either kill them off or put them to use.
1. How about establishing that a convict is not a slave or a puppet for the state or community? He did something, he suffers a predisposed penitence. Nothing more, nothing less. Reform does not necessarily come to mind - it is wishful thinking. The state has to ensure that he is trated following conventions, and attempt prescribed procedures to make him function in society. That's it.
2. You'd have to explain just how come a prisoner's life is more joyfull if he is made to work for the state or for the profits of some contractor. "Reforming" is the excuse: it has never been the purpose.

And here's the thing about the whole rape and incest bit, and how it's related to controlling sexual expression. If you go to the root of the issue, people who support a rape and incest exception are saying that the reason a woman should have the option of abortion is that they're a victim of having sex pushed upon them and therefore shouldn't be burdened with being forced to raise a child that came from that union. Now, if the fetus is really the primary concern, then how the woman comes to be impregnated is really irrelevant to the issue--a fetus is a fetus is a fetus, after all.

That they make the distinction means that they're really arguing that a woman who is sexually active and unashamed of it should be forced to bear the burden of a pregnancy, even if she took precautions against pregnancy and those precautions failed, because she took control of her sexuality. If she's not a victim, they argue, then she loses her rights to terminate the pregnancy. That's why I continually say that this debate is not about the fetus--it's about women's sexual independence, and the attempt by a minority of people in this country to deprive women of that independence. They pretty it up by claiming it's about the fetus, but if that were the case, there would be no rape or incest provision--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex.

yup. "abortion is murder!" they cry, but then immediately say "well, obviously we'd still allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health risks."

killing some random dude is murder. are they willing to allow people who have been the victim of rape or incest or are facing some level of health risk to just kill some random dude?

the fetus doesn't enter into it - this is about power and control

My point is that you have people who say they support Roe but also want abortion restricted to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If I remember Roe correctly, those two positions are contradictory. They don't really know what Roe means.

And here's the thing about the whole rape and incest bit, and how it's related to controlling sexual expression. If you go to the root of the issue, people who support a rape and incest exception are saying that the reason a woman should have the option of abortion is that they're a victim of having sex pushed upon them and therefore shouldn't be burdened with being forced to raise a child that came from that union. Now, if the fetus is really the primary concern, then how the woman comes to be impregnated is really irrelevant to the issue--a fetus is a fetus is a fetus, after all.

That they make the distinction means that they're really arguing that a woman who is sexually active and unashamed of it should be forced to bear the burden of a pregnancy, even if she took precautions against pregnancy and those precautions failed, because she took control of her sexuality. If she's not a victim, they argue, then she loses her rights to terminate the pregnancy. That's why I continually say that this debate is not about the fetus--it's about women's sexual independence, and the attempt by a minority of people in this country to deprive women of that independence. They pretty it up by claiming it's about the fetus, but if that were the case, there would be no rape or incest provision--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex.

I think it's been a long time since I've said this to you, but VERY WELL SAID>

yup. "abortion is murder!" they cry, but then immediately say "well, obviously we'd still allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health risks."

killing some random dude is murder. are they willing to allow people who have been the victim of rape or incest or are facing some level of health risk to just kill some random dude?

the fetus doesn't enter into it - this is about power and control

Of course it is.

"Hey, we invented a pill that prevents the need for abortion by preventing a pregnancy even if a condom breaks or a rape occurs. YAY!!!"
"Booo... what are you talking about? I'm going to deny you the ability to get that pill. Can't have women being able to prevent a pregnancy."
"Um, but then they might get abortions which you said is murder."
"Hey, but Clinton got a blowjob in office."

I think it's been a long time since I've said this to you, but VERY WELL SAID>
Thanks--that means a lot coming from you.

Of course it is.

"Hey, we invented a pill that prevents the need for abortion by preventing a pregnancy even if a condom breaks or a rape occurs. YAY!!!"
"Booo... what are you talking about? I'm going to deny you the ability to get that pill. Can't have women being able to prevent a pregnancy."
"Um, but then they might get abortions which you said is murder."
"Hey, but Clinton got a blowjob in office."

"hey awesome, we invented a vaccine that will prevent cervical cancer! yippee!"
"we must never let this be given out - it is better that thousands of women die needlessly than for people to have sex"
"dude, wtf?"
"why do you hate america?"

How can they just defy the Supreme Court? Isn't that illegal?

You were saying?

Source?

EDIT: Nevermind. You weren't paying attention and quoted the bill from quite a long time ago. That is not the bill we're talking about. Section 6 of the current bill repeals the law that allows abortions in the state.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215p.htm

Here is the significant portion of the law we are discussing, not the erroneous law you quoted.

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

Notice how vague that is? It makes no provisions for the health of the mother as old acts that have late-term abortions for such things did. It saying only to prevent the death, but makes no distinction for how likely the death has to be, leaving it open to a physician to deny a woman care if death is only, oh, say, 75% likely. If the birth will paralyze the women, too bad. It also makes no provision for cases where the child is dying or suffering in utero even in cases where the mother is in danger.

My point is that you have people who say they support Roe but also want abortion restricted to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If I remember Roe correctly, those two positions are contradictory. They don't really know what Roe means.

And here's the thing about the whole rape and incest bit, and how it's related to controlling sexual expression. If you go to the root of the issue, people who support a rape and incest exception are saying that the reason a woman should have the option of abortion is that they're a victim of having sex pushed upon them and therefore shouldn't be burdened with being forced to raise a child that came from that union. Now, if the fetus is really the primary concern, then how the woman comes to be impregnated is really irrelevant to the issue--a fetus is a fetus is a fetus, after all.

That they make the distinction means that they're really arguing that a woman who is sexually active and unashamed of it should be forced to bear the burden of a pregnancy, even if she took precautions against pregnancy and those precautions failed, because she took control of her sexuality. If she's not a victim, they argue, then she loses her rights to terminate the pregnancy. That's why I continually say that this debate is not about the fetus--it's about women's sexual independence, and the attempt by a minority of people in this country to deprive women of that independence. They pretty it up by claiming it's about the fetus, but if that were the case, there would be no rape or incest provision--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex.

Just on your point about the cases of rape and incest...these are more then just cases about sex being pushed on them, but rather abuse, both physical and mental.. and it is seen that bareing the child of that sexual encounter is an extension of that abuse or conintuation. Realistically speaking, Pro-life proponents will oppose this aswell, however, it is seen as a compromising point. To make the case that bareing the child of physical and mental abuse will be extremely detremental to the health of the mother is a more acceptable argument, then someone saying "I just can't afford a kid now" or "I want to continue my career".

Quite frankly the argument is not about sexual independence and all about the fetus, because if you engage in sexual activity, you know already controception isnot 100% effective. Its a risk you take, and if that risk is realized.. you should live the consequence of your actions rather then take the life of another (the fetus/child). The only alternative argument pro-lifers take is weighin the physical/mental health of the mother vs the life of the fetus.. which is why in cases of the life of themother is at risk it is generally accepted... and that this can be extened to rape and incest (which I myself oppose)

you should live the consequence of your actions rather then take the life of another (the fetus/child). The only alternative argument pro-lifers take is weighin the physical/mental health of the mother vs the life of the fetus.. which is why in cases of the life of themother is at risk it is generally accepted... and that this can be extened to rape and incest (which I myself oppose)

This reasning suggests that you believe that killing an embryo/fetus is doing it harm.
Could you please explain how it is possible to harm something which is incapable of experiencing anything ?

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/SJR2p.htm

Just to throw more gasoline onto the fire!

And to be honest, I would vote against such a thing as South Dakota is trying to do.

Just on your point about the cases of rape and incest...these are more then just cases about sex being pushed on them, but rather abuse, both physical and mental.. and it is seen that bareing the child of that sexual encounter is an extension of that abuse or conintuation. Realistically speaking, Pro-life proponents will oppose this aswell, however, it is seen as a compromising point. To make the case that bareing the child of physical and mental abuse will be extremely detremental to the health of the mother is a more acceptable argument, then someone saying "I just can't afford a kid now" or "I want to continue my career".

Quite frankly the argument is not about sexual independence and all about the fetus, because if you engage in sexual activity, you know already controception isnot 100% effective. Its a risk you take, and if that risk is realized.. you should live the consequence of your actions rather then take the life of another (the fetus/child). The only alternative argument pro-lifers take is weighin the physical/mental health of the mother vs the life of the fetus.. which is why in cases of the life of themother is at risk it is generally accepted... and that this can be extened to rape and incest (which I myself oppose)

A fetus looks like a fish and acts like a mushroom; it is not a person.

Just on your point about the cases of rape and incest...these are more then just cases about sex being pushed on them, but rather abuse, both physical and mental.. and it is seen that bareing the child of that sexual encounter is an extension of that abuse or conintuation. Realistically speaking, Pro-life proponents will oppose this aswell, however, it is seen as a compromising point. To make the case that bareing the child of physical and mental abuse will be extremely detremental to the health of the mother is a more acceptable argument, then someone saying "I just can't afford a kid now" or "I want to continue my career".

Quite frankly the argument is not about sexual independence and all about the fetus, because if you engage in sexual activity, you know already controception isnot 100% effective. Its a risk you take, and if that risk is realized.. you should live the consequence of your actions rather then take the life of another (the fetus/child). The only alternative argument pro-lifers take is weighin the physical/mental health of the mother vs the life of the fetus.. which is why in cases of the life of themother is at risk it is generally accepted... and that this can be extened to rape and incest (which I myself oppose)

In other words, if a woman is sexually-active, she deserves whatever she gets. You may have phrased it differently but there is no difference in the meaning. Abortion is about 'protecting the children'. It's all a load because it's completely inconsistent with the actions of the majority of pro-lifers. It's about controlling the sex lives of women. It's no more about the children then forcing children to have no parents instead of gay parents is.

How can they just defy the Supreme Court? Isn't that illegal?

Nope it isn't illegal at all. The Court has no enforcement power.

*snip*

And because of my computer, I couldn't delete it right away.

Yes I realized it was from a couple of years ago and that is why I deleted my post.

And yes, the law is vague. What do you expect from law makers. I wish they could actually right a law that the average person can understand.

And because of my computer, I couldn't delete it right away.

Yes I realized it was from a couple of years ago and that is why I deleted my post.

And yes, the law is vague. What do you expect from law makers. I wish they could actually right a law that the average person can understand.

The problem is they already had the language from the other laws and could have just used that. Hell, the language you quoted was much better. Personally, I'm glad the law is ridiculous. It will make the challenge have less teeth.

Quite frankly the argument is not about sexual independence and all about the fetus, because if you engage in sexual activity, you know already controception isnot 100% effective. Its a risk you take, and if that risk is realized.. you should live the consequence of your actions rather then take the life of another (the fetus/child). The only alternative argument pro-lifers take is weighin the physical/mental health of the mother vs the life of the fetus.. which is why in cases of the life of themother is at risk it is generally accepted... and that this can be extened to rape and incest (which I myself oppose)

I'm going to quote Judith Thomson to respond to your if you use controception you have to live with the consequences statement

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this is I had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine its not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.-A Defense of Abortion

This reasning suggests that you believe that killing an embryo/fetus is doing it harm.
Could you please explain how it is possible to harm something which is incapable of experiencing anything ?

Do we disconnect people in comas (which we belive to be permanent) from life support ? or kill off kids who have mental capaicities lower then that of monkies (due to brain damage) ? Are these people still.. people!? The fact of the matter is.. that a REASONABLE POTENTIAL is there for that fetus to grow into a fully functioning person. A person can really only be identified by the experiances every human undergoes.. if you eliminate the human before it can develop its own personhood.. what value are we then putting on HUMAN life ? As well GENETICALLY speaking that fetus is a human. We as a society should not put such little value on life to the point that someone else's liberty should be greater then that of another (arguably) peron's life.

The problem is they already had the language from the other laws and could have just used that. Hell, the language you quoted was much better. Personally, I'm glad the law is ridiculous. It will make the challenge have less teeth.

I will agree with you there.

So yes, you will still have that choice. Just like you have a choice of crossing state lines to get an abortion.

That's not always the case. Once a state declares that life begins at conception, it can force a woman into state custody to prevent her from "murdering" her "child." The state will be allowed to forbid a pregnant woman to cross state lines to commit a crime.

Now, how often this will happen is debatable. But it will be legal to do so.

Do we disconnect people in comas (which we belive to be permanent) from life support ?

Yes, yes, we do. Great example.

In other words, if a woman is sexually-active, she deserves whatever she gets. You may have phrased it differently but there is no difference in the meaning. Abortion is about 'protecting the children'. It's all a load because it's completely inconsistent with the actions of the majority of pro-lifers. It's about controlling the sex lives of women. It's no more about the children then forcing children to have no parents instead of gay parents is.

I fail to see Pro-lifers actions are inconsistent with their position about the issue of fetal life. Women's sexual activity while related, is a seperate moral issue to that of terminating the life of a child/fetus. Clearly, the terimination of life is far more henious then that of sexual permiscuity, which is why it is far more controversial then... abstinence vs controception (which is pretty conversial on its own). You can see the sevarity in the controversy for prolife vs prochoices just by the violence which can be attributed to it.

In other words, if a woman is sexually-active, she deserves whatever she gets. You may have phrased it differently but there is no difference in the meaning. Abortion is about 'protecting the children'. It's all a load because it's completely inconsistent with the actions of the majority of pro-lifers. It's about controlling the sex lives of women. It's no more about the children then forcing children to have no parents instead of gay parents is.

I fail to see Pro-lifers actions are inconsistent with their position about the issue of fetal life. Women's sexual activity while related, is a seperate moral issue to that of terminating the life of a child/fetus. Clearly, the terimination of life is far more henious then that of sexual permiscuity, which is why it is far more controversial then... abstinence vs controception (which is pretty conversial on its own). You can see the sevarity in the controversy for prolife vs prochoices just by the violence which can be attributed to it.

We as a society should not put such little value on life to the point that someone else's liberty should be greater then that of another (arguably) peron's life.

Does someone elses' right to life give them the ability to make a claim to my body in order to live? In other words if I'm dying of kidney failure and I find out that you have a kidney that would save my life, can I therebye make a claim to your kidney in order to fufill my right to life?

I fail to see Pro-lifers actions are inconsistent with their position about the issue of fetal life.

No, they are very consistent. It's that they don't care once it stops being fetal that is the problem.

Women's sexual activity while related, is a seperate moral issue to that of terminating the life of a child/fetus. Clearly, the terimination of life is far more henious then that of sexual permiscuity, which is why it is far more controversial then... abstinence vs controception (which is pretty conversial on its own). You can see the sevarity in the controversy for prolife vs prochoices just by the violence which can be attributed to it.
Um, huh? It's not seperate to the people trying to make the laws. That's why it is continually mentioned that it was her fault. If it's not about her choosing to have sex than why are rape, incest, pedophelia exceptions? We know the answer. Because victims of those crimes aren't dirty whores like their counterparts, right?

similar to the netherlands, who generate a lot of tourism by allowing marihuana or qatar, where a lot of travel is due to the fact that unlike elsewhere in the arab world alcohol is legal.

Well, that's just peachy for those in the upper classes. But a great many women can barely afford to have an abortion as it is. Poverty is often a reason why a woman chooses to end her pregnancy. If you add traveling expences and lodging, and meals, it ceases to be an option for a great many women.

Does someone elses' right to life give them the ability to make a claim to my body in order to live? In other words if I'm dying of kidney failure and I find out that you have a kidney that would save my life, can I therebye make a claim to your kidney in order to fufill my right to life?

In that analogy no, because in that case your taking an organ which cannot be replaced... a fetus does not permanently impact the mother by stealing nessary organs.

On the other hand, if someone requires cpr or mouth to mouth.. and you being readily trained to give them the air they require for life just stand by and watch them die (with no other assistance avalible)... under the law you could be put on trial for depravied indifference or neglegance.

Still, in the case your setting up, the person not giving their kidney up is simply refusing to act ... but in the case of abortion, you must activly seek to terminate the life. If your dying of kidney failor and i dont want to give you my kidney.. is then alright for me to terminate your life ?

... on the contrary, I think this polling shows us the average american does know what he/she feels on this issue,...

But laws should not be based on "feelings." Laws should be based on logic, scientific evidence, and the like. All this talk about governing based on "feelings" the last few years is a **very** bad trend.

In that analogy no, because in that case your taking an organ which cannot be replaced... a fetus does not permanently impact the mother by stealing nessary organs.

On the other hand, if someone requires cpr or mouth to mouth.. and you being readily trained to give them the air they require for life just stand by and watch them die (with no other assistance avalible)... under the law you could be put on trial for depravied indifference or neglegance.

Still, in the case your setting up, the person not giving their kidney up is simply refusing to act ... but in the case of abortion, you must activly seek to terminate the life. If your dying of kidney failor and i dont want to give you my kidney.. is then alright for me to terminate your life ?

Okay, what if they just need to use my kidneys for nine months while a replacement kidney they'd received starts working properly? The procedure makes me sick. The procedure limits my motion. The procedure requires me to avoid certain substances. The procedure is VERY uncomfortable. Would that be fair? I mean we ARE talking about someone's life here.

Um, huh? It's not seperate to the people trying to make the laws. That's why it is continually mentioned that it was her fault. If it's not about her choosing to have sex than why are rape, incest, pedophelia exceptions? We know the answer. Because victims of those crimes aren't dirty whores like their counterparts, right?

No, because victims of crimes are just that.. people victimized who have endured physical and mental abuse... Abuse which could leave a lasting if not terminal impression on the individual. Mind you.. those EXCEPTIONS are just that.. expceptions which the most ardant pro-lifers themselves wouldnot accept (and which i myself do not accept). More moderate people however, will say atleast this meets some minimal requirement for REASONABLE concern to terminate a fetus, rather then just friviously killing off humans wherever we please for reasons as arbitrary as... "I want to continue my career and put off childbaring"

Okay, what if they just need to use my kidneys for nine months while a replacement kidney they'd received starts working properly? The procedure makes me sick. The procedure limits my motion. The procedure requires me to avoid certain substances. The procedure is VERY uncomfortable. Would that be fair? I mean we ARE talking about someone's life here.

Again this is comarping apples and oranges.. because you are trying to compare INACTION vs an ACTIVE motivation. In your case, me refusing to give up my kidney is simply being indifferent to your position... I MYSELF am not directly killing you off... however, in abortion an ACTIVE stance is taken and the fetus is killed through unatural means. Surely you can appreciate the difference between indifferene and murder...

No, because victims of crimes are just that.. people victimized who have endured physical and mental abuse... Abuse which could leave a lasting if not terminal impression on the individual. Mind you.. those EXCEPTIONS are just that.. expceptions which the most ardant pro-lifers themselves wouldnot accept (and which i myself do not accept). More moderate people however, will say atleast this meets some minimal requirement for REASONABLE concern to terminate a fetus, rather then just friviously killing off humans wherever we please for reasons as arbitrary as... "I want to continue my career and put off childbaring"

Amusing. So it's a life and that life has value that cannot be compromised, unless some other life committed a crime against a third life. Yep, nothing nonsensical about that. It's a life that has a value that stops at causing a woman trauma. You do realize that some women experience similar trauma just because of child birth in and of itself. You ever hear of post-pardum suicide? Is that reason enough to end the pregnancy? What if continuing the pregnancy is going to traumatize the woman in some other significant way, say physically? You know, like tearing her vagina, permanently damaging her internal organs, permanently affecting her hormone levels, stretching her belly and breasts out of shape, causing pain, discomfort, even possibly death. Is that reason enough?

Oh, umm, I don't know if anybody told you guys, but this bill is being sent back to the House, the governor hasn't had a chance to sign it yet and it still has a few more steps before becoming law. Hopefully they won't take too long.

I guess in South Dakota we have this thing for the sanctity of human life. Our only Representative in Congress kills a man in an automobile accident, we force him out of Congress, strip him of his license to practice law, and send him to jail. Ted Kennedy kills a woman in an automobile accident and he is allowed to continue making the laws that govern our nation.

In that analogy no, because in that case your taking an organ which cannot be replaced... a fetus does not permanently impact the mother by stealing nessary organs.
You only need 1 kidney to survive and you will only have a temporary inconvenience due to the surgery. But other then that you'll be fine and I'll live.

On the other hand, if someone requires cpr or mouth to mouth.. and you being readily trained to give them the air they require for life just stand by and watch them die (with no other assistance avalible)... under the law you could be put on trial for depravied indifference or neglegance.
Completely different situation. I am talking about someone's right to life giving them a claim to someone elses body which I don't agree with.

Still, in the case your setting up, the person not giving their kidney up is simply refusing to act ... but in the case of abortion, you must activly seek to terminate the life. If your dying of kidney failor and i dont want to give you my kidney.. is then alright for me to terminate your life ?
The example is this. When talking about abortion pro-life people usually state that a fetus' right to life outweighs the mothers right to choose what to do with her body. It sets up a situation in that an entity is making a claim to a persons body and according to pro lifers because that entity has a right to life the person must yield their body to the entity. Now if that is true for just a fetus would it not only be true for a regular person who has kidney failure? According to that logic my right to life allows me to make a claim on your body in order to fufill that right and that the right to life outweighs your right to do what you want with your body. So I or the government can in order to protect my or other people's right to life forcibly take you kidney, blood, other assorted organs in order to save my or others lives due to the statement that a person's right to life allows them to make a claim on my body.

Again this is comarping apples and oranges.. because you are trying to compare INACTION vs an ACTIVE motivation. In your case, me refusing to give up my kidney is simply being indifferent to your position... I MYSELF am not directly killing you off... however, in abortion an ACTIVE stance is taken and the fetus is killed through unatural means. Surely you can appreciate the difference between indifferene and murder...
The woman is not directly killing off the embryo. She is simply denying it continued access to her uterus. Yes, I can appreciate the difference between indifference and murder, can you? You do realize that murder requires something to be a person, first, not a potential person. You do realize that murder requires the action to be illegal versus say lawfully killing someone.

What if I was in a coma and my next-of-kin agreed to the procedure to keep this person alive and I woke up two weeks and in and denied them access to my body anymore? Is that murder? Should I be allowed to deny them access?

Oh, umm, I don't know if anybody told you guys, but this bill is being sent back to the House, the governor hasn't had a chance to sign it yet and it still has a few more steps before becoming law. Hopefully they won't take too long.

I guess in South Dakota we have this thing for the sanctity of human life. Our only Representative in Congress kills a man in an automobile accident, we force him out of Congress, strip him of his license to practice law, and send him to jail. Ted Kennedy kills a woman in an automobile accident and he is allowed to continue making the laws that govern our nation.

Sanctity of life, huh? Do you have the death penalty?

Amusing. So it's a life and that life has value that cannot be compromised, unless some other life committed a crime against a third life. Yep, nothing nonsensical about that. It's a life that has a value that stops at causing a woman trauma. You do realize that some women experience similar trauma just because of child birth in and of itself. You ever hear of post-pardum suicide? Is that reason enough to end the pregnancy? What if continuing the pregnancy is going to traumatize the woman in some other significant way, say physically? You know, like tearing her vagina, permanently damaging her internal organs, permanently affecting her hormone levels, stretching her belly and breasts out of shape, causing pain, discomfort, even possibly death. Is that reason enough?

In my personal opinion...no its not reason enough to kill of the child .. I agree with you. Im simply illustrating what a more MODERATE person would argue.. with them, it would let them rest easier. Personally, unless the life of the mother is in danger, that child should be brought out, all other consequences be damned.

On the other hand, I find it rather difficult to belive your comparing post-pardum depression to the emotional and physical trama of rape and or incest.. These are all vastly different emtional tramas, and I would say you really cant consionably compare one to another.

In my personal opinion...no its not reason enough to kill of the child .. I agree with you. Im simply illustrating what a more MODERATE person would argue.. with them, it would let them rest easier. Personally, unless the life of the mother is in danger, that child should be brought out, all other consequences be damned.

On the other hand, I find it rather difficult to belive your comparing post-pardum depression to the emotional and physical trama of rape and or incest.. These are all vastly different emtional tramas, and I would say you really cant consionably compare one to another.

Um, why? They aren't the same but they are comparable. Both are psychological and possibly physiological disorders. Both can result in death of the subject. Both can result in violence towards others. Both can result in permanent emotional and physical damage. They are quite comparable although post-pardum probably has a lower survival rate.

The woman is not directly killing off the embryo. She is simply denying it continued access to her uterus. Yes, I can appreciate the difference between indifference and murder, can you? You do realize that murder requires something to be a person, first, not a potential person. You do realize that murder requires the action to be illegal versus say lawfully killing someone.

What if I was in a coma and my next-of-kin agreed to the procedure to keep this person alive and I woke up two weeks and in and denied them access to my body anymore? Is that murder? Should I be allowed to deny them access?

So im just wondering then.. at what point does a human become a person ? (in your honest opinion)..

Also abortion methods (as i know it) vary greatly, from scraping the embroy off the wall of the Uterus and flushing it down the toilt, to partially delivering a child and then puncuring its skull....

Your argument of "denying it access to the uterus" is like me saying im not killing you... im just denying your lungs access to oxygen to breath. Unless there is another method of denying an embroy access to the Uterus where NO ACTION is actually required.. i fail to see the difference .

Your argument of "denying it access to the uterus" is like me saying im not killing you... im just denying your lungs access to oxygen to breath. Unless there is another method of denying an embroy access to the Uterus where NO ACTION is actually required.. i fail to see the difference .

Lets take this beyond the whole action and non action thing here for a second. Just answer me this, does a person have the right to make a claim to my body in order to fufill their right to life?

Um, why? They aren't the same but they are comparable. Both are psychological and possibly physiological disorders. Both can result in death of the subject. Both can result in violence towards others. Both can result in permanent emotional and physical damage. They are quite comparable although post-pardum probably has a lower survival rate.

Just look at the severity range in the trama.. post-pardum can go from one day of depression to suicidal... while incest and rape cases start off at long term emotional scaring to suicidal.. Unless you know of cases were women woke up the day after an incestual relationship or a rape attack shruged it off and never looked back. Though teoretically not impossible mind you (statistically improbable) it is to this nature i would say you cannot compare the two. Post pardum is rather common in child baring btw.

So im just wondering then.. at what point does a human become a person ? (in your honest opinion)..

Also abortion methods (as i know it) vary greatly, from scraping the embroy off the wall of the Uterus and flushing it down the toilt, to partially delivering a child and then puncuring its skull....

Those are over simplifications but the second method is only used as a life-saving procedure or when they fetus is dying or dead.

Your argument of "denying it access to the uterus" is like me saying im not killing you... im just denying your lungs access to oxygen to breath. Unless there is another method of denying an embroy access to the Uterus where NO ACTION is actually required.. i fail to see the difference .
I don't own the oxygen, but she certainly owns the uterus. It's exactly the same as denying you access to my blood or my kidneys or my liver, all of which will not kill me or even really disable me. The ONLY difference here is the fact that the embryo is already in the uterus.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. If I woke up and I wanted to detach a person from my body, should I be allowed to?

it still has a few more steps before becoming law. Hopefully they won't take too long.


Indeed. Hopefully they won't take too long, before deciding it's a piece of unconstitutional fascist crap.

Lets take this beyond the whole action and non action thing here for a second. Just answer me this, does a person have the right to make a claim to my body in order to fufill their right to life?

If they are two seperate entities.. no, I would say not.

If they are connected physiologically (ex. conjoined twins) I would say yes.

Sanctity of life, huh? Do you have the death penalty?

Of course, the greatest tool to preventing Murder. You come here and kill someone we'll kill you. But I am not sure if we have actually gotten a chance to use it yet. The last guy to be sentenced to death killed himself. I think we have sentenced four people to death and as of yet zero have been killed. Well, there were the two horse thieves who were hanged about........ 120 years ago?

Just look at the severity range in the trama.. post-pardum can go from one day of depression to suicidal... while incest and rape cases start off at long term emotional scaring to suicidal.. Unless you know of cases were women woke up the day after an incestual relationship or a rape attack shruged it off and never looked back. Though teoretically not impossible mind you (statistically improbable) it is to this nature i would say you cannot compare the two. Post pardum is rather common in child baring btw.

Wow, you should crack a book, friend. Post-pardum depression is not common. It has to last a certain amount of time and have a certain severity to be considered a disorder. The one that gets shrugged off is just a standard upset of the hormones as a result of birth. The disorder is quite different.

http://www.psychiatry.wisc.edu/ppd/aboutppdepression.php
Now if you want to talk severity, what is the percentage of suicides for each?

If they are two seperate entities.. no, I would say not.

If they are connected physiologically (ex. conjoined twins) I would say yes.

Why is it okay in a situation where someone will die and the are connected physiologically and not in another situation where someone will die and is not connected physiologically?

Of course, the greatest tool to preventing Murder. You come here and kill someone we'll kill you. But I am not sure if we have actually gotten a chance to use it yet. The last guy to be sentenced to death killed himself. I think we have sentenced four people to death and as of yet zero have been killed. Well, there were the two horse thieves who were hanged about........ 120 years ago?

Yep, that's some sanctity of life you got there. By the way, you're not going to find one shred of evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.

By the way, 90% of people sentenced to death could not afford an attorney. 55% of people sentenced to death are black. Prosecuters are also more likely to seek the death penalty if the victim was white. Interesting isn't it, that this particular brand of justice just accidentally seems to affect mostly poor, black people.

Also, states that have the death penalty generally have nearly twice the per capita murder rates of other states. Funny, how that works, huh?

Also, the last time the death penalty was actually enacted was in 1947 in your state. Your math sucks.

Of course, the greatest tool to preventing Murder. You come here and kill someone we'll kill you. But I am not sure if we have actually gotten a chance to use it yet. The last guy to be sentenced to death killed himself. I think we have sentenced four people to death and as of yet zero have been killed. Well, there were the two horse thieves who were hanged about........ 120 years ago?

You walked right into that one, with your eyes open...

Why is it okay in a situation where someone will die and the are connected physiologically and not in another situation where someone will die and is not connected physiologically?

in one case, (individuals) there is no reasonable claim over the other persons body... in the case of a physiological connection.. there is a resonable claim... for the very fact that they are naturally physically joined. Are you saying in the case of conjoind twins.. one twin should be able to take all the organs he/she wants for themself ?

You walked right into that one, with your eyes open...

Yeah, they have a sanctity of life thing as long as it's not the life of a slut.

So im just wondering then.. at what point does a human become a person ? (in your honest opinion)..


The question is a nonsense. Do you mean "at what point does a foetus become a person'?


Also abortion methods (as i know it) vary greatly, from scraping the embroy off the wall of the Uterus and flushing it down the toilt, to partially delivering a child and then puncuring its skull....


'Partial-birth abortion' is a propoganda. It was never a 'voluntary' procedure, anyway... it is used when the mother is at risk... and/or the foetus is either already dead, or would not survive anyway.


Your argument of "denying it access to the uterus" is like me saying im not killing you... im just denying your lungs access to oxygen to breath. Unless there is another method of denying an embroy access to the Uterus where NO ACTION is actually required.. i fail to see the difference .

The difference is - most women would happily wish the embryo all the best, if it could survive somewhere else. When the technology arrives that allows a conceptus to be raised to fulfillment, you can bet most of what we consider 'abortions' will be irrelevent.

in one case, (individuals) there is no reasonable claim over the other persons body... in the case of a physiological connection.. there is a resonable claim... for the very fact that they are naturally physically joined. Are you saying in the case of conjoind twins.. one twin should be able to take all the organs he/she wants for themself ?

What I am asking is why is it okay for a fetus to make a claim to a woman's uterous in order to survive permissable and yet on the same grounds in order for my survival because both of my kidneys have failed I am not allowed to make a claim to your kidney? I don't see how its reasonable for you to say that a conjoined twin's claim to his brother's body in order to survive is okay but bob over here's claim on rob's kidney in order to survive is not. In both cases an individual is making a claim to someone else's body in order to fufill their right to life.

Yeah, they have a sanctity of life thing as long as it's not the life of a slut.

Sanctity of life... IF it's a life they approve of.

I don't know if anyone read my last post or not, but I had hoped you would notice it was laced with sarcasm and held a hypocracy.

BTW.....

Murderer(s): Complete control of their actions, did what they did with clear mind and intent. (Otherwise it would be manslaughter)

Baby: Defenseless and has done nothing by their own will to harm anyone else.

I don't see how its reasonable for you to say that a conjoined twin's claim to his brother's body in order to survive is okay but bob over here's claim on rob's kidney in order to survive is not. In both cases an individual is making a claim to someone else's body in order to fufill their right to life.

in the case of conjoined twins.. both HAVE a claim over organs so neither side may seek to cut the other out (even if one has majority CONTROL over those organs). I used this example to show how and why physical connection prompts a RESONABLE claim to ones body, where a lack of that connection does not. Like the conjoined twins, a fetus is not seeking to syphon off organs for itself.. only to share them.. in the case of a physiological disconnect one person is physically taking organs for him/herself while a physical connection requires SHARING them.

in the case of conjoined twins.. both HAVE a claim over organs so neither side may seek to cut the other out (even if one has majority CONTROL over those organs). I used this example to show how and why physical connection prompts a RESONABLE claim to ones body, where a lack of that connection does not. Like the conjoined twins, a fetus is not seeking to syphon off organs for itself.. only to share them.. in the case of a physiological disconnect one person is physically taking organs for him/herself while a physical connection requires SHARING them.

Just a question... if I performed an involuntary medical procedure on you, that meant that nutrients from your body where allocated, instead, to me... and my 'waste' was fed into your body... what would you think was an 'appropriate' response on your part?

in the case of conjoined twins.. both HAVE a claim over organs so neither side may seek to cut the other out (even if one has majority CONTROL over those organs). I used this example to show how and why physical connection prompts a RESONABLE claim to ones body, where a lack of that connection does not. Like the conjoined twins, a fetus is not seeking to syphon off organs for itself.. only to share them.. in the case of a physiological disconnect one person is physically taking organs for him/herself while a physical connection requires SHARING them.

It does not matter if its sharing or taking. What is happening in both situations is that a person is making a claim on ones body. That is the key part. A CLAIM has been made to the use of a person's body by a SEPERATE PERSON(which is what pro lifers claim that a fetus is). Now if it is reasonable in one case for a seperate person in this case a fetus to make a claim to a woman's body in order to survive how is it not reasonable for a seperate person in this case anyone make a claim to another person's body?

And also even if a fetus is not taking organs it certainly is taking nutrients, space, and other chemicals from the mother. A fetus is not simply a person renting out a space to live in. This organism takes things from the mother in order to survive, it causes changes in a woman's body chemistry, and takes up her uterous in order to live. To say a baby is doing nothing but sitting in a womans body is preposterous.

I'll even give you another quote from Thomson if you still don't like the analogy I've set up.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we never would have permitted it if we had known. But still they, did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remeber this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."-Defense of Abortion

The question is a nonsense. Do you mean "at what point does a foetus become a person'?
.

This question isn't nonesensical at all, infact its the heart of the issue.. in Jacobs orginal statement he sad

You do realize that murder requires something to be a person, first, not a potential person.

Determing when a person is made is the key... How you define what a person is is at the core here... is a person made simply be behing pushed out of a woman ? Is a person created when a human is first concieved, is it mere brain patterns that make a person even though essential mental capacities havn't fully developed ? A feuts is a human genetically speaking form themoment it is concieved.. so its personhood which is at the core of the problem. If we say killing a human is unacceptable.. then biologically speaking abortion should be unacceptable. Personhood however, is technically undefined and left to subjective interpretation.

To say a baby is doing nothing but sitting in a womans body is preposterous.

Not to mention an obfuscation, untrue, and irrelevent.

I was in hospital once, and they brought in a guy with a spiked railing stuck through him. He got lucky, nothing punctured... almost no bloodloss. If they'd left it in him... he'd have healed around it.

But, they removed it.

It seems 'just taking up space' just doesn't cut it.

It does not matter if its sharing or taking. What is happening in both situations is that a person is making a claim on ones body. That is the key part. A CLAIM has been made to the use of a person's body by a SEPERATE PERSON(which is what pro lifers claim that a fetus is). Now if it is reasonable in one case for a seperate person in this case a fetus to make a claim to a woman's body in order to survive how is it not reasonable for a seperate person in this case anyone make a claim to another person's body?

And also even if a fetus is not taking organs it certainly is taking nutrients, space, and other chemicals from the mother. A fetus is not simply a person renting out a space to live in. This organism takes things from the mother in order to survive, it causes changes in a woman's body chemistry, and takes up her uterous in order to live. To say a baby is doing nothing but sitting in a womans body is preposterous.

I'll even give you another quote from Thomson if you still don't like the analogy I've set up.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we never would have permitted it if we had known. But still they, did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remeber this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."-Defense of Abortion

Are conjoined twins considered one person or two ? You may harp on this point all you like.. but it is the very fact that a physiological connection exists between TWO people that enables both to lay claim over the body they are sharing.


Mind you all the while I have stressed a natural connection made through natural biological occurances... being kidnaped in the night and sergically attached to another person is hardly natural.. though i would argue the same, you could not disconnect them costing one person his life.. the physiological connection allows both to lay claim.

Being physically attached really does make all the difference to making a reasonable claim to life. Because, as I argued before it is a matter of ACTIVLY seeking to kill off that life that is attached to you vs NOT ACTING and allowing the other person to die of his own aliments

This question isn't nonesensical at all, infact its the heart of the issue.. in Jacobs orginal statement he sad

Determing when a person is made is the key... How you define what a person is is at the core here... is a person made simply be behing pushed out of a woman ?


But your question WAS a nonsense... look: "at what point does a human become a person ".

A 'human' is not the same as a sperm cell, is it... or the same as a blastocyst, or even an embryo.

Effectively, you are using the same term twice.


Is a person created when a human is first concieved, is it mere brain patterns that make a person even though essential mental capacities havn't fully developed ? A feuts is a human genetically speaking form themoment it is concieved.. so its personhood which is at the core of the problem. If we say killing a human is unacceptable.. then biologically speaking abortion should be unacceptable. Personhood however, is technically undefined and left to subjective interpretation.

This is totally untrue.

1) Conception is not 'a moment'. It is a gradual transition, taking many hours.

2) A foetus is 'human genetically' from the time it is conceived... well, so are cancers... and human excrement.

3) There is more to being 'a human life', than human genetic structure and living tissue. If there were not, your 'logic' would make it immoral to operate on a cancer.

But your question WAS a nonsense... look: "at what point does a human become a person ".

A 'human' is not the same as a sperm cell, is it... or the same as a blastocyst, or even an embryo.

Effectively, you are using the same term twice.
.

Inncorrect.. a human =/= a person...if you took philosophy 101 you'd have learned that. The term" human" is a bioloical disinction to an organisim, while the "person" is a mental distinction. Just as talking about "SEX"(biological) and "GENDER"(social) is refering to two totally different things, though seemingly related.

And I argue a HUMAN biologically speaking is EXACTLY the same genetically speaking as an embroy... as once the sperm and the egg combine genetic recombination takes place and DNA is formed in the sequence which defines a HUMAN vs anything else.. and im not talking about sperm or egg individually but EMBROYS and FETUS which genetically speaking are humans.

Are conjoined twins considered one person or two ? You may harp on this point all you like.. but it is the very fact that a physiological connection exists between TWO people that enables both to lay claim over the body they are sharing.
I'm really thinking the conjoined twin example to relate to a fetus man. Because conjoined twins share the same body. A fetus does not share the same body as a woman if it is a seperate entity(a spereate person which pro lifers claim).

Mind you all the while I have stressed a natural connection made through natural biological occurances... being kidnaped in the night and sergically attached to another person is hardly natural.. though i would argue the same, you could not disconnect them costing one person his life.. the physiological connection allows both to lay claim.
But by acknowledging that you set up a situation where someone's right to life lets them make a claim to my body without my consent or agreement. If a person can make a claim then to someone else's body because of their right to life why then does it stop at connection? If we have that right, the right to make a claim to someone elses body in order to fufill our right to life if we are connected certainly it makes sense that it translates over to not being connected as well.

Being physically attached really does make all the difference to making a reasonable claim to life. Because, as I argued before it is a matter of ACTIVLY seeking to kill off that life that is attached to you vs NOT ACTING and allowing the other person to die of his own aliments
By not allowing me to take your kidney, YOU ARE ACTIVELY DENYING ME THE ABILITY TO USE IT. Its an action to deny me the use not inaction. If I say I need your kidney to survive and make a claim to it and you say no you have denyed me(an action) the ability to live.

Inncorrect.. a human =/= a person...if you took philosophy 101 you'd have learned that. The term" human" is a bioloical disinction to an organisim, while the "person" is a mental distinction. Just as talking about "SEX"(biological) and "GENDER"(social) is refering to two totally different things, though seemingly related.

And I argue a HUMAN biologically speaking is EXACTLY the same genetically speaking as an embroy... as once the sperm and the egg combine genetic recombination takes place and DNA is formed in the sequence which defines a HUMAN vs anything else.. and im not talking about sperm or egg individually but EMBROYS and FETUS which genetically speaking are humans.

I didn't say the two things are the same, I said (in the context of YOUR question), that they are effectively the same.

Regarding the second part... I don't think I've ever seen as great an example of 'refusing to deal with contradictions'. An embryo (as I have allowed, above) IS human 'tissue'... but that is NOT equal to being 'a human'.... unless you concede that a cancer is 'a human'.

By not allowing me to take your kidney, YOU ARE ACTIVELY DENYING ME THE ABILITY TO USE IT. Its an action to deny me the use not inaction. If I say I need your kidney to survive and make a claim to it and you say no you have denyed me(an action) the ability to live.

Fine given.. let me rephrase then... I may simply fail to answer your claim and you will experiance the same outcome (death).. however, in the case of a fetus and a mother.. if you fail to act.. the fetus will continue to grow until brith. That is the distinction im making.

Fine given.. let me rephrase then... I may simply fail to answer your claim and you will experiance the same outcome (death).. however, in the case of a fetus and a mother.. if you fail to act.. the fetus will continue to grow until brith. That is the distinction im making.

Oh but here is the thing. You aren't ignorant of my claim. I have just come up to you and said that you need to give me your kidney because I'm dying and my right to life superceeds your right to do what you wish with your body. To actively not answer my claim to your body is the same thing as denying it. You are purposely denying my claim either through refusing to answer or saying no.

Fine given.. let me rephrase then... I may simply fail to answer your claim and you will experiance the same outcome (death).. however, in the case of a fetus and a mother.. if you fail to act.. the fetus will continue to grow until brith. That is the distinction im making.

But, the foetus ONLY continues to grow, because you FORCE the woman to share her body, and resources, with it.

I didn't say the two things are the same, I said (in the context of YOUR question), that they are effectively the same.

Regarding the second part... I don't think I've ever seen as great an example of 'refusing to deal with contradictions'. An embryo (as I have allowed, above) IS human 'tissue'... but that is NOT equal to being 'a human'.... unless you concede that a cancer is 'a human'.

Well if we define a human being a sum of its parts we can say cancer is at the very least a derivative of a human. However, what organisms are and are not human is defined by its genetic make up... we as a organism have a wholely unqiue DNA and genetic sequence which define us from all other organisim. To this note, Genetics is viable means from which to define and identify a human organism.. seeing how an embryo is genetically distint from its parent.. we can identify it as a SEPERATE organism.. and since it is genetically human.. it thus is then biologically speaking.. human.

I agree that killing a baby one day before it would have been born simply is murder. So do many other pro-choice advocates (though definately not all).

Yeah. I think you should be allowed to kill it (humanely) one day after, too.

But, the foetus ONLY continues to grow, because you FORCE the woman to share her body, and resources, with it.

-.- It is simply said a matter of action..

if your are dying of kindey failure.. and no action is taken.. what happens ? you die..

If a woman is pregnant and no action is taken ... what happens ? it is born.

Your rhetoric is colorful but it cannot deny this logic.. Action vs Inaction.

EDIT: just to break down your argument.. the "Forcing" you speak of is only used to prevent her ACTION of terminating the fetus.. the Fetus's use of nutrians is wholey independent and uncontroled... the only way to stop it is through ACTION.

Well if we define a human being a sum of its parts we can say cancer is at the very least a derivative of a human. However, what organisms are and are not human is defined by its genetic make up... we as a organism have a wholely unqiue DNA and genetic sequence which define us from all other organisim. To this note, Genetics is viable means from which to define and identify a human organism..

Again, you ignore or miss, the distinction:

'Human' does not equal "a human".

Human excrement contains 'human' DNA tissue... but is NOT 'a human'.

A cancer contains LIVING tissue with the 'human' DNA pattern... but is not 'a human'.

So... 'a human' MUST be more than just 'living tissue with human DNA patterns'.


seeing how an embryo is genetically distint from its parent.. we can identify it as a SEPERATE organism.. and since it is genetically human.. it thus is then biologically speaking.. human.

One person can 'contain' two (or more) distinct genetic patterns. That does not make that person into a number of distinct, SEPARATE organisms.

You'll also note... we aren't arguing over whether the tissue is 'human'... we are arguing over whether or not it is 'a human'.

-.- It is simply said a matter of action..

if your are dying of kindey failure.. and no action is taken.. what happens ? you die..

If a woman is pregnant and no action is taken ... what happens ? it is born.

Your rhetoric is colorful but it cannot deny this logic.. Action vs Inaction.

Your logic is faulty.

A pregnant woman IS 'taking action'... 24/7, till the damn thing pops out.

If you want to claim a logically level playing field, you have to allow the woman to withhold her 'services', also.

Something foul indeed. If your against abortion DONT GET ONE! dont make everyone else not get one else, I would think this would come from a bible belt state, not from South Dakota. Supreme Court better do the right thing here.
The Dakotas and Mormonland (Idaho, Utah) are far more conservative than the bible belt.

That being said, the legislation is not bad because it defies the Supreme Court, but because it defies procreation rights. Also, harder to get abortions results in more unwanted children. More unwanted children means more little shits out to steal my stuff.

Again, you ignore or miss, the distinction:

'Human' does not equal "a human".

Human excrement contains 'human' DNA tissue... but is NOT 'a human'.

A cancer contains LIVING tissue with the 'human' DNA pattern... but is not 'a human'.

So... 'a human' MUST be more than just 'living tissue with human DNA patterns'.

i like the case of the hela cell line/species myself

See, the problem that I have with this argument is that everyone completely ignores the third point of view: the pro-death point of view. OK, fine, abortion is murder. But who decided that murder was wrong? Your morality. The world could be a whole lot better if there weren't so many people on it. That's why abortion and euthenasia should be allowed, because it's economically sound. The less people there are, the more stuff people can have because there's more to go around.

The only problem I have with Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with abortion. With Roe v. Wade (in combination with other rulings and bits of legislation) a woman could conceive, not tell her partner, have the child, raise it on her own, and then sue ten or twenty years later for retroactive child support.

The problem with the world is that there are too many people and men are losing their civil rights.

But if you read the constitution literally, privacy issues are not covered at the Federal Level.

Right, but if you read the constitution literally, then Congress shall make "no law" abridging the freedom of speech. So, out goes the whole speech jurisprudence that suggests there are limits (e.g. "fighting words")... right?

Oh, that's not what the Constitution means by "freedom of speech"?

Fine, but now you're interpreting. Of course, that's to be expected.

There is no such thing as a "literal" reading of the Constitution.

Ha. Um, you missed a little part of X. I'll help you out.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Whoops.

And yet, no law has ever been declared unconstitional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment alone. EVER.

Nor was it meant to serve such a purpose. But, to understand what it was meant to do--and what it has, in fact, done--the first thing you have to realize is that the Supreme Court is not the sole legitimate interpreter of the Constitution... and lately, people seem increasingly unwilling to do that.

i like the case of the hela cell line/species myself

Ah.... HeLa, yes. I believe HeLa may yet yield the secret of human longevity. (If it hasn't already....)

-.- It is simply said a matter of action..

if your are dying of kindey failure.. and no action is taken.. what happens ? you die..

If a woman is pregnant and no action is taken ... what happens ? it is born.

Your rhetoric is colorful but it cannot deny this logic.. Action vs Inaction.
But the whole issue of the debate on making a claim about ones body is about action. If I'm dying of kidney failure and the government steps in saying I have a right to live that superceeds your right to choose what to do with your body and they tell you to give me one of your kidneys you have two options. You can either deny me your kidney and I die due to your action or you can give into the government's order and you've just reaffirmed a position of mandatory organ donation by the government.

And yet, no law has ever been declared unconstitional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment alone. EVER.


Sure they have... just not by the Supreme Court.

Oh, the irony.

Genetics is viable means from which to define and identify a human organism..

Of course, to be a human organism, something must be an organism in the first place. Can you define "organism" in such a way that an embryo is included, but a kidney is not - especially a kidney with DNA distinct from its "host"?

seeing how an embryo is genetically distint from its parent.. we can identify it as a SEPERATE organism..

A tumor is genetically distinct from the person it grows in. In some chimeras, entire organs or organ systems are genetically distinct from the rest of the body. In transplant patients, organs or blood cells may be genetically distinct from the rest of the body.

and since it is genetically human.. it thus is then biologically speaking.. human.

Being human isn't really the question. Only persons have any rights to speak of. So the question is, is it a human person? Most would agree that, to be a human person, it must first be a human organism. Once again, can you define organism in such a way that an embryo/early fetus is included but an organ or single human cell is not?

Three words: wear a condom.
Another three: have a vasectomy.
Another two: practice abstinence.

Three words: Use birth control
Another three: Get your tubes tied
Another two: Practice abstinence

Would this also your advice to the women in South Dakota?

And yet, no law has ever been declared unconstitional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment alone. EVER.

Nor was it meant to serve such a purpose. But, to understand what it was meant to do--and what it has, in fact, done--the first thing you have to realize is that the Supreme Court is not the sole legitimate interpreter of the Constitution... and lately, people seem increasingly unwilling to do that.

Um, you should try a little context. I didn't use the tenth amendment the other person did. They were claiming that the tenth amendment makes everything not mentioned in the US Constitution reserved to the states.

I am thoroughly amused when the squirming begins and people who start with a conclusion and pretend it's scientific to ignore all evidence that is contrary to their unscientific conclusion. It's always the exact same squirming, but it never ceases to amuse me.

Good for S.D. This is a big step forward for the long-forgotten 10th Amendment.

I'm sick of people championing themselves as defender of the innocent fetus. A cow deserves more rights than a "potential" human, why? Because a cow actually serves a purpose other than hindering the life of one or two people.

Being human isn't really the question. Only persons have any rights to speak of. So the question is, is it a human person? Most would agree that, to be a human person, it must first be a human organism. Once again, can you define organism in such a way that an embryo/early fetus is included but an organ or single human cell is not?

Hmm, well on the issue of what an organisim is human, Ill then turn it around and pose it back to you.. when is an organisim considered human ? When nerves start to receive feelings (its sentient?) When brainwaves first develop ? When the brain is fully deveopled ? When all the organs are functioning ? And why this specific point ?

I sought to identify the earliest point at which we can identify a human in its earliest stage of development... being a completely unique and enclosed organisim with a genetic makeup of a homosapien, this seems most relevant. Yes while fieces and cancer cells have the same genetic makeup of a human becane they are human cells.. they inthemseves are not organisims which an embroy is.

To the point of personhood.. since you say being a person is required to have any rights... at what point is a human a person ? And how do you define a human ? Those are questions which would better reveal to me your line of reasoning

Hmm, well on the issue of what an organisim is human, Ill then turn it around and pose it back to you.. when is an organisim considered human ? When nerves start to receive feelings (its sentient?) When brainwaves first develop ? When the brain is fully deveopled ? When all the organs are functioning ? And why this specific point ?

I sought to identify the earliest point at which we can identify a human in its earliest stage of development... being a completely unique and enclosed organisim with a genetic makeup of a homosapien, this seems most relevant. Yes while fieces and cancer cells have the same genetic makeup of a human becane they are human cells.. they inthemseves are not organisims which an embroy is.

To the point of personhood.. since you say being a person is required to have any rights... at what point is a human a person ? And how do you define a human ? Those are questions which would better reveal to me your line of reasoning

In other words... you cannot answer ANY of the questions?

So - you'll just through your opinion out there, unjustified, and wait for someone else to make your case for you?

Good for S.D. This is a big step forward for the long-forgotten 10th Amendment.

Um, how does a state trying to take a personal right away from people and turn it into a state right an issue of the tenth amendment. I think you missed a clause of the tenth amendment that says TO THE PEOPLE.

In other words... you cannot answer ANY of the questions?

So - you'll just through your opinion out there, unjustified, and wait for someone else to make your case for you?

No actually in my response I answered those questions as I so saw it.. our genetic makeup is unique to ourselves both as humans and individuals, and the fact that an embroy is a seporate organism unlike cancer cells or any other bodily cell this is the state at which we could identify a human as .. a human (in its earliest form).

Im just interested to know what you people who so ardently argue this not to be the case, is then the state at which an embroy (which is then an undefined organisim speaking in terms of classification) becomes a human.

As far as personhood is defined, I feel personhood is develped with growth... Which is why children have fewer rights then Adults. Though despite this even children are born with the most basic of rights (which is associated with being human) and thus given my definiton of when a human maybe defined those basic rights are logically extened.

Another three: Get your tubes tied

Looks like four words to me.


Hmm, well on the issue of what an organisim is human,

That isn't an issue I brought up.

I asked you to define the word organism in such a way that an embryo is included, but an organ is not.

Ill then turn it around and pose it back to you.. when is an organisim considered human ?

An organism is considered human when it is (a) and organism and (b) human.

Now, if you are asking when a specific organism with human tissue is considered a human person, that is a very good question. When you can come up with an absolute answer to it, the abortion debate will be over.

I sought to identify the earliest point at which we can identify a human in its earliest stage of development... being a completely unique and enclosed organisim with a genetic makeup of a homosapien, this seems most relevant.

Once again, define organism in such a way that an embryo is included, but nothing which we would not call an organism is also included.

Yes while fieces and cancer cells have the same genetic makeup of a human becane they are human cells.. they inthemseves are not organisims which an embroy is.

By what definition?

No actually in my response I answered those questions as I so saw it..

Considering that you have yet to answer the questions I asked, I must wonder about your reading comprehension here. I asked you to define the word organism in such a way as to include the embryo and not to include anything that we would not consider an organism (like cancer or any other bodily cell).

Um, how does a state trying to take a personal right away from people and turn it into a state right an issue of the tenth amendment. I think you missed a clause of the tenth amendment that says TO THE PEOPLE.
Its just a matter of states rights. No more so than the confederacy deciding to withdraw. Not everyone wanted it, but it was done anyways. I think the stopping of the killing of what would become humans will level out the population of people moving out of state for the right.

Hmm, well on the issue of what an organisim is human, Ill then turn it around and pose it back to you.. when is an organisim considered human ? When nerves start to receive feelings (its sentient?) When brainwaves first develop ? When the brain is fully deveopled ? When all the organs are functioning ? And why this specific point ?

I sought to identify the earliest point at which we can identify a human in its earliest stage of development... being a completely unique and enclosed organisim with a genetic makeup of a homosapien, this seems most relevant. Yes while fieces and cancer cells have the same genetic makeup of a human becane they are human cells.. they inthemseves are not organisims which an embroy is.

To the point of personhood.. since you say being a person is required to have any rights... at what point is a human a person ? And how do you define a human ? Those are questions which would better reveal to me your line of reasoning
I'll answer. We declare the end of life is when significant brain activity ends (that means basically sentience) so I believe the most objective place to place the end of life is at that same point. By the definition that life begins at conception then basically death should be at the point when the human being has FINISHED decaying.

However, scientifically, objectively, the definition of organism is not met by an embryo or even an early fetus. You can't be a human organism when you are not a organism.

Looks like four words to me.



That isn't an issue I brought up.

I asked you to define the word organism in such a way that an embryo is included, but an organ is not.



An organism is considered human when it is (a) and organism and (b) human.

Now, if you are asking when a specific organism with human tissue is considered a human person, that is a very good question. When you can come up with an absolute answer to it, the abortion debate will be over.



Once again, define organism in such a way that an embryo is included, but nothing which we would not call an organism is also included.



By what definition?

O.o damn ive been arguing this too long.. my mind is shot.. wutever clearly i dunno wut im talking about anymore.. though im still interested to know when it is people actually care to define a human as a human.. you said when it is an organisim and when it is human.. since its genetic makeup is always human.. i assume you mean its human part is already established.. so all it needs then is to have 1 functioning organ to be an organisim ? 2 .. more ?

I'll answer. We declare the end of life is when significant brain activity ends (that means basically sentience) so I believe the most objective place to place the end of life is at that same point. By the definition that life begins at conception then basically death should be at the point when the human being has FINISHED decaying.

However, scientifically, objectively, the definition of organism is not met by an embryo or even an early fetus. You can't be a human organism when you are not a organism.
>.> but we are talking about when a human is defined as a human.. not when it ends...

Are you saying a human is a human when major brain activity begins ? and what is major.. first brainwaves ? maybe more.. when brain activity is more developed.. when the sense are activated ? The brain is a complicated organ developing throughout the individuals lifespan... so what constitutes "major"

Its just a matter of states rights. No more so than the confederacy deciding to withdraw. Not everyone wanted it, but it was done anyways. I think the stopping of the killing of what would become humans will level out the population of people moving out of state for the right.

You don't get it. The tenth amendment gives some rights to states and some to the people. Roe v Wade said the right belongs to the people. You are claiming that something that would take rights away from the people and give it to the states someone is suddenly invoking the tenth amendment. People don't seem to get it. This is not a right that the federal government took away from the states. This is a right that the SCOTUS recognized as a right of the people as found in the constitution and thus could not be legilslated by the states.

O.o damn ive been arguing this too long.. my mind is shot.. wutever clearly i dunno wut im talking about anymore.. though im still interested to know when it is people actually care to define a human as a human.. you said when it is an organisim and when it is human..

It is a human at that point. Is it a human person? That's another question - and one I try not to get into. Personhood is a philosophical question, and like most philosophical questions - pretty much everyone can agree at the endpoints - the obvious entities that meet the definition (whatever it may be) and the obvious ones that do not - but getting agreement in the fuzzy middle is almost impossible. We can pretty much all agree that you and I are persons. We can pretty much all agree that rocks are not persons. But is a fetus a person? And if so, at what stage? This is a question for which you will get vastly different answers from different people.

since its genetic makeup is always human.. i assume you mean its human part is already established.. so all it needs then is to have 1 functioning organ to be an organisim ? 2 .. more ?

Hardly. I would say it has to meet the requirements to be considered "alive" as an entity. Thus, it must have some sort of mechanism *as an entity* to take in and use nutrients, to excrete wastes, to grow and develop, and to sense and respond to stimuli. The last one of these is not met in the embryonic stage at all - and is not met until the fetus has a rudimentary nervous system, at which point it can sense and respond to stimuli as an entire entity, and meets that last requirement.

>.> but we are talking about when a human is defined as a human.. not when it ends...

Are you saying a human is a human when major brain activity begins ? and what is major.. first brainwaves ? maybe more.. when brain activity is more developed.. when the sense are activated ? The brain is a complicated organ developing throughout the individuals lifespan... so what constitutes "major"

Try reading. You asked for reasoning. I said my reasoning for choosing the point I do is because it is consistent for how we define life in other ways. Why is brain activity life when we're looking at the end but not life when we're looking at the beginning? The answer is simple, becuase if brain function is the definition then we can't make laws that punish women for being sexually active (and incidentally punishing children as well).

What is 'major'? The same level of brain activity that is required for us to medically consider someone alive at the end of life. It's already defined. It's already considered to be a measure of life. It requires no redefining or arbitrary definitions.

That is BULLSHIT!!!

A State legislator knowingly violates something the Supreme Court ruled, just to force them to re-rule it?

Something is foul in the State of South Dakota.
Actually the real bullshit is the Court taking that case in 1973. It was not a matter for the courts to decide. Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter.

Actually the real bullshit is the Court taking that case in 1973. It was not a matter for the courts to decide. Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter.

Based on what? Why should women's rights be a matter to be legislated or voted on?

Actually the real bullshit is the Court taking that case in 1973. It was not a matter for the courts to decide. Abortion used to and always should be a legislative matter.



Which, by sending back to the legislative bodies to control, it could be an equally dividing decision in the public opinion as well, as recent Eminent domain ruling brought to mind.

Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use for the public good or necessity.

But if the property owner comes to a decision not to sell, the government exercises eminent domain and publishes notice of the hearing to take the property by force as required by law.

In some events, this ‘possession’ of the property is not permanent, such as…

Temporary Taking - Part or all of the property is appropriated for a limited period of time. The property owner retains title, and is compensated for any losses associated with the taking, and regains complete possession of the property at the conclusion of the taking. For example, it may be necessary for material transportation to have access through a portion of an adjacent property to complete a construction project, but then afterwards the property control can be returned to the original owner.

Easements and Rights of Way - It is also possible to bring an eminent domain action to obtain an easement or right of way. For example, a utility company may obtain an easement over private land install and maintain power lines. The property owner remains free to use the property for any purpose which does interfere with the right of way or easement.

In the same manner, denial of abortion rights by the state over the individual could conceivably be approved by the SCOTUS.

Perhaps the case keeps coming back because the argument has been heard and found wanting before, and it still doesn't quite work?
No. It keeps coming back because of morons who want to make slaves of women by preventing them from exercising their self-ownership rights.