RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?)

RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 11:13:30 PM)
Well, now I am in a pickle......... ANYONE ......... In south dakota should not have the right to reproduce in any fashion... That is probably the only policy that I can find any concurrance with. (North Dakota should probaly be listed as number two) , then all the regulars............ Arkansas, Missisippi and so forth. After that......... Fuck like minks, I don't care. Ron

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/25/2006 6:53:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The problem as i see it is legal abortion bypassed due process and may very well violate the right to life. of course therin lies the debacle. I disagree. It's should be of no consequence whether the fetus is a lifeform or not - what matters is if it has rights that supersede the rights of it's female host who may wish to abort it. And to me the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" In fact, make it "Hell, no!" Simple as that. No need to cloud the issue of questions of life or possible souls or anything else. I am pro-life (anti-choice) when a woman wants to keep her child, and pro-choice (accepting of death) when a mother wants to kill it instead. It's her body, it's her choice. Personally, and in my relationships, I like to discuss these kinds of issues before they come up in life and surprise us - so it is decided jointly. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy, and a planned one is a planned one - we then act accordingly. Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, Plan D...never deviating from what has already been decided. Yup, cold fish all the way. Just as I like it.

thetammyjo -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/25/2006 7:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The problem as i see it is legal abortion bypassed due process and may very well violate the right to life. of course therin lies the debacle. Its interesting how the the argument "when it is considered a life" came after the ruling. It seems to me that the if it cannot be proven to be life or non life now it certainly could not have been proven to be non life prior to the ruling and therefore should have been thrown out of court in the first place. i question if the ruling could stand if put to the test against the right to life. The burden of proof as far as i am concerned was on the woman and as a result of that ruling now the burden of proof has wrongfully been placed on society. The problem with your quote is that it applied to citizens. The Federal government has routinely defined citizenship only to those born either to American citizens or born on American soil -- though I've heard they are trying to limit that second idea in the Congress so that people don't come to American illegally then have a baby and claim the right to stay with their American child. Also it could be argued that one person's right to one of those (they aren't rights really just in the preamble) does not trump another person's rights to the others. I just think it is a very bad idea for the government (in any form) to say you can't have abortions because it is a very small step to then say that the government can force you to have abortions or to get other things done to your body or your family. If someone doesn't believe in an abortions then 1) don't have one, 2) don't get pregnant, and 3) don't get anyone pregnant. Its actually not that hard to not get pregnant. We as a group should know better than a lot of groups that there are many ways to experience sexual pleasure that don't risk pregnancy or disease. This goes back to what I said before in this thread though that the question really isn't about saving a life but about controling other people.

Evanesce -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/25/2006 7:32:46 AM)
quote: sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. Not only will it get through at the state level, but I'd venture a guess it'll get through at the federal level as well. Roe v Wade is definitely in trouble. I have mixed feelings on the abortion issue. I do believe a woman should have a right to choose, especially in cases of rape or other illegal activities. However, I also believe abortion as a convenient means of birth control is wrong. But the one thing I believe most strongly is that this country is a mess, and it's getting worse by the day.

Real0ne -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/25/2006 12:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Evanesce quote: sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. Not only will it get through at the state level, but I'd venture a guess it'll get through at the federal level as well. Roe v Wade is definitely in trouble. I have mixed feelings on the abortion issue. I do believe a woman should have a right to choose, especially in cases of rape or other illegal activities. However, I also believe abortion as a convenient means of birth control is wrong. But the one thing I believe most strongly is that this country is a mess, and it's getting worse by the day. it seems to me the woman does have the right to choose. she can choose not to get pregnant! quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I just think it is a very bad idea for the government (in any form) to say you can't have abortions because it is a very small step to then say that the government can force you to have abortions or to get other things done to your body or your family. the problem with that of course is that we live in a government that gaurantees us the right to life. It has never been proven that is not a life. i agree once a person is accepted as a citizen they should be entitled to all the privledges as any other citizen. that was designed to keep foreignors from easily infiltrating our government, and there should be additional guidelines added for political service.

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/25/2006 12:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the problem with that of course is that we live in a government that gaurantees us the right to life. It has never been proven that is not a life. So what? Plants are living things. I eat plant matter all the time, often while the plants are actually still in a living state. I eat them up alive. ::yawn::

Real0ne -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 6:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the problem with that of course is that we live in a government that gaurantees us the right to life. It has never been proven that is not a life. So what? Plants are living things. I eat plant matter all the time, often while the plants are actually still in a living state. I eat them up alive. ::yawn:: Like a nice fresh fetus salad with croutons and works?

mnottertail -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 6:15:33 PM)
I only have limited patience.......... But all I know tells me that a fetus would be carnivoric; agreed; chaingang never said he wasn't a carnivore, but he was talking about consuming live plants.........Maybe he eats meat, don't know and don't give a fuck, but it is rather a stretch in imagination, even (and chaingang, you know I say this at great peril) to link what he said with fetussusss uss uss............. Ok. before this discussion get to far afield........... Assume I am the asshole, OK? Walk me thru the linkage in thought, please? Sincerely, Ron

Real0ne -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 7:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the problem with that of course is that we live in a government that gaurantees us the right to life. It has never been proven that is not a life. So what? Plants are living things. I eat plant matter all the time, often while the plants are actually still in a living state. I eat them up alive. ::yawn:: Like a nice fresh fetus salad with croutons and works? quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I only have limited patience.......... But all I know tells me that a fetus would be carnivoric; agreed; chaingang never said he wasn't a carnivore, but he was talking about consuming live plants.........Maybe he eats meat, don't know and don't give a fuck, but it is rather a stretch in imagination, even (and chaingang, you know I say this at great peril) to link what he said with fetussusss uss uss............. Ok. before this discussion get to far afield........... Assume I am the asshole, OK? Walk me thru the linkage in thought, please? Sincerely, Ron well unless i miss the point here, he was talking about eating things that are alive. The subject best i can tell was life. a fresh fetus would still be alive woudnt it? well i mean if you harvest them quickly put it on the salad and didnt take all day about it of course.

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 7:05:24 PM)
Just tell us why a fetus has rights that supersede an adult woman's rights over her own body. I understand that even a zygote is alive. That's not at issue. My understanding is that individuals do not have all of their rights until they reach the age of majority. While children have some rights, that's always been post-womb children - and it's worth noting that at that point it's possible for them to survive without their mother. Not so in the womb where a fetus acts very like a parasite in relation to the host mother. If I had a parasite in my cock I can tell you right now I'd want it out and I am not going to listen to a lot of hoo-hah about whether the parasite is a life-form or not. Hey, maybe a cock parasite even has a soul. That's not going to stop me from pulling it out and killing it. It's just absurd to imagine a world where the government can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body. That it's possible for something inside of you, that cannot live without you, to have rights over you against your protest. Fuck that noise...

BitaTruble -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 7:30:31 PM)
quote: it seems to me the woman does have the right to choose. she can choose not to get pregnant! And what say you in the case of birth control failure or rape, when a woman does not choose pregnancy? Celeste

Lashra -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 7:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brightspot quote: Because it's important that women be made to carry zygotes to term no matter what psychological, physical, financial, or social harm may result. Go Team America! Goddamned yahoos... This is only the beginning of the worst to come, I know it began when the current presidency was elected to a second term. I figured at least 2 Supreme Court judges would be replaced during it. I really do not doubt for a minute Roe vs Wade being overturned. I think people should prepare themselves for a Lot of scarey shit coming to fruition[&:]. We need a Democratic Woman in the House! JMHO of course[;)]. *Brightspot We desperately need a qualified non republican female in the white house. Its about time this country moved forward instead of hanging back to the old days of Our Fathers. Quite a few of the western countries have women leaders and have prospered. Its about time ours did as well. Lashra

Lashra -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 7:41:31 PM)
As far as I am concerned no government should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. The saying "Keep your laws off my body" come to mind. Women should have the right to a safe abortion if she nor the Father wants the child. If they start banning abortions then I believe these women should have the right to abandon these unwanted children without fear of persecution on the steps of their respective state houses. Let the government who so desperately wants them to have these children pick up the tab and raise them until the legal age of 18 or find adoptive homes for them. If they make this a law why don't they make it mandatory for unmarried males who impregnant a woman to have vasectomies? That would certainly make alot of males think before they refuse to wear the condom. Lashra

Real0ne -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 8:06:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang It's just absurd to imagine a world where the government can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body. That it's possible for something inside of you, that cannot live without you, to have rights over you against your protest. Fuck that noise... This is a free country right? Thats your point? Well can you go to the drug store to get penicillin? or does the government say you cant have it? can you run up with smak, snort coke? i do not get it. where is this freedom you are talking about? How about wearing a seat belt? Its your life, its yourbody. fact of the matter is the government is knee deep into what you can and cannot do with your body and those are only a couple of the literally hundreds of examples that come to mind. friends from third world countries laugh at what we call freedom

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/26/2006 9:02:46 PM)
As it happens I oppose most laws that hamper freedom, and I likewise oppose the criminalization of activities that have no victim save possibly oneself. And yes, I actually think such laws are unconstitutional - but they are pushed through the system because of the enormous money behind the insurance industry (aka protection racket).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02