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

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

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

Message

Chaingang -> Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 7:35:45 AM)
Link: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22711 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...

dincubus -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 10:05:01 AM)
This has not been signed into law yet. it has been sent back to the legislature for changes just because of the fact that there is no provision for rape or incest. while i personally do not agree with abortion, i do believe that it is the right of the woman to choose. i do not believe that it is the government's place to push into one's personal rights to this degree. and i do resemble that remark about yahoos.. as i live in south dakota [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Link: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22711 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...

thetammyjo -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 10:33:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dincubus This has not been signed into law yet. it has been sent back to the legislature for changes just because of the fact that there is no provision for rape or incest. while i personally do not agree with abortion, i do believe that it is the right of the woman to choose. i do not believe that it is the government's place to push into one's personal rights to this degree. and i do resemble that remark about yahoos.. as i live in south dakota [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Link: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22711 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... My husband is from South Dakota and his parents still live there. They have no freaking idea what is going on in this state since the 2004 elections. They said the senatorial race was horrible. I'm betting though that the law being proposed either way doesn't really have a concern with unwanted pregnacies or women. I mean, does it fund sex education and free birth control and information about how you can do things other than intercourse to get off? All of these might reduce the rate of abortions. Or course these would also interest self-awareness, empowerment, and general happiness and we wouldn't want that now would we? What "God" say about those horrible things?

fergus -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 10:43:30 AM)
whew glad this is happening in South Dakota and not in the United States! sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. fergus

JohnWarren -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 12:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fergus whew glad this is happening in South Dakota and not in the United States! sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. fergus Don't bet on it. There are some Supremes like Scalia who are drooling to get such a case before them. I'll bet he's already got his "decision" typed up. The court has changed a lot in the last year or so.

fergus -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 12:04:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: fergus whew glad this is happening in South Dakota and not in the United States! sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. fergus Don't bet on it. There are some Supremes like Scalia who are drooling to get such a case before them. I'll bet he's already got his "decision" typed up. The court has changed a lot in the last year or so. True John, Though I am unhappy with EITHER side! SC gets too liberal? We end up with that assinine Eminent Domain ruling. They get too conservative? We end up with a stripping of our OTHER liberties. What ever happened to good, ol' reasonable centrists? fergus

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 12:12:02 PM)
This is precisely why it is important to remember that only true purposes of government are to protect the rights of natural born persons and provide a common defense. Period. Everything else is a special interest issue and needs to be weighed carefully against serving the public good.

dincubus -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 12:12:51 PM)
This is one case that i wish might have come up while i was in my constitutional law course. it would have been wonderful for debate. But alas, i fear you are right. it shall be a horrid day when the inevitable happens. quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: fergus whew glad this is happening in South Dakota and not in the United States! sigh This will never get through, even if it does, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. fergus Don't bet on it. There are some Supremes like Scalia who are drooling to get such a case before them. I'll bet he's already got his "decision" typed up. The court has changed a lot in the last year or so.

JohnWarren -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 12:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fergus What ever happened to good, ol' reasonable centrists? fergus A special section of Guantanamo? Seriously, much of the necon warfare I see in this country takes me back to Joe McCarthy. Then, as now, the true enemy wasn't communists or terrorists, it was the moderates in both parties. The intent was to paint anyone who was moderate (who thought a bit?) as soft and (remember this term) "wishy washy." They created a world in which men who actually knew better were afraid of expressing any reluctance for fear of seeming to support the "enemy." This created both an orthodoxy that had a built-in positive feedback curve. There was no balance at all. Anything said against the Soviets (at today against anyone labeled terrorists) was good and any attempt to moderate a failing or dangerous position of mistake was crushed under the "that's what they want us to do" juggernaut. Eventually, they built up such a huge but mishapen and overbalanced structure that a few brave men were able to bring it crashing down. No one who has ever seen Joseph Welch hurling that wonderful disgust-filled statement, "Have you no shame, Sir?", at McCarthy can forget the moment. There are far too many parallels between those days and today for anyone to feel comfortable.

Moloch -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 7:23:18 PM)
You may not like it but TRUE freedom is a double Edged sword. Besides whe as americans belive in STATE rights, which means states should be able to decide their own laws.

brightspot -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 7:57:06 PM)
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

mistoferin -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 8:13:48 PM)
quote: We need a Democratic Woman in the House! JMHO of course . omg..now that really would be some scary shit coming to fruition!!!

brightspot -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 10:38:10 PM)
quote: omg..now that really would be some scary shit coming to fruition!!! Well, mistoferin, I guess we will see where scarey chit lie, won't we?. *Brightspot

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/23/2006 11:36:46 PM)
Just as a heads up here, the South Dakota bill's main sponsor was Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling. So there you go: a democrat and a woman. I find that in relation to govt. most issues have become us versus them, as in "we the people" versus the govt. Party affiliations have become meaningless as both parties fight for the center and to appear tougher on crime and terror than the next guy. Everybody wants to please culturally ultra-conservative bible thumpers in order to get their votes.

perverseangelic -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 9:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch You may not like it but TRUE freedom is a double Edged sword. Besides whe as americans belive in STATE rights, which means states should be able to decide their own laws. It does, yes, but not at the expense of freedoms that are protected on a larger level. For example, states rights would and -should- be liimted if a state attempted to pass a law denying women the right to vote. Federal laws take precident. So, sure, states rights are wonderful but they should not come at the expense of federal protections.

Moloch -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 9:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Just as a heads up here, the South Dakota bill's main sponsor was Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling. So there you go: a democrat and a woman. I find that in relation to govt. most issues have become us versus them, as in "we the people" versus the govt. Party affiliations have become meaningless as both parties fight for the center and to appear tougher on crime and terror than the next guy. Everybody wants to please culturally ultra-conservative bible thumpers in order to get their votes. quote: govt. most issues have become us versus them, as in "we the people" versus the govt. Party affiliations have become meaningless Hmm everybody wants to please the ultras? Its south-dakota.... almost everybody in South Dakota is a conservative. If you are gonna try to spread such things as letting women decide what to do with their bodies and try to get re-elected you might as well walk in the Middle of Bronx while screaming white power and wear white sheets. Those lawmakers represent the majority of South Dakota, they are not after "your rights" they are after getting those votes for the upcoming re-election. Belive me conservatives get screwed they same way by their "represantatives"

Moloch -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 9:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: perverseangelic quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch You may not like it but TRUE freedom is a double Edged sword. Besides whe as americans belive in STATE rights, which means states should be able to decide their own laws. It does, yes, but not at the expense of freedoms that are protected on a larger level. For example, states rights would and -should- be liimted if a state attempted to pass a law denying women the right to vote. Federal laws take precident. So, sure, states rights are wonderful but they should not come at the expense of federal protections. quote: For example, states rights would and -should- be liimted if a state attempted to pass a law denying women the right to vote. Federal laws take precident. So, sure, states rights are wonderful but they Yeah I agree, we had a Civil War because of "states rights" south lost, which means Federal trumps state laws and regulations. I am not familiar with the laws, besides the Supreme Court case is there a federal law protecting womens rights to do abortion's?

JohnWarren -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 10:54:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch I am not familiar with the laws, besides the Supreme Court case is there a federal law protecting womens rights to do abortion's? The Supremes headed by Blackmun drew on the fourth and sixth amendments to infer a consitutional right to privacy over the workings of a person's body. Whether such a right exists is the core of the battle going on now

Chaingang -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 11:03:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren The Supremes headed by Blackmun drew on the fourth and sixth amendments to infer a consitutional right to privacy over the workings of a person's body. Sad how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights work exactly how they weren't supposed to. Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words we all have rights that may not have been enumerated yet. They must be around here someplace...

Real0ne -> RE: Abortion Banned in South Dakota (Health or Off-Topic?) (2/24/2006 11:01:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren The Supremes headed by Blackmun drew on the fourth and sixth amendments to infer a consitutional right to privacy over the workings of a person's body. Sad how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights work exactly how they weren't supposed to. Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words we all have rights that may not have been enumerated yet. They must be around here someplace... 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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02