Quote :

"PIERRE, S.D. (BP)--In a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the South Dakota House of Representatives easily passed a bill Feb. 9 that would ban nearly all abortions in the state. The bill passed by a vote of 47-22 and now goes to the state Senate, where a vote is expected to be tight. Ten of the Senate's 35 members are sponsors. It is not known whether Gov. Mike Rounds, a pro-life Republican, would sign it. Supporters of the bill -- which has an exception for the mother's life -- hope it leads to the overturning of Roe, the infamous decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Opponents of the bill tried unsuccessfully Feb. 9 to add an amendment making an exception for rape and incest. If it passes the Senate and is signed into law, a legal challenge almost certainly will follow. "I honestly believe that this is the time to address this issue," state Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican and the bill's chief House sponsor, said during floor debate. The Senate sponsor is Democratic state Sen. Julie Bartling. ... "

Continued http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22627

Just throwing that out there... Sorry if it has been posted already, I looked though.



[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 7:24 PM. Reason : moo]

2/13/2006 7:24:14 PM

wow, it gets shot down agian once it gets to the SC, that's never happened before

2/13/2006 7:29:42 PM

where is that "oh god, not this shit again" picture when you need it?

2/13/2006 7:48:32 PM

Its one thing to be pro-life. Its another thing to be anti-exception

2/13/2006 7:53:28 PM

The question is where Roberts and Alito stand on the issue. It's assumed that they would vote against roe v wade, and if thats the case then they are just 1 justice away from overturning the ruling. That would scare the shit out of pro-choice advocates.

2/13/2006 8:01:32 PM

in the mean time all 3 women in south dakota best keep the contraceptives handy.

2/13/2006 8:34:04 PM

Quote :

"Its one thing to be pro-life. Its another thing to be anti-exception"

Quote :

"Supporters of the bill -- which has an exception for the mother's life --"

There's your exception... what more do you want?

2/13/2006 8:52:27 PM

I would not support the bill at this time. The reason is because even if Roberts and Alito are of the opinion that Roe should be overturned, then the Court is STILL pro-Roe by a 5-4 vote. Every time the Court reaffirms the precedent, it gains strength and entrenchment. They should wait until one more justice retires, and is replaced by a pro life conservative, and THEN I would be completely in favor of the bill.

2/13/2006 8:54:14 PM

^ Sorry, I'm not too up to date on who thinks what on the SC... who is Pro-Roe and what is the precedent for each that makes you say that?

Thanks

2/13/2006 8:58:15 PM

Well we take out Roberts and Alito because we don't know about them. The ones that are left are Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter.

We know Thomas and Scalia are pro life because they wrote in Casey that Roe should be overturned.

Stevens, and Souter are clearly pro abortion, no arguments there - judging by Casey.

Ginsburg and Breyer both opposed a partial birth abortion ban (Carhart), and of course in order to oppose a partial birth abortion ban you need to accept that there is a right to abortion in the first place, so we know that they are pro Roe.

That leaevs Kennedy - who was the deciding vote to KEEP Roe in place in Casey. (He was originally the deciding vote to overturn Roe, but he changed his mind at the last minute)

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 9:02 PM. Reason : add]

2/13/2006 9:01:04 PM

hey chuck, this is non-topic

but are you for or against the de-criminalization of marijuana?

2/13/2006 9:12:26 PM

10:1 he doesn't answer clearly

2/13/2006 9:13:44 PM

i ain't trying to start nothin, i was just wondering

2/13/2006 9:14:47 PM

it's going to boil down to what brand of GOP he identifies with more

i'm going with the "Reagan's War on (some) Drugs/Nixon War on Hippies" brand

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 9:17 PM. Reason : +, he plans to run for an elected office in Georgia some day...]

2/13/2006 9:16:32 PM

Quote :

"There's your exception... what more do you want? "

Cases of rape and incest. The mother's life exception is a given.

2/13/2006 11:51:20 PM

I would like to see it go through, so that we could get some more concrete data on what the fallout of such an action might be.

2/13/2006 11:53:59 PM

Quote :

"Cases of rape and incest"

What is your justification for those situations being exceptions?

2/14/2006 12:15:35 AM

because some how thats less of a crime, and to pro lifers two wrongs make a right?

2/14/2006 12:21:39 AM

^^because the baby deserves to die, afterall it's the child's fault it's the product of rape/incest. Besides the child wouldn't have a perfect life and/or loving parents and adoption is impossible... so since the child is inconvenient we should kill it, duh.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 12:24 AM. Reason : um for the thick among you this is sarcasm.]

2/14/2006 12:23:35 AM

Quote :

"because some how thats less of a crime"

So, if that makes it less of a crime, would you be in favor of mandatory abortions for raped women who become pregnant? Afterall, it's less of a crime that way...

2/14/2006 12:24:39 AM

This kind of shit belongs in the states anyway.

If you don't like the fact you can't get an abortion in State X, go to State Y to get one or just fucking move there.

This country's turning into one big state.

2/14/2006 1:13:08 AM

Quote :

" because the baby deserves to die, afterall it's the child's fault it's the product of rape/incest. Besides the child wouldn't have a perfect life and/or loving parents and adoption is impossible... so since the child is inconvenient we should kill it, duh."

I understand that you feel that a child shouldn't automatically be killed if it is the product of rape, but are you suggesting that women/couples should be forced to carry a baby to term that they may not necessarily want or be willing to raise? Would you support a gov. program to pay for all the medical bills and other expenses that would come of this situation? If you wife were raped and got pregnant, would you raise the kid as your own?

2/14/2006 1:17:32 AM

This will work.

Just like every lawsuit against evolution in schools has worked thus far.

These type of people are definitely quick learners.

2/14/2006 2:16:42 AM

what if a triflin ho lied to me and said she was on BC and shit - then I'm forced to support both their lazy asses for 18 years, son so don't talk at me like 9 mo is a burden ok

2/14/2006 2:32:40 AM

You guys are getting way ahead of yourselves . Im merely stating that there is a significant difference between forcing motherhood on a woman who was forced into sex and forcing motherhood on a woman who consciously chooses to have sex (and therefore chooses to risk pregnancy). Im not saying one is right and one is wrong, but you have to acknowledge that the former is a greater offense against self-determination rights.

2/14/2006 7:01:54 AM

^I'm for a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to have sex she is also choosing the consequences. If she does not choose to have sex (raped) then she shouldn't have to accept the consequences.

2/14/2006 7:23:12 AM

Quote :

"are you suggesting that women/couples should be forced to carry a baby to term that they may not necessarily want or be willing to raise?"

Regarding rape: Yes to carry to term, not necessarily to raising. The woman is more than welcome to put the child up for adoption or offer the child to a family member who is willing to raise the child as their own. There is also the safe surrender program. The method of conception (i.e. rape) is not the fault of the child and the child should not be punished for it.

Quote :

"If you wife were raped and got pregnant, would you raise the kid as your own?"

Given that I'm a woman, I'll never have a wife, but if I were raped, I would certainly carry the child to term if pregnancy resulted. I would not keep the child, I would put him/her up for adoption almost certainly, but I would give them every chance to live.

Quote :

"Would you support a gov. program to pay for all the medical bills and other expenses that would come of this situation? "

I would first say that the rapist should be responsible for that--let all the money he earns in prison breaking rocks go to a fund for this sort of thing or something. But, pregnancy resulting from rape happens so infrequently that I doubt that it would be a drain on the taxpayers to give the mothers health care.

Quote :

"what if a triflin ho lied to me and said she was on BC and shit - then I'm forced to support both their lazy asses for 18 years, son so don't talk at me like 9 mo is a burden ok"

Never trust a woman to really be on BC even though she says she is. I've found that many women are stupid in this regard and don't take their pills as directed and think that they are still protected... use a condom or don't have sex.

I am also against legalizing abortion in the case of rape (assuming we ever come to make abortion in general illegal) because you know what would happen if abortion were made illegal except in the case of rape (and the mother's life being in danger)? Women would be getting pregnant and, selfish as they can be, some of them would accuse their significant others of raping them so that they might obtain an abortion. Of course, these unsuspecting men would have to be tried in order for the abortion to take place. The women wouldn't be able to just say "Oh, I was raped, I don't know who did it" because a simple in-utero paternity test would reveal that her significant other was the father.

So, it not only takes the life of a child who had nothing to do with how he or she came into the world but if rape were one of the exceptions to a ban, it would seriously compromise the probably innocent men who fathered the children.

2/14/2006 9:59:19 AM

Quote :

"Im merely stating that there is a significant difference between forcing motherhood on a woman who was forced into sex and forcing motherhood on a woman who consciously chooses to have sex"

How do you define 'motherhood'? Do you define it as simply having carried a child to term -or- raising the child that was carried to term? Because the woman who carries the child to term does not HAVE to raise it, as said in my above post. If you think that "motherhood" is raising the child, then that is not being forced on her. She has the right to choose to give the child up. If motherhood to you is simply carrying a child to term and giving birth, it's not really a big offence to self-determination rights. She only has to eat right (if she chooses to have a healthy baby) for less than a year of her life, give birth (which is really quite painless with the drugs they can give you these days), and I guess get maternity clothes. Yeah, there is morning sickness, but from what I've heard that really isn't that bad.

Anyway, I'm on a tangent. How do you define 'motherhood'? And why do you feel that self-determination rights supercede a human life?

2/14/2006 10:06:11 AM

Quote :

"^I'm for a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to have sex she is also choosing the consequences. If she does not choose to have sex (raped) then she shouldn't have to accept the consequences."

Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. Your position on the fence must be comfortable, but it isn't very consistent.

If we consider abortion to be murder, it's wrong under any circumstance (edit: except for the allowances we give to murder, such as self-defense). If we don't consider abortion to be murder, then why should it matter how the woman got pregnant? Forcing somebody to have a child to "teach them a lesson for having sex" doesn't make a lot of sense outside of a religious context (which pretty much can justify any stupid shit you'd like to do).

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2006 10:23:23 AM

Anyone who has the gaul to say that a woman RAPED should be forced to have the baby needs to REALLY rethink their value system.

Emotional
Financial (yes it costs a lot of money before it comes out the womb)
Educational (was she in school? CAn she continue? Was she on a sports scholarship?)

That said... I do believe that the state should be permitted to perform tube tying to women who don't know how to keep their legs shut. If you pop out 5 kids and you're on welfare... time to get tied. I also think there should be a limit to the amount a person can get through welfare. 2 kids max. I'm sorry but you shouldn't be having kids if you can't afford them. I don't want my tax dollars to go toward that.

Also, we already have too many kids in homes right now. The only shortage is on newborns which people "want". Every single arguement pro-lifer's can make is defeated. There's not a single winnable arguement logically. Hell the only way to argue it is to bring God into it, which is supposed to be SEPARATE from the state.

Noone is saying YOU have to get an abortion. We are saying should people have a RIGHT to get an abortion if they want to. I disagree with the ease of the law and i think that there should be limitations but if i had a choice of yes or no for abortion... yes 100% of the time.

2/14/2006 10:40:58 AM

Quote :

"If we consider abortion to be murder, it's wrong under any circumstance (edit: except for the allowances we give to murder, such as self-defense). If we don't consider abortion to be murder, then why should it matter how the woman got pregnant?"

I agree, although I prefer the term "homicide" as "murder" carries a lot of legal baggage with it (people love to be like "Murder means unlawful killing. Abortion is lawful. Oh, snap.") Homicide is simply the taking of a human life. No legal baggage.

Quote :

"Forcing somebody to have a child to "teach them a lesson for having sex" doesn't make a lot of sense outside of a religious context (which pretty much can justify any stupid shit you'd like to do)."

I am not trying to teach anyone a lesson. I think I am not alone in the pro-life movement in feeling that a) the human fetus should have all the rights that humans who have been born have and b) it is up to women to take responsibility for their actions. Now, the second part clearly does not apply to situations of rape because the woman was not responsible for being raped and getting pregnant, but that is where part 'a' comes in. The resulting child is still a human and should be afforded all the rights of a human of any age.
Further, for the record, I am not religious. I am a borderline athiest. For the record.

2/14/2006 10:44:50 AM

Forcing a woman to bear a child by barring her from having an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy can really only have a religious justification. That's more of what I was talking about. If you believe the game changes when the unborn child becomes a fetus (which it undoubtedly does), then that becomes a separate argument altogether.

2/14/2006 10:56:13 AM

Quote :

"That said... I do believe that the state should be permitted to perform tube tying to women who don't know how to keep their legs shut. If you pop out 5 kids and you're on welfare... "

If you want to have the government tell you what to do, why don't you move to Iran? Then you won't have to make any choices anymore!

2/14/2006 11:01:16 AM

^ Don't fag this thread up, it's been remarkably troll-free until you hit Post Reply! before thinking up an intelligent response.

2/14/2006 11:03:14 AM

Quote :

"Forcing a woman to bear a child by barring her from having an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy can really only have a religious justification. That's more of what I was talking about. If you believe the game changes when the unborn child becomes a fetus (which it undoubtedly does), then that becomes a separate argument altogether."

My apologies... I tend to just say "fetus" b/c when these conversations come up, pro-choicers always insist on using that term. I understand that it only refers to the child 8 weeks after conception and later. My philosophy applies to everything from the blastocyst on up to birth. To me, a new human life is a new human life from the time the sperm's DNA gets up with the egg's and they start splitting; whether they have implanted or not. Just for the record.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 11:06 AM. Reason : moo]

2/14/2006 11:05:38 AM

What's your justification, as a borderline atheist, that aborting an unborn child in the first week is any different than keeping the sperm and egg from uniting in the first place?

2/14/2006 11:09:57 AM

What the fuck? There are two different arguments in the same post! Either you believe that people are able to make choices for themselves and can decide whether or not to get an abortion, or you believe that the government knows what is best for it's people. If you allow the federal government to control one aspect of a woman's pregnancy (the initial conception, via tube tying), how can you believe that they should not have say over the abortion?

2/14/2006 11:10:12 AM

^ You seem to be arguing that either we have no laws at all or we're a police state.

2/14/2006 11:13:26 AM

If a raped woman is forced to give birth to her child, what's to stop a maniac with a desire to spread his seed from raping any woman he met?

As for child birth being painless, WTF? Even if drugs do help, some people are opposed to taking drugs during childbirth. Doesn't that violate their individual freedoms?

2/14/2006 11:13:28 AM

Quote :

"If a raped woman is forced to give birth to her child, what's to stop a maniac with a desire to spread his seed from raping any woman he met?"

The same thing that stops a maniac with a desire to spread the AIDS virus.

2/14/2006 12:26:08 PM

An interesting opinion on abortion from the Cato Institute...

Quote :

"When does the right to life begin? On that question, the Constitution is indeed silent -- mostly. Here's why. We would all agree, I hope, that if a doctor took the life of a baby one day after birth, it would be infanticide -- murder. Thus, states that protected older babies but not younger ones would doubtless be subject to equal protection challenges, at least, and would probably lose. But if taking the life of a baby one day after birth is murder, what is the difference if the act is performed one day before birth? It strains credulity to suppose there is any real difference. Well, what of two days before birth -- and so on down the line? It's impossible to draw a principled line at which to say, precisely, that this is where the right to life begins. The court's trimester taxonomy in Roe was its own invention, entitled to no more constitutional support than anyone else's opinion on the matter. And so we come to the jurisdictional question: Who decides? And on that the Constitution is not silent. Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, that is, that there is some point at which abortion amounts to murder. We just can't agree about where that point is. And so we're faced with a classic line-drawing problem, not unknown in other areas of the law, but here involving the criminal law and, therefore, the general police power -- the power that belongs, under the Constitution, to states. We come, then, to the heart of the matter. Just as states draw lines differently between murder and manslaughter, so too they should be expected to do so here. In fact, they were doing so when Roe was decided 32 years ago. If ever there were a case in which the court should have let the political process unfold naturally, this was it. Were the court to have done so, we would not have had over three decades of endless political and legal turmoil over this one decision, turmoil that has skewed and even poisoned every confirmation battle since. Indeed, no less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a similar point in her 1993 Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law, two months before she was nominated for the high court. A more "measured" opinion, she said, might have spared the nation this pain. It would not be the end of the world, therefore, if the court were one day to overturn Roe, for the issue would simply return to the states. A conservative state like Utah might prohibit most abortions, but next door in Nevada we might see a liberal regime. On an issue about which reasonable people can have reasonable differences, that result should not surprise. "

2/14/2006 12:42:02 PM

Quote :

"It's impossible to draw a principled line at which to say, precisely, that this is where the right to life begins."

I'd say "remotely human brain function" would be a good principled line.

It's only impossible to draw this line when religious fanatics get in your way.

2/14/2006 12:58:31 PM

Quote :

"I'd say "remotely human brain function" would be a good principled line."

Others, unimpeded by any religious beliefs, could claim that life begins when the little heart starts beating. Determining the beginning of a baby's life, and thus its protection under law, is not in agreement even by people who are not religious fanatics.

2/14/2006 1:10:30 PM

A functional heart does not make anything human.

2/14/2006 1:13:40 PM

no but it makes it alive
and what part of the brain function makes it human? (see how its still hard to define)

it's my understanding that the issue of privacy played an important role in the roe v wade opinion. why is this now forgotten and clouded behind debates about when life starts?

2/14/2006 1:19:50 PM

Quote :

"no but it makes it alive"

Alive, but no different than a fish, pheasant, or frog. What's so sacred about that?

Quote :

"and what part of the brain function makes it human?"

Primarily the frontal lobe.

Quote :

"why is this now forgotten and clouded behind debates about when life starts?"

Because it's politically expedient to frame the debate that way. Makes one hell of a base-energizer.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ...]

2/14/2006 1:25:07 PM

Quote :

"Primarily the frontal lobe"

on which day does enough frontal lobe activity start to make it a human

2/14/2006 1:28:26 PM

That's the $100 million question. I'd like to ask a neuroscientist/neonatologist that very question.

2/14/2006 1:31:24 PM

but you could only ask one, cause id bet that $100 million you get lots of answers

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM. Reason : e]

2/14/2006 1:34:11 PM

Quote :

"The same thing that stops a maniac with a desire to spread the AIDS virus."

If the government had the option to prevent any ill effects that may result from that maniac's actions, don't you think they might use that option? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

As far as I know, there's no way to prevent the spread of AIDS. But if it was preventable, I would think that the government would take that route (or at least allow that option).

2/14/2006 1:34:53 PM