I do NOT believe this...

Illumina Drathiran'ar · 02-24-2006, 02:32 AM

Yahoo News

Let me open by saying I don't intend to discuss religion at all. Quite frankly, abortion clearly needs to remain legal regardless of if it's "right" or not, or if it's "murder" or not. This smacks of the "Teach kids abstinence and they won't have sex" ignint mentality... Make abortion illegal, and women won't stop having abortions. It's as simple as that. Women will still be getting abortions. Okay? The difference is that women will be getting dangerous, back-alley abortions without government oversight or protection. Getting raped by abortion doctors. Getting infections and dying because of abortions. Will this deter many women from getting abortions? I'm sure it will. Is it worth it? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

Don't like abortions? Don't get one. I hate the whole legislation of morality business. It would be nice if people were secure enough in their opinions that they didn't have to push their beliefs on others.

Edit: Added the url code to contain the link, which was causing horizontal page scrolling in its original form.

[ 02-24-2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Larry_OHF · 02-24-2006, 10:46 AM

That is truely scary. Especially this part:

Quote:

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.

If there are any IW'ers that live in South Dakota and are looking for a new place to live, there's a couple houses on my street for sale. If I were in S.D., I'd be moving my family for sure. I hope that this idea does not spread across the US.

There have to be amendments for certain circumstances. Right now, they're saying that if a father rapes his underage daughter...they still have to have the baby? He'd go to jail and she'd raise it under her mom's house...if it did not kill her. Apparently, the amendmant to save the pregnant girl from death if the baby were to be born also is illegal in this proposal so that means that the mother of the pregnant daughter would lose her husband, her daughter, and would probably commit suicide because she'd be so damned depressed! And then the premature baby would become a state Social Services problem.

pritchke · 02-24-2006, 11:13 AM

There definatly need to be amendments for certain circumstances. The world is not so black and white as that.

[ 02-24-2006, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Morgeruat · 02-24-2006, 11:16 AM

I can understand not sending it to voters, they want to be the first ones to get sued by planned parenthood and go before the Supreme Court, I don't honestly think they expect to win this one, and it's not like they can stop every girl at the state border, ask her to take a pregnancy test and check her destination to ensure she's not just going across state lines to get one.

Morgeruat · 02-24-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:
There definatly need to be amendments for certain circumstances. The world is not so black and white as that.

Especially considering overlap, say a 13y/o was raped by her father/uncle/brother/cousin/pet monkey/etc if she did try to carry the child to term there would almost undoubtedly be a serious risk to her life.

Timber Loftis · 02-24-2006, 11:28 AM

Okay, this is retarded. Here's how this works. They passs the law. Law gets challenged in Federal District Court. Summary judgment motion granted in short order, lengthened by press frenzy, but law struck down. Appeal to the Circuit court -- denied. Appeal to the Supreme Court -- denied. The Supremes won't even hear the case.

Okay, let's get this straight. There is still a 5-4 majority on the court that would definately without a doubt uphold Roe v. Wade. That ain't gonna change. Roberts said he would not strike it down.

What the Supreme Court may do, however, is uphold a *limit* to the right to the aborition. The holding of Roe v. Wade is that the government may not *unreasonably* restrict the right to have an abortion. But, there are reasonable restrictions that could be placed on it.

Parental consent keeps getting struck down as unconstitutional, but mark my words parental notification would not. Late term abortion limits get struck down, BUT ONLY because they do not leave and escape clause for cases where the mother's life may be at risk.

If the Retarded Red Right in this country would pass reasonable limits on abortion, they'd stick. But, the Retarded Red Right's leaders really don't want to overturn abortion, they just want a hotbutton issue to manipulate their "base" of voters. So, they stick with the extremes, and it gives them a neverending fight over the issue -- THAT'S GREAT FOR POLITICS!!! Politics needs fights.

Final Commend to Illumina regarding the problem with legislating morality. It ain't that simple. If you think about it, making Murder illegal is legislating morality. The question isn't is Murder illegal, it's whether or not killing of a fetus = murder.

Now, under our law, a fetus = human life. Period. Stab a pregnant woman and you get double murder. Rather, to uphold the right of privacy (including the right to procreate) found in our constitution, the law allows a balancing test where abortion is concerned. This balancing test weighs the liberty rights of the mother against the life rights of the fetus. Under Roe v. Wade, the liberty interests of the mother (abortion) generally trump the life interests of the fetus, but can be restricted by the government, so long as such restrictions are not unreasonable.

And that's the law. Thanks for playing.

Larry_OHF · 02-24-2006, 01:53 PM

What is thought of the Morning After Pill that a women's rights group had to go to court over in Mass. to get Walmart to offer it in their pharmacy? At the moment, I think all CVS pharmacies at least stock this over-the-counter pill which will end a pregnation up to five days after consumation.

To stay on topic, is this pill banned under the new policy offered in the news article above?

Timber Loftis · 02-24-2006, 02:48 PM

The morning after pill has to be taken within 2 to 3 days, and it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterine lining and becoming an embryo. It is not the same thing as the abortion pill. It is scientifically contraception, not aborition.

Dreamer128 · 03-05-2006, 07:56 AM

Hm...isn't it possible for women in life-threatening situations to get an abortion in another state?

Larry_OHF · 03-06-2006, 04:22 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

Latest headline news is that the fool in South Dakota signed that bill, which has been amended to state that it will be appropriate to save a woman's life, but does not allow any justification to end the pregancy on rape or incest...or incestual rape for that matter.

There are so many things wrong with that.

I say BOO to South Dakota.

02-24-2006, 02:32 AM	#1
Illumina Drathiran'ar Apophis Join Date: July 10, 2002 Location: I can see the Manhattan skyline from my window. Age: 39 Posts: 4,673	Yahoo News Let me open by saying I don't intend to discuss religion at all. Quite frankly, abortion clearly needs to remain legal regardless of if it's "right" or not, or if it's "murder" or not. This smacks of the "Teach kids abstinence and they won't have sex" ignint mentality... Make abortion illegal, and women won't stop having abortions. It's as simple as that. Women will still be getting abortions. Okay? The difference is that women will be getting dangerous, back-alley abortions without government oversight or protection. Getting raped by abortion doctors. Getting infections and dying because of abortions. Will this deter many women from getting abortions? I'm sure it will. Is it worth it? Absolutely not, in my opinion. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. I hate the whole legislation of morality business. It would be nice if people were secure enough in their opinions that they didn't have to push their beliefs on others. Edit: Added the url code to contain the link, which was causing horizontal page scrolling in its original form. [ 02-24-2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ] __________________ http://cavestory.org PLAY THIS GAME. Seriously. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://www.xkcd.com/406/ My heart is like my coffee. Black, bitter, icy, and with a straw.

02-24-2006, 11:28 AM	#6
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Okay, this is retarded. Here's how this works. They passs the law. Law gets challenged in Federal District Court. Summary judgment motion granted in short order, lengthened by press frenzy, but law struck down. Appeal to the Circuit court -- denied. Appeal to the Supreme Court -- denied. The Supremes won't even hear the case. Okay, let's get this straight. There is still a 5-4 majority on the court that would definately without a doubt uphold Roe v. Wade. That ain't gonna change. Roberts said he would not strike it down. What the Supreme Court may do, however, is uphold a limit to the right to the aborition. The holding of Roe v. Wade is that the government may not unreasonably restrict the right to have an abortion. But, there are reasonable restrictions that could be placed on it. Parental consent keeps getting struck down as unconstitutional, but mark my words parental notification would not. Late term abortion limits get struck down, BUT ONLY because they do not leave and escape clause for cases where the mother's life may be at risk. If the Retarded Red Right in this country would pass reasonable limits on abortion, they'd stick. But, the Retarded Red Right's leaders really don't want to overturn abortion, they just want a hotbutton issue to manipulate their "base" of voters. So, they stick with the extremes, and it gives them a neverending fight over the issue -- THAT'S GREAT FOR POLITICS!!! Politics needs fights. Final Commend to Illumina regarding the problem with legislating morality. It ain't that simple. If you think about it, making Murder illegal is legislating morality. The question isn't is Murder illegal, it's whether or not killing of a fetus = murder. Now, under our law, a fetus = human life. Period. Stab a pregnant woman and you get double murder. Rather, to uphold the right of privacy (including the right to procreate) found in our constitution, the law allows a balancing test where abortion is concerned. This balancing test weighs the liberty rights of the mother against the life rights of the fetus. Under Roe v. Wade, the liberty interests of the mother (abortion) generally trump the life interests of the fetus, but can be restricted by the government, so long as such restrictions are not unreasonable. And that's the law. Thanks for playing. __________________

02-24-2006, 01:53 PM	#7
Larry_OHF Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Midlands, South Carolina Age: 49 Posts: 14,759	What is thought of the Morning After Pill that a women's rights group had to go to court over in Mass. to get Walmart to offer it in their pharmacy? At the moment, I think all CVS pharmacies at least stock this over-the-counter pill which will end a pregnation up to five days after consumation. To stay on topic, is this pill banned under the new policy offered in the news article above? __________________

02-24-2006, 02:48 PM	#8
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	The morning after pill has to be taken within 2 to 3 days, and it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterine lining and becoming an embryo. It is not the same thing as the abortion pill. It is scientifically contraception, not aborition. __________________

03-06-2006, 04:22 PM	#10
Larry_OHF Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Midlands, South Carolina Age: 49 Posts: 14,759	http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html Latest headline news is that the fool in South Dakota signed that bill, which has been amended to state that it will be appropriate to save a woman's life, but does not allow any justification to end the pregancy on rape or incest...or incestual rape for that matter. There are so many things wrong with that. I say BOO to South Dakota. __________________

02-24-2006, 11:13 AM	#3
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	There definatly need to be amendments for certain circumstances. The world is not so black and white as that. [ 02-24-2006, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

02-24-2006, 11:16 AM	#4
Morgeruat Jack Burton Join Date: October 16, 2001 Location: PA Age: 44 Posts: 5,421	I can understand not sending it to voters, they want to be the first ones to get sued by planned parenthood and go before the Supreme Court, I don't honestly think they expect to win this one, and it's not like they can stop every girl at the state border, ask her to take a pregnancy test and check her destination to ensure she's not just going across state lines to get one.

03-05-2006, 07:56 AM	#9
Dreamer128 Dracolisk Join Date: March 21, 2001 Location: Europe Age: 40 Posts: 6,136	Hm...isn't it possible for women in life-threatening situations to get an abortion in another state?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)