South Dakota House oks abortion ban to overture Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
These bastards sure didn't waste any time once Scalito got in:

Abortion ban easily clears House
02/10/2006 08:06:06 AM

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Rep. Burt Elliott, a Democrat from Aberdeen, uttered the remark Thursday during tense debate of the legislation, which passed the House 47-22, unscathed by several attempts to temper the measure.

"How you vote on this is going to be used in campaign fodder against you," Elliott remarked, drawing a rebuke from Rep. Larry Rhoden, a Union Center Republican rancher who leads the House GOP.

"I'm offended that anybody on this floor would accuse us of being political on this issue," Rhoden said. "We're debating this based on our own personal beliefs."

Elliott, a teacher, said he opposes abortion but could not vote for HB1215 because the House refused to provide an exemption for victims of rape and incest.

"I don't believe in abortion by choice," he said, voice choking. "I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control. But I sure as H.E. double hockey sticks believe in something for victims of rape."

By rebuffing amendments Thursday that would have carved out an exception from the abortion ban for rape victims, the Legislature will victimize those women twice, Elliott said.

Abortion, even in cases of rape, is wrong, countered Rep. Keri Weems, R-Sioux Falls, who describes herself as a stay-at-home mother.

"Taking the child's life doesn't take away the rape," she said. "We can't take away the life of the child because the father has committed a horrible crime."

There is one loophole in the bill, which is designed solely as a test case that supporters hope will cause the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion: Doctors cannot be prosecuted for doing lifesaving abortions on women who otherwise would die.

The penalty for doing illegal abortions, however, would be a maximum of five years in prison.
Filled with abortion foes, the Legislature is likely to pass the bill. The measure next faces a hearing in the state Senate on a date yet to be set.

Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, did not apologize for offering the measure. He has long wanted to ban abortions.

The bill is the result of new information gathered last year by an abortion task force, he said. The group concluded that life begins at conception, and abortion is harmful to women, he said.

Science and medicine have taken great leaps in the last three decades, and the Supreme Court may decide the time finally has come to fully review and then reverse its 1973 ruling, said Hunt, a lawyer.

"We now know about DNA. We now know about the fact that that child has a DNA, a set of genes that is separate from the mother's. It is not just some tissue in the mother. It basically has it's own identity," Hunt said.

Legislatures in several states are considering similar measures, Hunt added.

Acknowledging the issue tugs at hearts and consciences, Rhoden compared the quest to end abortion to the fight over slavery more than a century ago.

"At one time, slavery was constitutional -- until somebody stood up and challenged that," he said.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/art...est_news/d375a5f99c8cba1786257111004d7606.txt

:evil:
 
Yeah, because South Dakota's legislators have everything to do with the US Supreme Court right?

Btw, it'll get overturned anyhow, seeing how the Supreme Court already ruled on Roe v Wade, and only they get to overturn it.
 
Abortion, even in cases of rape, is wrong, countered Rep. Keri Weems, R-Sioux Falls, who describes herself as a stay-at-home mother.
Click to expand...

Ya know I don't have a particularly positive view of stay at home moms, but at least they understand that a stay at home mom works inside the house and with her family. A stay at home mom does not become a state house member.

The bill is the result of new information gathered last year by an abortion task force, he said. The group concluded that life begins at conception, and abortion is harmful to women, he said.

Science and medicine have taken great leaps in the last three decades, and the Supreme Court may decide the time finally has come to fully review and then reverse its 1973 ruling, said Hunt, a lawyer.

"We now know about DNA. We now know about the fact that that child has a DNA, a set of genes that is separate from the mother's. It is not just some tissue in the mother. It basically has it's own identity," Hunt said.
Click to expand...

Abortion tast force, wow, the opinions of politicians reading science is much better than the opinion of scientists. Though they decided it is a human in the biological sense. Since when was the concept of being human simply biological? I'm not sure what makes an embryo, biologically and at that time (what it is, not what it will be and without focusing on a non scientific concepts like souls), any more special than a caterpillar. Hell the caterpillar is much prettier to look at. I don't know about you but the thought of a 2 week old human embryo crawling around my garden makes me not want to eat the food. So already it's caterpillar 1, embryo 0.

But this is why I hate when idiots learn science. "Hey we have dna, when I was an embryo I had the same dna I do now, so I must have been a real person then too!".

The DNA comes from the sperm and the egg, it is merely a blueprint. A zygote (which has one cell) has the same DNA as an adult human will 50 years later. It is in no way an indication of functioning ability or development, simply that development is possible, assuming the conditions are appropriate.

They also ignore scientific studies showing that abortion is safer than giving birth, particularly in the first trimester. When all abortions are combined (not just the safest) abortions are about 10 times safer than giving birth. Taken collectively, you face a much greater danger from penicillin than you do from having an abortion.
 
As a republican, I support each state's rights. Especially when state rights are used to propel a case to the supreme court in order to disable federal legislation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As a republican, I support each state's rights. Especially when state rights are used to propel a case to the supreme court in order to disable federal legislation.[/QUOTE]

What federal legislation?
 
As usual Mykey has his head up his ass about "federal legislation" in regards to abortion. There is none.

And as usual every liberal here thinks Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. It did not.

Roe v. Wade installed a right to privacy about what happens between a doctor and his/her female patient. It did not make abortion legal.

Roe v. Wade federalized this decision and took the rights away from the states. If Roe v. Wade was overturned abortion would be as legal then as it is now. It would just turn it back to the states to make their law as they saw fit.

Add this to the popular culture myth.
 
Do you honestly think pro choice people want it to go back to it was? Many states, and many people (particularly poor ones) did not have access to abortion. That's not very appealing to many people. You have about 20 states that abortion would likely be safe, and about 20 were it's outlawed or likely to be. There's about 10 in the middle.

It may be a popular myth, but that's not to suggest reality isn't scary in its own right.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As usual Mykey has his head up his ass about "federal legislation" in regards to abortion. There is none.

And as usual every liberal here thinks Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. It did not.

Roe v. Wade installed a right to privacy about what happens between a doctor and his/her female patient. It did not make abortion legal.

Roe v. Wade federalized this decision and took the rights away from the states. If Roe v. Wade was overturned abortion would be as legal then as it is now. It would just turn it back to the states to make their law as they saw fit.

Add this to the popular culture myth.[/QUOTE]

You say tomato, I say fuck you. I may be wrong in attribution, but am correct in its execution.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Do you honestly think pro choice people want it to go back to it was? Many states, and many people (particularly poor ones) did not have access to abortion. That's not very appealing to many people. You have about 20 states that abortion would likely be safe, and about 20 were it's outlawed or likely to be. There's about 10 in the middle.

It may be a popular myth, but that's not to suggest reality isn't scary in its own right.[/QUOTE]

That's not what PAD said, but you're right that pro-abortion folks don't want it overturned because then states like South Dakota would outlaw abortion. Of course, states like your own Massachusetts would simply pass a law making it legal, so what we really need is for Roe to be overturned and then for a federal law to be passed making abortion illegal, or simply clarifying that a human being is still a human being even if he or she is not yet born.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ya know I don't have a particularly positive view of stay at home moms, but at least they understand that a stay at home mom works inside the house and with her family. A stay at home mom does not become a state house member.



Abortion tast force, wow, the opinions of politicians reading science is much better than the opinion of scientists. Though they decided it is a human in the biological sense. Since when was the concept of being human simply biological? I'm not sure what makes an embryo, biologically and at that time (what it is, not what it will be and without focusing on a non scientific concepts like souls), any more special than a caterpillar. Hell the caterpillar is much prettier to look at. I don't know about you but the thought of a 2 week old human embryo crawling around my garden makes me not want to eat the food. So already it's caterpillar 1, embryo 0.

But this is why I hate when idiots learn science. "Hey we have dna, when I was an embryo I had the same dna I do now, so I must have been a real person then too!".

The DNA comes from the sperm and the egg, it is merely a blueprint. A zygote (which has one cell) has the same DNA as an adult human will 50 years later. It is in no way an indication of functioning ability or development, simply that development is possible, assuming the conditions are appropriate.

They also ignore scientific studies showing that abortion is safer than giving birth, particularly in the first trimester. When all abortions are combined (not just the safest) abortions are about 10 times safer than giving birth. Taken collectively, you face a much greater danger from penicillin than you do from having an abortion.[/QUOTE]
That is why the Pope is strident in his opinion that every sperm has a soul. Led to that song in Monty Python's Meaning of Life

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/13236//Every_sperm_is_sacred
 
I was really hoping someone would address this one:

They also ignore scientific studies showing that abortion is safer than giving birth, particularly in the first trimester. When all abortions are combined (not just the safest) abortions are about 10 times safer than giving birth.
Click to expand...

You might as well say that logically, you are better off never being born becuase then you will never die. Or, you'd be safer being bed-ridden becuase you 'll never get hit by a truck when crossing the street. Then the logic gets even more ridiculous:

Taken collectively, you face a much greater danger from penicillin than you do from having an abortion.
Click to expand...

You see, abortion is not a "cure" like penicillin. By this logic, tetnaus and pregnancy are equivalent. My mistake, I meant to conclude that pregnancy is more deadly than staphylococcal pneumonia.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I was really hoping someone would address this one:



You might as well say that logically, you are better off never being born becuase then you will never die. Or, you'd be safer being bed-ridden becuase you 'll never get hit by a truck when crossing the street. Then the logic gets even more ridiculous:



You see, abortion is not a "cure" like penicillin. By this logic, tetnaus and pregnancy are equivalent. My mistake, I meant to conclude that pregnancy is more deadly than staphylococcal pneumonia.[/QUOTE]

Mulligan, did you really read my post? I quoted this line:

The bill is the result of new information gathered last year by an abortion task force, he said. The group concluded that life begins at conception, and abortion is harmful to women, he said.
Click to expand...


They are using that argument as a reason why abortion should not be allowed. If you have 2 options, giving birth or having a abortion, arguing the safety of abortion over birth (or an ever safer thing, such as penicillin) is central to that discussion.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They are using that argument as a reason why abortion should not be allowed. If you have 2 options, giving birth or having a abortion, arguing the safety of abortion over birth (or an ever safer thing, such as penicillin) is central to that discussion.[/QUOTE]

I think it is a reasonable and factual argument to say that great mental health problems are caused by abortion. Don't you think so? Even strident pro-abortion folks usually readily admit it is a "difficult decision" (as if killing your child wouldn't be!).
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] I wonder what the penalty is for adult murderers in South Dakota.[/QUOTE]

And I wonder what is the penalty will be for masturbation? Sperm is alive, sperm is human, is it not?

Until Federal, State and local gov't recognize your "conception" day. Every effort to grant rights to the unborn is silly.
 

"We now know about DNA. We now know about the fact that that child has a DNA, a set of genes that is separate from the mother's. It is not just some tissue in the mother. It basically has it's own identity," Hunt said.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and this isn't even hard to disprove.

Hunt is saying life begins at conception because "it" (curious word choice) has it's own identity. Does this idiot know that twins and identical multiples don't seperate until 4-12 days after conception??

I can fully say that I don't share an identity with my bro (despite what Dead Ringers would have you believe)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think it is a reasonable and factual argument to say that great mental health problems are caused by abortion. Don't you think so? Even strident pro-abortion folks usually readily admit it is a "difficult decision" (as if killing your child wouldn't be!).[/QUOTE]

And I think it is also a reasonable and factual argument to say that significant emotional problems arise from unwanted pregnancies, the woman future success chances are significantly dimmed (especially with teens) etc. Because one causes risk (abortion) doesn't mean it's not safer than the alternative (childbirth). And because one causes emotional stress (abortion) doesn't mean it's worse emotionally than the alternative (raising an unwanted child). It all differs from person to person, you're argument requires a blanket assumption that child birth and raising unwanted children is less emotionally stressful than abortion.

And since you decided to throw in the killing child bit I have a question for you. Using scientific evidence can you tell me why I should be concerned about aborting a 3 week old embryo? It doesn't have brain waves, is not aware, doesn't think, doesn't feel pain, no one has any personal relationship with it (though I guess you could argue the mother, but she's the one who wants the abortion), it has no history etc. Unless you want to bring religious aspects into it (soul etc.), why should I be concerned? Imagine someone walks up to you and says "Hi, my name is Mr. Atheist. I saw you picketing the clinic. My girlfriend wants to abort her 3 week old pregnancy and I would like to know why that is wrong. Can you explain that to me?"

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and this isn't even hard to disprove.

Hunt is saying life begins at conception because "it" (curious word choice) has it's own identity. Does this idiot know that twins and identical multiples don't seperate until 4-12 days after conception??

I can fully say that I don't share an identity with my bro (despite what Dead Ringers would have you believe)
Click to expand...

I assume you're an identical twin. Identical twins are genetically identical to each other. So, basically, what was the blueprint contained in the one zygote is the identical blueprint that both of you used to develop.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Good for them passing it, but only 5 years for an abortion? I wonder what the penalty is for adult murderers in South Dakota.[/QUOTE]

Remind me again how you're not a Conservative in Libertarians clothing? Seriously.

I think it's especially absurd NOT to let an Incest victim have an abortion considering the physical or potent mental ailments that child could face throughout life, especially the fact that Conservatives and Libertarians would not consider picking up the tab for said persons medical bills.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

I assume you're an identical twin. Identical twins are genetically identical to each other. So, basically, what was the blueprint contained in the one zygote is the identical blueprint that both of you used to develop.[/QUOTE]


correct but identity is more than DNA.
 
[quote name='usickenme']correct but identity is more than DNA.[/QUOTE]

Ya, but I wasn't sure how you meant it, primarily because I'm not certain how the original person meant "identity".
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']"At one time, slavery was constitutional -- until somebody stood up and challenged that," he said.[/QUOTE]
"Now let's get that ban on gay marriage into the constitution!"
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I think it's especially absurd NOT to let an Incest victim have an abortion considering the physical or potent mental ailments that child could face throughout life[/QUOTE]

I don't understand exactly why the child should be put to death because of rape. Shouldn't they worry about punishing the rapist, you know, the person who is actually at fault?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't understand exactly why the child should be put to death because of rape. Shouldn't they worry about punishing the rapist, you know, the person who is actually at fault?[/QUOTE]
Because, chances are, a woman doesn't want to give birth to a baby that was from a rapist. Pregnancy and birth are not attractive prospects for people that need to keep their job, or for people in school. It's also a painful reminder to the woman that they were indeed raped. Also, if the woman is not wealthy, why should she be punished with hospital bills for the pregnancy and birth?

Also, during the portion of the pregnancy in which the woman is legally allowed to abort the fetus, there is no consciousness, barely any development mentally, and physically speaking, the fetus hardly even looks like a born baby. On top of which, the fetus is essentially a parasite. Why do people not care about tapeworms being destroyed, but are gung ho about fetuses?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't understand exactly why the child should be put to death because of rape. Shouldn't they worry about punishing the rapist, you know, the person who is actually at fault?[/QUOTE]
Is there something about the government forcing a woman to carry a fetus conveiced as the result of rape for 9 months that you don't consider punishment?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Because, chances are, a woman doesn't want to give birth to a baby that was from a rapist. Pregnancy and birth are not attractive prospects for people that need to keep their job, or for people in school. It's also a painful reminder to the woman that they were indeed raped.[/quote]

That's unfortunate and I have nothing but sympathy for the victim, but does that really give her a pass for murder? I once heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Also, if the woman is not wealthy, why should she be punished with hospital bills for the pregnancy and birth?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of pro-life organizations that help women who are struggling fiscally.

Abortions usually cost hundreds of dollars anyways, I figure if she's that bad off she wouldn't have insurance.

Also, during the portion of the pregnancy in which the woman is legally allowed to abort the fetus, there is no consciousness, barely any development mentally, and physically speaking, the fetus hardly even looks like a born baby. On top of which, the fetus is essentially a parasite. Why do people not care about tapeworms being destroyed, but are gung ho about fetuses?
Click to expand...

I just don't consider human life parasitic. I'm aware that dependant life does indeed fit the definition, but I believe human life should be held with at least that much respect. I realize the conception debate is very divided, but when we're talking pro-choice, the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex. Period.

Speaking of which, the abortion is legally allowed to take place either in the womb or once it comes out, so I wouldn't put to much stock in that argument. See Partial-Birth abortions.

[quote name='mykevermin']Is there something about the government forcing a woman to carry a fetus conveiced as the result of rape for 9 months that you don't consider punishment?[/QUOTE]

I don't and wouldn't ever consider human life punishment. I think birth is a miraculous and joyous occasion.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't and wouldn't ever consider human life punishment. I think birth is a miraculous and joyous occasion.[/QUOTE]

There was an article awhile back interviewing a Rwandan woman who was raped during the massacres there. The woman had the kid and it hasnt been very joyous, she sees the face of the man who raped in her own child.

It is not something any woman should have to go through so some random wanker feels better.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't and wouldn't ever consider human life punishment. I think birth is a miraculous and joyous occasion.[/QUOTE]
A woman giving birth to a baby born of evil seed would not consider it a miraculous occasion. Maybe joyous afterwards because it's out of her, but not miraculous. Nothing religious about birth.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That's unfortunate and I have nothing but sympathy for the victim, but does that really give her a pass for murder? I once heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."[/QUOTE]
I don't consider anything murder where the nature of the life depends solely on sucking the nutrients/blood from another living body. Maybe destruction, termination, etc, but abortion doesn't fit the definition of murder. At some point in time, the fetus is able to be transplanted from the womb to an incubator. However, prior to that point, the fetus is essentially a parasite in all forms of the word. If the woman decides to abort the fetus after that point, I really don't have that much sympathy. However, if it's 2 weeks in and she discovers that she's pregnant and wants to abort it, she has every right in the world to rid herself of what could be a tumultuous journey in devastation.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] There are plenty of pro-life organizations that help women who are struggling fiscally.

Abortions usually cost hundreds of dollars anyways, I figure if she's that bad off she wouldn't have insurance.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to the several thousands of dollars it costs to have monthly (or weekly) checkups and birth? If they don't have insurance and don't want the baby, it's certainly a lot easier to drop the bundle on an abortion rather than have to go through the hardships of pregnancy, quit her job (for maternity leave) and pay all the bills associated with it.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't and wouldn't ever consider human life punishment. I think birth is a miraculous and joyous occasion.[/QUOTE]

I'd prefer that you not spend time seeking to elevate the dialogue in the versus forums at the same time that your contributions, such as this one, amount to nothing more than an emotive response. It is, one might say, baseless.

EDIT

Speaking of which, the abortion is legally allowed to take place either in the womb or once it comes out, so I wouldn't put to much stock in that argument. See Partial-Birth abortions.
Click to expand...

You're playing a game of sleight of hand here, whether intentional or not. Suggesting that abortion happens after a fetus "comes out" grammatically places agency in a variety of places, so it almost seems as if you're saying "partial-birth abortions can legally occur just after birth."

The reality of late-term abortion (partial-birth is a framing issue from the anti-abortion crowd, one I will not condescend to using) is that it involves a surgical procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (IDX for short). It is also used to remove miscarriages that happen late into the term. In both cases, physicians are the agents; they induce dilation, and they remove the fetus. This is far different from your vague assertions in the quote above, so you're either unknowingly incorrect or deliberately misleading. But now you know, so it's all better, right?
 
[quote name='usickenme']And I wonder what is the penalty will be for masturbation? Sperm is alive, sperm is human, is it not?

Until Federal, State and local gov't recognize your "conception" day. Every effort to grant rights to the unborn is silly.[/QUOTE]

I never advocated any rights for sperm. Take your attack on someone else's position to them and not to me.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And I think it is also a reasonable and factual argument to say that significant emotional problems arise from unwanted pregnancies, the woman future success chances are significantly dimmed (especially with teens) etc. Because one causes risk (abortion) doesn't mean it's not safer than the alternative (childbirth). And because one causes emotional stress (abortion) doesn't mean it's worse emotionally than the alternative (raising an unwanted child). It all differs from person to person, you're argument requires a blanket assumption that child birth and raising unwanted children is less emotionally stressful than abortion.

And since you decided to throw in the killing child bit I have a question for you. Using scientific evidence can you tell me why I should be concerned about aborting a 3 week old embryo? It doesn't have brain waves, is not aware, doesn't think, doesn't feel pain, no one has any personal relationship with it (though I guess you could argue the mother, but she's the one who wants the abortion), it has no history etc. Unless you want to bring religious aspects into it (soul etc.), why should I be concerned? Imagine someone walks up to you and says "Hi, my name is Mr. Atheist. I saw you picketing the clinic. My girlfriend wants to abort her 3 week old pregnancy and I would like to know why that is wrong. Can you explain that to me?"[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that unwanted pregnancy is a source of mental anguish, just like abortion. However, my point was in response to the argument that abortion is completely safe and has no side effects, which is just factually incorrect.

And I think we've been all over this issue before, Alonzo, in previous topics, which is why I am restricting myself to new aspects of it rather than something we have already extensively discussed in the past, such as your arguments in the last paragraph.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Remind me again how you're not a Conservative in Libertarians clothing? Seriously.

I think it's especially absurd NOT to let an Incest victim have an abortion considering the physical or potent mental ailments that child could face throughout life, especially the fact that Conservatives and Libertarians would not consider picking up the tab for said persons medical bills.[/QUOTE]

I think you just want not to understand a logical position. If you can make a convincing argument of why a baby is not a baby because it was created through rape or incest, please let me know.

If like me you think that it is a baby, then obviously you can't logically advocate that he/she can be legally murdered just because he/she was created in the course of a crime. As the legislator pointed out, that would be blaming an innocent baby for the father's (or mother's) crime...in fact, executing he/she for it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The reality of late-term abortion (partial-birth is a framing issue from the anti-abortion crowd, one I will not condescend to using) is that it involves a surgical procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (IDX for short). It is also used to remove miscarriages that happen late into the term. In both cases, physicians are the agents; they induce dilation, and they remove the fetus. This is far different from your vague assertions in the quote above, so you're either unknowingly incorrect or deliberately misleading. But now you know, so it's all better, right?[/QUOTE]

The reality is that they deliver the baby except for the head, then the doctor takes scissors, stabs the baby in the back of his/her neck and kills him/her. Using the term "intact dilation and extraction" instead of "partial-birth abortion" is an attempt by those with a pro-abortion position to make this barbaric infanticide acceptable by obscuring what it really is behind something innocent-sounding.
 
[quote name='Msut77'] It is not something any woman should have to go through so some random wanker feels better.[/quote]

She shouldn't have to go through it for random wankers, she should want to go through with it for her child's sake.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']A woman giving birth to a baby born of evil seed would not consider it a miraculous occasion. Maybe joyous afterwards because it's out of her, but not miraculous. Nothing religious about birth.[/quote]

If that's how she feels, that's how she feels. Miracles aren't inherently religious based, though you are hereby given permission to substitute that adjective with "awesome" if you'd prefer.

I don't consider anything murder where the nature of the life depends solely on sucking the nutrients/blood from another living body. Maybe destruction, termination, etc, but abortion doesn't fit the definition of murder. At some point in time, the fetus is able to be transplanted from the womb to an incubator. However, prior to that point, the fetus is essentially a parasite in all forms of the word. If the woman decides to abort the fetus after that point, I really don't have that much sympathy. However, if it's 2 weeks in and she discovers that she's pregnant and wants to abort it, she has every right in the world to rid herself of what could be a tumultuous journey in devastation.
Click to expand...

Why's it different if she's killing it two weeks in or several months? Less guilt?

Be that as it may, again, if you'd prefer to look at human life with such disdain then whatever floats your boat. I refuse to take such a pessimistic viewpoint seeing as how that's how we all were at one point in time. I happen to know for a fact that 100% of abortion advocates are not in their mother's womb. In a somewhat perverse way, every abortion proponent is a hypocrite.

As opposed to the several thousands of dollars it costs to have monthly (or weekly) checkups and birth? If they don't have insurance and don't want the baby, it's certainly a lot easier to drop the bundle on an abortion rather than have to go through the hardships of pregnancy, quit her job (for maternity leave) and pay all the bills associated with it.
Click to expand...

I tend to avoid putting a price tag on human life, but a baby is a monumental responsibility. If she is unable to provide for it then she should by all means give it to a family that can. I want what's best for the child, not what's slightly more convenient for the mother.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']When you get back from you black and white fantasy world maybe you'll be able to look at this more realistically.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry we cannot concur on the, what I would assume, most basic right to an individual: life.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'd prefer that you not spend time seeking to elevate the dialogue in the versus forums at the same time that your contributions, such as this one, amount to nothing more than an emotive response. It is, one might say, baseless.[/QUOTE]

I consider protecting life to be more than an emotional response, but you asked me why I don't consider pregnancy punishment. I gave you my reason. This discussion has nothing to do with facts whatsoever, it was a purely subjective question to begin with. You know that, right?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I happen to know for a fact that 100% of abortion advocates are not in their mother's womb. In a somewhat perverse way, every abortion proponent is a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

That's a dumb argument. There aren't a lot of "keep abortion legal" people who are advocating every baby be aborted.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']She shouldn't have to go through it for random wankers, she should want to go through with it for her child's sake. [/QUOTE]


Thats how I feel about the woman in question getting the abortion.

It is not fair to either the mother or the future child to have to go through that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That's a dumb argument. There aren't a lot of "keep abortion legal" people who are advocating every baby be aborted.[/QUOTE]

What I meant was that those who support abortion didn't have the procedure done on themselves, yet they want women to have the choice to do it on other children.

Meh. I'm a big supporter of Jefferson's inalienable rights, I think every human being deserves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If there are those who support suspending one of them without a cause other than conveinence, I disagree with that. They weren't aborted nor would they want to have been, yet they would gladly support other children facing that fate. If you believe in equality, I think it's hypocritical.

[quote name='Msut77'] It is not fair to either the mother or the future child to have to go through that.[/quote]

No, it's not fair for the future child to have to go through death when they have done nothing wrong.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']They weren't aborted nor would they want to have been, yet they would gladly support other children facing that fate. If you believe in equality, I think it's hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
Silly argument. I've never had chemotherapy, yet I believe in its use. I've never been imprisoned, yet I believe in imprisoning criminals. I've never given birth, yet I believe in its practice.

I've never done a lot of things, so nobody else should be able to either?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you just want not to understand a logical position. If you can make a convincing argument of why a baby is not a baby because it was created through rape or incest, please let me know.

If like me you think that it is a baby, then obviously you can't logically advocate that he/she can be legally murdered just because he/she was created in the course of a crime. As the legislator pointed out, that would be blaming an innocent baby for the father's (or mother's) crime...in fact, executing he/she for it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah let's not forget that's not just a life support system, it's a human being feeding it too. If you're going to humanize the baby then how about we also remember there's someone else the baby is connected to.
Let's say the baby was born with one of those brittle bone diseases in which even a slight fall breaks a hip, or a leg, or both, would you really be so eager to admit a baby conceived of incest through then?
Also why SHOULD the mother have to carry the baby to term if she didn't willingly have sex? I don't get what's with you people, it's like as soon as the baby is conceived the woman forfeits all rights to her own body and gives them over to the fetus.
Ace pay attention I said INCEST, not rape though most of the time I would HOPE that that Incest would not be consetual.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What I meant was that those who support abortion didn't have the procedure done on themselves, yet they want women to have the choice to do it on other children.[/QUOTE]

Wow, just wow.

I now declare that since you never went through it either you no have longer the right to have an opinion on the subject.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I tend to avoid putting a price tag on human life, but a baby is a monumental responsibility. If she is unable to provide for it then she should by all means give it to a family that can. I want what's best for the child, not what's slightly more convenient for the mother. [/QUOTE]
As opposed to what's best for a woman? A woman who has to carry and give birth to a child that was unlawfully put into her is mentally devastating. It's also financially devastating. It can ruin someone's life. So, what you are deciding here is that a fetus is more important than a woman who was already born. Who care's if the woman's life is destroyed, if she's depressed, if she's ruined financially? So long as the baby is born, right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is not something any woman should have to go through so some random wanker feels better.[/QUOTE]

It is pretty stupid to quote yourself, but Ace of Bace and Prince dont seem to understand that this is reffering to them.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] I consider protecting life to be more than an emotional response, but you asked me why I don't consider pregnancy punishment. I gave you my reason. This discussion has nothing to do with facts whatsoever, it was a purely subjective question to begin with. You know that, right?[/QUOTE]
So we can be square on this: you demand the vs forum start adhering to a higher standard of factual discussion, except when you don't want to adhere to a higher standard of factual discussion?

What you ask for in your posts is highly contrary to what you ask others to do. Your reason is nothing more than an uninformed blanket opinion that overgeneralizes the entire reproductive system and all its contingencies.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']As opposed to what's best for a woman? A woman who has to carry and give birth to a child that was unlawfully put into her is mentally devastating. It's also financially devastating. It can ruin someone's life. So, what you are deciding here is that a fetus is more important than a woman who was already born. Who care's if the woman's life is destroyed, if she's depressed, if she's ruined financially? So long as the baby is born, right?[/QUOTE]

I think Ace would REALLY enjoy Ireland don't you capitalist? ;-)

What's really funny about Ireland is when Doctors Without Borders came the women seemed not to oppose it, it was the men. Hmmm. I guess what I'm saying is maybe when you're a woman maybe you can understand a bit more.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I agree with you that unwanted pregnancy is a source of mental anguish, just like abortion. However, my point was in response to the argument that abortion is completely safe and has no side effects, which is just factually incorrect.[/quote]

That's not what I said:

They also ignore scientific studies showing that abortion is safer than giving birth, particularly in the first trimester. When all abortions are combined (not just the safest) abortions are about 10 times safer than giving birth. Taken collectively, you face a much greater danger from penicillin than you do from having an abortion.
Click to expand...

Nowhere do I say, or suggest, there's no danger. I stated it's much, much safer when compared to the alternatives. My statement wouldn't really make sense if abortion was 100% safe.

And I think we've been all over this issue before, Alonzo, in previous topics, which is why I am restricting myself to new aspects of it rather than something we have already extensively discussed in the past, such as your arguments in the last paragraph.
Click to expand...

Well, it was mentioned since you added the baby killing part. But I think that's the 3rd time I've asked that specific question and I don't think you ever answered it in a scientific way, it's always an emotional appeal. If you have then it's not something I remember.
 
I'm sorry we cannot concur on the, what I would assume, most basic right to an individual: life.
Click to expand...

I have a 129.99 best buy gift card. It's yours if you can explain to me how every birth is a joyous occasion.

What I meant was that those who support abortion didn't have the procedure done on themselves, yet they want women to have the choice to do it on other children.
Click to expand...

Well, if I was aborted we wouldn't be having this delightful conversation, now would we? Then again if I was aborted I wouldn't care because I wouldn't be thinking about this.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I have a 129.99 best buy gift card. It's yours if you can explain to me how every birth is a joyous occasion.[/QUOTE]

Quality cigars?

PM me for my address. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top