Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Nationally most support keeping abortion legal, though most oppose 3rd trimester abortions.[/quote]
I just wanted to see the statistic, which now that I have seen will gladly concede the point. Doesn't change the fact that the national public still hasn't had a say on the matter in any meaningful way.
Speaking of that monster:
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."
[quote name='mykevermin']65% of people don't want to see RvW overturned: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119[/quote]
Again, all I wanted was the statistic. I concede the point.
Nationally, of course I can't. The people of South Dakota only have as much voice nationally as the number of Senators and Representatives they have in Congress.
I just wanted to see the statistic, which now that I have seen will gladly concede the point. Doesn't change the fact that the national public still hasn't had a say on the matter in any meaningful way.
Ummm, no. You're completely and utterly wrong. That's so backwards that I'm actually a little embarassed for you drinking that kool-aid. That's Democratic mantra in is purest and most destructive form. The black community falls for it and have fell for it since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in the 1964 (which happened to be a great achievement as well that was filibustered by Senate Democrats) The Democratic party still has a former KKK member in their Congressional leadership for goodness sakes.As much as it's fashionable to make that argument, if you really want to look at the voting record you'll notice something interesting. Southern democrats were more likely to favor civil rights than southern republicans, and northern democrats were more likely to favor civil rights than northern republicans. That being the case, it's no wonder that the republican party took in many of those democrats. If it was the democrats opposing civil rights, and not the south, then you would find democrats (at least southern democrats) were more opposed to civil rights than republicans, but that isn't the case.
Speaking of that monster:
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."
Protected sex is never 100%, anyone will tell you that. The only way you don't get pregnant is through abstenience. Rape is an unfortunate practice, and I believe rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law and then some, but the baby shouldn't be punished for the crime. Only 4% of rapes even turn up pregnancies to begin with, it's not nearly as likely of a scenario as the spin doctors would have you believe.What responsibility should a woman have to accept who was raped, or was married and had protected sex but can't care for the baby? The reasoning for abortion is essentially to protect yourself, not to take from others. Now if you want to argue that they're taking someones life then fine, but it's a bad argument since many who undergo abortions do not agree, and therefore that argument doesn't apply to them. It's not your reasoning that matters, but theirs.
Again, I'd like to see where you got that abortions were just as likely to occur if they were illegal. I just cannot believe that woman would even go to the trouble of reporting it had they even done it illegally. If you want to argue that they'll go across the border and have it done, that's a different story.But making robbery and murder illegal in countries makes them significantly less likely to occur, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in rates when abortion is legal or illegal. I would guess (not based on evidence) that differences do occur when certain types of restrictions are in place, but when abortion is completely illegal (or only illegal in rare circumstances), there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in rates.
It's a deterrent. It's unfortunate we live in a society that thinks abortion should be an option, but I would agree that it isn't a perfect world. When the individual makes a stupid choice, the state has to make it illegal to defend the fabric of our society. The same ideas can be found in relation to speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc... These are limits on freedom meant to protect the public, in this case those that cannot defend themselves.Are you going to waste all that money on jails, the court system etc. to arrest people for crimes when such practices have absolutely no benefit to society at all? And only bring more harm? That is what you'd be doing here, unlike with murder and robbery.
[quote name='mykevermin']65% of people don't want to see RvW overturned: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119[/quote]
Again, all I wanted was the statistic. I concede the point.
That's the government we live under, the people elect their own representatives. Our representatives are de facto the voices of the people in a democratic republic like ours. If the people elected a congress that was 73% Republican, than that is the measurement of the state. Obviously it isn't perfect, but we don't run our government under a pure democratic ideal, do we?There are 25 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the South Dakota state senate: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/senrost.htm
There are 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats in the South Dakota state house: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/hourost.htm
So, while you want to claim that the bill passed handily, you can't generalize when you have a state congress that is 73% Republican and 27% Democrat, because that is clearly not the political makeup of the rest of the nation. Of course it passed; you have a congress that *may* be representative of South Dakota, but you can make no argument as to how such a congress is typical in this nation. I don't see any reason why the governor, you guessed it, a Republican too, won't sign it.
Nationally, of course I can't. The people of South Dakota only have as much voice nationally as the number of Senators and Representatives they have in Congress.
Oh, going to talk like a big man now? dafoomie didn't cite his source, you did. I had every right to question it just like you have every right to question any claim I make. The ing vanity of you people.Any way, what was that you were saying about numbers out of people's asses? Last I checked, 65% wasn't just a majority, but by the George W Bush standard of measurement, where 54% is a "mandate," 65% should make the motherer set in stone, no?
Spoken like a true liberal. For those that didn't feel like translating all of his needless verbosity, he basically said equality is inherently unequal. The reflection of the GOP rings true since it's inception as a party of equality despite the false reality you choose to pull over the eyes of the unattentive public. To glorifiy the Democratic party's platform over the scope of it's existance would be to say it's sent a mixed message about civil rights. From racist demagoguery to affimative action, the party will continue to keep the minorities down in one way or another until it changes it's policies. Either through supporting limits to basic freedoms or giving false privileges to folk based solely on color, it has always been a party of inequality.What a legacy those racist democrats were, no? Funny how the south, as an entity of itself, tends to vote pure red Republican these days, unless you count blacks. You guys totally stole Zell Miller, the last living dixiecrat, from us. Your lame political barb is a vestige of 40 years ago, and if more people could recognize the pisspoor enforcement of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act and it's kinfolk, the Fair Housing Amendment (though I must concede that the FHA was made virtually unenforcable through the efforts of Robert Byrd) make the ideology of a "color-blind" society one of the most absurd and ill-conceived notions of denying systematic racism at every level. anyway, that's not the topic at hand.
Without even knowing my age, as if it even made a difference other than to bloat your ego even more, you make a ridiculous statement that someone who is pro-life doesn't understand the process of abortion. Here it is for you: the child is killed. That's all that anyone needs to know about the process. Assumptions are many in a moral debate, one filled to the brim with ethical and emotional pandering on both sides. One thing is for sure, in all instances an abortion is done through convenience. Necessity only rings true in one of those instances, and thankfully this bill made exception for it.I think you are a very young child who has no idea how people get pregnant; the myth of the woman who wantonly has abortion after abortion after abortion, treating each episode more flippantly than the previous, is completely and totally unsubstantiated. Somehow, every last person who gets pregnant did soo because they didn't use protection, because they consented to sex, and because they are just completely and totally careless? Perhaps you could back that up with data, lest it end up on the scrapheap of useless stereotypes, alongside old classics like Ronald Reagan's quiet racism in the form of the "welfare queen." You make many presumptions about the circumstances of who goes to abortions clinics, and too many assupmtions about what they think (or don't think) prior to pregnancy and after the procedure. Too many assumptions for my taste.
No, there is no choice when a woman gets raped. There is, however, the choice over whether to keep the baby or give it up to one of the the many, many infertile couples desperate for a baby to call their own. Sex is, in all other cases, a choice. While those lacking foresight and careful behavior tend to have unwanted pregnancies more often, that is not the fault of the child or the state. If you aren't aware of the consequences and prepared to deal with them should they arise, it's foolish to participate in the practice. You take a risk, you understand the risk, you take responsibility. You cannot convince me that people just accidently get pregnant when they're eating an apple, they do it because they willingly made the decision to be in a situation where the can get pregnant.Did this bill prohibit abortions *even* in cases of rape/incest? So much for choice in those circumstances, eh? It's only a false trap because you don't like to discuss sex. Guess what? A majority of adults have sex, have multiple sexual partners, and some even get pregnant. The average age for first intercourse is 17 years; it's 18.5 for those who had "abstinence-only" education, but those people, while they may delay sex, are far less likely to use protection that those who had other forms of sex ed. There are plenty of things that people can do to reduce the spread of disease and pregnancy, and if you think that you can stop people from ing (which is a historically persistent sort of behavior, given that we're here), best of luck to you, and I hope you don't frustrate easy.
Why is it that you want to alter/prohibit/punish people for engaging in the one thing that they've proven themselves capable of doing for as long as humans have been around? You've chosen to take on a task in futility greater than climbing Mount Everest in your jockey shorts alone.