South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts? - by fett
fett on 8/3/2006 at 20:51
Bah - that's not what's going on and you know it. :p
Fringe on 8/3/2006 at 22:27
Sure about that? In (
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_3554100) Utah:
Quote:
Incest is no exception to a father's right to know what's going on in his daughter's life.
That was the message from Utah lawmakers who refused Monday to make an exception for incest victims in a proposed law that would require parental consent and notification before a girl's abortion.
...
Peterson argued that parental notification "hasn't been a problem" for 30 years. Why would notification after a judicial bypass be a problem? "What we're trying to do is allow a parent a say in what happens in this youth's life," he said.
There are times when all the fuckin swear words in the world just don't say enough.
nickolae on 9/3/2006 at 20:45
First of all it's always awkward when people gather round to discuss political subjects, cause sometimes nice people like Strontium Dog lose their cool and begin to spew out the venomous emotion laden rhetoric he was programed to spew while he was in public school from his leftist, socialist teachers no doubt. Oh well , I must weigh in.
The whole ruling is a clever way for conservatives to get an abortion case before a conservative Supreme Court. South Dakota is by no means of nest egg of abortion with about 800 being performed in the state per year, a venerable drop in the abortion bucket. I think the terms of the ruling are a little too strict; not giving incest and rape victims a choice is sorta still up in the air for me. But here is where the controversy boils down to it's roots.
Barbary! Incest and Rape victims are targets! They have nowhere to turn! This is a crime against women everywhere! Is the battle cry from the Streisands and Kennedys, but what is really going on here with abortion? A mere glance at the facts tells a terrible story.
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
So 91.8% of women choose an abortion out of convenience. The harder you look you also see that only about 0-2.2% of Incest and Rape victims get pregnant and only 1% of those victims have an abortion.
Seems like the agenda is for women to kill the life of a child (or potential child what have you) out of convenience is pretty blatant. The core issue is that people don't take responsibilities for thier own actions. If you don't want to have a child cause you can't afford one, then don't screw around! Its that simple. And if you do get pregnant there are plenty of people who would love to adopt.
I got my stats from The Alan Guttmacher institute and About.com
Rug Burn Junky on 9/3/2006 at 20:54
Quote Posted by nickolae
The whole ruling is a clever way for conservatives to get an abortion case before a conservative Supreme Court.
You clearly have very low standards if that is what you think is "clever." Even the newly constituted court will have a hard time letting this piece of shit slide.
Quote:
Seems like the agenda is for women to kill the life of a child (or potential child what have you) out of convenience is pretty blatant. The core issue is that people don't take responsibilities for thier own actions.
If all you had to add was blatant trolling, then no, you really didn't have to fucking weigh in.
Is it too late to have you aborted?
Dia on 9/3/2006 at 20:56
Though I agree people need to act more responsibly about sex, I strongly disagree that anyone has the right to dictate what a woman is allowed to do with her body. Sorry nickolae; my body = my choice. Accidents happen.
If I would have known RBJ would respond, I wouldn't have bothered.
nickolae on 9/3/2006 at 21:45
So rug burn what is it you are trying to say? Sounds like more hate, you dont seem to dance to the tolerance montra too well. :D
Dai I too agree that the government meddeling in our lives so personally is dangerous territory. But I would have to disagree and say that when we speak of abortion there are two parties involved; the mother and the child. Who speaks for the child in these cases? Does an unborn child not have a right to it's own life? See, we put these ideals of womens right to choose and such on a pedestal and don't question them. I say, question everything.
I say abortion is morally reprehensible and is a crime against another human being. so the when the people stop governing themselves, and outside body must step in to impose order, hopefully for the short term so people can get their act together.
Dia on 9/3/2006 at 21:52
'k, I'm too tired to argue right now. Somebody call StD (meant, of course, in the nicest possible way).
nickolae; have you read through this entire thread? Pls. do. Thx.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/3/2006 at 21:57
Quote Posted by nickolae
So rug burn what is it you are trying to say? Sounds like more hate, you dont seem to dance to the tolerance montra too well. :D
hurrrr
You come in here trolling about "Women just want to kill children out of convenience" and try get off yapping your gums about tolerance?
Jigga please. Fuck off if you're going to be that blatant a hypocrite.
There are certainly anti-choice opinions with enough of a rational basis that they deserve "tolerance," but spewing simplistic shit that just twists the issue? That ain't fucking it.
nickolae on 9/3/2006 at 22:06
Rug Burn are you just gonna sit there and call me names and use foul language or will you man up and get some "open exchange of ideas" going on in this house?
and no Dai I didnt read this whole thread. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/3/2006 at 22:13
Man up?
please.
Here's the deal: You have a wackjob fringe opinion.
No. Seriously. You do. The majority of people in this country disagree with you. Basic understanding of constitutional law would force you to realize that there is a balancing of rights, responsibilities, interests and duties involved with respect to abortion. Is it possible that reasonable people can disagree at what points those competing interests work themselves out? Certainly.
But you haven't displayed even close to an ability of being able to recognize that. If you want to rethink the basis for your opinion, and come to the realization that it's not nearly as simplistic an issue as you're laying it out, then we can talk. I'm more than happy to deal with the complex issues involved, and frankly, I'm a hell of a lot more qualified to discuss it than you are.
But until you can get your simplistic rhetoric out of your head?
You ain't even worth shitting on.
