Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 6, 2006 - 02:16pm PT
|
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html
"The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest."
"About 800 abortions are done each year in South Dakota."
Will this all go to the Supreme Court and will Roe vs. Wade eventually be overturned?
So, if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she has to keep the child until it is born? And then does she have to raise and care for the child or if the child is not wanted, does it go to a children’s home or become adopted? What if the woman is not financially capable of raising a child? Who pays for it? If the woman clearly does not want the child in the first place, but cannot find a doctor who is willing to break the law, will she attempt the abortion herself, possibly injuring herself in the process? Is it really fair to a child to bring them into the world unwanted, without good parents who love and care for them?
Is this a religious matter?
Do we not have enough people on this planet already? WTF?
What do you think?
""In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement."
I think I’m going to be sick…
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
Good. Let's have the showdown now so that we know where we stand with the new Supreme Court.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Yeah, the showdown is coming and it won't be a pretty day for Roe v. Wade supporters.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Or Republicans as the country realizes how radical the they have become...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Because we are misers. All living for ourselves.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
If there's any integrity in the legal system, the law will be struck down at the local level on the basis that it doesn't comport with Roe v. Wade, and higher courts (including SC) won't hear it.
But the guys who drafted the SD law seem pretty smug, so I imagine they've come up with language that doesn't directly violate Roe... hafta wait and see.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
i am of the universe and you know what it's worth.
|
|
Astrologically, this conflict makes sense at this time. We are in a Saturn--Neptune phase. The principle of contriction, discipline, limitation, aligned with Neptune, which is in this context, the oceanic womb.
Breathe in, breath out. All of these events transpire in cycles.
Know which force is active, honor it, then free yourself from samsara.
|
|
yo
climber
NOT Fresno
|
|
The esteemed Governor Rounds:
Get ready for the shocker: He's a sweaty white man with a flag pin!
I'm checking on whether or not he has a uterus (not pictured)...
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
Hey Minerals, when we're done tipping greenies and bending strings this week let's go down to the clinic and kick the sh#t out of some sign yielding pro life enthusists.... Now that's a Nevada good time.
|
|
WoodyS
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I'll state my position first on abortion first so the following won't be misunderstood:I have no problems with abortion until the third trimester. Keep in mind that even the AMA has problems with abortion in the last trimester, but let's put that issue aside for now.
My issue with Roe is not a woman's right to abortion. Roe was bad law. Even liberal Constitutional scholars have admitted that.
Inventing rights Constitutionally that aren't in the Constitution is a very dangerous precedent. Keep in mind that both sides can do it; and in doing it, the integrity of the Constitution is eroded.
If Roe is overturned, the issue is turned back to the states; and each state will establish its own abortion laws. A study has already been done vis a vis this issue: thirty states will likely legalize abortion immediately; others will take more time and a few will make it illegal. The laws will of course vary, and that will make things a bit messy. They are messy now anyway.
I predict, further, that a move for a Constitutional Amendement will be initiated immediately if Roe is overturned. That is the way it should have been done initially; that's what the amendement process was put in the Constitution for by the Founding Fathers. Having judges write their own constitution as they see fit is an oligarchy. If we allow judges to willy--nilly do what they want irrespective of the Constitution; we might as well throw the Constitution away.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Woody I largely agree with you. The Roe decision is a bit contrived, constitutionally speaking. I like the outcome but question the legal reasoning.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
off topic?
anytime someone speaks of the constitution as a preeminent document declaring righteousness i am reminded that
many of the founding fathers that signed the constitution were slave owners and had varying opinions about whether slavery should be abolished.
|
|
spyork
Trad climber
Fremont, CA
|
|
I think this is a political power play. The repubnicants need a rallying issue for them. This war thing just aint going so well.
So instead of 'Save the Iraqis', now its 'Save the Babies'.
So you are going to force a woman to bear the child of a rapist. I wonder how much power this woman feels she has. I think a bunch of men telling a woman what to do with her body is akin to slavery.
I like kids (most of the time), I have two of them at home. I put in the time and effort to raise them, and there are many times I would rather not work, but I stay the course. Without someone or a pair of someones to love and care for them, kids face an awful hard life. This save the unborn baby crap is just that, crap. A child is a responsibility that doesnt end at 18 years, you carry it until your grave. A child faces a hard road with two parents that care. Lets see, the child of a victim of rape, maybe she hates the child, hates the system that forced her to bear it.
I have no respect for these so called 'Christians'.
And I agree, there are wayyy too many people on this planet, and more coming every day. Yeah, my wife and I replaced ourselves, we are a part of the problem...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Agreed Dingus, but the process of how we get there is important too. One of the problem with Roe is that it is a bit vulnerable because it is based on case law rather than statute or the Constitution. It's a less robust law as a result.
|
|
imnotclever
climber
|
|
Time to open an abortion clinic in Luverne, MN. 30 minutes from Souix Falls. (Plus they have climbing there.)
|
|
George_W_Bush
Big Wall climber
Crawford, TX
|
|
"So, if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she has to keep the child until it is born?"
So, is it a life or not? That is the question. If it is a life, then it should not be aborted. If it isn't, or some politicians/judges deem it NOT to be a life, then they have to live with that decision.
I only regret that the bill to ban abortions hasn't come across my desk.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Sonora, California
|
|
In the abstract WoodyS is right. Looked at by itself Roe is odd - the Constitution protecting the right to abortion? But looked at in context its easy to understand. Roe comes from a long line of cases dealing with privacy and personal decisions. Of these, perhaps Griswold v. Connecticut is the most famous. Its a good example. It was decided in the early 1960s. The state of Connecticut had outlawed the use of birth control devices. Imagine that! the US Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's law, finding that although this type of personal issue wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, if the protection of Amercan citizen's personal liberty meant anything at all this type of decision was protected. The justices famously found that although the Constitution wasn't specific, the right to make fundemental decisons regarding ones person was a "penumbra," or an element of the Constitution - albiet one which was not in the written document. Once such a no brainer is decided, it becomes the law of the land. Its easy to move on to other, similar rights from there. Roe did so.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
There is a small item in law that is "different" from back in the days before Roe vs. Wade happened. And that is, now it is much more difficult for a man to evade financially supporting a child they create.
Before Roe vs. Wade, if a woman got pregnant and the guy wanted no part of it, there wasn't a whole lot a person could do. Nowdays, there are court orders that will garnish paychecks. And they don't wait until it's a crisis to do so.
Personally, I don't think abortion will be criminalized. I think this country has had just about enough of the insanity that's taken wing over the last several years. But, I will be interested to see the difference in how things play out, should abortion become illegal, with regard to this difference. Will child support laws get changed to reflect a more lax attitude in some instances? Will we see men fighting for custody of these fetus'? Will we see women SUEING the fathers, insisting they take joint custody, as opposed to placing the children for adoption? Will we see advocacy for "homes for pregnant women" again, and how will that play ut - taxes gonna pay for it? Or are the churches going to step in and "get those babies good homes," ie: sell them to those who can afford the adoption fees for this influx on healthy white babies. What's going to happen to those "less desireable" babies; the ones now finding homes, who won't be first pick, if a blond, blue-eyed, 10 fingers and toes child can be had?
It's pretty sickening, the whole thing, in my opinion.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Until birth when child can exist on it's own outside of a woman's body this is a clear case where every conservative should be saying "get and keep government out of our lives...". A woman's body is her own and no one else's. The hypocrisy of the Right is it wants to pick and choose when government imposes on our lives. If you think there is the government has any right to impose on a woman's body prior to birth (privacy) or to define life as other than birth then I would suggest that your vaunted "right to bear arms" rests on such a pathetically weak and grossly dubious interpretive foundation that you should not be at all surprised if and when government decides you can't in fact, bear arms. You should also not be surprised if the government decides it has every right to explicitly define what "arms" are and when and where "arms" can be borne. There is no difference whatsoever, so be careful when you zealots want the the government in the business of specifically defining who, what, when, and where regardless of the issue. The government could at any time just as easily define "arms" to be those arms available at the time of the signing and "militia" to mean the State and Federal security and armed forces.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Dingus, I'd rather not see it overturned either. I like the outcome.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!