The Great Debate: Abortion

[Graphite]

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.



linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html)

Woah.....
That was fast.

So from the sound of it, the South Dakota Senate passed a bill that is not only illegal (so I thought) but to directly challenge Roe v Wade now that Alito is head of the Supreme Court. I didn't see a thread yet, so decided to create one for Abortion. What are your thoughts, what you think should happen, and what you think will happen.

[MaligneFamily]

It's a natural fact that women are inferior to us and should have less rights. Not to mention how could we say no to the moral majority.




Bah, I feel as though we are living in a country ruled by clerics.

[coldcut]

Quite frankly I think Roe vs. Wade needs to be revisited. It was a horrible decision that attached a number of civil liberties to a political hot potato with religious overtones, and has since been used a political bludgeon that's destroyed political discourse in this country.

[Poison]

The country is being ruled by clerics. And stupid ones, too. ;)

Anyway: a woman's body, a woman's right. Too long to draft it all out once again, but in a nutshell: I'm pro-abortion.

[Larke]

what's the point, they're part of the united states, sheesh, the women would just go to another state. Dumbasses.

[Masked Revenger]

what's the point, they're part of the united states, sheesh, the women would just go to another state. Dumbasses.

The point is that it will bring the law to the Supreme Court, where the newly appointed conservative judges then have an opportunity to turn over Roe v Wade.

Chris

[MaligneFamily]

As long as no amendment passes against it, I'm pretty certain people will eventually come to their senses.... there was a reason Roe v. Wade was there...

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Overturning Roe V Wade just moves it back to the state. I beleve Roe V Wade was prosecutied on the Texas anti abortion statues being too vauge and that they violated Roe's privacey rights as outlined in the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendment. I've heard Roe called bad law, but its settled.

I wouldn't be suprised if several folks got the suprise of their conservitive life if the South Dakota law, which is very specfic , comes in front the high court. I don't see Roe V Wade being over turned, and I certainly see Doe V South Dakota ruling in favor of Doe. Abortion as an act is decided, abortion as it relates to the rights of all involved. I don't know, I'd think father's rights would be the scarier challange.

[Xanatos]

If they make it illegal then people will just have it done illegally. Black Market, dangerous areas with much higher risk to the mother of the child being aborted. Furthermore, children will be abandoned at birth, which could lead to infant mortality or orphanage. The latter of which will place a monetry burden on the government. I can see no benefit to makeing abortion illegal.

If the American Government want to put their population in danger purely to impose a religious ethic, then i've lost what little respect I had for the American Government.

[Akamaz]

you had respect for our government?


I just know i'm voting for Mr. Kain in 2008...

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Once again, The American Goverment never told people what to do about abortion. The American people did. The laws varied from state to state and were generally reflective of the community. Roe V Wade declaired the Texas Statutes to vague and to intrusive into the lives people. Abortion became guarenteed on a privacy issue.

Repealing Roe V Wade would push it back to the states. The South Dakota (dakkotta? I never get that right) is very specfic. "No form of abortion is legal in South Dakota." When it makes it to the high court, that will decide the issue. Does Roe's privacy based ruiling override South Dakota law. Did South Dakota get around the vagueness in the Texas laws. Semi-intresting stuff, but I think most of the serious neo-cons are in for a surprise if they think the court will rule to weaken Roe v Wade. Still it gives the liberals something to whine about and make huge moral equivlency arguements about the evil republicans. So it should be fun theatre.

Remember people, basic west wing. Fundmental Islamic is to Islam as XXX is to Christainity.

McCain/Bayh 08

[MaligneFamily]

South Dakota made the law too specific... Banned even pregnancies of rapes.

I'm pretty hopeful it will get shot down.

[Remianen]

As an update to this, the South Dakota (that is the correct spelling, Jack :)) governor, Mike Rounds, signed the combined bill into law back in March (http://cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/index.html?eref=sitesearch). But, a series of legal challenges held it up and now it's on the ballot of the Nov. 7th elections in the state. Doesn't mean it's not going to be passed and if it IS passed, it will be represented as "the will of the people of the great state of South Dakota".

I dunno, this just seems to scream 'seperation of church & state' to me. Morally, I'm pro life and thus, if in that situation, I'd vote to keep the child. But my vote wouldn't (and shouldn't, really) be the only one that matters. Politically, I'm pro choice because I don't believe the government has any business mandating what its citizens choose to do with their bodies. Plus, since women are not equally represented at ANY legislative level in the country, there is an inherent unfairness to a bunch of men telling a woman what she must do with 9 months of significant changes to her body.

Besides, making abortion illegal is only going to affect the poor and lower middle class. Everyone else can easily afford to jump north to Canada or hop on a plane to Europe to have the procedure done. And when I say 'easily', I mean that literally. Only costs like $300 to fly into London (helps to have a travel agent friend but it's not necessary with Expedia & Travelocity. Just takes more work on your part) or $480ish into Paris or Amsterdam and hell, Canada's driving distance from much of the continental US. This whole movement seems to be a naive attempt by people who have no idea of how the world really works. This isn't 1973. The world has shrunk due to inexpensive travel and oh boy, the unregulatable, irrepressible Internet.

Politicians seem to be a very stupid bunch.

[Malibu Sally]

Politicians seem to be a very stupid bunch.
"Seem to be"? :eyebrow:

[Remianen]

"Seem to be"? :eyebrow:

Yeah. I can't say they're all stupid because, generally speaking, only the stupid/crazy ones get any press coverage. Those with moderate/mainstream viewpoints whose voting records mirror common sense (or what most people would consider common sense) aren't ever covered by the mainstream media. But they seem to be such a minority that their votes only count when deadlock issues are involved. And even then, they don't specifically get covered, it's always "the party leadership" that gets the spotlight.

I'm a bit different though since I know quite a few political figures and my godfather was an 8-term Congressman who retired recently. I've also worked on a few campaigns so I kinda have a better idea than most on how the process runs. They're not all bad (just like every female teacher isn't "molesting" male students), it's just that the ones who aren't nuts (or attention whores) don't warrant press coverage.

[Malibu Sally]

... it's just that the ones who aren't nuts (or attention whores) don't warrant press coverage.
Yeah I know. I'm just a bit over exposed the nutty and/or evil ones. You see, I live in the Florida's 13th congressional district. Yep... the home of Crazy Kat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501640.html). That tends to sour my opinion of all politicians. Can you really blame me? :yoy:

[Solario]

A guy on another messageboard had a pretty good arguement why abortion should be made legal (seeing as it's should be the individual's choice not everybody else's) "The way I see it, no one should be forced (legally required) to donate their body to another person, even if the other person's life depends on it. We don't legally require people to give blood or be organ donors; we shouldn't force women to carry pregnancies to term. If you think abortion is immoral, great, don't have one (and get your ass over to the Red Cross to give some blood!), but lobbying to make it illegal is like vegans trying to get pepperoni pizza banned."

[Endless One]

The interesting thing about making it illegal to have or give an abortion...no one makes people who don't want one have an abortion. Their religious standing and moral sense of responsibility isn't being pushed. Basically what they're saying is that people who don't agree with them are bad. I hate that. And funny how a majority popular vote will make abortion illegal but can't elect a president. Then again this is in a country where its harder to adopt a cat than it is to buy a gun. O_o

[Meltman]

Yeah, it is pretty hard to get some pussy....cats these days.

(I'm sorry. :cry: )

[Maveric]

Why does the phrase "you're a load that should have been swallowed" come to mind?

---> directed at no one in particular...

[Dark AngelHawk]

Honestly in my opinon and I know this might seem morally wrong but I think it should be legal. I think of it on this point of view: There are way too many people in this world as it is right now, too many ignorant parents(not saying anyone here is) raising kids which in turn raise their own kids and so on. Not only that but we are taking too much space up now from the Earth, not to mention food and preicous living quarters for animals. Personally I think we should have an IQ test on parenting mandatory before you can have a child. I think that would help the world in reality to have better parents. Also I like the law they have in china, but I think 3-4 kids max is the better way to go. Sorry if I offended anyone for that was not my intention, I just want a better world for us all to live in and we have to realize that we, as humans, are begining to overcrowd it. I, myself, am indifferent on having children. Well there's my 2 cents worth. Thanks for listening. :)

Edit: Forgot to put in that if you are raped I think abortion should be ok by all means! I mean who wants to keep a kid that they got from being raped? How horrible is that for both the child and the parent?

[Knightward]

Agreed for the most part.

As I've noticed many smart people coming from not-so intelligent households, and truly moronic people coming from considerably educated and wealthy households, I wouldn't be so big on IQ tests, although I'd be all for some kind of parenting training. There are unfortunately a lot of people who really don't know what they're getting into with parenthood, and as you noted with the human population, I think at some point they are going to have to put in some kind of regulations.

The key thing that seems to be missed in everyone going nuts over abortion is just because you make something illegal doesn't stop it from being done. It just stops any regulations and safety in the procedure. People were having back-alley abortions long before they became legal and if it's made illegal (and extremely difficult to find a safe means of doing so elsewhere) it'll happen again.

And yay to Gurus for being calm and collected with what is normally an infuriatingly heated subject! :thumbup:

[Jade]

As I've noticed many smart people coming from not-so intelligent households, and truly moronic people coming from considerably educated and wealthy households, I wouldn't be so big on IQ tests, although I'd be all for some kind of parenting training. There are unfortunately a lot of people who really don't know what they're getting into with parenthood, and as you noted with the human population, I think at some point they are going to have to put in some kind of regulations.

I have two comments for you that I think you're missing.

1) You never know what you're getting into with parenthood. I thought I was ready... I was wrong. There isn't a single parent that knows what they are doing really. Even if you have more than one kid, it's never the same thing, because every kid is different.

2) Parent classes i think are relativly useless. I've been to a couple, and didn't get much. Parenting is so subjective, that it's nearly impossible to teach. If you really want to help parents, teach them anger management, money management, and oganization skills. Those are the three things that most parents could use help with.

That is all... carry on :)

[Plasma Wisp]

Only in the United States, can a man born and better suited to govern what time the vanilla pudding is served at the "home"

IS IN CHARGE OF THE INTERNET!

(series of tubes indeed.)

[Endless One]

I have two comments for you that I think you're missing.

1) You never know what you're getting into with parenthood. I thought I was ready... I was wrong. There isn't a single parent that knows what they are doing really. Even if you have more than one kid, it's never the same thing, because every kid is different.

I couldn't agree more, D. Amazing how much less secure I feel about my own childhood now that I know my mother had no idea what she was doing. That said, I came from a socially underprivelaged background and managed to make it and make a life that's better for my child than mine was in spite of my status as a single parent. We do what we can. But just because I'm a happy mom, doesn't make me an expert on someone else as a parent. Freedom of choice is what makes us more civilized than our forefathers.

2) Parent classes i think are relativly useless. I've been to a couple, and didn't get much. Parenting is so subjective, that it's nearly impossible to teach. If you really want to help parents, teach them anger management, money management, and oganization skills. Those are the three things that most parents could use help with.

That is all... carry on :)

Parenting classes...yeah, I also agree with this and will add to this. I love how people want to impliment plans without any idea how we'd fund such a thing. I WISH there had been a class that could have told me how to do this difficult job I love so much. But you can't teach common sense. The place to educate is girls and boys before they're sexually mature. Teach them to respect others and themselves. I chose to use birth control because of such values, even if I didn't make the choice to abstain.

The fact of the matter is, long term, abortion is less expensive financially. I'm not saying its right or wrong. I'm saying its not up to any group of men in suits to decide what goes on in a uterus.

[Knightward]

Hey, you guys would know far better than I what would be something that could be trained/should be trained on the subject. Like the people debating and making decisions on abortion I don't have firsthand experience in the matter. Unlike them I'm only tossing ideas out.

[SykOgUrL]

Here's my opinion on the subject of abortion in general:

I'm pro choice. I'm not pro-life or pro-abortion--I'm pro CHOICE. What people keep forgetting in these great debates is that there isn't just an option between carrying a fetus to term or aborting it--adoption is also a choice here. Women have the right to make the choice, yes...but it should be an educated, well-informed choice. I am an adopted child myself, and lemme tellya'...I'm pretty darned glad nobody aborted me. Then again, I've known women who truly did have no other option than to terminate their pregnancy. My point, really, is that people don't seem to look at adoption as a a real option in this, and find themselves limiting their choices to a matter of "life or death". There are so many couples out there who are unable to conceive on their own...looking...waiting...hoping against hope to adopt a baby. The waiting lists for those couples are utterly insane.

It's about informed CHOICES...and all of those choices should be made readily available to women, along with the information.

*cough* Uh...just my opinion and all.

[Graphite]

Yay. This news on the eve of the 300 Millionth American.
Agree completely with Solario and Dark Angelhawk on this one.

It amazes me how the party of small government and fiscal responsiblity has grown. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave knowing that our government now has so much power over the people. One of the prinicples this country is built on is the diversity of ideas and the freedom to live out your life as YOU see fit. This is borderline tyranny. Tyranny by the majority, one party, or a king, is tyranny none the less.

On a personal stance, I'm prochoice. Sex isn't just about having fun, but also creating life and so we have the moral responsiblity to that power. We really don't know when life begins, so I feel God's Will onto my life mixed with good olde fashion darwinism should be allowed to take its shape. However that is my decission from one small mind frame. Who the fk am I to try imposing that opinion onto something else, especially such a life effecting event as childhood. Its a big decission and should be left to the INDIVIDUAL.

Anyone read Ringworld? I'm seriously thinking thats the way to go. Everyone is entitled to a child, special people with unique talents can have one more (which may be impossible to define), if you want one more must enter in a Mortal Kombat death battle, then the remainder goes into the lottery system. Would certainly help filter out the stupid people who keep making more babies that they don't/can't raise.

Disclaimer:
This post should not be read seriously by anyone. The intent is ment to be over the the top in order to bring light hearted humor towards a complex social political issue. If you had to read this disclaimer in order to determine any of this, then simply ignore the preceeding. Idiot.

[Remianen]

SykOgUrL, I've worked in the adoption system and you underlined the problem inherent to the process:

There are so many couples out there who are unable to conceive on their own...looking...waiting...hoping against hope to adopt a baby.

See the problem now? The reason adoption isn't generally considered as likely a solution as abortion is because adoption costs "the system" money. If a child isn't adopted by their 3rd birthday, their chances of being adopted plummet. These folks on waiting lists aren't angels either. I've seen couples turn down a child because of minor issues in the mother's family history (heart disease, drug use by the grandmother, etc). In the meantime, the state has to pay to feed, clothe, and support these children and we all know how fantastic the foster care system is in this country. I'm pretty sure NBC isn't the only network running features like Wednesday's Child (http://www.wnbc.com/wednesdayschild/index.html) and it's not a fluff segment. There's a real need for people to adopt children that aren't babies any longer.

Mind you, I think that adoption should be held on par with the other choices. However, with abortion being the path of least resistance, it's a bit more practical than carrying the child to term then "giving it away" (which, right or wrong, is the perception in many places/subcultures). Plus, the current climate in adoption circles is biased against single parents (no matter what their resources) as well as gay couples. As a guy who grew up with 6 moms (my mother, grandmother, and 4 aunts), I don't see anything particularly wrong with that and feel that my experiences under the thumb of so many positive female examples, made me a better man overall. As it stands now, a man and a woman with a certain piece of paper that says nothing about the strength of their relationship, have an exponentially greater chance of successfully adopting a baby than anyone else. There's a reason the surrogate industry is growing, after all.

And honestly, the fact that South Dakota banned abortion is, in and of itself, totally meaningless. I mean, how many Americans even know where South Dakota IS? (And 'south of North Dakota' isn't an acceptable response :P) Call me when a state with an actual business center (national or international) does it.

[Gold Rush]

There are so many couples out there who are unable to conceive on their own...looking...waiting...hoping against hope to adopt a baby. The waiting lists for those couples are utterly insane.



I think EO made the comment about it is easier buying a gun and harder to adopt a cat? The same thing with adoption. I have heard of many parents on waiting lists that are given the third degree. Mind you, you do need some sort of background check and I can't fault agencies for making sure children go to good parents, but there can be times agencies are too strict.

Plus the fact that funding can be hard to come during some politically climates. Add to that some Orphanages and Foster Homes can actually turn more harmful for a kid in some cases (again, the idea of untrained parents, or abusive-manipulators at worse). Maybe sprinkle on the fact that the majority of adopters want babies/young toddlers and no one too old, then you have a few problems.

Still, even with these problems, I have no problem with the institution of adoption. It's not a perfect system, but at least it is there.

My opinion on Abortion and some other related general issues is this : there are certain people, they tend to be religious, but a good portion are not, that want to make a Utopia on earth. Now, this is a fine goal. Heck, the fact that we play CoH kinda harkens to a heroic ideal : We want to make the world better. It is a worthy goal to pursue.

HOWEVER

One has to be realistic. Life is rough. It has been since forever. Choices are made. Things happen. What people do not realize, is while Utopia is tempting, there IS no utopia. All most of us can do is take care of ourselves, those around us, and maybe help out now and again when something, such as a natural disaster happens. Things will intrude on a real Utopia, be it simple dying of old age, a child dying from a tumor, someone else's opinion over your lifestyle, and a whole host of other possibilities too long to mention. None of these things are pleasant or good. We all want to protect, but there is a time when things need to happen. Sometimes this pain hurts us deeply. We don't want others to go through the pain we did, but is this right? Will some politician use this cause and go further with it in some unforseen direction?

There are enough laws on our personal freedoms, either because politicians know they make good "button pushers" that get out the vote, they are misguided laws, or one segment wants to bring other segments "in line with their beliefs".

================================================== =======

Gold Rush

[Gold Rush]

Dang, Rem covered one point I made while I posted, but he did so in more detail. Ah well. :) Least I wandered a bit in my post.

=========================================

Gold Rush

[MajorMarvel]

heres my stance on it.
if the kid has a defect. a lifethreatening defect. Then its ok. its a mercy killing
If the kid is the result of a Rape. Then its ok.

But any other reason, I'm against it. Sex is fun but its responsible fun as all fun should be responsible. if you get a baby, your stuck with it. and theres no Rusty Coat Hanger to change that. You cause the kid. The Kid Lives. Theres always adoption.

thats my liberal opinion to satisfy the pro life and pro choice parts of me

[Graphite]

South Dakota Abortion law shot down:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.measures.ap/index.html