South Dakota Bans Abortions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
286

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
And you call me a clown?

Maybe if you took off the red nose and floppy shoes?

The post you had no comment on was a very reasonable post… have you no ability to talk to the points raised?

It doesn’t even deserve a comment! You want me to actually tell you why I think comparing Human Beings to animals is ridiculous? We are just another animal in your view? If you think that is reasonable, that is your opinion. Of course it IS the natural outgrowth of your evolutionary beliefs. You know, if you can kill a cow for a McDonald’s hamburger, then how can you complain about killing an unborn baby…

…again, you call ME a clown…

…take care Bozo :-)[/quote]

Ahhh,

you don?t like the implications of an idea and therefore the idea must be wrong…

“weil, so schliesst er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf…”

Wilhelm Busch

287

[quote]ZEB wrote:

That’s not the problem? Tell that to the 50 (or so) million babies that have died because some thought abortion was a good idea and it became law.

[/quote]

just what we need an extra 50 million people in this world… you know they’d all be training chest on Mondays and its hard enough to find an open bench as it is.

There are way to many f-ing people on this spinning rock. and they are all in front of me in traffic talking on their goddamn cell phones. and if anyone has any grand plans on how to take out 50 million more let me know.

and for the former president Ronald Regan …

yes…please do indulge me… not that Im a PETA freak animal rights activist or anything but I always find these delineations to be a bit arbitrary and elitest. Plus there’s always the bonus that I get a kick out of listening to conservative christians thump on their bibles… Really though,…I really am curious as to what is so special about 23 pairs of chromosomes.

and lastly…

I know this an inferrence but it feels like a safe one… am I to gather from this that you do not believe in evolution? as in you believe in creationism?? because if you do Im going to shoot myself in the head… for 2 reasons mind you… the first being to annoy you with the precious loss of life… and secondly … because I would never have read all 12 pages of this thread if I knew that you had surrendered your ability for rational thought in favor of rigid belief in a thousand pages of allegory and metaphor written more than two millenia ago.

It’s the same lot of people who get all tweaked talking about the sanctity of the constituion and the bill of rights, YA-fucking-WN…The infinitely wise founding fathers blah blah blah… just some dudes who happened to have boats and half rotted syphilitic brains… think Lake Havesu at spring break… still impressed??

nice choices there spanky

and just think… I could’ve gone to bed early tonight

288

[quote]Professor X wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

[THIS IS AN ARGUMENT ONLY – I DON’T BELIEVE IN THIS, BUT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT I AM STATING THE FOLLOWING]

So if I owned my own business, and I wanted to hire only white males for the various jobs, you would have no problem with that because that would be MY CHOICE to make, and obviously from your posts you believe that nobody else has the right to force their choices on my choices, right?

Dude, do yourself a favor and read this fucking thread. Your point has been answered because, guess what, it is not original. Quit repeating shit.
[/quote]

Unlike you, I don’t have time to sit here and pour over every word that might have been said. So what if this point was made before? I am making it now. Can you answer the question? Perhaps you are afraid to, because I have you in a bit of a quandry. You see, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

If a woman has a “right” to excercise her opinions as it applies to “her life” and “her body” or “her business,” then I would have to have that same right, even though YOU might not agree with it. However, clearly, in the scenerio that I set up you would definately before IN FAVOR of the governemtn telling me that I cannot do this, and therefore you CANNOT ANSWER without seeming really really foolish.

Sorry, Prof. but your logic doesn’t add up, no matter how many four-letter words you use in your response…

289

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Prof. X, I think that YOUR logic is faulty here…

“Biological control” – is this what was once called “motherhood” had degenerated to? As much as the pro-abortion (or if you want to say the pro-choice)advocates wish to couch this debate in terms of a woman having control over “her own body,” in reality the debate is about a woman having the ability to kill her unborn baby.

I am not “PROabortion”. I am PROCHOICE. I have no intention of promoting the idea that abortions are great. However, I am completely against the idea that it is YOUR business what every woman chooses to do with her body.

Pro-choice = Pro-abortion because you allow for the choice to kill.

Ridiculous logic! A newborn baby is not its own viable entity either, but I am sure nobody would advocate that a woman has a right to kill it. Therefore, just because the baby needs the womb to incubate and grow, he or she is free game to kill? What sense is this?

Common sense along with the scientific knowledge that a ZYGOTE is not a baby or a newborn. It is a group of cells that each could potentially form the exact same genetic structure. It is a factory producing every gene that could POTENTIALLY form a baby. This is also the point at which the cells could split off and form twins and also the point at which clones have been made. That means for you to call this “a baby” is illinformed. It has the potential to be one, two, three or more different clones with the same genetic structure, but it is not a baby.

OK, it is not a baby. It is a “pre-formed” HUMAN BEING with as much right to live as you or I. Why can’t you see that? Calling it a ‘group of cells,’ might salve your conscience, but a human being is a human being – either before birth.

Also, 50 years ago, the “age of viability” was much much longer than it is today. Millions of premature children are living today due to increased medical ability to care and nuture these children. Who is to say that the age of viability will not continue to go down? Then what would be the excuse here?

There is a huge difference between aborting a fetus that can not survive on its own within the first trimester and aborting after that point. There would also be a huge ethical delimmma if babies could be regularly incubated artificially outside of the womb considering the potential for exploitation. I remind you again of the ability to clone individuals. These concepts are not science fiction any longer.

My point exactly – we are heading for an ever reduced “age of viability.” So if this is the criterion for and if a fetus is a “baby” then I am saying quite clearly that medical science is redrawing these lines right now!

Prof X – c’mon! Most abortions are not about aborting “zygotes.” Nice try to deflect the real argument, but the TRUTH of the matter is that by the time a woman (or girl) figures out she is pregnant, the baby really looks like a human being – because (I’ll let you in on a secret) – he or she is!. Nobody is aborting their zygotes, they are aborting (killing) their children, which is despicable.

It is not your choice to decide where that line should be cut off. It should be looked at scientifically to avoid the use of personal religious beliefs as the soul reason to control the choices of others.

Totally disagree! The people of the several states have every right to draw that line for the people of that state. This is what the Constitution says despite the ridiculous 1973 decision which decided that the Founders (who were for the most part either true Bible-believers or God fearers) actually intended for a woman to have this “right.” C’mon – “emanations from penumbras…” Need we say more???

So laws protecting people from looking at some naked nut job wandering on the streets are OK, but laws to prevent killing of one’s unborn children are not? Huh???

Prove that a fetus is a viable child that can survive on its own.

I already dealt with this and showed that this is a strawman argument. The age of viability is decreasing, so this cannot be the criterion that we should be looking at.

Until you do, your argument is strictly from your own personal morals or values and nothing more. That is not justification enough to control every other person who disagrees with you unless those who agree with you are the overwhelming majority.

Really? We do it all the time. A person has every “right” to take the position that killing a sick loved one is OK. The state says it is not. Guess what – Dr. Kevorkian is in prison right now (AS HE SHOULD BE). Moral decisions are made by the legislatures all the time and enacted into Law. This is nothing new – you only want to take away that right (which IS a right granted by the US Constitution) away from the people of the several states and say that all women have a right to terminate the lives of their unborn babies. How very very sad…

You know, I almost cannot believe men on a website dedicated to improving our health and strengthing our bodies would be so for abortion, which is the antithesis of what we are all about here at T-Nation.

Quit the bullshit.

Ditto to you…with all due respect Prof. X…

Keeping government or the general public from controlling every aspect of human choice and decision is what I believe in. You live by your morals and uphold them. I live by mine. I am not PRO-abortion. I am pro-keeping you and everyone else out my personal business as much as humanly possible.
That signifies pro-CHOICE, which to me, means above all worry about yourself more than you worry about everyone else. Work on increasing sexual awareness in youth. Work on teaching birth control practices. Work on helping the millions of children already alive who are living in unbelievably bad conditions. Work on social programs designed to help these situations. How much volunteer work have you done in between fussing about what other people can or can’t do?

Quite a bit actually? Would you like an estimate of the hours over the past 10 years or so? I could give it to you if you wish…

How many kids have you mentored?

About 22 during the past 3 years or so…

I know what I have done on these issues, and I seriously doubt that the majority of the people making so much noise about controlling what all women do are doing the same.

Well, in my case, you are WRONG…but I really don’t like to toot my own horn, if you know what I mean Prof…

There are kids already on this planet not getting the attention they deserve. They should be getting priority over some half assed concern that apparently only encompasses the point up to which a baby is born and then it gets silenced into “fend for yourself” or “poor people are lazy”.

Nothing like playing the “poverty card” Prof. You pro-abortion (oh, excuse me) Pro-‘choice’ libs always take the argument back to how we should be giving more money from the rich and give it to the poor…nothing like a good 'ol government sponsored “Robin Hood.”

Hey, didn’t you just say that you were AGAINST government getting into our lives. Apparently, you and the rest of your liberal friends have no problem with government in other people’s wallets!

Think about it BEFORE you knee-jerk reply to this post, Prof. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person, but you are dead wrong on the issue at hand. Morally, ethically, and constitutionally…
[/quote]

Ok, one o=point i must make here.

when you say that a child can live at earlier and earlier stages of gestation, you are right, but not on its own. Through heroic intervention it is possible for a 23 weeker to survive, such has medical knowledge come along.

However, this should not be used as a justification for anti abortion, it is a non argument.

Why? Well, neonates born at such early gestations will be impared developmentally, cerebrally as well as somatically. Sometimes, terribly. Then this is a quality of life issue, which is of great debate, so i wont go there.

I work with neontologists, and they are duty bound to assist neonates at these stages, and do a wonderful job. But all that i speak to and ask, should we because we can(?) state that this is a moral question they often discuss (but will sureley never be answered) because of the ramifications to that child in the short, medium and long term, maybe a life in hispital or of crippling cerebral malformation.

Bottom line is that if you dont heat, ventilate, CPAP (respiratory support), humidify and generally go to great lengths no pre term baby of up to 30 or so weeks would survive at all.

290

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:

So, maybe this is something that should not be dealt with using laws and the justice system and everyone should mind his own business regarding that matter?

Or, maybe those so worried about abortions could help make the lives of the children already on this planet who are abdandoned or living in poverty a little better. You would think with all of the focus on people not living yet, the ones already alive would be FIRST priority.[/quote]

Because of our Christian values, and because we practice what we preach, my wife and I adopted a beautiful little girl 3 years ago. She is a great joy to us. (We have 2 bio sons also.)

Would those who advocate abortion be as likely to ‘step up to the plate’ and adopt a child? We certainly could have chosen to use the money involved to do all sorts of different things, but we value LIFE more than anything.

I think those who consider ‘convenience’ as a criteria for deciding the abortion issue should not be the ones to decide this at all.

291

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:

So, maybe this is something that should not be dealt with using laws and the justice system and everyone should mind his own business regarding that matter?

Or, maybe those so worried about abortions could help make the lives of the children already on this planet who are abdandoned or living in poverty a little better. You would think with all of the focus on people not living yet, the ones already alive would be FIRST priority.

Because of our Christian values, and because we practice what we preach, my wife and I adopted a beautiful little girl 3 years ago. She is a great joy to us. (We have 2 bio sons also.)

Would those who advocate abortion be as likely to ‘step up to the plate’ and adopt a child? We certainly could have chosen to use the money involved to do all sorts of different things, but we value LIFE more than anything.

I think those who consider ‘convenience’ as a criteria for deciding the abortion issue should not be the ones to decide this at all.

[/quote]

I am not sure anyone in this thread has stated that they agree with abortions for convenience.

292

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Unlike you, I don’t have time to sit here and pour over every word that might have been said. So what if this point was made before? I am making it now. Can you answer the question? Perhaps you are afraid to, because I have you in a bit of a quandry. You see, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS![/quote]

Honestly, this comment is your weakest one yet. I tell you I answered this exact scenario already in this thread and then you tell me you can’t be bothered to find it and read it? Screw you then. It is not my job to retype every stance I have when the exact same fucking thing was typed just 3 or 4 pages in front of this one, you arrogant piece of shit.

293

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Because of our Christian values, and because we practice what we preach, my wife and I adopted a beautiful little girl 3 years ago. She is a great joy to us. (We have 2 bio sons also.)

Would those who advocate abortion be as likely to ‘step up to the plate’ and adopt a child? We certainly could have chosen to use the money involved to do all sorts of different things, but we value LIFE more than anything.

I think those who consider ‘convenience’ as a criteria for deciding the abortion issue should not be the ones to decide this at all.

[/quote]

Nobody advocates abortion, we advocate choice.

Someone who clearly does not want a child should probably not consider adopting children. That would mean that they lived their lives according to THEIR priorities and in a consistent way…

Everyone that does consider convenience as a criteria is probably making a wise choice not to have a child.

And, even though I know it sounds condescending, though -in this case- it is not meant to be:

Everyone that believes in a grown-up version of Santa Claus is probably not someone to make that decision either, especially not for other people…

294

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And to doogie, I could have been an abortion very easily. My mother was 19 when she had me, and things couldn’t have been much worse for them. It could have very easily been me.

The fact is, I would still fight for her right to abort then to have folks like the religious right choose it for her.

If she hadnt chosen to have me, but the state had forced her too…well then where is your small government republican paradise then? Real freedom that is.

What if she had chosen to abort you, because some feminist with an agenda who didn’t give a shit about your mother’s emotional health convinced her to kill you? What if your mother spent the rest of her life hating herself because she was tricked into believing you weren’t really a person?

Then you have:
You=dead
Mother=a mental case

Who would that have benefitted?

What world do you guys live in? All of a sudden now we think women care about abortions? I thought the talking point of the right was that women use them as frequently as aspirin?

And what feminist? Since when do feminists kill? They argue for the right to choose, but rarely have I seen them out with the signs that say “Let’s kill babies”. Although the extremists on your side have no problem bombing buildings apparently.

As far as the small government issue, you do understand that Roe v. Wade made it a federal issue, rather than a state issue, right? Republicans are for less federal control and more local control.

blah blah.

I don’t believe any government, anywhere, be it state or federal, has the right to say that one can’t do this.

Less local control just means that Texan women will come to places like NJ to have their abortions, while the rest of people like you keep your heads in the sand and pretend its not happening. Either way, it doesn’t help anyone anywhere. Hiding the problem does not mean it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

A few clinics have been bombed, millions of unborns killed. Neither is right.

296

[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ironic, because that’s how the whole country comes off to the rest of the world.

No one cares about that. They just don’t want a man in office who would dare scream at a loud convention with enthusiasm. People who can’t pronounce words correctly are ok, but not screamers.[/quote]

Huh?

I want Dean to get the democratic nomination…I do…I do…

297

[quote]mrdav2u wrote:
ZEB wrote:

That’s not the problem? Tell that to the 50 (or so) million babies that have died because some thought abortion was a good idea and it became law.

just what we need an extra 50 million people in this world… you know they’d all be training chest on Mondays and its hard enough to find an open bench as it is.

There are way to many f-ing people on this spinning rock. and they are all in front of me in traffic talking on their goddamn cell phones. and if anyone has any grand plans on how to take out 50 million more let me know.[/quote]

I think I understand where you are coming from. And I’ve heard that before. If you are really concerned about over population you can do something about it. Begin by eliminating yourself!

Ahh…not something that you would consider huh?

It’s good that you get to decide. Bad that the 50 million killed never got a "CHOICE."

298

Quick question for the forum as I’ve had this come up in real world discussions with interesting results. To be clear, I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, I’m just interested in what others think:

I believe a woman has a right to choose. I believe that right ends as soon as there is another life involved. Where’s the line of life? Well, at the other end, it’s clearly delineated (IMO) after ~5 min. without a pulse hypoxia causes the brain to degrade to the point where brainwave function (as a measure of electric activity within and across the brain) is irreparably lost, and the person is considered dead. Now, if Dev. Bio. hasn’t completely left my memory, around 40 d after fertilization, the reproductive cell mass in question starts displaying brainwaves. Ergo, up to 40 d, whatever the woman does is her choice. Afterwards, she looses the choice. To be perfectly honest, I feel there should be limit beyond this (for the sake of social responsibility) but I can’t justify infringing on someone’s rights any further.

Using this rational, I’ve had both pro-choice and pro-lifers praise and ridicule me.

Am I pro-life or pro-choice?

299

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think those that are aghast at the concept of aborting a zygote should explain why they don’t have any problem killing and eating the flesh of other animals.

What, other than religion, makes a person so special? I realize there are differences… so what are they? Elucidate them. Why is it that we don’t protect the innocent food animals, but instead raise them solely for the purpose of slaughter?
[/quote]

Are you serious?

300

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Because of our Christian values, and because we practice what we preach, my wife and I adopted a beautiful little girl 3 years ago. She is a great joy to us. (We have 2 bio sons also.)

Would those who advocate abortion be as likely to ‘step up to the plate’ and adopt a child? We certainly could have chosen to use the money involved to do all sorts of different things, but we value LIFE more than anything.

I think those who consider ‘convenience’ as a criteria for deciding the abortion issue should not be the ones to decide this at all.

Nobody advocates abortion, we advocate choice.

Someone who clearly does not want a child should probably not consider adopting children. That would mean that they lived their lives according to THEIR priorities and in a consistent way…

Everyone that does consider convenience as a criteria is probably making a wise choice not to have a child.

And, even though I know it sounds condescending, though -in this case- it is not meant to be:

Everyone that believes in a grown-up version of Santa Claus is probably not someone to make that decision either, especially not for other people…[/quote]

Sorry, don’t get this last one. Who or what is a grown-up version of Santa Claus?

301

Same with me.

302

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

doogie wrote:
Do any of you pro-choice people have children of your own?

I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just genuinely curious.

In my liberal days I was pro-choice. I’d go so far as referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now that I have kids I am very anti-abortion. It is impossible for me to see it any way other than baby killing. I have no religious beliefs; I just can’t stomach the idea of killing a baby.

Same with me. [/quote]

yes, and subjectifying the issue is not what to do. That is where emotions come to play, and this is not what resoning behind discussion needs.

Have emotional discussions based in unemotive premis, if possible, of course.

Your view changed because you have a child, just as someone who has a loved on thrown into guantanamo may change their mind: pro before, not after. It does not change the issue, just your perspective.

303

[quote]doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And to doogie, I could have been an abortion very easily. My mother was 19 when she had me, and things couldn’t have been much worse for them. It could have very easily been me.

The fact is, I would still fight for her right to abort then to have folks like the religious right choose it for her.

If she hadnt chosen to have me, but the state had forced her too…well then where is your small government republican paradise then? Real freedom that is.

What if she had chosen to abort you, because some feminist with an agenda who didn’t give a shit about your mother’s emotional health convinced her to kill you? What if your mother spent the rest of her life hating herself because she was tricked into believing you weren’t really a person?

Then you have:
You=dead
Mother=a mental case

Who would that have benefitted?

As far as the small government issue, you do understand that Roe v. Wade made it a federal issue, rather than a state issue, right? Republicans are for less federal control and more local control.[/quote]

And he was dead. He wouldn’t know about it.

Really.

And i am sure it would have been a cake walk, that decision.

Christ, we have difficluty in turning off a vent on someone who is brain dead, because of emotional attachment or other beliefs.

304

[quote]orion wrote:
…

Nobody advocates abortion, we advocate choice.

…[/quote]

Choice for what? Dinner?

This debate is silly.

While some people want to eliminate all abortions ever for whatever reason, most people do not.

Very few people are for abortions. Just the docs that get paid and the radicals.

Most people want to minimize abortion and eliminate the convenience ones.

Unfortunately when proposals are made to do this they are shouted down by a very vocal minority that scream about womens rights and choice. Too many people are taken in by this bullshit.

In my opinion South Dakota took it too far by not providing exceptions for rape, etc.

I think this is a bad law but it has the right intentions.

We must work together to find common ground to minimize the murder of innocents. Politicians aren’t going to do it unless we make them. They are happy to pick a side, get the votes and change nothing.

We need more/better parental notifications/consent laws. If the parent is abusive they should lose their rights.

We need to make it a federal crime to bring an underage girl across state lines for the purpose of abortion to get around some states notification/consent laws.

We need to fix our adoption/foster care system.

There is little incentive to place kids into adoption. Federal money is lost when this is done. Federal money keeps flowing when kids bounce from foster care to foster care or live in orphanages and other institutions.

I know multiple white people that had to go out of country to adopt from Central America, Romania, China etc.

They all tried to adopt black babies and it was shot down. This is bullshit but it is happening.

305

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sorry, don’t get this last one. Who or what is a grown-up version of Santa Claus?

[/quote]

The invisible man in the sky that knows if you have been naughty or nice?

306

Can anyone explain to me how is the position that an abortion in case of rape is legal, but in case of consentual sex is not legal consistent? Keep all other variables fixed.