South Dakota Bans Abortions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
347

Barneyfife, many of the issues you just brought up are issues I think about as well. I originally joined the armed services because I wanted to help. I have done things like that all of my life. In high school, if it wasn’t community service at SHAPE community center in Houston, it was volunteering at the Texas Children’s Hospital with kidney dialysis patients who wouldn’t live to see their teens without a transplant once a week after school. I don’t see that kind of spirit from those claiming such “moral superiority”. I was raised in the Church with my father as a preacher when I was a kid. I know some scriptures the way that some people know the alphabet, but I must admit, I see some of the most hateful and judgemental points of view coming from those claiming they are from the “Christian Right”. I am amazed that anyone is degrading those who want more social programs sponsored by government but then turn around and have no problem with more and more government control as long as it takes AWAY freedoms. God was not about that level of control. That is man’s own warped interpretation of it. Choice was why we were put here. Those trying to take it all away are going in the opposite direction. You can’t force your values onto someone else. Eventually, someone is going to fight back.

Many of the Conservatives in this country and on this forum seem to think they own the rights to Christianity and all that is “right”. They couldn’t be farther from the truth. I seriously doubt they will ever understand it though. They are way too busy trying to force the rest of the country to live by their own personal values.

348

steveo5801

Last crack at this…

steve-o…

this is why I tried to check out of this thread. and not surpirisingly so, It was met with the very type of slur of which you accused me… I believe you implied that my post made me sound like an “idiot” and that my argument was without merit. yadda yadda yadda… Im going to try to keep this above the belt.

Debating with conservative christians on this issue is like trying to tell a nascar driver to make a right turn… It’s like you have no concept of what Im even talking about… no comprehension of what I even mean when I say “right”… and I don’t even mean that pejoratively… It is just that you have been so completely inculcated in the conservative / christian doctrine that you have surrendered your ability to approach the subject critically. It is simply, to continue the NASCAR metaphor, that it has never even occured to you that there is any direction to turn other than left. so let me see if I can try to help you out here.

[quote]
“Have you not read the Mayflower Compact or The Declaration of Independence? These are rife with moral and religious truths that guided those who founded our great nation”[/quote]

only holds value if you believe in the possiblity of a moral or religious “truth”. I am scared of the person who is certain of a moral or religious truth… that is a dangerous person. It also presupposes that the founding fathers had any great particular insight that others of us don’t … again… Im unwilling, as are others, to sign off on that.

[quote]
That is very unfortunate, because God loves all people – including homosexual people. God hates sin – all sin, of which homosexuality is one.[/quote]

I think this entitles me to refer to you as being arrogant. You actually feel as though you are qualified to tell people what it is that GOD him-fucking-self loves and hates

[quote]
It has always throughout millenia been aberrant behavior and therefore not recognized by society[/quote]

perhaps true from the christian perspective and even then only valid if you are unwilling to allow for the possiblity that social mores are dynamic.

[joke]well yes I do[/joke]… but more to the point. again valid only if you believe in A. jesus and B. heaven

this is a beautiful little passage of yours because it encompasses so much.

a.)supremely condescending. Implying that age is a limiting factor in understanding morality is absurd. at least in this circumstance.

b.) I could easily say as counterpoint that you have either been fed a diet or have developed on your own a belief in “moral absolutism”

c.) the whole sow what you reap thing. Hellfire and Brimstone, the destruction of Sodoom and Gomorrha. I always get a kick out of fear based morality / faith. You know jesus was standing around strapped with nines saying “better worship me motherfucker” or Ill smoke your ass like I took out those fools over in Gomorrah." Its such a juvenile take on Divinity

In conclusion steve-o… I am checking out of this “debate” because you are not willing to do the leg work that some of us are… you are unwilling to re-examine that which you believe to be true and I am unwilling to engage in conversation with such a person.

I’d like to say it has been a pleasure but it most certainly has not.

feel free to smear me… post that Im a coward and that I attacked you personally and that my arguments are without merit. whatever makes you feel good Steve

Good Luck and Much Love to you and yours

Om Mani Padme Hum

~~db

349

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
As far as government assitance goes steveo, it has a lot to do with where your from. The best paying job in my town starts out at 15k. Some people work all they can and still can’t afford to support their families.

Also, I have a real problem with christian people, but not with Christ.

When i was 5 or 6, I went through the flood of 93. I don’t remember to much about it, but I remember my mom telling me about how local churches helped just their members. The bar that my mom waited tables at had a bike run, and did several fundraisers, and helped all flood vicitims. Bar people helped all, Christians helped only their kind. Here where I live, they have bikers poker runs to help the needy all the time. Churches help their members, but people who might be considered relatively un-christian help anybody in need.

My conservative neighbor gets mad when I mow my lawn on sunday. My liberal neighbor helped me sharpen the blades on it, on sunday, all why drinking beer and wearing a hustler shirt. So, I ask, who is right, the one helping or the one judging? I guess I look at people actions more then I look at their beleifs. If Christian people were more into helping others, we wouldn’t need federal aid. It just doesn’t happen though. I have never been on welfare, nor has any of my family, but I did get a 200 dollar pell grant. And I am glad I did. What about unemployment? is that government assistance? I am sorry that I am such an angry person steveo, but I get tired of other people judging other people and using there beliefs as justification. Some of the people at my work have helped to cause this. A week or two after Katrina, some of the people that keep Bibles on their workbenches said that Katrina was punishment for sins. Most of the rest of us were passing a hat around to give to the red cross.
Our town is small. Most of our volunteer fire-fighters are beer-drinking harley riding pre-marital sex having fellers. But they’ll gladly risk their lives for a whole ten dollars per fire. When I used to go to church, if someone missed a day, everyone looked down on them. That REALLY turned me off towards church. I just feel like too many times Christian people are out to hurt/and judge others and use their beleifs as justification.

Steveo, We are both Americans at the end of the day. In our country, We have the freedom to choose our religion, and the freedom to not have one at all if it suits us.

As far as abortion goes, I wish there was a way to extract the fetus from the mothers body intact, and raise the fetus in-vitro, then giving the child to a suitable family wanting to adopt. Win-win situation right there.

[/quote]

I really appreciate your honesty in relating these experiences in your life. I am sorry that your experience with Christians and church has only been bad. I agree – there are too many Christians that would “cast the first stone.”

I do trust that, although I am passionate about what I believe, I am coming across with the right attitude. As far as my faith goes, I am a sinner that is saved by the grace of God. If Katrina was punishment – I personally deserve more because of my sin. I think it was awful for people to help only “their kind.” However, I will say that I know several Christian young people that are in college that went down there to help and they helped EVERYONE.

I grew up pretty poor myself, and I have been working since I was 15 years old. I know what it is to do without and I know what it is to work hard for what I have. I just ask that everyone that is able bodied do the same and that families take care of their own before looking at others.

With that said, I agree with you that we all should help one another – no matter what our faith. That is the teaching of Christ and that is how I try to live. I know I don’t do enough, and your post reminds me that I should seek to do more.

Take care…

350

[quote]mrdav2u wrote:
steveo5801

Last crack at this…

steve-o…

this is why I tried to check out of this thread. and not surpirisingly so, It was met with the very type of slur of which you accused me… I believe you implied that my post made me sound like an “idiot” and that my argument was without merit. yadda yadda yadda… Im going to try to keep this above the belt.

Debating with conservative christians on this issue is like trying to tell a nascar driver to make a right turn… It’s like you have no concept of what Im even talking about… no comprehension of what I even mean when I say “right”… and I don’t even mean that pejoratively… It is just that you have been so completely inculcated in the conservative / christian doctrine that you have surrendered your ability to approach the subject critically. It is simply, to continue the NASCAR metaphor, that it has never even occured to you that there is any direction to turn other than left. so let me see if I can try to help you out here.

“Have you not read the Mayflower Compact or The Declaration of Independence? These are rife with moral and religious truths that guided those who founded our great nation”

only holds value if you believe in the possiblity of a moral or religious “truth”. I am scared of the person who is certain of a moral or religious truth… that is a dangerous person. It also presupposes that the founding fathers had any great particular insight that others of us don’t … again… Im unwilling, as are others, to sign off on that.

That is very unfortunate, because God loves all people – including homosexual people. God hates sin – all sin, of which homosexuality is one.

I think this entitles me to refer to you as being arrogant. You actually feel as though you are qualified to tell people what it is that GOD him-fucking-self loves and hates

It has always throughout millenia been aberrant behavior and therefore not recognized by society

perhaps true from the christian perspective and even then only valid if you are unwilling to allow for the possiblity that social mores are dynamic.

Believers in Jesus Christ also go to heaven. Want to advocate killing Christians as well?

[joke]well yes I do[/joke]… but more to the point. again valid only if you believe in A. jesus and B. heaven

You are very young and have been fed a diet of “moral relatavism” which says that everyone’s morals are equal to every one else’s and there is no such thing as a final moral authority.

Unfortunately, you will reap what you sow…

this is a beautiful little passage of yours because it encompasses so much.

a.)supremely condescending. Implying that age is a limiting factor in understanding morality is absurd. at least in this circumstance.

b.) I could easily say as counterpoint that you have either been fed a diet or have developed on your own a belief in “moral absolutism”

c.) the whole sow what you reap thing. Hellfire and Brimstone, the destruction of Sodoom and Gomorrha. I always get a kick out of fear based morality / faith. You know jesus was standing around strapped with nines saying “better worship me motherfucker” or Ill smoke your ass like I took out those fools over in Gomorrah." Its such a juvenile take on Divinity

In conclusion steve-o… I am checking out of this “debate” because you are not willing to do the leg work that some of us are… you are unwilling to re-examine that which you believe to be true and I am unwilling to engage in conversation with such a person.

I’d like to say it has been a pleasure but it most certainly has not.

feel free to smear me… post that Im a coward and that I attacked you personally and that my arguments are without merit. whatever makes you feel good Steve

Good Luck and Much Love to you and yours

Om Mani Padme Hum

~~db[/quote]

No smear – no attack – goodbye!

351

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Big John the Disciple said “Love each other, that is enough” How true[/quote]

Barney… Im blown away… I am so proud to be a part of a world where a young person can sift through all of the bullshit and come up with this nugget of complete and utter brilliance. That’s six simple words that all by themselves can absolutely change the world.

your age belies your wisdom…Absolutely Sublime

an actual CHRISTIAN walks among us. You’re a person who understands the living example of not only Christ, but of all the world’s great mystics.

You’re a benefactor to the human experience and I’m proud to have read your posts and am humbled by your ability to come to the conclusions you have at such a young age…

GOD BLESS YOU

Om Mani Padme Hum

~~db

352

[quote]mrdav2u wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
Big John the Disciple said “Love each other, that is enough” How true

Barney… Im blown away… I am so proud to be a part of a world where a young person can sift through all of the bullshit and come up with this nugget of complete and utter brilliance. That’s six simple words that all by themselves can absolutely change the world.

your age belies your wisdom…Absolutely Sublime

an actual CHRISTIAN walks among us. You’re a person who understands the living example of not only Christ, but of all the world’s great mystics.

You’re a benefactor to the human experience and I’m proud to have read your posts and am humbled by your ability to come to the conclusions you have at such a young age…

GOD BLESS YOU

Om Mani Padme Hum

~~db
[/quote]

God IS Love.

353

[quote]orion wrote:
Lucasa,

two things:

  1. You are right everything I said about the law enforcement system can be said about it if it deals with other issues too.

I know that it is a very blunt instrument that never really solves anything which is why it should be one of the last resorts and not something you automatically call for whenever something bothers you.[/quote]

I, as a general idea, disagree. Laws (as an extension of social mores) keep civilizations functioning long after anarchists would’ve consumed themselves. To assert that we shouldn’t pass laws because people can and will break them is oxymoronic. Let me ask you this, living in Austria and the EU, do you own a gun? Do you take it with you when you travel to say, London or Zurich? In the US or in Europe, are weapons charges applied equally to all people or disproportionately depending on race/culture/gender/occupation/criminal history etc.?

That said, this “anti-abortion law” wouldn’t be invoked because it bothers me, it would be invoked because it offends large portions of our nation much the same way murder doesn’t offend everyone, just most people.

[quote]2) OMG, you think all criminals are stupid!

The only time you ever hear about them is when they fuck up, that is as if you form your opinions of entrepreneurs by reading statistics concerning bankruptcy.[/quote]

No, I don’t think all criminals are stupid. Actually, I assume that, on average, they are of slightly lesser intelligence. That doesn’t preclude more intelligent criminals, but that was my point. More intelligent criminals would realize there’s more money to be made, with less skill and risk, in areas other than aborting fetuses.

So because something exists it must play an important role in society?

Also, you haven’t read any of my previous posts. While it does offend me that a woman would be careless enough to get pregnant, with the myriad of free, subsidized, and effective preventative options, I see no harm in her making a choice, until the reproductive cell mass becomes alive. I draw this line at day 40. This seems to be in line with (not quite a mirror image of though) the Austrian system you advocate.

354

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

The child benefits – he or she gets to live!

Also, there is such things as adoption. See, killing is not the only choice!
[/quote]

steveo,

  1. That benefit is arguable. If life were always clearly beneficial and preferable to death, suicide or self-sacrifice wouldn’t exist.

  2. My intent was to demonstrate to skor that the issue isn’t just about whether or not the reproductive cell mass is alive or dead. There is also a woman’s right to choose.

  3. You’re right there are other options. However, I don’t believe in forcing a raped woman to carry to term any more than I believe in forcing someone to adopt a child. If the state mandates that a raped woman should carry to term, I don’t see why they shouldn’t/couldn’t mandate that citizen X is an appropriate guardian for that child and is now their parent whether they like it or not.

355

I didn’t read through all the posts in this thread, but I have a question for those who feel life begins at fertilization. (The following question isn’t my own).

If a building is on fire, do you save the 2 year old girl or a petri dish of 5 fertilized eggs?

356

[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
If a building is on fire, do you save the 2 year old girl or a petri dish of 5 fertilized eggs? [/quote]

If a building is on fire, do you save the three month old or the 2 year old? These kind of morbid questions give the illusion of indicating a ‘deeper belief’ about an issue, but the just cloud it with all sorts of artificial constraints.

Given such a ridiculous scenario, yes, most people would save the two year old. I’d say that’s mostly because the perceived immediacy would be higher… the two year old is visibly present in a way the fertilized eggs cannot be. That doesn’t mean the person won’t be haunted by his choice, either way, for the rest of his or her life.

357

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well great, all we need now is a ban on contraceptives as well as a ban on sex education and we’ll be set![/quote]

Right, and a ban on killing kids. Oh, wait, that already exists! I guess we only get to kill really young kids.

Retard!

358

[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
I didn’t read through all the posts in this thread, but I have a question for those who feel life begins at fertilization. (The following question isn’t my own).

If a building is on fire, do you save the 2 year old girl or a petri dish of 5 fertilized eggs? [/quote]

The better question is if a pregnant mother was in the building and perishes – how man human beings died that day? I would answer 2 – the mother and the unborn person.

Your idiotic senario was an attempt to make those of us who firmly believe that an embryo of any age is a human life and deserves the right to life as any other person seem foolish. Your problem is that you are obviously ignorant of the proper method of giving birth. Most of us (perhaps not you) were conceived in utero and not “in dishero” (i.e. a petri dish).

Good try – but a life is a life. Excuse the murder all you want, but with each and every abortion, a person gets killed.

359

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well great, all we need now is a ban on contraceptives as well as a ban on sex education and we’ll be set!

Lorisco the mental midget wrote:
Right, and a ban on killing kids. Oh, wait, that already exists! I guess we only get to kill really young kids.

Retard![/quote]

How far back did you have to go to drag this comment up?

The idea is that by preaching abstinence and trying to avoid the use of contraceptives and trying to outlaw sex education, we are ensuring that we’ll have more unwanted pregnancies.

If you are in favor of bringing back the good old days of coathanger abortions, that’s your choice, but I’m not.

360

[quote]vroom wrote:

The idea is that by preaching abstinence and trying to avoid the use of contraceptives and trying to outlaw sex education, we are ensuring that we’ll have more unwanted pregnancies.[/quote]

You may be correct on this. But why did it work 50 years ago? Not that I’m suggesting it works now.

I am in favor of this. When you make something illegal that does not mean that you have prevented it altogether. But, you have indeed dramatically curtailed that activity.

361

[quote]vroom wrote:
How far back did you have to go to drag this comment up?

The idea is that by preaching abstinence and trying to avoid the use of contraceptives and trying to outlaw sex education, we are ensuring that we’ll have more unwanted pregnancies.

If you are in favor of bringing back the good old days of coathanger abortions, that’s your choice, but I’m not.[/quote]

Ok my little rocket scientist, let me break this down for you; where in this new law does it require abstinence, restrict use of contraceptives or outlaw sex education?

Just because this State doesn’t want to kill babies, who just happen to come from irresponsible people, doesn’t mean that they would also restrict these very things that help people be more responsible with procreation.

This law will encourage all this things about, not discourage them.

Your comments are typical liberal reactionary talking points that are dumb-ass, even for you!

362

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Ok my little rocket scientist, let me break this down for you; where in this new law does it require abstinence, restrict use of contraceptives or outlaw sex education?

Just because this State doesn’t want to kill babies, who just happen to come from irresponsible people, doesn’t mean that they would also restrict these very things that help people be more responsible with procreation.

This law will encourage all this things about, not discourage them.

Your comments are typical liberal reactionary talking points that are dumb-ass, even for you!

[/quote]

LOL.

You know. We have had debates around these parts about the federal government and how it chooses to based funding on compliance with teaching abstinence and so forth.

The state is not acting in a vacuum, and it certainly won’t hurt to look at the bigger picture and think about how various initiatives are going to interact.

I’ve been called lots of things in the politics forums, but I think “rocket scientist” is a new one!

363

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Krollmonster wrote:
If a building is on fire, do you save the 2 year old girl or a petri dish of 5 fertilized eggs?

If a building is on fire, do you save the three month old or the 2 year old? These kind of morbid questions give the illusion of indicating a ‘deeper belief’ about an issue, but the just cloud it with all sorts of artificial constraints.

Given such a ridiculous scenario, yes, most people would save the two year old. I’d say that’s mostly because the perceived immediacy would be higher… the two year old is visibly present in a way the fertilized eggs cannot be. That doesn’t mean the person won’t be haunted by his choice, either way, for the rest of his or her life.[/quote]

This actually wasn’t my question, there was a story in the paper where someone called a television show and asked the guest the question. The guest couldn’t come up with an answer. I wanted to see how someone would answer it.

It helps that the users on this forum have a chance to get their thoughts together and respond instead of being put on the spot like the guy on tv.

I guess what I heard about this politics forum is true…but then again it is easy to assume sarcasm in writing. I wasn’t being sarcastic.

Since I have been called an idiot twice already I’ll be one. Whoever is going to feel remorse over taking the child and leaving the fertilized eggs in the petri dish in the burning building has a screw loose. Oh my god! I saved little Sally, but the eggs in the petri dish are still inside! Send the firemen in immediately! Do you think they are gonna run to get them? ahahaha

364

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Your problem is that you are obviously ignorant of the proper method of giving birth. Most of us (perhaps not you) were conceived in utero and not “in dishero” (i.e. a petri dish).
[/quote]

Wow that was clever. But if a person was conceived in utero or in a freaking petri dish, they are still people right?

365

I just love how our President says he wants to create a culture of life, and his home state gives the death penalty.

366

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The better question is if a pregnant mother was in the building and perishes – how man human beings died that day? I would answer 2 – the mother and the unborn person.
[/quote]

That is a good question. Here is a question for you, if someone asked that pregnant woman how many children she had, she would say, “None, but one on the way”. As in, -I don’t have any children-