I still can't believe that the Pro-choice Democrats of South Dakota let this issue get this far. And whats worse is that considering the state our Supreme court is in if it was passed it might not be overturned. Once again, the Republican party is going to restrict womens rights. So make sure to thank Bush.
posted
I'm not convinced that this new law, if it becomes law, will be upheld, regardless of recent changes in the Supreme Court. I'm also not convinced that for the short time it is in effect, it will have that much of an impact, besides making people who wish to have an abortion drive to a neighboring state. Furthermore, I fail to see how the actions of the South Dakota legislature can be blamed on George W. Bush. I don't seem to recall him being the start of the anti-abortion movement in this country.
Well lets see, they are only about to strip the rights of the American people yet again. Bush's administration has already begun damaging all of the progress that the Clinton administration made on the "gag rule". A law that makes it illegal for docters to even mention abortion as an option. So no, I don't think I'm being to touchy on this subject.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no Apostle. Bush didn't start it. But he does help the process of destroying all that the Pro-choice movement has been working towards.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't deny that Bush probably takes pleasure in their actions, I just think that it is unfair to blame the actions on him. I don't really believe that the person in the White House has anything to do with the decisions of South Dakota lawmakers. Perhaps the recent Supreme Court shuffle causes them to choose this time, but I doubt it. If they believe that the Supreme Court will uphold their law, despite the fact that it flies in the face of SC precedent, and ignore the principles of stare decisus, then I think they are just wrong. I don't think I would start worrying just yet about the overturning of Roe.
posted
They're a long way from getting it overturned. It's more likely the SC will hammer them back down.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anyone on Hatrack other than me who see's this as wrong?! I mean come on! The government is about to take away womens right to control their own bodies!?
Where the hell are the other Pro-choice members of Hatrack when I need them!!!!!
posted
this argument has happened once or twice before. I think "agree to disagree" is the nice way to put it.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
It is hard to drum up support for a slippery slope type argument when the effects are so limited geographically and chonologically. People only pay attention to national level politics, and tend to ignore state level stories like this unless they are in the state in question. ::shrug::
The Planned Parenthood people over the border in Iowa are already preparing for an influx of Dakotan's if the law goes into effect, if that makes you feel any better.
posted
Some of us don't see it as stripping a right. Many of us are willing to debate this issue. Fewer of us are willing to debate it with someone who implies by his posts that the pro-life opinion is ridiculous and horrible. It would be like debating religion with King of Men. You're alienating even those who probably agree with you by your tone.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I think the folks in South Dakota may have just bought themselves a new confirmation of Row v. Wade. They've come up with such a draconic law that the Supreme Court may very well slap it down. And that'll give pause to the next fanatics who step up to the plate.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
Acutally, the article I read said that while the law is being challenged, a court will probably put it on hold so it will never go into effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.
I don't think any court would uphold the law the way it is written, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health written in.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And then there are those of us who are thrilled....
That article on Villagevoice was just a bit over the top, I thought. For one, it's not an outright ban as they assert. And that NARAL spokesperson's quotes are just opinion, with no real meat to back her opinion up. I thought over all, it was a pretty weak piece. Especially running with the idea that if it were put to a vote, the people of SD would shoot it down. I suspect not, given the fact that the votes in both House and Senate weren't even close. At least here, when gays were given protected legal status earlier this year, the vote was close, which I think is reflective of the population. And I can't guess which way it would have gone if it'd been a general election issue.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
The Planned Parenthood people over the border in Iowa are already preparing for an influx of Dakotan's if the law goes into effect, if that makes you feel any better.
--ApostleRadio
Yes it does. And as for the small number, that still means that over 800 women a year would not have that choice in their home state. And I just think that is wrong.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, can't we just stop arguing about this? I mean, no one will change their opinions on abortion, everyone will just argue to no end. Can't we just delete this post?
posted
I think some of the resistence you're getting in this thread is becasue we've ALL discussed it before, nearly endlessly. Maybe you should go look up some old abortion threads.
posted
Abortion is a banned topic on many forums for good reason. Been there, done that. As for the law, I don't think the legislature in South Dakota thinks it will pass the Supreme Court; I think they just want to be seen to be trying to Do Something on the issue. [/mind-reading]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, could be I'm wrong, but since you were able to click the link to get to this thread, I'm fairly sure you also have the ability to resist doing so. Since you now know what it is about, might I respectfully suggest that you exercise that ability instead of asking for the thread's deletion? I personally HATE when people delete threads.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, going away might be a good way, but all this thread will cause is Hatred towards others, and hard feelings. I cannot think of a single good thing this thread will bring. Annnnnnnd, what's worng with deleting threads?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't creat this thread for my post count, I posted it because I felt that it was an issue that should come to the attention of all voting age Hatrackers.
I am sorry if anyone thought I was creating to bring up the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life. I just thought the issue of the law in South Dakota would be of interest to informed Hatrackers.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost posted this thread earlier today (but with a more neutral link) but decided not to get into it. Don't worry, I understand why you posted it. I agree it's something that should be discussed, if we can manage to do it in a respectful and appropriate manner.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am sorry if anyone thought I was creating to bring up the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life.
Abortion is a perfectly acceptable subject for discussion.
But you haven't said anything about the issue except to damn a bunch of us.
You haven't presented arguments to support your view.
You haven't presented reasons why the arguments in favor of the SD law are invalid.
You haven't even acknowledged that there are arguments in favor of the SD law.
You've posted the rhetorical equivalent of "the South Dakota legislature's bad, mmmmkay."
You've also made it clear that you don't intend to engage in reasoned discussion with any of the people who have posted opposing viewpoints.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean to start madly ranting, but it just turned out that way. I am calm again and willing to discuss this issue properly.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. Do you wish to discuss the political aspects, the legalistic aspects, or the general issue of criminalizing abortion?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhh, this is a low blow. If this goes into effect, pro-choicers can't win anywhere. Either it's just plain accepted, or it's challenged and appealed all the way up to where they can try, with a more conservative supreme court, to overturn RvW.
They didn't even put in the usual exceptions to the rule- rape, incest... I don't think they *want* this to go unchallenged. They want it to pass in the state, and then someone gets mad and sets the dominoes a-fallin'.
Oh dear. This makes me afraid.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
my mum had a baby at age 15, back in the early 60s.
she was raped by her father.
and told that she could not come home if she did not give the baby up for adoption, and was sent away to a private catholic school for the duration.
which meant she didn't get a choice, at all, nor did she ever get to see this child she carried to term, nor was the abuse done to her remedied, nor was her heartbreak dealt with, nor has she ever been able to let go of any of the trauma.
and has spent a lifetime fighting the ghosts of this awful thing that happened to her.
and i wonder what it would have been like if she had first been kept safe, second, if safety wasn't possible, at least an option to give that child back to god from whence it came - its not like she ever asked for this baby.
and just the fact that they had private girls homes for this very happening ought to tell everyone something very important.
premarital youthful sex, whether consensual or forced, was not so uncommon as people would like to make it out to believe.
the 60's-70s merely brought it out in the limelight for all to see.
do we really want to keep girls and women in positions of subservience, dominated by men? laws? laws made by men to protect their "old boys" club and so-called rights to abusing power and privilege?
posted
I've read that book, too, prolix -- it is a good one. I'm going to a conference mid-March where she is a keynote speaker -- I'm looking forward to it.
There's something about the "giving the child back to the god whence it came from . . . . " didn't the old celtic or native-style religions phrase it that way?
Regardless of the "euphamism", Tom -- what happened to that young girl was awful. It'd sure be nice if society spent some time on looking at issues like this -- I just got a second notice in the mail today of yet another Level 3 sex offender moving into the neighborhood -- who likes girls between the ages of 12-16.
And since we know that this occurs most often in families and via close/trusting relationships, it makes me sick.
And get ready to start packing and move.
Edit to add: Where did prolix's post about Stephanie Coontz go? *puzzled*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They didn't even put in the usual exceptions to the rule- rape, incest...
That's not a particularly "usual" exception. The usual exception that they didn't include is threat of severe physical injury to the mother.
Edit: from a SCOTUS standpoint, I'd be very surprised if the lack of a rape exception is relevant to the outcome.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only exeption included in this law they want to pass is if the pregnency is indangering the womans life. No other exeptions are included.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to make it a joke before you shut me off. I was just trying to get your attention first, and I thought me saying that would be a hint to who I was.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
