South Dakota bans abortion

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
I got an email today with an article about how a bill was passed banning abortion in South Dakota, going against Roe v. Wade and opening it all up to Supreme Court decision.

I'm so pissed and disappointed right now I can't even see straight.

Do you live in SD? Then wtf do you care?

Because this is the first step in fvcking up what women fought so hard for.

I'm just curious, if there isn't RvW, do u believe in 3rd trimester abortions or only 2nd trimester and before?

I believe in 3rd trimester abortions if its a serious risk to a woman's health to carry or deliver the baby. And before that I think it's a woman's choice.

Do you believe the fetus is a person the third trimester?

I think a person is beginning to be developed as soon as the egg attaches, but i don't consider it a real "person" until delivery

So the line you draw between a real person and non person is w/ delivery? So then what if a woman in the third trimester requests an abortion. She does not give a reason and there does not appear to be any danger in her health. So in this case you believe it is not her choice?

Hmm good point. It's pretty impossible to answer though. Either I'd have to say that the fetus is a person in the third trimester, in which case why is it OK to kill that person? Should I kill the next smoker that lights up near me? He would be damaging my health. Or I'd have to say that a woman can choose to abort at any time, which I don't think should be the case in the third trimester. What do you think?

I'm just trying to gauge at which point do you truly think the fetus becomes a person. Because if you stick with what you said before, where the fetus is only a person on delivery, then under your belief the mother should be allowed to request an abortion up to labor or minutes before. I personally dont have an answer and I dont have enough medical evidence either way to say when a fetus is a person, but it seems to me drawing a line at the 10% survival rate for a premie seems reasonable. But once again, i dont have all the details.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

 

[ILoveLamp]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

seeing as it's one of the most controversial cases, I fail to see how it's "obviously" unconstitutional

 

[ILoveLamp]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
I got an email today with an article about how a bill was passed banning abortion in South Dakota, going against Roe v. Wade and opening it all up to Supreme Court decision.

I'm so pissed and disappointed right now I can't even see straight.

Do you live in SD? Then wtf do you care?

Because this is the first step in fvcking up what women fought so hard for.

I'm just curious, if there isn't RvW, do u believe in 3rd trimester abortions or only 2nd trimester and before?

I believe in 3rd trimester abortions if its a serious risk to a woman's health to carry or deliver the baby. And before that I think it's a woman's choice.

Do you believe the fetus is a person the third trimester?

I think a person is beginning to be developed as soon as the egg attaches, but i don't consider it a real "person" until delivery

So the line you draw between a real person and non person is w/ delivery? So then what if a woman in the third trimester requests an abortion. She does not give a reason and there does not appear to be any danger in her health. So in this case you believe it is not her choice?

Hmm good point. It's pretty impossible to answer though. Either I'd have to say that the fetus is a person in the third trimester, in which case why is it OK to kill that person? Should I kill the next smoker that lights up near me? He would be damaging my health. Or I'd have to say that a woman can choose to abort at any time, which I don't think should be the case in the third trimester. What do you think?

I'm just trying to gauge at which point do you truly think the fetus becomes a person. Because if you stick with what you said before, where the fetus is only a person on delivery, then under your belief the mother should be allowed to request an abortion up to labor or minutes before. I personally dont have an answer and I dont have enough medical evidence either way to say when a fetus is a person, but it seems to me drawing a line at the 10% survival rate for a premie seems reasonable. But once again, i dont have all the details.

Well a woman would most likely know if a pregnancy was going to damage her health before the third trimester, so it probably doesn't even apply.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

But it was never put in as an amendment so by definition it's not part of hte US constitution and thus not "unconstitutional" (atleast thats the impression of what the supreme court does anyways)

 

[ILoveLamp]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

seeing as it's one of the most controversial cases, I fail to see how it's "obviously" unconstitutional

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

seeing as it's one of the most controversial cases, I fail to see how it's "obviously" unconstitutional

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

I thought states were allowed to pass their own laws that conflicted with federal law as long as it didn't go against the Constitution + it's amendemnts

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

Canada isn't too far away, is it?

That's a poor argument. Will you be saying the same thing when the government takes away some freedom you hold dear?

 

[ILoveLamp]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

seeing as it's one of the most controversial cases, I fail to see how it's "obviously" unconstitutional

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

I thought states were allowed to pass their own laws that conflicted with federal law as long as it didn't go against the Constitution + it's amendemnts

Well yea they can pass it, they DID pass it, but because it goes against a Supreme Court ruling it can be appealed and eventually end up in the SC to be evaluated. And then the judges have the option of overriding RvW. Which means I go kick someone in the throat.

 

[AmdEmAll]

Population control -1

 

[Mill]

All abortion threads should be banned from all internet forums. No good ever comes out of them.

 

[ILoveLamp]

Originally posted by: Mill
All abortion threads should be banned from all internet forums. No good ever comes out of them.

Sharing ideas and views and opinions?

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.

btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.

And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

somehow I don't think this will set a precedent for the rest of the USA

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

why is it "obviously unconstitutional?"

Um, because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade maybe?

seeing as it's one of the most controversial cases, I fail to see how it's "obviously" unconstitutional

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

I thought states were allowed to pass their own laws that conflicted with federal law as long as it didn't go against the Constitution + it's amendemnts

Well yea they can pass it, they DID pass it, but because it goes against a Supreme Court ruling it can be appealed and eventually end up in the SC to be evaluated. And then the judges have the option of overriding RvW. Which means I go kick someone in the throat.

exactly... and the fact that you are so worried about an overruling of RvW shows that its constitutional status is not clear-cut in stone, but there is a large gray area... so it's not what we would call, "obviously unconstitutional" such as a law that would ban freedom of speech and the press

 

[Lovepig]

you might want to think through your defense a little better.

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

If you define anything against current law as "obviously unconstitutional" then if / when RvW is disposed of you will have to support the ban on abortions because that is now "the law".

FWIW, if I decided to eat a bald-eagle omlette this morning for breakfast, people would be up in arms and I'd be in jail. It is sad when the fetus of a bird recieves more concern and legal protection than the fetus of a human being!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Lovepig
you might want to think through your defense a little better.

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

If you define anything against current law as "obviously unconstitutional" then if / when RvW is disposed of you will have to support the ban on abortions because that is now "the law".

FWIW, if I decided to eat a bald-eagle omlette this morning for breakfast, people would be up in arms and I'd be in jail. It is sad when the fetus of a bird recieves more concern and legal protection than the fetus of a human being!

1. I have no intention of ever eating a human fetus, and
2. If humans were an endangered species, I might agree with you.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Lovepig
you might want to think through your defense a little better.

Technically it is, because the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are legal throughout the United States. So this ban of abortions goes against that ruling, making it unconstitutional. People obviously have their own opinions whether Roe v. Wade was "right" or "wrong" in the first place, but the point is its a law.

If you define anything against current law as "obviously unconstitutional" then if / when RvW is disposed of you will have to support the ban on abortions because that is now "the law".

FWIW, if I decided to eat a bald-eagle omlette this morning for breakfast, people would be up in arms and I'd be in jail. It is sad when the fetus of a bird recieves more concern and legal protection than the fetus of a human being!

1. I have no intention of ever eating a human fetus, and
2. If humans were an endangered species, I might agree with you.

lol

 

[Drizzy]

in before the lock

 

[Scouzer]

omg stop quoting

 

[tjaisv]

It's wrong to kill an unborn human life.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: tjaisv
It's wrong to kill an unborn human life.

Sometimes it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: tjaisv
It's wrong to kill an unborn human life.

if i gave you the choice of having your dog killed to save a day old embryo left over from invetro from disposal which would you choose.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: tjaisv
It's wrong to kill an unborn human life.

if i gave you the choice of having your dog killed to save a day old embryo left over from invetro from disposal which would you choose.

:roll:

That argument is like saying "I'm going to kill one of your family members. Pick one."

That holds no water whatsoever. It proves NOTHING.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: tjaisv
It's wrong to kill an unborn human life.

if i gave you the choice of having your dog killed to save a day old embryo left over from invetro from disposal which would you choose.

:roll:

That argument is like saying "I'm going to kill one of your family members. Pick one."

That holds no water whatsoever. It proves NOTHING.

it goes to the actual value this person places on this so called human being. you would have to be a moron to not sacrifice your dog to save ...say your brother...or mother. you see how that works? its not like oh noes..i couldn't choose. its impossible!! bullpucky. i wouldn't sacrifice a fish to save a frozen embryo. and pro lifers aren't sacrificing their wombs to save them either.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
It's because you're all men, you think you don't have to worry about it.

It's because I don't go around screwing women without using a condom that I don't worry about it.

Maybe women should think about keeping their legs shut or taking BC if they don't want to worry about it.

I'm not criminalizing sex, but if you know what sex is you know what happens when it works the way it's supposed to. Even though it's a pleasuring experience, our bodies were conditioned for sex as a means of reproduction, not sex as a means of entertainment.

I despise abortion. Saying "take responsibility for your actions" is a stupid way to put it. "Be responsible about your actions" is how it should be.

If you don't want a kid, stop f'ing people. The statement is true whether you are male or female.