• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Just can't sell them in Georgia or buy them in Texas.
Click to expand...

Trust me, they're sold all over the place in Georgia. Yeah, it's technically illegal unless A) you have a doctor's prescription or B) you're teaching a sexuality class. But it's virtually impossible to enforce, and adult "novelty" shops are abundant.
 
Cleon said:
Trust me, they're sold all over the place in Georgia. Yeah, it's technically illegal unless A) you have a doctor's prescription or B) you're teaching a sexuality class. But it's virtually impossible to enforce, and adult "novelty" shops are abundant.
Click to expand...

Heh. Sweet. I'll have to let my friend know the next time she is complaining. She lives near Macon.
 
Rob Lister said:
Yes.

Not only would it soon be legal everywhere, it may well become overtly constitutional rather than just an interpretation of the constitution.
Click to expand...
And at very high cost to the Republican party. A majority of Americans are pro-choice but favor modest and reasonable restrictions on the practice (notifying parents, no "partial-birth" abortions absent health of the mother concerns, etc.).

With the situation as it is right now, Democrats are at an electoral disadvantage on the issue.

Here's why. If they take an extremist pro-choice position, whether out of personal convictions or to feed the party's far-left base, they risk losing a lot moderate voters. A Republican can currently take an extreme pro-life position (again either out of personal conviction or to feed the far-right base) essentially for free, because moderate voters know that that the candidate's position is moot. A candidate can be as pro-life as he wants; abortions will still be legal courtesy of Roe. So a moderate pro-choice voter can safely overlook that extremist position and vote for the candidate for other reasons.

Take away Roe and all of a sudden there's a chance that that same extremist's pro-life leaning may become law. The moderate pro-choice voter can no longer ignore the candidate's position on that issue.
 
manny said:
And at very high cost to the Republican party. A majority of Americans are pro-choice but favor modest and reasonable restrictions on the practice (notifying parents, no "partial-birth" abortions absent health of the mother concerns, etc.).

With the situation as it is right now, Democrats are at an electoral disadvantage on the issue.

Here's why. If they take an extremist pro-choice position, whether out of personal convictions or to feed the party's far-left base, they risk losing a lot moderate voters. A Republican can currently take an extreme pro-life position (again either out of personal conviction or to feed the far-right base) essentially for free, because moderate voters know that that the candidate's position is moot. A candidate can be as pro-life as he wants; abortions will still be legal courtesy of Roe. So a moderate pro-choice voter can safely overlook that extremist position and vote for the candidate for other reasons.

Take away Roe and all of a sudden there's a chance that that same extremist's pro-life leaning may become law. The moderate pro-choice voter can no longer ignore the candidate's position on that issue.
Click to expand...

Please don't use the term "pro-life". These people are "anti-choice".
 
CFLarsen said:
Maybe if you answered some questions:

Aren't you a woman?

How do you feel about this law?

What will you do about this?
Click to expand...

I was politely overlooking your mistake. No, I'm not a woman. I think it's a foolish law that will be struck down without reaching the Supreme Court at all. And as I am not a South Dakotan, my ability to "do something" is limited. I can write to my own representatives and tell them my views in the hopes that they would not support similar measures where I am.
 
Cleon said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like the rest of the country is a hotbed of enlightenment these days.
Click to expand...

Well, no. But I think that one thing a lot of people from outside the US forget is that, politically, the US is not one big homogenous mass. A law like that might be passed in South Dakota, considered but not passed in Nevada and laughed clean out of the legislature building in, say, Vermont. Thus it is unfair to criticize the entire US for the stupidity of one state.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Please don't use the term "pro-life". These people are "anti-choice".
Click to expand...
I know that a lot of pro-choice people think that abortion foes have evil laughs and crinkle their fingers a la Monty Burns while they think up new ways to oppress women, but that's just not the case. They have an honest, good-faith belief that a human fetus is a life. They're even right at some point in the pregnancy; which exact point is an issue of no small debate but it is definitely sometime prior to birth.
 
manny said:
I know that a lot of pro-choice people think that abortion foes have evil laughs and crinkle their fingers a la Monty Burns while they think up new ways to oppress women, but that's just not the case. They have an honest, good-faith belief that a human fetus is a life. They're even right at some point in the pregnancy; which exact point is an issue of no small debate but it is definitely sometime prior to birth.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know, they're just good, honest people who have a simple difference of opinion.

That's why they churn out so many terrorists.
 
manny said:
I know that a lot of pro-choice people think that abortion foes have evil laughs and crinkle their fingers a la Monty Burns while they think up new ways to oppress women, but that's just not the case. They have an honest, good-faith belief that a human fetus is a life. They're even right at some point in the pregnancy; which exact point is an issue of no small debate but it is definitely sometime prior to birth.
Click to expand...

I once got into a debate about abortion with a female friend (she was against). After about a half hour, we had reached an impasse, when she declared "Well, other women can do what they want, but I will never have an abortion", at which point I exclaimed "Then you are pro-choice!"

See the difference? Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they personally endorse abortion for themselves. So make no mistake - these people are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I once got into a debate about abortion with a female friend (she was against). After about a half hour, we had reached an impasse, when she declared "Well, other women can do what they want, but I will never have an abortion", at which point I exclaimed "Then you are pro-choice!"
Click to expand...

But under our current law, other women can do what they want. That's just an external reality. What does it have to do with your friend's views?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
See the difference? Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they personally endorse abortion for themselves. So make no mistake - these people are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.
Click to expand...
And if they believe it should be illegal to shoot random strangers in the street? Is that also anti-choice? Strictly speaking it is, but I've never ever heard people who oppose murder being called that. So I'll now ask the same question -- see the difference? To a person who believes that life begins at conception (they're wrong) the "choice" was to engage in sex.

This is not without precedent -- it's nearly universally believed in this country that a man's "choice" is at exactly that point. After that, not only can't he prevent any resulting fetus from coming to term (of course!), he's financially responsible for that child for the next 18 years. Birth control failed? Too bad, pay up. Woman lied about being infertile? Too bad, pay up. She said she'd have an abortion but changed her mind? Too bad, pay up. His choice occurred when he unzipped.

Further, to a person who believes that life begins well after conception but at some point prior to birth, the "choice" was to allow the pregnancy to proceed further than whatever point that is. Virtually no one, including possibly you, believes it should be legal to get an abortion at, say, 39 weeks unless the death of the mother is a real possiblity. No one credibly believes that it should be legal for a doctor to smother a newly-born but still unconscious baby rather than spank it. Are all those people also "anti-choice?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom