• 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!

Personally, I have no problems w/ abortions in the first trimester, and beyond if there are legitimate (physical, rather than the catch-all "mental health" which could mean anything) health concerns for the mother. That said, I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because, clearly, people don't have the right to do what they want w/ their own bodies, or the whole "War on Drugs" would be unconstitutional. It should be an issue for the individual states, IMHO. A few wack-job states will ban them, like S. Dakota and maybe a few in the south, but the overwhelming majority will allow them. They would still be available for those who want them.

BTW, there is today only one abortion clinic in all of S. Dakota! And it's in Rapid City, in the extreme southeast corner of that very large state. If it goes away, it would have little if any effect on the distance a S. Dakota woman would have to travel to get an abortion.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
Personally, I though Penn Jellette said it best:

"Everyone is "pro-life" and "pro-choice," it's for or against abortion you're arguing about."
Click to expand...

That's true, but it's all in the marketing. The 'pro-lifers' picked their label first (if I remember correctly). Shortly after RvW they decided that they would be known as 'pro-life'. The other side was known as 'pro-abortion'. 'Pro-abortion' was inaccurate and also inplied 'anti-life', so 'pro-choice' was coined to counter the bad PR of 'pro-abortion'.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it will most certainly be struck down before reaching the supreme court. All the lower courts are bound by RvW. But after it's stuck down it will continue on until it does get to the SC.
 
RandFan said:
Prediction: This isn't going anywhere. It will raise emotions and debate but the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This will be slapped down so fast it will make Pat Robertson's head spin. I would doubt that SCOTUS will even review it.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Agreed. This will be slapped down so fast it will make Pat Robertson's head spin. I would doubt that SCOTUS will even review it.
Click to expand...

I would love to be encouraged about this. Can you tell me why, given the recent changes in the Supreme Court, you are so confident about this? I am sure not.
 
Mark said:
I would love to be encouraged about this. Can you tell me why, given the recent changes in the Supreme Court, you are so confident about this? I am sure not.
Click to expand...

Just a feeling I have, based upon what I read about their hearings, and even a Q&A between Justice Scalia and some group that was on C-Span recently (I was flipping around and happened upon it). Based on what those 2 new members said, and Scalia re-iterated, justices are very reluctant to overturn established case law.

I just think it is highly unlikely that Row will ever be completely overturned.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Just a feeling I have, based upon what I read about their hearings, and even a Q&A between Justice Scalia and some group that was on C-Span recently (I was flipping around and happened upon it). Based on what those 2 new members said, and Scalia re-iterated, justices are very reluctant to overturn established case law.

I just think it is highly unlikely that Row will ever be completely overturned.
Click to expand...

I hope you are correct; I fear you are not.

Interesting side note, btw, when this country was founded, abortion was legal and the preferred method of birth control. Doctors---not preachers---lobbied to make it illegal because they thought it was unsafe (for the methods of the time, they were correct). I love pointing that out to some of these anti-choice crusaders.
 
ceo_esq said:
I see no real problem with the conventional nomenclature. It's just convenient shorthand, nothing more. But it has a fairly sensible basis: the abortion issue usually boils down to whether, in case of an irreconcilable conflict, the social interest in the preservation of the life of a fetus should prevail over the social interest in preserving the option of choice of the mother. Ergo, pro-life or pro-choice. Pretty simple, really.
Click to expand...
"Pro-life" implies that the other side is anti-life. Anti-choicers often refer to their opponents as "pro-abortion", which is completely inaccurate. The issue is not whether you're pro-life, but whether you are so pro-life that you're anti-choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom