Here's the background and more on South Dakota's effort to pass an abortion ban that legislators hope will result in overturning Roe v. Wade
I'm starting to think we should change the signs people see when entering my state. "Welcome to South Dakota, Front Line of the Abortion Wars" has kind of a catchy ring, don't you think?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - elvira Black
Hmmm...I wonder if this is the same "Mark" who after trying to pass along his line of BS on one of my posts finally gave up and left me with this:
"i dont care if you have sex, get an STD, die and rot in hell. Sorry to disappoint."
Could it be because I'd just revealed that I was a Jew and thus a "heathen" in his eyes?
Ask Mark if he cares if Jewish babies are aborted.
27 - Josh
RogerMDillon:
For everyone who has said, "Abstinence works", you've given the same response, albeit words slightly altered. Generally it's along the "Women won't sleep with you because you're ugly" line. Do you actually have anything productive to contribute?
28 - Josh
I only mention it because you've said the exact same thing in other articles, without adding much else to the conversation in any one of those either.
29 - CC
#27 I agree. Although it does work somewhat- in the long run however, it is a fairly inefficient use of educational resources, especially when given as the ONLY choice. Interestingly, abstinence is most effective when coupled or included as part of a comprehensive sex education program, discussing ALL birth control/STI safer sex methods- overall reduction in unwanted pregnancy & STI rates due mainly to safer sex techniques & somewhat on reduced risky sexual activity. Shows that when people are truly educated on a topic, they tend to choose the most responsible thing for their individual life & not what some uber-religious nuts say they 'should' choose. Gives me hope for people. :)
30 - Mark
"Shows that when people are truly educated on a topic, they tend to choose the most responsible thing for their individual life & not what some uber-religious nuts say they 'should' choose."
So what your saying is that when teenagers are properly educated on abstinence, they tend to choose it because it IS the responsible choice...and also happens to coincide with what those awful uber-religious people tell people to do. Could it possibly be that we uber-religious people are right?
Elvira...the only reason I said that was because I had spent about three days trying to argue my point with you doing nothing more than dodging the issue, spouting propaganda and generally insulting me outright. I figured I might as well give you something to actually use against me instead of making stuff up the whole time. Why does it always come back to anti-semitism with the Jewish? Honestly, whenever anyone disargrees with them its because the person it anti-semetic. Get over yourselves...its not the middle ages anymore, no one cares...stop being so over-dramatic.
31 - Elvira Black
Mark:
With every comment you make, you look more and more foolish. I suspect you think Jews have horns.
"I figured I might as well give you something to actually use against me..."
"the Jewish..." (The Jewish what? We're generally known as "the Jews" or "the Jewish people).
"Get over yourselves..."
"No one cares..."
Have you ever met a Jew in the flesh?
Well, one thing I know is you don't care, because I'm not part of your Chirstian coalition. Oh well...carry on...
32 - Mark
Fair enough...some points in rebuttal.
The Jewish...i.e. the Jewish people, or Jews. I thought the term Jews was derrogatory so I refrained from using it. Instead I used the term, the Jewish, like the Thai or the Dutch, just because there isnt an S at the end doesnt mean it isnt referring to the plural.
I've met many Jewish people in the flesh, [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
33 - CC
[So what your saying is that when teenagers are properly educated on abstinence, they tend to choose it because it IS the responsible choice...and also happens to coincide with what those awful uber-religious people tell people to do. Could it possibly be that we uber-religious people are right?]
Yes, it is possible you happen to be right, but not as 'right' as you think. If that teen decides to have sex, with proper education (on not just abstinence as you tried to so artfully spin), they will also use contraception & safer sex techniques- which is responsible- but 'happens to NOT coincide' with what you 'think' is right for them- which is also the case for most consensual yet non-married adults. So when you think you are right, its mainly due to coincidence & not b/c you think your morals are right or better than awful non-uber-religious people. Clear?
Also, the language you choose to use is interesting and indicative of the pathology of many awful(your word) uber-religious people, when some call it 'educating or informing' teens or people on abstinence & choices, you tend to call it 'telling people what to do'. Do you honestly believe you have that much control? How sadly (and fortunately) mistaken you are.
Mark- you (and other pro-lifers) are the ones who are trying to equate abortion with the Holocaust, so before you start trying to accuse Elvira or others of 'playing that card' do what the Christian religion dictates, judge not lest thee be judged. Note: also applies to your seeming outrage at being insulted, yet calling her arrogant or asinine. Please don't be like so many of the hypocritical 'awful' uber-religious. 'Do what I say, not what I do.'
Too much to ask?
34 - Elvira Black
CC:
Thank you.
Christopher:
Although comment #32 does violate comment policy, I would prefer if it be left as is if possible. It speaks for itself so eloquently, I'd hate to see it be expunged.
35 - Scott Butki
So the amount of sex keeps going on despite abstinence programs and still people think that the programs work?
Can the pro-abstience crowd point to one unbiased study suggesting it works?
36 - Mark
Well Done kids, its always fun to fight on someone else's turf. I just hope [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
It just seems as though [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Often I find [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
As far as I'm concerned you can all just kiss my [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Enjoy the rest of your day you [Personal and racist attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Its been real.
37 - Josh
Are we sure that was Mark or just someone else using Mark's name? "Personal and racist attacks" just doesn't seem like him.
38 - Elvira Black
Josh:
Since "Mark" has no URL I can't swear to the fact that it's the same person, but I really don't have much trouble believing it is. In his first response to my comment #26 (see his comment 30) he demonstrated that he knew exactly which post I was referring to wherein we had previously "sparred" for days. If the sebsquent remarks were not his, I think he would have come back and defended himself by now by denying any responsibility for those later comments.
Sadly, in my opinion Mark represents for me all those deeply troubled individuals who actually think they have the right (or is it "duty"?) to virtually crawl into other people's bedrooms and tell them exactly what they can and cannot do. He sees nothing at all improper or "immoral" about this in the least.
To my mind, fanatical Christians such as these are as maniacal as the Taliban--and perhaps just as potentially dangerous. If his ilk wins and overturns Roe vs. Wade, do you think this will be sufficient for them? No, I believe it would just be the beginning. If they had their way, they would devise a hellish 1984-like scenario where sexual activity would be monitored and extramarital sex (aka "sex crimes") outlawed. He would not rest easy until everyone blindly obeyed his narrow and misguided worldview of chastity for all. And as for non-Christians, I shudder to think what he might wish to do with us. Re-education centers or worse?
If Mark has been truthful about himself he is a self-proclaimed "hot" virgin in his early twenties.
Mark, if I were your friend or perhaps your older brother, I would advise you thus:
Lighten up. Take a chill pill. Get drunk. Get laid--or both.
It is my belief that if one's creative, positive energies are not released, then it is very easy for negative emotions such as rage, fear, and hatred to emerge in their place to fill the "vacuum." Perhaps young Mark protesteth too much and is so frustrated that he can't just go out and have sex that he turns his rage back onto the whole world. One can certainly see how a misognynistic and sexually repressed society coexists and feeds upon the most depraved violence elsewhere in the world.
Young people such as Mark have their youth and inexperience as an "excuse" for indulging in rash, belligerent, arrogant, and one-dimensional ways of thinking. They have seen very little of the real world as yet, and perhaps never really will.
Thing is, that sometimes all this self-enforced chastity bites the adherent on the ass, and they find themselves eventually "tempted" to do carnal "evil"--sometimes in the most depraved of ways.
Thus it is that the religious leaders who scream the loudest are sometimes the ones caught with their pants down. Even they cannot live by their own stringent edicts, since sex is a natural and normal part of life.
In any case, the real problem is that Mark cannot and will not leave others to their own personal reproductive choice. His stance goes beyond the realm of abortion and into your bedroom and mine. It is a sad day when misguided, inexperienced, appallingly naieve, and even bigoted young men actually think they have a right to tread there.
39 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This is aimed at comment #32 - I'd rather stay out of an abortion debate. I might get really nasty.
In Spanish, the word "judio" is so derogatory that a substitute word, "hebreo" is used instead. This is true in Russian, Polish and a number of other European languages as well.
Says a lot about the speakers because the ideas are ingrained in their culture.
When I still lived in New York, I learned a chant at some of the demonstrations I went to.
"We are Jews! We couldn't be prouder!
And you don't like it, we'll say it a little louder!"
That chant, or something very much like it, should be part of every Jew world wide.
And now I'm outta here.
40 - matt
Is everyone so fickle that they forgot about the real resaon that this convesation was started?
Instead of talking about the issue in a resonable, and mature, manor, which i know is hard for some. You resort to attcking each other, and nit picking like children do when they are throwing a tantrum.
I am personnal against abortions, but that doesn't mean that i don't understand why people get them. I think that women should be allowed to do with their body what they wish, but when there is a fetuses growing inside of them I think that is where it should stop. As for the arguement about sex. What is the underlining reason that people have sex? It is to reproduce. So if you want to play you better be willing to pay, and if you still want to play and aren't willing to pay the price take it in the butt.
41 - Mark
Is it just me, or was Elvira's last post nothing but a personal attack...oh well, good work Elvira, make sure you keep on the lookout for hypocrisy.
42 - Elvira Black
Matt:
"...if you still want to play and aren't willing to pay the price take it in the butt"
Is this what you consider "talking about the issue in a resonable (sic), and mature, manor" (sic)?
Thanks for telling everyone what the underlying reason for having sex is. Now we can all follow your wise edict and refrain from ever having sex unless we plan to have a child.
Some pro-lifers seem to have a penchant for wriggling around the fact that in this country birth control is available and is legal to use, thus allowing people options other than taking it in the butt. But they can't seem to acccept even this compromise, which does not involve "a fetuses (sic) growing inside of them." Apparently, nothing less than full-blown sexual fascism will do--and some can't even practice what they preach to boot.
43 - Elvira Black
Mark:
I will let the comments editor decide, but i was very very careful not to make my comment into a personal attack. I talked in general of a GROUP of people who hold views similar to yours. My point was that the day we legislate private sexual behavior is the day America and what it stands for will die a cruel death.
44 - Elvira Black
PS to Mark:
Criticizing and questioning someone's BEHAVIOR versus insulting them PERSONALLY are two different things. This is my understanding of the comment policy as it stands. As I noted, if I had my druthers I'd have left your comments intact for all to see, though I understand why Christopher is compelled to prevent controversial posts from devolving into nasty verbal fisticuffs. But I didn't enforce the comment policy, so I'm not being hypocritical as I see it.
45 - Christopher Rose
For what it's worth, I see no personal attack on Mark. I would have considered leaving his earlier comment unedited if I had seen Elvira's later point, but I normally read all the comments in chronological order.
46 - Nancy
What is really appalling about S. Dakota's proposed law is that it entirely ignores the right of the mother to receive medical care, and passes over her rights of survival in favor of the embryo. This is relegating women to a status lower than that of breeding animals; a cow in distress would be saved because of its monetary value. SD is saying a grown, conscious woman has NO value, no rights, that supercede those of her embryo? Even worse, this is all a ploy by a congress of MEN. There are no women involved in this. This whole business by so-called 'pro-lifers' just exposes the obscenity & twisted priorities of their thinking.
47 - td
What happens when the abortion rate doesn't change because women go out of state, they have illegal abortions (some of which kill the mother), or just carry the child to term and then kill it.
This is what happened in most countries that instituted illegal abortions.
I'm not saying that this makes abortion right.
I'm just curious what the state officials will say to people when they are pleading for the increased social funding to deal with the negative reprocussions that illegal abortion is proven to have on society.
Hey maybe it's good. Maybe it will make some of the pro-lifers realise that if you don't take care of the social reasons why women seek abortion then whatever the law is doesn't really make a difference.
48 - Mark (the real one)
What is really appalling about Roe vs. Wade is that it entirely ignores the right of the human being inside the womb to live, and passes over its rights of survival in favor of the mother. This is relegating unborn children to a status lower than that of other people. Roe vs. Wade is saying a living, genetically distinct though unborn has NO value, no rights, that supercede those of its mother?
Abortion is murder and murder is wrong. Its wrong even if its legal. Its wrong even if it makes someone else's life easier. Its wrong even if its generally accepted. Its wrong even if it wont be stopped by passing a law against it. Its wrong.
49 - Elvira Black
Mark:
All fine and good. But is it ok with you if some of us practice birth control just the same? This way we'll have less potential abortions.
50 - Druxxx
Mark I tried to get you to answer this on another post but you did not.
There is risk in every pregnancy. To the mother and the child. At what percentage risk do we allow the mother to abort. And I know you think rape should not be an exception, but if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned, mosts states that outlaw abortion will allow rape to be an exception.
The mothers risk of losing her life and rape will make for some large loop holes that will allow many legal abortions to happen.
And how will you work the rape exception? Will the woman have to prove rape, or will the state have to prove it wasn't?
Instead of trying to stop a practice that I think will never stop, legal or not, how about better dealing with the things that make women want to have an abortion.
And Mark please admitt that by maing abortion illegal you are putting the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. And how is that any different from putting the mothers rights above the fetus's rights? Some one has to be above the other. I realize that in most circumstances, forcing the mother to have the child will not kill her. But the fact is that it can. There is risk. You cannot ignore that.
51 - Bing
You're the only obscene one Nancy [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. The South Dakota Bill clearly states that if the mother's life is in danger an abortion may be performed. Therefore your whole argument in post #46 about this bill placing more value on the child's life than the mothers is bullshit. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
52 - Bing
I said bullshit remarks are par for the course for Nancy.
You editors need to lighten up.
53 - Christopher Rose
You could always consider being a little more civil, Bing. Go on, you can do it!
54 - RogerMDillon
And what have you or anyone really added to the conversation other than your opinion, Josh? I know you think a serious discourse is taking place, but have you converted anyone to your way of thinking or are you just spinning your wheels, in essence accomplishing nothing? The Pretty Ricky threads get more done.
Do we really need one more lengthy comment thread of blather that doesn't get anyone anywhere? Every abortion article needs only two comments: I'm for it; I'm against it. Nothing new is said after that.
Abortions won't ever stop regardless of the laws, and you would actually be making them deadlier, so spare the sanctity of life nonsense because it's arbitrarily applied. Fetuses and the braindead, yes; criminals and innocent bystanders during a war, no.
I do mock those who don't have sex because they are the last people who should be consulted regarding any sexual matters. Sorry if that bugs you, virigin. Lose the false self-worth for your species and realize you are no better than the apes. You'll get farther.
55 - Elvira Black
It is also curious that some pro-lifers tend to dodge some of the harder questions put to them here and elsewhere--and when backed into an intellectual corner they soon viciously lash out, thus virtually guaranteeing that their credibilty is kaputsky. Wonder why that might be...
56 - CC
#38 Go-on girl...testify!
But if Mark gets laid...PLEASE for the love of everything...use a condom!
#40 {if you still want to play and aren't willing to pay the price take it in the butt]
That's actually a fairly good way to not get pregnant, but then you have a whole new host of potential problems.
#51 If I may add the point that I think you may have been missing, that outlawing abortion does put women's lives in danger, b/c women will obtain illegal abortion- which are notoriously unsafe & even lethal. See? Not bullcrap.
#48 [Roe vs. Wade is saying a living, genetically distinct though unborn has NO value, no rights, that supercede those of its mother?]
Up to a certain point, yep! Which I find interesting you find that so appalling- considering you don't believe a woman has a right to an abortion under most circumstances-does that includes to save her life?
#48 (cont) Wrong x 6 = a lack of an argument & trying to convince himself he's right
57 - Elvira Black
CC:
LOL--you rule!
58 - Mark
So...just to follow the thread here. Personal attacks are only prohibited against the pro-choice side...
Also...CC are you actually trying to contend that murder is okay? Its objectively not okay...which is why its called murder.
A point you seem to be missing is that I dont really care all that much if a woman dies during an abortion...I see it as the same as murder. Am I necessarily happy that the person is dead? NO. But am I terribly upset that they managed to take their own life in the process of killing another? No. Its like feeling sorry for suicide bombers. "Boy, if only we could find a way for the bomber to be safer while he's blowing up a subway station." To which the pro-choicer inevitable response would be..."See all you pro-lifers are hypocrits, you want that to have to bomber to die while hes killed other people, what about the sanctity of his life!" Jeez, your logic eats itself. The point is, when someone choose to kill someone else and ends up getting themselves killed in the process...I'm thinking murder/suicide. (Pro-choicers)-"But what about his right to choose what he does with his body and his bombs! Dont try to restrict his access to subway stations..."
(Some unsubstantiated generalizations about pro-choice people) All pro-choice people think there is no God, they hate the idea of the family, they were abused as children, are sexual deviants, like to tear the legs off of insects and smell like old cheese. Because I say these things..it makes them true.
59 - td
Is murder ever justified?
What about wars? Why not just let other countries take us over peacefully so that nobody has to die. Or are their beliefs that morally superceed the right to life.
What about when someone kills an intruder in their home? The intruder might kill them, but maybe they just need to use the bathroom. Or when a police sniper takes out a bank robber when they raise they're gun. Maybe they were about to drop it.
How is this different from a baby in the woom other than probability. The probability of the intruder killing you may be 99% and the probability of the baby killing the mother may be less than 1%, but you don't know in either case so how do you draw the line.
Seems to me that in society we have already accepted that murder as a means to justify some ends. This doesn't mean that murder is a morally acceptable act. Only that if we deem that murder is justified in some cases, then all murder is subjective to the a societies view of justification.
If murder isn't a justifiable means to an end, then why was it okay for Jesus to be killed?
IMPORTANT: I'm not saying that abortion is okay. Only that if it is okay, it is because society deems it just regardless of morality, as we have done in many other cases.
60 - Bing
CC...........Nancy said that the South Dakota law doesnot take into account the mother's life is a pregnancy endagers it.
This is false. That's why I called it bullshit. The law clearly says that an abortion may performed legally when the mother's life is in danger.
Is there anything else you need explained to you CC?
Christopher....... Nancy advocates infanticide and makes blatantly false arguments while doing it and I am the one who must be more civil?
Give me a friggin break!
The tide is starting to turn in this nationa nd the far left won't be able to get it's way through lawsuits and threats of lawsuits anymore. Alito, Roberts, the South Dakota abortion ban, the Supreme Court decision today not to allow racketerering charges to be brought against abortion protestors. Finally people are standing up to the radical left and thier bullshit agenda.
Funny how leftist liberals have such a passion for free speech when it involves Cindy Sheehan, marxist anti-war protestors, or any other left wing cause but they will file lawsuits and appeals to block the freedom of speech for those who happen to be pro-life. What a bunch of hypocrites. We on the right don't file lawsuits to block the free speech of our political adversaries rather we critique the message offered by our political adversaries.
The South Dakota bill is just the beginning.
Happy days are coming.
I am changing my name from Bing to "Arch Conservative" and will now end this post with a closing that I will use in all of my posts from now on.
"Death to the ACLU!"
61 - Christopher Rose
Making arguments is what it's all about, Bing. I have already given you a break by neither deleting even more of your over-exhuberant prose nor banning you outright, both of which I am loathe to do.
You can call yourself by any name you like, barring the obscene or vile, but I'm afraid your proposed new closer won't be acceptable to my interpretation of the comments guidelines, despite its comedic potential.
62 - Mark
td, not all killing is murder. All of your examples were completely incongruous with the situation which exists in abortion. During wars, combatants on both sides agree to accept the risk of their own death in order to help protect their country. When it comes to civilians who are killed in combat, it is commonly held that this is to be avoided at all cost, and is in fact immoral to do so. An intruder in your home or a bank robber both accept the risk of their actions before going in to commit their crimes...I'm not saying we should kill them as fast as we can, but it is not murder to kill them if they are in a situation where they pose a threat.
I do agree with you however that our society as of late has agree to accept murder as a means to an end, and this is wrong and that is what must be remedied. It is not okay to use evil means to achieve a good end.
63 - Arch Conservative
Why has my prose been "over exuberant?"
Nancy implied that the South Dakota abortion bill had no consideration for the mother's life. Then CC seconded her. This is false. The bill clearly stated that in the case of a mother's life was being threatened by the pregnancy abortion would be a legal course of action. OK? That is a fact and all the spinning Nancy wants to do can't change that.
So why don't you get off my friggin back Christopher and attack Nancy for her prose which also seems to be "over exuberant" but unlike mine, is also false for a change.
As for my new closing......... there is absolutley nothign wrong with it. I am only using it in the sense that I hate the ACLU and everything they stand for and I wish to see it cease to exist. I have not in any of my posts ever implied or stated that I want to see members of the ACLU die. Nor have I ever personally threatened anyone who has posted on this site.
This site is increasingly showing hostility by the editors toward anyone with a right of center viewpoint while those on the left are never critisized, warned, or reprimanded.
I bet if I was saying Bush is Hitler and he should be assissinated in closing my posts that would be just honkey friggin dory.
[Deleted. Actually, Bing, the only stuff that gets edited here are personal attacks and other remarks "without redeeming qualities" or other breaches of the comments guidelines. You can make political or social arguments from any political perspective you want, but you can't attack the proponents of views you disagree with.
As to your new signoff, I have already made my position known. If you want to challenge that, you are of course welcome to contact the owners of this site directly. Thank you. Comments Editor]
64 - steve
Finally. One of our fifty states has morals.
65 - td
I don't think to many of those drafted for the world wars or vietnam would agree with your "they accepted the risk" assertion.
As a citizen we all take the risk that the government can decide that the needs of society outway your personal rights. Innocent or not.
Right now goverment views the benefit to society of abortion as more important than the personal rights of the unborn.
Maybe this is wrong. But it certainly ins't the only case where it has happened. But I don't remember the christian right protesting against the draft because it was morally wrong. You seemed to believe that the end was worth the means then.
Now we have another case where society feels the ends are worth the means. And while you can argue that they do not, you cannot argue that it should be outlawed on moral grounds without being hypocrytical.
Maybe your okay with being hypocritical. That's fine. But it's not something you can avoid is all i'm saying.
66 - Mark
Why is it hypocritical to argue against abortion on moral grounds?
67 - Josh
Roger:
The first three paragraphs of that were actually enjoyable to read. That was the kind of articulation that I desired from you. I was beginning to think you were an idiot, capable of only one insult (albeit said a couple different ways).
I don't mind that you mock people. By all means, do so -- but at least back that up with some insights. It makes you look less like an ass.
68 - RogerMDillon
Virgin Josh, you have me confused with someone who cares about your desires, although considering your an abstinence guy, I'm surprised you allow yourself to have any.
The next time you contribute some insight will be the first time, yet you'll continue to be the same ass you always been.
69 - Elvira Black
A few still unanswered questions for Mark--plus a couple of new ones:
Is it ok by you if consenting adults go ahead and use birth control, thereby helping to minimalize the abortion dilemma?
Do you care if Jewish babies are aborted? (A simple yes or no should suffice).
Would you really not care if a friend-- or, say, a sister--died during an abortion? (I know you probably can't believe anyone you know and/or love could resort to this, but you might be surprised).
Do you ever read or comment to any posts on BC that don't involve abortion?
Are you capable of answering these questions straight on, without resorting to vitriol, generic rhetoric, and/or just flat out ignoring them?
Why do you seem to be such an incredibly angry young man?
70 - CC- liberal leftist communist terrorist agenda
#58 [Also...CC are you actually trying to contend that murder is okay? Its objectively not okay...which is why its called murder.]
Yea Mark, that's EXACTLY what I'm trying to contend- insert sarcastic tone here.
#58 [A point you seem to be missing is that I dont really care all that much if a woman dies during an abortion...]
No Mark, actually that point was not lost on me. I just thought it bared repeating. Thanks. And yes, I do indeed think that is apalling, but somehow I think you'll get over it...b/c I smell like old cheese. BTW- why did you put that weird statement at the end of your post?
#60[Is there anything else you need explained to you CC?]
#60 Nope I don't 'need' anything else 'explained' to me by 'you'- very patronizing statement BTW.
I understand full well what you said the first 3 times...I understand...clear? In my reply I was making an argument that anti-abortion laws DO indeed endanger women's lives, but which is outside of the provision for women's lives. You either did not read my statement clearly, or chose not to understand. Please reread #56 so you can understand. Don't think I 'need' to explain it to 'you' again.
The rest of your post is just funny.
#63 Wow- so A.C. hates civil liberties.
Don't civil liberties include your right to freely bitch and spew about whatever you want? Oh, I get it...you want to be able to do that and not have anyone challenge or criticize you.
#64 Yeah- including discrimination against American Indians.
71 - Elvira Black
Who decides if a woman's life is in danger, and thus "worthy" of having an abortion? Hopefully not young men with such rigorous and unyielding passions as Mark's.
Here's a thought--some actually believe that the life of the mother must supercede the life of the foetus. Some possible reasons for this:
If the mother in question already has other children, having her die during during childbirth/illegal abortion/etc will leave her existing children orphans.
The mother could conceivably bear other children at some other point in time.
Yes, the rights of the living are not, in my opinion, some grand abstraction. If we want to talk about life, let's include ALL life--not just rail and rant based on some sort of uber-judgmental exchange theory.
72 - Arch Conservative
The ACLu doesn't give a damn about "civil liberties" unless it fits into thier radical left wing agenda. They are a danger to everything moral and decent. Example they provided legal representation for NAMBLA when Jeffry Curley was murdered by two Massachusetts NAMBLA members but then they turn around and sue the Boy Scouts of America, one of our most longstanding instituions that seeks to teach young boys morality and respect for society.
Let's also not forget to mention that the only time the ACLU is concerned with separation of church and state is when it involves the expression of Christianity. There have been numerous instances where the public school system has used texts to teach children about Islam and the ACLU hasn't had anything to say about it. There are countless other examples as to how slanted the ACLU's so called separation of church and state views actually are.
Then there's the ACLU sticking up for illegal aliens at the expenses of American citizens, yes I said 'ILLEGAL ALIENS" not undocumented workers, because ILLEGAL ALIENS is what they are. NOw correct me if I am wrong but no where in our constituion does it say that people who sneak across our border illegally have rights under the American legal system. The minuteman project was predictably labeled as a bunch of "racists" by the ACLU and thier vile leftist kin simply because they made an effort to expose the lack of effort being put forth on our southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Typical leftist tactics.....when you can't win an argument with logic resort to baseless name calling using terms like "racist" or "bigot." Why do they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union when they clearly care more about the so called rights of illegal aliens than the rights of the Minutemen, a groupo of law abiding American citizens?
Another example of how un-American this group actually is would be the whole abu gharib incident. The ACLu had a great big hard on for showing everyone just how despicable the American military is because a couple of pictures surfaced showing a small number of military personell being "mean to those poor islamic freedom fighters." While I don't believe our military should be unjustly maltreating prisoners I fail to what the ACLU's extreme zeal for defending islamic terrorists/enemy combatants and slandering the American military has to do with civil liberties.
This organization is so blatantly a tool of the radical left couched the guise of defending civil liberties that they only pay lip service to while filing lawsuit upon lawsuit against anyone who does not share thier views or would hinder thier agenda. And only someone who is far left themself would actually believe that this is not so.
This organization must be stopped at all costs. It must be cut from the fabric of our society like the dangerous cancer that it is before it metastisizes any further.
I believe they will be stopped as the American people have proven at the ballot box that they do not share the desire to steer American society in the same direction as the ACLU would have it go. This is why the ACLU is such a litigious organization. The left has sought to pack the courts with radical judges who share thier views and then file uncountable lawsuits until they have thier way with no regard for the will of the majority of the American public. Members of the ACLU make up less than 1% of the total American population yet they seek to use lawsuits to impose thier desires on the rest of us when they cannot find broadbased support within the public.
The tide is turning. American who do not wish to see all that was once decent and moral about American society have had enough of the ACLu trying to ram thier perverse, degenerate, anti-American agenda down thier throats.
[Deleted]
73 - td
Every citizen has what you refer to as 'moral' rights. But the government can superceed those rights if they believe that it is in the best in the interest of all citizens.
In most instances this does not occur unless an individual has committed some act with full recognition of the concequences. IE: Capital Punishment.
But this is not always the case. Abortion and the Draft are instances where the government has decided that it is in the interest of society that the rights of some individuals are outwayed by the best interest of others in the population.
Now, you can argue that abortion is not in the best interest of others in the population, and that the government is wrong.
However, if you are solely arguing that abortion should be illegal because it is morally wrong then you (the christian right) should also have argued that the draft was wrong on purely moral grounds.
But the Christian Right didn't have a problem with the government superceeding individuals rights to life back then, and so for you to do it now on the issue of abortion is hypocrytical.
74 - Mark
Responses for post 69.
I dont think true contraceptives should be illegal. I dont agree with it and would never use it, but I also dont think it would ever happen that it would become illegal. The reason is because, while it does resist the true nature of sex, it doesnt actually kill a living human being. It just prevents the egg from being fertilized. The so-called, "emergency contraceptive pill" I do think should be illegal, because it is nothing more than an early term abortafecient. It prevents the already fertilized egg (i.e. human) from attaching to the uteran wall and dying. Birth control does nothing to reduce the number of abortions...it in fact increases them. Birth control pawns the idea to young people that they are invincible and that if they use them they wont get someone pregnant...so they have more sex, and more sex, and more sex. Sex has become an addiction for many teenagers so they have it often and the more often they have it, the less it means and the more confident they become that it wont result in pregnancy until they finally become more careless with their birth control or the birth control fails and then they turn to abortions to avoid the consequences of their actions. Abstinence only education teaches sex as something to be respected and only entered into with someone you truely love and are willing to commit yourself to and the sexual union of those people is a symbol of that. Birth control education teaches sex as recreation, to be had as many times, in as many positions, with as many people as possible and if someone becomes attached to you because of it, either emotionally (in which case they are clingy and crazy) or through a child (in which case you should get an abortion...because its the responsible thing to do and you always do what is responsible) then you should get away from them as quickly as possible. If you have a hundred kids and fifty percent of them abstain and fifty dont and dont use birth control, you would still have less abortions then if all of them used birth control and had sex.
Yes I care that Jewish babies are aborted and you should too, you were one once. A baby being murdered in its womb is terrible regardless of its parents religious affiliation.
Firstly, none of my sisters would get an abortion your right. I come from a family of nine, both of my parents are still around and have raised us as good Catholics. One of my sisters is married with three children, the other two would not be able to if they wanted to because PA requires parental notification and my parents would never allow it. Plus, my whole family has sat down and said that if it did happen, we would accept them and raise the child with her. We are smart enough to have a support system in place. Plus if you knew my family at all, abortion would only come to mind as the cowards way out. She would be more ostrisized by the family if she got an abortion than if she had the child. It would only be one mistake instead of two, the second being murder.
No, I am mostly interested in respondng to threads concerning abortion. It is the topic I know more about and care the most about. I could care less if Jessica and Nick split up. I am relatively unversed in the political scene and feel that peoples feelings on the government often come down to emotion and not reason, so I avoid them. Abortion is a topic about morals and in our country today morals are being trod upon, so I feel the need to respond.
Yes I do try to respond to most questions straightforwardly, but in some cases I need to make other points first. Especially when the questions asked are loaded.
I am actually not angry, but simply tired of the pro-choice side of this argument painting me as a brainwashed, ignorant and evasive nutjob, when they themselves are just as evasive and ignorant.
75 - Josh
Man-slut Roger:
Why so irritable? Has that constant burning sensation finally gotten to you?