Home / South Dakota: Front Line of the Abortion Wars

South Dakota: Front Line of the Abortion Wars

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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?

South Dakota is well on its way to adopting the nation’s most restrictive abortion law. The unabashed goal is to be the first in the nation with such a law in the hope the inevitable legal challenge will make its way to the United States Supreme Court and the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Yet there’s plenty of back story to this desire.

Two years ago, the South Dakota Legislature passed a bill that made performing an abortion a felony. The only exception was if the abortion was to protect the health of the mother. The bill contained a number of legislative “findings,” including: “the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm;” abortions subject women to a “significant risk of severe depression, suicidal ideation, suicide, attempted suicide, post traumatic stress disorders, adverse impact in the lives of women, physical injury, and a greater risk of death than risks associated with carrying the unborn child to full term and childbirth;” and, both the pregnant mother and “the unborn human child . . . possess a natural and inalienable right to life under the South Dakota Bill of Rights.”

Surprisingly, Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, a Roman Catholic, exercised what is known as a “style and form” veto. Rounds wanted changes in the bill to ensure existing abortion laws would not be suspended if and when the legislation was challenged. Although the state House of Representatives approved the suggestion, the state Senate rejected it and the bill died.

Last year, South Dakota legislators introduced no less than six bills seeking to restrict abortion. Most contained provisions that would basically delay their effectiveness until Roe v. Wade was overruled. Of those bills, the Legislature adopted one revising the informed consent applicable to abortions, requiring, among other things, that doctors advise women that the procedure ends the lives of “human beings.” Passage of the measure wasn’t surprising, since it was sponsored by 40 of 70 House members and 23 of 35 Senate members. However, a federal court has at least temporarily blocked the law from going into effect on First Amendment grounds pending a trial on its constitutionality.

In addition, the 2005 Legislature voted to establish a 17-member “South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion.” The task force was charged with reporting to the Legislature and Rounds by December 2005, including in the report any proposals for additional legislation it deemed advisable.

From the outset, it wasn’t hard to see where the task force was heading. Six of the eight legislators appointed to it sponsored one or more of that session’s anti-abortion bills. And while the head of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota was appointed, so were the ultraconservative husband of one of the leaders of the anti-abortion movement in South Dakota and the co-director of the “Respect Life” office of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls.

The task force met on six days between August 1 and early December 2005. At its last meeting, four members walked out, claiming the report they were presented to adopt was biased and unsupported by the testimony and evidence the task force heard. The task force’s report (PDF file), which was subsequently altered, concluded that “a ban on abortion is required.” Interestingly, a footnote said the task force “has not examined the question of whether any exceptions are necessary – i.e., whether an abortion is ever medically necessary, even to save the life of the mother.” The task force made 14 other recommendations, including that the state: (1) amend the state Constitution to include provisions that provide an unborn child with rights “from the moment of conception,” (2) require that no abortion be performed unless the pregnant woman first receives counseling from a pregnancy care center that does not perform abortions, and (3) clarify the state’s education laws so that abstinence education excludes contraceptive-based sexuality education. With respect to the latter, the task force noted: “It is clear that sexuality education and abortion are undoubtedly connected.”

The task force members who walked out of the final meeting prepared and presented a minority report (Word document). It received little consideration in the legislative process this year. The three members of the House on the task force sponsored a bill they call the Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act. It begins with the following statement:

The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization.

The bill than proceeds to make performing any procedure terminating the life of an “unborn human being” a felony. The bill defines an unborn human being as “an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.” Fertilization is defined to occur when sperm penetrates a female egg. Not only does the bill prohibit abortion from the moment of fertilization, it provides no exceptions to the ban.

The House passed the bill 47-22 on Feb. 9 and the Senate approved the measure 23-12 Wednesday. Both chambers rejected amendments that would have provided provide exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

The bill does have to go back to the House because a Senate committee amended it to include a legislative “finding” that the state Constitution’s guarantee of due process of “Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings” and the finding from two years ago that under the South Dakota Constitution both a pregnant mother and her unborn child “possess a natural and inalienable right to life.” The House is expected to accept the modification and it is anticipated Rounds will get the bill on his desk as early as the week of Feb. 27. The governor has not given a clear indication whether he intends to sign the bill. The state’s Legislative Research Council has estimated it would cost $1 million to fight the anticipated litigation over the law’s constitutionality. That is double the estimate from the bill Rounds vetoed two years ago.

The anti-abortion members of the task force also introduced a bill that would have required schools in South Dakota to teach abstinence-based sex education without providing instruction in the use of contraceptive drugs, devices, or methods. That bill passed the House but died in a Senate committee. The House did kill a provision of a bill that would have made it a crime for a school employee to refer or accompany a student for family planning services. And, for the second year in a row, the Legislature killed a bill requiring health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

One thing can be said so far about South Dakota’s role in the abortion wars. At least it has been wars of words and paper, not violent acts. Still, the burning desire to see this legislation lead to a court challenge was reflected in one other action during this week’s debate: the Senate rejected an amendment calling for the bill to be submitted to the voters of South Dakota. We shouldn’t feel too deprived, though. After all, thanks to last year’s Legislature, we get to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

Powered by

About Tim Gebhart

After 30 years of practicing law to provide shelter for his family, books and dogs. Tim Gebhart is now perfecting the art of doing little more than reading, writing and sleeping.
  • Sallie

    How sad. Abortion is a medical issue – not a political football – and not a religious viewpoint that must be imposed on everyone. It’s astonishing – since a clear majority of the American people are Pro-Choice – that this kind of thing is taking place.

  • suffraget

    Women did not fight enough and
    today we have a weak and not sporty
    cannot-withstand_even the_first-punch
    decoy of a real male as highest court judge.
    Hit and punch this ridiculous decoy harder!


  • The women of this country have only themselves to blame for the deterioration of the their reproductives rights. If you don’t like what is being handed down to you vote those legislators out of office. If you are not willing to do that, don’t complain.

  • Christ-Follower

    You know, you can call it “privacy”, you can call it “a medical issue” or “simple procedure” but in the end, it’s just murder.

    Thank God Almighty that one state has the respect and humility to ban the murder of babies. Way to go, South Dakota!

    Hopefully, this country will soon recognize that ALL it’s citizens are precious and stop allowing the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies, each year and OVERTURN ROV v. WADE!

  • Christ-Follower: One question. Do you support the death penalty?

    If, as I suspect, the answer’s yes, can you cite Scripture where Jesus supports the death penalty? And how do you handle “Let thee who are without sin cast the first stone,” and other quotes that suggest Jesus would be horrified by our barbaric practice banned in virtually every civilized country.

    As for the SD bill, it’s not surprising. In fact, it was inevitable that someone would try to get this issue in front of the Supreme Court now that we have two Dubya candidates there.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • Herr Jurgan

    Science has come a long way since RVW. Comparitively, what is now understood concerning conception, organic chemistry etc… makes the scientific era which RVW emerged as a social issue seem almost Victorian technological. It is a fact that what was then considered “not human tissue” is actually today highly sought after by commercial research labs and chemical companies.

    The basis of RVW was that this was not human, did not have life, was not of value. When in fact (based on the going price of post aborted fetuses and tissue) the product of the abortion is considered necessary for testing compounds and products which are ultimately marketed for human use.

    This is a most interesting debate, on that point alone. The political and religious, pro/con, left/right opinions aside; the fact remains that the human tissue after product of an abortion, at any stage of pregnancy adds value to the production of medicines, cosmetics, preservatives and many other products of commercial value.

    The event horizon of genitics is on the horizon, how much more viable are those same tissues going to be on the open market, or even the black market. The sources don’t necessarily have to be aborted tissues, they can also be derived from living persons. There are already rumors of prisoners in countries who are executed and used for laboratory study. Could a whole underground system of tissue “donors” be emerging? Would an extension of aborted tissue for study be a black market in human trade?

    It’s too terrible to even consider.

    I believe the whole issue is larger than just some political movements towards banning the procedures. Look beyond the obvious, and consider the larger picture.

  • What A Crock

    I assume South Dakota is also going to step up to the plate and provide every single child with excellent medical care, nutrition and education?

    If so, they’ll be bucking the Bush administration, who just cut children’s medical benefits, school lunch programs and education by 25%.

    Thanks to this “caring, Christian administration, the infant mortality rate went up in the USA for the first time in 40 years. By EIGHT PERCENT. “Pro-lifers” *love* fetuses until they’re born. After that, they have to fend for themselves.

    We rank 28th out of 37 nations in infant mortality. Unless someone is willing to put their wallet where their loud mouth is and take decent care of these kids once they’re born, they have no reason to feel all self-righteously smug about being “pro life.”


  • I support Ms. Schlafly

    Thank God Almighty that one state is willing to stand up to the radical feminists !

  • Moving to Canada

    According to Bush and his cronies: If you support abortion rights you’re a murderer. If you don’t support the war in Iraq, you’re a traitor. So, abortion is not okay. But it’s okay to bomb the crap out of thousands of Iraquis and kill them?

    Just checking. Cause that sounds sort of… gasp!… hypocritical.


  • Whitewolf

    Boring: listening to intrenched opposites throw their absolutes in each other’s faces.
    Interesting: thinking about a problem in a new way. Here’s some fertilizer:

    Some argue about when “life begins.” Life doesn’t begin. Life continues. The life of the Mother and the life of the Father come together when the egg and the sperm come together. Life just is. (Are you thinking this is an anti-abortion position? Keep thinking). Some ask, “is it human” – it has human DNA, what else? Some call abortion “murder.” Is it killing? It’s killing. Is all killing murder? No.
    Abortion can be: a tragedy, a relief, a freedom, an everlasting regret, a liberation, a wise decision, a rash decision … a good idea, a bad idea, legal, illegal, but …
    think about this …
    The power to give birth belongs to Woman; what power belongs to Man? Who has the right to make a decision about what a woman’s body is allowed to do? Who has the right to make a decision about what a man’s body is allowed to do? Hmmm.

  • CC

    The power that belongs to man is to be a co-creator of life. Who should have a right to decides what a particular person’s body should be allowed to do, is that particular person’s decision ALONE. The problem arises when we think we should have the right to control what another’s body does.

    #5 Do you think that Roe v. Wade ‘allowed’ abortions to occur or that the overturning will ‘disallow’ it? Seriously mistaken.
    (I’m not saying we should have no laws, b

  • CC

    whoops- b/c people don’t follow them, I’m saying this law was passed to protect thousands of women’s lives & health that were in danger b/c they were getting abortions regardless of the law- this logic does not apply to murder, so please don’t go there, even if you think abortion is murder).

  • CC

    I’m confused, its almost like the task force WANTS abortions to occur, with the ‘no contraception’ education recommendation and all. Wouldn’t the number of abortions actually increase with that? How weird. Maybe they think abstinence will actually work.

  • Bing

    You so called “choice” people just don’t get it and you never will.

    It’s not about “your body” or “taking women’s rights away.”

    It’s about the person inside the woman and his or her rights. Yes it’s a person!

    That person should have the right to live and not be killed because his mother’s lifestyle may be cramped. Yes most abortions are not a matter of life and death but a matter of the mother not wanting to alter her lifestyle.

    There is nothing more precious than human life, especially the life of an innocent baby who has never harmed anyone and any reasonable decent person would value this life more than the concerns that the mother’s lifestyle may change.

    You guys are on the losing side as most Americans do not share your glee for infanticide. South Dakota was the opening shot. You guys had better get ready for war as we will no longer stand aside and allow the infanticide continue. You will not be allowed to conduct your infanticide for profit any longer. You WILL be defeated!

  • The preciousness of life begins at conception and ends at birth, in the minds of too many. When right-wingers hear about human lives snuffed out by poverty, war, and starvation, what’s the response? “Cry me a river, you bleeding-heart liberal.”

    If only the post-born could inspire the same heartfelt compassion and energetic campaigning the right-wingers are willing to put forth on behalf of the pre-born, we could have had paradise on earth by now.

    Instead we have yet more useless partisan infighting over laws doomed to utterly fail to end abortion. They might make abortion more dangerous and unpleasant, but they will fail to prevent abortion from happening. They may even cause the number of abortions to increase, making the plaintive cries of “nothing more precious than human life” ring even more hollow.

  • Mark

    How long do pro-choice people think you’re going to be in the majority? You’re whole viewpoint dictates that you will at best last two or three generations. Pro-life people are reproducing left and right, while you choose to either contracept or abort your children. We pro-lifers will eventually come out on top because A.) we are right and B.) we will gradually make up a greater and greater percentage of the population. Our numbers grow exponentially while your dwindle through your selfish, immediate gratification with no consequences lifestyle. Enjoy the last few years of your viewpoints existence. When you are eighty five and spewing your pro-choice, reproductive rights, infanticide nonsense, the children around you will laugh at your antiquity and smile sadly at your senility and delusions, not fully realizing how dangerous they once were nor how many millions of children those beliefs murdered as they slept in their mothers wombs.

  • Mark

    Where do these claims come from that pro-life people dont care for the poor or starving? Its one thing when a person is forgotten about by the world and unfortunate enough to live in an impoverished nation, and another when there is a law passed which legalized the direct killing of a child. Also, I do not agree with the death penalty, but I at least understand the reasoning and make the distinction that those are people who have commited a grave crimes. Its a big difference from unborn children.

  • Mark

    Abstinence does work and always has worked and always will work. The only reason it is dismissed today is that any attempt to tell someone to control themselves is met with violent hostility and outrage. Imagine…to think that a person could actually go without having sex until their ready…its…its…its…its just unAmerican is what it is! Abortion is just irresponsible people’s ways of covering their tracks.

  • Mark, I have no idea how old you are, but abortion is not a recent invention, nor is it strictly a product of modern attitudes toward sex. Women have been terminating pregnancies for many, many generations, sometimes because they had no access to contraception, sometimes because women in some eras and cultures were not empowered even within marriage to say ‘no’, often because crushing poverty made the prospect of feeding another mouth untenable, and always because for whatever reason, the woman was simply not prepared to bring another child into the world.

    The bottom line is that a woman’s reproductive choice is her own business, not yours, not South Dakota’s, and not mine. I would prefer to see a world in which every child conceived is welcomed by parents who are emotionally, financially, and physically prepared to raise it, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

  • RogerMDillon

    “Abstinence does work”

    Mark, just because women don’t want to have sex with you doesn’t mean you get to call it abstinence by default.

  • CC

    #15 No, that’s actually not the central issue- although it is for you b/c you choose it to be. Many women who choose to have abortions are pro-life until they get into a situation in which they feel they need one. So ask someone in a situation if they feel that is the central issue.
    Limiting your discussion to only this issue is counterproductive & pointless.

    As for your little war, BRING IT ON!!! We won’t lose b/c abortions will NEVER stop- even if you outlaw them. You act like the anti-choice community hasn’t been trying to limit & slowly chip away at CHOICE since Roe was passed, they have & we have been fighting them every step of the way. Where have YOU been for the last 30+ years? Since according to scientific questionnares show the majority of Americans are pro-choice with some restrictions on abortion, it will be a wake up call for them & they will fight you. What will most likely happen is you will draw out the millions of sleeping giants that are unaware of your sneeky stealth tactics. Overturn Roe? REALLY stuiped move! Good luck b/c you are gonna need it.

    BTW- cheap shot with the glee thing
    That’s like saying you have glee when women die or are maimed from botched illegal abortions. Is this true? I certainly hope not.

  • CC

    Certainly you are not advocating that pro-life disposition is an inherited trait? Children ALWAYS adopt the views their parents have? Ridiculous!

    So is your argument that if pro-life people over breed and do nothing to improve their financial familial situations, that will spawn more pro-life people? Actually, most evidence shows the larger the family, the poorer quality of life for ALL members of that family- that kind of poverty and misery(unless you have unlimited income & resources to support a large family- which most of us don’t) will most likely turn your little darlings into rational people who will then see the need to use family planning(including birth control) to limit their family size and better their overall situation. That tactic is dumber than trying to convice people to be ONLY abstinent.
    #19 Can we see this evidence that ‘abstinence ONLY’ works? B/c according to numerous scientific studies I have seen, its only moderately successful as compared to comprehensive sex education.

    Look at Why has the teenage pregnancy rate declined in the U.S.?

  • CC

    #19[Abstinence does work and always has worked and always will work. The only reason it is dismissed today is that any attempt to tell someone to control themselves is met with violent hostility and outrage. Imagine…to think that a person could actually go without having sex until their ready…its…its…its…its just unAmerican is what it is! Abortion is just irresponsible people’s ways of covering their tracks]

    You’re GD right its meant with hostility & outrage- its MY FREAKIN’ BODY to control! Why don’t YOU try to ‘control’ your urges to tell people what to do. That is so unbelievably arrogant & presumptuous to think you GET a say.

    Hostility & Outrage- your damn right. As for ‘violent’ hostility- no thanks, I’ll leave that one to the anti-choicers who bomb family planning clinics & harass them, their families (including their children), and their clients.

    What if the person is NEVER ready to have children- never, ever, ever have sex? That is your big solution? That is really unrealistic & unfair. We are humans and unlike other animals, we have sex for a multitude of reasons- not just for procreation. Hey- don’t do anything, b/c X might happen. Ridiculous way to live your life.

  • CC

    And insisting others shouldn’t have sex unless it meets your criteria is just judgemental & self-righteous people’s way of trying to play god. Get over yourselves!

  • 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.

  • Josh


    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?

  • 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.

  • 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. 🙂

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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]

  • 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?

  • CC:
    Thank you.

    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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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]

  • Bing

    I said bullshit remarks are par for the course for Nancy.

    You editors need to lighten up.

  • You could always consider being a little more civil, Bing. Go on, you can do it!

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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

  • CC:

    LOL–you rule!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!”

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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]

  • steve

    Finally. One of our fifty states has morals.

  • 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.

  • Mark

    Why is it hypocritical to argue against abortion on moral grounds?

  • Josh

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Josh

    Man-slut Roger:
    Why so irritable? Has that constant burning sensation finally gotten to you?

  • Mark

    #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?

    Interesting how you chose to simply take my words out of context, instead of addressing the point I made in that post. The cheese thing was me mocking pro-choice people, its tough to bring my humor down a few levels…sorry.

  • RogerMDillon

    How did you know, Virgin Josh? You told me that you only had a sore throat, but it appears it was worse. Make sure you tell the sailors before they ship out.

  • CC

    #72 I don’t know about your first example b/c I’m not familiar with the details of either case. Most likely the actual facts have been distorted by people who hate the ACLU. Sorry, but I’m also not willing to just take your word for it, b/c you are so biased against them, that anything they do would be seen as inappropriate or harmful.

    There is a BIG difference b/t having a class in schools to teach about religion vs forcing children to pray or ‘have a moment of silence’ and trying to teach Creationsim, uh execuse me, Intelligent Design(because they are really different y’know-honestly). A big difference. I took Bible survey courses in high school and also prayed with my group Fellowship of Christian Atheletes actually on school grounds. Another distortion typical of arch conservatives.

    Minutemen- legal? Nope, they kidnap (take people against their will) which is AGAINST THE LAW, but I guess we can just do whatever we AMERICANS want to ILLEGAL aliens b/c in your words ‘no where in our constituion does it say that people who sneak across our border illegally have rights under the American legal system’. LOL- absurd

    [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]

    Of course you don’t b/c although you have not actually stated this, but you seemed to imply from your statement post that only AMERICANS deserve to have their civil liberties defended.

    DEATH TO THE ACLU- not actually a threat against them? Yeah, and when radical Muslims say DEATH TO AMERICAN! they don’t actually MEAN it right? They just want us to disappear, but they aren’t trying to actually DO anything or make it happen. again…absurd

    The rest is just inane babble.

    #74 [Birth control does nothing to reduce the number of abortions]


    [PA requires parental notification and my parents would never allow it]

    FYI- parental notification does not require parents permission, as parental consent does; so they could do NOTHING to prevent her.
    Also, the rate of abortion among conservative Catholics & Protestants is actually statistically higher b/c they are less likely to use birth control & feel they need an abortion- especially among unmarried women & girls. so professing to be what you call a ‘good Catholic’ doesn’t mean much- not in reality anyway. I know you refuse to believe these points, but I thought I’d at least try. note: I am in no way saying anything about your family personally, so please don’t take it as such.

    Also, plenty of women get abortions without anyone knowing-even in good Catholic families(after the vast majority of early term abortions, you are fine in a few hours). Hence the higher statistical rates of abortion among conservative religious people. (nobody has to know except them and god- there is no evidence)

    [Interesting how you chose to simply take my words out of context, instead of addressing the point I made in that post. The cheese thing was me mocking pro-choice people, its tough to bring my humor down a few levels…sorry.]

    You mean down to my level? Okay- that’s just plain rude and obnoxious. I don’t appreciate it.
    Also, can you explain to me how ‘A point you seem to be missing is that I dont really care all that much if a woman dies during an abortion’ can be taken out of context. I’m really curious. I did not say you were happy that women die when they get illegal abortions- then you WOULD be a nutjob. Taken in context, your actual comment is appalling and IMO immoral.

  • CC

    #72 cont-

    To try to bring the discussion back on topic- there is a big difference b/t teaching about religions and trying to pass off ID or Creationism as actual science. ONLY science belongs in science class. But apparently religion belongs everywhere else- in our state legislatures(south dakota), in our personal private bedrooms, on our bodies, and in our uteruses, and with us at the doctor’s office.

  • Arch Conservative

    CC …where to begin. First of all just because you’re not familiar with the cases I mentioned does not mean I am distorting them. Instead of remaining ignorant why don’t you educate yourselves on these cases instead of making an ass of yourself on here.

    With regard to religion in schools the ACLU has files countless lawsuits to ban the mention of any aspect of Christianity in school not just “teaching creationism,” while not doing the same when Islam is discussed in the public school system.

    The minutemen have never kidnapped anyone. All that they have done is surveilled people crossing the border illegally and then call the border patrol to make them aware of these people. In one instance they even helped one man who had crossed the border illegally and became dehydrated and sick. The minutemen took him to a hospital to recieev medical attention. I don’t know where you got the idea that they kidnap people because it is not true. Frankly I think you just made it up because it derves your delusional point of view.

    With regard to your comment about my failing to believe foreigners have civil liberties you totally missed the point. The ACLU is an “American” entity that professes to stand up for the civil liberties of “Americans.” Therefore it is not only hypocritical but innapropriate that the ACLU shows more consideration for terrorists and illegal aliens. I don’t expect you to understand this because you live in the bizarro leftist world where common sense and logic are frowned upon as they are diametrically opposed to your the leftist agenda.

    You go on to speak about how only science should be taught in science class and not creationism because it has religious leanings. Why then is it ok for the left then to force thier views glorifying the homosexual lifestyle on children in the first grade. Seems like a rather striking hypocrisy to me. it’s ok to teach a subject in public schools if it is leftists leaning but if it is conservative or has any connection to Christianity at all …oh no we can’t have that.

    You’re ignorant of what actually goes on in the real world CC. You like the typical left wing [Deleted], ignore the facts that don’t support your point of view and impugn those who offer them while making up your own truths like “the minutemen kidnap people.” You really are sad.

  • Mark:

    Thank you for answering my questions.

  • CC

    #80 I am familiar with the ACLU and have done quite a bit of research into their cases & my findings are different from yours. So my only conclusion is you are flat out being dishonest about the ACLU(but I’m sure you’ll just levy the same charge at me), so we’re at an impass. But don’t take my word for it- I encourage people to look at the merits of the individual cases (not political opinions about the cases) as well as familiarize themselves with our rights under the Constitution, but the actual ACLU cases concerning religion in schools & otherwise instead of believing random people’s word for it.

    The ACLU standing up for no religion in schools does indeed go beyond the mentioning (education) of X religion in schools- which was, is, and never will be illegal in the U.S. because it is not a government endorsement of religion. Enforced prayer in schools is. The fact that they tend to go after Christianity more so than Islam is simply a illustration of the prevalence of Christianity in our society vs. Islam as well as demonstration of the differing functions of those particular religions. Christians prostilitize(including in the schools) and Muslims do not- therefore it is to be expected to see evangelical Christians attempting to force their religion on public schools b/c it is their duty as Chistians. Your claim that Christianity or other religions cannot be ‘mentioned’ in schools is either a lie or a misrepresentation- depending on your definition of the word mention and who is doing the mentioning. However I do appreciate the fundies stamping of feet, while loudly proclaiming, “Why do THEY get to get into the schools and not us? Wahh!”

    Acceptance or education on what you term a homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is not the opposite of not allowing Christian religious teachings in public schools. Being gay is a reality, and just because your religion claims it to be a sin or wrong, does not mean it does not exist, or the public school education of it(or anything else fundie Christians disagree with- contraception, Evolution) is an assault on
    your interpretation of your religion. Get over yourselves! Not everything is ‘in reaction’ to you.

    I am fully aware of the Minutemen’s actions b/c I live in TX and actually know a number of them. They do kidnap(hold people at gunpoint against their will until border patrol arrives)- this IS illegal under the law, as well as trepass on private property, and break other laws. Not saying they are evil or do not help people in need, but they are law breakers.

    Frankly I am proud of the ACLU for standing up for anyone subjected to torture or abuse- especially when they are in U.S. custody or on U.S. soil. I think it is part of the ACLU’s duties and responsibility to not only defend our civil liberties, but to indeed defend others when we as Americans abuse others’ civil liberties, thereby not only showing ourselves to be hypocritics, but also showing a disregard and a distain for the rights we hold so dear and expect from others. These rights are not only U.S. citizens rights, but indeed human rights.

    A.C.- How much more conservative can your government get before you will be happy? I mean, what the hell else do you want? You have the presidency, the legislature, and a large percentage of the courts. What the hell else do you want!? I mean, you’ve had this country since the early 1980’s and the Clinton years DO NOT count b/c he was not a liberal & you got to terrorise him daily as well as get so-called welfare reform etc. out of it. Will you be only happy when your kind are running EVERYTHING and all political discourse is disallowed unless it agrees with your view, vigilante groups are taking the laws into their own hands, schools are no more than tax-payer funded Sunday schools, and absolutely no one has rights to address their concerns in a court of law? I’m inclined to believe the answer is yes.

    Your kind shuns history, sound economic theories, science, the separation of church and state, philosophy not based on religious prinicples, rational argument and logic, intellectualism, the U.S. Constitution & the judicial process, and a respect for the balance of power that is supposed to exist in our government. I don’t know what to be most appalled about, but your attack of the judiciary & your lack of basic knowledge of our Constitutional rights smacks of ignorance(lack of knowledge) of both. Your attacks seem not so much about accepted law, the U.S. Constitution, and established precident but more grounded in your hatred & distain & your personal beliefs regarding the process that YOUR Founding Fathers established in our Constitution. Your fervent demagoguery is truly disturbing.

    I guess I could just continue on this rant about my ‘agenda’ arch conservatives and what I believe to be their delusional ‘agenda’ but it would not help or change your mind, and frankly, you are being a bit too abusive with your words and I no longer wish to waste my time with an abusive bully.

    Regardless, I am very grateful to be ignorant of what goes on in YOUR world.

  • Mike

    I could give this whole spew on why abortion is wrong, and i could of course use an array of facts drawn from science, logic, and morality, however i wont.

    I simply will say:

    Anyone who supports abortion is a baby hater.

    Thank you

  • Josh

    Man-slut Roger:
    You’re right. Do you have any other symptoms they should be aware of? It’s always been a business policy of mine that customers should be made aware of my employees “little problems”.

  • Mike

    Josh, put emphasis on the “Little” part. His “Little” problem has created a big problem in his attitude. It has caused a swelling of arrogance, to compensate for the lack of swelling elsewhere.

  • Josh

    CC, I agree that the ACLU has done very good things. However, it’s defense of NAMBLA is appalling and seriously undermines their credibility.

  • RogerMDillon

    Virgin Josh, as long as they kept themselves out of your mouth, they should be fine. I can’t speak for any of your other orifices since I couldn’t afford your steep price of a piece of chewing gum.

    Virgin Mike, that’s not what your mom said.

  • Mark

    Wow…I think we’ve all witnessed some scathing rhetoric tonight…impressive.

  • Smoke Crack Mountain

    Hey people, realize this: we are just as superstitious as those long lost Mayans so long ago. We have to make some bizarre sacrifice to appease the earth god, our own fears, or a political philosophy dating from the late twentieth century.

    The sad shit is that abortion is legal everywhere. America is no different. We are pussies to trends too. It will always be legal to kill the innocent. Liberty is dead, and nobody cares.

  • CC

    #86 Although of course I agree that what NAMBLA supports is indeed disturbing, that does not mean the group’s web site or materials incited the crime that was committed to that poor little boy. The men who committed that crime happened to view NAMBLA materials- materials& literature which were subsiquently determined NAMBLA does not promote any type of violence or illegal behavior. It does promote the repeal of age of consent laws, but does not actively encourage people to break the law. ACLU saw this as solely a free speech violation, and they did not in anyway defend the criminals or their actions. Would people be as appalled and go after particular websites if a white guy shot and murdered a black guy, but the days leading up to it had viewed KKK & NRA websites and literature? However, I do agree NABLA is a very poor choice of planitiffs to represent. I guess they figure it is their duty to defend all free speech rights, no matter how abhorrent the speech.
    Unless a group ‘encites’ or encourages others to violence like the Nuremberg Files website, there is little our government can do due to that damned first amendment.

  • Lee

    I love all of the conservative Christian rantings about how precious life is, how dare those who believe in choice and civil liberties murder these defenseless fetuses. If life is so precious to you and your ilk, then why are none of you ever trying to help those in need, who end up dying beneath bridges or frozen to park benches in the dead of winter. How many of you worry about the children who die everyday in Bush’s playground (Iraq). Between Texas, Afghanistan, and Iraq, your wonderful leader has put more of that precious life in the ground than you care to talk about, but that is okay. “He’s pertectin’ ya from the terrists and the killars. It’s hard work, real hard.” Get out among the masses, help all that precious life you guys normally ignore and sneer at. Quit looking down on all these helpless people and quit just believing that lower taxes are the way to salvation for all this precious life. You pathetic sumbitches make me sick!

  • Hi,in my opinion abortion is never justified. we supposed to punish those who murder but thousands of women who have had abortions are walking around happily enjoying their life even though their incocent angelic child was silently slaughtered behind sterile doors.
    Any one who has had an abortion is a murderer and should not be allowed to get on with their life!

  • Rachel

    Lee; i am 100% prolife, hate violence, dont agree with the death penalty, against war,and i want to help homeless people but realisticly where i live(England) and my age(13) there is nothing much many people can do. England has set up Homeless sheleters and on March 11 we raise millions of pounds(dollors to you) to help those who need it in England and Other countries.
    The goverment in America and England are probably doing everything they can to help those in need.
    By the way dont you ever call pro-lifers “You pathetic sumbitches make me sick!” because we are not pro-choice people are “pathetic murderes and you make me sick” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!