Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Abortions soon to become illegal again [Locked - Topic Hijacked]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mystlw
Joined: 9/19/2005
Msg: 451
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal againPage 19 of 63    (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Do you think they would give approval to an abortion?Whether it is just a blob or a full baby it is still life. This is just my thought and I do respect everyone has a right to an opinion.


I think that the point is whether is it a considered opinion or not. It's one thing if it's an informed opinion, but a knee-jerk, pro-choice reaction is another thing completely.

I admit that I haven't read the full 58-pages of this thread (who has that kind of time??), and I apologize if this issue has been raised before, but: if the legal definition of death is the absence of brain activity, then why isn't the legal definition of life the presence thereof? Because this, of course, would limit abortion-on-demand to the first trimester, and God forbid that we should attempt to attach any restrictions to it, regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans believe that it should be limited in some way.
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 452
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/12/2006 2:54:52 AM
I see some are not intelligent enough to know sarcasm when they read it
Maybe take a night class and catch up smart pill wise
which of course will help some with the communication part of the thread
Hey you might even learn something!!!
Trying to twist what someone says to fit your personal agenda is simplistic in intent and is easily seen through
Much like reading the last chapter of a book and then thinking you know the gist of its content...
Nice try but you simply have shown more of your short comings by not comprehending simple conversation...
You know who you are...
********************************************************************


The woman is carrying the fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it, thus it should be entirely the womans decision. If the female in question is in a relationship, then and only then should the partner have any choice in the final decision. The courts/public/gov't should not dictate the life choices of any person.

So let me see if it is you who is confused or others...
--->thus it should be entirely the womans decision <---
--->If the female in question is in a relationship, then and only then should the partner have any choice in the final decision<---
Pick & Choose eh?
You have a future in politics!!!
That is not policy that's agenda driven nonsense



Yes there are rules and laws to protect society, but there is a place to draw the line. If we were discussing freedom of speech and the US gov't censored every article/book/etc. concerning some topic or another, 'Society' would have a conniption fit. This is a matter of freedom of choice. We have the right to choose our own paths, gov't do not decide our path for us, why should they dictate this choice.

Exactly.. "Freedom of choice" to live (for the potential life and the right to life)
As long as the govt/laws side with abortion rights then it is Okie Dokie eh?
But when the wind of change blows it is not OK... I get your point
I take back the "your future" comment... You do not understand how our govt works...



In other words- mind your own business and unless it directly effects you, you should not even have the chance to vote on it.

You cannot have it your way... This is not burger king... There is more then "YOU" in the equation which of course shallow minds refuse to admit
Now you do not see the need for laws per say... I see now

Have a nice day
 DeagleNINja
Joined: 9/10/2005
Msg: 453
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/12/2006 10:18:00 AM
I find it amusing that many of the men here taking the pro-life stance think nothing of sucking down a couple fish or chicken for a single meal. I guess those lives weren't important because they were tasty?
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 454
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/15/2006 3:42:51 AM

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion

hnmnmnmnm again we discount the very fact that there is a 100% death rate in each and every abortion... I get your point its not a life until "ITS MY BODY" says so... Got ya


I find it amusing that many of the men here taking the pro-life stance think nothing of sucking down a couple fish or chicken for a single meal. I guess those lives weren't important because they were tasty?

How was your happy meal?
To even equate an animals life to that of a human is nonsense and trivializes mankind in general ...shows how shallow minded your argument has become...


When they seek to take away the right to self-determination of a citizen, .....one needs only to look at the "law", to see how wrong it is.

There are many laws that take away the right to self-determination...
Your point is pointless...


Should this law be passed it will not be a crime for a woman to terminate a pregnancy - It makes performing the procedure a class 5 felony for the health care provider. If the those who sponsored this bill were concerned with, "murder", ...why then is it not a crime for the woman to have an abortion, in this legislation?

Who said the sponsor(s) of the bill are/were concerned with murder per say? I guess your running out of bullets and need to fire some kind of shot before your gun is empty... Nice try but clean miss...


Clearly what this proposed law does is create two tiers of "choice", one for the rich, one for the poor, ...it further marginalizes the cause of citizen's rights by not even including the women it is aimed at oppressing as they aren't considered culpable conspirators to the class 5 felony.

I get it... Keeping the man out of the equation is OK but when the woman is left out you scream foul... Got ya


If you choose not to see this as a religious agenda politicizing the courts, to further the cause of religious oppression as a de facto attack on women's civil rights........?

I see lets paint this with a religious brush... Running out of ammo eh? That is good to know

Have a nice day and Easter weekend
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 455
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/15/2006 5:02:30 AM
It should be mentioned though that the rich are far less likely to abort than the poor are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be interested in knowing how you come to this bizzar conclusion,....rocky,...
just what makes you think this is so?
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 456
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/15/2006 3:13:41 PM
so what prevents any resident of SD,...who wants an abortion from just driving to the next state to get one???????

It seems kind of silly to pass such a law,..when the other states haven't,....
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 457
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/16/2006 3:19:43 AM

No, you miss the point, or are still up to the same contextual deflection fallacies ...there are rights that come with citizenship that are based on constitutional mandates, that NO law is supposed to supercede.

Exactly, no law, and it is you who have missed the point... The constitution is open for debate on intent of rights as laid forward by the precedent of roe vs wade...
To say it is not is a fallacy in itself... Your arguments and intentional misuse of your nameless mandates are beyond words...


Not me, it's clearly a ruse to oppress a gender, it's the cheerleaders of the gender oppression self-evident in this bill who try to rationalize it with the old "abortion is murder" fallacy.

hahahaa... your joking right? You are saying it again but refuse to hear even your own words ... Your interpretation of the bill or its intent is not even close... but nice try at your attempt to justify your stance ... Seen easily through of course by those who open their eyes to the truth not twisted intentional misassociation word games... Clearly a ruse? Nice try at twisting intent to fit your own agenda...


Again, you either miss the point, or it's the same 'ol straw man ploy again. Look at the bill in terms of logic, and it is clear what the motive is.

Your again attempting to place into the equation what is not there to exploit your endless endeavor of word association.. point missed again with your misguided assumptions of intent... A nice but futile end around try... tactics that are easily viewed by anyone with a clear thought process...


Further, pay attention to who the loudest voice is in the quest to make women second-class citizens via this kind of unconstitutional legislation. If you want to keep the blinders on, ...m'kay, ....don't expect others to. If you really don't understand, don't attack those who do, ...its not their fault that you eschew reasoned argument, for false logic, whether it's by ignorance of reasoned discourse, or willful deceit.
This bill goes against your own exceptions based on "morality" re: rape and incest, yet you will applaud it anyway as it furthers other intolerance that affirms your own.

I'll need ammonium carbonate to wake me from your endless attempt to play the religious card that is not in this deck... Same old crapola that is part of what is tossed against the wall to see what sticks for future use but the card up your sleeve is not in the deck we are playing... Nice try again but stick to the facts on hand not those you perceive to be in the back ground...
I would say take your own advice and step back to get a clear grasp of what we're doing here in the states and do not attempt to twist your illogical statements as facts when they surly are not... You inject what is not there trying to justify your stance... My morality is intact law upheld or not... Ignorance is in the eyes and mind of those who through false interpretation, intentional or not, try to shove down the throats of others their willingness to twist facts for their own agenda...
I can see the implied intent of the law as it was passed not the hidden behind the scene tirades you would like to use as you attempt to shoot down what you do not understand...
Give me a break from your endless word associations and stick to the facts at hand TYVM

Have a nice day
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 458
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/16/2006 3:39:47 AM

M'kay, ....how 'bout biological definition as it pertains to developmental criteria for life, ...what gives you the edge on this one? What IS it you base your self-proclaimed moral high-ground on?

We do not have to base our beliefs or said morals on the biological definitions of others. You say life starts here I say there and neither is wrong just different opinions...
Why are you so intent on attacking those who live by moral values that are instilled in them through various avenues religious or not?
Oh I get it lets keep playing the religious card


Obviously, ...by making it "not theirs" in terms of personal autonomy

HEY we're back to "its my body" again... Time and time again
It is all the pro-choice crowd has left



What about those who have decided they don't want to have children, and take steps to prevent it?
...Does the act of copulation change the status of a woman's rights?
HOW, ...and more importantly, WHY?

Been answered many times in these threads why keep asking redundant questions? Nothing else to say? I'll answer this once...
For ever action there is a reaction and abortion as a tool for BC is unjustified in human lore... If a woman does not want to become pregnant what is the one fool proof answer to the question? Need ?


I'm sure victims of rape and incest will disagree with you on this one too.

That is all you have? Again the empty gun theory comes to light...
Does been there answered that ring any bells my friend?
Have a nice Easter Sunday
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 459
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/17/2006 2:51:32 AM

The card is being dealt by those who wish to oppress others, affirmed by their religion.

Show me where the word religion is played out in the wording of the law?
Then we'll talk about your obvious assumptions...
Show me where the law states it is written with intent to oppress women?
You have no leg to stand on other then your total one sided assumptions...
This new law is not about the rights of women...
Your obvious intentional misnomer of the facts are misleading...

It's fundamental to the issue, have you read the SD law (hint - that's what this thread topic is about)?

Again you play the women card and again you are wrong... The fundamental issue is the right to life period... Anything else tossed in is based on assumptions... You can assume all you want still does not change the intent of the SD law as implied...

Bogus answer, the question in context to you or anything you said, it has not been answered with anything except self-proclaimed moral superiority.

Bogus? Self-proclaimed moral superiority?
Because you say so? GOT YA...

Try reading the law, grasp the meaning explicit in how it's worded, and re-join the thread when you understand what the topic is about. Dismissing germane arguments with logical fallacy, ....ain't going to make any points with those capable of reasoned discourse.

It is obvious when someone has the proverbial leg up you wish to silence their voice by more obvious attempts to disclaim their views with assumptions based on your bias...
If you no longer wish me or others to be a part of this thread simply ask... Don't backdoor me or others into something you read that is not there then act like it is I and others who are not following TOS simply to silence the voices of discord...
Since my understanding of the law as written is not like yours it is I who is wrong and off mark... GOTYA

Have a nice day
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 460
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/18/2006 3:12:39 AM

the bill came from a task force

Wrong...
Bills do not come from any task force... They are the product of a bill sponsor(s)...


Even a few of the Anti-Choice members of the Task-Force were against the Task Force findings, because scientific evidence was ignored when it conflicted with the agenda of the majority of the Task Force, those who advocated Catholic and "other" Christian views.

Majority wins... Simple concept... What is the problem? Democratic society runs its course and you cry foul... hmnmmnmn


"The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated," said Dr. Marty Allison of Pierre.

To me this sounds like someone had their feelings hurt and nothing more so they spout off to have the loudest voice of discontent trying to make their opinion jump to the front... Thus I will not comment on the babble put forth by the so called Dr. Allison or those by the more then angry Dr. Bell
"A" typical when their voices were shut off because of what one would perceive as trying to over jump their bounds... I'd dare say they have seen their last task force


"We walked out the sixth time they refused to even discuss an idea that we had, and they tabled the amendment without discussion. And that was about it. We just about had gone as far as some of us could in tolerating the lack of respect for any other view than their theology and reinterpretation of science."

If you cannot see the obvious political implications of these accusations then SORRY your not viewing this with an open mind... These walk outs happen all the time LMAO. They are a tactic simple as that... Everyone knows that!!! Give me a break this is self serving BS geeeez


Bullshit, and more libel, ...it's all there in black and white on these pages, truncated quotes taken out of context are easy to prove ...they're there in black and white. As is the forum posting rule concerning:

hmnmnmmn these quotes don't mean they are the truth of what happened in the task force all they show is discontent of some who served... This happens even on our highest court...
It is part of the process...
Your using QUOTES from those who did not like how a task force was run to support your position and that is in plain view for all to see... Don't think for a minute I cannot see through the smoke screen
Don't spoon feed me the self serving swill of a few who did not like the political set by the task force leader(s)


Oh yeah..... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....."

Your use of the above is wrong... You simply do not understand the law as intended instead. like those on the so called task force, try to twist something into what it is not to further your agenda... Figures...


My final thoughts are your twist is this... No Bill in SD is placed before the Govr to sign into law till it passes the state senate (not a task force) and it did, it passed the state Senate 23 to 12. No task force ever sponsors bills... Your understanding of what a task force does is not correct as implied... Figure out the process before speaking of same TYVM
Nough' said

Have a nice day
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 461
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/18/2006 7:48:22 PM
While I have tried to steer clear of this thread I find I must address a particular fallacy that continues to be brought to the fore.

the issue of 'consciousness'

many of the anti-abortion proponents are seriously confusing the concept of consciousness in it's meaning as "awake" with consciousness in its neurological and philosophical meanings as "aware of one's own existence" and the ability to ask such questions as "why am I here and what is my purpose"

for the record:

from a sound neurological perspective it is clear that consciousness in it's self-aware meaning does not develop until a sufficient level of brain development has taken place. There is good reason to believe that self-awareness in the sense of being able to recognise one's own existence does not develop until sometime after birth and the ability to analyse that existence occurs even later.

this ability is the primary separation between humans and other mammals. As near as can be determined, ALL mammals possess the ability to make a self-other distinction and some (apes, possibly dolphins and some species of whales) may even have a rudimentary or better ability to recognise their existence.

by this standard, a fetus cannot be considered a person to any greater degree than any other mammal. That the fetus is human (the common term for homo sapiens sapiens) is clear. That the fetus is a person is not.

The question of whether a fetus, or even you and I, have a 'soul' is irrelevant to the issue because the concept of 'soul' is an inherently unprovable thesis and cannot be demonstrated in any way that does not make reference to religion or faith in the existence of God (also inherently unprovable).

Therefore, because the rights as laid out in the Constitution are predicated on 'personhood', the granting or denial of those rights must be based on an objective and measurable definition of when 'personhood' begins or ends. That the woman is clearly a person in reference to their rights under the Constitution is clear and objectively established, the status of the fetus is not. Legally, the state must default to the rights of the established person.

As a side note: very few gov'ts have a legal precedent that grants 'personhood' to anyone under 18 yrs of age, even fewer to those under 16 yrs and almost no-one grants legal 'personhood' to those under 13 yrs.
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 462
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/18/2006 8:28:16 PM

Animals have rights. It’s against the law to kill your pet. You still haven’t convinced me that the consciousness of a fetus is any different than the consciousness of somebody who has been hit over the head and rendered unconscious. Neither can feel pain, reason, or are self-aware.


incorrect on all points. Animals do not have rights in the Constitutional sense. It is not illegal to kill a pet (see Euthanize) as long as it is not done in a cruel and inhumane (i.e. undue suffering) way. Again you are confusing 'awake' with 'self-aware'. It is well established that sleeping, knocked-out and comatose individuals are able to feel pain, be aware of their surroundings (why do you think they encourage families to visit and talk to comatose members) and from accounts of people who have woken from comas even have some ability to reason.


Well, unless you consider it ok to kill a newborn baby, then what that means is that consciousness should not even be considered.


Another misinterpretation. I did not say that newborns are absolutely lacking consciouness, only that it has not been determined beyond the need for brain development to reach a certain critical mass and that the necessary development MAY not occur until after birth. As a side note it is legal in many jurisdictions to kill a newborn through passive neglect such as with-holding food, oxygen support and resuscitation


This just means then that we can dismiss personhood as well.


Also an incorrect interpretation. It simply means that the order of precedent for determining which individual's rights take priority is determined by their legal status as a person. As adults we have the constitutional right to vote for our representatives. All jurisdictions deny that right to anyone under 16 and most deny it to anyone under 18 as an example.
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 463
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/18/2006 10:08:55 PM

Therefore, because the rights as laid out in the Constitution are predicated on 'personhood', the granting or denial of those rights must be based on an objective and measurable definition of when 'personhood' begins or ends.
Better go re-read what the Constitution actually says, Sparky. You know not of that about which you speak.


While the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of 'person', or specifically deny rights to legal 'non-persons', the term is used in several places. The legal precedent that has been set over the years is that the majority of Constitutional rights are due those determined to be legal persons. This is how slavery was legally established as well as the legal justification for denying women many of their Constitutional rights. The present rights of those groups did not not accrue until the various legal precedents establishing their 'personhood' were set. Throughout the history of constitutional law the establishment of 'personhood' has been integral in the application of those rights granted and the granting or denial of 'personhood' is still used today as the primary legal justification for granting or denying Constitutional rights to specific groups. One of the most common objective and measurable standards used to accomplish this is the age at which an individual becomes a legal person (e.g. voting rights, Constitutionaly guaranteed but granted or denied based on age)

xoxo
Sparky
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 464
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/19/2006 2:31:46 AM
THANKS late...
...your replies to my post validated my reasoning's...
...effort appreciated

Myself I like when people work together something that has not been shown on this thread but there is always hope:


Senators Reid, Clinton Detail Prevention First Amendment

Washington, DC -- Recognizing that there are commonsense goals on which all Americans can agree, Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) and Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) today urged colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the Clinton/Reid Prevention First amendment to the budget resolution. The amendment seeks to improve women's health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies and prevent abortions.

"We can find not only common ground, but common sense in the Prevention First amendment we are offering today" said Reid. "Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, our amendment advances goals we should all share: reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions and improving access to women's health care."

"This amendment takes a common sense step towards strengthening access to contraception for women while also reducing healthcare costs borne by taxpayers and employers," said Senator Clinton. "We should all be able to agree that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and improving access to women's health care should be a priority."

Every dollar spent on family planning services saves three dollars in pregnancy and birth-related costs for Medicaid alone. And although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the U.S. still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.

The Reid/Clinton amendment would provide $100 million to: increase Title X, the nation's only program devoted solely to making family planning services available to all women; reducing teen pregnancy; providing equitable insurance coverage for contraception; and increasing awareness about Emergency Contraception.

The Clinton/Reid amendment will also save scarce public health dollars by: reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, reducing the rate of sexually transmitted disease, reducing the costs to the Medicaid program, and providing for the early detection of HIV, breast cancer and cervical cancer.

"This amendment sends a strong statement that we think contraception should be available to women who need it so that abortion will become safe, legal, and rare," said Clinton.

On January 24, 2005, Senators Reid and Clinton introduced S. 20, the Prevention First Act, which is a comprehensive bill aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies, preventing abortions and improving women's health.



Have a nice day
 brawnydog
Joined: 8/17/2005
Msg: 465
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/19/2006 6:42:50 PM

unbelieveable
politics adn religion should never mix
bad reciepe
Adreena
Don't kid yourself. Politics and Religion are cousins.

moo and abortion depends upon many factors
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 466
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:00:27 PM
hmmm...It seems as though this debate has petered-out.

I guess that's what happens when the straw runs out.

Some excellent posts there late, babylonia. You guys really do your homework. A+'s all around.
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 467
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/20/2006 2:41:35 AM
As I have stated many many times on this very thread not one pro-abortion has offered or even suggested a form of compromise and that is why your side is doomed to lose and already are
But I am sure you will find some failure of yours has an upside
The fallacy of discontent


I guess that's what happens when the straw runs out.

It is half full

Have a nice day
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 468
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/20/2006 4:55:24 AM
As I have stated many many times on this very thread not one pro-abortion has offered or even suggested a form of compromise and that is why your side is doomed to lose and already are


??? Sorry, but I'm having some difficulty understanding this. I always thought that when one takes a stance of 'no choice' that they are presenting a no compromise position and that 'choice' means 'you to yours and me to mine' which is compromise. Maybe someone has changed the use and meaning of compromise while I was sleeping one day and no-one told me. Could you clarify this for me?

To the best of my knowledge, and I have read this ENTIRE thread, no-one has yet to say abortion should be mandatory. Only that it is a matter of choice and self-determination. However, almost every person against abortion has clearly stated that it is never a choice or issue of self-determination (and no, when you are raped or risking death, you really haven't been offered a choice).

Pull out your Funk & Wagnal's and look up 'compromise'. I think you will find that when someone tells "if you don't agree with abortion then you don't have to have one just don't tread on my self-determination" that they are offering you compromise. Unless, of course, as I said earlier, they changed the meaning and definition while I was sleeping.
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 469
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/20/2006 8:30:35 PM
@JodyK

I am glad everything worked out for the best for you and your baby. You were faced with a difficult choice, made the one that you believed was best and that is the best point of all, YOU were able to make that choice of your own accord and by your convictions.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 470
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/21/2006 4:15:04 AM
alrighty then let me try and start,....

The only thing that will change if and when either roe v wade is overturned and our country decides to follow suite is where and how abortions are performed,...

THAT,... they are performed,...did not change as a result of Roe v Wade,..and is unlikely to in the event we regress our society to a point where a woman no longer is legal owner of her own body,....

I remember a time in my life before this was so,...and I know for a fact,....
abortions have been done since the beginning of time and will continue,...regardless,...

True the numbers of how many will be done,... will change,...
but the good news to those of you who think that women shouldn't have them never mind have more than one will be able to console yourselves with the fact that many of those desperate women will,... as they once did,...die as a result,....

One would think that something so important that a woman would risk death for is something to take very seriously indeed,...but ultimately time will tell,...as it always does,...
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 471
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/21/2006 2:06:01 PM
I would think, though this may not be entirely possible, that an appeal court could overturn the SD law as being fundamentaly flawed without reference to R v W, based on the fact that the preamble clearly states that it is predicated on the findings of the task force, if it can be shown that these findings themselves are fundamentaly flawed. It would not be difficult to establish that fact.

Additionally, the act itself is fundamentaly flawed in that it lacks internal consistency, because of the definitions it uses. The definition of pregnancy is inconsistent with fact as are it's definitions that refer to the stages of pregnancy.

It attempts to redefine the zygote stage as being part of the embryonic stage, which is factualy incorrect but never actually makes reference to the zygote stage.

It also includes this stage (zygote) as part of pregnancy which is also clearly incorrect as no pregnancy occurs until implantation. Zygotes routinely fail to implant and without implantation there is no pregnancy. This would definitely negate the ban on the morning after pill and would most likely make most, if not all, the other provisions invalid since the bill relies heavily on the definition of pregnancy.

The final potential flaw in the definitions is the definition of unborn human being which makes reference to homo sapiens when in fact modern humans are more correctly referenced as homo sapiens sapiens at present, homo sapiens being one, albiet small, step down the evolutionary ladder. I realize this one is a stretch as the nomenclature is constantly being revised and not all of the scientific community is on board with these changes.

My point here is that there is some significant value in challenging the law on grounds other than constitutional issues initally as the process would likely take many years to complete before reaching the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds since the bill would have to be constantly re-examined and rewritten to pull out the flaws.

Although I am certain a constitutional challenge would win there is a point in making them jump through a few hoops first that being, one or more state elections to get through first.
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 472
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/21/2006 3:41:03 PM

My point here is that there is some significant value in challenging the law on grounds other than constitutional issues initally as the process would likely take many years to complete before reaching the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds since the bill would have to be constantly re-examined and rewritten to pull out the flaws.

Although I am certain a constitutional challenge would win there is a point in making them jump through a few hoops first that being, one or more state elections to get through first.

Now you see the light
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 473
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/21/2006 4:29:04 PM

Peer-review and respected sources in the "the scientific community", were not only ignored in the Task Force that wrote the bill that was signed into law. The evidence that was heard that didn't conform to the religious beliefs of the majority of the Task Force was left out intentionally, and often contradicted, science was moot on this one.


Absolutely. This is the biggest problem with the law and the source of the inconsistencies and fundamental flaws in the legislation.


I agree 100%, it looks like a win by constitutional challenge won't be necessary though, as the law may have to survive a state referendum, a challenge that the laws sponsors didn't really consider.

Being that the governor's approval rating dropped a huge 25% the week after he signed this scam into law, the likelyhood of this law making it past a state plebiscite is iffy, considering a previous state poll indicating only an 8% approval of the moritorium on abortions for rape and incest victims


Not having spent much time in SD I not too up on the general publics' stand vis-a-vis abortion as it stands under R v. W (generally have only passed through shuttling between my family's homes in Texas and Calgary) but these numbers sound as though they are not happy with the legislation.

Certainly, my view would be to challenge the bill on the basis of public opposition or it's flaws rather than the constitutional issues even if it does give the anti-choice lobby the opportunity for several 'kicks at the can'.
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 474
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/22/2006 10:45:33 AM

This also serves to strengthen the law. I'm not opposed to challenging law, even a law that I agree with. Because for every ruling that is in favour of changing Roe serves as precedent, every ruling against it's challengers also serve as precedents.


This is true. As I stated previously, challenging the law on it's on merits rather than it's constitutionality does give the proponents the opportunity to rewrite and tighten it up. However, even if a precedent were set that the factual basis or internal consistency are not grounds to overturn, it still would not negate the 'unconstitutionality' (is this really a word?) of the law. The precedent set would merely be that a law does not have to have any real bearing or basis 'in fact'. The opportunity to challenge on the basis that it violates one or more provisions of the Constitution would still available and the factual or 'technical' errors, unrelated to the Constitution, within the law would be of little issue to it's validity with regard to those Constitutional provisions.

I know that this would be the 'longer and harder road' to maintaining the right to choice and self-determination. All I am implying is that it may be unnecessary, given that the constitutional precedent has already been set, when there are smaller steps that may be taken. It would also side-step the whole States' rights v. Federal issue as it would be determined at the state judicial level.
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 475
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/22/2006 4:38:33 PM

A constitutional amendment such as El Salvador's (a frightening prospect for women, especially those already suffering due to poverty), to extend constitutional rights to the product of conception.


This is the one that worries me the most


Or, Freedom of Choice Act (S. 2020/H.R. 3719), legislation that would codify the landmark Supreme Court decision protecting reproductive rights, and place a less tenuous legal obstacle between, those who whould assault women's rights, and the constitution that is supposed to protect them from back-door manipulations of the law by the religious right, as is plain to see happened in the case of the SD task force/bill/law.


This would be great but the chances of it passing the congress->senate->presidential veto->congress->senate process under the current administration are what concerns me hence the reason I feel avoiding a constitutional challenge for a couple of years is a good idea.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Abortions soon to become illegal again [Locked - Topic Hijacked]