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
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 466
Abortions soon to become illegal againPage 41 of 63    (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
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.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 476
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/23/2006 12:39:53 PM
BOY I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SEE THE DAY WHEN THIS WOULD AND COULD BE AGAIN,...

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1145516679278430.xml
Jail time

Nevers' bill would set penalties of a minimum of a year in jail and a maximum of 10 years, and a minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of $100,000 for anyone who performs an abortion. A woman seeking the procedure would not face criminal charges.

In 1991, the state passed an anti-abortion bill allowing abortions only to save a mother's life and in cases of rape and incest, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Buddy Roemer. The Legislature overrode Roemer's veto, the first time in modern political times that has occurred in Louisiana. In 1992, federal courts threw out the law, leaving the state without a statute to govern abortions. The Legislature has gone on record outlining a policy stating that abortion would automatically be prohibited in Louisiana if Roe is reversed, but Nevers and others said that isn't enough.

"If Roe versus Wade is overturned, Louisiana would not have a law on the books, because it (the last law) was ruled unconstitutional," he said.

Nevers said he did not want to have exceptions for rape and incest victims because it would subject victims of crimes of violence to "another violent act. . . . That child (conceived in rape or incest) had nothing to do with that awful crime."

Dr. Beverly McMillian, a physician who at one time ran an abortion clinic in Jackson, Miss., testified on the need for Nevers' bill. "Abortion hurts a woman" mentally and physically, causing depression, and possibly long-term physical damage to her reproductive system, she said. "Abortion on demand . . . has not improved women's health or made abortion safer."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion on demand . . . has not improved women's health or made abortion safer." ??????

ARE WE KIDDING ME OR WHAT???????????WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????
 rks58
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 477
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/23/2006 7:11:56 PM

Excellent point, and this is where my knowledge of U.S. law becomes murky. I wonder just how the Senate can codify such a law when it is also codified that much of this belongs under the jurisdiction of the individual states.

Any chance at some clarity?


Basically any new federal law is passed first by the congress, then by the senate. After that it goes to the President to be signed. The President has the option of exercising a Presidential veto on the law. If that happens it then goes back to congress and the senate who must vote to overturn the presidential veto.

The issue of state rights v. federal authority has been a huge issue ever since the 'war of southern secession' (I'm going to take such a beating for that, horribly anti-pc, but hey, that's why I used it). There are no hard and fast rules for this other than the provisions of the Constitution. When the issue comes up the Constitution is the ultimate authority and it's pretty much up to the federal Supreme Court to decide on a case by case basis. Some topics have been codified (civil rights for minority groups, voting rights provisions like requirements to hold land, declarations of war) and others have not. Roe v. Wade at this point makes abortion rights, in the general sense, a constitutional issue and therefore not a matter of states' rights, hence the push to overturn. If it were overturned abortion would again be an issue to be determined on a state by state basis.

Does this help?
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 478
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/24/2006 4:35:34 AM
Question,....

while all of this is going on,....is new the law enforced?....
or not until after all of those things happen first,... does it go into effect?
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 479
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/24/2006 3:18:16 PM
..and more states have plans for their own laws...
I applaud all their efforts
We are on our way to ending abortion as it sits today

Have a nice day
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 480
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/24/2006 3:39:51 PM
NO YOUR NOT,...all you are doing is sending us back in time,...but at that time there were abortions too,...and as I said earlier all you will do is re-open the backstreet butcher shop doctors,...for those that can't afford to fly to a place where it is still legal,...like Canada,..

but you are ending NOTHING,...not even if every single state comes on board,...

so along with the aborted fetuses will be an increasing number of women who die as a result of this stupidity,....
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 481
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 4/25/2006 3:06:43 AM
Does this help?

Well said with one addition...
The high court can send it back to the lower court without an opinion leaving this in limbo for many years to come Can we say sporadic limbo?


so along with the aborted fetuses will be an increasing number of women who die as a result of this stupidity

The woman chooses to extirpate the fetus only to find she is not impervious to the procedure... Sweet justice some would say though I am not one...
The proverbial "shoe on the other foot" maybe???

The masses who scream "it's my body" have reached their apogee and now must face the fact that they again deprecate those who do not agree with their line of thinking and have stepped to the forfront to demur what some would say is the inevitable end of abortion laws as we know them...
Too late the wheels are turning and they are headed down hill not up

Have a nice day
 Ldygmr
Joined: 12/19/2005
Msg: 482
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 6/27/2006 8:27:10 PM

as soon as men can get pregnant, then they can have a say in the right to an abortion. it is THE WOMAN'S BODY, and her individual CHOICE, bottom line.



Well isn't THAT a load of feminists CRAPOLA.
It TAKES A MAN for her to GET pregnant, so why does he have no say in the matter? A baby isn't some magical creation she popped into being all by her little self. It is a combination of two viable compatible dna providers. If she doesn't want the responsibility of the child once born, let the father have it and walk away. But saying the father has no rights is BULL.
Saying men have no rights is wrong. Because guess what? If it is the woman's choice? Then what about all those female babies who get sliced apart and flushed out? Where was THEIR choice?

You spread your legs honey. For him. Right there, you made him part of the equation. YOU GAVE HIM the right to know and a share in any decision that must be made.

You can't get pregnant if you keep your knees together, btw.
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 483
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 6/30/2006 5:23:02 AM
Same ol' same ol' GATCHA

There are more states signing on all the time... The time for change has come

Have a nice day
itsme™ again
 luvcats2475
Joined: 9/29/2005
Msg: 484
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 6/30/2006 5:59:59 AM
I agree with message 22 by cagewench. I feel partial-birth abortions should be banned as well and that clinical termination within the first 2 months is not murder either. I do agree that a woman should have a choice in the situation. I do promote and cannot express enough how important birth control and condoms are in this day in age but for some reason a woman becomes pregnant and cannot take care of the child it should be her choice since it is her body. We all are adults and always will have to face the consequences of our actions.
 GhostDancer
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 485
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 8/12/2006 6:43:04 PM
Who are any of us to decide for another woman what is right or wrong for her body? How does it ever effect us if a complete stranger, faced with an unwanted pregnancy, opts for abortion? Plainly, it doesn't. It's not our choice. It's not our body. It's not our business. Even if it's someone we know, we can't live their life and make their decisions and decide what's best for them. I would rather see a woman go to a clinic and have the procedure done properly, in a sterile, medical environment legally, than see a woman go to a back room hack with a rusty coat hanger any day. A woman shouldn't have to face severe infection or possibly death because she didn't want to carry a pregnancy to term. And that's exactly what the law makers would be doing if they made abortion illegal, imo.
 CarolinaLilly
Joined: 4/7/2006
Msg: 486
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 8/14/2006 5:27:45 PM
LATE, thank you for a great post backing up what other people could not find all of the information on. Speaking from an outsiders point of view, in Canada we could see this coming from miles away. It was in the cards from the day the Replublicans/religious-right were elected. Again infringing on the rights of a human being, citizens of their country, to push forward a bill that obviously takes over "ownership" of a womens body and lets the state decide what is right and wrong. Again the issue of separation of state & religion comes to the forefront and is shoved down your throats.

For those who post that ALL abortions be illegal, including ones that would save the life of a women (already born human) over the life of an unborn fetus...that is ridiculous...there is no debating with them, they've made up their minds...for you.

Hopefully our Canadian government does not follow in your footsteps and begin legal proceedings along the same lines. Freedom is being taken away from women across America, outrage will follow, along with protests and violence. The religious-right who usually are claiming the fight for freedom across the world, are now taking freedom away from those closest to them...(shakin my head)...
 mystlw
Joined: 9/19/2005
Msg: 488
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 8/24/2006 6:13:59 PM

They should just make people pay a lot of cash if they want an abortion. People have the right to choose if they want the responsability of a child and this responsability is only for them to be.


I'm sorry, I've been sitting here puzzling over this, and I still can't figure out your logic. I'm gathering that you're advocating to keep abortion legal, but deprive the poor of the opportunity, correct?
Who do you think can least afford the expense of an unwanted child??
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 490
view profile
History
Abortions will always be legal, somewhere
Posted: 9/19/2006 12:21:54 PM
"The scare tactic that it will force women into backrooms to abort by way of a coathanger
is a canard at best."

Tripdave, it is an entirely logical assumption. Legalized abortion becomes harder to obtain-illegal and perhaps questionable abortions fill the market gap. I'd be willing to bet that after the implimentation of Roe vs. Wade statistics will show a decline in the number of "botched" abortions. Some women do not have the option to travel to another state for an abortion as well.

For the woman that argues for mandatory counseling, do you think a woman comes to a decision to abort her pregnancy lightly? Do you think the cries of "murderer" from the peanut gallery as she walks into a clinic have any effect on her? Count me as one against a patronizing agenda.

The Democratic Party is a shambles in many ways. The stance on abortion needs to be moderated. The issue of people being fundamentally against abortion being forced to fund it through their tax dollars needs to be reconsidered. Without that there is no wonder why a mind of conviction thinks of us all as babykillers.

Woman's decision, who pays for it up to the voting public.

Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Abortions soon to become illegal again [Locked - Topic Hijacked]