abcd1234 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Looks like we could have the makings of having the Supreme Court make a decision on Roe v. Wade if this ends up going to the Supreme Court. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-25-south-dakota-ban_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 They are. This will never hold up. I bet within a week or less, it will be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 This is merely an attempt to get the issue before the Supreme Court A.S.A.P. and see which way the court leans these days. Personally, I feel it's still too early in the game for the right-wing to make an all-out stab at Roe V. Wade, but I guess certain conservative factions just really can't wait any longer. A strategic error, if you ask me... one that may backfire spectacularly. I heard this very thing predicted would happen when we were going through the Roberts/ Alito confirmations... that this would be the next step someone would take after they got in. No surprises, although I personally thought they wait a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Like edlib says, it was a predictable move, but I don't think it will be overturned. Alito may go either way, but I'm thinking he might just vote against this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord ignarn Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 And what if a woman doesn´t like her baby? What will happen to the baby? I think that it´s better to abort than giving the baby a bad life, with not-loving parents. This is needed in rapes and other abusive situations, like incest and so on. The right to abort should be granted, legislated but allways granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Or, instead of killing the child, they could *gasp* give it up for adoption!!!! Instead of having the baby live with parents who don't love it, give it to parents who do want it and will love it, and stop murdering unborn children! What I don't get is how so many liberals can be pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. It's okay for a mother to kill her unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but it's not okay for the state to execute someone who brutally murdered four people? Let's have some consistency. If the death penalty is wrong, so is abortion, and vice versa (this is a vice not solely limited to the Left - conservatives who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion suffer from it as well). Personally, I hope they take the case to court, and I hope the Supreme Court upholds the law...though I don't know whether a decision overturning Roe will stand up before the outcry of the pro-abortion crowd. Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh? If moving forward means allowing & endorsing the killing off of the most innocent in society, then I'm willing to run backward at a full sprint. So many around here talk about how backward and old-fashioned Christianity is...but at least we're not out there advocating for a holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'm not pro-abortion, I'm actually anti-abortion, personally... BUT I'm pro-comprehensive-sex-education, pro-making-contraceptives-available-for-anyone-who-wishes-to-use-them-without-moral-jugements, but anti-forcing-my-personal-beliefs-down-everybody-else's-throats. Just because I feel something is wrong doesn't mean everybody else is going to feel the same way. Is it my job to try to use the government to keep someone who doesn't share the same moral code as myself from committing what I may think is a sin? Making abortion illegal won't make it go away... just a lot more dangerous. Abortions have existed as long as civilization has... perhaps longer. Ban them and the exact same amount will still happen... just in secret and with a lot more women dying. What we need to do is make sure each and every child in this country knows exactly how to prevent all unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they are of age that the issue might arise. With education, and the realization that many, many unmarried people who aren't ready to have children yet are still always going to have sex anyway so we have to make contraceptives available to them, you can keep abortions legal and yet kill almost all demand for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I don't know much about US law... but isn't it based on precedent? Which would surely mean that they would have to present some NEW evidence to get a previous decision overturned? Wouldn't it? Even the supreme court couldn't just go "we've changed our minds" and change it on a whim... even if the makeup of the court has changed such that they might want to. Though i suppose there are numerous things since the original decision they could try to portray as new evidence. [edit] Interesting WIkipedia link on RvsW which contained a lot of stuff i didn't know (roe=jane doe, "roe" has since become anti-abortion, the decision is based on privacy laws and the decision that said that the state couldn't prevent the use of brith control between married couples, the winning atourney was unemployed, it was her first case, etc..) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade If they did overturn RvsW would birth control be their next target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Or, instead of killing the child, they could *gasp* give it up for adoption!!!! A fetus is not a child... it is a fetus. And I find it ironic that conservatives want people to give up babies for adoption rather than abort the fetus, and yet they seek to ban same-sex couples from adopting. All while there is a crisis of children in desperate need of homes. Instead of having the baby live with parents who don't love it, give it to parents who do want it and will love it, and stop murdering unborn children! The problem is there's not enough parents out there to adopt. And abortion isn't murder; it's not killing a human. If you say killing a glob of cells is murder then cleaning your bathroom makes you a genocidal maniac. And you better damn be a vegetarian and a card-carrying PETA member, because killing living creatures sure would be murder by your standards. What I don't get is how so many liberals can be pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. It's okay for a mother to kill her unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but it's not okay for the state to execute someone who brutally murdered four people? Let's have some consistency. If the death penalty is wrong, so is abortion, and vice versa (this is a vice not solely limited to the Left - conservatives who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion suffer from it as well). Include libertarians in that stereotype as well, because it's not just liberals. The difference is that a fetus is not a legitimate human. It's like that spider you're about to kill on your wall. Sure it's done nothing wrong; it's just found its way into your house, but it's unwanted and is a burden. Sure you could try capturing it and putting it outside, but that can be difficult and not really worth the hassle. And the problem with the death penalty is that it gives the government too much power. The power to end a living breathing person's life in something other than self-defense. Let's face it: as long as there is a death penalty, innocent people will be executed. The justice system is part of the government and therefore prone to failure. If moving forward means allowing & endorsing the killing off of the most innocent in society, then I'm willing to run backward at a full sprint. A fetus is not in society. And that spider you just killed was innocent. What did it ever do to you?? So many around here talk about how backward and old-fashioned Christianity is...but at least we're not out there advocating for a holocaust. Well, I just cleaned my bathroom, so call me Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe© Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 8252 made some interesting points there... One thing. if you leave your bathroom just sitting for 9 months you are not going to find a room full of little ankle bitters when you come back Thats right! the bunches of cells grow into PEOPLE all of us have been there before, and you know, maybe our parents would have been able to get a better job, a new car, that house that they wanted so bad. These are things that new kiddos tend to get in the way of. But nope. Instead I introduce you to US. Their greatest creation I think thats the main idea, as someone said before people have been using different types of birth control for thousands of years. The big deal now days is that you can snuff out that "life" without even thinking. Life is important. Take a good long look at france. They are "moving forward in the world". By that I mean they are the birth control gurus. And their population numbers are suffering because of that. I would not care to move forward if we end up the way they are ~_~ if anyone has any arguments for me I will be around. I am waiting for parts to fix my compy and won't be able to answer back very fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Thats right! the bunches of cells grow into PEOPLE all of us have been there before, Going by that argument, any time that a sperm is wasted, it's killing off what could have grown up to be a person like me and you. We were both there too, after all... just a lowly sperm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 A sperm won't develop into a human unless it's fertilized an egg. Once that's occurred, it's a life. And if it's okay for a mother to kill her fetus, then why stop there? Why not allow partial birth abortion? Or even allow a mother to kill her child free of prosecution as long as she does it before the child is 1? After all, some women may decide to have their babies, and then find out it's more than the bargained for... Basically, the point is that the baby and the fetus are the same "glob of cells," no matter when it's terminated...so why have any laws against a mother killing her child at all? Same thing for the father, for that matter - after all, half of the genetic material in that fetus came from him. And toms, a large part of US law is based on precedent. The question at hand is whether the US Constitution guarantees the right to abortion...and if it does, I must've gotten an edited copy, 'cause I missed that part. And the Supreme Court can reverse its decisions - in Plessy v. Fergusen (1896), for example, the Court said that segregation was legal, adopting the "separate but equal" doctrine. Later, that was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Bolling v. Sharpe (1954). There are other cases, but Plessy is the most notable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 A sperm won't develop into a human unless it's fertilized an egg. Once that's occurred, it's a life. Yes but if that sperm been given the chance, it would have grown up to be a person like you and me. Just like if that fetus been given the chance, it would have grown up to be a person like you and me. And if it's okay for a mother to kill her fetus, then why stop there? Why not allow partial birth abortion? Well, you already know the arguments on this I think. Partial-birth abortion involves a fetus that essentially is a baby. It therefore is not ethical to destroy. An early fetus, however, is not anything like a baby. Just because it will grow up to be one doesn't give it equal status as one. Basically, the point is that the baby and the fetus are the same "glob of cells," no matter when it's terminated... Not the same. New cells grow along the way that make the fetus into a baby. Cells that create a functioning brain, organs, skin, nervous system and everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Well, you already know the arguments on this I think. Partial-birth abortion involves a fetus that essentially is a baby. It therefore is not ethical to destroy. An early fetus, however, is not anything like a baby. Just because it will grow up to be one doesn't give it equal status as one. Why not, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why not, exactly? Apples and oranges. Sure, they're both fruit. But are they really the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Apples and oranges. Sure, they're both fruit. But are they really the same? okay...that explains absolutely nothing. You believe they're different. I believe that the fetus should be just as protected as the baby because the fetus is a baby at an earlier stage of life (just like a child is basically an adult at an earlier stage of development). I'm asking you to explain to me in some coherent terms why you believe they're different, and why you believe one should be protected while the other can be given the same status as one would give a tumor, and thrown away. I've heard the arguments before...I've just never heard them explained logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 A fetus has no awareness, no consciousness, no feeling, no independence, no thought, and no ability to survive outside the womb. A baby has awareness, has consciousness, has feeling, has independence, has thought, and has the ability to survive outside the womb. All the things that define a human being. So... they're apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jedi Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 TK-8252's point of view here absolutely boggles me. A fetus has a heartbeat. That's got to count for something. I think that my first statement makes pretty clear my view on abortion, but I'll say it here: It's wrong.. A fetus is a human being, merely in it's earliest stages of life. Just because a joey can't live outside of its mother for its first months doesn't mean it isn't a kangaroo; it's simply not ready for the world yet. I hate how people see abortion as an good option. If a woman can't support a child, she could at least give 9 months of her time and give the baby up for adoption. There are tons of people just wanting to give children a good home. All of the mother's medical bills would be paid, and a child would survive. Yeah, there may be issues later in life about birth parents, etc. But at least there would be life. As for South Dakota, here is a nice article I just read. The second page had some quotes about how women feel after an abortion. Take it as you will.... The two clinics that permit late-term abortions let their patients hold the fetus in a blanket. This quote just about made me choke. I can't imagine carrying a child inside of me, making the decision to kill the child, and then to top it off, hold its lifeless self in my arms. It's absolutely sad and unfathomable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Great job South Dakota. I see you guys are really moving forward in the world eh? I think thats progress....abortion is technically murder. It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 abortion is technically murder. Just like menstruation and premature ejaculation. Also, people who get artificially inseminated typically have several batches of sperm+eggs (I believe the term is zygote...but I could be mistaken), the ones that are unused are disposed of, or kept frozen, never to be raised into humans. Is that barbaric? Is it murder? ]It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby.And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray. There are tons of people just wanting to give children a good homeAnd there are TONS of children in foster care being bounced around with no family, eventually aging out of the foster care system and living the rest of their lives on welfare/on the streets. If so many families want kids so badly why don't they go adopt one of THOSE kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 TK-8252's point of view here absolutely boggles me.He disagrees with you only on one thing - what defines humanity. A lot of people have defined it in a way to suit their wants in the past. To the southern slaveowners of the U.S., blacks were less than human. To some unnamed fascists in germany circa 1940, Jews were less than human. It's not unsurprising for people to try it again; it is convenient to be able to do so, for many reasons. For the groups mentioned above, it may have been cultural pride, maintaining the status quo, or something else. It doesn't matter. I think what perhaps makes this issue so harsh is that, once on a side, it's very difficult to switch positions. I think it's probably well-neigh impossible, actually. The reason I think this is because, if you happen to be on the pro-life side, you're still going to find it very, very hard to conciously decide to redefine what a living human being is, however much your other views change. For the pro-choice side, I think it might be because if you ever tried to change your view, you would be responsible. You would have advocated and encouraged the murder of a group of innocents, something that can be classed as genocide. I don't know if I would ever be able to admit that, even to myself, if I was in their position. Certes, it would be a significant barrier. And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray.Are you denying personal responsibility? People are not bad, irresponsible, hateful, or anything else just because of the way they were raised. I know some that were raised under bad conditions, in fact, but they do not act the same as their parents because they choose not to. If you think people are not in control of what they do, I'd like to inform you that you are wrong. And there are TONS of children in foster care being bounced around with no family, eventually aging out of the foster care system and living the rest of their lives on welfare/on the streets. If so many families want kids so badly why don't they go adopt one of THOSE kids?Just because those kids have not been cared for properly does not mean all of them are, or even a majority of them are. It's better to let them have a chance and find out what will really happen than to say you know better than them; that you, in your eternal wisdom, know they will never overcome their circumstances. That you, in your ultimate knowledge, know that they will never be useful to society. And when you, in you infinite audacity, decide they will never experience happiness, you justify your words - because you steal from them their only chance to prove you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 It's not unsurprising for people to try it again; it is convenient to be able to do so, for many reasons. No one is trying to redefine what a human is except the so-called "pro-lifers" (who, for the most part, approve of the death penalty and starting wars instead of doing things like stopping the spread of AIDS). Scientists agree - a fetus is not a baby, nor is it a human. It is a fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 # An animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/genechoice/glossary.html # an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until birth. http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/A2ZtopicDisplay.cfm # Refers to the unborn baby after 10 weeks of gestation until birth. http://www.babynameguide.com/advertise.html # The developing offspring from 7 to 8 weeks after conception until birth. http://www.stjude.org/glossary # The baby in utero, after 8 weeks of pregnancy until delivery. (Before then, it's considered an embryo.) The word fetus means "young one." (Derivative: fetal) pregnancytoday.com/reference/library/glossary.htm # The developing baby from the ninth week of pregnancy until the moment of the birth. http://www.infertilitycentral.com/fertility/infertility-glossary,3.html # in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy to the moment of birth http://www.b-coming.com/html/glossary.html # an unborn vertebrate especially after its basic structure is formed sln.fi.edu/biosci/glossary.html # The developing young in the uterus before birth. http://www.peteducation.com/dict_alpha_listing.cfm # An unborn child from the eighth week after conception until the moment of birth. From conception to eight weeks it is called an embryo. http://www.iowahealth.org/19791.cfm # term used to describe a developing baby from the nineth week of development to birth. http://www.medgen.ubc.ca/wrobinson/mosaic/glossary.htm # In mammals, a stage of development in which all organs have formed. embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/Index/F.htm # The product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery. If the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant [45 CFR 46.203©]. The term "fetus" generally refers to later phases of development; the term "embryo" is usually used for earlier phases of development. (See also: Embryo.) http://www.clemson.edu/research/orcSite/orcIRB_DefsF.htm # A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term. http://www.conceptfert.com.au/glossf.htm # a human embryo in the mother's uterus http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/hep/patientguide/glossary.html # A fetus is an unborn human or animal. http://www.ccohs.ca/products/Supplements/NJHSFS/nje_definitions.html # The term used to refer to an unborn child from 8 weeks after fertilization to birth. http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk2/glossary.htm # The unborn young of an animal while still in the uterus or egg. In humans, the offspring from the third month of pregnancy until birth. b http://www.mise.org/mise/index.jsp # The name given to an unborn baby after the eighth week. preconception.com/resources/glossary.htm # The unborn child from around eight weeks after conception (when all major organs are formed and it begins to resemble a human being) to the time of birth. http://www.fertilityuk.org/nfps02.html # Unborn baby from 9 weeks after it is formed until it is born http://www.umdnj.edu/hsweb/research_glossary/f.htm # In medicine, this term is applied to the young of mammals when fully developed in the womb. In human beings, this stage is reached after about 3 months of pregnancy. Prior to this, the developing mammal is at the embryo stage. http://www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/hew/tox/glossall.html # an unborn baby from about 7 weeks gestation until birth (prior to 7 weeks the baby is called an embryo). http://www.abcbirth.com/lGlossary.html # an unborn baby http://www.hearingcenteronline.com/diction_def.shtml # The term for the baby from the beginning of the 9 th week of pregnancy to the time of birth. http://www.clearplan.com/GlossaryofConceptionTerms.cfm # an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo. Fetus literally means 'young one'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus I think you left out the species descriptor. That's like pretending that, since you call it a more general name, it changes what it is. Do you really think that a pupae of a butterfly is not the same species as the butterfly which the pupae eventually turns into? That's a strange practice, and I'm pretty sure they didn't teach it in science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Abortion = great. Abortion debates = never ending, because people have such entrenched positions that they will never change. The basic principle is that the state doesn't have the right to interfere with what is going on inside your body... relax that principle and you open yourself up to a whole heap of trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.