The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[kevmicsmi]

But it has already been decided by the highest court in the land that banning abortion DOES violate the rights of women to choose for themselves. Why can't you accept this as the will of your nation (even though you don't agree with it)?

It was decided on a false notion. It was the will of SC justices abusing and twisting the Constitution instead of interpreting it. I have accepted this as the current law of the land, but it doesnt mean I dont advocate putting in place justices who are not so pompous as to know they are beholden to the constitution, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

 

[kevmicsmi]

Only an idiot would assume that a woman does NOT have a right to decide what will happen inside her own body. The Constitution does not have to spell this out for us.

This is getting tiresome that you wont answer this simple question. Why isnt it a right then to prostitute, or take drugs, or commit suicide, why dont i have the right not to wear a seat belt driving?

 

[Mister Emu]

So what? Lots of people believe lots of things. You aren't answering the question, you're only reiterating your self-righteousness. I'm asking you to justify your self-righteousness.

So that is what I vote on... you vote on the basis that you believe women have the right to abort... the only thing different is our views.

The justification for my view is every child who doesn't get a chance at life because of the legality of abortion.

Why can't you accept this as the will of your nation (even though you don't agree with it)?

Because... it is not the will of the nation... if it were the will of the nation elected officials would have rendered the descision... then I would accept it as the will of the nation... however that would still not stop me from trying to change that will...

Also regardless of the Supreme Court's erroneou verdict... there is no enumerated right of women's choice of abortion.

Only an idiot would assume that a woman does NOT have a right to decide what will happen inside her own body. The Constitution does not have to spell this out for us

Ad hominems are a no-no... even when insinuated...

And as a matter of civics... Yes the Constitution does have to spell out a right for it to be universally retained in this nation... or it did before certain judges overstepped their boundries.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why would city mandates be meaningless? Why would a national mandate not be plausable?

City restrictions would be meaningless because of their sphere of influence... a national restriction would not be plausible because as has already been stated in this debate, the opinions on the matter are too far flung...

 

[PureX]

Actually individual cities could decide not to allow it , until of course the State decided the issue, which would take precident over the city decisions. I dont think it needs to go to a federal level personally, I am a States Rights Advocate

Well, the whole point of states rights is that people in different states have different desires regarding governance issues. But so do people in cities, and so do people in neighborhoods, and so do people even in the same home. So if we don't like the "one size fits all" of a national policy, then why should we accept the "one size fits all" of a state-wide policy? Or the "one size fits all" of a city-wide policy? After all, if the point here is to accomodate people diffent opinions, then why not just leave it up to the individual? And if you don't want to leave it up to the undividual, then you DO want "one size fits all", right?

States should decide issues that are relevant state-wide. Cities should decide issue that are relevant city-wide. Abortion is obviously not such an issue. Abortion is an issue of fundimental personal rights, which can only be decided on at a national level and by the suprime court.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Well, the whole point of states rights is that people in different states have different desires regarding governance issues. But so do people in cities, and so do people in neighborhoods, and so do people even in the same home. So if we don't like the "one size fits all" of a national policy, then why should we accept the "one size fits all" of a state-wide policy? Or the "one size fits all" of a city-wide policy? After all, if the point here is to accomodate people diffent opinions, then why not just leave it up to the individual? And if you don't want to leave it up to the undividual, then you DO want "one size fits all", right?

I want one size fits all concerning the States, yes. If you dont want regulation on anything, you will have to find a different planet to seclude yourself on. Sorry

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, the whole point of states rights is that people in different states have different desires regarding governance issues. But so do people in cities, and so do people in neighborhoods, and so do people even in the same home. So if we don't like the "one size fits all" of a national policy, then why should we accept the "one size fits all" of a state-wide policy? Or the "one size fits all" of a city-wide policy? After all, if the point here is to accomodate people diffent opinions, then why not just leave it up to the individual? And if you don't want to leave it up to the undividual, then you DO want "one size fits all", right?

The reason it comes to the states is because
A) Neither side on the issue has an enumerated right... thus neither side can claim the Consitution is 'on their side'
B) Opinions are so far flung that a federal mandate is unlikely to occur... as well as I personally believe that the federal government should do less not more...
C) The state is the next highest level... thus it is highly likely given the nature of the arguement that it would go this high and be able to be resolved.

Abortion is an issue of fundimental personal rights, which can only be decided on at a national level and by the suprime court

The Supreme Court should not have the juridiction to decide what is or is not a fundamental right... I shudder that anyone would give so small a group that kind of power... they most certainly should not be deciding fundament rights issues...

 

[PureX]

Ad hominems are a no-no... even when insinuated...

Sorry.

And as a matter of civics... Yes the Constitution does have to spell out a right for it to be universally retained in this nation... or it did before certain judges overstepped their boundries.

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the intent of the Constitution and apply it to the specific legal question before them. That's exactly what they did. But you don't like their decision, so now you're slandering them. And worse, you're voting for inferior politicians hoping that they will cheat the system by stacking the courts with inferior (biased) judges just so you can change the decision and force everyone else to comply with your opinions about abortion.

I'm sorry, but I think that's really low. And I think it's grotesquely un-American. Some might even say it's a kind of treason. And it certainly does nothing to cause me to respect your position on abortion, nor any politician that would stoop to such despicable behavior.

 

[PureX]

The Supreme Court should not have the juridiction to decide what is or is not a fundamental right... I shudder that anyone would give so small a group that kind of power... they most certainly should not be deciding fundament rights issues...

Our rights have already long since been established and articulated. We have the right to life, liberty and happiness. We have the right to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and to live accordingly, as long as our doing so does not deny someone else their right to do the same. When our rights and freedoms clash with the rights and freedoms of others, as they are bound to on occasion, the boundary between us will be determined on the basis of equality: the equality of both the limitation of our freedom and of our protection under the law.

Unfortunately, our prejudices and desire to oppress others have blinded us in many ways to most of these rights and freedoms over the years, and so here we are continuing to struggle to recognize and maintain them.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Sorry.
The purpose of the courts is to interpret the intent of the Constitution and apply it to the specific legal question before them. That's exactly what they did. But you don't like their decision, so now you're slandering them. And worse, you're voting for inferior politicians hoping that they will cheat the system by stacking the courts with inferior (biased) judges just so you can change the decision and force everyone else to comply with your opinions about abortion.

I'm sorry, but I think that's really low. And I think it's grotesquely un-American. Some might even say it's a kind of treason. And it certainly does nothing to cause me to respect your position on abortion, nor any politician that would stoop to such despicable behavior.

So people who arent as "smart" as you are treasonous? Time for this thread to die

 

[kevmicsmi]

 

[kevmicsmi]

 

[PureX]

So people who arent as "smart" as you are treasonous?

That's not what I said. And I'm noticing that you aren't addressing what I did say.

But it's late, and I'm getting tired and grumpy. It's time for me to pack it in.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's exactly what they did.

No they didn't... they reached far beyond the intent of the consitution and invented a right, the legislated that there was a newly 'found' right within the constitution... I guess they had the special decoder ring...

And worse, you're voting for inferior politicians

They are inferior because?(They don't agree with you?)

hoping that they will cheat the system by stacking the courts with inferior (biased) judges

No... the liberals are the biased judges... I am voting for people I hope will put judges with strict interpretations of the Constitution... because I don't trust people who believe the consitution says whatever they say it says. I want ideologies out of the court... I want the abortion desicision given back to the states, like it should be.

just so you can change the decision and force everyone else to comply with your opinions about abortion.

If the voting public elects officials that legislate the illegality of abortion they should be able to... if they voting public does not abortion will remain legal... If you truly believe that I would be forcing a view on a majority of people who did not want it... then you would have nothing to fear in an overturning of Roe v. Wade...

Some might even say it's a kind of treason.

You might.

And it certainly does nothing to cause me to respect your position on abortion, nor any politician that would stoop to such despicable behavior.

Yeah, BOO EVERYONE WHO ADVOCATES POSITIONS THEY AGREE WITH... BOO VOTERS WHO VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO AGREE WITH THEM... BOO POLITICIANS THAT LEGISLATE BASED ON THEIR AND THEIR VOTING BASE'S VIEWS!

I am not advocating for the court to rule abortion illegal... I am advocating for Roe v. Wade to be overturned and the descision rightly returned to the states...

 

[Mister Emu]

So people who arent as "smart" as you are treasonous? Time for this thread to die

It looked more like, some might call voting for politicians who oppose my views treasonous.

and I agree die thread die...

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Your grasp of the history of our nation is flawed...

What decided African-Americans had the right to be free from slavery? The expressed will of the majority.
What decided Women had the right to vote? The expressed will of the majority.

Every single right Americans retain, EXCEPT ONE, has been granted through the amendment process...

Can you guess which one doesn't belong?

Following the founding principles of this Nation includes using the amendment process to attain rights.

Also on abortion...

While I do believe abortion is horrendous... that is not my legal arguement... my arguement is that human life that does not have the ability to decide for itself should automatically be afforded basic rights...

I don't believe I've ever seen anything in American history books about a national referendum on slavery or the right of women to vote.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I don't believe I've ever seen anything in American history books about a national referendum on slavery or the right of women to vote.

Its called the 13th and 19th amendments respectively:bonk:

 

[JillianMarie77]

There are some days, where my honest answer to that question is yes.

How sad. I'm not even sure what to say to this.

an "oops" or freak accident with contraception warrants the DEATH of an innocent.

I never said it was warranted. But its a reality. Not just via abortion either.

It should be reiterated within the schools...churches...communities...OB clinics. Truthfully...not all conservatives feel as I do. I think education is very important. I think sex SHOULD be talked about....especially with youths...openly and honestly. Religion aside...I think abstinence is one heck of a good concept to try to push within our nation's schools and communities.

But I thought you said the governement wasn't responsible for teaching these things?

Sex can result in pregnancy. If you don't want a baby and aren't ready for the responsibilities of having a child...don't have sex.

Again....just.....wow. I can't imagine being in a marriage where we could only be intimate with each other and experience that kind of love if we were trying to conceive. It's kind of. Sick. Really.

If you MUST have sex...use your common sense. It's not rocket science.

There you go again. If you MUST have sex (because only lusty naughty nympho women actually WANT to have sex right?) then use your common sense (because bc is 100% effective?).

To use economic class and social class as an excuse for one's actions is a cop out and sad shame.

Peoples soci-economic status is a huge, real and documented factor in many many things. Examples include obesity, heart disease, diabetes, alcoholism, drug use, teen pregnancy and almost anything really. Its not a cop out. Its called reality.

I doubt you'll see abortions become "rare"...if they are legal and readily available.

You also won't see them become rare if they are illegal (see previously cited statistics). You'll just see them become extremely dangerous for the mother, not to mention the baby on a black market with who knows what kind of "medical attention".

Keep in mind that almost of the women who make up the largest group who receive abortions will have more than ONE abortion.

Thsi goes back to education. I'm sure you agree at this point that this is the answer to stopping abortion. Not to mention reducing teen pregnancy and unwanted pregnancy. All without violating anyones choices about their own bodies. Amazing!

When did I say that I support the death penalty? Quote me.

I asked you specifically how you felt about self defense and capital punishment. YOur response was "let me clarify - I'm pro-life when it comes to ABORTION". Are you now saying you oppose the death penalty?

I'm married. A third baby would be a blessing.

Good for you! Not the case for many women. Women with deiseases. SEverly disbaled children. Abusive husbands they are on the verge of leaving. Emotional disorders. The list goes on and on. Probably wouldn't be much of a blessing for the baby either.

If I was raped...I would immediately seek medical care. I would demand the morning after pill. If the morning after pill was not effective...I would carry by baby (God willing). If I absolutely could not deal with raising my child for whatever reason...I would seek adoption as an alternative.

Well as it stands in SD you can demand all you want. You wont get a thing. You also WOULD carry the child of your violent rapist attacker (hopefully your husband could deal with that and wouldnt abandon y ou and your other two children) because the state would force you to do so.

 

[Pah]

Its called the 13th and 19th amendments respectively:bonk:

Strickly speaking - an amendment is not a referendum. Several of the states ratify amendments by vote of the legislature. The people of those states only have voice after the fact and then only at the polls.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Strickly speaking - an amendment is not a referendum. Several of the states ratify amendments by vote of the legislature. The people of those states only have voice after the fact and then only at the polls.

Strictly speaking, yes. However to say there has never been a national referendum on these is ignorant. There has never been a national referendum on anything! We dont have them!