The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[kevmicsmi]

This is shameful treatment of women and children. These lawmakers are trying to set women's and children's rights back 100 years.

I'm surprised that those who are so pro-life haven't responded on this thread. I'm wondering if the dirty little fact of child poverty cited in the original post has left them with something to think about. I hope so.

This is the most ironic post I have ever read:banghead3 How would an anti abortion bill be setting child rights back 100 years????????? :banghead3 Even if outlawing abortion would put so many poor little kids in poverty in SD, Do you think the majority of them would instead choose death????????:banghead3 :banghead3

OOOOOOOOH MY HEAD HURTS

 

[dawny0826]

Your comments were general and that's the rub. Everyone does not have the same experiences as you. Maybe your mind is so caught up with possible pregnancy constantly that it overcomes everything else in your life, but not everyone is that way. but not everyone is that way. Besides...there are always circumstances to everyone's situation that may develop AFTER they've become pregnant and abortion becomes the best option for them. For you or South Dakota to close your eyes and cover your ears and refuse to hear such a thing it does nothing but harm those it DOES affect. South Dakota is wrong...flat out.

I haven't made any assumptions about your character, Draka. I don't know you.

You assume that my ears and eyes are closed because I'm pro-life...without knowing anything about me...who I am as a person...or how I feel about the people in my life.

I'm pro-life. I'm pro-responsibility. I respect you for the fact that you aren't pro-life. It's your right to feel that way as it is my right to voice my opinion and speak up for the unborn. That's my stance.

I believe abortion is wrong. And I'm entitled to that belief. Especially when there are methods to prevent the unwanted pregnancy. I believe human life is precious...even at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Statistically speaking, most often...it's the young, unmarried woman who is having an abortion...because she is not ready for a baby or cannot afford a baby.

ALMOST HALF of these women have already ahd an abortion in the past.

My point is and always has been...if you're not ready for a child...either abstain from sex or use contraception. KNOWING that contraception isn't 100%...if one decides to have sex...they need to acknowledge that sex can result in pregnancy.

In my opinion...I don't understand why abstinence is such a terrible concept...especially for a young woman who isn't financially stable and isn't in a comitted relationship, with a supportive partner. Religion aside.

Maybe your mind is so caught up with possible pregnancy constantly that it overcomes everything else in your life, but not everyone is that way.

Draka, I'm married. I don't worry about pregnancy at all. If my contraception fails...we want another baby and would consider another baby a blessing...so it's a non-issue. Stress free. No worries.

 

[dawny0826]

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Statistics.

 

[maggie2]

This is the most ironic post I have ever read:banghead3 How would an anti abortion bill be setting child rights back 100 years????????? :banghead3 Even if outlawing abortion would put so many poor little kids in poverty in SD, Do you think the majority of them would instead choose death????????:banghead3 :banghead3

OOOOOOOOH MY HEAD HURTS

When I speak of children I speak of those who have been born...not the fetus in the womb. I made no reference to the fetus in my post whatsoever, I only made reference to children. If you see those as one and the same then we simply see things differently.

It's unfortunate that people who see life differently than you give you a headache. Your life must be very difficult. I feel for you that you seem to be unable to control your emotions. I've been there and done that and I know it isn't any fun.

 

[kevmicsmi]

When I speak of children I speak of those who have been born...not the fetus in the womb. I made no reference to the fetus in my post whatsoever, I only made reference to children. If you see those as one and the same then we simply see things differently.
.

So how is South Dakota's bill against childrens rights then? Assuming the bill goes into effect (big assumption) there would be children born who would not have been otherwise, so answer me how this bill is against their rights?

It's unfortunate that people who see life differently than you give you a headache. Your life must be very difficult. I feel for you that you seem to be unable to control your emotions. I've been there and done that and I know it isn't any fun.

I appreciate your concern for my well being, but the comment about my head hurting stems strictly from my little smiley face banging his head against a brick wall. Ihave complete control over my emotions, it just so happens that is my favorite smile face.

 

[Pah]

So how is South Dakota's bill against childrens rights then? Assuming the bill goes into effect (big assumption) there would be children born who would not have been otherwise, so answer me how this bill is against their rights?...

We know that the value of a child, a living breathing, post-natal child is such that killing a child is the same as killing an adult. What penalty would that get in civil court? tens or hundreds of thousands? millions? The bill however values the pre-born child, as you term it, at less value than $1000 dollars damage from an act of vandalism. You don't begin to comprehend the dichotamy, do you? The bill gives scant rights to the pre-born. Those "good" Christians that fashioned and/or supported the bill have very little ground to question any rights of a child, pre- or post-partum.

Are you still in favor of the bill?

 

[kevmicsmi]

We know that the value of a child, a living breathing, post-natal child is such that killing a child is the same as killing an adult. What penalty would that get in civil court? tens or hundreds of thousands? millions? The bill however values the pre-born child, as you term it, at less value than $1000 dollars damage from an act of vandalism. You don't begin to comprehend the dichotamy, do you? The bill gives scant rights to the pre-born. Those "good" Christians that fashioned and/or supported the bill have very little ground to question any rights of a child, pre- or post-partum.

Are you still in favor of the bill?

I never said I was in favor of the Bill. You still didnt answer my question though

 

[Pah]

I never said I was in favor of the Bill. You still didnt answer my question though

I did if you are anti-abortion. Your arguemnts over 3 or 4 threads certinly don't "ease" the way toward a pro-choice position. You have only thrown up "blockage" toward an acceptance of a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

Care to comment on the bill's disregard of a "child's" rights?

 

[kevmicsmi]

I did if you are anti-abortion. Your arguemnts over 3 or 4 threads certinly don't "ease" the way toward a pro-choice position. You have only thrown up "blockage" toward an acceptance of a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

Care to comment on the bill's disregard of a "child's" rights?

Thats a good point, although this Bill is not about implementation, it is the trigger to a supreme court case. Yes, I am against Roe V Wade, but Im not against looking at legalized abortions in limited cases.

 

[maggie2]

So how is South Dakota's bill against childrens rights then? Assuming the bill goes into effect (big assumption) there would be children born who would not have been otherwise, so answer me how this bill is against their rights?

I did not suggest that the bill was against children. What I was referring to was the child poverty discussed in the original post when I was referring to children.

Let me try to be more clear. The bill would put women's rights back 100 years. The child poverty has already set children's rights back almost that far. Now have I clarified?

I appreciate your concern for my well being, but the comment about my head hurting stems strictly from my little smiley face banging his head against a brick wall. Ihave complete control over my emotions, it just so happens that is my favorite smile face.

If you say so. Who am I to question how you see yourself? Glad to hear that you feel under control!

 

[Pah]

Thats a good point, although this Bill is not about implementation, it is the trigger to a supreme court case. Yes, I am against Roe V Wade, but Im not against looking at legalized abortions in limited cases.

News flash! If this case triggers an overthrow of Roe v Wade, it will be implemented and copied in several states.

Without the underlying constitutional protection for reproductive rights, what is going to hold back forced gestration of contraception from the act of rape or incest. Women would become chattel again regardless of how conception is achieved. At least in those states that would outlaw abortion. That, my friend would violate equal protection amongs the states by virtue of some states approving abortion. (Only the federal position would change and abortion would revert back to the interest of separate states).This is a case of everybody or nobody.

States that do not approve abortion would be providing a class of female citizens unequal treatment. If not Roe v Wade, it would be Jane Doe v "Christian" Attorney General "X" - a rose by any other name.

 

[Draka]

I believe abortion is wrong. And I'm entitled to that belief. Especially when there are methods to prevent the unwanted pregnancy. I believe human life is precious...even at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Statistically speaking, most often...it's the young, unmarried woman who is having an abortion...because she is not ready for a baby or cannot afford a baby.

ALMOST HALF of these women have already ahd an abortion in the past.

My point is and always has been...if you're not ready for a child...either abstain from sex or use contraception. KNOWING that contraception isn't 100%...if one decides to have sex...they need to acknowledge that sex can result in pregnancy.

In my opinion...I don't understand why abstinence is such a terrible concept...especially for a young woman who isn't financially stable and isn't in a comitted relationship, with a supportive partner. Religion aside.

The thing is Dawny, that by outlawing the whole thing you take it as blind faith that the "statistics of the majority" are what is only going to be affected. It does not take into account the ones that really need it. There are many different circumstances that may indeed WARRANT an abortion, but by not seeing that it condemns those people unfairly because of the acts of others. It's like group A ruining things for group B...see what I mean? There are always ones that are in strange circumstances where they may see that they have no other choice. I once had a friend that got pregnant, in her marriage and had one girl already, and her husband was so adamant about only having the one child that he took hold of her daughter and threatened to leave with her and do "things" to her if she didn't have an abortion. My friend was so frightened for the life and well being of the child she already had that she did have the abortion...even though she didn't want to. Were there other courses of action that she could have taken? Maybe, but that was the only thing she felt she could do at the time due to his threats. My point is that you never know what goes on behind closed doors or in the lives of everyone that might even contemplate abortion. By making it illegal you leave the ones that may need it, for reasons you don't understand, out in the alleys looking for some other means of having it done...like it use to be. Why punish all for the acts of some?

And abstinence isn't such a terrible concept. As I said, I was abstinent for over 3 and 1/2 years. The thing is, things happen beyond our control. Who is anyone to judge what other people can and cannot handle? Just because you or I may be able to handle an unexpected pregancy in different situations doesn't mean every woman is capable of doing that in their situations.

Understand that I am pro-choice...not pro-abortion. There is a difference. I just think that by taking away the CHOICE you take away a woman's dignity to know what is and isn't right for her and her situation. As if she isn't smart enough to know what is best in her own life. I don't think I would ever be capable of having an abortion...but I certainly don't judge the act of which...some may find it their only viable recourse. Who am I to deny them that just because I wouldn't do it myself?

 

[kevmicsmi]

News flash! If this case triggers an overthrow of Roe v Wade, it will be implemented and copied in several states.

not verbatum, but yes

Without the underlying constitutional protection for reproductive rights, what is going to hold back forced gestration of contraception from the act of rape or incest

Maybe Im just stupid, but I have no clue what gestration of contraception means

Women would become chattel again regardless of how conception is achieved. At least in those states that would outlaw abortion. That, my friend would violate equal protection amongs the states by virtue of some states approving abortion. (Only the federal position would change and abortion would revert back to the interest of separate states)

Arent we going a little far in saying women would become property? Cmon lets not get hysterical.
You are misunderstanding equal protection. Women have the right to whore themselves in Nevada, but not in Colorado.

States that do not approve abortion would be providing a class of female citizens unequal treatment. If not Roe v Wade, it would be Jane Doe v "Christian" Attorney General "X" - a rose by any other name.

I disagree

 

[Faint]

We know that the value of a child, a living breathing, post-natal child is such that killing a child is the same as killing an adult. What penalty would that get in civil court? tens or hundreds of thousands? millions? The bill however values the pre-born child, as you term it, at less value than $1000 dollars damage from an act of vandalism. You don't begin to comprehend the dichotamy, do you? The bill gives scant rights to the pre-born. Those "good" Christians that fashioned and/or supported the bill have very little ground to question any rights of a child, pre- or post-partum.

And...

Without the underlying constitutional protection for reproductive rights, what is going to hold back forced gestration of contraception from the act of rape or incest. Women would become chattel again regardless of how conception is achieved. At least in those states that would outlaw abortion. That, my friend would violate equal protection amongs the states by virtue of some states approving abortion. (Only the federal position would change and abortion would revert back to the interest of separate states).This is a case of everybody or nobody.

...These are both excellent posts and I agree. Moreover, anyone in favor of this stupid bill should print out the text above and staple it to their forehead so they can read it over and over until it finally sinks in.

 

[kevmicsmi]

And...

...These are both excellent posts and I agree. Moreover, anyone in favor of this stupid bill should print out the text above and staple it to their forehead so they can read it over and over until it finally sinks in.

Wow that post changed my mind

 

[Faint]

Wow that post changed my mind

A question for you, I'm curious... if your significant other (wife/girlfriend--assuming you're hetero) got pregnant by rape, would you want her to carry the pregnancy to term and have the child?

 

[kevmicsmi]

A question for you, I'm curious... if your significant other (wife/girlfriend--assuming you're hetero) got pregnant by rape, would you want her to carry the pregnancy to term and have the child?

short answer? no

 

[Faint]

short answer? no

But you support this bill? Or did I miss something?

 

[kevmicsmi]

But you support this bill? Or did I miss something?

I dont support the bill, I support Roe V Wade being overturned though. Two different issues

 

[DakotaGypsy]

This is a meaningless statistic unless it is provided with context. For instance, what is the median income in South Dakota? Would a child just above national poverty level located in New York have a better chance of survival thatn a child in the poverty level in South Dakota? No! If you have a small state, with low incomes, you will have mor children in poverty.......BUT THINGS COST LESS THERE!!!!!!!!!!!

Go visit the rez in South Dakota.