The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[PureX]

Sorry, but this is not correct. America is a Constitutional Republic, and as such, we are ruled ultimately by law, not the "tyranny of the majority". If we accept that America is any kind of a democracy, then we must accept that whatever the majority wants IS correct. I for one, do not.
There are lots of good points on this thread, but I thought I'd highlight this one. Even though I am not what you'd call an abortion supporter, I would oppose the South Dakota law on this basis.​

"Limited Democracy", "Democratic Republic", Representative Democracy", "Constitutional Republic", ... whatever. The point remains, and we seem to agree on it: that the will of the majority does not over-rule the rights of the individual. This is why the right to have an abortion is not to be decided by the state or federal mandate of elected representatives, but by the rule of law as interpreted from our founding documents. (That's not just the Constitution, by the way, but also the Bill of Rights and even the Declaration of Independance.) This is an issue of individual rights, and therefor cannot be settled by the expressed will of the majority. It's a matter of interpreting the founding intent of the nation as expressed in it's original documents.

 

[dawny0826]

I respect your opinion, and everyone else's here, too. But this isn't really what the abortion issue is about. What it's about is the government dictating to you, and to "kevmicmi's" wife what MUST happen within your/her own body in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy.

Should your fellow citizens have the right to dictate to you what must happen inside your own body, and force you to follow their dictates by law, simply because their opinion is in the popular majority? No, they should not.

This is what the abortion issue is REALLY all about. And this is why in the United States, the right to an abortion is NOT a right that the federal OR state governments get to decide on by popular opinion. The United States is a LIMITED democracy. That means that the will of the majority is LIMITED by the rights of the individual. The majority opinion rules only up until that point where it infringes upon the unalienable rights of the individual. And so far the courts have decided that what happens inside your own body (or your wife's body) is an unalienable right of the individual to decide - and is NOT up to the popular opinions and will of the majority.

The abortion issue is not about what you or I want to see happen with unwanted pregnancies. It's about women having the unalienable right to decide for themselves what will happen INSIDE THEIR OWN BODIES.

I can't agree with you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what about a womans right to privacy to prostitute herself? why is that not federally protected? Why is it not a federally protected right to privacy to use narcotics? Why doesnt right to privacy pertain to polygamy? I would have to disagree, Look at some of the reasons given by the justices who decided Roe v Wade, and then tell me they were following the constitution in their decision.You are right, public opinion does not rule in America, but neither does a Justice's preference. Picking and choosing what has a right to privacy is ludicrous. Yes there are certain amendments that grant specific privacy rights, but in no way does that mean Americans have an absolute right to privacy.

The court rulings that form the so-called "right to privacy" mostly set perameters for what the right to privacy is not, so that's how we know what it is. The right to privacy has never been absolute (like freedom of speech, for example). In order to have a definition for something, it is just important to know what something isn't as much as somthing is. That's why we continually need court cases to define and redefine rights by how they are applied in original, real-life situations.:highfive:

 

[kevmicsmi]

The court rulings that form the so-called "right to privacy" mostly set perameters for what the right to privacy is not, so that's how we know what it is. The right to privacy has never been absolute (like freedom of speech, for example). In order to have a definition for something, it is just important to know what something isn't as much as somthing is. That's why we continually need court cases to define and redefine rights by how they are applied in original, real-life situations.:highfive:

so right to privacy has been set by precident and not the constitution...gotcha

 

[Pah]

so right to privacy has been set by precident and not the constitution...gotcha

Precedent IS the Constitution. It is the accumulation of all opinions as to what the Constiutution says.

 

[kevmicsmi]

"Limited Democracy", "Democratic Republic", Representative Democracy", "Constitutional Republic", ... whatever. The point remains, and we seem to agree on it: that the will of the majority does not over-rule the rights of the individual. This is why the right to have an abortion is not to be decided by the state or federal mandate of elected representatives, but by the rule of law as interpreted from our founding documents. (That's not just the Constitution, by the way, but also the Bill of Rights and even the Declaration of Independance.) This is an issue of individual rights, and therefor cannot be settled by the expressed will of the majority. It's a matter of interpreting the founding intent of the nation as expressed in it's original documents.

What are you talking about? The bill of rights is part of the constitution, and the declaration of independence has nothing to do with law

 

[kevmicsmi]

Precedent IS the Constitution. It is the accumulation of all opinions as to what the Constiutution says.

Bad precident not formed strictly from the Constitution is like a crack in a foundation of a house, it must be fixed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bad precident not formed strictly from the Constitution is like a crack in a foundation of a house, it must be fixed.

I need a drink.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I need a drink.

Thats a good precident

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bad precident not formed strictly from the Constitution is like a crack in a foundation of a house, it must be fixed.

You probably consider yourself a constitional purist.

What do you think about the framers immediately amending the constitution with the so-called "Bill of Rights?" Our fundamental rights were an after-thought to the framers. They wrote the constitution and thought, "Well, sh*t. We don't have any civil liberties with this thing."

It's a real good thing that the better minds of later interpreters came along and interpreted the Constitution in such a way to end slavery, give women the right to vote, give minorities civil rights, and the American people the right to privacy.

 

[kevmicsmi]

You probably consider yourself a constitional purist.

What do you think about the framers immediately amending the constitution with the so-called "Bill of Rights?" Our fundamental rights were an after-thought to the framers. They wrote the constitution and thought, "Well, sh*t. We don't have any civil liberties with this thing."

It's a real good thing that the better minds of later interpreters came along and interpreted the Constitution in such a way to end slavery, give women the right to vote, give minorities civil rights, and the American people the right to privacy.

Everything you mentioned was done by AMMENDING the constitution except one....lets play a sesame street game. which one of these just doesnt belong here?

 

[Pah]

So what about a womans right to privacy to prostitute herself? why is that not federally protected? Why is it not a federally protected right to privacy to use narcotics? Why doesnt right to privacy pertain to polygamy? I would have to disagree, Look at some of the reasons given by the justices who decided Roe v Wade, and then tell me they were following the constitution in their decision.You are right, public opinion does not rule in America, but neither does a Justice's preference. Picking and choosing what has a right to privacy is ludicrous. Yes there are certain amendments that grant specific privacy rights, but in no way does that mean Americans have an absolute right to privacy.

Prostitution and polygamy will be my next cause as they are natural extension of reproductive freedoms..

But I believe the drug laws do not address use but the commercial aspects (production, buying selling and holding)

Of course a judge does not rule America - only the executive can do that. The judge rules (decides) the facts whereas the executive rules by enforcing law - differing definitions of the same word.

 

[Pah]

Bad precident not formed strictly from the Constitution is like a crack in a foundation of a house, it must be fixed.

The most recent "fixing" was Lawrence v Texas - in favor of privacy:dan: :biglaugh:

 

[kevmicsmi]

Prostitution and polygamy will be my next cause as they are natural extension of reproductive freedoms..

But I believe the drug laws do not address use but the commercial aspects (production, buying selling and holding)

Semantics pah, why cant you HOLD drugs in your house?

Of course a judge does not rule America - only the executive can do that. The judge rules (decides) the facts whereas the executive rules by enforcing law - differing definitions of the same word.

I dont understand , I dont remember talking about the executive branch

 

[kevmicsmi]

The most recent "fixing" was Lawrence v Texas - in favor of privacy:dan: :biglaugh:

Good now we can fix that too

 

[JillianMarie77]

So if this lady has 3 kids and lupus, why doesnt her husband get fixed? why doesnt she? The great thing about America is you are free to move to a different state if you dont like the one you are in.ote]

Birth control fails. Even sterilization. One of my children was conceived in spite of BCP's and condoms combined!

I'm not getting too up in arms over it though. It'll be overturned.

As for moving or going out of state - SD is currently facing huge economic problems from "rural flight". Their populations and thus their production of revenue is DECLINING. These people may not be able to feed the kids they have properly let alone afford a trip to another state and out of pocket cost for the procedure since their inusrance probably wont cover them out of state for a non-emergency.
:bonk:

 

[JillianMarie77]

Look at statistics. The most common ailment during early pregnancy that REQUIRES an ABORTION is an actopic pregnancy which normally is noticed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. The pregnancy isn't viable and the mother risks losing a fallopian tube or hemoraghing.
I have yet to find another complication during the first trimester that places a mother's life in danger and demands the termination of a pregnancy. Please fill me in if you are aware of others.

Any number of pre-existing conditions could endanger the mothers life OR her health. Pregnancy itself has risks. A woman needs to be able to make healthcare choices for her own body. End of story. We allow killing for self defense, we allow it as punishment. This anti-choice mentality is purely religious and your religion has not place in my womb. You surely wouldnt want an Iraqi womans religion on your body!

By around 26 weeks of pregnancy...if there is an ailment that jeopardizes the life of mom or baby...DELIVERY is INDUCED...ask an OBGYN...abortion isn't suggested.

I've had enough babies to know. What is your point? A fetus is possibly viable outside the womb at 26 weeks. So that means in week 5 or week 12 I can't choose otherwise? I'm not following the logic here.

Most first trimester abortions are conducted because Mom doesn't want the baby...most of these mothers are unwed and are not ready to have children and are either not using protection at all or are doing so half ***. Almost HALF of these women have had one or more abortions.

Could you please source your statistics about the marital status and BC methods of women choosing abortions. Until then I can't grant your data any credence. On top of that, SO WHAT? Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. A woman makes a mistake, skips a pill. Now she's faced with a very difficult choice. Or she should be.

Abortions due to rape and incest make up a very small percentage of overall abortions within the US.

What percentage? Source please. ALso keep in mind that only 39% (best case) of rapes are reported. I cant find anything on incest but here's my source http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

I don't agree that sex education and birth control resources and information should be limited. I think they're imperative.

Statistically they are THE BEST, maybe even ONLY way to reduce abortion. Making abortion legal does NOT increase the occurrence of abortion. I know you may object to the use of a PP link as biased however their info is verifiable from outside sources.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/international/globalresource/resource-050830-illegal-abortion.xmlAs

f

ar as a mother's health being endangered by a pregnancy. News flash! EVERY single pregnancy carries risks to both Mom and/or baby. Every single one. There are so many complications that can occur. And 1 in 4 women will miscarry.

NEWSFLASH - thats exactly why every woman should be able to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term based on her life, her family, their individual circumstances and needs and wether or not she wants to take on those risks vs. the risks of an abortion

Common sense. That's what it all boils down to with me. And responsibility.

I completely agree. Making an informed decision about what to do when you find yourself unintendedly pregnant isn't exactly irresponsible.

Sex can result in pregnancy. If you don't want a baby...use as adequate enough protection to prevent a pregnancy as possible. If you're physically, mentally, emotionally and/or financially unstable...don't place yourself in situations where pregnancy can result.

The only 100% proven method of preventing pregnancy is complete abstinence. So unless you are advising people to ONLY have sex in the interest of pro-creation your comments here are useless.

The government doesn't have to provide a woman with resources for her to become educated about her body.

They do if they propose to tell her what she can and can't do with it.

I just fail to see why it's so difficult for women to make resonsible choices.

I fail to see how chooseing to terminate a pregnancy that will wreak havoc on a life, possibly several lives is irresponsible. I fail to see how bringing an unwanted child into the world to a woman who can't afford it or properly take care of it is responsible.

I think it's just far to easy to take the easy way out and blame others (and the government) for mistakes made.

Are you suggesting that women who have abortions blame others and the government for their predicament?

 

[kevmicsmi]

So if this lady has 3 kids and lupus, why doesnt her husband get fixed? why doesnt she? The great thing about America is you are free to move to a different state if you dont like the one you are in.ote]

Birth control fails. Even sterilization. One of my children was conceived in spite of BCP's and condoms combined!

I'm not getting too up in arms over it though. It'll be overturned.

As for moving or going out of state - SD is currently facing huge economic problems from "rural flight". Their populations and thus their production of revenue is DECLINING. These people may not be able to feed the kids they have properly let alone afford a trip to another state and out of pocket cost for the procedure since their inusrance probably wont cover them out of state for a non-emergency.
:bonk:

Move before you conceive:bonk:

 

[dawny0826]

Move before you conceive:bonk:

I'd give you a standing ovation...if I had a smilie for it.:clap

 

[JillianMarie77]

Move before you conceive:bonk:

Uh....you mean don't have sex in south dakota unless you are trying to procreate?

Do you have anything to add to the debate besides this?