ChatterBank0 min ago
The beginning of the end?
19 Answers
Does anyone think the pro life lobbyists will overcome the recent decision in South Dakota or will the anti abortionists grip become stronger?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by charliebaps. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Living near that State and knowing many people that live there, I've found that the primary reason for the passage of the bill in a State that already severely restricts the procedures, is to present a challenge to Roe v. Wade (the foundational Supreme Court ruling installing abortion as a right to privacy) in the hopes of at least, chipping away at the underlying principals. The South Dakota government fully expects a challenge in the lower courts from Planned Parenthood, et al, but hopes to prevail if the the case is heard by the Supreme Court. This is the goal, especially in light of the new, hoepfully, more conservative make-up of the court with two new Justices... The outcome will take years to wend its way through the system...
yea gods. It's a very simplistic view I have, and I know it's more complicated than this, but but these bible bashing freaks scare me, and yes, the worrying thing is the conservatives in the supreme court. Although I know there are other reasons to be anti-abortion than religion and CSI pointed out to me last night arguments in the bible as to why life does not necessarily begin with an embryo (what do you mean CSI is not real?lol). But only in America would you also have parents taking educational bodies to court to prevent them teaching evolution!! Sorry, gone off track a bit. But the whole thing is a bit worrying.
The difficulty for the anti abortion lobby is the unlikely return to a pre Roe v Wade world.
Hypothetically, if 48 States banned abortion and only California and New York continued to allow it, what could pro life States do to prevent a woman seeking an abortion out of State?
Could they really restrict the movement of individuals between States and friendly nations like Canada or Mexico? If they managed to do this, could they continue to call themselves part of 'the land of the free?'
In my opinion, the best outcome would be for each State to decide how it wants to treat the subject. South Dakota is a western State and not neccessarily known for being a religious haven. Although there are many believers there, this bill did not seem to have an overtly religious basis. I think the thoughtful, caring "religous freak" deserves a little more consideration. Fact is, at least here in the U.S., the young woman seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy can easily turn to compassionate, usually religious based organizations that will help her and pay all expenses if she chooses to see it thorugh to live-birth. There are few, if any, secular organizations that do the same. Planned Parenthood, until a few years ago when forced by court decisions, did not have to explain alternative actions to abortions. Even now, if a young woman chooses not to kill her baby after a visit to PP, she is escorted to the door.
Most people really don't understand that this is big business... totalling billions (with a B) dollars each year. Such providers are in it for no other reason than the money.
There are, factually, no cases of parents petitioning the courts to prohibit teaching of evolution. They have asked that alternative views at least be discussed... but it seems that Darwin's demonstrably flawed theory has achieved civil rights status and can't even be questioned, the only idea granted such immunity...
Most people really don't understand that this is big business... totalling billions (with a B) dollars each year. Such providers are in it for no other reason than the money.
There are, factually, no cases of parents petitioning the courts to prohibit teaching of evolution. They have asked that alternative views at least be discussed... but it seems that Darwin's demonstrably flawed theory has achieved civil rights status and can't even be questioned, the only idea granted such immunity...
Although in an ideal world I would be anti-abortion as the idea really is a terrible thing I do find myself in practice pro-choice because each girl/woman's life and situation is different and we must NEVER return to the situation where vulnerable girls become the victims of back street abortionists.
Making abortion illegal or impossibly difficult will not stop abortions, it will merely drive people underground or abroad for the proceedure or "out of state".I have a problem with what I too consider to be fundamentalist Christian press gangs who use a girl's misfortune and the American Govt's barmy views on Social Security to drag the poor girl into their fold.If she wanted to be a fundamental Christian then she'd have been one before she was pregnant. They may "help" her through to a live birth with money and kind words and doubtless also "helpfully" find adoptive parents for her offspring so that she can wonder all the rest of her life where her baby is.
"Hopefully more conservative judges" that terrifies me bearing in mind we'er talking about the already ultra right wing US.
Clanad, are you honestly suggesting that religion is not 'big business' in the USA?
I would love a Christian to explain how the teaching of Jesus Christ in any way supports the accumulation of personal or church wealth and how Christian TV evangelists justify their pride in self promotion.
Darwin's theory may well have flaws and no scientist should have problems with it being challenged by a scientifically based alternative, which does not include 'intelligent design', which even the US courts accept is creationist nonsense by another name.
I'm sure were going to be able to settle this argument, aren't we? No? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, however, in the U.S. last year there were 1.5 million (with an M) abortions. The rate of either using the procedure for multiple abortions (more than one or two on the same mother) as wll as sex selection is high. There were never 1.5 million women injured or killed by back alley abortions in the entire history of the U.S. More importantly, recent studies on women who have experienced abortions and then experience severe emotional and physical problems later in life is of serious concern.
I do take exception to your characterization of aiding young women to take the baby to term as dragging the young woman into their fold. I support, gladly, just such an organization. The young women are never prostelitized but welcomed with opened arms and pocketbooks with one view only... that of saving the life of a baby. Many raise their own babies, while others lovingly choose to have them adopted, for which there are standing lines of well qualified families. Care and support are provided for those who raise their babies after the birth and adoptive parents are government screened. Seems you think the thought of wondering where the baby with an adoptive family is more traumatic than knowing she consented to having it sucked to pieces and discarded in an incerator...
At a fund raising banquet last night, I lost count of the volunteer Doctors, nurses and other health care providers who freely give their time at the clinics. Name an abortion clinic that does the same thing if the young woman chooses not to do away with the baby? At any rate, have a nice day...
I do take exception to your characterization of aiding young women to take the baby to term as dragging the young woman into their fold. I support, gladly, just such an organization. The young women are never prostelitized but welcomed with opened arms and pocketbooks with one view only... that of saving the life of a baby. Many raise their own babies, while others lovingly choose to have them adopted, for which there are standing lines of well qualified families. Care and support are provided for those who raise their babies after the birth and adoptive parents are government screened. Seems you think the thought of wondering where the baby with an adoptive family is more traumatic than knowing she consented to having it sucked to pieces and discarded in an incerator...
At a fund raising banquet last night, I lost count of the volunteer Doctors, nurses and other health care providers who freely give their time at the clinics. Name an abortion clinic that does the same thing if the young woman chooses not to do away with the baby? At any rate, have a nice day...
Drusilla1s, I'm not sure what your point is, since you are arguing from a British or european standpoint. We have no state sponsored or selected religious institutions here. The Catholic church is a large denomination, but only one of many. While I can't speak for the Roman church, I can tell you that the majority of relief efforts in times of diasters come from organiztions of faith... both here in the U.S. (witness the aftermath of the hurricanes) as well as abroad.
But, thank you for making my point on Darwin... as you've stated, the theory is open to discussion as long as whomever is challenging it is approved by the supporters, no matter how unprovable or unsupported it really is (that's another thread). One really must understand the information from credentialed scientists of all persuasions supporting "Intelligent Design" to discuss it... at length. Simply stated, it is as good a theory for origins as is Darwin, (better, in my opinion) since it cannot be repeated and since no one was there as a witness... Causes one to wonder why the Darwinists are so adamant about not allowing any discussion if their position is so solidly provable...
clanad on a personal level as stated in my first post I am horrified by abortion, however, how many women were injured by back street abortionists is niether here nor there, in a caring world a living breathing girl's rights and feelings should be protected ahead of that of a feotus.I really don't like it or find the choice easy to make as I was brought up a Roman Catholic but women must never again be trapped into having a child that they do not wish to have for whatever reason. I have been forced by compassion and reality to be pro choice, it's not my personal choice but the only sensible one that honours quality of life ahead of quantity, and good works though I am sure you do, my sentiments about fundamental right wing Christian groups stand who seek to compel women to have children against their will.
Well it's a sad day when you don't learn something.
I discovered on Radio 4 this morning that abortion in the US is currently permitted throughout all 9 months of pregnancy.
There is also the very real question of whether or not individual states should be allowed to set their own laws on abortion.
Maybe it is time for re-evaluation - either way George Bush won't be thanking South Dakota for raking this up in such a contraversial manner - denying a rape victim an abortion is a political nightmare
I have a huge problem with this!! Firstly, I didn't know what jake has reported about abortion being legal up to full term in America. As someone with a very strong pro abortion opinion, I think this is inherently wrong, and my points are held with the system as it stands in the UK.
Clanad I have to take objection to (at least) one of your comments;
"The young women are never prostelitized but welcomed with opened arms and pocketbooks with one view only... that of saving the life of a baby"
And that is the point!, it reminds me of 'Rosemary's baby' The life, wellbeing and sanity of the woman in this position is classed as irrelevant, furthermore how can you justify the birth of another unwanted baby. There are millions of children in care already that need adoptive loving homes, I would suggest that we focus on this problem before adding to it by demanding that every pregnancy must result in a child.
As far as forcing a rape victim to go through with a resulting pregnancy, this is barbaric! I cannot and will not accept any justification for that.
Religion is a private choice and if anyone on this planet chooses to live their lives according to their own beliefs, then I totally accept and applaud that, and I mean anyone, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians.
But, Darwin or no, NO religion is based in fact, NO religion can be proved, and as such NO law should be implemented based on religious views. Those with any religious view should not, and more-so should not be allowed to, inflict that view on anyone else. The correct answer is Pro-Choice. By all means give a woman the opportunity to have her baby, no woman should ever 'have' to have an abortion. But to deny them that choice is wrong.
wouldn't it be nice is religion was a quiet and personal choice that affected an individuals choices rather than attempted to affect the choices of those around them... maybe one day - but it does seem we are becoming more radicalised again these days (at either extreme of the religious argument)... but this is off point - i can't see any possible justification for outlawing abortions, personal choice of the individual concerned (and no i'm afraid i cannot see the embryo as an individual in this respect), however i support clanad's issue regarding fully informed consent to the procedure - and i believe this is normal practise here in the UK together with counselling and a mental health assessment (to ensure fit to make such a decision)... simply i believe that if you free people to make their own decisions and provide all the information required to help in the decision making process then HOW can thier decision be wrong?
1 to 19 of 19
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|