» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/21/06 at 11:46 am

South Dakota Abortion Ban Passes Committee
Could crumble Roe v. Wade
Dakota Voice
02/17/2006

The South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee passed legislation this morning that will ban abortion in that state. HB 1215 moved out of committee with a vote 5 to 2 and will now face a final vote in full Senate sometime next week, likely by Thursday.

The South Dakota House already has overwhelmingly approved the measure that will make South Dakota the first state to ban abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion on demand in America. It is hoped that Governor Mike Rounds will sign the legislation, which will likely face a challenge in the Federal Courts.

We are proud of the state of South Dakota for taking a leadership roll in what is becoming a movement to challenge head-on the facts of Roe that we believe were wrongly decided in 1973, said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who was present a today s historic vote.

Five other states, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky, have introduced similar abortion bans, which are currently working their ways through the state legislatures.

What we are seeing is the beginning of a revolt in the states that no longer wish to tolerate the shedding of innocent blood on their soil, said Newman. We are encouraged that we are seeing the beginnings of a movement that will soon put an end to abortion in America once and for all.

We will do everything in our power to network with the pro-life, pro-family organizations across the nation to make available to the state of South Dakota every resource to fight this expected litigation, said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, who was also present at today's vote. We are literally seeing the foundations of Roe v. Wade crumble.

Link

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/21/06 at 5:29 pm

And it will be immediately overturned because it's an illegal ban.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/21/06 at 5:31 pm

Eh, who cares.  When global warming is gonna kill us all, who cares about some sort of ban.  People will still have illegal abortions.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/21/06 at 5:34 pm


Eh, who cares.  When global warming is gonna kill us all, who cares about some sort of ban.  People will still have illegal abortions.


Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming so that doesn't bother them. All they do is whine about abortion, but once you're born they could care less about you.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/21/06 at 5:35 pm


Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming so that doesn't bother them. All they do is whine about abortion, but once you're born they could care less about you.


Exactly.  After all, Jesus will come and we'll all go to Heaven, right?  So let's screw the world up while we can  >:(

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/21/06 at 7:52 pm


Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming so that doesn't bother them. All they do is whine about abortion, but once you're born they could care less about you.


Thanks to global warming, it was actually snowing in Central California this past weekend.  For the first time in years.  OooooOOOOOOOoooooh.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/21/06 at 7:54 pm

I do, however, believe that the ban is illegal.  It's not acceptable to me for a woman to end a pregnancy in that manner, but it's her uterus.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/21/06 at 8:02 pm

It doesn't matter whether you agree with abortion or not, you don't have to have one. You should let people do it if it fits with their beliefs, it's not your choice to make for them. I'm one of alot of people who personally doesn't like abortion and wouldn't have one if I were a girl, but I support choice.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/21/06 at 9:29 pm

Looks like South Dakota is going to become the most hated State on the board. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/21/06 at 9:30 pm


Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming so that doesn't bother them. All they do is whine about abortion, but once you're born they could care less about you.


Don't say they, Say some. Cause you're born and a lot of other people are born to.  I care about you and I care about them AND I'm a conservative.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/21/06 at 11:25 pm

The federal courts have ruled on the matter for years now, the right to have an abortion is protected by the constitution. The Bible is not the US constitution and should not be a reference for the law.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 6:15 am


And it will be immediately overturned because it's an illegal ban.


Wishful thinking I assume.  With Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and possibly Kennedy, you never know.  It has a long shot at being upheld, but it has a chance.  Kennedy came within in inch of joining Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and White in 1991 to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and caved at the last minute.  Times change though, especially with Kennedy.  Example: upholding the right for states to execute convicted criminals who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime in 1989, but on the exact same type of case, voted to not allow states those rights in 2005.

Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming

Here is a question, a group of scientists recently came out and said the Earth is on the verge on entering another ice age.  Is the Earth heating or cooling?  I'm hearing mixed stuff from environmentalists.

the right to have an abortion is protected by the constitution

Can you point to me that part of the constitution?

The Bible is not the US constitution and should not be a reference for the law.

What kind of statement is "the Bible is not the constitution"?  Stating the obvious doesn't make a point.  And too bad it is.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/22/06 at 10:40 am


Here is a question, a group of scientists recently came out and said the Earth is on the verge on entering another ice age.  Is the Earth heating or cooling?  I'm hearing mixed stuff from environmentalists.


Then you're listening to "scientists" and scientists.  If they are funded by a petroleum group or a group that also funds "Intelligent Design" they are as much a scientist as I'm a brain surgeon and fall into the "scientist" category.

While there may be small pockets were somewhere that is normally cold is hot or vice versa (witness the warmest January on record in Massachusetts while the south was having some record colds), the earth as a whole is warming.  There aren't any serious scientists that debate this.  Every time I see someone point out a scientist says the earth is cooling, they're really a "scientist" who was paid to support an agenda. 

The tundra is thawing, it hasn't done that in thousands of years.  The polar ice caps are receding to a point they've never receded to in recorded human history.  These are things that don't normally change over night, and can't be reversed quickly.  There is no credible scientist who is going to go on record and say the polar ice caps melting is a sign of a new ice age. 

This is of course all a thread hijack from the abortion topic.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 10:45 am


Wishful thinking I assume.  With Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and possibly Kennedy, you never know.  It has a long shot at being upheld, but it has a chance.  Kennedy came within in inch of joining Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and White in 1991 to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and caved at the last minute.  Times change though, especially with Kennedy.  Example: upholding the right for states to execute convicted criminals who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime in 1989, but on the exact same type of case, voted to not allow states those rights in 2005.

Here is a question, a group of scientists recently came out and said the Earth is on the verge on entering another ice age.  Is the Earth heating or cooling?  I'm hearing mixed stuff from environmentalists.

Can you point to me that part of the constitution?

What kind of statement is "the Bible is not the constitution"?  Stating the obvious doesn't make a point.  And too bad it is.


People are too apathetic and pessimestic today.  They think that today we have it all figured out and we're perfect and their is no room for improvment or inovation.  That of which is wrong, we're powerless to stop so we might as well let it go on, and while we're at it, support it.  This isn't only abortion but many things, can't fix it, so make it bigger.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 10:50 am


I agree with you 100%.  But, didn't you know, you're only allowed to have a "choice" of what other people "choose" for you, regardless of your beliefs?




^^the 2nd sentence was sarcasm, BTW ;)


My friend Dylan believes that all special education people should be shipped to an Island to live under supervision.  He got enough people behind him and money and political power would his "beliefs" be good enough for you?

There is a large group of pediophiles that believe that there is nothing wrong with pediophila. You know at one time in Canada they thought of legalizing pediophilia.  If they were to legalize pediophila in the United States, all of a sudden it wouldn't come down to beliefs.  It'd come down to, "you ain't laying a hand on that kid, I don't give a _ _ _ _ what you believe".  Kill a baby though, that's a belief.  Touch a little boy in the wrong spot, that's just plain wrong.  Hypocrit.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/22/06 at 11:40 am


People are too apathetic and pessimestic today.  They think that today we have it all figured out and we're perfect and their is no room for improvment or inovation.  That of which is wrong, we're powerless to stop so we might as well let it go on, and while we're at it, support it.   This isn't only abortion but many things, can't fix it, so make it bigger.
i find that the problem with people is that they constantly generalize. every single one of them.

oh, and

There is a large group of pediophiles that believe that there is nothing wrong with pediophila. You know at one time in Canada they thought of legalizing pediophilia.  If they were to legalize pediophila in the United States, all of a sudden it wouldn't come down to beliefs.  It'd come down to, "you ain't laying a hand on that kid, I don't give a _ _ _ _ what you believe".  Kill a baby though, that's a belief.  Touch a little boy in the wrong spot, that's just plain wrong.  Hypocrit.


smooth transition into pedophilia, my man. i don't think anybody noticed.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 1:24 pm


If that's what Dylan believes, then that's HIS belief.  However, he has no right to make me follow his beliefs.....if I had a special needs child, there's no way in hell he'd be able to make me ship him/her off.  Same as pedophiles...they can't MAKE me molest a child.  That's what you can't seem to get through your thick skull.  You want everyone to follow YOUR beliefs, no questions asked.  Don't try to deny it because you've made it abundantly clear of that.  YOU don't believe in abortion so we shouldn't allow it.  YOU think homosexual "marriage" is wrong so we shouldn't allow it.  I think abortion is wrong, but it's not up to ME to make a choice for another person.  On homosexual marriage, I really don't see what the big deal is.  It's not going to make MY marriage or any other of the millions of marriages in the world less valid....divorce has done more to harm the institution of marriage much more than 2 homosexuals getting married.  Pedophilia DOES harm others so it should not be allowed.  And you call ME a hypocrit?  PUHLEEZE ::)


Harm others? You come up to me or my nephew and try and shove a pair of scissors through our skulls, you'd be harming us.

Abortion is wrong, that isn't a matter of belief or opinion. The act of abortion is wrong.  The debate is on whether the wrong should be allowed or not.

Secondly I believe in homosexual marriage. I support homosexual marriage.  What I do NOT do, is  support homosexual marriage by a book that is made for heterosexual marriage only.


You are an extreme hypocrit, when the tables are turned on you, you think you can just change the rules.  It doesn't work that way. What I'm saying is a man could come up and molest a child right in front of you. Now if it was your child you could do something about it.  However if it wasn't, you couldn't do jack squat.  Now you personally, doubt it would bother you to much. Me it'd bother a lot.  But you respect other people, pediophiles even, IF the law was they could, and you know it. Deny it all you want, you'd either be pissed that they're allowed to do so or you would support them. You'd find no middle ground, period.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 1:26 pm


i find that the problem with people is that they constantly generalize. every single one of them.

oh, and

smooth transition into pedophilia, my man. i don't think anybody noticed.


crazymom noticed, kill my baby, but don't sexually touch him/her.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/22/06 at 1:34 pm

Abortion is wrong, that isn't a matter of belief or opinion. The act of abortion is wrong.  The debate is on whether the wrong should be allowed or not. This partial-birth abortion thing is a particular instance, but in the case of, say, first trimester abortion, where you're talking about a fetus with the cellular complexity of a jellyfish I actually have no problem with abortion. It's hardly a foregone conclusion abortion is wrong unless you presuppose the radical fundamentalist view that all conception creates a potential human in the eyes of God and all that.

I personally think making a woman have a baby against her will is a form of molestation. How about in the case of an underage girl who's a victim of rape? Would you oppose abortion then? if so then where do you get off being holier than thou about pedophilia? Forcing an underage girl to have a baby pretty much MAKES you a pedophile.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 2:00 pm


This partial-birth abortion thing is a particular instance, but in the case of, say, first trimester abortion, where you're talking about a fetus with the cellular complexity of a jellyfish I actually have no problem with abortion. It's hardly a foregone conclusion abortion is wrong unless you presuppose the radical fundamentalist view that all conception creates a potential human in the eyes of God and all that.

I personally think making a woman have a baby against her will is a form of molestation. How about in the case of an underage girl who's a victim of rape? Would you oppose abortion then? if so then where do you get off being holier than thou about pedophilia? Forcing an underage girl to have a baby pretty much MAKES you a pedophile.



Then start speaking up your voice to provide more birth control pills, more condoms, and more opportunites for women to get their tubes tied, and more money towards research to make tube tying more safe.  Sure as hell aren't going to try and convince kids that sex isn't a fun recreational activity that you should participate in whenever the feeling arises.  Past that stage.  Women and the men who get them pregnant  don't want to be held responsible for the actions of which they are 100% guilty of, then we ought to help them to not give a sheesh, and be careless but not hurt another in the process.  I care for those having sex more often than they take in a breath of air, because of diseases and other physical/emotional stresses, but if that's what they want, fine.  I just don't agree with murdering another in the process, because you choose to get F'd everynight, but don't choose to be on birth control. 

Tia I've answered this question in your existance before.  I believe abortion like anything else has it's time and it's place. It shouldn't be used as an everyday occurance like it is now.  When they say "rare" they ought to mean it, although they most certainly do not.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 2:01 pm


Saying ANYTHING is wrong is a matter of belief. I don't care if it's a belief that is common or universally accepted, it's still a matter of belief. There is no theorem available that uncategorily yields "abortion is wrong" just as there is nothing that can prove "murder is wrong" or "eating meat is wrong" or "mowing your lawn is wrong." Do I personally hold all four of those things to be equivalent within my system of values? No. But that's just my value judgment. I can argue why I believe something is or isn't wrong, but in the end, it's still only my belief.


That in itself is a belief only held by certain people, you have no validty on that as a fact whatsoever. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 3:12 pm


No, YOU believe abortion is wrong (and I happen to agree with you).  However, there are a few million people who disagree with you and I on this.  THAT makes it a "belief", not a "fact".  A "fact" is something that can be proven....abortion being "wrong" can't. Exactly, again, it's "it's okay when YOU say it's okay".
I've changed the rules?  Name once....you can't.  YOU'RE the one who cries that people are picking on you or insulting you then turn around and do the exact same thing to them.  You complain about people generalizing, when you're just as guilty.  You whine when people assume things about you, then assume things about others (and in almost every case where I'm concerned, you've been DEAD WRONG)  When things aren't going your way, you resort to low blows.  If that isn't "changing the rules", then I don't know what is. 

The fact that you even insinuate that I wouldn't care if a child was molested shows your ignorance.  I WOULD and HAVE "done something about it", even if it WASN'T my child.  You know damned good and well that I've been molested in the past and I've made it crystal clear that I think pedophiles are the lowest scum on the face of the planet.  As far as finding middle ground on pedophilia, you're absolutely right, I WOULDN'T find middle ground....they can all burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.  Even if it was made legal, there's no way in hell I'd ever support them.  You, however, claim to "care about everyone" so I guess YOU'D care about them as well.  YOU are the one who can't "find middle ground" on anything.....it's YOUR way or the highway ::)


I could find a few million people who disagree with us on rape and pediphila as well.  Neither one of those can be proven as wrong.  In fact very few things can be proven as wrong. 1 and 1 make three, that can be proven wrong.  The rest is subjective by your definition. 

I wanted to play fair, but that isn't the Rules of the board. The rules by you and others is to give in NOTHING, surrender NOTHING, have zero compromise, zero consideration, and above all else zero compassion.  Dirty, IS one of the rules on this board, and I've learned to play by your rules.

I have middle ground. Middle ground is saying to an 18 year old boy, "yes you can date your 17 year old girlfriend", then going up to a 45 year old man and saying, "no you may not have sex with that 3 year old."  That's finding middle ground. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 3:16 pm


No can do.  The "Christians" won their battle to keep any mention of birth control or condom use out of "sex ed" classes.  At least in my part of the country.  The only thing that can be taught as prevention of pregnancy or std's is abstinence.  I know this because my oldest just had "the talk" at school and someone asked about condoms and they were told that they couldn't discuss those....abstinence was all they could recommend.


It doesn't have to be just in schools.  Why not have places where these things are availble. Which we already do.  A Young woman can go to the doctor and ask for prescription birth control pills and the doctor is obligated under law to NOT tell her parents if she doesn't want to.  Believe me, I I know this because I remember my mother chewing out one of the town doctors when she found birth control in my sisters room. He had a defense.  Therefore,  is it that hard for a teenager to take 75 cents, walk into a convienent store bathroom and purchase a condom? 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 3:30 pm

The "Christians" won their battle to keep any mention of birth control or condom use out of "sex ed" classes.  At least in my part of the country.  The only thing that can be taught as prevention of pregnancy or std's is abstinence.  I know this because my oldest just had "the talk" at school and someone asked about condoms and they were told that they couldn't discuss those....abstinence was all they could recommend.


If you're looking for the condoms on cucumbers try Massachusetts.

It's very mistaken to believe for even one second that it's just Christians that are opposed to that kind of garbage, it's cuts across almost all religious and political leanings.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/22/06 at 3:37 pm


Wishful thinking I assume.  With Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and possibly Kennedy, you never know.  It has a long shot at being upheld, but it has a chance.  Kennedy came within in inch of joining Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and White in 1991 to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and caved at the last minute.  Times change though, especially with Kennedy.  Example: upholding the right for states to execute convicted criminals who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime in 1989, but on the exact same type of case, voted to not allow states those rights in 2005.

Here is a question, a group of scientists recently came out and said the Earth is on the verge on entering another ice age.  Is the Earth heating or cooling?  I'm hearing mixed stuff from environmentalists.

Can you point to me that part of the constitution?

What kind of statement is "the Bible is not the constitution"?  Stating the obvious doesn't make a point.  And too bad it is.


It definitely makes a point, Christians have been using the Bible as an argument against abortion and evolution. They are trying to install Biblical doctrine in the law where it does not belong.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 3:50 pm


Does a dictionary work for you?

wrong (adj.) 1. not according to the moral standard: sinful, immoral <thought that war was wrong>
2. not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention <it was wrong not to thank your host>

There are other definitions, but these two are the most relevant, especially number two. Note that both denotations imply that something can only be wrong within a context. The first one is according to a moral statement. Moral statements are value judgments. Moral statements, by definition, are cultural and personal and cannot be applied universally. The second one is according to a code, standard, or convention, meaning, again, that there must be a specific context before something can be called wrong.

Ergo, by definition, calling something wrong is a value judgment and not universally applicable.

Telling me that that is invalid makes you wrong, definition 3: not according to truth or facts: incorrect <gave a wrong date>.

Honestly, you'll find that I've just about stopped arguing my beliefs here, but don't try to argue with me on facts when accepted reference books (note that I refer to reference books, not simply references) are on my side. My only recent-ish posts to you have concerned definitions (in the last case, I believe it was "to compare," and now "wrong.") I generally try not to argue much about beliefs, etc., and certainly attempt to refrain from it on these boards now (hence I haven't posted anything about abortions in this thread and won't be doing so).


Your argument was that there is no right or wrong, just a difference in belief.  My argument was that, that itself is a belief.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 3:51 pm


It definitely makes a point, Christians have been using the Bible as an argument against abortion and evolution. They are trying to install Biblical doctrine in the law where it does not belong.


No since of morals belong in law, or they aren't their anyway.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/22/06 at 4:10 pm


Does a dictionary work for you?
dictionaries are the diabolical lies of satan!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/22/06 at 4:19 pm


dictionaries are the diabolical lies of satan!


I invented dictionaries, Bobby Boucher...Webster is the DEVIL!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 4:33 pm


Also, I would be willing to bet that a majority of those who are opposed to birth control being taught are Christians.....after all, the "non-religious" folk in this country have no morals so why should they be opposed ::) (<sarcasm)


There are Jews, Muslims and other faiths.  I'm sure it is a majority, but that is almost certainly because of demographics.

If you're so upset with it, teach the boy yourself and try not to put too much trust in a government school.  They're quite poor nationwide.

They are trying to install Biblical doctrine in the law where it does not belong.

This is probably the most mistaken thing I've ever read on this messageboard.  They use their faith as a guide to oppose something.  That is quite different from putting Biblical law into the constitution.

Compare five of the ten commandments to our laws now.

Abortion is not a constitutional right neither.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: philbo on 02/22/06 at 5:34 pm


But your argument is incorrect! The definition of "wrong" in the moral sense entails that it is only a belief. I do not take from you your choice to disagree, but this is disagreeing with a definition, not a belief.

Strangely enough, I agree with Harmonica's statement that:
"Your argument was that there is no right or wrong, just a difference in belief.  My argument was that, that itself is a belief."
...in that if you're taking the moral relativistic argument, then that relativism must of itself be relative; however, in coming up with that as an argument (rather than an ironic aside - I wasn't sure whether to take it as a joke), he completely undermines *every* other contention he makes in this thread: i.e. if he actually *believes* this as an argument, then every other position has to be taken as relative... and in the middle of this, he has the bare-faced audacity to call someone else a hypocrite.


There are Jews, Muslims and other faiths.  I'm sure it is a majority, but that is almost certainly because of demographics.

er... how many Jewish, Muslim or *any* other faith-based organization have come out against abortion?  I've not heard of a single one, period.  Not that I'm saying there aren't, but I personally haven't seen any but Christian organizations wanting an outright ban on abortion.  Now, I'm sure you've got evidence to back up your assertions, rather than spouting unprovable generalities, so would you mind providing something to back it up?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/22/06 at 6:03 pm

Abortion is unavailable anyway in much of rural America.  You cannot compel a medical facility to provide abortions, thus "red state" America has deprived women (mostly poor women) of their reproductive rights for decades.
IMO, Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next five years.  Women will have access to abortion in states such as Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and California.  States in the Bible Belt will ban abortion before the ink is dry at the supreme court.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the number of women who will be injured or killed by "back alley" abortions will skyrocket after Roe v. Wade is thrown out.  Rest assured if Jenna Bush or Tom DeLay's daughter got in the family way, she'd be able to get an abortion lickedy-split in any state. 
Women of means who can either travel to where abortion is legal, or who can pay off a private OB/Gyn will always have access to safe and legal abortion, and they'll use it too!  As that old song goes, "the rich get richer and the poor get children, but in the mean time, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
::)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/22/06 at 6:08 pm


Abortion is unavailable anyway in much of rural America.  You cannot compel a medical facility to provide abortions, thus "red state" America has deprived women (mostly poor women) of their reproductive rights for decades.
IMO, Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next five years.  Women will have access to abortion in states such as Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and California.  States in the Bible Belt will ban abortion before the ink is dry at the supreme court.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the number of women who will be injured or killed by "back alley" abortions will skyrocket after Roe v. Wade is thrown out.  Rest assured if Jenna Bush or Tom DeLay's daughter got in the family way, she'd be able to get an abortion lickedy-split in any state. 
Women of means who can either travel to where abortion is legal, or who can pay off a private OB/Gyn will always have access to safe and legal abortion, and they'll use it too!  As that old song goes, "the rich get richer and the poor get children, but in the mean time, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
::)


This country is going down the tubes. Conservative Christians are taking this country back to the 19th century. It just gets worse and worse.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 6:13 pm


er... how many Jewish, Muslim or *any* other faith-based organization have come out against abortion?  I've not heard of a single one, period.  Not that I'm saying there aren't, but I personally haven't seen any but Christian organizations wanting an outright ban on abortion.  Now, I'm sure you've got evidence to back up your assertions, rather than spouting unprovable generalities, so would you mind providing something to back it up?


You may have not heard of one, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Orthodox Jews are just as anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and possibly anti-death penalty at most of the large Catholic churches in the northeast (Protestants tend to be more conservative and supportive of the death penalty.)  A google search can really yield anything you request.  I believe you knew this too.

http://www.jewsforlife.org/

Granted, Jews support abortion more than any other religious group, but the more conservative factions are just as strongly anti-abortion as any Christian you'll find.

As for Muslims, you need only look at the laws of the majority Muslim nations.  Sure Iran allows it to save the life or mental health of a mother, but it's still banned.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/22/06 at 6:17 pm


This country is going down the tubes. Conservative Christians are taking this country back to the 19th century. It just gets worse and worse.

Indeed, they seek to fuse 19th century values with 21st century technology.  They try to marry Jesus Christ to Ayn Rand!  Oh, and being Christian isn't about living a moral and beneficent life yourself, it's about passing judgment on other people and screaming a lot about the "end times"!
:D

So many people have said for so long "this country is going down the tubes," but now that it really is "going down the tubes" I can barely get my head around it.  I tried to tell conservatives back in 2000 that even they would end up hating George W. Bush, but they didn't believe me.  Now they're starting to see what the Bush family is REALLY all about...

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: philbo on 02/22/06 at 6:19 pm


You may have not heard of one, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Orthodox Jews are just as anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and possibly anti-death penalty at most of the large Catholic churches in the northeast (Protestants tend to be more conservative and supportive of the death penalty.)  A google search can really yield anything you request.  I believe you knew this too.

Well, there's a first: first time I've asked for you to back up something you've said that you actually have... lucky I was sitting down already ;)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 6:20 pm


Conservative Christians are taking this country back to the 19th century.


Reminds me of a quote from, I think, Stalin.  Repeat the lie often enough.....

"You don't agree with my idea of progress, so you want to wind back the clock!"

This from the same people who want to take us back to the 1930's and the 1960's with the another new deal or great society plan.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/22/06 at 6:28 pm

The people who want to take us back to the 1930s are the cadre of Fascists in the Bush White House, they want turn us into a 1930s Germany.  BTW, your big lie quote is,
"If you tell a lie big enough often enough, people will come to believe it."
--Joseph Goebbels,
Third Reich Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)

Here is a link to the whole 'big lie" quote, and a whole bunch of other Goebbels quotes that sound exactly like the Karl Rove playbook!
:o :o :o
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/22/06 at 6:44 pm

South Dakota just banned abortion.

South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban; bill challenging Roe now goes to governor

South Dakota's Senate passed a bill Feb. 22 that would ban nearly all abortions, moving it one step closer to directly challenging the infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

The bill passed the state Senate 23-12, one week after it was adopted by the House of Representatives on a 47-22 vote. It now goes to the desk of Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, who is pro-life but hasn't taken a public position. His signature would be historic, marking the first time since the 1973 Roe decision that a state has passed such a wide-sweeping ban on abortion. Pro-choice groups are expected to file an immediate lawsuit.

Supporters of the bill acknowledge that it will be struck down in federal court as unconstitutional, but they hope the Supreme Court eventually will take the case and overturn Roe.

In speaking for the bill, Senate sponsor Julie Bartling, a Democrat, called the unborn child "a separate human being, not a piece of tissue."

"The unborn child demands and deserves protection under our Constitution and under our state laws, and I believe it's now time to abolish abortions in South Dakota," Bartling said.

The bill provides for an exception to save the life of the mother. An amendment that would have provided for an exception for rape and incest failed, 21-14.

State Sen. Brock L. Greenfield, a Republican who voted for the bill, said technology and science has changed the abortion debate dramatically.

"Given the technological leaps and bounds since 1973, we can conclude with 100 percent certainty that upon fertilization a completely new, genetically unique life, with its own DNA fingerprint, is created," Greenfield said. "And at approximately 21 days after fertilization, the unborn child's heart begins beating."

He then asked the Senate body: "At what point did you become a living human being worthy of protection under the law?"

In its 1973 Roe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down abortion bans across the country, legalizing the killing of the unborn in all 50 states.

The South Dakota bill directly confronts the Roe decision, making it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion. The mother would not be charged with a crime. The language of the bill - named the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act -- says that "life begins at the time of conception" and that scientific advances since 1973 have proven that the unborn child is indeed life. The bill says the goal is to "fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child." The bill is based on the findings of a task force that studied abortion.

Link

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 7:57 pm


Maybe you should read up on birth control laws.  In most states, there are no laws that say a doctor CANNOT tell.  Some states have laws that restrict the circumstances under which a minor can get birth control from a doctor.  And, we DO have these places....they're called Planned Parenthood, which you have made it perfectly clear that you abhor.  Thanks to the "anti-abortion" advocates who stand outside these clinics and call each and every woman/girl who walks in a murderer, can you blame them for not going there for BC?


You ought to read up on your confidentiality laws. A young woman tells a doctor something confidential, he can not tell others. That's a law. 
As far as planned parenthood goes, If they weren't responsible for 4,000 murders a day, maybe they wouldn't get such a bad rap.  You  Piss on my boat and tell me it's raining.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:04 pm


Never said it wasn't subjective.  However, the laws in this country make pedophilia and rape illegal.  Illegal=wrong. Oh please.  You started playing dirty from the get-go and have gotten 10x "dirtier" than many of the rest of us have.  How many things have you accused me of?  Let's see....I'd support pedophiles if it was illegal, I "deserved" to be raped and molested, I'd readily get an abortion, I'm "evil" and a "murderer", I said that your friend "Ralph" deserved to die......NONE of which are true.  What have I ever "accused" you of besides being closed-minded and a hypocrite (which, might I add, you've also accused me of)? That's not middle ground.  Middle ground is accepting that the other side might have a point.....agreeing with part of someone says.....all you do is go to one extreme or the other. 


According to your anology slavery was right.  Slavery = legal = right.  Glad people with your mind set weren't the only ones changing old laws and forming new laws.

If I'm 10 times you are 1,000 times, if I'm 1,000 times, you are 10,000 times.

You would support pediophila if it were legal, you just stated you would. Legal = right.

I never said you deserved to raped or molested.  No one deserves that, and You know I mean no one.  You had absolutely no sympathy or remorse or feeling for Ralph and what happened to him whatsoever. 

I do not do one extreme or the other.  I find compromise on all issues.  You're the one that doesn't.  I say let abortions be allowed  where they're needed.  YOu say let abortions be allowed where they're needed, uneeded, wanted and unwanted.  You're the one that can be seen tipped to the left or tipped to the right. I find balance.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:07 pm


No it wasn't.  His argument was that right or wrong is a "belief".  I suggest you take a little more time actually reading the responses made.


That is exactly what I was saying. I get what he said 100% if not 110%. By saying that right and wrong are beliefs, which make them 100% subjective upon interpretation, you are stating that there is no right and there is no wrong. 

If you ask 3 million people a subjective question about right and wrong, according to the system he set up, there answer is subjective and subjective only. 

Is stealing wrong?  You can't say yes and you can't say no, with any factual statement according to his system.  Therefore stealing is not right and stealing is not wrong, because one person say's right and the other says wrong.

I got what he was saying. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:09 pm


dictionaries are the diabolical lies of satan!


Aethiest don't make attacks? Aethiest don't stoop low? come again on that statement.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:14 pm


Abortion is unavailable anyway in much of rural America.  You cannot compel a medical facility to provide abortions, thus "red state" America has deprived women (mostly poor women) of their reproductive rights for decades.
IMO, Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next five years.  Women will have access to abortion in states such as Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and California.  States in the Bible Belt will ban abortion before the ink is dry at the supreme court.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the number of women who will be injured or killed by "back alley" abortions will skyrocket after Roe v. Wade is thrown out.  Rest assured if Jenna Bush or Tom DeLay's daughter got in the family way, she'd be able to get an abortion lickedy-split in any state. 
Women of means who can either travel to where abortion is legal, or who can pay off a private OB/Gyn will always have access to safe and legal abortion, and they'll use it too!  As that old song goes, "the rich get richer and the poor get children, but in the mean time, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
::)


Sky rocket? I'll take that bet with you. Crazymom herself stated that legal=right, illegal = wrong.  She's not the only one with this view on political matters.  Abortion numbers will go down dramatically if abortion is made illegal.  Abortions of women who need them, women who are in danger of dying by giving birth will still be provided, and Im' sure other exceptions such as rape and insest will still be allowed as well.  The other 3,500 abortions that happen daily will be eliminated.  People being more responsible and less "embarassed" will sky rocket like no other as well.  Condom usage and birth control subsriptions will be at an all time high.  As far as women injured and hurt in back ally abortions, yes it will happen, the same way people are killed for drugs,  but not anywhere near what you assume.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: McDonald on 02/22/06 at 8:21 pm

The position of the Presbyterian Church USA (a Protestant religion in which I was raised) is that abortion is the moral choice of a woman (i.e. whether it would be more immoral to have an unwanted baby or to abort the pregnancy, depending on her circumstances).

Most everyday Catholics in this country tend to ignore the techings of the church when it comes to abortion and birth control (both of which are forbidden by the Holy See), whether or not they consider themselves religious.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:21 pm


This country is going down the tubes. Conservative Christians are taking this country back to the 19th century. It just gets worse and worse.


I'm really glad to hear you say that. I was in fear that it wouldn't be long before abortion rates where at an all time high, title IX had eliminated all men's sports with exception to football and basketball to an oblivion, the word God was the most unused word in the nation, you walk into coffee shop you have to know 5 different languages to talk to 4 different people, the only thing on television is perverted stuff with more profanity words than a's and the's and letting Osama Bin Ladin come over and dictate our men and women according to his agenda.

You're in fear of just the opposite, gives  me hope.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/22/06 at 8:23 pm


The position of the Presbyterian Church USA (a Protestant religion in which I was raised) is that abortion is the moral choice of a woman (i.e. whether it would be more immoral to have an unwanted baby or to abort the pregnancy, depending on her circumstances).

Most everyday Catholics in this country tend to ignore the techings of the church when it comes to abortion and birth control (both of which are forbidden by the Holy See), whether or not they consider themselves religious.


Good point. The "moral" choice, is stressed a lot more than you elborated however.  The lean is obvious.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/22/06 at 8:58 pm

My question is this: Who is f***ing in South Dakota? People actually live there?  ;D

Lame jokes aside, abortion is a compromise. In an ideal world, no one would get accidentally pregnant, get STDs, etc.

However, in the real world all of the free condoms, birth control and education aren't going to eliminate all unwanted pregnancies. Banning abortion is going to force those who get pregnant by accident carelessness to carry to term or seek an abortion in other states. There is also the cases of rape/incest and pregnancies that endanger the mother's life.

What then? Are you going to tell a 13 year old girl who has been raped "Too bad"?

While many unwanted pregnancies do result in a positive outcome (two members of my family were an 'oops') the right to choose should fall squarely on the parents of the child, not the government, courts or Christians.


I've heard most of the arguements both pro and con, but if the fetus is not of an age where it can survive on its own without living on 10 machines and inside a 'bubble' then it's not a person to me. I haven't heard any cases where a fetus less than 4 months has every survived being born that premature. So in my opinion it's not a person. But if a mother wanted a late third trimester abortion with no valid reason I would be opposed, unless there were complications that posed a danger to her life.

I realise that still leaves a lot of grey area and sounds kind of cold but that's the area where the mother's conscience comes into play.

I don't think abortion is right but I do believe it should be legal. What's "right" and what's "legal" aren't always the same thing.

Abortion is a subject that will always be highly charged no matter what the law is.


The position of the Presbyterian Church USA (a Protestant religion in which I was raised) is that abortion is the moral choice of a woman (i.e. whether it would be more immoral to have an unwanted baby or to abort the pregnancy, depending on her circumstances).



Though I'm not a Presbyterian I agree with this.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/22/06 at 9:24 pm


My question is this: Who is f***ing in South Dakota? People actually live there?  ;D

Lame jokes aside, abortion is a compromise. In an ideal world, no one would get accidentally pregnant, get STDs, etc.



South Dakota is one of the poorest states in the country.  It is beset with all the pathologies visited upon people in chronic economic deprivation--crime, violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, sociopathy, rape, and incest!  You will notice from GWB's post that the exception for rape and incest failed in the legislature.  This is what you get when you let the good ole boys run the show:
Biblical creationism taught in school and fourteen-year-old girls bearing their own fathers'  babies!
>:(
I'm tired of this medieval rubbish! Tired, tired, tired!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Windbreaker05 on 02/22/06 at 9:27 pm


That is exactly what I was saying. I get what he said 100% if not 110%. By saying that right and wrong are beliefs, which make them 100% subjective upon interpretation, you are stating that there is no right and there is no wrong. 

If you ask 3 million people a subjective question about right and wrong, according to the system he set up, there answer is subjective and subjective only. 

Is stealing wrong?  You can't say yes and you can't say no, with any factual statement according to his system.  Therefore stealing is not right and stealing is not wrong, because one person say's right and the other says wrong.

I got what he was saying. 


You're so close, but no, you're still missing a beat.

I'm saying that you can't universally say something is right or wrong. I'm not saying that you can't have value judgments. I'm just saying that you can't confuse those with a priori truths. Saying that stealing is wrong is based on a system of belief and indoctrination. Therefore, saying that is an expression of your belief. That's not the same as a truth. It is true that stealing is illegal. It is the belief of some that stealing is wrong.

So here's everything repeated yet again, hopefully in a nice comprehensible summary:
*"Wrong" is, by definition, based on belief.
*One is permitted to draw conclusions based on one beliefs; indeed, one would often be in a chaotic state if one did not.
*Basing something on belief and not on theorems, hypotheses, corollaries, and that sort does not make it a truth.

Therefore, when you are saying something is wrong, it is an opinion.

In case anyone has forgotten, this is my refutation of this statement: "Abortion is wrong, that isn't a matter of belief or opinion. The act of abortion is wrong." An attempt was made to call something "wrong" and then separate that value judgment from "belief or opinion." All I've attempted to do is show that this cannot be done.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:01 am



I don't think abortion is right but I do believe it should be legal. What's "right" and what's "legal" aren't always the same thing.

Abortion is a subject that will always be highly charged no matter what the law is.



You hit the hammer on the nail.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:04 am


You're so close, but no, you're still missing a beat.

I'm saying that you can't universally say something is right or wrong. I'm not saying that you can't have value judgments. I'm just saying that you can't confuse those with a priori truths. Saying that stealing is wrong is based on a system of belief and indoctrination. Therefore, saying that is an expression of your belief. That's not the same as a truth. It is true that stealing is illegal. It is the belief of some that stealing is wrong.

So here's everything repeated yet again, hopefully in a nice comprehensible summary:
*"Wrong" is, by definition, based on belief.
*One is permitted to draw conclusions based on one beliefs; indeed, one would often be in a chaotic state if one did not.
*Basing something on belief and not on theorems, hypotheses, corollaries, and that sort does not make it a truth.

Therefore, when you are saying something is wrong, it is an opinion.

In case anyone has forgotten, this is my refutation of this statement: "Abortion is wrong, that isn't a matter of belief or opinion. The act of abortion is wrong." An attempt was made to call something "wrong" and then separate that value judgment from "belief or opinion." All I've attempted to do is show that this cannot be done.


Fair enough, as long as you realize that it all is a belief, based upon what you said.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:15 am


Where did I say legal=right?  That's again, your black and white view of the world.  No shades of grey with you.  Also, where did I say that I would support everything that's "legal"?  For that matter, where did I say I WOULDN'T support something that was "illegal"?  Nowhere because I wouldn't and don't.  You just assume that I would, and you're dead wrong....again.  Take "statutory rape" for instance.....an 18 year old has sex with someone who's 1 day shy of turning 18.  That day, it's illegal, the following it's legal.  Is there a difference in the maturity of the person from 1 day to the next?  Not likely.  Would I support the 18 year old either day?  Sure would. Where have I "played dirty"?  Name once, just once.  Just because you don't like what I say, that automatically makes it "dirty"?

 No, you interpreted what I said as having no remorse.  If the thread hadn't been deleted, I'd post where you said "I probably deserved what I got". That's a joke right?  Letting abortions be allowed when YOU say they should is compromise?  YOU want to make the choice for millions of women, that's not compromise.  I want to let them make THEIR OWN choice, THAT'S compromise.  Would I prefer that there was no abortion?  Of course, I've stated that time and time again.  However, that's based on MY "values".  I cannot tell someone else what they should or shouldn't believe because they have THEIR "values". No I didn't.  That's your "black and white" interpretation of what I said. HUH?  You are totally contradicting yourself again.  You said "Abortion is wrong.  That's not a belief or an opinion"  The entire concept of "right or wrong" is belief and/or opinion.  Something that is "right" to you may not be "right" to someone else, but that doesn't mean that the concepts of "right and wrong" don't exist or that they can't be backed up with "factual statements".  Heck, some people on here have even backed up what they believe is "right" with facts and you STILL see it as "wrong".  There's just no winning with you.


"Never said it wasn't subjective.  However, the laws in this country make pedophilia and rape illegal.  ----->Illegal=wrong".<------- Right here. Right here is where you said it.

I don't have a black and white view of the world.  I'm a gray man who believes that giving life and opportunity is right, taking it way and making positive that one NEVER EVER has a chance is wrong.  The life may be a good one and it may be a bad one, but they had a chance.

I said how would you feel if I were to say to you, you deserved it.

You find it compromise to tell a woman you can kill whenever for whatever reason you feel? You call that compromise?  You call that compromise?  You sound like a Chinese triad compromising with the mafia, "sure we compromise, 75% for us 25% for you." but in your case it's "100% for us, 0% for you".  

You can't turn me into you and you can't get me to support baby killing. So you're view of winning, which is to have me losing, me saying to 3.5 million babies I no longer care about the injustice that was done to them, you're right, you can't win with me.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/23/06 at 12:21 am


You hit the hammer on the nail.



You lost me there. I've heard 'hit the nail on the head' but not that one before. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:34 am


You lost me there. I've heard 'hit the nail on the head' but not that one before. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?


Agreeing. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/23/06 at 1:04 am

y'all need to quit arguing about abortion and just agree to RoCk!

can't we all just rock?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 2:32 am


y'all need to quit arguing about abortion and just agree to RoCk!

can't we all just rock?


but what if ya mama don't dance?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/23/06 at 2:51 am


Then you're listening to "scientists" and scientists.  If they are funded by a petroleum group or a group that also funds "Intelligent Design" they are as much a scientist as I'm a brain surgeon and fall into the "scientist" category.

While there may be small pockets were somewhere that is normally cold is hot or vice versa (witness the warmest January on record in Massachusetts while the south was having some record colds), the earth as a whole is warming.  There aren't any serious scientists that debate this.  Every time I see someone point out a scientist says the earth is cooling, they're really a "scientist" who was paid to support an agenda. 

The tundra is thawing, it hasn't done that in thousands of years.  The polar ice caps are receding to a point they've never receded to in recorded human history.  These are things that don't normally change over night, and can't be reversed quickly.  There is no credible scientist who is going to go on record and say the polar ice caps melting is a sign of a new ice age. 

This is of course all a thread hijack from the abortion topic.


Well, considering it's your site, you can hijack threads as much as you want :)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: philbo on 02/23/06 at 7:44 am


You can't turn me into you and you can't get me to support baby killing. So you're view of winning, which is to have me losing, me saying to 3.5 million babies I no longer care about the injustice that was done to them, you're right, you can't win with me.

We're back to the definition of a bunch of cells as a "baby" again... once you start using that kind of emotive language, no debate is possible.

Whether you count right and wrong as relative or absolute, nobody who isn't some kind of psychopath is going to agree that killing babies is not completely wrong; however, there is a huge emotional kick in calling something the size of a marble and totally insensate a "baby".  If you have to resort to this kind of language, then face it: you've lost the argument.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/23/06 at 8:20 am


We're back to the definition of a bunch of cells as a "baby" again... once you start using that kind of emotive language, no debate is possible.

Whether you count right and wrong as relative or absolute, nobody who isn't some kind of psychopath is going to agree that killing babies is not completely wrong; however, there is a huge emotional kick in calling something the size of a marble and totally insensate a "baby".  If you have to resort to this kind of language, then face it: you've lost the argument.


Hear hear Philbo, well said !

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/23/06 at 9:32 am

harmonica, does it ever get you down that no one in the world ever seems to agree with you on anything whatsoever?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:12 pm


We're back to the definition of a bunch of cells as a "baby" again... once you start using that kind of emotive language, no debate is possible.

Whether you count right and wrong as relative or absolute, nobody who isn't some kind of psychopath is going to agree that killing babies is not completely wrong; however, there is a huge emotional kick in calling something the size of a marble and totally insensate a "baby".  If you have to resort to this kind of language, then face it: you've lost the argument.




I haven't lost anything.  That is why I'm against abortion because I beleive it is a baby.  You're for abortion because you dont' beleive it is a baby.  Why would I be against abortion if I didn't look at it as a person? Why would you be for abotion if you did look at is a person?  Although I know many in your uncompromising position that do view it as a baby but support abortion anyway.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:22 pm


Illegal=wrong doesn't necessarily mean legal=right.  Only in your black and white world.  In your world, there is ONLY good/bad, right/wrong, black/white....only polar opposites.  In a truly grey world, there are shades in between.  Something doesn't have to be 100% right OR wrong. I'm not arguing with you when "life" begins.  And I think I'm done explaining what "shades of grey" are because you're never going to get it.Think what you want.  You always do.  I don't know how many times you have to be proven WRONG to accept that your "view" of what was said is not always "right".Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?  YOUR compromise is 100% for YOU and 0% for everyone else.  YOUR compromise is "it's can only occur when Harmonica says it is okay".  That's NOT compromise.NOONE can win with you unless they agree that you're 100% right.  Not just me.  People give you FACTS and you STILL say they're wrong.  I don't know how many times I have to say that I WISH people did not see abortion as a method of birth control and didn't have them as often for you to get it.  MOST of the people on here who are pro-CHOICE have said the exact same thing, but in your eyes, we're all cheering when someone has one.  If you'd just accept that that's not the case, heck, even if you'd respect that others have differeing views on ANYTHING, I would view that as "winning".  Noone's saying that you have to compromise your morals or values, but if you'd accept that not everyone agrees with you 100%, THAT would be "winning".


Once again you're being completely utterly extremely unfair.  It's ok to say illegal = wrong but not ok to say legal = right.  That's a double entandra.  Saying within the exact same thing that one way it's ok but in another it's not.  Anything that fits your agenda on the pendelem is obvious.

Oh you know better than to think I see the entire world as black and white.  I know right from wrong and I know circumstance and motive as well.  You know that.  There is a time and a place for abortion and I've stated that numerous amounts of times.  A woman getting an abortion for the third time because she doesn't like the feel of condoms is not a time and a place and you know it, nor is a irresponsible teenager who's afraid of embarassment and responsibility. 

I get it just fine, you're the one that doesn't get it. You don't get that I wanna see justice and reason behind every murder, every single one and I won't rest until it happens. I'm not talkign just about abortion here either, I'm talking about all murders.  A baby is killed because his/her mother plain didn't want them around, that's not justified.  A baby is killed because his/her mother was going to be killed in the process of giving birth, that's justified, there is reason behind it.

They're not Facts. You honestly think because some asshole like John Roberts writes a book and talks on the radio saying a there is no "life" until birth that I have to buy that and think that he's right.  Other scientist have recorded heart beats at 3 and a half weeks, but I suppose you ignore that or put it off as "B.S" that you don't want to believe and force yourself to think that it's a lie.

90% of all topics I ever get into, I fully without catch accept and take in others views.  There are a few issues which we've touched on inwhich because of the complete lack of morality and respect from the other side I do not respect.  Abortion, the elimination to obilivion of men's olympic collegiate sports, and the bashing of my savior Jesus Christ.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:25 pm


harmonica, does it ever get you down that no one in the world ever seems to agree with you on anything whatsoever?


Who lives in a little world here?  I have about 7 to 10 people on a message board that don't agree with me.  7-10 people who beleive that respect means to give in and fold.  7 to 10 people on a message board isn't the entire world.  I know 700 to 1000 people in the world around me everyday plus many more that I've never met that do agree with me on a lot of things, so ever what.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/23/06 at 12:27 pm

So ever what! Really hit the hammer on the nail with that one.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:29 pm


Let's see, what rhymes with retarded?  Can't think of anything....that wouldn't be an insult to me would it? :o

So, now definitions are "beliefs"?  You really DO live in your own little world, don't you?  He started out saying something was his belief and you told him he had no "factual evidence" to back it up so he gave it to you and you STILL argue with him about it.  Unbelievable ::)

You know nothing about me so don't presume that I think I'm "hot to trot" (whatever THAT means in your little world).  I know alot more about right and wrong than you'll EVER know.  I may not be a "Christian" in your eyes, but that doesn't make me a bad person deserving of your spite.  I hope you DON'T learn about the right and wrong that I have.....I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  YOU, on the other hand, obviously would, which doesn't make you a very "good" Christian much less a good person.


Once again you insult me but don't espect me to insult you back. You play with fire, you get burned.   Hot to Trot means that you think you can state your mind and sneak around in clever ways without having to pay for it.  Which you do.   What do you know about right and wrong that I don't know?  I don't want to give you spite, don't want to see you suffer.   I just hope one day you get to meet at 31.5 million babies that have been killed and one by one tell them that they're not important and never deserved a chance.  Take your time, you'll have plenty of it.  

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 12:30 pm


So ever what! Really hit the hammer on the nail with that one.


Oh I forgot the disapprecation for history on this board, my mistake.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/23/06 at 12:35 pm


Although I know many in your uncompromising position.
Sorry who's the one with the no compromise position here ?? Oh yes that would be you.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/23/06 at 12:37 pm


Sorry who's the one with the no compromise position here ?? Oh yes that would be you.
harmonica, in an uncompromising position? haven't you heard? he's hot to trot. :)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/23/06 at 12:42 pm


harmonica, in an uncompromising position? haven't you heard? he's hot to trot. :)
Careful you might get struck down by a wrathful thunderbolt for your blasphemy !

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/23/06 at 1:03 pm


Careful you might get struck down by a wrathful thunderbolt for your blasphemy !
oo! kinky.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: philbo on 02/23/06 at 1:26 pm


Let's see, what rhymes with retarded?  Can't think of anything....that wouldn't be an insult to me would it? :o

Open-hearted?
(probably slightly more likely than "dear departed" ;))

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/23/06 at 1:40 pm


Open-hearted?
(probably slightly more likely than "dear departed" ;))
You think ?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/23/06 at 8:31 pm


Why is it unfair?  Because you don't agree with it?  Even YOU admit that abortion is not always "wrong" so to say that legal=right is not unfair.   No, the way I see you is that if YOU say it's okay, it's "white", if you say it's not okay, it's "black".  Everyone who sees things YOUR way is "good"....those who oppose you are "evil". Why is it justified?  Why is the mother's life more important than the baby?  I'm just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, there is more to life than "Harmonica's beliefs". Did you actually READ windbreaker's post?  It had NOTHING to do with when life begins.  He was simply pointing out the definition of right and wrong and you basically told him he was wrong.  Others have given facts on different subjects and you refuse to see them.  THAT'S why you "don't get it". You think you do, but in reality, you do not.  For one, you cannot seem to accept that someone would be against abortion, but still allow others to follow THEIR OWN morals and make a choice.  If ANYONE disagrees with you on ANY subject, they are "immoral".  If they aren't "Christians", they are "immoral".  If they make a point you can't refute, they are "playing dirty".  If that's "accepting other's views", then I am GLAD you don't think I accept other's views. Calling someone dense and calling someone retarded are two TOTALLY different things.  I speak my mind.  You don't like it.  How am I trying to NOT pay for it? 

What do I know about right or wrong that you don't?  Have you ever been raped?  Molested?  Used?  Abused?  Grown up watching others be used/abused?  Dealt with alcoholic families?  Dealt with drug abuse?  Dealt with a dying parent that you cannot do anything to help?  If your answer to any ONE of these is "No" then you're not even CLOSE to knowing what I do.

You don't want me to suffer?  "I believe there is a God and someday you'll know a lot more about right and wrong than you ever wanted to. I might be wrong, hope not. "  That's proof enough you want me to know about wrongs.




That proves that I see the world in grey the same way you claim to doesn't it? If even "I" say that it has it's time and place, which I've said numerous amounts of times, that means that always and never don't make it into the equation.  Always and never are black and white words. It has it's times and it's places are gray words.

Everyone who sees things my way, sees things my way.  Everyone who sees things not my way, sees thing not my way. No more no less.

I've seen plenty of facts on plenty of subjects.  I see them just fine, I don't have to agree with them and the reason why I don't have to agree with them is because I have another reliable source of information of a quote from a doctor or a magazine or something else that says just the opposite of the source they used.  You may want to think that the source you or they provide is better than the one and more right than the one I have, go ahead, think that.  I don't.

People disagree with me on many subjects.  I think Dan Marino and Joe Montana are the greatest NFL quarterbacks of all time, someone else said John Elway and Brett Favre.  I don't think I"m right or they're evil.  However, based on what I've learned about the outside world certain things in life are immoral, abortion being one of them.  The act of abortion is immoral the support of it is immoral.  Therefore I owe you nothing nor anyone else for calling abortion immoral, because the killing of someone else, I've been taught is immoral.

You can make all the points you want to make, and I won't call you anything.  You do against me what you ask to not be done against you, I will say you play dirty. Simple as that, as you call me dense, put everything in your favor that is not in your favor, and make references that are clearly not true like saying EVERY single thing, when it's only 1 thing at the particular moment.

YOu don't accept others views.  You keep telling if I did, then I'd do this and this would make me pro choice, which I'm not, I'm pro life...you can't accept that.  Take a good look at it, if I were to do what you've suggested, you can't tell me I could remain pro life.

I could ask you a lot of the same questions?  What was the last thing you said to your sister before she died?  If it wasn't "I hate you" then you don't know jack squat about guilt and regret and living the past decade never having a day go by where you aren't trying to make up for what you said. 

I dont' want you to suffer, I just want you to know that other people have, one by one, all 31 million of them.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/23/06 at 11:51 pm

Heard on the news today there is a single clinic in the entire state of South Dakota (Saudi-Kota) that provides abortion.  They didn't say where it is, prolly Sioux City or Pierre.  No matter where it is, in a poor state the size of SD, that means there are a heck of a lot of women who may need the services of said clinic who cannot get there.  You've got your du  jour abortion prohibition and your de facto abortion prohibition.  Most counties in SD already have the latter, and that's what I was saying about most counties in "red state" America!
::)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 4:41 am


Heard on the news today there is a single clinic in the entire state of South Dakota (Saudi-Kota) that provides abortion.  They didn't say where it is, prolly Sioux City or Pierre.  No matter where it is, in a poor state the size of SD, that means there are a heck of a lot of women who may need the services of said clinic who cannot get there.  You've got your du  jour abortion prohibition and your de facto abortion prohibition.  Most counties in SD already have the latter, and that's what I was saying about most counties in "red state" America!
::)


It's like Mississippi.  Mississippi had something like eight abortion clinics in the state back in the early 1990's and now Mississippi only has one.  The state legislature about ran them all out.

South Dakota is a little better, they have almost no abortion doctors.  That one abortion clinic has to fly abortion doctors in from Minnesota.  If I was in the South Dakota general assembly, I'd get a bill passed banning out-of-state doctors from doing abortions within South Dakota's borders.  That would almost certainly be upheld by the courts and would pretty much be the final nail in the coffin of abortions done in South Dakota.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/24/06 at 11:36 am

I have said this before and I will say it again, whether abortion is legal or not, they will still be preformed.  Would you rather have some desprate girl get one in a clinic with sanitized conditions by a doctor or in some back alley by who knows what or even worse, a coat hanger?



Cat

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 11:50 am


I have said this before and I will say it again, whether abortion is legal or not, they will still be preformed.


Yes, but I wager they're preformed less.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 11:54 am

I think most anti-abortion fanatics don't get that people don't just say "I'm going to have an abortion" like "I'm going to go to the store today and buy me a box of doughnuts." For 99.9% of the people who have an abortion, it is a torturous and difficult decision that's not affected by convenience, and would you rather have it performed in a sanitary setting or, in the words of somebody else on this board, in a back alley with a coat hanger and some bactine?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 12:01 pm

Republicans always think they're being victimized. They are a culture of self-victimization and self-pity, even though they say Dems are a culture of pity.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 12:28 pm


Yes, but I wager they're preformed less.
and i wager a lot more women will be killed or wounded by unsafe procedures.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 12:45 pm


and i wager a lot more women will be killed or wounded by unsafe procedures.


Maybe, maybe not.  I'll call it Darwin at work.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 12:48 pm


Maybe, maybe not.  I'll call it Darwin at work.
no maybe about it. rest assured, you right-wingers are about to kill and maim a lot of women.

"darwin at work." typical conservative -- falling over themselves over the sanctity of a multi-celled blob, but when it comes to the lives of actual adults -- meh, whatever. it amazes me y'all are able to sleep at night. it's a shame darwin always get hijacked for some neonazi "let the inferiors die" crap like this.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/24/06 at 12:51 pm


no maybe about it. rest assured, you right-wingers are about to kill and maim a lot of women.


How are the right-wingers killing the women when the women are the ones who want to get a black market abortion?  I'm for a woman having the right to choose even if I think she's insane, but your statement above was just weird.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 12:59 pm


How are the right-wingers killing the women when the women are the ones who want to get a black market abortion?  I'm for a woman having the right to choose even if I think she's insane, but your statement above was just weird.

They're the ones single-handedly making it so that black-market abortion is the only option. It's really quite obvious. What's the confusion here?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 1:11 pm


They're the ones single-handedly making it so that black-market abortion is the only option. It's really quite obvious. What's the confusion here?


The women are involved too.  What happened to birth control?  What about the women who are getting back alley abortions now?

Isn't it their choice?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 1:11 pm

Yes, like the Jews, the lib'ruls, and the hominihexuals.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 1:15 pm


The women are involved too.  What happened to birth control?  What about the women who are getting back alley abortions now?

Isn't it their choice?
The south Dakota law doesn't even include an exemption for rape or incest. I think that says a lot about this new ugly uberconservatism and its concern for "choice." Every once in a while a rightist will couch this in mollifying rhetoric but deep down the motive behind this is imposing a fundamentalist religious belief on people regardless of the consequences to them. it's sad what you guys are doing to this country, truly sad.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 1:31 pm


The women are involved too.  What happened to birth control?  What about the women who are getting back alley abortions now?

Isn't it their choice?

Not always.  As Tia and I have pointed out, the SD law DOES NOT make an exception for rape and incest.  The good ole boys who are against allowing abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, or detriment to the health of the mother* will outlaw the shipping and sale of contraception.  That is going to be the next step.  I guarantee the clowns who are writing the unconstitutional SD law are also in support of rightwing pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives.
What about the women getting back alley abortions now?  This is happening because desperate women (usually very young and very poor) cannot get reproductive healthcare on demand thanks to the good ole boys in their counties.
By your reference to "Darwin at work" (a complete misuse, misnomer, and misunderstanding of Charles Darwin), you show me you do not care about the health and well-being of women and children.  What you and the legislative good ole boys are after is the control over and subjugation of women.  When you tell me women who have "back alley" abortions deserve to get injured and die, you show your true colors in hateful rhetoric, sir.

*as one SD legislator explained the only allowance for abortion is to save the LIFE of the mother, "not her psyche  or her leg (sic.)," he declared.  Thus the good ole boys don't care if the next Andrea Yates-type is carrying a fetus made sick by fetal alcohol syndrome, or if a girl of eleven years is carrying to term before the rest of her body and mind is capable of having a baby, or if a severely diabetic woman with circulatory problems gets pregnant, or whatever nightmarish scenario you can come up with!
I'll wager if a woman and her family bring a case to court in SD saying, "If Ms. Smith is forced to carry this fetus to term she will die because of condition X," the good ole boys on the court will say, "Oh yeah, prove it!"  They will let Ms. Smith die on the operating table without a second thought!
>:( >:( >:(

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 1:45 pm


you show me you do not care about the health and well-being of women and children.  What you and the legislative good ole boys are after is the control over and subjugation of women.


Who is getting the abortion in the back alley?  I guess they don't care about their own health (like drug abusers, alcoholics, etx.)

At least this sounds better than the "you want to impose your religion on people blah blah blah" garbage.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 3:12 pm


Who is getting the abortion in the back alley?  I guess they don't care about their own health (like drug abusers, alcoholics, etx.)

At least this sounds better than the "you want to impose your religion on people blah blah blah" garbage.



I put "back alley" in quotes because it's a figure of speech.  It refers to any septic abortion procedure performed by unqualified personnel.  And, BTW, in spite of what right-wingers think, drug addicts, alcoholics, runaway teens, and mentally ill people are not less worthy of dignity, respect, and humane treatment than you.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 4:13 pm


I think most anti-abortion fanatics don't get that people don't just say "I'm going to have an abortion" like "I'm going to go to the store today and buy me a box of doughnuts." For 99.9% of the people who have an abortion, it is a torturous and difficult decision that's not affected by convenience, and would you rather have it performed in a sanitary setting or, in the words of somebody else on this board, in a back alley with a coat hanger and some bactine?


When it doesn't come to rape


They had they're fun having sex unprotectedly and were full aware of the results to there actions. Why don't you pro choice people realize that they're be full aware of the risk of having a back ally abortion?  They're aware of what can happen to them.  So why not either use protection, be abstinant or give life where it's deserved?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 4:17 pm


and i wager a lot more women will be killed or wounded by unsafe procedures.


Do you realize that with safe procedures the same amount of people are being eliminated? Do you realize that the same amount of people are being killed, if not many more?  The abortion kills the baby, eliminates opportunity and life.  The abortion gone wrong kills a person who hates themselves anyway or hates others or both.  Why is it ok by you to eliminate the person who has no choice no say is 100% innocent? But no ok with you to eliminate the person who is full aware, 85 to 100% responsible for the actions taking place and guilty by choice?  Seems to me like you'd rather put the victem in the chair and see the criminal walk.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 4:18 pm


no maybe about it. rest assured, you right-wingers are about to kill and maim a lot of women.

"darwin at work." typical conservative -- falling over themselves over the sanctity of a multi-celled blob, but when it comes to the lives of actual adults -- meh, whatever. it amazes me y'all are able to sleep at night. it's a shame darwin always get hijacked for some neonazi "let the inferiors die" crap like this.


We'll do no such thing.  A few of them will find out the dangers and a little fear will install into people that responsibility has made a come back as a reality.  The only thing we're about to kill is baby killing on high.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 4:20 pm


They're the ones single-handedly making it so that black-market abortion is the only option. It's really quite obvious. What's the confusion here?


The ONLY option?  You've said enough right here for me to know that YOU are the one that is closed minded.  ONLY option? that is cold hearted, no way around it, no apology for saying it.  Adoption, raising themselves, giving it away without papers...why did these get eliminated?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Windbreaker05 on 02/24/06 at 5:04 pm

I was going to respond with my views, but why bother? I can't even post a definition from a dictionary without being told that my source isn't good enough to prove my point.  ::)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 5:24 pm

S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill
The Associated Press
Chet Brokaw
02/24/2006

State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation's highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic performing abortions in South Dakota, has pledged to challenge the measure in court if Gov. Mike Rounds signs it into law.

"I've indicated I'm pro-life, and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said before the vote Friday in the House. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

The bill passed both houses of the Legislature earlier in the session, but the House had to agree to a Senate amendment. It passed 50-18.

The new restriction would become law July 1.

Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women's health.

If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.

Kathi Di Nicola, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa in Sioux City, said her clinic already serves some South Dakotans and is ready to assist others if needed. The Planned Parenthood clinic in South Dakota has performed about 800 abortions a year.

Link

You can read the BBC's "have your say" section on it here.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 6:19 pm

Fundie Republicans like you people are essentially monsters, with no regard for their country or patriotism. All they care about is their religion and their bitterness.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 6:26 pm


Fundie Republicans like you people are essentially monsters, with no regard for their country or patriotism. All they care about is their religion and their bitterness.
hahaha!

DAMN.

i also detect a fair amount of emotional and sexual repression and ire directed at other people who are actually getting laid and acting in accordance with their desires.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/24/06 at 6:28 pm


Fundie Republicans like you people are essentially monsters, with no regard for their country or patriotism.


How about something other than "fundie, fascist, evil rethuglicans"?

Others here ares posting coherent arguments.

i also detect a fair amount of emotional and sexual repression and ire directed at other people who are actually getting laid and acting in accordance with their desires.

Funny since republicans have happier sex lives.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 6:41 pm

The whole fricking movement is misdirected bitterness that their communities have been co-opted by America's changing economy and value system, and instead of voting for the Democrats, who are anti-big business and could remedy their economic situation, they vote for the Republicans, who hurt them economically and bait them by using charged "family values" rhetoric and delude and deceive them, and keep their communities in poverty and decline.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 6:52 pm

Nice study. Of course these days you can commission a study to find almost anything. I'd have to look into who's funding it, the history of the people conducting it, etc.

Anyway, the comments are pretty funny

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 7:18 pm

Hey, Jewish gay men are hot! Wanna see my live webcast, all you Republicans? I do Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy to the tune of Vogue in lingerie while eating gefilte fish. I'm also currently having sex with my local congressman Bill Pascrell, in exchange for my college tuition. It's a blast, he likes to drive me out of temples using whips.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 7:21 pm


Hey, Jewish gay men are hot! Wanna see my live webcast, all you Republicans? I do Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy to the tune of Vogue in lingerie while eating gefilte fish. I'm also currently having sex with my local congressman Bill Pascrell, in exchange for my college tuition. It's a blast, he likes to drive me out of temples using whips.




;D

damn, can't applaud twice in a day.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 7:25 pm

Thanks anyway...at the moment, I'm being double-teamed by every Democratic politician in the Northeast, and I'm inviting all my Jewish female friends to get in on the action.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/24/06 at 7:26 pm


Conservatives don't even believe in Global Warming so that doesn't bother them.


Actually, I do believe in "Global Warming".

However, I believe it to be a natural phenomonon.  Just like the "Little Ice Age" of a few centuries ago.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 7:29 pm

Funnily enough, all of the affair-women have the same last name root as me...Levy. I'm Levinsohn, and they have Levy and Lewinsky, and the current governor of New Jersey is dating my cousin Sharon Levine. So I suppose I'm prime for this. And NJ politicians particularly have a thing for Jews...McGreevey and Golan Cipel, Corzne and his old girlfriend Christina Katz.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/24/06 at 7:35 pm

I am curious.

What percentage of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest?  5%?  2%?  1%?

And what percentage of those are even reported?

Do not think I am trying to attack the women that have to go through that.  And don't dare criticize me for bringing it up, because I doubt any of you know my background in reguards to this situation.

However, I always hear this stated, but I doubt it is actually a very minor percentage of abortions.  I simply disreguard it most of the time, as an attempt to gain "cry votes".

And it is not like the women would need a passport to go and get an abortion.  South Dakota is not exactly Hawaii or Alaska.  They can simply drive to another state.

And don't forget, Roe Vs. Wade (and later decisions) gave the States the right to decide.  South Dakota made the choice to make them illegal.  And if the voters do not like it, a lot of lawmakers will be looking for new jobs in a few years.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 7:35 pm


Fundie Republicans like you people are essentially monsters, with no regard for their country or patriotism. All they care about is their religion and their bitterness.


And the lifes of innocent people, and justice and righteousness.  It's ok I forget to add the important stuff too sometimes.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/24/06 at 7:39 pm


Fundie Republicans like you people are essentially monsters, with no regard for their country or patriotism. All they care about is their religion and their bitterness.


And *we* are accused of being mean spirited and devisive?

To me, both parties want to see people die.

Republicans want to see murderers die, and Democrats want to see unborn babies die.

*hides in the corner and watches the attacks*

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 7:48 pm


And *we* are accused of being mean spirited and devisive?

To me, both parties want to see people die.

Republicans want to see murderers die, and Democrats want to see unborn babies die.

*hides in the corner and watches the attacks*


An embryo/young fetus is not viable life, if abortion is done early I am ok with it. I could care less what the Bible says, because in my opinion the Bible is mostly fiction.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 7:52 pm


An embryo/young fetus is not viable life, if abortion is done early I am ok with it. I could care less what the Bible says, because in my opinion the Bible is mostly fiction.


IMO a fetus becomes viable life about 4-6 months after conception. So I am generally against partial-birth, in the exception of mother's life and probably rape too.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 7:54 pm


IMO a fetus becomes viable life about 4-6 months after conception. So I am generally against partial-birth, in the exception of mother's life and probably rape too.


Yea I would agree, I don't like partial-birth abortion and it should banned with those exceptions. I think if a woman wants to have an abortion it should be done within those first three months of pregnancy.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 7:57 pm


Yea I would agree, I don't like partial-birth abortion and it should banned with those exceptions. I think if a woman wants to have an abortion it should be done within those first three months of pregnancy.


I think so too.  I mean, a 1-month embryo is alive, no doubt about it, but it's not any better than say a baby tree is.  It's a human, but it's not a "person".  It's even less of a person that a rabbit is.


Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 8:02 pm


I think so too.  I mean, a 1-month embryo is alive, no doubt about it, but it's not any better than say a baby tree is.  It's a human, but it's not a "person".  It's even less of a person that a rabbit is.





It's alive in a cellular sense, but it's not a person yet, it's just a cluster of human cells at least for the first couple months.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 8:14 pm

When Republicans live by Christian* principles I will take another look at their anti-choice policies.  It is to me inhumane to mandate a woman must carry a fetus to term if it is the product of rape or incest, or the the pregnancy and/or delivery of the baby threatens the health of the mother.  The Right has shown time and again they care not one whit for the well-being of people in need.  If a legislator will cut the housing subsidies and food money poor families need in favor of tax cuts for wealthy people, he or she has not the moral authority to mandate reproductive decisions for women anywhere.
When the daughters of rich Republicans get pregnant by accident or by rape, they will always reserve the right to an abortion via a well-paid OB/GYN no matter what father thinks and no matter what the law says.  

*Or a moral code more sophisticated than "me first, I got mine, and **** you!"

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 8:25 pm


IMO a fetus becomes viable life about 4-6 months after conception. So I am generally against partial-birth, in the exception of mother's life and probably rape too.


Yeah, I also agree. I say no abortion post-3 months, unless she's going to die.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 8:29 pm


Yeah, I also agree. I say no abortion post-3 months, unless she's going to die.


I would probably except rape too, since that makes the choice so much harder.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 9:17 pm


An embryo/young fetus is not viable life, if abortion is done early I am ok with it. I could care less what the Bible says, because in my opinion the Bible is mostly fiction.


I believe that a embryo/young fetus is a viable life, if an abortion is done early I am not ok with it. I care a lot about what the Bible says, because in my opinion the Bible is true.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 9:20 pm

in my opinion
this is encouraging! :)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 9:21 pm




I believe that a embryo/young fetus is a viable life, if an abortion is done early I am not ok with it. I care a lot about what the Bible says, because in my opinion the Bible is true.


You can care all you want about the Bible, just keep your religion out of the government.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 9:28 pm

I'm sorry, but I don't even think people who like imposing their religion on the government are truly being American. You think you're the arch-Americans, but you're in fact the opposite. I'm fine with your f*cking religious beliefs, just don't make me go by them.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 9:33 pm


I'm sorry, but I don't even think people who like imposing their religion on the government are truly being American. You think you're the arch-Americans, but you're in fact the opposite. I'm fine with your f*cking religious beliefs, just don't make me go by them.


I agree 100%. It's fine to have a religion just don't legislate it, not everybody believes in what you believe. Christian Conservatives are no different than the Muslim extremists in my opinion, look at the abortion clinic bombings, they're all of the same breed. They are all religious extremists that are trying to control your mind and legislate their perverted agenda.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 9:36 pm


I agree 100%. It's fine to have a religion just don't legislate it, not everybody believes in what you believe. Christian Conservatives are no different than the Muslim extremists in my opinion, look at the abortion clinic bombings, they're all of the same breed. They are all religious extremists that are trying to control your mind legislate their perverted agenda.


Exactly, I think fundamentalist Christians are just a step away from killing abortion clinic doctors or homosexuals, they're extremely dangerous and a threat to American society. Which is why I have long believed it might be best to just get rid of the south, and let all the non-religious fundamentalists come north.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 9:42 pm


Exactly, I think fundamentalist Christians are just a step away from killing abortion clinic doctors or homosexuals, they're extremely dangerous and a threat to American society. Which is why I have long believed it might be best to just get rid of the south, and let all the non-religious fundamentalists come north.
this country's getting so divided something like this might well happen over the next few years...

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 9:47 pm

I think the Upper Midwest (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana), the Northeast, and the West should get together and be one country, we'd be better off, or get together with Canada.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 9:48 pm


Exactly, I think fundamentalist Christians are just a step away from killing abortion clinic doctors or homosexuals, they're extremely dangerous and a threat to American society. Which is why I have long believed it might be best to just get rid of the south, and let all the non-religious fundamentalists come north.


Stuff like that has already happened sometimes in the past. Look at all the hate crimes against homosexuals committed by "christian" individuals. Fundamentalist Christians love guns and war, to them they're fighting a war against what they think is evil and some will resort to violent measures. They're really an evil bunch.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 9:48 pm


You can care all you want about the Bible, just keep your religion out of the government.

It's his government too, man!
;)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 9:49 pm


Exactly, I think fundamentalist Christians are just a step away from killing abortion clinic doctors or homosexuals, they're extremely dangerous and a threat to American society. Which is why I have long believed it might be best to just get rid of the south, and let all the non-religious fundamentalists come north.


The South may not technically be another country from the West, Midwest, and Northeast, but culturally it sure is.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 9:55 pm


The South may not technically be another country from the West, Midwest, and Northeast, but culturally it sure is.

The "blue states" subsidize the "red states" with federal tax dollars.  Meanwhile, the "red states" vote Republican, pontificate about "rugged individualism," and get led around by their nose rings by the New York City-based rightwing media!
But these are just crude generalizations...
;D

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 9:56 pm

If you read American history, the South has ALWAYS basically been a totally different country with a different values system, dating back to the 1700s and early 1800s. And now we in the West, Great Lakes, and Northeast give them all the money we make to fund their impoverished lifestyles, and they still criticize us. Well, let them secede, and then see how many of them come north once we pull out all of our money.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 9:56 pm


The "blue states" subsidize the "red states" with federal tax dollars.  Meanwhile, the "red states" vote Republican, pontificate about "rugged individualism," and get led around by their nose rings by the New York City-based rightwing media!
But these are just crude generalizations...
;D
remember those stats in "metro vs. retro"?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/24/06 at 9:58 pm


Exactly, I think fundamentalist Christians are just a step away from killing abortion clinic doctors or homosexuals,
not really a "Step away" so much, of course. this kinda abhorrent crap goes on all the time.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 9:59 pm

Yeah, the only reason they even tolerate Jews and Catholics is because of respectively Israel and the abortion thing. Otherwise they'd already be trying to run us into the Atlantic...the abortion rate is actually highest in red states, along with the divorce rate and murder rate. Desperate lifestyles sure do draw people to extremism.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 10:00 pm


If you read American history, the South has ALWAYS basically been a totally different country with a different values system, dating back to the 1700s and early 1800s. And now we in the West, Great Lakes, and Northeast give them all the money we make to fund their impoverished lifestyles, and they still criticize us. Well, let them secede, and then see how many of them come north once we pull out all of our money.


IMO, the West (outside of the West Coast cities) and the Midwest are the same culture.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 10:03 pm

But still, most Westerners live in cities and outnumber them enough to make Cali, Oregon, and Washington liberal. Most of the Republican places in California like the O.C. are heavily populated by ex-Midwesterners who moved in the '30s from middle-class communities in economically depressed Great Plains states during the Dust Bowl, and places like Bakersfield are largely populated by ex-Oklahomans and ex-Arkansasians.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 10:05 pm


If you read American history, the South has ALWAYS basically been a totally different country with a different values system, dating back to the 1700s and early 1800s. And now we in the West, Great Lakes, and Northeast give them all the money we make to fund their impoverished lifestyles, and they still criticize us. Well, let them secede, and then see how many of them come north once we pull out all of our money.

Last time in was secession, I got a better idea now, expulsion from the union for the South.  So long, and thanks for all the Southern fried steak!
;)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/24/06 at 10:05 pm


If you read American history, the South has ALWAYS basically been a totally different country with a different values system, dating back to the 1700s and early 1800s. And now we in the West, Great Lakes, and Northeast give them all the money we make to fund their impoverished lifestyles, and they still criticize us. Well, let them secede, and then see how many of them come north once we pull out all of our money.


I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't mind of if the south seceded, they will never change, even if the military tried to force it on them, it won't happen, just like you can't change the people in Iraq.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 10:08 pm

Yeah, the south will never change, let's just pull all our money and corporations out, recall Northerners in exile down there, and get rid of them.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 10:20 pm


Yeah, the south will never change, let's just pull all our money and corporations out, recall Northerners in exile down there, and get rid of them.

Weeeell, them good ole boys have made it amply clear they sher don't like us, so they shouldn't have a problem with reestablishing the Confederacy.  After a couple of decades of steeping in their own rightwing horsesh!t, they'll find themselves just another subtropical banana republic.  They'd be a bigger and paler Haiti!
;D

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 10:26 pm

Yeah, I'd invite all the liberals from the South, the non good-ole boy types, north and see how fast they'd turn into a big pale banana republic.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/24/06 at 10:34 pm


Yeah, I'd invite all the liberals from the South, the non good-ole boy types, north and see how fast they'd turn into a big pale banana republic.

Denied entry into the Union: Newt Gingrich!  What becomes of Cobb County without Washington pork?  Oh, btw, we're moving the capital back up to Philly.  Not Philadelphia proper, but Pottstown, PA, just outside the Philly beltway.  We'll call it Federal City.
:P

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/24/06 at 10:49 pm

Yeah, Philadelphia always should've been the capital, or somewhere near there. And all the residents of Cary, Cobb County and other Atlanta suburbs, and South Florida could come up here, or we'd just keep SoFlo.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/24/06 at 11:07 pm


You can care all you want about the Bible, just keep your religion out of the government.


I believe government should be ran on morals, values and ethics.  I draw from sources inwhich have such things a abortion that go against these principles, therefore, no I won't.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/24/06 at 11:49 pm


I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't mind of if the south seceded, they will never change, even if the military tried to force it on them, it won't happen, just like you can't change the people in Iraq.


But where would we draw the new Mason/Dixon line? Near your neck of the woods, the Cincinnati suburbs in Kentucky would probably want to become part of Ohio, right?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 12:25 am

It would be by state, but we would let in n. Virginia and n. Kentucky because they're really more northern.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/25/06 at 12:27 am


It would be by state, but we would let in n. Virginia and n. Kentucky because they're really more northern.


Yeah. Maybe West Virginia too.  It seems more Appalachian/Rust Belt than truly Southern.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 12:29 am

W. Virginia is more in its own category. I think if we let the South go it would split into little independent rural city states, like the Appalachians would form one or something, and then Louisiana would be its own country, and there would probably be an African-American country in Mississippi/Alabama for the ones who didn't leave. I don't think having the rural Midwest would be a problem, we liberals would outnumber them enough.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/25/06 at 12:44 am


W. Virginia is more in its own category. I think if we let the South go it would split into little independent rural city states, like the Appalachians would form one or something, and then Louisiana would be its own country, and there would probably be an African-American country in Mississippi/Alabama for the ones who didn't leave. I don't think having the rural Midwest would be a problem, we liberals would outnumber them enough.


Yeah, W. Virginia and Ohio kind of form the "crossroads" of the Eastern United States.  Kind of like how Colorado and Utah are the crossroads of the West.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 12:49 am

Yeah, exactly...NE Ohio and the Columbus area are very, very Northern in population makeup, demographic patterns, etc. but then Cincinnati is southern in values, Midwestern in ethnic makeup, and southern in economy, rural central Ohio is the Midwest, and SE Ohio is the Appalachian south. Indiana and Maryland are also sort of crossroads. Maryland has a NE industrial city (Baltimore), Appalachian areas near W. Virginia, the very northern D.C. suburbs, and Mid-Atlantic rural areas near the Chesapeake and the Atlantic that are also sort of southern. Indiana's southern areas are sort of between a Cincinnati mix and the real south, the north is like Illinois and Michigan, the rural corn areas are Midwestern, but the whole state is fairly southern in values.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/25/06 at 12:54 am


Yeah, exactly...NE Ohio and the Columbus area are very, very Northern in population makeup, demographic patterns, etc. but then Cincinnati is southern in values, Midwestern in ethnic makeup, and southern in economy, rural central Ohio is the Midwest, and SE Ohio is the Appalachian south. Indiana and Maryland are also sort of crossroads. Maryland has a NE industrial city (Baltimore), Appalachian areas near W. Virginia, the very northern D.C. suburbs, and Mid-Atlantic rural areas near the Chesapeake and the Atlantic that are also sort of southern. Indiana's southern areas are sort of between a Cincinnati mix and the real south, the north is like Illinois and Michigan, the rural corn areas are Midwestern, but the whole state is fairly southern in values.


Wow!

Here in the West, there's a lot less variety of culture: there's the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Northern California, Northern Idaho, and far western Montana), the Mountain/Desert West (southern Idaho, extreme eastern Oregon, Nevada - the Vegas area, most of Wyoming, southwestern Montana, the western 2/3 of Colorado, and most of Utah), the Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, southern Utah, western Texas, and the Oklahoma Panhandle), and Californialand (the Bay area southward, and the Las Vegas area).


Culturally, they're all pretty similar; only California and Utah really have a distinct culture from the others.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 1:03 am

Yeah, we have alot of deeply engrained cultural differences. Like Pennsylvania. W. Pennsylvania around Pittsburgh, Erie, and Altoona is the Northern rust belt, the central mountains are a crossroads area like the Appalachians, the same goes for the coal mining area, the isolated renewed ex-rust belt cities of Allentown and Bethlehem near NJ, then there's the "German Belt"/Pennsylvania Dutch area around York and Harrisburg with the Amish, then there's Philadelphia, which is an old NE city.

New York is another good example, it's more than downstate and upstate. Upstate NY has the really economically depressed backwoods areas like Binghamton, the rust belt along the former Erie Canal which is Northern rust belt, the country areas like Kingston along the Hudson River, the Appalachian mountain communities, and the French-Canadian areas near the St. Lawrence. Downstate can be divided into a few sections-Greater Westchester County/The Bronx/Manhattan, Dutchess and Putnam County, Orange and Rockland Counties (extension of Jersey), Long Island/Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island. Really, Manhattan is its own little isolate. Staten Island is somewhere between Brooklyn and Jersey because all the Brooklyn Italians moved there, but it's pretty close to a Jersey without the good stuff culturally. In New Jersey, "Jersey" is Morris, Monmouth, Somerset, northern Ocean, Essex, Passaic, Hudson, Bergen, and Union counties. Then there's the Trenton area, which is like Pennsylvania, the NW country areas by the Delaware Water Gap, the Philly 'burbs around Camden, the Pine Barrens, the hickish semi-Southern Vineland area, and the Shore.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 1:59 am

Yep, the backwoods are basically the mountainous deciduous forests in the Appalachians that were settled by Scots-Irish in the early 19th century and have been very backwards and economically depressed since, the people there call themselves "American"...it's a different world from the rest of the Mid-Atlantic. The term could also extend to Ohio, Kentucky, W. Virginia, Tennessee. People there might be miners or they might work at prisons or some such place, or they might be subsistence and market farmers, but it's away from the big commercial farming operations in Pennsylvania, NY, and NJ for dairy and fruit and vegetables and poultry.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/25/06 at 2:00 am


Yep, the backwoods are basically the mountainous deciduous forests in the Appalachians that were settled by Scots-Irish in the early 19th century and have been very backwards and economically depressed since, the people there call themselves "American"...it's a different world from the rest of the Mid-Atlantic. The term could also extend to Ohio, Kentucky, W. Virginia, Tennessee. People there might be miners or they might work at prisons or some such place, or they might be subsistence and market farmers, but it's away from the big commercial farming operations in Pennsylvania, NY, and NJ for dairy and fruit and vegetables and poultry.


Our equivalent to the "backwoods" in the Oregon would be the Cascade Range forests.  Our "Outback" is the great eastern Oregon desert.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/25/06 at 2:49 am

/sarcasm on

Hey, maybe South Dakota should pass a law that states women who have miscarriages (any miscarriage at all) should found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

/sarcasm off

I'd like to pose a few questions (mostly for the pro-lifers, but any may answer) here that'll probably get me into a heap of trouble, but here goes:

1: If your sole reason for being 100% anti-abortion is religious based, how is that not imposing your religious views onto others?

2: Why is it that everyone is so damned concerned about what everyone else is doing these days? Is it really going to affect you if a person you don't even know and have never met 2,000 miles away has an abortion?

3: I have to admit I'm not familiar with the Bible, but do fetuses get a free pass into Heaven? How does that work exactly? I mean, not to be funny or anything, but I just can't see fertilized embryos that were terminated before full-term birth kickin' it with God.

I think everyone here realises we do not live in an ideal world. In an ideal world (at least, part of my view of one), abortions would never be necessary because everyone would either practice abstinence or use protection until they are ready to have a child. Rape and incest wouldn't exist. Pregnancies would never be complicated to the point of having to make a decision between the mother's life and the unborn's. Adoptions wouldn't be restricted with enough red tape to encircle the planet. But...


We do not live in that world and we never will. I'll say it again, I don't like abortion but I believe it should be legal. People are going to have unprotected sex in the heat of the moment that results in babies. Hell, AIDS is around and they still do it. Does anyone seriously believe that by making abortion illegal people are going to take pause for that?

Someone mentioned a few pages back that one could travel to another state to get an abortion. Well, last time I checked a map SD looked like a pretty damned big state. Besides, if this trend continues, who's to say ND, Idaho, etc won't make it illegal too?  Turns that short drive into a plane trip to Mexico.

If you want to disagree in part or whole with what I've said, feel free, though attacks will not be tolerated.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/25/06 at 7:58 am


Stuff like that has already happened sometimes in the past. Look at all the hate crimes against homosexuals committed by "christian" individuals. Fundamentalist Christians love guns and war, to them they're fighting a war against what they think is evil and some will resort to violent measures. They're really an evil bunch.


Most people like that are not "Christians".  They belong to what is known as the "Christian Identity" movement.  That is an ugly, hateful, racist movement that has no basis in real Christian teachings.

They bear as much relationship to Christianity as Al-Queda has to mainstream Islam.  Both are radical fringe movements, which break the laws of their religion, to advance their own ideal of "Religion".

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/25/06 at 8:01 am


Yeah, the only reason they even tolerate Jews and Catholics is because of respectively Israel and the abortion thing.


Oh please!  Now you are simply getting to be offensive.

I might as well say "they only tolerate Blacks and Hispanics because they make them look open minded".

Oh, but I would never do that, because it is a rude and offensive thing to say.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/25/06 at 8:02 am


Last time in was secession, I got a better idea now, expulsion from the union for the South.  So long, and thanks for all the Southern fried steak!
;)


Of course Maxwell, you know what one of the first states was that threatened to seccede from the union was, right?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 02/25/06 at 8:22 am

OK, I am going to do a kind of recap, for those that have never heard me talk about this topic before.

I am against abortion, for moral grounds.  And do not confuse morality with religion.  Unless you believe that morals can not exist without it, then you should be able to see the difference.

I also believe in a womans right to abortion because of danger to herself or having future children, deformity, and rape (I consider incest to be rape, unless it was willing).

I am against late term abortion, unless it is to save the life of the mother.  In my view, she had 6 months to do something if she simply did not want the child.  She should just wait a few more weeks/months, and give the child up for adoption.

I wish that more women would consider adoption in stead of abortion.  TO me, this is just accelerating the "throw-away society", so it now includes TV sets, VCRs, computers, marriage, and now babies.

My stepdaughter was concieved because of a rape.  This was before I met her mother.  My ex almost had an abortion.  In fact, she was lying on the doctors table after having been given a local anesthetic, when she changed her mind.  She also considered adoption, until after she was born.

And we had our own situation several years later that brought us face-to-face with anti-abortionists.  In 1988, we found out she was pregnant again (our family then included us, her daughter, and our son).  We were not planning on any more children, but would deal with it.  However, it was not meant to be.

During the 2nd month, she started to get severe pain and bleeding, and was taken to the hospital.  It turns out that the pregnancy was tubal, so the only thing to do was to have an abortion.  It was hard on both of us, but had to be done.

3 weeks later, the phone calls started.  At first, it was during the day when I was at work.  WHen my ex would pick up the phone, they would scream "baby killer" at her, and hang up.  A few weeks later, they started calling at night.  I tried to explain what happened, and that she would have died if she did not have the abortion.  THe response?  "That would have been God's will."  That is nonsense, because God would not have wanted to leave 2 children without their mother.

We changed our phone, and the calls came anyways.  We finally got help from Naval Investigative Service (I was an active duty Marine at the time).  Turns out that they had been tracking this group, and they got their information from hospital billing records.  These do not show the cause of the abortion, simply that it was done.  Because the Military paid for it, it allowed them to get involved.  Within a month, the calls stopped.

To me, this goes right back to responsibility.  Every adult knows what causes pregnancy, and how to prevent it.  And since rape is less then 1% of abortions, I do not even understand the amount of attention devoted to it.

And here is another statistic, 75-80% of women who are raped keep their children.  TO a great many (like my ex), it is a way for them to put it in the past, that something good came from something that was horrible and traumatic.

My stepdaughter is 24 now.  I could not imagine a world without her in it either.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/25/06 at 8:36 am

My feelings on abortion are simple, I don't really like abortion because I believe that there are better options, however I believe that women should have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion early in the pregnancy. I am dead against parital-birth abortion, and it should be outlawed with the only exception in cases where the mother's life is on the line. Even if a woman was raped, she should have already made the decision whether or not to have the abortion by then.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/25/06 at 9:43 am

I would like to go slightly off topic here and ask how good is the sex education programme in American schools?
In parts of the U.K for example it's so bad you still have kids believing they won't get pregnant if they do it standing up, or it's the first tuesday in march or whatever. I think in this day and age kids are bombarded with images on T.V, in magazines etc to be old before their time, or to be sexual beings before they are ready. Also there is the peer pressure to fit in and be grown up and cool.
I went to a school in an area where teenage pregnancy was sky high so my school decided to bring in a very comprehensive sex education programme. It was a no holds barred lesson and boy did it work ! The figures dropped dramatically in the first 2 years.
This was despite those critics who said if you tell kids about sex you're only encouraging them to go out and do it, which is crap.If they are going to do it they are going to do it regardless, but at least let them know how to protect themselves. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/25/06 at 10:34 am


I would like to go slightly off topic here and ask how good is the sex education programme in American schools?
In parts of the U.K for example it's so bad you still have kids believing they won't get pregnant if they do it standing up, or it's the first tuesday in march or whatever. I think in this day and age kids are bombarded with images on T.V, in magazines etc to be old before their time, or to be sexual beings before they are ready. Also there is the peer pressure to fit in and be grown up and cool.
I went to a school in an area where teenage pregnancy was sky high so my school decided to bring in a very comprehensive sex education programme. It was a no holds barred lesson and boy did it work ! The figures dropped dramatically in the first 2 years.
This was despite those critics who said if you tell kids about sex you're only encouraging them to go out and do it, which is crap.If they are going to do it they are going to do it regardless, but at least let them know how to protect themselves. 
i thiink here it's very regional. in progressive districts it can be quite good but in rural and conservative districts it's basically, if you feel a pang of sexual desire, hit yourself on the head with a bible till it stops. class dismissed.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/25/06 at 11:51 am


i thiink here it's very regional. in progressive districts it can be quite good but in rural and conservative districts it's basically, if you feel a pang of sexual desire, hit yourself on a head with a bible till it stops. class dismissed.


In proregressive districts it usually involves sex surveys (like those in California) asking kindergarten students if they ever "touched themselves" or, of course, the old condom on a cucumber/banana.

The second sentence isn't even worthy of a response it's so dumb.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/25/06 at 11:54 am


The second sentence isn't even worthy of a response it's so dumb.
hello? that's basically what "abstinence" sex ed amounts to.

oop! i looked at a girl. *thwack.*

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 12:25 pm


In proregressive districts it usually involves sex surveys (like those in California) asking kindergarten students if they ever "touched themselves" or, of course, the old condom on a cucumber/banana.

The second sentence isn't even worthy of a response it's so dumb.


Umm...we NEVER had a sex survey in kindergarten, and I'm from New Jersey, and I was in kindergarten in 1995-1996, the peak of the PC sex ed movement, probably. We had a ridiculous 7th grade teacher  who explained to us that the vagina is like a mouth, all the girls in the class laughed...and it was pretty stupidly futile. In 9th grade we did the old condom on a wooden penis. And we talked about abstinence and did activities about how to put on a condom, and the spread of STDs, and watched horrific videos of STDs and teen pregnancies. But yeah, in the Carolinas, you sign a stupid abstinence pledge. All the good that will do.

I know somebody who moved here from the Carolinas when she was in 7th grade...all the girls around there wore abstinence rings and took abstinence pledges. Their sex ed amounted to them swearing not to have sex. She had just been indoctrinated against sex, but she wasn't too sure about sex itself, I think. And when she came here she was shocked by the detail in sex ed. There's no promotion of having sex, really, but there's actual education about it. In senior sex ed you may write about a sexual fantasy, but you cannot use intercourse.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/25/06 at 12:30 pm


Umm...we NEVER had a sex survey in kindergarten, and I'm from New Jersey, and I was in kindergarten in 1995-1996, the peak of the PC sex ed movement, probably. We had a ridiculous 7th grade teacher  who explained to us that the vagina is like a mouth, all the girls in the class laughed...and it was pretty stupidly futile. In 9th grade we did the old condom on a wooden penis. And we talked about abstinence and did activities about how to put on a condom, and the spread of STDs, and watched horrific videos of STDs and teen pregnancies. But yeah, in the Carolinas, you sign a stupid abstinence pledge. All the good that will do.
i think this is sorta like that bill o'reilly outlawing christmas thing. probably some one liberal school board councilmember suggested once during a board meeting that maybe we should ask 2nd graders if they've ever been touched in a bad way in order to pre-emptively find child predators and then the rightists grabbed onto it and played a game of telephone with it and soon it became, hoardes of undocumented alien undead liberals are chasing pre-schoolers with cucumbers that have rubbers on them! :o

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 12:34 pm


i think this is sorta like that bill o'reilly outlawing christmas thing. probably some one liberal school board councilmember suggested once during a board meeting that maybe we should ask 2nd graders if they've ever been touched in a bad way in order to pre-emptively find child predators and then the rightists grabbed onto it and played a game of telephone with it and soon it became, hoardes of undocumented alien undead liberals are chasing pre-schoolers with cucumbers that have rubbers on them! :o


Yes, and they're all homosexual Jews covered in chardonnay! With Hillary Clinton! Waving violent heavy metal albums on them! And wearing lingerie and burqas! Spooky!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/25/06 at 1:57 pm


/sarcasm on

Hey, maybe South Dakota should pass a law that states women who have miscarriages (any miscarriage at all) should found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

/sarcasm off

I'd like to pose a few questions (mostly for the pro-lifers, but any may answer) here that'll probably get me into a heap of trouble, but here goes:

1: If your sole reason for being 100% anti-abortion is religious based, how is that not imposing your religious views onto others?

2: Why is it that everyone is so damned concerned about what everyone else is doing these days? Is it really going to affect you if a person you don't even know and have never met 2,000 miles away has an abortion?

3: I have to admit I'm not familiar with the Bible, but do fetuses get a free pass into Heaven? How does that work exactly? I mean, not to be funny or anything, but I just can't see fertilized embryos that were terminated before full-term birth kickin' it with God.

I think everyone here realises we do not live in an ideal world. In an ideal world (at least, part of my view of one), abortions would never be necessary because everyone would either practice abstinence or use protection until they are ready to have a child. Rape and incest wouldn't exist. Pregnancies would never be complicated to the point of having to make a decision between the mother's life and the unborn's. Adoptions wouldn't be restricted with enough red tape to encircle the planet. But...


We do not live in that world and we never will. I'll say it again, I don't like abortion but I believe it should be legal. People are going to have unprotected sex in the heat of the moment that results in babies. Hell, AIDS is around and they still do it. Does anyone seriously believe that by making abortion illegal people are going to take pause for that?

Someone mentioned a few pages back that one could travel to another state to get an abortion. Well, last time I checked a map SD looked like a pretty damned big state. Besides, if this trend continues, who's to say ND, Idaho, etc won't make it illegal too?  Turns that short drive into a plane trip to Mexico.

If you want to disagree in part or whole with what I've said, feel free, though attacks will not be tolerated.


A - A comparing a miscariage to an abortion is like comparing hitting someone accidently with your car to going up behind them and slitting their throat. Now to you having someone run out infront of your car, slamming on your breaks, doing everything you can to avoid hitting them, but hitting them and killing them may be just as bad as walking up behind them grabbing their hair yanking on it, then slowly running a sharp knife across their neck. To me they are two completely different things, the same as a miscarriage and an abortion.

B - My reasoning behind being against abortion is not 100% religious.  It's one of my reasonings but it's not my main reason.  My main reason is liberty and justice.  Everyone deserves a chance, everyone has the right to life.  No one should have another person take that away from them. No one should be told they aren't good enough to be given the opportunity that everyone else has.  Abortion does just that, it tells those babies they aren't good enough, they don't deserve to live, no one gives a rat's about them.  I won't stand for it, I care about them. I want to see them get there chance, and I hope someday I have enough political power to help change the adoption agency and the foster care agency and other programs to help out these kids, whose mothers hate them.  I use God in my argument a lot because that gives me foundation. I am a christian and I believe in God.  Abortion rights activist demand foundation and grounds to stand on for why, "I believe abortion is wrong".  I've found in the past they don't accept, "I just do".  They have to have a basic ideal from where it comes from, and no better one than the Bible.

C - This life isn't just about me.  I was put here on this Earth to do more than just help myself out.  I believe in Justice for all and abortion is the acception in this country to "justice for all."  Doesn't matter if it affects me or not.  If someone was trying to take my life away from me, take away each and every single opportunity I've ever had or will have for that matter.  I'd want someone sticking up for me, I'd want someone trying to save me.  Therefore I do the same for them.

D - This is an area I struggle with.  Most kids don't accept Jesus Christ into their hearts until at least they learn to talk.  So it makes me wonder what happens to 0-2 year olds and others who haven't made the journey yet when they die.  I personally struggle with the concept of Heaven being real and this is one of the main reasons.  I trust in the loving God I beleive in that the answer to your question is yes, they do have a free pass into Heaven.

E - You're 100% right that this world isn't ideal or perfect and you're even more right that it never will be. But you're wrong in believing that it can't be better.  4,000 abortions a day, that's way to many, way way way to many.  A large percentage of abortions are given to women who've already had an abortion or more, this shouldn't be allowed.  There is not enough fear or shame when it comes to abortions.  So many pro choice people wanna say that it's a tough, hard decision to get an abortion, like 99% of the time for women. I Know this isn't true.  You can't tell me a woman goes into the clinic for a third abortion having doubts and questions. You can't tell me right now that a boy about to have sex with his girlfriend and he says, "but wait I don't have a condom" then the girl say's, "Don't worry about it, just pull out, if I get pregnant I can get an abortion."  that it's a tough decision for her.  I don' buy it and I won't.  This world can be so much better in so many ways.  Maybe we can't eliminate abortions but I know we can actually do what liberals claim, and that's "make them RARE" which they at the moment are as rare as a burnt steak.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/25/06 at 2:08 pm


OK, I am going to do a kind of recap, for those that have never heard me talk about this topic before.

I am against abortion, for moral grounds.  And do not confuse morality with religion.  Unless you believe that morals can not exist without it, then you should be able to see the difference.

I also believe in a womans right to abortion because of danger to herself or having future children, deformity, and rape (I consider incest to be rape, unless it was willing).

I am against late term abortion, unless it is to save the life of the mother.  In my view, she had 6 months to do something if she simply did not want the child.  She should just wait a few more weeks/months, and give the child up for adoption.

I wish that more women would consider adoption in stead of abortion.  TO me, this is just accelerating the "throw-away society", so it now includes TV sets, VCRs, computers, marriage, and now babies.

My stepdaughter was concieved because of a rape.  This was before I met her mother.  My ex almost had an abortion.  In fact, she was lying on the doctors table after having been given a local anesthetic, when she changed her mind.  She also considered adoption, until after she was born.

And we had our own situation several years later that brought us face-to-face with anti-abortionists.  In 1988, we found out she was pregnant again (our family then included us, her daughter, and our son).  We were not planning on any more children, but would deal with it.  However, it was not meant to be.

During the 2nd month, she started to get severe pain and bleeding, and was taken to the hospital.  It turns out that the pregnancy was tubal, so the only thing to do was to have an abortion.  It was hard on both of us, but had to be done.

3 weeks later, the phone calls started.  At first, it was during the day when I was at work.  WHen my ex would pick up the phone, they would scream "baby killer" at her, and hang up.  A few weeks later, they started calling at night.  I tried to explain what happened, and that she would have died if she did not have the abortion.  THe response?  "That would have been God's will."  That is nonsense, because God would not have wanted to leave 2 children without their mother.

We changed our phone, and the calls came anyways.  We finally got help from Naval Investigative Service (I was an active duty Marine at the time).  Turns out that they had been tracking this group, and they got their information from hospital billing records.  These do not show the cause of the abortion, simply that it was done.  Because the Military paid for it, it allowed them to get involved.  Within a month, the calls stopped.

To me, this goes right back to responsibility.  Every adult knows what causes pregnancy, and how to prevent it.  And since rape is less then 1% of abortions, I do not even understand the amount of attention devoted to it.

And here is another statistic, 75-80% of women who are raped keep their children.  TO a great many (like my ex), it is a way for them to put it in the past, that something good came from something that was horrible and traumatic.

My stepdaughter is 24 now.  I could not imagine a world without her in it either.


I'm really sorry to hear the way that some of the anti-abortion people treated you.  I know very few people who are as against abortion as I am but I realize that God made this world very grey and acceptions go to everything and everyone.  They should have listened to your story and known that you just didn't kill the baby out of selfishness or hatred like the majority of abortions each and every single day, but you had a legitmate reason and really no other option. 

Rape gets so much attention on abortions because it's the one area where you can't point the finger at the woman.  You can't hold her responsible or make her the guilty verdict in the situation.  Pro choice and pro abortion people know that other than rape, insest and death to the mother they have no legitmate reasonings behind abortion that anyone else would agree with.  They try and say, she's a prostitute, or she's to young, or she's not ready, or she doesn't want more kids, and to us that's a wanted abortion that's pregnancy could have been easily avoided, not a needed one, and wanted ones we want to eliminate. 

I have nothing but the outmost admiration for a woman who was raped and decided to keep her baby or give it up for adoption.  First hand observation, I know how hard that can be.  I've had the privilage of knowing three rape babies in my life, and I can't thank the women enough for letting me know them. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/25/06 at 4:47 pm




I have nothing but the outmost admiration for a woman who was raped and decided to keep her baby or give it up for adoption.  First hand observation, I know how hard that can be.  I've had the privilage of knowing three rape babies in my life, and I can't thank the women enough for letting me know them. 



Nothing tugs my heart strings more than sanctimony, Harmy!
:P

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/25/06 at 6:04 pm


Nothing tugs my heart strings more than sanctimony, Harmy!
:P


Considering you support those on this message board who use hyprocrtical devoutness to and for themselves, yes you would.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 02/25/06 at 6:14 pm


And it will be immediately overturned because it's an illegal ban.

untill it's overtuned, people will simply travel to a state where it's still leagal and have the abortion there. THANK YOU JESUS!!!!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/25/06 at 11:15 pm


untill it's overtuned, people will simply travel to a state where it's still leagal and have the abortion there. THANK YOU JESUS!!!!


1943....... Until the nazis quit blaming the Jews, the Jews will have to escape Germany, THANK YOU HITLER!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/25/06 at 11:17 pm


1943....... Until the nazis quit blaming the Jews, the Jews will have to escape Germany, THANK YOU HITLER!




so the women fleeing abortion-abolishing states are like persecuted jews, and the anti-abortionists are like the nazis? couldn't have said it better myself. THANK YOU HARMONICA!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 11:19 pm


1943....... Until the nazis quit blaming the Jews, the Jews will have to escape Germany, THANK YOU HITLER!




More like 1939. Like a quarter of my family was killed in the Holocaust. All the Holocaust survivors in my family hate Bush and fundamentalist Christians even more than I do, because they're just as big a threat as the Nazis if we don't quash them now. My grandmother escaped narrowly in 1939 from Germany to England, where she worked first as a maid, then found a working-class family to live with and scrubbed the floors of mental hospitals. She then came to NYC and got a scholarship to Sarah Lawrence College and was one of the first women to graduate from Columbia University Law School. I never met her, but until she was killed in a 1975 car crash she taught sixth graders in Spanish Harlem.

Yes, thank you Harmonica! And how dare you talk about Jews who perished in the Holocaust like that. My Holocaust-survivor background is part of the reason I hate fundie right-wingers virulently.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/25/06 at 11:30 pm


More like 1939. Like a quarter of my family was killed in the Holocaust. All the Holocaust survivors in my family hate Bush and fundamentalist Christians even more than I do, because they're just as big a threat as the Nazis if we don't quash them now. My grandmother escaped narrowly in 1939 from Germany to England, where she worked first as a maid, then found a working-class family to live with and scrubbed the floors of mental hospitals. She then came to NYC and got a scholarship to Sarah Lawrence College and was one of the first women to graduate from Columbia University Law School. I never met her, but until she was killed in a 1975 car crash she taught sixth graders in Spanish Harlem.

Yes, thank you Harmonica! And how dare you talk about Jews who perished in the Holocaust like that. My Holocaust-survivor background is part of the reason I hate fundie right-wingers virulently.

Prescott Bush and family funded the Nazi Party bigtime, and Karl Rove's grandfather was a commandante in a Nazi Concentration camp....but are the sins of the father visited upon the son?  You decide...

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/25/06 at 11:39 pm


Prescott Bush and family funded the Nazi Party bigtime, and Karl Rove's grandfather was a commandante in a Nazi Concentration camp....but are the sins of the father visited upon the son?  You decide...


My family and I consider all the administration Jews to be traitors to their Jewish identity.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/26/06 at 12:11 am


My family and I consider all the administration Jews to be traitors to their Jewish identity.

Not just Jewish identity, decent human identity of any sort!
>:(

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/26/06 at 12:17 am


Not just Jewish identity, decent human identity of any sort!
>:(


Exactly, but it's particularly enigmatic considering their ancestry. Makes me wonder if this is why Israel's been going so badly lately.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 1:02 am


so the women fleeing abortion-abolishing states are like persecuted jews, and the anti-abortionists are like the nazis? couldn't have said it better myself. THANK YOU HARMONICA!

No that's now what I meant. I can tell you exactly how the babies are like the Jews.  Innocent people being slaughtered at the convinence of the plain fact that others don't want them around.  Many of the  Nazi's like many of  the mother's of these babies have hatred towards them. The babies like the Jews are being genocided like no other.

You make anologies that make absolutely no sense and do not hold together.  First you thank Jesus for something that Jesus would never do.  If Jesus had his way, no baby killing whatsoever would take place, end of story.  The criminal as the victem doesn't work either and the victem as the criminal doesn't work either.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 1:03 am


More like 1939. Like a quarter of my family was killed in the Holocaust. All the Holocaust survivors in my family hate Bush and fundamentalist Christians even more than I do, because they're just as big a threat as the Nazis if we don't quash them now. My grandmother escaped narrowly in 1939 from Germany to England, where she worked first as a maid, then found a working-class family to live with and scrubbed the floors of mental hospitals. She then came to NYC and got a scholarship to Sarah Lawrence College and was one of the first women to graduate from Columbia University Law School. I never met her, but until she was killed in a 1975 car crash she taught sixth graders in Spanish Harlem.

Yes, thank you Harmonica! And how dare you talk about Jews who perished in the Holocaust like that. My Holocaust-survivor background is part of the reason I hate fundie right-wingers virulently.


You're the Nazi or the Nazi supporter. I'm the Jew lover.  I'm the one saying, "STOP this genocide" and your the one yelling, "burn baby burn"...litteraly meaning Baby in this situation.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/26/06 at 1:05 am

If Jesus had his way, no baby killing whatsoever would take place, end of story. 
heh heh. who would jesus bomb?

yeah, the jesus the fundies worship is quite a bloodthirsty one, in fact. the multicelled foetus is about the only life he spares out of hand.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/26/06 at 1:13 am


You're the Nazi or the Nazi supporter. I'm the Jew lover.  I'm the one saying, "STOP this genocide" and your the one yelling, "burn baby burn"...litteraly meaning Baby in this situation.


How dare you call me a Nazi supporter. How f-ing dare you.

The Jesus you fundies worship isn't exactly a saint. He's more a tool for whatever agenda they want that day.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/26/06 at 1:16 am


How dare you call me a Nazi supporter. How f-ing dare you.

The Jesus you fundies worship isn't exactly a saint. He's more a tool for whatever agenda they want that day.


Don't listen to him he can't accept the fact that some people do think differently than him.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/26/06 at 1:49 am


A - A comparing a miscariage to an abortion is like comparing hitting someone accidently with your car to going up behind them and slitting their throat. Now to you having someone run out infront of your car, slamming on your breaks, doing everything you can to avoid hitting them, but hitting them and killing them may be just as bad as walking up behind them grabbing their hair yanking on it, then slowly running a sharp knife across their neck. To me they are two completely different things, the same as a miscarriage and an abortion.



The comparison is valid IMO. I haven't had the chance to fully review the law that is about to be signed by the govenor, but we are coming dangerously close to giving fetuses the same rights as people.

You actually made my point though. While there is a huge difference in vehicular homicide and pre-meditated murder, both often result in jailtime, which is part of the impending SD law. Abortion doctors will get 5 years in prsion for performing an abortion.




B - My reasoning behind being against abortion is not 100% religious.  It's one of my reasonings but it's not my main reason.  My main reason is liberty and justice.  Everyone deserves a chance, everyone has the right to life.  No one should have another person take that away from them. No one should be told they aren't good enough to be given the opportunity that everyone else has.  Abortion does just that, it tells those babies they aren't good enough, they don't deserve to live, no one gives a rat's about them.  I won't stand for it, I care about them. I want to see them get there chance, and I hope someday I have enough political power to help change the adoption agency and the foster care agency and other programs to help out these kids, whose mothers hate them.   I use God in my argument a lot because that gives me foundation. I am a christian and I believe in God.  Abortion rights activist demand foundation and grounds to stand on for why, "I believe abortion is wrong".  I've found in the past they don't accept, "I just do".  They have to have a basic ideal from where it comes from, and no better one than the Bible.



I believe abortion is wrong too but it is 0% religous based. It is more a matter of practicality and observing the current situation in America. We already have thousands if not millions of people who are homeless, drug addicts, etc who should be helped first.



C - This life isn't just about me.  I was put here on this Earth to do more than just help myself out.  I believe in Justice for all and abortion is the acception in this country to "justice for all."   Doesn't matter if it affects me or not.  If someone was trying to take my life away from me, take away each and every single opportunity I've ever had or will have for that matter.  I'd want someone sticking up for me, I'd want someone trying to save me.  Therefore I do the same for them.



I admire this point but the sentence "If someone was trying to take my life away from me..." is moot since you are already here. We already have laws against that and further discussion of this point is well beyond the scope of this thread.



D - This is an area I struggle with.  Most kids don't accept Jesus Christ into their hearts until at least they learn to talk.  So it makes me wonder what happens to 0-2 year olds and others who haven't made the journey yet when they die.  I personally struggle with the concept of Heaven being real and this is one of the main reasons.  I trust in the loving God I beleive in that the answer to your question is yes, they do have a free pass into Heaven.



I appreciate your honest 'I don't really know' type answer on this point since no one knows for sure.



E - You're 100% right that this world isn't ideal or perfect and you're even more right that it never will be.



Thanks for agreeing with me on this.



But you're wrong in believing that it can't be better. 



I do believe it can be better, but I don't think an absolute law such as ND's pending one is any better than allowing unrestricted abortion.



4,000 abortions a day, that's way to many, way way way to many. A large percentage of abortions are given to women who've already had an abortion or more, this shouldn't be allowed.



Although I rarely take numbers/percentages like this at face value, I will in this case trust that 4k is a somewhat to highly accurate figure.



There is not enough fear or shame when it comes to abortions.   So many pro choice people wanna say that it's a tough, hard decision to get an abortion, like 99% of the time for women. I Know this isn't true.



Well, since neither of us are women we can't really say that, can we? My wife on the other hand, who had an abortion shortly before I met her just described it to me as the 'toughest and hardest decison of her life'.

My postion is there isn't enough proper education on the matter. Sex ed, when I was in high school, was a joke. There we were, mostly 15 and 16 years old getting talked to like we were 5. Of course, schools shouldn't have to educate kids on this, I believe that is the parents' job but that too is beyond the scope of this discussion.



You can't tell me a woman goes into the clinic for a third abortion having doubts and questions.



Again, I do not know the statistics on how many abortions are performed on women who have already had one, but your point is made here.



You can't tell me right now that a boy about to have sex with his girlfriend and he says, "but wait I don't have a condom" then the girl say's, "Don't worry about it, just pull out, if I get pregnant I can get an abortion."  that it's a tough decision for her.   I don' buy it and I won't.



Point made here too. I will say though that I have been in 'heat of the moment' situations before and even though I know all about how babies are made and STDs, sex drive is a powerful thing an can override common sense.



This world can be so much better in so many ways.  Maybe we can't eliminate abortions but I know we can actually do what liberals claim, and that's "make them RARE" which they at the moment are as rare as a burnt steak.



I neither know nor care what "liberals claim" since I'm not really affiliated with either party. I'll agree with you that abortions happen too often for my tastes as well.



--------------------------------------------------

Okay Harmonica, lets say for arguments sake you and I alone are deciding the entire US law system regarding abortion. What compromises are you willing to make? Not that I think abortion should even be a legislative issue and also knowing for certain that no matter what we decide that approximately half of the country is going to disagree with it, what would you propose?

Here's my offer:

Unrestricted abortion during the first trimester only.

Anything after that only in cases where the baby poses a serious risk to the mothers' health.

There's a very crude and basic abortion law, but it is a compromise between 'no abortions ever (like SD is proposing) and free and unrestricted access to abortion. Counter with what you think would be reasonable in a real world.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 2:13 am


How dare you call me a Nazi supporter. How f-ing dare you.

The Jesus you fundies worship isn't exactly a saint. He's more a tool for whatever agenda they want that day.


You picked a fight, you got one. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 2:15 am


heh heh. who would jesus bomb?

yeah, the jesus the fundies worship is quite a bloodthirsty one, in fact. the multicelled foetus is about the only life he spares out of hand.


Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.  I haven't bombed anyone.  I haven't sniped anyone either.  You don't stop killing by killing. Seems like it'd work, but in the long run it doesn't. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 2:16 am


Don't listen to him he can't accept the fact that some people do think differently than him.


I can, you can't.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/26/06 at 2:17 am


Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.  I haven't bombed anyone.  I haven't sniped anyone either.  You don't stop killing by killing. Seems like it'd work, but in the long run it doesn't. 


Bush and his friends, supposedly Christians, seem to love war (though they wouldn't fight one).

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 2:22 am


Bush and his friends, supposedly Christians, seem to love war (though they wouldn't fight one).


There are fakes and wannabes as well as the confused in every area, this one isn't an acception.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/26/06 at 2:23 am

Combine replies into one post, please.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 2:37 am


The comparison is valid IMO. I haven't had the chance to fully review the law that is about to be signed by the govenor, but we are coming dangerously close to giving fetuses the same rights as people.


That excites me, it doesn't scare me.  You kill me in self defense, like in comparison to a woman having an abortion because of endangerment to your own life, that stands.  You kill me because you hate me or just plain felt like it, like a woman who had sex unprotectedly, that's murder, you pay for it. 


You actually made my point though. While there is a huge difference in vehicular homicide and pre-meditated murder, both often result in jailtime, which is part of the impending SD law. Abortion doctors will get 5 years in prsion for performing an abortion.


5 years? Is that all?  Better than the pat on the back they're getting now.   



I believe abortion is wrong too but it is 0% religous based. It is more a matter of practicality and observing the current situation in America. We already have thousands if not millions of people who are homeless, drug addicts, etc who should be helped first.


While I do not agree on the putting one person above the other aspect of your idea, I do agree with that there are many other people besides unwanted babies that we need to be helping out.  The Homeless, drug addicts and others should be having our help.


I admire this point but the sentence "If someone was trying to take my life away from me..." is moot since you are already here. We already have laws against that and further discussion of this point is well beyond the scope of this thread.


I was already here the day my mother found out she was pregnant with me.  So yes we do have laws against it from day aproximately 270 of my life.  That's not good enough, I want it from day 1.


I appreciate your honest 'I don't really know' type answer on this point since no one knows for sure.


You're welcome.


Thanks for agreeing with me on this.


For a man who agrees with absolutely no one, on absolutely nothing, ever, I'm on quite a roll.


I do believe it can be better, but I don't think an absolute law such as ND's pending one is any better than allowing unrestricted abortion.


Why is that?


Although I rarely take numbers/percentages like this at face value, I will in this case trust that 4k is a somewhat to highly accurate figure.


Guiness book of world records 2003....So yes I do need to update.


Well, since neither of us are women we can't really say that, can we? My wife on the other hand, who had an abortion shortly before I met her just described it to me as the 'toughest and hardest decison of her life'.


I have many stories going in the opposite direction of your wifes.


My postion is there isn't enough proper education on the matter. Sex ed, when I was in high school, was a joke. There we were, mostly 15 and 16 years old getting talked to like we were 5. Of course, schools shouldn't have to educate kids on this, I believe that is the parents' job but that too is beyond the scope of this discussion.


I agree that there isn't enough proper education on the matter. This should be changed and parents should talk to there kids more about it. 


Again, I do not know the statistics on how many abortions are performed on women who have already had one, but your point is made here.


Yes I have.


Point made here too. I will say though that I have been in 'heat of the moment' situations before and even though I know all about how babies are made and STDs, sex drive is a powerful thing an can override common sense.


Pathetic excuses are no means of justification.


I neither know nor care what "liberals claim" since I'm not really affiliated with either party. I'll agree with you that abortions happen too often for my tastes as well.


We agree a 3rd time.



--------------------------------------------------


Okay Harmonica, lets say for arguments sake you and I alone are deciding the entire US law system regarding abortion. What compromises are you willing to make? Not that I think abortion should even be a legislative issue and also knowing for certain that no matter what we decide that approximately half of the country is going to disagree with it, what would you propose?

Here's my offer:

Unrestricted abortion during the first trimester only.

Anything after that only in cases where the baby poses a serious risk to the mothers' health.

There's a very crude and basic abortion law, but it is a compromise between 'no abortions ever (like SD is proposing) and free and unrestricted access to abortion. Counter with what you think would be reasonable in a real world.


In the real world we dont' allow any other type of murder for any other reason accept major acceptions.  This should be the same case as in abortion.  The back ally abortion is a risk the same way that hiring a hitman is a risk. You want someone dead, you take the chance of getting caught for it.   Sometimes you get lucky, but most of the time, one way or another you get caught. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/26/06 at 3:06 am


In the real world we dont' allow any other type of murder for any other reason accept major acceptions.  This should be the same case as in abortion.  The back ally abortion is a risk the same way that hiring a hitman is a risk. You want someone dead, you take the chance of getting caught for it.  Sometimes you get lucky, but most of the time, one way or another you get caught.


Not everyone thinks abortion is murder, that's an opinion based on religious beliefs or personal morals, however just about everyone believes murder is wrong.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Harmonica on 02/26/06 at 3:35 am


Not everyone thinks abortion is murder, that's an opinion based on religious beliefs or personal morals, however just about everyone believes murder is wrong.


Well as your friend pointed out earlier, it's all a matter of opinion and belief.  Regardless of what abortion is, some believe it's murder, some don't.  I believe it is.  Murder of any sort is based on religious beliefs or personal matters, just so happened that some coincide with law and some do not.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: biteme on 02/26/06 at 3:44 am


Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.  I haven't bombed anyone.  I haven't sniped anyone either.  You don't stop killing by killing. Seems like it'd work, but in the long run it doesn't.   
Oh, but when someone against you "plays dirty", you "play dirty" back?  Isn't that a bit hypocritical?  (and I got that just from this thread)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/26/06 at 3:55 am


That excites me, it doesn't scare me.  You kill me in self defense, like in comparison to a woman having an abortion because of endangerment to your own life, that stands.  You kill me because you hate me or just plain felt like it, like a woman who had sex unprotectedly, that's murder, you pay for it. 

5 years? Is that all?  Better than the pat on the back they're getting now.   


While I do not agree on the putting one person above the other aspect of your idea, I do agree with that there are many other people besides unwanted babies that we need to be helping out.  The Homeless, drug addicts and others should be having our help.

I was already here the day my mother found out she was pregnant with me.  So yes we do have laws against it from day aproximately 270 of my life.  That's not good enough, I want it from day 1.

You're welcome.

For a man who agrees with absolutely no one, on absolutely nothing, ever, I'm on quite a roll.

Why is that?

Guiness book of world records 2003....So yes I do need to update.

I have many stories going in the opposite direction of your wifes.

I agree that there isn't enough proper education on the matter. This should be changed and parents should talk to there kids more about it. 

Yes I have.

Pathetic excuses are no means of justification.

We agree a 3rd time.

In the real world we dont' allow any other type of murder for any other reason accept major acceptions.  This should be the same case as in abortion.  The back ally abortion is a risk the same way that hiring a hitman is a risk. You want someone dead, you take the chance of getting caught for it.   Sometimes you get lucky, but most of the time, one way or another you get caught. 


Okay, let me try this from a different angle rather than respond to each of your replies. I take it that you consider an embryo a person from the moment of conception. You want the same rights for embryo/fetus/etc as adults have, right? Okay, assuming I'm right for a moment, we are opening up an entire new can of worms here. Let's list some of them:

~In a world where fetuses have the same rights as people abortion would be a capital offense for both the practioner and the mother as it is pre-meditated murder, regardless of the age of the fetus. The mother would be basically hiring your 'hit man' and murder for hire is a death penalty case in states that allow it.

~Miscarriages would be involuntary manslaughter as that's pretty much the definition of involuntary manslaughter: the taking of someone else's life by accident. That still carries prison time in many cases. Regardless of the reason why the baby was lost, the mother would be facing jail time and even if she didn't get any she would be a convicted felon. No more voting rights, right to bear arms, and I'm guessing that if for some reason she became sterile through the miscarriage she wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

~Pregnant women will not be able by law to drink, smoke or do anything deemed dangerous since that is contributing to the delinquency of a minor or child endangerment.

~Pregnant women will not be able have sex for the same reason. Or go into bars or casinos.

~If fertilized cells are considered people then anyone conceived in this country could claim American citizenship regardless of where they are actually born. Since records of people having sex are not kept by the government (at least, not yet) this would get messy rather quickly.

~I'm guessing that many of the laws pertaining to taxes and medical care would have to be re-written.

~Censi (censuses) surveys would have to be changed.

~Aid to underpriveldged people that is affected by number of children would have to be adjusted.

~In cases of adultery the burden would more than likely fall on the husband to prove he isn't the father of the child to avoid paying child support that isn't his.

~Unused ferilized cells at fertility clinics, what are you going to do with them?

~Although this is a stretch, companies could take advantage of a woman basically being 2 people at once. Airlines, hotels, etc all charge more the larger the party.

Need I go on?

The reason I don't agree with ND's law is that we do not live in a world of absolutes and it is an absolute law. It is IMO dangerous to pass laws that do not allow for exceptions, and also IMO that law is a greater threat to society as a whole than abortion is.


Back to our positions, you want (I'm assuming again, bad idea but humor me) no abortions except in rare cases. I want it to be a non-legislative issue altogether. It's pretty freakin' hypocritical to me that a governing body comprised mostly of men want to tell women what to do with their bodies. But, I try to compromise with my views and limit abortion to the first tri-mester and you don't budge from yours. That's not how the real world works my friend. I take it you are not married otherwise you would understand the concept of compromise much better.

Of course, this entire conversation which I've enjoyed is wholly moot anyway, two people discussing the pros and cons of abortion on a messageboard isn't going to achieve anything in reality either. It's not like your senator or mine is reading this.



For a man who agrees with absolutely no one, on absolutely nothing, ever, I'm on quite a roll.



That's because I can see both sides of the issue at hand. I do understand your position even though I don't agree with it.

Peace,

Red Ant

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/26/06 at 4:06 am

~Pregnant women will not be able by law to drink, smoke or do anything deemed dangerous since that is contributing to the delinquency of a minor or child endangerment.

~Pregnant women will not be able have sex for the same reason. Or go into bars or casinos.

I actually agree with these two.  Such activities can cause birth defects.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/26/06 at 4:18 am


~Pregnant women will not be able by law to drink, smoke or do anything deemed dangerous since that is contributing to the delinquency of a minor or child endangerment.

~Pregnant women will not be able have sex for the same reason. Or go into bars or casinos.

I actually agree with these two.  Such activities can cause birth defects.


While I agree with the first in practice I don't want to see laws against it.

Sex during pregnancy causes birth defects? Pregnant women merely being in a bar or casino can cause birth defects? Cite your sources.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Donnie Darko on 02/26/06 at 4:19 am


While I agree with the first in practice I don't want to see laws against it.

Sex during pregnancy causes birth defects? Pregnant women merely being in a bar or casino can casue birth defects? Cite your sources.



Yeah, laws wouldn't be good, because they'd be so hard to prosecute.

As for the second, yeah I change my mind.  It wouldn't really do anything.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/26/06 at 6:51 am


Give me a break.  I've only read the replies to this thread and it's painfully obvious that Harmonica knows everything about everything.  You have to realize he's not going to agree with you on this.  Every circumstance someone has come up with, he "knows someone who has" been through that exact circumstance....I've looked at his profile, and I'm the same age and I know NOONE who has been through the same circumstances, but he makes it seems that he knows EVERYONE.  I think it's all a line of BS used to make his point.  I challenge him to give me just 1 name so I can verify his stories.  I volunteer at a clinic that performs abortions (as well as dispence birth control and offer counselling) and not a single person I witnessed counselling of said "I figured if I got pregnant, I'd just get an abortion" and I witnessed over a hundred.  I also have to deal with pro-life protestors on a daily basis calling me a murderer, without even knowing where I stand or what I'm doing.  I am personally against abortion, but don't want to be included in the same group as Harmonice and his like-minded cronies.  It seems to me you can talk until you're blue in the fact, and even if you had facts, he wouldn't believe you.  He goes by his church's interpretation of the bible and that is IT....even if Jesus himself came down and said "abortion is okay", he stil lwouldn't believe it.....after all, doesn't the bible say something about Jesus "knowing you before you were born" and knowing your fate?  WOuldn't that also mean he knows if a fetus is going to be aborted?  If he is ominpotent, wouldn't he be able to stop it if he really thought you had a purpose in your life?  If you dare disagree or question him, prepare to be beaten down, because that's the only way he seems to know how to defend himself.  The non-sequitors and inflammatory comments exude the ignorance in his defense.  No matter what you say, if it doesn't coincide 110% with what HE believes, he'll deny it and start name calling....and that's only on the few responses I've read on this thread.  It seems that 1 person has been on the receiving end of the worst of it....crazymom.  She seems like a pretty cool chick, but it seems she's laid her past on the line and he's just ripped her to shreds and done nothing short of call her a liar.  Windbreaker too....it looks like he gave facts to support his argument and Harmonice just ignored them and responded to God knows what.  (I've read his posts quite a few times and can't figure out what his problem is other than he can't accept that people don't take his word as gospel ::))  The world revolves around Harmonica, it's about time everyone realized it and bowed to his majesty....no matter how delusional he really is...


you just got yourself an applause, newbie!

meh, i argue with harmonica and mushroom when there's nothing else going on on the boards. it's just another form of jawboning.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/26/06 at 11:01 am

Um, wow, like Harmonica deleted his account. By his own admission 9 hours ago I was the first person that agreed with him on anything on this board.

I guess I won't get a response to any of my questions on my previous post.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/26/06 at 11:09 am


Um, wow, like Harmonica deleted his account. By his own admission 9 hours ago I was the first person that agreed with him on anything on this board.

I guess I won't get a response to any of my questions on my previous post.


not quite. I deleted it.  Sick of deleting the personal attacks logged by that member

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/26/06 at 11:42 am

yeah, i figured that was probably only a matter of time. he was getting unusually unhinged, that harmonica guy. i thought i would be sadder at his passing, but hm, i'm not.

i'm not sure what that "bite me" guy did though. he seemed pretty cool. was it just because his handle was "bite me"?

:-\\ :\'( please don't hurt me! :-\\ :\'(

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/26/06 at 12:03 pm

^nix above small-type question. i got some inside info on the QT about "biteme."

that's weird, though, yo. just... WEIRD. and i have a high weirdness threshold.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/26/06 at 12:33 pm

Harmonica is currently flagellating himself, no doubt.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/26/06 at 1:12 pm


not quite. I deleted it.  Sick of deleting the personal attacks logged by that member

Oh, I see, I was wondering what happened there...

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Jessica on 02/26/06 at 4:04 pm

Good riddance, I say. GWBush and Mushroom may have different opinions/beliefs than most of us, but at least they argue coherently and intelligently (is that even a word?) about it.

And biteme was cool. I would've applauded that beautiful post of his, but sadly, he is gone.  :\'(

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: philbo on 02/26/06 at 4:43 pm


not quite. I deleted it.  Sick of deleting the personal attacks logged by that member

But maybe on the third day he'll rise again?

Must admit I'm not sorry to see him go: it's very hard to argue with someone who persistently refuses to try and understand (or even read) the opposing point of view, then misrepresents what other people are saying to try and win arguments...

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Gis on 02/26/06 at 5:27 pm


But maybe on the third day he'll rise again?

Must admit I'm not sorry to see him go: it's very hard to argue with someone who persistently refuses to try and understand (or even read) the opposing point of view, then misrepresents what other people are saying to try and win arguments...
All of that Philbo, he actually almost scared me on occassions he was so rabidly fanatical. 

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 02/26/06 at 5:54 pm

how is discarding cells equivalent to killing people???

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/26/06 at 9:01 pm

I held off on banning Harmonica because I want different viewpoints, but when I have to remove a few posts everyday because they're clearly violating the guidelines, I just get fed up.  It's not fair to anyone else if he's allowed to stay when he refuses to calm down and not post personal attacks.  I'm sure it just re-affirms his whole "you're all a bunch of liberal god hating scum" viewpoint of the world, so I'm sure he's not very upset about it.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 02/26/06 at 10:38 pm

http://kimrichards.net/Kim/vidcaps/TuffTurf/gc-KimRichards(TuffTurf)-009.jpg

totally tuff tia is down with it, and that's all I care about.

and she's a republican! but, you know, a moderate, i'm sure.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/26/06 at 11:27 pm


how is discarding cells equivalent to killing people???

How does rational thought become irrational?  When you throw stubborn religious zealotry into the the mix!
:P

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 02/27/06 at 10:58 am


meh, you wouldn't have gotten much of a response anyway, he had a habit of only responding when he thought he had a point, and would have skipped the "hard" questions. ::)



That's precisely why my last lengthy post I listed what I did, to see what kind of answers he could come up with as many of those points cannot even begun to be answered satisfactorily without a rather lenghty pause for real world repercussions. For about 10 minutes (until ChuckyG said otherwise) I thought that perhaps my question had addled him enough to delete his account on his own (ha!). It would not though have been the first time I've had a pro-life extremist walk away from me due to irritation on not being able to counter a point or 'convert me'.



The thing with Harmy is that even when people agreed with him, he failed to see it.  Heck, there were a few times that even I agreed with him and he'd STILL argue with me about it.  I think he liked to argue just to see his "words" in "print" ;D


I'd read many topics and posts in this section for months before I posted the other day for the first time. I noticed that he tended to misread and misinterpret others' views quite often. I find that people like that basically need short sentences with no ambiguity to comprehend, but this thread (especially WB05's posts) still proves otherwise.

I know exactly what you mean though, although I do not post much here I had the 'honor' of reading term paper length rants and attacks on other parodists by a very pro-life parodist. If you want to see someone who makes Harmony look like a 'liberal', search for "Linda Terhune" on AmIRight sometime.  ::)

I had nothing against him personally, though given my views on this thread I suspect it would have been a short matter of time before I was getting attacked too.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mr Tumnus on 02/27/06 at 11:05 am


meh, you wouldn't have gotten much of a response anyway, he had a habit of only responding when he thought he had a point, and would have skipped the "hard" questions. ::)

The thing with Harmy is that even when people agreed with him, he failed to see it.  Heck, there were a few times that even I agreed with him and he'd STILL argue with me about it.  I think he liked to argue just to see his "words" in "print" ;D


You noticed that too about him aswell huh!!  I thought I was going around the bend, and had to re-read my posts over just to make sure I had made things clear enough.  What a bleedin' crackpot...him not me  ;D  ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Mississippi likely to become second state to ban abortion

Written By: bbigd04 on 03/01/06 at 2:51 pm

Not really a surprise, it's Mississippi.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/mississippi_abortion_1;_ylt=ArKhzYTc0kRZrornamwhLd.B_YEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: CatwomanofV on 03/01/06 at 5:55 pm


I held off on banning Harmonica because I want different viewpoints, but when I have to remove a few posts everyday because they're clearly violating the guidelines, I just get fed up.  It's not fair to anyone else if he's allowed to stay when he refuses to calm down and not post personal attacks.  I'm sure it just re-affirms his whole "you're all a bunch of liberal god hating scum" viewpoint of the world, so I'm sure he's not very upset about it.



When I found out he was banned, that was what I figured he was thinking. "They are all out to get me."  That boy was in serious need of medication.



Cat

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 03/01/06 at 5:57 pm



When I found out he was banned, that was what I figured he was thinking. "They are all out to get me."  That boy was in serious need of medication.



Cat
he was paranoid. everybody thought so. we were all talking about it in hushed whispers.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: CatwomanofV on 03/01/06 at 6:04 pm


he was paranoid. everybody thought so. we were all talking about it in hushed whispers.


Yup! We were.



Cat

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/01/06 at 6:07 pm


he was paranoid. everybody thought so. we were all talking about it in hushed whispers.

Yeah, I bet he's out there thinking we're STILL talking about him! What a kook!
:D

I heard about Mississippi this afternoon. No surprise. I expect the rest of the Bible Belt will follow suit.  I expect North Dakota will aslo try to ban abortion because they're afraid of zeroing out their population altogether!

What if the Supreme Court doesn't go the way MS and SD want?  What if, in spite of ALL the rightwing credentials of Roberts and Alito, the justices decide they don't want to hear any cases in re: Roe v. Wade?  What if they decide to let it stand as "good law" and strike down anti-choice laws passed by SD and MS as unconstitutional?  Could be.  But like I say, if there is only one clinic providing abortion services in a state the size of SD, they've pretty much stanched safe and legal abortion for low-income women.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 03/01/06 at 6:49 pm


Yeah, I bet he's out there thinking we're STILL talking about him! What a kook!
:D

I heard about Mississippi this afternoon. No surprise. I expect the rest of the Bible Belt will follow suit.  I expect North Dakota will aslo try to ban abortion because they're afraid of zeroing out their population altogether!

What if the Supreme Court doesn't go the way MS and SD want?  What if, in spite of ALL the rightwing credentials of Roberts and Alito, the justices decide they don't want to hear any cases in re: Roe v. Wade?  What if they decide to let it stand as "good law" and strike down anti-choice laws passed by SD and MS as unconstitutional?  Could be.  But like I say, if there is only one clinic providing abortion services in a state the size of SD, they've pretty much stanched safe and legal abortion for low-income women.


Hah, Alito comes from a town two towns over from me and his kids attend high school near me! Trust me, he's a pretty solid Italian Republican Roman Catholic businessperson, he's anti-abortion of course and pro-business as sheesh (all the Italians in NJ have gotten pretty well-to-do through business savvy\.) He's also undeniably a NJ brand of racist-heard about that society he was in at Princeton?

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: GWBush2004 on 03/01/06 at 7:36 pm


He's also undeniably a NJ brand of racist-heard about that society he was in at Princeton?


The one that was supposedly against women but allowed people like Laura Ingraham.

By the way, did you hear about Edward Kennedy being in a group that openly banned women, and was donating to them until just recently?  Kennedy only stopped once it was pointed out to him what a hypocrite he was, especially after he was the main one behind the Alito-CAP push.

It's been a great few days for the pro-life side.

1. Missouri supreme court upholds 24 hour waiting period on abortions

2. Mississippi house committee votes in favor of bill banning nearly all abortions

3. Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

4. South Dakota governor Mike Rounds says he'll sign abortion bill into law

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: velvetoneo on 03/01/06 at 7:37 pm


The one that was supposedly against women but allowed people like Laura Ingraham.

By the way, did you hear about Edward Kennedy being in a group that openly banned women, and was donating to them until just recently?  Kennedy only stopped once it was pointed out to him what a hypocrite he was, especially after he was the main one behind the Alito-CAP push.

It's been a great few days for the pro-life side.

1. Missouri supreme court upholds 24 hour waiting period on abortions

2. Mississippi house committee votes in favor of bill banning nearly all abortions

3. Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

4. South Dakota governor Mike Rounds says he'll sign abortion bill into law


It's been a great few days for the fundie nuts.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 03/01/06 at 8:13 pm


//  But like I say, if there is only one clinic providing abortion services in a state the size of SD, they've pretty much stanched safe and legal abortion for low-income women.


Exactly.

I know the pro-life extemists will have a hell of a time in my home state of Virginia, which has some of the most lax abortion laws of any state in the nation (too lax IMO, but...).

Interesting too that Bush is at odds with the SD law. I do think the Supreme Court will rule the pending SD law unconstitutional, if it is too extreme even for Bush then I don't see how they as a group will rule in favor of it.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 03/01/06 at 9:26 pm


http://kimrichards.net/Kim/vidcaps/TuffTurf/gc-KimRichards(TuffTurf)-009.jpg

totally tuff tia is down with it, and that's all I care about.

and she's a republican! but, you know, a moderate, i'm sure.


T-U-F-F!!!
U.B. TUFF!!!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 03/01/06 at 9:33 pm

pack the thread with kim richards pictures

get a karma point from me.

i'm so easy!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 03/01/06 at 9:36 pm

pro-choice Tia!!!
http://kimrichards.net/Kim/Kim.jpg

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 03/01/06 at 9:45 pm

"An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours."

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 03/01/06 at 9:54 pm

there's always tomorrow!!!!

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/01/06 at 10:28 pm

So if abortion is not possible to attain in most "red state" counties, isn't it responsible for these counties to insure free and easy access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

(Not that I don't know the rightwing answer to this!)
::)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Tia on 03/01/06 at 11:32 pm


So if abortion is not possible to attain in most "red state" counties, isn't it responsible for these counties to insure free and easy access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

(Not that I don't know the rightwing answer to this!)
::)
dude, it's called abstinence! just get a big bible made out of sharp rocks and smash it directly into your face whenever you have a lustful thought until it goes away! why are you such a pagan? ;)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Mushroom on 03/01/06 at 11:48 pm


So if abortion is not possible to attain in most "red state" counties, isn't it responsible for these counties to insure free and easy access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies?


Actually, it is called "Responsibility".

Now remember, I am not talking about Rape.  That is completely different, and I have already stated my belief in the right of Abortion in that instance.

It takes 2 people to make a baby.  And either one of them can take the responsibilty.  In fact, there are a lot of options.  Pills, vasectomy, condoms, long term implants, IUD, diaphrams, rhythm method, cervical sponge, contraceptive patch, and they are constantly working on more.

And most of them are fairly cheap.  Heck, you can go into the $1 store and get a box of condoms.  And there are a lot of programs that practically give away birth control.  And when done properly, the rhythm method is over 95% effective.  And that one is absolutely free.

If you drive a car, I certainly do not expect people to give you gasoline.  The same goes with birth control.  If you want to play grown-up games, you must take the responsibility that goes with it, ot take the consequences.

And come on, it really is not all that hard or expensive.  Depo-Provera is readily available, and normally costs from $30-50 per injection.  And that injection is good for 3 months.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: Red Ant on 03/02/06 at 2:28 am


dude, it's called abstinence! just get a big bible made out of sharp rocks and smash it directly into your face whenever you have a lustful thought until it goes away! why are you such a pagan? ;)


I thought you were supposed to smash it into your crotch.  ;D


Actually, it is called "Responsibility".

Now remember, I am not talking about Rape.  That is completely different, and I have already stated my belief in the right of Abortion in that instance.

It takes 2 people to make a baby.  And either one of them can take the responsibilty.  In fact, there are a lot of options.  Pills, vasectomy, condoms, long term implants, IUD, diaphrams, rhythm method, cervical sponge, contraceptive patch, and they are constantly working on more.

And most of them are fairly cheap.  Heck, you can go into the $1 store and get a box of condoms.  And there are a lot of programs that practically give away birth control.  And when done properly, the rhythm method is over 95% effective.  And that one is absolutely free.

If you drive a car, I certainly do not expect people to give you gasoline.  The same goes with birth control.  If you want to play grown-up games, you must take the responsibility that goes with it, ot take the consequences.

And come on, it really is not all that hard or expensive.  Depo-Provera is readily available, and normally costs from $30-50 per injection.  And that injection is good for 3 months.


Well, there are two things you are overlooking: No method of birth control aside from abstinence is 100% effective (though Depo shots, vasectomy and a few others are virtually 100%) and some of the birth control methods have potentially serious side effects.

By the way, rhythm method if done right may be 95% effective, but in reality it's only 80% effective:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html

I agree though that people need be more responsible with what they do (and who they do) in the bedroom.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/02/06 at 8:57 pm


Actually, it is called "Responsibility".

Now remember, I am not talking about Rape.  That is completely different, and I have already stated my belief in the right of Abortion in that instance.

It takes 2 people to make a baby.  And either one of them can take the responsibilty.  In fact, there are a lot of options.  Pills, vasectomy, condoms, long term implants, IUD, diaphrams, rhythm method, cervical sponge, contraceptive patch, and they are constantly working on more.

And most of them are fairly cheap.  Heck, you can go into the $1 store and get a box of condoms.  And there are a lot of programs that practically give away birth control.  And when done properly, the rhythm method is over 95% effective.  And that one is absolutely free.

If you drive a car, I certainly do not expect people to give you gasoline.  The same goes with birth control.  If you want to play grown-up games, you must take the responsibility that goes with it, ot take the consequences.

And come on, it really is not all that hard or expensive.  Depo-Provera is readily available, and normally costs from $30-50 per injection.  And that injection is good for 3 months.

Where the heck can you buy a box of condoms for a buck? Maybe you can find discount rubbers for a dollar down your way.  Up here, forget it!

I agree, both partners in a sex act (or "all" partners, as the case may be) have the "responsibility" to practice contraception and safe sex.  The problem is the very people who are against abortion are also against sex education for youth and in support of the right of retail vendors to refuse to sell contraceptives.  Maybe the reactionaries are right on this one.  In the old days the church and the older people shamed the young folks for having sexual feelings at all, and the sale and distribution of contraception of any kind was illegal...and indeed nobody had intercourse before marriage, no females got pregnant by accident, and no parents had children they could not afford to take care of!
::)

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: STAR70 on 03/04/06 at 7:17 pm


OK, I am going to do a kind of recap, for those that have never heard me talk about this topic before.

I am against abortion, for moral grounds.  And do not confuse morality with religion. 


explain

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: CatwomanofV on 03/05/06 at 3:43 pm


OK, I am going to do a kind of recap, for those that have never heard me talk about this topic before.

I am against abortion, for moral grounds.  And do not confuse morality with religion.  Unless you believe that morals can not exist without it, then you should be able to see the difference.

I also believe in a womans right to abortion because of danger to herself or having future children, deformity, and rape (I consider incest to be rape, unless it was willing).

I am against late term abortion, unless it is to save the life of the mother.  In my view, she had 6 months to do something if she simply did not want the child.  She should just wait a few more weeks/months, and give the child up for adoption.

I wish that more women would consider adoption in stead of abortion.  TO me, this is just accelerating the "throw-away society", so it now includes TV sets, VCRs, computers, marriage, and now babies.

My stepdaughter was concieved because of a rape.  This was before I met her mother.  My ex almost had an abortion.  In fact, she was lying on the doctors table after having been given a local anesthetic, when she changed her mind.  She also considered adoption, until after she was born.

And we had our own situation several years later that brought us face-to-face with anti-abortionists.  In 1988, we found out she was pregnant again (our family then included us, her daughter, and our son).  We were not planning on any more children, but would deal with it.  However, it was not meant to be.

During the 2nd month, she started to get severe pain and bleeding, and was taken to the hospital.  It turns out that the pregnancy was tubal, so the only thing to do was to have an abortion.  It was hard on both of us, but had to be done.

3 weeks later, the phone calls started.  At first, it was during the day when I was at work.  WHen my ex would pick up the phone, they would scream "baby killer" at her, and hang up.  A few weeks later, they started calling at night.  I tried to explain what happened, and that she would have died if she did not have the abortion.  THe response?  "That would have been God's will."  That is nonsense, because God would not have wanted to leave 2 children without their mother.

We changed our phone, and the calls came anyways.  We finally got help from Naval Investigative Service (I was an active duty Marine at the time).  Turns out that they had been tracking this group, and they got their information from hospital billing records.  These do not show the cause of the abortion, simply that it was done.  Because the Military paid for it, it allowed them to get involved.  Within a month, the calls stopped.

To me, this goes right back to responsibility.  Every adult knows what causes pregnancy, and how to prevent it.  And since rape is less then 1% of abortions, I do not even understand the amount of attention devoted to it.

And here is another statistic, 75-80% of women who are raped keep their children.  TO a great many (like my ex), it is a way for them to put it in the past, that something good came from something that was horrible and traumatic.

My stepdaughter is 24 now.  I could not imagine a world without her in it either.



I understand and respect your feelings/beliefs. But let me ask you a hypothetical question-would you force a woman to have a child who thinks that an abortion is her only option? Or do you think that it is the woman's choice?



Cat

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/05/06 at 5:32 pm



I understand and respect your feelings/beliefs. But let me ask you a hypothetical question-would you force a woman to have a child who thinks that an abortion is her only option? Or do you think that it is the woman's choice?



Cat

I can't speak for Mush, but those who think abortion = murder are always going to say it's the government's responsibility to outlaw abortion and prosecute anybody who participates in it.

Subject: Re: South Dakota likely to become first state to ban abortion

Written By: deadrockstar on 03/08/06 at 11:24 pm

You know, it would be a really bad thing for the Repugs if Roe Vs. Wade was overturned. If the Democrats aren't going to win the elections this fall now, they definitely would after that.

Check for new replies or respond here...