|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade
| 
Mar 7 16:43 UTC 2006 |
(AP) The governor of South Dakota signed into law yesterday a ban on
nearly all abortions in the state, setting up a court fight aimed at
challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion
in the United States.
The new law makes it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the
procedure is necessary to save a woman's life. It makes no exception for
cases of rape or incest. Under the measure doctors could get up to five
years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Planned Parenthood immediately pledged to challenge the measure. The
Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the
recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito
have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v Wade.
|
| 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 1 of 254:
|
Mar 7 16:44 UTC 2006 |
You had to know this was coming. It is part of the GOP master plan. Roe will
get overturned and abortion will become illegal in a lot of this country
sadly.
./
./
|
jep
|
|
response 2 of 254:
|
Mar 7 16:58 UTC 2006 |
South Dakota knows very well they're entering a court battle, and they
expect it to go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully it'll take a few
years, and there'll be another conservative justice to help overturn
Roe vs. Wade. I am not at all sure, right now, which way the Supreme
Court would decide, if they were facing the issue next month.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 3 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:00 UTC 2006 |
Why is "makes no exception for rape or incest" even mentioned? Who the father
of a baby is makes no difference in infanticide cases; why should it matter
before birth?
|
scholar
|
|
response 4 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:03 UTC 2006 |
It might not make a difference in that, uh, a law would still be being
violated, but it sure as hell would make a difference in how much sympathy
people would have for the poor woman -- including judges, DAs, the press, the
general public, etc.
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:11 UTC 2006 |
The fourth amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
persons. I would argue that if a woman is pregnant against her will, and
cannot do anything about it, they are not secure in their persons. The
fourteenth amendment states that no state shall make any law that abridges
the privileges guaranteed to citizens of the United States. South Dakota IMO
has passed a law which violates the fourth amendment, and in doing so, also
violates the fourteenth amendment. For it to stand up, they should have to
repeal the fourteenth amendment.
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:28 UTC 2006 |
IMPEACH BUSH
|
scholar
|
|
response 7 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:29 UTC 2006 |
How do you tell if women are pregnant against their will? The bitch says the
condom broke, but how are we to know for sure? And what about all the rapists
-- who should, afterall, know, rape being their specialty -- who say she
wanted it?
Anyway.
I think abortions should be allowed until the end of the fourth trimester.
Women are neat and I don't think people should rape them and I like to hang
out with them.
|
tod
|
|
response 8 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:34 UTC 2006 |
I think anybody who supports the ban should be forced to try duct taping the
crotches of WNBA's Sue Bird and Anne Donovan shut so they can feel the wrath
of a woman scorned. "But its murder!" Shut up. You've got no problem
bombing women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan so just shut your stupid
mouth.
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:42 UTC 2006 |
I think its hypocritical to be pro-life and be for the death penalty.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 10 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:46 UTC 2006 |
Re #5: "The fourth amendment guarantees right of the people to be secure in
their persons" *against government searches and seizures*. By your logic, the
first amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech also guarantees you a
captive audience, and the guarantee of the freedom of religion guarantees that
the government will finance every individual's religion.
Just because a woman is pregnant against her will doesn't mean that the
government has to let her commit infanticide to undo it.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 11 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:48 UTC 2006 |
Re #9: Not necessarily. If you believe that only the state should have the
power to kill, and then only very rarely (such as the case I read about where
someone in prision for several life sentences murdered a prison staffer --
there's nothing the state can do for punishment of that crime), there's no
reason you should necessarily believe that anyone should have the power to
commit infanticide.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 12 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:49 UTC 2006 |
"US PRESIDENT George W Bush signaled his opposition to a South Dakota
abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or
incest, saying he favors such exceptions."
--http://www.gg2.net/viewnews.asp?nid=2128
|
scholar
|
|
response 13 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:50 UTC 2006 |
what if the infant killed a prison staffer while serving several life
sentences?
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:52 UTC 2006 |
re #10
Its none of the government's business what happens prior to their issuance
of a birth certificate. A death certificate doesn't specify "gestational
period" or "time of conception". It states BIRTH aka when you first take a
breath of air.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:52 UTC 2006 |
The fourth amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects AND against unreasonable searches and seizures. What, do you think
that other than in cases of unreasonable searches and seizures, citizens DON'T
have the right to be secure in their persons?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 16 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:54 UTC 2006 |
resp:3 I suppose mental health means nothing to you? How easy it is to
sit on your moral high horse- never considering the anguish a rape
victim goes through. Not considering how hard it is for a woman to
overcome the trauma of being raped. No, in your mind it's perfectly okay
for that same woman to have to not only deal with the rape- but to have
to experience it every day physically for nine months carrying a child
she most likely loathes? For her to risk being the 1 in 1300 women who
hemorrhages to death after giving birth- all because she was raped and
had absolutely no recourse about pregnancy. I find that attitude to be
absolutely disgusting.
Why exactly do you want to punish women so badly? Do you think sex is
all the fault of the woman and if she were raped that she was 'asking
for it'?
|
scholar
|
|
response 17 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:54 UTC 2006 |
Richard, you neglected to answer my questions, and I think they're very
apropos to the discussion.
|
richard
|
|
response 18 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:56 UTC 2006 |
jep, do you think that if a girl is raped and impregnated by her deranged
father, that the state should force her to give birth to her biological
brother or sister?
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:58 UTC 2006 |
re #16
You're asking a Jesus freak about mental health concerns?
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 254:
|
Mar 7 17:59 UTC 2006 |
re #17 scholar, the answer to your question is that a woman is pregnant
"against her will" if she has become pregnant and does not wish to be. It
doesn't matter if the condom broke, or the pills had expired, or the diaphragm
had malfunctioned.
|