asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/rights_abortion_dc
great.
edit by lucas: remember, urls are hyperlinked automatically ;0
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
god damn it. you get the idea.
the united states will rue the day that the supreme court backs this law
this could very well be one of the baby steps that leads towards the last world war; christianity superceding thought in this country.
phi_
... and let the Earth be silent after ye.
I think I'll become a recluse. Hiding and travelling throughout the US in my car. It will be a great time...
jason
comes outta nowhere
i don't think that it will be that big of a deal. I will probably never be affected by this law. i do think it's bullshit, but not world war material. I think if shit started then all the jesus freaks would head for alabama. We kicked the South's ass once, we can do it again.
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
I'm not sure what you mean to point out by saying that you'll never be affected by the law? I don't want to jump down your throat and go off about how it's already affecting women in South Dakota, and that an absence of personal suffering shouldn't discount its importance, so could you explain what implications the law not affecting you has?
i believe he's coming from a selfish perspective. nothing wrong with that, but if my girl wants to abort some fetuses, she should be able to.
jason
comes outta nowhere
I'm just saying, I don't really give a shit. Religious people and feminists can fight it out. I also don't really like the idea of abortion anyway. If I ever got a girl pregnant, I would want her to have the baby (though it is ultimately her choice). I am pro-choice because I think people should have personal freedom, but as issues go, it's really not that important to me. Also, abortion was up to the states for a long time before Roe v. Wade, and there were no wars.
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
well, not giving a shit is, uh, pretty shitty. next to nothing of this sort affects me, because I'm a well off, white male, but I'm not going to just not care about the rights of minorities or oppressed groups because of that.
jason
comes outta nowhere
yeah, me too.
jason
comes outta nowhere
worst case scenario: women have to drive to a blue state to get an abortion, or *GHASP* put their kid up for adoption.
and white males as individuals have no advantage in america today. there, i said it.
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
actual worst case scenario: a poor woman is raped and can't afford to go to a blue state and ends up dying as a result of the pregnancy.
you're absolutely insane if you think white males have no advantages in the US or the world today. denying the existance of institutionalized racism is crazy.
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
in montana, i think there's one or two places a woman can get an abortion. it's already pretty tough. then you want her to have to drive to oregon or washington? that's pretty insane. the point isn't the right to get rid of a kid (adoption), it's the right for you to do with your body as you wish.
considering the religious underpinnings, i don't find this issue too comfortable.
jason
comes outta nowhere
I don't want her to, I'm saying that's the worst that could happen if states had the right to make their own laws. I don't see it as an epic battle.
I as an individual had the same opportunities that a black person would. The only advantage I can see in America is economic, so white people may statistically have an advantage. But poverty is the problem, not black poverty.
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
did you read the article I linked to? there's still a great deal of institutionalized racism in the US, largely due to our history. you can't discount that and attribute everything to economic issues, as important as they are. I'm not stating which is the greater issue, I'm just stating that race IS an issue.
it's true. AL is still pretty rough.
Dear jonathan,
When South Dakota voters rejected the most restrictive abortion ban in the country in 2006, we thought the health and well being of women and families in our state would be protected.
But those rights of families to make their own health care decisions are once again in jeopardy.
This fall, South Dakotans will once again vote on a sweeping abortion ban called Initiated Measure 11. Our opponents are trying to pass it off as an acceptable compromise from 2006 - but the real consequences of this law are unacceptable.
You've been a part of our fight in the past, and we're asking for your help again. Sign the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families petition and commit to vote against Measure 11 now:
http://www.sdhealthyfamilies.org/measure11
Our opponents claim that Measure 11 is a 'new and improved' abortion ban, but let's be clear on one thing - this measure is a sweeping ban on abortion that is every bit as dangerous as the law voters rejected in 2006. Consider the facts:
* A woman would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if the fetus couldn't survive on its own after delivery.
* By threatening doctors with a felony and jail time, this law would have a chilling effect on a doctor's ability to exercise proper medical judgment and protect the health of his or her patients.
* Our opponents have indicated that this ban is merely a tool to advance their political agenda. Their stated goal is to remove any exception to the abortion ban, including exceptions for victims of rape, incest and in cases where a woman's health is in jeopardy.
When you dig deep into the language in the ban, you find out it's just another way to punish women in the most vulnerable of circumstances.
Abortion is already rare in South Dakota and only performed after carefully considering all options. The decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for a woman and her family. This complex, personal decision should be between a woman, her family, God and her doctor - free from unnecessary intrusion from politicians, police officers and criminal prosecutors.
That's why we need your help to stand up for South Dakota families by voting No on Measure 11. Join the 2008 South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families:
http://www.sdhealthyfamilies.org/measure11
Our campaign is just getting started, and we're grateful for all the help you can provide us.
Thank you,
Michelle Trupiano
South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Yeah, if someone doesn't want to raise their kid. Let them abort it. It's better for everyone that way.
Some people ... *sigh* ...
Étrangère
I am not a robot...
What.
DaGr8Gatzby
Drunk by Myself
Yay for abortions!
Speaking of which, this issue has been coming up a lot lately for me. It's the woman's choice ultimately, and it should stay that way. However, I would make it my last choice.
P.S.- I don't rape.
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
I think the father should have some modicum of input. It is technically his kid too.
phi_
... and let the Earth be silent after ye.
My mom had a good idea about abortion: Only allow women to vote on the issue.
Not very democratic, but she didn't mean it seriously. I believe the point she was trying to make was that, in the end, it's up to the woman--not the (predominately) male politicians.
(side note-- she doesn't like men too much)
me neither
doesn't abortion stave off dumpster babies?
I just saw another one on the news sometime last week.
omg, i love it's always sunny in philadelphia
DaGr8Gatzby
Drunk by Myself
Midnight dumpster baby!!
No but seriously, it is ultimately up to the woman. If you don't like her decision then leave her. You have no control over her decision strictly because the damn fetus is not growing inside of you. It's a sad but true statement. I still would take other options, such as adoption before aboriton. But hey, that's just life if my chick aborts my baby.