# Abortion illegal now in South Dakota



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd....n.ap/index.html

South Dakota abortion law sets up court challenge

Monday, March 6, 2006; Posted: 1:59 p.m. EST (18:59 GMT)

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- South Dakota's governor on Monday signed into law a bill banning nearly all abortions, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has pledged it will challenge the measure in court. About 800 abortions are done each year in South Dakota.

In a written statement, Gov. Mike Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The Legislature passed the bill after supporters said the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

South Dakota lawmakers believe President Bush may have a chance to appoint a third justice in the years before the legal battle over the South Dakota law reaches the nation's highest court.

The abortion ban would take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend the ban during the legal challenge. That means it would never take effect unless the state gets the case all the way to the Supreme Court and wins.

Rounds has said abortion opponents have already started offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers also said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the law signed by Rounds, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The measure also contains language that the Legislature finds that scientific advances since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 have demonstrated that life begins at conception.

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge. The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Next step is making it illegal for women to wear clothes that show any skin except eyelids, leave the house without a man present and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Mexico said:


> and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota












Awesome.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

*No exception in the case of rape or incest.*

Freedom's on the march!!!


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> Next step is making it illegal for women to wear clothes that show any skin except eyelids, leave the house without a man present and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota


sweet all we need is rapist babies walking around without a daddy and screwed up momys to make this a better country


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

Im glad they made abortion illegal and I think they should throught the whole United States. In my opinion your killing a baby, a life. You do the crime (SEX), You pay time (parenting).


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Fargo said:


> Im glad they made abortion illegal and I think they should throught the whole United States. In my opinion your killing a baby, a life. You do the crime (SEX), You pay time (parenting).


Okay, buddy.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Ron Mexico said:


> Next step is making it illegal for women to wear clothes that show any skin except eyelids, leave the house without a man present and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Bravo.

<----------- Gives thumbs up to South D. Represent.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Scrap5000 said:


> In a written statement, Gov. Mike Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.


That says it all right there.

The Supreme Court won't uphold it, so it's just another useless bill that goes nowhere. It's not a law and won't become one.


----------



## NTcaribe (Apr 8, 2004)

good, i say both sex's need to be more responsible, if they thought for minute about the consiquences of their decision, women wouldn't be home waiting for child support and men wouldn't have to be out workin the asses off

just my two cents, i guess some of what i said was ignorant but its true


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Possibly another small victory for Christian fundamentalists, imposing their religiously motivated beliefs on others, non-believers included - and that in an on paper secular country, with a clear division between state and church








Oh well, better there than here...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

CichlidAddict said:


> In a written statement, Gov. Mike Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.


That says it all right there.

The Supreme Court won't uphold it, so it's just another useless bill that goes nowhere. It's not a law and won't become one.
[/quote]

Still, it's always nice to see politicians using taxpayers money to try to turn their state into a backwards fundamelist regime.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Possibly another small victory for Christian fundamentalists, imposing their religiously motivated beliefs on others, non-believers included - and that in an on paper secular country, with a clear division between state and church
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh? Are you saying only Christian fundamentalists oppose abortion?
I don't think this is a religious issue, although it is true many christians oppose abortion. I'm sure there are many other people (non-believers included) that oppose abortion for reasons other than religion.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Slim said:


> You do the crime (SEX)


You think people should be punished for having sex? It's a natural thing bro, I don't see what's wrong with it.

And well, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I can totally see how forcing teenage parents, single mothers, drug abusers and any other irresponsible member of society to carry their child to term is a real boon to the economy. Without that, we wouldn't have children being raised by crackheads so they can become drug abusers themselves, single mothers with no education who can't provide a healthy environment for their children or the time and effort to raise them properly, kids growing up with no father figures....

Yep, let's all punish the children and make them grow up in a loveless environment because their parents were irresponsible and too stupid to use a condom. Makes perfect sense to me


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Ron Mexico said:


> You do the crime (SEX)


You think people should be punished for having sex? It's a natural thing bro, I don't see what's wrong with it.
[/quote]

And having a baby as a result is natural as well. Killing it is not.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Xenon said:


> In a written statement, Gov. Mike Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.


That says it all right there.

The Supreme Court won't uphold it, so it's just another useless bill that goes nowhere. It's not a law and won't become one.
[/quote]

Still, it's always nice to see politicians using taxpayers money to try to turn their state into a backwards fundamelist regime.
[/quote]

backwards fundamentalist regime?

And you are promoting a regime that supports the murder of unborn children? Not sure I am clear on the backwards part.

Ironic.

[/quote]

I am promoting a regime that suggests that government has no right to tell people what to do with their own bodies. You know - an idea of a small, non-intrusive government - otherwise known as *conservatism*.


----------



## tnpeter (Dec 17, 2005)

i think they shouldnt make it illeagle, i think its wrong its like killing a minor, well then how about if u want a abortion u spend time in jail as if u killed a minor in 1st dagree...

iam glad the law passed


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> You think people should be punished for having sex? It's a natural thing bro, I don't see what's wrong with it.
> 
> And well, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I can totally see how forcing teenage parents, single mothers, drug abusers and any other irresponsible member of society to carry their child to term is a real boon to the economy. Without that, we wouldn't have children being raised by crackheads so they can become drug abusers themselves, single mothers with no education who can't provide a healthy environment for their children or the time and effort to raise them properly, kids growing up with no father figures....
> 
> Yep, let's all punish the children and make them grow up in a loveless environment because their parents were irresponsible and too stupid to use a condom. Makes perfect sense to me


Let's not forget that we have to support those single mothers and thier children with our tax money.

Personally I don't think human life is overly precious. We could do with a little thining of the herd.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Ron Mexico said:


> You know - an idea of a small, non-intrusive government - otherwise known as *conservatism*.


Conservatism is dead amigo. 21st century is the time of fundamentalism, be it islamic fundamentalism, christian fundamentalism or just good old fashioned totalitarianism.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Conservatism is dead amigo. 21st century is the time of fundamentalism, be it islamic fundamentalism, christian fundamentalism or just good old fashioned totalitarianism.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> You know - an idea of a small, non-intrusive government - otherwise known as *conservatism*.


Conservatism is dead amigo. 21st century is the time of fundamentalism, be it islamic fundamentalism, christian fundamentalism or just good old fashioned totalitarianism.
[/quote]

No it isn't...

www.lp.org


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

I meant in the popular consciousness. Since 9/11 people worldwide have become alot more fanatic in their thinking and the world has had a really strong tendency towards polarization.

I knew about the libertarian party, I voted for them in our last elections


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2006)

My problem with abortion is that all the wrong people are having them.

You would think that the desperately poor and the mentally deficient people would be the ones having them , but they are actually the least likely to have an abortion. The majority of abortions are performed on healthy, middle-class women who assume a baby would interfere with their education, career, and lifestyle.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Bullsnake said:


> My problem with abortion is that all the wrong people are having them.
> 
> You would think that the desperately poor and the mentally deficient people would be the ones having them , but they are actually the least likely to have an abortion. The majority of abortions are performed on healthy, middle-class women who assume a baby would interfere with their education, career, and lifestyle.


I hadn't heard that before. You have figures or stats on that?


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2006)

elTwitcho said:


> My problem with abortion is that all the wrong people are having them.
> 
> You would think that the desperately poor and the mentally deficient people would be the ones having them , but they are actually the least likely to have an abortion. The majority of abortions are performed on healthy, middle-class women who assume a baby would interfere with their education, career, and lifestyle.


I hadn't heard that before. You have figures or stats on that?
[/quote]
No, it's just my experience.

My point is that abortion serves no useful function in society. All of those babies would have been eagerly adopted by familes that wanted them.

That being said, I don't believe the goverment has the right to stop people from having that operation done if they want it.


----------



## jiggy (Jun 27, 2004)

just another freedom this country has taken away from its people..


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Like most things' personal decision before government control. That aside If not religious motivation against abortion then what? General ethics? If you're not under religious overtones and study medical science a fetus in the first stage of life isn't more complex than a insect / common roach. This ban is more sh*t thrown at the fan.

I wouldnt be surprized if more states followed south dakotas decision .


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

CichlidAddict said:


> Possibly another small victory for Christian fundamentalists, imposing their religiously motivated beliefs on others, non-believers included - and that in an on paper secular country, with a clear division between state and church
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh? Are you saying only Christian fundamentalists oppose abortion?
I don't think this is a religious issue, although it is true many christians oppose abortion. I'm sure there are many other people (non-believers included) that oppose abortion for reasons other than religion.
[/quote]
I totally agree with this statement. It is not JUST the Christian fundamentalists that oppose abortion. While that is my reason, it is not everyone's reason. And furthermore, this thing is going to get bogged down so far in court that it will never see daylight unless it is backed by the U.S. Supreme court. Should be interesting.

Wether you agree with the abortion stance or not, you gotta give the guy credit for having one huge set of balls for signing the thing!


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2006)

I dont get it.

Why is abortion wrong, but circumcision ok?

It's like in Canada, gay marriage is alright, but polygamy is wrong?

The worst thing about governments, and I mean ALL governments, is how they feel they can straddle this line. Either give people thier freedoms completely, or take them away completely.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Another legislative step backwards for Americans.

The supposed "land of the free" is totally getting bogged down by the few irrational and radical squeaky wheels. Society as a whole, as I still believe it is competent, must step up and squash the radicals that want to complain about the affairs and choices that do not even pertain to them.

While I do not believe that I could ever go through an abortion, I am greatful that I have been given the chance to reach said decision.

Pac


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I dont get it.
> 
> Why is abortion wrong, but circumcision ok?
> 
> It's like in Canada, gay marriage is alright, but polygamy is wrong?


I think the big dividing line between these two is when is there viable life? With foreskin, there is no time of viable life. No matter how long you let your foreskin grow, it will never live on its own.

But there is a time of viable life with an unborn child. Those (such as myself) feel that all life is sacred no matter when. From conception on it should be guarded. Those that are not of Christian mindset that still are against abortion are those that are for protecting viable life. And that is the problem...the age of viability continually gets pushed back due to our medical advances.

Foreskin does not scientifically compare. Hope that makes sense??


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

PastorJeff said:


> I dont get it.
> 
> Why is abortion wrong, but circumcision ok?
> 
> It's like in Canada, gay marriage is alright, but polygamy is wrong?


I think the big dividing line between these two is when is there viable life? With foreskin, there is no time of viable life. No matter how long you let your foreskin grow, it will never live on its own.

But there is a time of viable life with an unborn child. Those (such as myself) feel that all life is sacred no matter when. From conception on it should be guarded. Those that are not of Christian mindset that still are against abortion are those that are for protecting viable life. And that is the problem...the age of viability continually gets pushed back due to our medical advances.

Foreskin does not scientifically compare. Hope that makes sense??
[/quote]

I meant in the context of law. Technically, circusision is abuse. Why is there no law against it? The procedure cauases INTENSE pain for a baby. Atleast with the more ethical ways of abortion, there is no pain for the baby.


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

By making abortion illegal, there's going to be more females going into the hospital because they tried to do it themselves, or have it done in an unsafe manner.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

KumbiaQueens said:


> By making abortion illegal, there's going to be more females going into the hospital because they tried to do it themselves, or have it done in an unsafe manner.


There is no data to uphold this just so you know. This is the whole "Backally Abortion" or "Underground Abortion" debate. While it sounds horrible it just does not happen...I am not saying it never happens, but not enough to make a case for abortion.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I dont get it.
> 
> Why is abortion wrong, but circumcision ok?
> 
> It's like in Canada, gay marriage is alright, but polygamy is wrong?


I think the big dividing line between these two is when is there viable life? With foreskin, there is no time of viable life. No matter how long you let your foreskin grow, it will never live on its own.

But there is a time of viable life with an unborn child. Those (such as myself) feel that all life is sacred no matter when. From conception on it should be guarded. Those that are not of Christian mindset that still are against abortion are those that are for protecting viable life. And that is the problem...the age of viability continually gets pushed back due to our medical advances.

Foreskin does not scientifically compare. Hope that makes sense??
[/quote]

I meant in the context of law. Technically, circusision is abuse. Why is there no law against it? The procedure cauases INTENSE pain for a baby. Atleast with the more ethical ways of abortion, there is no pain for the baby.
[/quote]

Circumcision is linked to cultural aesthetics and many also think medical benefits may be linked to it.
Circumcision is another topic though.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

User said:


> I dont get it.
> 
> Why is abortion wrong, but circumcision ok?
> 
> It's like in Canada, gay marriage is alright, but polygamy is wrong?


I think the big dividing line between these two is when is there viable life? With foreskin, there is no time of viable life. No matter how long you let your foreskin grow, it will never live on its own.

But there is a time of viable life with an unborn child. Those (such as myself) feel that all life is sacred no matter when. From conception on it should be guarded. Those that are not of Christian mindset that still are against abortion are those that are for protecting viable life. And that is the problem...the age of viability continually gets pushed back due to our medical advances.

Foreskin does not scientifically compare. Hope that makes sense??
[/quote]

I meant in the context of law. Technically, circusision is abuse. Why is there no law against it? The procedure cauases INTENSE pain for a baby. Atleast with the more ethical ways of abortion, there is no pain for the baby.
[/quote]

Circumcision is linked to cultural aesthetics and many also think medical benefits may be linked to it.
Circumcision is another topic though.
[/quote]

I didnt say it wasnt, but do you see what I mean?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I didnt say it wasnt, but do you see what I mean?


I believe so.

Here it is for me, I have no problem with a young fetus being aborted ( to those that disagree, its just personally how I feel) but is it ethical to abort life with "potential" to become something greater than it is? Even though South Dakota has prohibited abortion, many failed to realise one case that abortion would be considered - if the life of the mother was in danger. Becuase the mother has reached her "potential" from once being a fetus no more complex than a bug to something greater.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

KumbiaQueens said:


> By making abortion illegal, there's going to be more females going into the hospital because they tried to do it themselves, or have it done in an unsafe manner.


They are responsible for their own actions.

its funny, how hypocritical some americans are.

You say the right of abortion is all about freedom? ok, what about the unborn baby? what freedom does it have? no rights at all, it dosent get to choose to live or die.

So much for freedom


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Markosaur said:


> By making abortion illegal, there's going to be more females going into the hospital because they tried to do it themselves, or have it done in an unsafe manner.


They are responsible for their own actions.

its funny, how hypocritical some americans are.

You say the right of abortion is all about freedom? ok, what about the unborn baby? what freedom does it have? no rights at all, it dosent get to choose to live or die.

So much for freedom








[/quote]

For once we agree Markosaur.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Markosaur said:


> They are responsible for their own actions.
> 
> its funny, how hypocritical some americans are.
> 
> ...


Speaking of hypocrisy, what happened to the freedom to choose whatever actions that they are initially responsible for?

What justification do you have for allowing an unborn fetus any "rights" to begin with? Do you eat animals? I bet you do. Where are their rights? You can easily say that I'm comparing oranges and apples, but am I really? Isn't life just that; life?! Actually, the only difference is that you can debate whether or not a fetus is actually technically alive to begin with.

I'd love to hear a rational explanation for this.

Pac


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

I believe that this descision will produce less illigitimate babies in the long run.

Every single time that you want more of something, have the government endorse it.

When government endorses abortion, the result is always going to be more abortions.

I believe that it is about time that some state woke up and stopped endorsing this murderous act. Again, I say that this will end up making people think twice about doing something that is just wrong.. 
the result will be less unwanted babies, less deadbeat dads, less broken homes -simply because they will have to think before they act, which is an excellent idea.
A strong family base is a strong nation.

You can't justify the murder of a baby. An unborn baby is still a baby. People try to walk that tightrope, but in the end they are just convincing themselves that evil is good. And a baby is worthless.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> I believe that this descision will produce less *illigitamate babies* in the long run.
> 
> Every single time that you want more of something, have the government endorse it.
> 
> ...


They aren't the ones who can categorize babies into "legitamate" and "illigitamate"


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

> They aren't the ones who can categorize babies into "legitamate" and "illigitamate"












il·le·git·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-jt-mt)
adj.

Born out of wedlock. 
Not in correct usage. 
Incorrectly deduced; illogical.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> I believe that this descision will produce less illigitimate babies in the long run.


That's fine. You're entitled to your belief, however people will still have abortions. Period.



> When government endorses abortion, the result is always going to be more abortions.


You know this because of past experience? How about regulating it instead of having it done illegally in the back of someones car, perhaps?



> I believe that it is about time that some state woke up and stopped endorsing this murderous act. Again, I say that this will end up making people think twice about doing something that is just wrong..


You're confusing morality and religious belief with the state.



> the result will be less unwanted babies, less deadbeat dads, less broken homes -simply because they will have to think before they act, which is an excellent idea.


People will still have abortions. If people thought it was that terrible, they wouldn't do it in the first place. Isn't freedom what makes your country so "supposedly" great? Where is the freedom here?



> A strong family base is a strong nation.


If the above statement is true, a family filled with crack babies makes what kind of nation?



> You can't justify the murder of a baby. An unborn baby is still a baby.


Opinion.



> People try to walk that tightrope, but in the end they are just convincing themselves that evil is good. And a baby is worthless.


While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, this is all your post is, and you should definitely attempt to make that clear. You have posted zero relevant proof to back anything that you've posted.

Regards,

Pac


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh lol...embarrasing....walk away Dan...

I tohught you meant it as like...that they had less worth, like they werent legitamate human beings. Cheers Dips!


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Oh lol...embarrasing....walk away Dan...
> 
> I tohught you meant it as like...that they had less worth, like they werent legitamate human beings. Cheers Dips!


Danny, I am so happy that we understand one another!!









Anything can happen!!









There is no baby that has less worth, that is the whole idea behind anti-abortion.. lol

It is completely illogical to carry out an act that potentially could create a human being that you would want to KILL

Tons of ppl trying to unjustly rationalize that one. It is just insanity.

The saddest part is there is so many ppl who would scold you if you fed your P a nice fish, or killed them by neglect.. and turned around to endorse abortion.

let alone partial birth abortion


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> Oh lol...embarrasing....walk away Dan...
> 
> I tohught you meant it as like...that they had less worth, like they werent legitamate human beings. Cheers Dips!


Danny, I am so happy that we understand one another!!









Anything can happen!!









There is no baby that has less worth, that is the whole idea behind anti-abortion.. lol

It is completely illogical to carry out an act that potentially could create a human being that you don't want, or would want to KILL

Tons of ppl trying to unjustly rationalize that one. It is just insanity.
[/quote]

Well, I am one of those people
















But thats because I was in a situation where this happened (no, I didnt "Gordeez" some girl), a friend and his girl got pregnant and she got realllly sick. It wasn't normal, and it was killing her slowly in my opinion. I wasnt involved really at all, but they came to the conclusion that it was unsafe for her to go through this (well, by they I mean she). And that was that. I didnt find out for a while, at first I was disgusted but then I saw the light of the situation.

In the end, I cannot judge them, but I am compassionate to what thier situation was and the actions they took.









The world would be boring if we all believed the same thing tho, right?

BTW- I dont know what I would do if in that kind of situation, I cant think I would ever support abortion, but I also dont think its my right to make that decision.

Here's what happens when abortion is banned:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10693294/

This miracle is far too rare.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

> That's fine. You're entitled to your belief, however people will still have abortions. Period.


is that any reason to justify them?


> You know this because of past experience? How about regulating it instead of having it done illegally in the back of someones car, perhaps?


How about not endorsing it to relay the message that this kind of stuff results in a dead baby?
also that a strong family ethic is very important to any nation?


> You're confusing morality and religious belief with the state.


You mean that your conscience would allow you to just kill your innocent baby, with absolutely no second thought about weather it was a good thing or a bad thing to do? I doubt it.. 


> People will still have abortions. If people thought it was that terrible, they wouldn't do it in the first place. Isn't freedom what makes your country so "supposedly" great? Where is the freedom here?


Murder is not terrible? Freedom does not work without strong families strongly committed to doing the right thing.. that is why this nation is the way it is. Freedom is not the 'right' to slaughter your own baby because you might have to spend your $$ on he/she instead of yourself.
Defending the murder of babies is a twisted, sick and perverted act. I say the government should not endorse it, in a free society.. for the sake of the nations health


> If the above statement is true, a family filled with crack babies makes what kind of nation?


A nation that gives all life a chance


> QUOTE
> You can't justify the murder of a baby. An unborn baby is still a baby.
> Opinion.


That is fact, not opinion.. this is a useless argument, that is completely based on someone trying to justify the murder of an unborn child.


> While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, this is all your post is, and you should definitely attempt to make that clear. You have posted zero relevant proof to back anything that you've posted.
> Regards,
> Pac


I posted the fact that abortion, no matter what, is the murder of a baby. You state that babies in the mothers womb are not babies.. where are your facts?



DannyBoy17 said:


> Well, I am one of those people
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Round Head (Sep 26, 2005)

The same people bitching and moaning about feeding live rodents and big fish to piranhas are supporting human abortion.
Are humans of lower life forms than fish and rodents?
Makes me wonder if these guys ever had a dad to beat the common sense into their warped brain.
Weird.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Round Head said:


> The same people bitching and moaning about feeding live rodents and big fish to piranhas are supporting human abortion.
> Are humans of lower life forms than fish and rodents?
> Makes me wonder if these guys ever had a dad to beat the common sense into their warped brain.
> Weird.


Oh yes, common sense is beaten into children through physical abuse by their parents. Thank you for that input so we can glean where the anti-abortion people get some of their ideas from. Brain damage, caused by physical abuse, delivered by their abusive fathers...


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

Round Head said:


> The same people bitching and moaning about feeding live rodents and big fish to piranhas are supporting human abortion.
> Are humans of lower life forms than fish and rodents?
> Makes me wonder if these guys ever had a dad to beat the common sense into their warped brain.
> Weird.


By the way, because I am compassionate, I bought you something:










It must be lonely being so clueless


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

who says they're going to be crack baby's pac? they deserve the chance to do something with their lives. instead of being cut up because their mother wont be able to afford her coke anymore...adoption is the best option in my opinion. there are a LOT of people looking to adopt, who can't, because children are not available. they're being needlessly killed. some day you're going to be lying in a hospital bed, looking at the 30 year old doctor who saved your life, and you're going to thank his mother that he was not aborted. taking our freedoms? killing people is not one of our freedoms, im sorry...in america, you go to jail for that, because its illegal. so then why should we condone it just because the fetus is not born yet? i applaud SD for having the nuts to take a stand...

also, about the whole religious aspect, im anti-abortion because its a sick thing to do, not because im a religious fanatic...im a democrat to boot. religion has nothing to do with where i stand on political matters...and i hope its the same for most other people as well.


----------



## flyboy (May 11, 2004)

I can understand both arguments, however I wish people would think about their actions beforehand. I have to agree with bullsnake on this one, abortion has become a fall-back for women who are sexually active. Why were a condom when I can just have an abortion? I do understand, however, that we do not need anymore fatherless children running the streets causing crime. But I do not believe that abortion is the way to go. Denying a child the right to live seems more oppressive than denying a woman the right to live without children. Life, liberty, and property are our natural rights, which should be given to all people, especially those who haven't had a chance to taste it yet. I find it very wrong that a person can rape, murder, torture another person, and still have more freedom and oppurtunities than all the aborted babies. If an innocent child's life is not protected as much as a murderer's, I don't know what to say. Look at all the people picketing the death penalty, yet we still have abortion. By the way, many physicians and researcher believe a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks. The pain receptors develop at around 7 weeks, the spino-thalamic system at 13 weeks.


----------



## JYUB (Dec 19, 2003)

Ron Mexico said:


> Next step is making it illegal for women to wear clothes that show any skin except eyelids, leave the house without a man present and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota


I want to change this read below...


----------



## flyboy (May 11, 2004)

Here are some disturbing facts about abortion.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/...ks?%20Show%20me!

Some highlights

By 8 weeks? Show me!

By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.

Give an example.

Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.

WARNING *This is very disturbing*

What of The Silent Scream?

A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12- week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby's mouth clearly opens wide - hence, the title (available from Heritage House '76 at http:www.heritagehouse76.com). Proabortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p. A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did the abortion in Silent Scream definitely debunks any criticism of Silent Scream's accuracy. The Answer, Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.


----------



## JYUB (Dec 19, 2003)

Why do people care so much abou this? Go send you PEOPLE llovingness to Iraq, where we kill PEOPLE daily. They are not fetus's. They are grown people. I hate how people think aboortion is so wrong, yet they believe in the death penalty....its a crock.

Whats better? Kids having kids?

Next time I go to Seattle, I am going to beat the crap out of one of those protesting crazies outside of the clinics....THATS wrong.

PRO-CHOICE....or otherwise you support crack babies and wellfare losers..


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

JYUB said:


> Why do people care so much abou this? Go send you PEOPLE llovingness to Iraq, where we kill PEOPLE daily. They are not fetus's. They are grown people. I hate how people think aboortion is so wrong, yet they believe in the death penalty....its a crock.
> 
> Whats better? Kids having kids?
> 
> ...


There has been alot of GREAT discussion on this thread about this topic!

Dippy - Great stuff! See, we are on the same page!

JYUB - There is a huge difference in taking the life of a man that has a AK-47 shooting at you, cutting off the heads of innocent people, and other atrocities against humanity...verses taking the life of an unborn child that they have PROVEN feels the pain. This is no longer debated...it just isn't talked about. Don't believe me? Go into a Planned Parenthood clinic and ask them. They will either lie to you, skirt the issue or distract you with another statistic that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I did this personally...

I agree with you 100 percent that those people protesting are wrong as well. There are alot of people that agree with protesting in non-violent (and violent) ways. I do not agree with it at all...so I am with you!

You are still going to have "crack babies and welfare losers" as they are NOT the ones that are getting the abortions. How do you think they can even pay for them? They can't...they don't. They have their children, the middle/upper class white society are the primary ones using the abortion method.

Just wanted to clarify....


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

JYUB said:


> Next step is making it illegal for women to wear clothes that show any skin except eyelids, leave the house without a man present and renaming the state to *Saudi* Dakota


I want to change this read below...
[/quote]

are you replying to me ?


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

elTwitcho said:


> I believe that this descision will produce less illigitimate babies in the long run.
> 
> Every single time that you want more of something, have the government endorse it.
> 
> ...


Im right there with ya dippy.


----------



## aznkon (Apr 27, 2004)

Why would anyone want to be born into a family that does not want them? If a parent does not want a child and you force that person to take care of the child can you imagine the torture the child will feel? For instance do you think a crackwhore baby would feel good being raised in an environment where the mother does crack all day and sells her body to various men to support her habit while not putting food on the table? Not to mention the fact that the child born from such addicts will come out of the womb having a crack habit itself. Now another scenario. Lets say the baby goes to an orphanage. Currently there are tons of children who sit there waiting to be adopted. Making abortion illegal leads to more unwanted babies sent to the orphanages and in the long run sends more unwanted CHILDREN to the orphanages and leads to a bunch of adults raised in orphanages always wishing they had a real family. Now to my last point. The socioeconomic class that is getting the most out of the abortions are probably the middle class. Now you can think of it as the woman and man not wanting the child OR you can think of the many women and men out there who CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE ANOTHER CHILD. It's a fact that raising a child is not cheap. Not everyone can do it. Would it be better for a middle class family to support one or two children or would it be better for a lower class family to support 8 children? I have cousins who were raised in families that survive on welfare. Give me a break. Welfare does not give you a good life. Welfare makes you jealous of people who don't need welfare. How would you like to be the kid in school with the jeans that were too tight and too short because your parents could only afford to buy you a new pair of jeans once every year? How would you like it if you had to wear the hand-me-downs from your bother...that got it from his cousin...who got it from his dad...who got it from goodwill because he couldn't afford a new pair because he had to put food on the table? China has a good idea by having each family only able to have one child. I wouldn't limit a family to having only one child. I would say the number of children should correlate postively with the number of dollars the parents make. It's sad but the reverse is true. People who make less money and are less educated are more likely to have children. Life is already unfair as it is and an unwanted baby is a baby born with a handicap...abortion is just a way of saying "I don't want to put you through hell before you die" I don't believe that abortion is right but it is a necessary evil.

damn that's a long post. if you read through the whole thing congrats.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

PastorJeff said:


> Possibly another small victory for Christian fundamentalists, imposing their religiously motivated beliefs on others, non-believers included - and that in an on paper secular country, with a clear division between state and church
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh? Are you saying only Christian fundamentalists oppose abortion?
I don't think this is a religious issue, although it is true many christians oppose abortion. I'm sure there are many other people (non-believers included) that oppose abortion for reasons other than religion.
[/quote]
I totally agree with this statement. It is not JUST the Christian fundamentalists that oppose abortion. While that is my reason, it is not everyone's reason. And furthermore, this thing is going to get bogged down so far in court that it will never see daylight unless it is backed by the U.S. Supreme court. Should be interesting.

Wether you agree with the abortion stance or not, you gotta give the guy credit for having one huge set of balls for signing the thing!








[/quote]
No offense meant Jeff, but it doesn't really take a sociologist to figure out where these kinds of ideas originates: it's in the same field where anti-gay rights, anti-euthanasia sentiments etc. sprout from. By this I don't mean Christians in general, as you can't throw them all on one big pile, but it's no secret that most conservative (in my European eyes even backward and oppressive) ideas come from: the ultra-conservatism Christian rightwing. So yeah, knowing that by no means all Christians are like that, and also knowing that not only hardcore Christians are against abortion, I would still label such a law as a success for that extremist group of people in particular. To add to that: I don't care what group it is, but I do care that a minority has a huge hand in imposing their beliefs on others, non-believers as well as moderate believers - it's an Iran-style mixture of completely interwoven political and religious affairs, imo. And that is wrong, as in a secular, modern-day Western democracy religion should *always and under all circumstances* be subjected to worldy affairs.

Having said that, of course I don't support abortion for people too stupid/drunk/stubborn/religious to use a condom. People should still be held accontable for their own actions, under all circumstances. Rape however, or a potentially life-treatening disease or condition that may endanger the live of a pregnant woman, things like that do not fall under personal accountablility, and I strongly support their right to help themselves in whatever scientific/responsible way available, even if that means something as extreme as abortion. Society has no right to tell a rape victim that she'll have to suck it up and care for an unwanted, unplanned child that may derail her entire life. Society has no right to dictate to individuals with individual beliefs, morals and values whether abortion to save the live of a mother in need/danger is appropriate or not.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Slim said:


> You do the crime (SEX)


You think people should be punished for having sex? It's a natural thing bro, I don't see what's wrong with it.

And well, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I can totally see how forcing teenage parents, single mothers, drug abusers and any other irresponsible member of society to carry their child to term is a real boon to the economy. Without that, we wouldn't have children being raised by crackheads so they can become drug abusers themselves, single mothers with no education who can't provide a healthy environment for their children or the time and effort to raise them properly, kids growing up with no father figures....

Yep, let's all punish the children and make them grow up in a loveless environment because their parents were irresponsible and too stupid to use a condom. Makes perfect sense to me
[/quote]

No it was a statement that If you have sex you should be aware of the consicunses<-- pardon my spelling. In other words if you have sex it might lead to kids and if you dont want that dont have sex, instead of killing a child after you decide you dont want it, think of it this way maybe your mother and father should of had an abortion and you wouldnt be here, would you want that?
[/quote]

I wouldn't care because I wouldn't exist. Do you think the child you didn't have 2 years ago because you didn't have sex with a woman who got pregnant cares that it wasn't born?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

I wonder when Ms. Natt will post those pics she has....


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Simple. THe solution is this...
Just take 3 Birth COntrol pills the nest day someone gets jizzed in/or does the jizzing, and No worry.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> adoption is the best option in my opinion. there are a LOT of people looking to adopt, who can't, because children are not available.


This statement is absolutely false. There are far more children in orphanages than there are people looking to adopt. And if adoption wasn't so outrageously expensive people would be more willing to adopt in the U.S. instead of foreign countries.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Im glad they made abortion illegal and I think they should throught the whole United States. In my opinion your killing a baby, a life. You do the crime (SEX), You pay time (parenting).


Okay, buddy.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me. The fact that there's no exception in the case of rape or incest is digusting. If men got pregnant, they'd have drive-thru abortions.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right? her father i had never met(i was with her for 8 years before we split up) her mother i called the cops on over a dozen times because she was an alcoholic abusive bitch. my parents worked ALL the time and didnt have the money to raise anouther child. i didnt even have a drivers permit yet so there gos any hope of paying my self. who thinks this kid would have had a good childhood? and who thinks i dont think of it every fuckin day?


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Most of the country is agreed on the abortion issue, but it gets hijacked by both extremes, who represent the interest groups fighting for or against it. The average person would condone it in the first trimester, but not any later except when it threatens the life of the mother. Rape or incest is another exception. I cannot believe the religous right would force a 14 year old girl raped by a family member to have a child. Such people seriously need to establish their own fundamentalist country somewhere else. These are the same sick christain reconstructionists who would establish Biblical law in place of the constitution. Then again, the left seems to condone abortion at any stage, since they overlook personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, most of the hard-religious right sees no problem in the United States exporting death and destruction globally, as well our leaders' destroying our own country from within, as long as raped women are forced to have their babies. How sick is that!


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

ShatteredSkyy said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right? her father i had never met(i was with her for 8 years before we split up) her mother i called the cops on over a dozen times because she was an alcoholic abusive bitch. my parents worked ALL the time and didnt have the money to raise anouther child. i didnt even have a drivers permit yet so there gos any hope of paying my self. who thinks this kid would have had a good childhood? and who thinks i dont think of it every fuckin day?


I agree with you. If you had that child, continuing school would have been very hard. College would be out of the question because you'll have to work full time to support your family. You'd probably be on welfare.

This is one of the main reasons why I'm pro-choice. If you're forced to have a child when you're not ready then you'll probably be a leech on society instead of a contributor. I don't see forcing people to start a family as strengthening our society.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

Fargo said:


> Unfortunately, most of the hard-religious right sees no problem in the United States exporting death and destruction globally, as well our leaders' destroying our own country from within, as long as raped women are forced to have their babies. How sick is that!


AMEN


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

ShatteredSkyy said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right?


Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2006)

Slim said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right?


Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.
[/quote]

So *that's* how you got the Breeding Award!


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Slim said:


> Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.


Wow, you're the posterboy for responsibility. Out of curiosity.... are you and the mother still together or married?


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Slim said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right?


Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.
[/quote]

Wow, *Personal Responsibility*! It's a great concept. Unfortunately, it's one that's lost on a lot of people here.

For the record, I have mixed feelings on the issue. I'm pro-abortion in certain cases such as rape, incest, mortal danger to mom, etc. But I'm definitely against late-term abortions where the woman just "chooses" to. I'm a little shady on the cases in between..


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> So yeah, knowing that by no means all Christians are like that, and also knowing that not only hardcore Christians are against abortion, I would still label such a law as a success for that extremist group of people in particular. To add to that: I don't care what group it is, but I do care that a minority has a huge hand in imposing their beliefs on others, non-believers as well as moderate believers - it's an Iran-style mixture of completely interwoven political and religious affairs, imo. And that is wrong, as in a secular, modern-day Western democracy religion should *always and under all circumstances* be subjected to worldy affairs.


I find the above comment very curious...in 2001 77% of America stated that they were Christian. Now this is down from 88% from 1981. But that is still a far cry from being a minority. But my question is more centered on the latter part of your statement. Do you feel that a nation that is "one nation under God" and is 77% Christian...that they should be subjected to worldy affairs? I would love to discuss this one further. I have never heard that statement before. Very interesting!

Good discussion Judazzz!


----------



## werdna (Mar 15, 2005)

FINALLY


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

Slim said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right?


Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.
[/quote]

17 and 16 is a far cry from 15 and 13. you had a few things on me. 1. a car 2. you could work more then 16 hours a weel(michigan child labor law if your under 16) 3. between 15 and 17 you mature an awfull lot. 4. you were at least in high school. 5. at 15/13 you have no concept of those kind of consiquenses. 6 . as much as im sure you love your kid im will to bet you dont have the money at 17 to provide everything you want to for him/her. 7. bet ya didnt go to college and youll never break 60k a year. 8. bet your mamma or her momma took care of your ass... and if they didnt the government did(if not both). 9.bet if you havent split with babys mom yet you will. 10. I wanna give my kid everything i didnt have. if i would have had a kid at 15 he wouldnt have gottin sh*t. just like me, i just cant have that.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

ShatteredSkyy said:


> 17 and 16 is a far cry from 15 and 13. you had a few things on me. 1. a car 2. you could work more then 16 hours a weel(michigan child labor law if your under 16) 3. between 15 and 17 you mature an awfull lot. 4. you were at least in high school. 5. at 15/13 you have no concept of those kind of consiquenses. 6 . as much as im sure you love your kid im will to bet you dont have the money at 17 to provide everything you want to for him/her. 7. bet ya didnt go to college and youll never break 60k a year. 8. bet your mamma or her momma took care of your ass... and if they didnt the government did(if not both). 9.bet if you havent split with babys mom yet you will. 10. I wanna give my kid everything i didnt have. if i would have had a kid at 15 he wouldnt have gottin sh*t. just like me, i just cant have that.


Good points man.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.


The words of a real man


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

flyboy said:


> I can understand both arguments, however I wish people would think about their actions beforehand. I have to agree with bullsnake on this one, abortion has become a fall-back for women who are sexually active. Why were a condom when I can just have an abortion? I do understand, however, that we do not need anymore fatherless children running the streets causing crime. But I do not believe that abortion is the way to go. Denying a child the right to live seems more oppressive than denying a woman the right to live without children. Life, liberty, and property are our natural rights, which should be given to all people, especially those who haven't had a chance to taste it yet. I find it very wrong that a person can rape, murder, torture another person, and still have more freedom and oppurtunities than all the aborted babies. If an innocent child's life is not protected as much as a murderer's, I don't know what to say. Look at all the people picketing the death penalty, yet we still have abortion. By the way, many physicians and researcher believe a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks. The pain receptors develop at around 7 weeks, the spino-thalamic system at 13 weeks.


A fetus doesn't have rudimentary thought until 27 weeks or more. People that scream murder over zygotes aren't in touch with common medical knowledge.

Anyway, some people picket the death penalty and are prochoice, understood. Some people picket abortion clinics but support the death penalty. Any block to try and present zygotes must be kept alive and safe and that crimes must be put to death doesn't add. (that is another discussion) One side is presented with medical studies and slight humanism. Other is religious in nature. Taken from Judism, which is an older form of christianity and islam, a baby becomes human once passed through the birth canal.


----------



## flyboy (May 11, 2004)

Like I said, pain receptors develop within 7 weeks, and the spino-thalamic system, which is the pathway of pain sensations, at 13, way before 20. Some feel that this is enough to send pain sensations. Thought, emotions, and advanced Central nervous system functions are way different than sensory neurons. The brain stem, including the midbrain, is what controls involuntary actions and sensations. This part of the CNS is pretty much functional at 13 weeks. If you examine the brain of a lower life form you will notice that the brain stem is much larger, while the cerebrum is small and primitive. Yet these animals still feel pain and want to survive. If at 8 weeks a fetus does not feel pain, or anything for that matter, how do you explain the fetus dodging the vacuum and opening its mouth in a pain-like expression? Also, when observing a fetus, the fetus will move around avoiding the spinal column of the mother to get in a "comfortable" position.


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

scrappydoo said:


> Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.


Wow, you're the posterboy for responsibility. Out of curiosity.... are you and the mother still together or married?
[/quote]

Yes and we have another child only 1 year old.


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

ShatteredSkyy said:


> people who dont believe in abortion have never been in the position to need/want one. its that simple. unplaned preg is one thing. a rape victum is anouther. people(most) dont use abortion as means of birth control. my g/f had an abortion when i got her preg. i was 15 she was 13. who can honestly tell me we would have made good parents? so what is falls on the backs of our parents then right?


Shouldnt have had sex than if you werent going to be responsible for your actions. I had a kid at 17 my girlfriend was 16. And im a great parent.
[/quote]

So *that's* how you got the Breeding Award!
[/quote]

One of um ya. Xenon seen me in action


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

PastorJeff said:


> So yeah, knowing that by no means all Christians are like that, and also knowing that not only hardcore Christians are against abortion, I would still label such a law as a success for that extremist group of people in particular. To add to that: I don't care what group it is, but I do care that a minority has a huge hand in imposing their beliefs on others, non-believers as well as moderate believers - it's an Iran-style mixture of completely interwoven political and religious affairs, imo. And that is wrong, as in a secular, modern-day Western democracy religion should *always and under all circumstances* be subjected to worldy affairs.


I find the above comment very curious...in 2001 77% of America stated that they were Christian. Now this is down from 88% from 1981. But that is still a far cry from being a minority. But my question is more centered on the latter part of your statement. Do you feel that a nation that is "one nation under God" and is 77% Christian...that they should be subjected to worldy affairs? I would love to discuss this one further. I have never heard that statement before. Very interesting!

Good discussion Judazzz!
[/quote]
Yes, I really believe that: for the simple reason that religion and religiously motivated morals and values should never be imposed on people (in particular non-believers, but also not on moderate believers that are [much] less dogmatic than their hardcore fellow-believers, or believers of other faiths), and should not have influence on wordly affairs, be it on abortion, legislation, domestic/foreign affairs, etc.
I'm aware that in the Western world Christian morals and values historically are a key component of society, even for those that are not believers, and that is fine (it's part of our way of living), but religion should not become the measure to which wordly affairs should be weighed. Although religions did become organised (they had/have to in order to survive as an institution), religion in the end is a personal belief and experience, and should always remain that.
The US by constitution is a secular state, despite the "One nation under God"-slogan, and despite the fact that the vast majority of Christian. And that way it should be governed, imo. (and that applies to all states, be it Christian, Islamic, Hindu or whatever). Religion in my mind is a set of social and moral rules, and it may have impacted legislation and politics in both good and bad ways, but it should not be the Leitmotiv of any worldly government.
In my mind at least religion should always be subjected to worldy affairs - not because I'm anti-religion - I'm not, although I can write a whole list of beef I have with organised religion(s!) and their way of conduct - but because I think reality and rationality (I'm saying this with no intention to insult religion) should dictate what we want and where we are heading as a people, a country and a world.

btw: spoken by an atheist...


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

ok i think abortion is a womans right, and should not be made ilegal, 
now that being said, who is startin the poll on this subject


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> btw: spoken by an atheist...


Spoken by a Christian. If I am ever in your neck of the woods, we should go get a beer (well...I will get a mountain dew...but you get the point) and have ourselves some good conversation.

What did the samurai say to Tom Cruise in "The Last Samurai"?

"This has been a good conversation"


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

QUOTE; The whole 17 to 15 is correct you do mature alot, and yes i worked more than 16 hour weeks also, id put in 12 hour days on the weekends. She was 15 at the time she got pregnant. I was in high school. I didnt have the money at the time for her to give her what she wanted. I didnt go to college and I wont break 60K a year but I do break 40k. No my momma or her momma didnt take care of our asses, yes we lived in there houses still being under the age of 18 but we took care of our child with all the money we had. My woman did go to college she is a registered nurse. We make good money now just took time my friend. But even if you are poor and cant afford all the right things someone else is more than happy to adopt a child so they can take care of the child in ways you can not. Her mom died the same year we had the child so she was getting social security which did help out tremendosly. Im just stating there are other options besides taking an inocent life out of this world. You decided to have intercourse did you not? Well before you did you should have thought about what might happen. And we havent split yet and we never will we are getting married next year acctually been together for years and never get sick of each other. END QUOTE.

Congrats. I'm happy for you , i really am. and i hope it works out. Looking back I would have liked to say I would do adoption... but i know if I would have that I would have kept it in the end and been in the same boat as you(low income, working harder then you should). Now when I choose to have a child I have the money to give him everything I never had and can afford to have my girl sit at home and raise him. Those are luxuries I would have never had. I think in the end I made the responsible decision for my future and my future children. everyone makes the choices they think are the right ones at the time. and unfortunately we have to live and learn from them. I learned from mine and I still have to live with the fact I killed my children, I dream about it and think about it all the time. To top it all off the doctor afterward walked up to us and pulled me aside and told me it was twins(runs in my family, mom is a twin). I guess he felt like that was necessary. It made me sleep much better. In the end who are you or anyone for that matter to judge me or my situation? Its easy to make I'm sure as you had the luxury of good parents. Everyone states their opinion and its so easy to do when your not in the others shoes. I can use Iraq as an example. Everyone says how we don't negotiate with terrorists. What if it was your mother, sister, brother that they kidnaped? You would want the government to do anything to get them back. So by all means go vote against it and when you have a 16 year old father rob you at gun point for the 50 bucks in your pocket so he can feed his kid you'll all know why. Cause if I would have had those kids, I would have been doing anything I could to feed them.


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

ShatteredSkyy said:


> QUOTE; The whole 17 to 15 is correct you do mature alot, and yes i worked more than 16 hour weeks also, id put in 12 hour days on the weekends. She was 15 at the time she got pregnant. I was in high school. I didnt have the money at the time for her to give her what she wanted. I didnt go to college and I wont break 60K a year but I do break 40k. No my momma or her momma didnt take care of our asses, yes we lived in there houses still being under the age of 18 but we took care of our child with all the money we had. My woman did go to college she is a registered nurse. We make good money now just took time my friend. But even if you are poor and cant afford all the right things someone else is more than happy to adopt a child so they can take care of the child in ways you can not. Her mom died the same year we had the child so she was getting social security which did help out tremendosly. Im just stating there are other options besides taking an inocent life out of this world. You decided to have intercourse did you not? Well before you did you should have thought about what might happen. And we havent split yet and we never will we are getting married next year acctually been together for years and never get sick of each other. END QUOTE.
> 
> I learned from mine and I still have to live with the fact I killed my children, I dream about it and think about it all the time. To top it all off the doctor afterward walked up to us and pulled me aside and told me it was twins(runs in my family, mom is a twin). I guess he felt like that was necessary. It made me sleep much better.
> So by all means go vote against it and when you have a 16 year old father rob you at gun point for the 50 bucks in your pocket so he can feed his kid you'll all know why. Cause if I would have had those kids, I would have been doing anything I could to feed them.


Im sorry to her that. But should a 16 year old father really be a father at all? Maybe if he had better parents he wouldnt be a father, or even if he would have thought responsibly. Instead of just getting his jollys off.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

indeed...not only that, the 16 year old father is going to go away to jail for armed robbery, and his son/daughter will be sent to an orphanage where his father wont introduce him to drugs, violence, and other bad sh*t...

i think, in certain cases of rape, and if the womans life is threatened, those are the only way i would support an abortion, and only before the second tri-mester.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

But should a 16 year old father really be a father at all? Maybe if he had better parents he wouldnt be a father, or even if he would have thought responsibly. Instead of just getting his jollys off.

not only that, the 16 year old father is going to go away to jail for armed robbery, and his son/daughter will be sent to an orphanage where his father wont introduce him to drugs, violence, and other bad sh*t...

correct, my point exactly


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

yeah, he'll learn his lesson, instead of being a f*ck up to society. if you let him off the hook, and he never goes jail, gets caught robbing someone etc... then he thinks its ok to have sex and if the chick gets pregnant, oh well, just slice it up and suck it out...easy as pie. then he's a f*ck up all his life because he takes the easy way out instead of actually trying to become a good person, respectable, getting and holding a job to support himself and his family.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

have you been reading the argument at all?? he* is me. and I am the sales manager of a car dealership. Im 23 and i break 6 figures and own a 400k dollar house.since only 6% of america (the richest country in the world) makes over 100k a year. odds are you dont and wont. so be carfull who you insult and call a f*ck up, again you dont know me or anyone else im sure you pass judgment on and think your better then.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

hey man, cool it, i was generalizing, LIKE YOU...you're not the only one who can stereotype...its true, maybe you made it, and are well off now, but most people wont, most dink face 16 year olds who have kids are going to be f*ck ups. congrats dude, you crawled out of your irresponsibility and have made it as an asset to society, however, the majority of people in the same situation will not make it like that.

good job having a double standard though...



















> again you dont know me or anyone else im sure you pass judgment on and think your better then.


maybe i should say im better than you first, so that your argument doesnt look completely ignorant.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

you have two people. Slim was 17, hes not a f*ck up. so what are you basing your argument on? stats you assume in your head? im not saying everyone of them is gonna make a ton of loot. I was saying the opposite, they will be struggling their whole life. because someone has an abortion that doesn't make them f*ck ups. and ya when you call someone a f*ck up you ARE passing judgement and saying you are better then them. so you did indirectly say you were better then I. How wouldn’t I get upset about that?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Both ShatteredSkyy and Slim were in similiar situations, but chose different paths. Personally, I think ShatteredSkyy made a very difficult but benificial decision and is doing well for himself. He's in a position now where he can raise a child properly. By properly I mean his wife can stay home and raise thier child instead of having a stranger in a daycare raise it or mooching of his parents.

Slim, you said so yourself; "Should a 16 year old be a father at all?" You survived because you lived with your gf's parents, not everyone can do that. Your situation turned out fine, but that's not the story for everyone. And a majority of the time the kids that decide to have kids live off of welfare and DSHS, where they're sucking money out of the system instead of contributing to it.

I'm not saying one choice was better than the other. What I'm saying is the choice should be available for everyone.

If you take the stance that you do the crime, you pay the time; then you shouldn't have a problem paying higher taxes to support people living off of the system.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)




----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> indeed...not only that, the 16 year old father is going to go away to jail for armed robbery, and his son/daughter will be sent to an orphanage where his father wont introduce him to drugs, violence, and other bad sh*t...
> 
> i think, in certain cases of rape, and if the womans life is threatened, those are the only way i would support an abortion, and only before the second tri-mester.


*WHAT?* where did that come from?


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

scrappydoo said:


> Both ShatteredSkyy and Slim were in similiar situations, but chose different paths. Personally, I think ShatteredSkyy made a very difficult but benificial decision and is doing well for himself. He's in a position now where he can raise a child properly. By properly I mean his wife can stay home and raise thier child instead of having a stranger in a daycare raise it or mooching of his parents.
> 
> Slim, you said so yourself; "Should a 16 year old be a father at all?" *You survived because you lived with your gf's parents, not everyone can do that*. Your situation turned out fine, but that's not the story for everyone. And a majority of the time the kids that decide to have kids live off of welfare and DSHS, where they're sucking money out of the system instead of contributing to it.
> 
> ...


I lived at home for awhile and that has nothing to do with the reason we survived. And we are doing great now. Maybe not 6 figures great but sh*t not many make 6 figures and own 400k houses you know what I mean. They will raise taxes anyways of course so of course i will pay them.

But what I am getting out of it is SKY is saying it was better for him to take his childs life so he could go on and be successful and do what he wants so he could afford one of his unborn childs brothers or sisters? Doesnt make since to me but id rather struggle my whole life and have my kid their by side than not. My opinion I guess. He wanted to be successful so he took a life to do so. SO he could be a better person? He would be the same person if he had a child just not as much MONEY. Some people must care about money more than a life. Where has this world gone to?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Slim said:


> I lived at home for awhile and that has nothing to do with the reason we survived. And we are doing great now. Maybe not 6 figures great but sh*t not many make 6 figures and own 400k houses you know what I mean. They will raise taxes anyways of course so of course i will pay them.
> 
> But what I am getting out of it is SKY is saying it was better for him to take his childs life so he could go on and be successful and do what he wants so he could afford one of his unborn childs brothers or sisters? Doesnt make since to me but id rather struggle my whole life and have my kid their by side than not. My opinion I guess. He wanted to be successful so he took a life to do so. SO he could be a better person? He would be the same person if he had a child just not as much MONEY. Some people must care about money more than a life. Where has this world gone to?


He didn't do it for himself, he did it becuase he knew he couldn't raise a child properly at that time. He wasn't mature enough and not established at the time. The mental development of a child is just as important as the physical comforts you can provide. At 16&17 you aren't even done developing mentally yourself. How can a child raise a child? You still make irresponsible descisions, that's why the drinking age is at 21, you're not trusted to vote yet, and can't purchase a handgun. The government thinks we don't begin to become stable until 21 years of age.

Living with your gf's parents is a major reason you survived. You can't get a lease for an apartment at 17, and how are you going to finish school, work full-time, and have time to raise your child without thier help? The 3 options can not be done at the same time without help, and even then it's extremly hard. Then when you graduate, your gf's still going to be in school. How are you going to work full-time and take car of your kid while she's in school? You've got to take the first job you can get just to pay the bills, and there's a very good chance it will be a low wage job. Now you depend on the small wage you get and can't afford to take time off to go to college. Thinking and planning for your future isn't selfish in my opinion. I think it's even more selfish for a couple or single parent to bring a child into this world when they know they can't take care of it.

Let's presume half of teenage pregnancies are aborted. If that half is forced to raise a child you've just doubled the load on welfare. Living off of welfare is a great learning tool for a child, it teaches them that they don't have to worry, the government will always take care of them.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

I dont think keeping it when unable to fanatically take care of it is any more or less selfish then what i chose. its just different. I dont think any less of slim because he wont be able to buy his son/daughter a new car when they turn 16. but i also dont think anyone else should think less of me because i wanted to be able to. you followed your heart, I followed my head, its that simple. she missed her period and in the next week we had tested and decided what to do. it wasnt even 8 weeks in. this wasnt a pre birth or anything. as far as welfare goes i am undecided on it, i think some deserve it while others dont but there isnt ever a real system for telling the difference.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

I think my reply sounded a bit accusatory. It wasn't directed at Slim, just reasoning why having help and being established help in raising a child.


----------



## ShatteredSkyy (Feb 22, 2006)

help? i dont really think theres anouther healthy way.


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

scrappydoo said:


> I lived at home for awhile and that has nothing to do with the reason we survived. And we are doing great now. Maybe not 6 figures great but sh*t not many make 6 figures and own 400k houses you know what I mean. They will raise taxes anyways of course so of course i will pay them.
> 
> But what I am getting out of it is SKY is saying it was better for him to take his childs life so he could go on and be successful and do what he wants so he could afford one of his unborn childs brothers or sisters? Doesnt make since to me but id rather struggle my whole life and have my kid their by side than not. My opinion I guess. He wanted to be successful so he took a life to do so. SO he could be a better person? He would be the same person if he had a child just not as much MONEY. Some people must care about money more than a life. Where has this world gone to?


He didn't do it for himself, he did it becuase he knew he couldn't raise a child properly at that time. He wasn't mature enough and not established at the time. The mental development of a child is just as important as the physical comforts you can provide. At 16&17 you aren't even done developing mentally yourself. How can a child raise a child? You still make irresponsible descisions, that's why the drinking age is at 21, you're not trusted to vote yet, and can't purchase a handgun. The government thinks we don't begin to become stable until 21 years of age.

Living with your gf's parents is a major reason you survived. You can't get a lease for an apartment at 17, and how are you going to finish school, work full-time, and have time to raise your child without thier help? The 3 options can not be done at the same time without help, and even then it's extremly hard. Then when you graduate, your gf's still going to be in school. How are you going to work full-time and take car of your kid while she's in school? You've got to take the first job you can get just to pay the bills, and there's a very good chance it will be a low wage job. Now you depend on the small wage you get and can't afford to take time off to go to college. Thinking and planning for your future isn't selfish in my opinion. I think it's even more selfish for a couple or single parent to bring a child into this world when they know they can't take care of it.

Let's presume half of teenage pregnancies are aborted. If that half is forced to raise a child you've just doubled the load on welfare. Living off of welfare is a great learning tool for a child, it teaches them that they don't have to worry, the government will always take care of them.
[/quote]

Im not on welfare and never have been. I am a welder at a trailer company and my woman went to college for nursing we make very descent wages now and you know what Id never take the years away we kind of struggled to raise or child cause it all works out in the end. My kids are my life, they brighten my day and make me want to go on with life more than anything in the world. And you could feel the same way I do if you wouldnt get abortions. Not saying you dont fell good now just I have a great day everyday because of my kids. I think abortion is a bad choice for anyone, like I said before there are alot of other parents on a waiting list to adopt a child, if you cant take care of it have someone adopt it. I dont think abortion should be legal I dont think it should be an option. Life is life no matter how you look at it. And if you take that away what else is their. Its like the death penalty, your choosing for someone to live or die and you chose death over life. Just watching them grow up and get older brings a smile to my face. But those who get abortions will never know what that means. Teens shouldnt be having intercourse plain and simple and if they do they should take responibilties for their actions cause as far as I knew intercourse is an adult thing anyways isnt it. Its something mature adults do. Not children. How do kids even kow about this stuff. I made a mistake in highschool I did, and im not gonna lie about it, but I dont regret it and never would becuase i knew I had to grow up and be mature even if I wasnt ready to because I chose to do grown up things.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Slim said:


> Im not on welfare and never have been. I am a welder at a trailer company and my woman went to college for nursing we make very descent wages now and you know what Id never take the years away we kind of struggled to raise or child cause it all works out in the end. My kids are my life, they brighten my day and make me want to go on with life more than anything in the world. And you could feel the same way I do if you wouldnt get abortions. Not saying you dont fell good now just I have a great day everyday because of my kids. I think abortion is a bad choice for anyone, like I said before there are alot of other parents on a waiting list to adopt a child, if you cant take care of it have someone adopt it. I dont think abortion should be legal I dont think it should be an option. Life is life no matter how you look at it. And if you take that away what else is their. Its like the death penalty, your choosing for someone to live or die and you chose death over life. Just watching them grow up and get older brings a smile to my face. But those who get abortions will never know what that means. Teens shouldnt be having intercourse plain and simple and if they do they should take responibilties for their actions cause as far as I knew intercourse is an adult thing anyways isnt it. Its something mature adults do. Not children. How do kids even kow about this stuff. I made a mistake in highschool I did, and im not gonna lie about it, but I dont regret it and never would becuase i knew I had to grow up and be mature even if I wasnt ready to because I chose to do grown up things.


I'm not saying you're on welfare, I'm saying a lot of teen parents are. And forcing even more teens into parenthood is a bad idea. You got lucky and had support from your gf's parents, not everyone has that. This bill will force sally to raise her kid, even though Johnny has run off. I think a father figure is more important to a child than just child support.

I have a child and she's my world, but because I know how hard it is to raise a child I don't think it's ok for people not ready to have one to be forced into it.

And no, there are not enough foster parents to adopt the children we have in orphanages now. So I don't agree with the attitude that if you don't want your child someone else will adopt it. There's a very high chance that child will grow up in an orphanage without a family.


----------



## Slim (Jan 9, 2005)

scrappydoo said:


> Im not on welfare and never have been. I am a welder at a trailer company and my woman went to college for nursing we make very descent wages now and you know what Id never take the years away we kind of struggled to raise or child cause it all works out in the end. My kids are my life, they brighten my day and make me want to go on with life more than anything in the world. And you could feel the same way I do if you wouldnt get abortions. Not saying you dont fell good now just I have a great day everyday because of my kids. I think abortion is a bad choice for anyone, like I said before there are alot of other parents on a waiting list to adopt a child, if you cant take care of it have someone adopt it. I dont think abortion should be legal I dont think it should be an option. Life is life no matter how you look at it. And if you take that away what else is their. Its like the death penalty, your choosing for someone to live or die and you chose death over life. Just watching them grow up and get older brings a smile to my face. But those who get abortions will never know what that means. Teens shouldnt be having intercourse plain and simple and if they do they should take responibilties for their actions cause as far as I knew intercourse is an adult thing anyways isnt it. Its something mature adults do. Not children. How do kids even kow about this stuff. I made a mistake in highschool I did, and im not gonna lie about it, but I dont regret it and never would becuase i knew I had to grow up and be mature even if I wasnt ready to because I chose to do grown up things.


I'm not saying you're on welfare, I'm saying a lot of teen parents are. And forcing even more teens into parenthood is a bad idea. You got lucky and had support from your gf's parents, not everyone has that. This bill will force sally to raise her kid, even though Johnny has run off. I think a father figure is more important to a child than just child support.

I have a child and she's my world, but because I know how hard it is to raise a child I don't think it's ok for people not ready to have one to be forced into it.

And no, there are not enough foster parents to adopt the children we have in orphanages now. So I don't agree with the attitude that if you don't want your child someone else will adopt it. There's a very high chance that child will grow up in an orphanage without a family.
[/quote]

There is a waiting list for babies for adoption families. Always has been.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

scrappydoo said:


> And no, there are not enough foster parents to adopt the children we have in orphanages now. So I don't agree with the attitude that if you don't want your child someone else will adopt it. There's a very high chance that child will grow up in an orphanage without a family.


There is a huge difference between foster care and ready adoptive homes. There is not enough foster care, that is true. But Slim is right, there is a list a mile long of people who want to adopt.

Now there are NOT alot of adoption homes for older children, but there is not enough babies for homes when it comes to infant adoption.


----------

