Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 202

Thread: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

  1. #71
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Except one receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and one doesn't.....If the country were to adopt a single payer health care system, would you want abortion included as a paid for procedure?


    j-mac
    That's an interesting point. I wonder how much abortion had to do with the new Obamacare law.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #72
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    I'm fine with the 3 day waiting period. The decision over whether or not to have an abortion should be a considered one, and enforcing a waiting period gives the woman time to think it over. 3 days isn't too long either. I do not, however, support the women having to get counseling at a crisis pregnancy center. The people that work there have an agenda, and are not medical professionals. Women should have all the facts before they get an abortion, but thats not what crisis pregnancy centers are providing.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #73
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    I read a few comments about more information being good. Generally that's true, but when you are mandated by law to receive information that may be biased, that's not so good.

    Here is a link to a congressional investigation into federally funded pregnancy resource centers and the conclusion.


    CONCLUSION

    Pregnant teenagers and women turn to federally funded pregnancy resource centers for advice and counseling at a difficult time in their lives. These centers, however, frequently fail to provide medically accurate information. The vast majority of pregnancy centers contacted in this investigation misrepresented the medical consequences of abortion, often grossly exaggerating the risks. This tactic may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.

    http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf

    Here's more on crisis pregnancy centers.

    Crisis pregnancy center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But I guess if it delivers the message you like, it's all OK.
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  4. #74
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    I read a few comments about more information being good. Generally that's true, but when you are mandated by law to receive information that may be biased, that's not so good.

    Here is a link to a congressional investigation into federally funded pregnancy resource centers and the conclusion.





    Here's more on crisis pregnancy centers.

    Crisis pregnancy center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But I guess if it delivers the message you like, it's all OK.
    Well that makes no sense - they grossly *exaggerate* - that means that they overinflate the issues. But that's not the alleged case time after time - is it? It's usually the other way around - where they treat it too casually to *not* dissuade women from having the procedure.

    So which one is it really - overplay or underplay?
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Of course, conservatives hate the idea of government getting in the middle of people's affairs...

    Conservatives hates the idea of the government forcing a middle man between patients and their doctors... etc.

    Unless of course they don't like what completely legal decisions people are making.

    Any "conservative" that supports this crap should switch their lean to "somewhat conservative".
    Yes, because clearly you are the only arbiter of what is or isn't conservative and are essentially God when it comes to conservatism, able to dictate what is or isn't it? Roughdraft see's absolutely no other way this can be viewed and thus anyone that doesn't view it exactly like him isn't conservative.

    If one views that the fetus is a human being then this action is not inherently unconservative. All but the most extreme of conservatives acknowledge that the government should not be an anarchy, that there should be some purposes to the government, and one such purpose is providing protection (such as police officers, military, etc) for individuals especially those that are unable to protect themselves. This is a necessary function of government that by and large all but the most extreme of conservatives view as reasonable.

    This is no less "conservative" based on those peoples view of the situation, which is frankly no less valid than yours, than a conservative saying that Police should be able to intervene if there is reason to believe a parent is beating thier child. I somehow doubt you'd suggest someone in favor of such a measure should change their lean to "somewhat conservative".

    I don't exactly agree with this, as I see it as a rather pointless tacked on law that will have little real effect. At the same time, I don't have a huge issue with it either. But to say that someone can not come to the conclussion of favoring this from a conservative stand point is utterly egotistical and absolutely assanine, requiring the person to be so pompous as to believe that it is impossible or inconcievable for anyone to DARE view the part of this situation that is by no means a clear cut matter in a way OTHER than how they view it.

    Yes, I would agree. If someone believed the fetus was not a child and shouldn't be protected under the law AND claimed that this law should go into affect AND claimed to be a conservative I'd share your questioning of it. However, if someone believes the fetus to be a child, the state protecting individuals...especially those unable to protect themselves...is something by and large conservatives view as a legitimate government duty.

  6. #76
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,042

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, because clearly you are the only arbiter of what is or isn't conservative and are essentially God when it comes to conservatism, able to dictate what is or isn't it? Roughdraft see's absolutely no other way this can be viewed and thus anyone that doesn't view it exactly like him isn't conservative.

    If one views that the fetus is a human being then this action is not inherently unconservative. All but the most extreme of conservatives acknowledge that the government should not be an anarchy, that there should be some purposes to the government, and one such purpose is providing protection (such as police officers, military, etc) for individuals especially those that are unable to protect themselves. This is a necessary function of government that by and large all but the most extreme of conservatives view as reasonable.

    This is no less "conservative" based on those peoples view of the situation, which is frankly no less valid than yours, than a conservative saying that Police should be able to intervene if there is reason to believe a parent is beating thier child. I somehow doubt you'd suggest someone in favor of such a measure should change their lean to "somewhat conservative".

    I don't exactly agree with this, as I see it as a rather pointless tacked on law that will have little real effect. At the same time, I don't have a huge issue with it either. But to say that someone can not come to the conclussion of favoring this from a conservative stand point is utterly egotistical and absolutely assanine, requiring the person to be so pompous as to believe that it is impossible or inconcievable for anyone to DARE view the part of this situation that is by no means a clear cut matter in a way OTHER than how they view it.

    Yes, I would agree. If someone believed the fetus was not a child and shouldn't be protected under the law AND claimed that this law should go into affect AND claimed to be a conservative I'd share your questioning of it. However, if someone believes the fetus to be a child, the state protecting individuals...especially those unable to protect themselves...is something by and large conservatives view as a legitimate government duty.
    Abortions are completely legal procedures in our country. As long as that is true all this bill does is put bureaucracy between a patient and their doctor and meddles in people's personal lives.

    It's hypocritical, not that that is a uniquely conservative thing, but hypocritical nonetheless.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  7. #77
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,470

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law - The Denver Post

    Props to SD. An informed decision not made on a whim is a better decision and less likely to cause lasting psychological trauma later.
    If only they treated females considering adoption the same way...

  8. #78
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    As per usual, all of your credibility flies out the window when you start to refer to the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion".
    In this I agree, just as I hate and will ignore people when they use "anti-choice". The "pro-choice" and "prolife" terms fit each of their groups best as it is predicated off the view point of that group with regards to the fetus/child...an issue that is one completely reliant upon opinion and subjective views and thus is forever somewhat murkey.

    In the mind of Pro-Choicers the fetus is not a child, thus is not subject to rights, and thus the action of abortion is wholey and fully a medical decision and as such an individual is the person who chooses whether or not they wish to have a medical procedure done. "Pro-abortion" would not fit them as they are not, by and large, in favor of abortions happening as a rule more so than births. Ditto for "Anti-Life" as it would again suggest by and large they'd prefer babies to die.

    On the flip side, "Pro-Life" is most apt for that side because to them the fetus is a child, meaning it is a living being that is unable to protect itself and thus it must be protected. To them, an abortion is not simply a medical procedure but a violent attack against another person. As such, they favor the government protecting that life that can not protect itself. "Anti-Choice" would be inappropriate because they are absolutely in favor of "choice" up until the point where that individuals choice would infringe upon the rights of another individual, in this instance the child. This would be akin to saying that someone against allowing a person to murder someone is "anti-choice" because they want the government to make the choice of actually killing someone illegal. In their mind once you reach a point where the child is present then it is no longer a choice of a medical procedure but one of violating the law.

    Both sides try to switch up the name to demonize the other side with negative rhetoric, but by doing so both lose sight of honestly and reasonably attempting to even begin to understand what the other side is saying and/or thinking. So they view the other side from their own view point and mistakenly think that their view point is unfallable and unconcievably correct and thus the other side must be a monster/fascist.

    Sure, someone that honestly believes its a child...and is fine with legalizing abortion...that person would seem rather monsterous. And yes, someone that honestly doesn't believe its a child...but still would want the state forcing you to have the child...would seem rather fascist. Yet I think there's very, very few people on either side that think that way, so their motivations and reasons for their conclussions are not created for the reasosn the opposite side likes to think they are.

  9. #79
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,470

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I don't buy the humanitarian abortion argument, besides I could make the charge against "pro-choice" people. They'll support you as long as your choice is aborting. Choose to have the baby and they're nowhere to be seen.

    Anyway, the waiting period and counseling are to be sure someone knows what's a stake in such an important decision.
    The difference between lifers and choicers, is that choicers let you make them make THEIR choice.... When you tell people what choice they should make, then you should kind of be there and support them for making YOUR choice.

  10. #80
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Abortions are completely legal procedures in our country.
    Actually, incorrect. Under the law SOME abortions are completely legal. Other abortions or somewhat legal. Other abortions still are illegal. The laws in this counry are varied and show a consistent pattern that there is not an unquestionable and untouchable rule regarding abortion that applies to every aspect of it the same way. Due to that, its not unreasonable to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable to have other laws regarding it as long as those laws don't outright attempt to ban it (since currently doing so would be unconstitutional).

    Now, if you're a conservative and you view that fetus as a child, and you view protection of children from physical maiming and violence as being a legitimate government duty as most non-extreme conservatives do, then enacting a law that will potentially help that child be protected as much as possible under the current law is not in the least unconservative.

    The law on abortions before this was not clear and consistent across the board for all abortions. The individuals arguing for this are not attempting to put beuracracy between a Patient and their Doctor, they're attempting to put the law between a potential victim and their attacker. Simply because the law mandates that abortions can not be banned and can occur does not mean individuals are mandated to believe that a fetus is not a child.

    It's hypocritical, not that that is a uniquely conservative thing, but hypocritical nonetheless.
    No, its not.

Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •