• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
As per usual, all of your credibility flies out the window when you start to refer to the pro-choice crowd as "pro-abortion".
Click to expand...

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.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Abortions are completely legal procedures in our country.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

No, its not.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Yes, it should be equally supported. I could even deal with a 3 day waiting period, but sending the person to a counselor that is specifically there to talk the person out of having an abortion is wrong. I'd also wonder who's job it is to make sure that these clinics don't cause these women more pain with false information. Is the state going to give them guidelines on what to tell women or are they just going to preach to them for hours?
Click to expand...

I am concerned about that too... Who is to say these lifers don't treat these women and girls like a dog whom took a sh*t on the floor and rub their noses in it. It seems like an arrangement ripe for shaming and judging... not emotional support or educating.
 
Good for South Dakota. It's their state and their decision. If any of you don't like it, then don't move there. I'm sure they will be fine with your decision.
 
I don't see a big issue with the three day waiting period, although if it comes with counseling, then I definitely see room for abuse of the law as a way to try to talk women out of having an abortion through moral blackmail.
 
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
So then you admit, the choicer's choice is abortion since that's the one they show the most support for as a movement.
 
X Factor said:
Generally, conservatives believe that protecting innocent life is a valid government function.
Click to expand...

Can't you think of ways to do that that are not sexist, insulting to females, and demeaning to rape survivors???
 
X Factor said:
So then you admit, the choicer's choice is abortion since that's the one they show the most support for as a movement.
Click to expand...

It's not my choice or your choice... it's their choice... The real difference is that you think it should be your choice.

Once you start dictating what choice other people should make, then you are, in part, responsible for that choice.
 
X Factor said:
So then you admit, the choicer's choice is abortion since that's the one they show the most support for as a movement.
Click to expand...

Most pro-choice people don't "support abortion". They support respecting a woman's ability to make her own decision. If they supported abortion, the so many of them wouldn't have a children.
 
Hicup said:
I like this law..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Ditto, this should be federal law. It does no harm at all to give a woman pause to really think about whether or not she wants to abort a life. Its the same with gun purchase waiting period.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now this I do agree with. I'm not a fan of the whole sending them to counseling thing and acknowledge you'd likely have people there with an agenda though I am afraid almost anyone you have them talk to is likely going to have a bit of an agenda. I'm less bothered by the waiting period though I still think over all it will be a rather irrelevant law.
 
SheWolf said:
Can't you think of ways to do that that are not sexist, insulting to females, and demeaning to rape survivors???
Click to expand...
Why does every discussion of abortion have to turn to "rape survivors" when that's such a small percentage of women who actually get abortions?
 
X Factor said:
Implying it? No. I'm saying it. Pro choicers will go to the mat for abortion "rights" yet disappear like dust in the wind if the choice is to give birth.
Click to expand...

Your bigotry is shining through here. Not all pro choicers are alike. Not all pro choicers even like abortion.

My mother is pro choice. She has 4 children, no abortions. My mother is personally pro life, but politically pro choice. My sisters are the same... have babies, no abortions. My father hates abortion, but thinks is better for society that it remain legal. I have never been pregnant or had an abortion. :blah:

I never disappeared on my sisters or friends when they chose to give birth... I never told them to abortion. I supported their choice. The right to give birth is not being attacked. Being a parent is a choice... choose it responsibility. If not, I will get Children Services on your @ss, and I have done it before.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
If the women wanted counseling, they would get it. Interestingly enough, most of your examples of counseling (which aren't even remotely comparible to abortion counseling) are optional things.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with seeking counseling is judgement... If I wanted counseling, I definitely wouldn't want it from a biased pro life counselor whom may sit there and judge me as a selfish, baby killer. A big part of therapy is building trust, and you have to feel comfortable opening up to the therapist. If the therapist judges you or shames you, it would cause more damage. You'd be less likely to seek therapy again...

If pro lifers really cared about the well being of these women and young girls, they'd have enough respect to give them quality therapy.
 
SheWolf said:
I think the problem with seeking counseling is judgement... If I wanted counseling, I definitely wouldn't want it from a biased pro life counselor whom may sit there and judge me as a selfish, baby killer. A big part of therapy is building trust, and you have to feel comfortable opening up to the therapist. If the therapist judges you or shames you, it would cause more damage. You'd be less likely to seek therapy again...

If pro lifers really cared about the well being of these women and young girls, they'd have enough respect to give them quality therapy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. To be honest, I think it's silly that they even refer to it as "counseling."
 
BWG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Speaking of information and misinformation... I have gone to some CPCs in my area, and read their websites. Some of them actually push the idea that having an abortion will cause lung cancer... wtf.

They try to scare the hell out of people, and most of the "facts" on their websites are lies.

Really, I don't have a problem with people being informed on abortion and reproduction and that's one of the problems I have with this law. I am not sure they are actually informing people or misinforming people.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

In general, I don't have a problem with conservatives wanting to protect unborn life as a principle. However, there is a difference between working in your community to lessen the burden on single mothers and teen mothers, and supporting legislation that treats women like children who can't be trusted to govern their own womb.

When lifers argue that life is scared... I don't have a problem.

When they say, "God creates life, and we shouldn't interfere," I really don't have a problem even though I don't agree..

I start getting annoyed when instead of talking about life, they shame women and young girls for having sex..

I have absolutely no respect for them when they go on the attack and want rape survivors to PROVE IT.

When lifers make the argument about women and not life, then they look sexist and they look like there stance is more about punishing females for having sex than it is about preserving life.
 
X Factor said:
Why does every discussion of abortion have to turn to "rape survivors" when that's such a small percentage of women who actually get abortions?
Click to expand...

Why do lifers always brush rape survivors under the rug during these debates, but don't shy away from attacking them in the congress and senate?

GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape - The Daily Beast

GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape - Yahoo! News

GOP Anti-Abortion Bill to Turn IRS Agents Into ‘Abortion Cops’ - In The Aggregate – Arizona's political blogs
 
SheWolf said:
In general, I don't have a problem with conservatives wanting to protect unborn life as a principle. However, there is a difference between working in your community to lessen the burden on single mothers and teen mothers, and supporting legislation that treats women like children who can't be trusted to govern their own womb.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you have to like, agree with, or support the law. Heck, I've said in the thread I'm not a big fan of it. My issue wasn't with disliking the law, it was with suggesting that it was somehow completely incompatiable with conservative ideology.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not saying you have to like, agree with, or support the law. Heck, I've said in the thread I'm not a big fan of it. My issue wasn't with disliking the law, it was with suggesting that it was somehow completely incompatiable with conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

Some aspects of this law are incompatible... but being pro life in general, is not incompatible
 
SheWolf said:
Some aspects of this law are incompatible... but being pro life in general, is not incompatible
Click to expand...

What aspects of the law are incompatiable with conservative ideology?

Rough attempted to say the fact that its implimenting further government action into individuals lives...but from the perspective of the people arguing for that, they're implimenting further government action towards the protection of a child from harm. There's nothing in conservative ideology that suggests such a thing isn't a legitimate government function.
 
Zyphlin said:
What aspects of the law are incompatiable with conservative ideology?

Rough attempted to say the fact that its implimenting further government action into individuals lives...but from the perspective of the people arguing for that, they're implimenting further government action towards the protection of a child from harm. There's nothing in conservative ideology that suggests such a thing isn't a legitimate government function.
Click to expand...

Requiring counseling from an unlicensed counselor... an unlicensed counselor, come on. The government can't make sure the therapy is legit or even beneficial to the patient. We all know it's not legit therapy. The therapists are working for a pro life cause, and it raises concerns that some of these females might just be setup to be judged and attacked.

This would be like the government requiring you get therapy from a PETA representative before you get a hunting license. It's unprecedented...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom