• 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

I'm not familiar with state gun laws (don't personally own a firearm), but why exactly is there a wait period? What's the rationale behind it?

It's supposed to detour buying a firearm with the intent of immediately committing a crime with it. The 3 days is supposed to give you time to cool off.

Supposedly having to wait 3 days for an abortion is going to have some impact on the woman's choice. I highly doubt it. My X and I came to the decision, back in the day, to abort about a week before she even went to PP.
 
It's supposed to detour buying a firearm with the intent of immediately committing a crime with it. The 3 days is supposed to give you time to cool off.

Supposedly having to wait 3 days for an abortion is going to have some impact on the woman's choice. I highly doubt it. My X and I came to the decision, back in the day, to abort about a week before she even went to PP.

In that case, I agree both are dumb. The vast majority of people who buy firearms aren't looking to commit a crime, and I fail to see how a three-day wait period would stop a determined criminal. Maybe it would make some sense of most criminals who buy guns do it in a fit of impulsive passion, but I highly doubt that. The real problem is straw purchases.
 
Well then, the counseling should make no difference for those people. For others though, it may open their eyes to things they didn't know. More information is a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, you're against defunding PP?
 
What exactly is that 3 day wait going to accomplish?

The Brady Law mandated a three day waiting period to buy a gun to go kill someone, shouldn't there also be a three day waiting period before killing your own unborn child, just to cool off?

The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't going to be a suitable parent. Why make the child suffer in the long run?

This argument will carry weight when you start supporting the idea that born children living in whatever it is you define as "suffering" should be dragged away and shot because they're so miserable.
 
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".

Conservatives understand that the role of government is to protect the innocent.

Nothing more innocent than an unborn child.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she has many many options, from drugs to foam to diaphragms, to condoms, and, most effective of all, using the word "no".
 
Abortions are legal. If you want that overturned then do it in the courts or change the constitution. Until then you're simply arguing for a nanny state. People apparently aren't smart enough to make their own decisions. Goes against conservative ideology perfectly but doesn't seem to phase you at all, lol.

There's no clause in the Constitution allowing Conress the authority to regulate medical practices in the states. Ergo, all federal laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional laws, political decisions made by the Warren court in the '70's were just that, political decisions, not constitutional jurisprudence.

Abortion is rightly a matter for each state to decide.
 
There's no clause in the Constitution allowing Conress the authority to regulate medical practices in the states. Ergo, all federal laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional laws, political decisions made by the Warren court in the '70's were just that, political decisions, not constitutional jurisprudence.

Abortion is rightly a matter for each state to decide.

Other than monetarily what laws are there that the federal government has that regulates abortion?

Edit note: just to clairfy..the monetary laws are that no taxes goes towards abortion.
 
Last edited:
My issue with those anti-abortion is an inconsistency with most of their views. The best argument I've heard against abortion (and as to why murder is morally wrong) is VOAFLO - Value of a Future (like ours). The general argument is that murder denies a future, which makes it morally wrong. As abortion also does this, it is also morally wrong.

But even this argument breaks down at the issue of contraception, almost every abortion argument I've heard does.

If you are anti-abortion, logically for the same reasons that you oppose killing a fetus you should be morally obligated to oppose birth control. While a few people are, most are not. When confronted with this most tend to make the "heartbeat" argument, which doesn't fly, as merely having a heart doesn't make someone human.

The argument against the murder of children unborn goes like this:

It's not a "mass of cells", it's a HUMAN mass of cells, just like, a little later on, it's human mass of cells that weighs three kilos and can be released from the hospital.

Murder is morally wrong for one reason and one reason only: The murder victim isn't the property of the murderer, because no human can be the property of another, and the act of murder is a theft of life, an act of vandalism, as it were, since the murderer cannot keep the life for his own use or resale. Mayor Snorkum digresses.

Yep, most "contraception" procedures are actually contra-implantation methods, and hence no more moral than Jeffrey Dahmer. The concept of "out of sight, out of mind" comes into play to sway people who want something for nothing, in this case morals-free sex.

Also, the phrase 'birth control' is inaccurate since birth control presumes that the birth is going to happen. But whatever. True contraception involves keeping those eager sperms away from that drifting egg. These methods range from spermaticides to diaphragms to condoms to doing something else to let the sperm out, but not in the egg's playground. Monica was an excellent example of effective contraception. Who would have thought that a cigar could prevent her from getting pregnant, eh?

But, finally, there's that word "no". That's the most effective contraceptive of all.
 
Other than monetarily what laws are there that the federal government has that regulates abortion?

Edit note: just to clairfy..the monetary laws are that no taxes goes towards abortion.

The federal laws and federal court rulings that insist the states comply with an essentially uniform practice of fetal destruction. This kind of top-down imposition of morality was precisely what the Founders sought to avoid when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This South Dakota law has to pass a review by federal judges to ensure it complies with precedents set by other federal rulings, even though the federal government doesn't have any authority in medical matters in the states.
 
Last edited:
So, to be consistent, you must believe that abortion is ok right up until birth. After all, if you're okay with abortion at 12 weeks, logically for the same reasons you should be morally obligated to support abortion "rights" right up until birth.

Most pro choicers are ok with abortion up to the point of viability, because at that point, the baby can survive on it's own, independent of the female's body and womb. Currently, there is other way to end a pregnancy, so it's really about the right to remove support to the unborn life, not the right to kill... but with our current technology, there is no other way to remove bodily support.

Once there is another method, I honestly don't think abortion would be an issue. Pro choicers and females who abort really don't hate unborn life, think it's subhuman, think they are genetically superior, or share the views held by Nazis and slaverowners like a lot of lifers paint us to be.
 
Because I don't support the death penalty. However they should receive the correct sentence that goes along with murder.

Yep, and it would deter women from committing murder. If anything it brings justice as these women would be punished for their crimes and abortion would be legally discriminated against.

Criminalization would bring justice for the most unjust practice in our society. I'm sure that if women are charged with murder that it would deter it. Regardless, it's the principal of justice and bringing justice to the millions who have been legally murdered. You can't stop child abuse or wife abuse, so lets decriminalize it. Making it illegal doesn't stop it so lets legalize it. No need to punish men that are physically abusive to their wives and children.


Yes, abortion does. The problem though is that there is less of an emotional connection to those being murdered so people don't feel a major impact. Kids are literally starving to death all over the world yet we don't really care all that much because we have no emotional connection to them nor is it something we face in reality. It damages society because it kills innocent people, degrades human life, and further pushes society to act sexually irresponsible and gives people the mentality that children are a curse and that a woman has the right to kill an unborn person for any whim she may have. Regardless, the major atrocity is the fact that millions of humans are brutally murdered under the law.

You're not ok with the death penalty, but you said you're fine with women dying from illegal abortion... That doesn't make sense to me..

When I read your comment, it sounds to me like, you're justifying their death by saying it fits the crime/actions... I am not trying to start something by saying this, I am just trying to really understand this view. To me though, it just seems like you have preference to see the female die with the unborn, and I honestly think that that goes against the philosophy of being pro life and valuing life. You value the unborn life more than the person carrying it, and that really bothers me... It causes me to think of all the women I know whom have had abortions, and it sounds like you're saying their life isn't worth sh*t to you...
 
I hope this gives lefties a taste of what a 3-day waiting period to buy a firearm is like.

At what point during your waiting period to buy a gun does the government force you to be counselled by people with a political vendetta against guns?
 
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".

Uh, believe it or not, we evil conservatives do support government intervening when a murder is about to take place.
 
Conservatives understand that the role of government is to protect the innocent.

Nothing more innocent than an unborn child.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she has many many options, from drugs to foam to diaphragms, to condoms, and, most effective of all, using the word "no".

Most people would agree that the government is supposed to protect our rights. The difference between an oppressive government and a non oppressive government, is that one does not violate our rights, and currently roe v wade says we have a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment. If you don't like females having that right, then try to change it through the courts and do it constitutionally.. don't try to obstruct us from our rights.

Furthermore, the preamble of the Constitution defines the role of the government... there are six roles. To form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I see nothing about "protecting the innocent" in the constitution...
 
What exactly is that 3 day wait going to accomplish? The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't going to be a suitable parent. Why make the child suffer in the long run? I think abortion is far more humane than raising a child in a potentially abusive and neglectful environment. Pro-life people are very gung ho about keeping fetuses alive, but when they become children they start to lose interest.

I was considering your reply UNTIL, you swept Pro-lifers with a broad brush in the end sentence. To bad you didn't leave it where it was because now you've shown your colors. Oh, and by the way, the last of the statement is false. Pro-choice or pro-life, no matter what you choose to be, it is still a woman's decision. I also believe that the MAN that donated his sperm should be given the choice and a name required.

Even if you taught your young people the true reason for sex, they'd still get caught in their own trap. That trap is not limited to the young, just ask John Edwards. Also, if there were more gentlemen there'd be less need for abortions. Goes for teaching your daughters how to be ladies and respect who they give it out to.

Lastly, there are the rapists. They take no matter what the cost.
 
Uh, believe it or not, we evil conservatives do support government intervening when a murder is about to take place.

Well, not everybody in union believes abortion is murder, and that includes some pro lifers. Yep, I know quite a few lifers whom argue abortion is wrong, but they don't personally believe it's murder. I also know people whom believe turning off a life support system is murder. I don't agree with that either.

How would you feel if the government forced you to sit in a room and get an ear full from an activist, whom views you as a murder, because you decided to pull the plug on your loved one's life support system?
 
Last edited:
So any time we can take pain away, we can terminate.

Coma, anyone?

Even better, we can just put unwanted children under a general anesthetic. No pin, no 'personhood'.

Perhaps I should qualify: If the person is capable of feeling pain.

Perhaps a better argument is the argument for sustainable consciousness (one of the reasons it is legal to "pull the plug" on those in a coma).
 
How do you determine when a fetus feel pain?

Science. It is quite possible to determine when anything close to a brain is being formed, as well as major milestones in brain activity, such as the ability to feel pain, etc.

Last I checked, nothing is felt before 24 weeks and it is highly unlikely for anything to be felt before 28 weeks.
 
Science. It is quite possible to determine when anything close to a brain is being formed, as well as major milestones in brain activity, such as the ability to feel pain, etc.

Last I checked, nothing is felt before 24 weeks and it is highly unlikely for anything to be felt before 28 weeks.

היה זה לא Ya_eh כי רוח חיים לתוך כל הדברים?
 
In that case, I agree both are dumb. The vast majority of people who buy firearms aren't looking to commit a crime, and I fail to see how a three-day wait period would stop a determined criminal. Maybe it would make some sense of most criminals who buy guns do it in a fit of impulsive passion, but I highly doubt that. The real problem is straw purchases.

I think there is a background check involved as well.
 
Perhaps I should qualify: If the person is capable of feeling pain.

Perhaps a better argument is the argument for sustainable consciousness (one of the reasons it is legal to "pull the plug" on those in a coma).

So people with Hereditary Sensory Autonomic Neuropathy are not "people" according to you. Interesting.
 
So people with Hereditary Sensory Autonomic Neuropathy are not "people" according to you. Interesting.

Check out the second part of that quote: Consciousness. Which I have decided is a much better argument.
 
The federal laws and federal court rulings that insist the states comply with an essentially uniform practice of fetal destruction. This kind of top-down imposition of morality was precisely what the Founders sought to avoid when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This South Dakota law has to pass a review by federal judges to ensure it complies with precedents set by other federal rulings, even though the federal government doesn't have any authority in medical matters in the states.

Oh, you're talking about federal safty guidlines that ALL clinics and hospitals are subject to? Well, DUH. We don't want people cutting others open with no antibiotics, painkillers, spare blood etc etc now do we? Those are just common sense laws that any fool would agree is needed for any medical procedure.

Though what I think that you're trying to imply is that there are laws stating that abortion is legal. Am I right?
 
1. It's not fear-mongering. That's exactly what would happen.


You speak with such certainty....And tell us all knowing one, how can you possibly know that? Look, all that would happen if Abortion in the form of RvW was overturned would be that the individual states would take it up, where it constitutionally should be in the first damned place. All you libs do is fear monger with this pap.

2. Why would I put it up for an amendment, when it's already legal? I don't have to do ****.

Well, aren't you proud....liberals succeeded with an end run around the constitution....bravo.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom