SD governor signs 3-day wait for abortion into law

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...

And FTR... there is no language in this measure that says it about "protecting the child from harm." The reason issue here is making women wait and think about things after getting an ear full from a pro life "therapist."

SheWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP proponent tells a girl that "it's a "hear tone" at 10 weeks" and not a heartbeat?

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP doctor tells a girl that she could "die" giving birth?

See, I think that in this day and age when information is abundant about the protection from pregnancy out there, or simply that somehow they didn't know that having sex would get them pregnant is so far an abdication of responsibility, making abortion a contraceptive measure that it makes my heart sad.

What of the father of that child? why is there no say there?


j-mac

Dr_Patrick said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mercy killing eh?

I don't know if I really agree with this law, but I also don't agree with wait periods for guns either.

Can I ask a dumb question at this point? Why is it that the people who are most against abortion are also the most against universal health care? Or the most pro-gun?

We should protect life until a person is born, and then it's "piss off you're on your own?" It just seems illogical to me. I'd think that if you were pro-life that would extend to the lives of people that are already born. How many people die because they don't get good healthcare? How many people die because they get shot?

I'm not accusing, it just seems logical to me that if you want to protect life that the commitment would extend past birth.

Ikari said:

... but I also don't agree with wait periods for guns either.

Click to expand...

I think that's the most fascinating thing about this debate. Replace "abortion" with "gun" and the demographics of the debate will change dramatically with full reversals of position occurring with many of the people here. :lol:

Personally, I see these laws as the exact same thing as waiting periods for guns. One must wait a short period of time in order to exercise their rights. I'm opposed to these waiting periods in my own state in both cases (mainly because I think they are both pointless wastes of time), but that being said, I support the rights of other states to pass such laws in tehir own jurisdiction. I would oppose both at the federal level.

j-mac said:

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP proponent tells a girl that "it's a "hear tone" at 10 weeks" and not a heartbeat?

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP doctor tells a girl that she could "die" giving birth?

See, I think that in this day and age when information is abundant about the protection from pregnancy out there, or simply that somehow they didn't know that having sex would get them pregnant is so far an abdication of responsibility, making abortion a contraceptive measure that it makes my heart sad.

What of the father of that child? why is there no say there?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Misinformation is always misinformation...

j-mac said:

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP proponent tells a girl that "it's a "hear tone" at 10 weeks" and not a heartbeat?

Is it informing, or misinforming when a PP doctor tells a girl that she could "die" giving birth?

See, I think that in this day and age when information is abundant about the protection from pregnancy out there, or simply that somehow they didn't know that having sex would get them pregnant is so far an abdication of responsibility, making abortion a contraceptive measure that it makes my heart sad.

What of the father of that child? why is there no say there?


j-mac

Click to expand...

Wait, why is "die" in quotation marks?

I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make. That Planned Parenthood lies to patients in an attempt to influence them to have abortions? Give examples.

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". If you honestly want to be taken seriously in this debate and have thoughtful answers to your questions you should probably keep that in mind. The simple fact that you feel justified in making such an absurd leap speaks volumes about you. Feel free to say that I'm dodging your questions, but I take serious offense to your simplistic view of pro-choice people. The only thing I will offer up, and you can reply to it if you want, is that my wife and I are both pro-choice. Yet, she is pregnant and we are having a child together. It kind of blows your idiotic theory of pro-choice being pro-abortion out of the water, doesn't it? You simply can't stand the fact that the abortion debate isn't one extreme versus the opposite extreme, so you make things up as you go along. Anyway, this will be my last reply to you on the subject...so feel free to sling any and all insults that you want. The ignore button is only a click away.

Click to expand...

What insults? Why are you so dishonest? We had this discussion before and I proved you wrong. Here is the definition of pro-abortion so that you and everyone else can see.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-abortion
Medical Dictionary

pro·abor·tion definition
Pronunciation: /(ˈ)prō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən/
Function: adj
: favoring the legalization of abortion <---Nowhere in any part of the definition of pro-abortion does it say that you believe that abortion must be mandatory or that you must get an abortion.

pro·abor·tion·ist Pronunciation: /-sh(ə-)nəst/
Function: n
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc





This whining about definitions is nothing more that chicken **** tactic used to avoid answering questions and is a piss poor attempt to define the terms of a debate. You are as bad as those racists who ignore the dictionary and claim that only white people can be racist because they make up the majority of people in power. If you do not like the term pro-abortion then write letters to Webster's dictionary. Have some integrity and courage and answer the post.

This is not the first time I pointed out to you that pro-abortion does not be mean you believe you got to have an abortion just like pro-gay marriage does not mean you got to marry someone of the same sex or that pro-2nd amendment does not mean you have to run out and buy a gun. You believe that abortion should be legal, so quit acting like you ashamed of that view.



So now thats been cleared up you can actually respond to this post instead of complaining about definitions.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-wait-abortion-into-law-7.html#post1059365904

Ikari said:

I don't know if I really agree with this law, but I also don't agree with wait periods for guns either.

Click to expand...

There's an important difference, though. When you're in the waiting period for a gun, you're not required to get "counselling" from anti-gun people. This law requires people to get "counselling" from anti-abortion people.

If it was just a waiting period, I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

I've never known anyone to abort a fetus as a spur of the moment decision. There is already a waiting period. It just happens without some kind of official benchmark. It seems useless. I understand the sentiment, but I can't see how having to make an extra appointment will ensure that a person is not pressured into a decision.

The purpose of a waiting period with guns is to prevent someone from acquiring a weapon in the heat of rage and then using it on another person, or on themselves. Taking time to calm down and not make an emotional decision is a very valid stance.

Abortions are not pursued in the heat of passion, however. Often, it is the cold logic that raising a child is impractical that informs an abortion, not a quick emotional reaction. The comparison is really invalid.

Steps should be in place to reduce the need for abortion, not to make it more difficult in our present system. Stigmatization of accidental pregnancy and of sexual freedom, the poor stance we take on birth control, the lack of assistance we give to poor parents... These are the causes of abortion, not the lack of a 3 day waiting period.

It's foolish but not particularly objectionable.

I think this law is "good." However abortion should be made illegal. Within the context of legality, I guess it's a good thing that they are forcing women to wait three days and be informed before they commit an act of legalized murder.

Tucker Case said:

I think that's the most fascinating thing about this debate. Replace "abortion" with "gun" and the demographics of the debate will change dramatically with full reversals of position occurring with many of the people here. :lol:

Personally, I see these laws as the exact same thing as waiting periods for guns. One must wait a short period of time in order to exercise their rights. I'm opposed to these waiting periods in my own state in both cases (mainly because I think they are both pointless wastes of time), but that being said, I support the rights of other states to pass such laws in tehir own jurisdiction. I would oppose both at the federal level.

Click to expand...

I mean, the States are free to pass these sorts of things. I just don't really see a point. Abortion is legal, I don't like it; but I'm also not willing to revolt over it, so I am left with accepting the decision of the SCOTUS. They say it's legal. You can put "waiting periods" in there, but in general I think waiting periods are BS.

digsbe said:

I think this law is "good." However abortion should be made illegal. Within the context of legality, I guess it's a good thing that they are forcing women to wait three days and be informed before they commit an act of legalized murder.

Click to expand...

"Should be made illegal" - Why? so I'd have to have 5 kids instead for 4 because 4 kids just isn't enough. . . mmmhmmm. Maybe I should make that decision and no one else as to whether or not my family will grow if nature happens?

SheWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Those are reasons why the law may not be sound, may be stupidly implimented, or be problematic. Stupidly implimented things done for conservative reasons are still done for conservative reasons, just as stupidly implimented things done for liberal reasons are still liberal things. Because its dumb doesn't make it less conservative.

Zyphlin said:

Those are reasons why the law may not be sound, may be stupidly implimented, or be problematic. Stupidly implimented things done for conservative reasons are still done for conservative reasons, just as stupidly implimented things done for liberal reasons are still liberal things. Because its dumb doesn't make it less conservative.

Click to expand...

So true.

But I don't see the harm in it :shrug: If someone's solidly *wants* to have one then they will still *want* to have it 3 days later.

SheWolf said:

And FTR... there is no language in this measure that says it about "protecting the child from harm." The reason issue here is making women wait and think about things after getting an ear full from a pro life "therapist."

Click to expand...

And gun laws mandating a wait aren't written "To keep mentally unstable or compuslive violent people from having guns" but end up making law abiding mentally stable individuals be treated like they're devoid of self control compulsive killers as they have to wait t obe sold a gun. That doesn't change the fact the obvious intent by and large by those pushing the law was to make it harder for compulsive people to quickly get a gun when they're angry.

Yes, is one of the methods they're employing to attempt to protect the child from harm making the woman feel bad for her action to hopefully cause her to reconsider? Yes, it seems that is the case. And from their perspective she should feel bad, for she's attempting to kill a child. Again, because you don't agree with the method or don't like the method or think the methods stupid is not an explanation for why it is somehow not able to concieved through conservative thought.

rocket88 said:

Can I ask a dumb question at this point? Why is it that the people who are most against abortion are also the most against universal health care? Or the most pro-gun?

Click to expand...

Not a dumb question, just one that is a bit obvious.

If you believe the fetus is an actual child, worthy of legal protection, then he is essentially the same status as a baby. That life should be protected from being INTENTIONALLY ended by choice. Note that "Pro-Life" people aren't saying "Any every women should have health care provided for her to bring the baby to term".

The people against abortion are against it for the same reasons they're against killing a baby that's 1 month old or or killing an innocent 20 year old killing an innocent elderly gentleman thats 80 years old. Its someone taking hte life of another person, and they're generally agaisnt that.

Universal Health Care is about giving someone a service for free while forcing individuals supplying the service to do so based on what/how the government says with regards to whats allowed and how much they'll make. Rather than protecting someone from another person who is seeking to do them physical harm, it is forcing individuals to do something for someone else. There's no real comparison here.

There's even less comparison to pro-gun. Owning a gun does not result in you killing someone. Most gun owners don't suggest we own guns so we can go shooting people because you're angry any more than Pro-Choicers go around saying "we should all have abortions!". Typically pro-gun people wish to have guns for defensive purposes, recreational purposes, or hunting purposes...not to go out and kill people.

If you don't see the difference someone taking a helpless persons life and someone being unable/unwilling to take the steps to lengthen their own life (in regards to health care) or using a firearm against someone attempting to kill you then I really don't know where to go with this.

Aunt Spiker said:

"Should be made illegal" - Why? so I'd have to have 5 kids instead for 4 because 4 kids just isn't enough. . . mmmhmmm. Maybe I should make that decision and no one else as to whether or not my family will grow if nature happens?

Click to expand...

Why?

Because Digsbe views that fetus/baby as a child and that you should have no more right to decide that your family should have 4 kids instead of 5 during your first trimester than you have when its their 10th birthday. "Why?" would be because Digsbe views it as a child, no different than the other 4 you have that are living. Your argument of the ability to "make that decision" of whether or not your "family will grow" is no more valid to him when you're pregnant then it is 5 years after you've given birth, because the child is the same in his mind at both those points.

Seriously, this is your problem and the problem of many people on both sides of this. You try to make arguments that completely and utterly ignore the other sides view point and then get flabbergasted when they don't agree with you.

Seriously. If someone came to you and said that it should be okay for them to put one of their children to sleep if they could have 4 kids instead of 5 because that decision should be made by them and no on else as to whether they want their family to be that size or not, would you go "Oh, well that makes sense"? Or would you find that completely reprehensable because the person is talking about killing a child?

Because THAT is what Digsbe views what you are doing. You may disagree with that notion, and you're absolutely free to, but you're being ignorant to think that arguing and discussing a point with him from YOUR view point rather than his is actually going to lead to anything or get any kind of answer from him because its like having someone ask you what shade of blue you like and you answer red.

Zyphlin said:

And gun laws mandating a wait aren't written "To keep mentally unstable or compuslive violent people from having guns" but end up making law abiding mentally stable individuals be treated like they're devoid of self control compulsive killers as they have to wait t obe sold a gun. That doesn't change the fact the obvious intent by and large by those pushing the law was to make it harder for compulsive people to quickly get a gun when they're angry.

Yes, is one of the methods they're employing to attempt to protect the child from harm making the woman feel bad for her action to hopefully cause her to reconsider? Yes, it seems that is the case. And from their perspective she should feel bad, for she's attempting to kill a child. Again, because you don't agree with the method or don't like the method or think the methods stupid is not an explanation for why it is somehow not able to concieved through conservative thought.

Click to expand...

So the government should play a role in giving others the chance to make us feel bad to practice our rights? I definitely wouldn't call that small or limited government. The government doesn't need to see that you feel bad or ashamed for practicing a right that the government gives you and permits you to practice in the first place.

Why does the government need to get involved between people? Why should the government need to give one group of people the chance to tell you exactly what they think of you, and what you are doing?

I am sorry, but it's my f**king right to buy a gun, to getting a hunting license, to get an abortion... and I shouldn't be forced by THE GOVERNMENT to sit down with an activist and be preached to and ridiculed before I exercise any of my f**king rights!

SheWolf said:

So the government should play a role in giving others the chance to make us feel bad to practice our rights? I definitely wouldn't call that small or limited government. The government doesn't need to see that you feel bad or ashamed for practicing a right that the government gives you and permits you to practice in the first place.

Why does the government need to get involved between people? Why should the government need to give one group of people the chance to tell you exactly what they think of you, and what you are doing?

I am sorry, but it's my f**king right to buy a gun, to getting a hunting license, to get an abortion... and I shouldn't be forced by THE GOVERNMENT to sit down with an activist and be preached to and ridiculed before I exercise any of my f**king rights!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can buy something like that. I take it then you'd support removing waiting periods for guns?

Ikari said:

Yeah, I can buy something like that. I take it then you'd support removing waiting periods for guns?

Click to expand...

There was already a waiting period before you could get an abortion, it was one day. I am mostly complaining about the mandatory counseling... I'd have to think more about the waiting periods and hear more of the arguments, but I am leaning towards removing them for guns and abortion.

SheWolf said:

So the government should play a role in giving others the chance to make us feel bad to practice our rights?

Click to expand...

Once again you're going from your point of view and trying to argue that it wouldn't be a conservative based idea coming from that point of view. Not to mention by your own sides view point, rights absolutely can have additional restrictions placed on them before partaking in them as long as it doesn't restrict you from actually doing it. That's an illogical way to look at this as few conservatives that are pushing for this would be viewing it from your point of view. However, in their mind this right is one that infringes upon OTHER peoples rights so they'll act as far as they can within the law to try and protect that other persons rights.

I definitely wouldn't call that small or limited government.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't either coming from your perspective of it. From a conservative perspective its not "smaller" government but it is "limited" government as its government doing part of what its empowered to do which is protecting citizens from physical harm.

Could you disagree with this idea for conservative reasons? Absolutely! I'm just saying, its ridiculous to act like or suggest that its impossible to come to this conclussion and this action based on conservative ideology. If your view point is that the fetus/child is a person its not unconservative to believe that the government should do everything within its power to respect THEIR rights save for actually taking away someone elses rights (and in this case, they only acknowledge it a "right" in a legal sense and not in a true sense).

SheWolf said:

So the government should play a role in giving others the chance to make us feel bad to practice our rights? I definitely wouldn't call that small or limited government. The government doesn't need to see that you feel bad or ashamed for practicing a right that the government gives you and permits you to practice in the first place.

Why does the government need to get involved between people? Why should the government need to give one group of people the chance to tell you exactly what they think of you, and what you are doing?

I am sorry, but it's my f**king right to buy a gun, to getting a hunting license, to get an abortion... and I shouldn't be forced by THE GOVERNMENT to sit down with an activist and be preached to and ridiculed before I exercise any of my f**king rights!

Click to expand...

All of our rights have limitations and controls - you have to be a certain age to vote. You have to have hunting license to actually hunt / fish, and you have to wait for a period of time / or have a background check to buy a firearm.

Even our 'unalienable rights' can be controlled and rebuked.

Zyphlin said:

Once again you're going from your point of view and trying to argue that it wouldn't be a conservative based idea coming from that point of view. Not to mention by your own sides view point, rights absolutely can have additional restrictions placed on them before partaking in them as long as it doesn't restrict you from actually doing it. That's an illogical way to look at this as few conservatives that are pushing for this would be viewing it from your point of view. However, in their mind this right is one that infringes upon OTHER peoples rights so they'll act as far as they can within the law to try and protect that other persons rights.



I wouldn't either coming from your perspective of it. From a conservative perspective its not "smaller" government but it is "limited" government as its government doing part of what its empowered to do which is protecting citizens from physical harm.

Click to expand...

I am arguing that there would be more Conservative ways to make abortion happen less. I don't have a problem with CPCs, in general, as long as they aren't spreading misinformation. I have no problem with people trying to help single mothers and teen mothers in their community. I have no problem with volunteering... Provide sex education.. whatever. Those are Conservative ways to work towards eliminating abortion. Trying to eliminate abortion by treating females like children and forcing "counseling" on them, is not Conservative. That is not small government.

All you're doing is supporting you're style of Big Government... Your big government gets a free pass, because it's moral or whatever. But you just have a preference for it.

From a conservative perspective its not "smaller" government but it is "limited" government as its government doing part of what its empowered to do which is protecting citizens from physical harm.

Click to expand...

And a anti gun activist could argue that that's why they want guns to be illegal, or an animal rights activist could argue that that's why hunting should be illegal... They'll put restrictions on guns, wait times, and make you sit through "counseling" and take self defense, before they give you a gun. That's not big government... just in from your POV. They are really doing what the government is designed to do... protect people from the dangers of exercising their rights. I mean, protect people from getting hurt by other people.