South Dakota Forces Teenage Girls To Bear Children After Bei

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

South Dakota Forces Teenage Girls To Bear Children After Bei

Postby AAAhmed46 » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:45 am

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/ ... index.html

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."

Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.






Okay, well maybe the title of this thread was a little extreme but hey, it catches attention.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby -Metablade- » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:17 pm

Yeah, I saw an interview with the Governor of South Dakota over the weekend. It disgusts me.
The whole thing reeks of Bible Thumping zealots who wish not only to control everyone's lives with backwards and oppressive fundamentalism, but to re-relegate women's roles to that of mere reproductive vessel. I wonder if they realize how much they have in common with the Taliban?

Whist I do not think this will have a prayer (Pun indented) in overturning Roe v. Wade, I can tell you this, the mere fact that Bush is even is the White House indicates the insanity the American people are capable of.
If this does overturn it,
I plan to move to Canada.
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
User avatar
-Metablade-
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Sweet!

Postby Robert U » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:44 pm

I plan to move to Canada.


Sweet we need more blade merchants up here in gods country! Calgary's cool, no sales tax and the government has not annexed the womb yet.
Robert U
 

Postby -Metablade- » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:00 am

I gotcha covered...:)

That reminds me..

http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.p ... 680#139680
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
User avatar
-Metablade-
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby IJ » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:40 am

If Bush's appointees overturn Roe v Wade, which from a quick read is basically what upholding this law would do, then there's going to be a swing in the other direction, especially if the democrats can field a nonlaughable opponent. Or maybe we could just have a civil war, sunni/shiite style. Roe is part of the democratic party's edition of the Bible.... even tho it's definitely a reach to imagine that the Founders wanted states to be inable to prohibit abortion and to yield to an interpretation of privacy on that important matter. It would be less concerning to me if there was as much concern for babies as there is for fetuses.
--Ian
IJ
 
Posts: 2758
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby cxt » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:32 pm

What bothers me, what seriously bothers me is that if folks "really" wanted to stop abortion they could drastically reduce the numbers just by standing out in front of the clinics and INSTEAD of flinging blood and insults--just calmly and gently pleading:

"We can't have kids, please let us adopt your baby."

It would work like a charm.

Only problem is that they would now be personally responsible for the very life they saved--for the next 18-21 years.

And I don't see many abortion foes actually stepping up and walking it like they talk it.

If people are honestly that opposed to abortion--then why are they not down at the local clinic saving lives??

If you have already done so--please ignore the above.
cxt
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm


Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron