South Dakota just made an attempt to outlaw abortions totally.
Why would they do this?
Is it an empty bid by the Republican party to avoid the fact they have brought war, unemployment and debt to this nation during the past 6 years?
That probably has something to do with it but it is probably rooted in the fact that most people want to save the babies.
They want to save the babies so bad that they will even defend the right of a rapist to impregnate a woman and force her to birth the child and raise it for 18 years - even if that rapist were congenitally insane or wracked with personal physical disease.
They want to save the babies so bad in South Dakota so bad that they will defend the right of a father, or brother, or uncle to rape a child and force that child to give birth to another child and then raise it to adulthood.
South Dakota politicians claim to be voting for life but in the end they are voting for the death of our society.
What they are really doing is expressing their dismay that South Dakota is losing population. They would like to blame it on abortion but there are fewer abortions happening lately so that is not why people are fleeing South Dakota.
It is embarrassing that we as a nation spread out West only to find that on the fringes of our civilization the population is dying off and abandoning the land we fought so hard to secure.
In that light South Dakota is a failure and this vote to end abortion is just another grasping means the state government is taking to secure its own existence and continued economic prosperity.
Forcing women to give birth to a generation of rapists and inbred children, however, is no way to go about it.

Here is an example of a milder attempt that South Dakota made to address the problem of population loss, note how they acknowledge the fact that they are facing a population drain.
For myself, I don’t take South Dakota’s actions seriously at this time. Any state that drives off hard working young people and crushes ambition is no model for society.

“A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Supporting programs that bring communities together to 1
examine their demographic pasts and futures and that encourage them to look beyond 2
traditional barriers to find practical solutions to the problems they face. 3
WHEREAS, South Dakota, like many other rural states, is losing population, and, in many 4
instances, existing local units of government are not able to provide the same level of services 5
they once did; and 6
WHEREAS, South Dakotans throughout history have always felt a sense of community and 7
have come together to pool their resources when there is a need, and they want all citizens of the 8
state to receive quality government services, whether they live in the largest city or in the most 9
- 2 - SCR 8
rural area; and 1
WHEREAS, Traditional political and social boundaries can sometimes stand in the way of 2
real progress toward the goal of providing ample, high quality services to the people of South 3
Dakota in an efficient, cost-effective way: 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Seventy-sixth Legislature 5
of the State of South Dakota, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the South 6
Dakota Legislature supports programs that bring communities together to examine their 7
demographic pasts and futures, and that encourage them to look beyond traditional barriers to 8
find practical solutions to the problems they face.”

To take attention away from.

1. The port issue
2. The LOW approval rating Bush has right now
3. Bush knowing about how serious Katrina was going to be days before he gave a speech saying he "didn't know" (There is video of him getting info. about it, look it up Republicans!)

Mr. Rove I'm sure thought of this. Basically this will get back the core issues that makes Bush and the Republicans so "popular" and will get their base behind them again.

Originally posted by cranston36
Forcing women to give birth to a generation of rapists and inbred children, however, is no way to go about it.
Finally, someone deals with this issue in a realistic, objective manner.

Originally posted by Overdose
Bush knowing about how serious Katrina was going to be days before he gave a speech saying he "didn't know"
There's also a video of "Governor" Blanco saying the levees would hold (got much less coverage, I guess you didn't see it).

Having the parents advised when a child wants an abortion is one way to slow abortions. That's a good law.

Originally posted by Brooks
There's also a video of "Governor" Blanco saying the levees would hold (got much less coverage, I guess you didn't see it).
If a President lies about something then I think that is a far bigger issue, so no shit it got more coverage.

Originally posted by Overdose
If a President lies about something then I think that is a far bigger issue, so no shit it got more coverage.
It's so funny. Earlier in this thread, you said this abortion issue is being used by the administration to cover other issues.

Then when faced with the imcompetence of two Democrats who only have to worry about their own little state and city, and were totally unprepared and uninformed about the situation, your deflection is BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED.

Originally posted by Brooks
Earlier in this thread, you said this abortion issue is being used by the administration to cover other issues.
That is what they are doing. I'm sorry you are so blind, Brooks.

Originally posted by Brooks
Then when faced with the imcompetence of two Democrats who only have to worry about their own little state and city, and were totally unprepared and uninformed about the situation, your deflection is BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED.
Firstly, when did I say they were correct in what they did? I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth. Secondly, you are saying they were "uninformed"...correct? What I'm saying is that Bush was informed and then lied and said he wasn't informed on the levees breaking. Thirdy, you were saying/implying it got less coverage because it somehow has to do with them being Democrats (basically saying there is a liberal media). What I'm saying is that when a President makes a mistake/is wrong it is far more note worthy then when any other government offical makes a mistake/is wrong. Fourthly, Bush is lying and you should be worried about having a President who will lie.

Originally posted by cranston36
South Dakota just made an attempt to outlaw abortions totally.
Why would they do this?
....... it is probably rooted in the fact that most people want to save the babies.

Banning abortions will not save a single *baby*.

It might save some fetuses, but no babies.

But even so, as for me, I truly, fervently, deeply wish that the authoritarian ReichWingers COULD succeed in banning abortions nationwide.

Because doing so would spell the death of the Republican Party, and THAT single factor would be more crucial for the survival of the entire human species on this planet than the issue of abortion, and it would far outweigh the rights of women in ONE country to control their own reproductive choices.

Just like God, Freethinker, if Republicans did not exist, it would be necessary for humanity to create them. The nature of our political system demands it.

Originally posted by Overdose
If a President lies about something then I think that is a far bigger issue, so no shit it got more coverage.

maybe they BOTH actually thought the levees WOULD hold.. had you considered that?

Its amazing how if something goes wrong the president is AUTOMATICALLY lying...

i want proof... not bullshit

computer projections had ALOT MORE people dying if the levees broke than how many ACTUALLY died.

Glen Beck reported a study that said 60,000 would die in either LA or AL.. and only 1,000 actually did.
Originally posted by Freethinker

Because doing so would spell the death of the Republican Party, and THAT single factor would be more crucial for the survival of the entire human species on this planet than the issue of abortion, and it would far outweigh the rights of women in ONE country to control their own reproductive choices.

explain... how would banning abortion "kill" the republican party?

If you want death of a major party... its the democrats. If we get all the illegal aliens and close our borders... those are TONS of potential voters THEY NEED.
Originally posted by Cranston36

Is it an empty bid by the Republican party to avoid the fact they have brought war, unemployment and debt to this nation during the past 6 years?

really?? so war, unemployment and debt DIDNT EXIST before 6 years ago in our country?

i want proof... not bullshit

You should probably stop posting then. I think even should OD provide a smoking gun and DNA evidence, you would simply avoid the issue and demand more proof, claiming his isn't good enough.

Its amazing how if something goes wrong the president is AUTOMATICALLY lying...

Well, look at the list so far. Seriously, after the WMD episode, Bush should have lost all credibility. But no, problem after serious problem, scandal after scandal, Bush 'didn't know'.

I think we need to redefine what a "lie" is. I see it thrown around a lot but it never seems to apply the way it used to. I think in this day and age "lie" means things didnt work out how you thought or said they would. It used to mean you knew something to be true and willingly said the opposite. I think bush did believe there were WMD's in Iraq, I think he did believe we had a handle on things before the hurricaine. I dont think it makes him a liar, just wrong. Look at it this way, if you said you were going to meet your friend at t he bar at 10'o clock, and you lost your keys and showed up at 10:30 instead, does that make you a liar? according to overdose and napsterbater it would.

Okay, so he isn't a liar, he's just utterly incompetant.

Any way you shake it, Bush is a horrible president, and deserves at least 60% of the flak he's getting. I won't go so far as to say all of it is deserved, because you know as well as I do how people jump on a bandwagon and make shit up, but even barring all the incidents where Bush has supposedly 'lied' to the public, there are still quite a number of totally self-serving government appointments and contracts the Bush Administration has facilitated, their "spend and spend" financial policy, his overly religious solutions to such things as AIDs policy, and the list goes on and on.

At what point do legitimate arguments against this Administration turn into blatantly partisan mud-flinging?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
his overly religious solutions to such things as AIDs policy What religious solutions were those?

Let us curb AIDS in Africa by telling the kids not to have sex!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
his overly religious solutions to such things as AIDs policy,......Let us curb AIDS in Africa by telling the kids not to have sex!
First off, abstinence has medical and societal value in terms of battling AIDS, so I don't accept that abstinence equals religion 100%. But even if it did:

Congress required PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) to allot about 7% of the money to go for abstinence programs, leaving 93% to go to everything else.

That doesn't sound "overly religious".

Brooks

To some people any religion is too much religion. Not only is any religion too much religion, anything that can be remotely connected to religion in any way, shape or form is inherently religious and therefore too much religion.

On another not, Alabama seems poised to ban most abortions. The dominoes begin to fall one by one.

I hope abortion is out-lawed.

1. Because there are tons of Republicans who are pro-choice and it will divide the Republican party to no end. And then the Republican party will not be functional. Hell, even Bush's mother is pro-choice.

2. When we start to see woman dying on the streets because of back-ally abortions it will look so good on the part of the Pro-Lifer's. Far worse then the death of a fetus.

Originally posted by Brooks
Finally, someone deals with this issue in a realistic, objective manner.
LMFAO! :D

2. When we start to see woman dying on the streets because of back-ally abortions it will look so good on the part of the Pro-Lifer's. Far worse then the death of a fetus.

Won't happen OD. Women have been having back-alley abortions for centuries, and nobody has even seemed to care. It stands to reason that nobody will care afterwards.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Won't happen OD. Women have been having back-alley abortions for centuries, and nobody has even seemed to care. It stands to reason that nobody will care afterwards.
I don't think you can say 100% that it won't make a different in current American society. Maybe 30 years ago it wasn't a big deal, but with how the media is now I think it would make a difference in how people view the abortion debate.

I can't say 100%, but there are tons of issues that just don't get press in the mainstream media. An example, coming from the late Isaac Asimov, is the fact that there are very few big fish left in the world, and that number is rapidly diminishing. No press whatsoever.

Abortion "alternatives" are still practiced all the time in other parts of the world. So is sex slavery. There are any number of issues with which the American public is just completely unfamiliar with.

How often does back-alley abortions play into the current debate on the subject? It doesn't. All the argument revolves around the "pro-choice" line of debate. Take a look at the last abortion thread. After Dop mentioned it, nobody touched it, until I decided to bring it up again. And still people wouldn't touch it. I had to hammer again and again on that point to get people to listen. And they still don't.

Maybe it will happen. I wouldn't bet on it.

Originally posted by Overdose
I hope abortion is out-lawed.

When we start to see woman dying on the streets because of back-ally abortions it will look so good on the part of the Pro-Lifer's. Far worse then the death of a fetus.

Were people being forced to step over the bodies of poor women who died of back alley abortions before Roe vs Wade? No.
Abortions seldom took place and women had the children. If Roe vs Wade is overturned women will not HAVE to resort to back alley abortions. They will always have the option of practicing birth control or completing the pregnancy.

Cranston's initial post was one of the most one sided pieces of propaganda I have read in a long time.

....women being forced to carry to term the children of rapists....

....woman being raped by fathers and brothers and being forced to give birth....

Readin Cranston's post would lead on to believe rape and incest were the primary reasons women have abortions other than the real reasons which have more to do with convenience in almost every single case.

The women don't want babies because they are unmarried.

If you aren't married practice birth control or just practice abstinence.

The women don't want babies because they want to continue going to school.

See the above solution.

The women don't want babies because they have enough children already.

Again, see the above solution.

No one has tao get pregnant other than the few, and it is very few who are raped. The others get pregnant because of something they did coupled with something they did not do. The something they did is have sex. The something they did not do is use protection.

Originally posted by Overdose
I hope abortion is out-lawed.

When we start to see woman dying on the streets because of back-ally abortions it will look so good on the part of the Pro-Lifer's. Far worse then the death of a fetus.

Were people being forced to step over the bodies of poor women who died of back alley abortions before Roe vs Wade? No.
Abortions seldom took place and women had the children. If Roe vs Wade is overturned women will not HAVE to resort to back alley abortions. They will always have the option of practicing birth control or completing the pregnancy.

Cranston's initial post was one of the most one sided pieces of propaganda I have read in a long time.

....women being forced to carry to term the children of rapists....

....woman being raped by fathers and brothers and being forced to give birth....

Readin Cranston's post would lead on to believe rape and incest were the primary reasons women have abortions other than the real reasons which have more to do with convenience in almost every single case.

The women don't want babies because they are unmarried.

If you aren't married practice birth control or just practice abstinence.

The women don't want babies because they want to continue going to school.

See the above solution.

The women don't want babies because they have enough children already.

Again, see the above solution.

No one has tao get pregnant other than the few, and it is very few who are raped. The others get pregnant because of something they did coupled with something they did not do. The something they did is have sex. The something they did not do is use protection.

They will always have the option of practicing birth control or completing the pregnancy.

As well as sticking coat hangers up their birth canals.

I agree with you on the one-sided part of cranston's post, but still, babies have a way of clouding the minds and emotions of people. If they decide to perform an unsafe abortion, there isn't much we as a society can do about it. You can moralise all you want, but unless a person is given a safe and effective way of getting rid of their unwanted babies once they are already conceived, unsafe methods will continue to be practiced.

To Napsterbater

How often does back-alley abortions play into the current debate on the subject? It doesn't. All the argument revolves around the "pro-choice" line of debate. Take a look at the last abortion thread. After Dop mentioned it, nobody touched it, until I decided to bring it up again. And still people wouldn't touch it. I had to hammer again and again on that point to get people to listen. And they still don't.
The reason it does not play into the current debate is because there are no pictures of it currently. No stories, or families mourning over the loss of a sister/daughter who died because of a back-ally abortion. Don't count it out once the pictures/stories start to come out if it becomes legal.

To Frogger

No one has tao get pregnant other than the few, and it is very few who are raped. The others get pregnant because of something they did coupled with something they did not do. The something they did is have sex. The something they did not do is use protection.
I don't care why a woman wants to get an abortion. It is her choice because it is inside of her body and is thus apart of her. If she is an idiot and gets pregnant for not using birth control and she wants to get an abortion...I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to get one.

Also, I find this all ironic. Republicans don't want to give money to the poor, have programs to help single mothers, daycare systems etc. etc. but then they want teenagers and low-income mothers to have babies? It just proves the Republicans care more about the fetus then the child. If anything the Republicans should be FOR abortion. And aren't Republicans known for wanting the government OUT of our personal lives?

Originally posted by Overdose
Also, I find this all ironic. Republicans don't want to give money to the poor,....... but then they want teenagers and low-income mothers to have babies? It just proves the Republicans care more about the fetus then the child. If anything the Republicans should be FOR abortion. And aren't Republicans known for wanting the government OUT of our personal lives?
That's a very good point, OD.

Aww, Prae, you do have a sensitive side. There's hope for you yet! :)

Well, you have to admit - it's a good point, period. If we're going to be such a "God-fearing" nation, then I say let HIM judge our actions, not the Republican party. Especially when dealing with something as personal as pregnancy. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of using abortion as a form of birth control, but let's be honest here - we already have a surplus of degenerates popping out kids in record number. The only question is: are we actually killing anyone if we allow abortion to take place. My thought is we're not; we're "killing" potential life. In other words, an embryo is nothing more than a viable mass of cellular matter; no different than my semen is a viable mass of cellular matter. If discarding that is a crime against humanity, then I'm going to hell on a first-class ticket.

No arguments here, Prae.

But here's the thing, an embryo becomes a fetus at an early stage in it's development. I'm not being devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to make sure you know what you're getting yourself into by condoning abortion. Even if you allow abortions only in the first trimester, that thing looks a hell of a lot like a baby when it comes out.

Even so, we need abortions, and they should be allowed until the beginning of the second trimester.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Even so, we need abortions

we do? perhaps if people who only "needed" abortions had them we would be niths situation. the problem is to many people who simply "want" an abortion are using them so they dont have to postpone thier trip to hawaii. I know the instant reaction to this statement will be "dont be ridiculous", well, I bet money that more people have them for that reason then have them "for the sake of the mother", probably 10 fold. Becasue any mother worth her salt would rather die then kill her baby. Selfish pregnant women on the other hand would say they "needed" an abortion so as to not ahve the inconvience of raisng a child.

I have yet to meet a woman who merely "wanted" an abortion.

We could appoint people to judge, but in the current climate of this heavily politicised debate, it wouldn't do us any good. Some judges would always rule positively, and others would rule negatively, and the net result would be that anyone who wants one would easily be able to find a judge who will approve it.

It's an all-or-nothing affair, by the very nature of the debate.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
But here's the thing, an embryo becomes a fetus at an early stage in it's development. I'm not being devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to make sure you know what you're getting yourself into by condoning abortion.
Yeah, just because it bothered me, allow a minute for scrutiny-
we're "killing" potential life. In other words, an embryo is nothing more than a viable mass of cellular matter; no different than my semen is a viable mass of cellular matter.

It is life, it is just a potential person. And it is different than your semen, as it is a fertilized egg that is either in the embryonic stage or the fetal stage.
It is her choice because it is inside of her body and is thus apart of her.
Actually, a reason for many miscarriages comes from the antibodies attacking a foreign object inside the woman's body, in this case a fertilized egg. It is genetically different from the female and so it is not part of her body, just dependant upon it.

Phew :D Now return to your debating or whatever it is we do here.

Originally posted by Travh20
we do? perhaps if people who only "needed" abortions had them we would be niths situation. the problem is to many people who simply "want" an abortion.
I agree with that, Trav, but in response to Nappy's point (which, incidentally, was good) - I don't think people should be allowed to abort their child any later that the third month. I guess the question then becomes in what stage does the central nervous system conduct thought or feel pain. I know this science is relatively speculative, but that aside, I can't condemn this practice based on the premise that some body of legislature has appointed themselves the arbiter of morality in 2006. That's what you call an extreme answer to a personal question/situation. Who are we, as a country, to make that decision for people, Trav? Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I have yet to meet a woman who merely "wanted" an abortion.

A need is something necessary for survival. Unless there is some physical ailment keeping the child from being born safely through the mother, it is always a desire, a want, to get an abortion. While those ill-fated persons that are pregnant with a child they don't or cannot care for, may not want to go through the process or subject their child to a life of destitution or interrupt their own lives, it is still a want.

Edit-Well worded Prae

Originally posted by Evakian
A need is something necessary for survival. Unless there is some physical ailment keeping the child from being born safely through the mother, it is always a desire, a want, to get an abortion. While those ill-fated persons that are pregnant with a child they don't or cannot care for, may not want to go through the process or subject their child to a life of destitution or interrupt their own lives, it is still a want.
Whatever the reason, it's not the job of the Republican Party to definitively say NO. Who the fuck are they, anyway? However, your point is well taken. Keen observation.

No, Evakian, a need is something a person desperately has to have in order to preserve their feeling of themselves as a human being. Real life isn't so cut and dry.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, Evakian, a need is something a person desperately has to have in order to preserve their feeling of themselves as a human being.

No, Nap, a need is a necessity required for survival; simple and quick.

Real life isn't so cut and dry.

Determining what a necessity and what isn't a necessity is, sure is.

Not so, and it is easily demonstrable.

Do I need to eat tonight? It won't kill me if I don't, so according to your definition, I don't need supper tonight. In fact, if we used your definition, we don't need food right up until the point that if we don't eat, we die. And even then, we only 'need' the amount of food that is strictly necessary to keep us alive.

I don't 'need' shelter, because I can survive perfectly well without it. I don't need clothing, because if I remain indoors, I can survive fine.

There is nothing in this life, Evakian, that you absolutely need, and if that is your definition, then there is no such thing. Which makes the definition worthless.

Mine is a much better one.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Do I need to eat tonight? It won't kill me if I don't, so according to your definition, I don't need supper tonight.

I thought you had more common sense than that, perhaps I was wrong. Sustenance is a part of survival; maintaining proper health to ensure a better living experience to survive longer and more efficiently.

In fact, if we used your definition, we don't need food right up until the point that if we don't eat, we die.

You'd be killing yourself in the process, not living a healthful existence for your body or mind.

And even then, we only 'need' the amount of food that is strictly necessary to keep us alive.

It takes between 1500-2500 calories (depending on the individual) to function. Engaging in physical and mental stresses throughout the day requires more and more. You make this strict necessity, which could be upwards of 3000 calories or as low as 2000, sound like a terrible, meager existence.

I don't 'need' shelter, because I can survive perfectly well without it. I don't need clothing, because if I remain indoors, I can survive fine.

That would depend of the enviroment, naturally. ;)

There is nothing in this life, Evakian, that you absolutely need

Food, water, a livable enviroment are three rather large ones that come to mind immediately.

Which makes the definition worthless.

Provided you don't have the cranial capacity to reason that starving yourself close to the point of death is still not a necessity to eat. If you wish to be juvenile about the matter, take the word 'thrive' or 'live in decent conditions' and throw that in somewhere.

Mine is a much better one.

A need is something a person desperately has to have in order to preserve their feeling of themselves as a human being.

"Preserve their feeling of themselves as a human being"?
A convicted child rapist cleans up, but feels inhuman for their past crimes, we have to somehow erase that event to fulfill their need?
A transgender individual doesn't feel like a person because they are in the "wrong body" so to speak, is that sex-change operation, as well as identity change a need? It may allow them to live much more happily, but I wouldn't consider happiness and survival within the same line of definition.

If you wish to be juvenile about the matter, take the word 'thrive' or 'live in decent conditions' and throw that in somewhere.

It isn't being juvenile, Evakian. Semantics is a very important part of proper debate. We have to know what the words we are using mean if we can talk meaningfully about anything.

A transgender individual doesn't feel like a person because they are in the "wrong body" so to speak, is that sex-change operation, as well as identity change a need?

Yes, absolutely. A person must feel comfortable with who they are.

A convicted child rapist cleans up, but feels inhuman for their past crimes, we have to somehow erase that event to fulfill their need?

No, what they need is to come to grips with who they are as a person and forgive themselves. It isn't possible to do such things, but if it were, then I would say yes, it would be a legitimate need. A person's life is their own, and we have no business dictating what they need and what they don't.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Not so, and it is easily demonstratable.
Just nitpicking here, Nap - but the word is demonstrable. I used to say the same thing until someone corrected me.

Thanks, Prae!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Semantics is a very important part of proper debate.

Therefore, we must abandom reason and propose that survival does not entail eating until one is about to expire!

Yes, absolutely. A person must feel comfortable with who they are.

Are comfort and survival synonymous?

*The transgender example was a poor one

No, what they need is to come to grips with who they are as a person and forgive themselves. It isn't possible to do such things, but if it were, then I would say yes, it would be a legitimate need.

You've become a psychiatrist since you've moved to Atlanta? :D I'm not read on the specific cases of pedophiles attempting rehabiliation, although it is widely accepted as 'incurable'.

A person's life is their own, and we have no business dictating what they need and what they don't.

Amen, but there are certain physical needs that can be judged by the observer, while intrapersonal needs are largely their own to know.

I thought you had more common sense than that, perhaps I was wrong. Sustenance is a part of survival; maintaining proper health to ensure a better living experience to survive longer and more efficiently.

No so, a recent find was that when mammals eat less than they need to go about their daily business, humans included, they happen to live longer. The effect isn't as pronounced in humans, not enough to justify the lifestyle change, but it does exist.

Therefore, we must abandom reason and propose that survival does not entail eating until one is about to expire!

No. We must abandon the idiotic idea that the only things we need are those things that we cannot survive without.

Are comfort and survival synonymous?

No. We are speaking of needs, which != survival.

You've become a psychiatrist since you've moved to Atlanta? I'm not read on the specific cases of pedophiles attempting rehabiliation, although it is widely accepted as 'incurable'.

I consider myself an excellent judge of mental workings. Yes, paedophilia is incurable. Which is why a person needs to forgive themselves, because they will never be able to change it. Only when a person can love themselves for who they are, will they gain the strength to resist their urges.

Amen, but there are certain physical needs that can be judged by the observer, while intrapersonal needs are largely their own to know.

The line between the two blurs into an unrecognizable haze once you really start to study the phenomena. Not even the physical needs can be adequately judged all the time by people. Sex, for an example, is an important need. How much sex? It's different for every person. It is both a physical and an interpersonal need.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No. We must abandon the idiotic idea that the only things we need are those things that we cannot survive without.

Emotional needs often transcend the physical boundary, I was merely speaking of things such as hydration, etc. Point taken.

I consider myself an excellent judge of mental workings.

So does Charles Manson. ;)
That doesn't change the reality that you speak without experience or accredited education on the subject, so one must wonder why you, in any way, shape, or form, consider yourself an excellent judge.

It's different for every person. It is both a physical and an interpersonal need.

Are you fishing for intrapersonal? In any case, debate over I suppose.

So does Charles Manson.

So he was. That would certainly explain how he was able to manipulate them as he did.

Power is a double-edged sword.

That doesn't change the reality that you speak without experience or accredited education on the subject, so one must wonder why you, in any way, shape, or form, consider yourself an excellent judge.

Experience, I have plenty. As for accredited education, such a thing is meaningless when it comes to determining real ability. Society chooses to recognize those with the proper credentials, and not to recognize those without. But, even without a medical degree, one can easily see that Shakespeare had an excellent grasp of the human mind.

Education will make you a good technician. But you need something else to really understand.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Well, you have to admit - it's a good point, period. If we're going to be such a "God-fearing" nation, then I say let HIM judge our actions, not the Republican party.
Think of an act that you consider to be truly wrong (murder, rape, assault, etc.)

Couldn't this same argument for any of those?

If Roe vs. Wade were overturned tomorrow (which will never, ever, ever happen) then abortion laws will be made on a state by state basis.

Abortions will still be available, except the two parties involved may be less flippant about their risk-taking if they had to travel to another state to get one.

Couldn't this same argument for any of those?

Yes. The definition of murder, rape, assault, are not constant and change with the times. Society must choose which wrongs to apply judgement to and which ones to not. Many people judge abortion to be murder. Some people do not recognize statuatory rape as a crime. Duelling, at one point, was a lawful activity done in the proper manner.

Originally posted by Brooks
Think of an act that you consider to be truly wrong (murder, rape, assault, etc.)

Couldn't this same argument for any of those?
I suppose, but isn't that comparison a bit of a stretch? Are you implying that first trimester abortion is on par with murder, rape, or assault?

Prae,

There are those, and I am among them, who feel all abortions are murder. Since I consider all abortion murder I must, if I am true to myself want abortions ended.

As a libertarian, not a Republican as you have said more than once concerning those who are against abortion, I am totally in favor of consenting adults being allowed to do anything they wish so long as they do not hurt a child or another non-consenting adult. Since the unborn child is not an adult and since it cannot agree to the procedure he or she is being harmed without his or her consent, not only harmed but harmed to the extent that the harm can never be ameliorated or rectified.

Originally posted by Frogger
Since the unborn child is not an adult and since it cannot agree to the procedure he or she is being harmed without his or her consent, not only harmed but harmed to the extent that the harm can never be ameliorated or rectified.
That's totally understandable, Frogger, but I think you and I both know that it's not the child's decision. As I've already pointed out, no developed central nervous system = a non-issue. The rest of this debate lies in superstition / religious conviction, and in fact, has no foundation in logical argument. As a matter of fact, I'm all for abortion. To be completely honest, I think mandatory abortion should be enforced in situations where stupid, poor, unmarried people are having kids in record number. And on that note, why would you want to pay for some asshole's screw-up anyway? By the same token, why would you want to force someone who was initially irresponsible to prove their dependability / maturity by putting someone else's life and future well being on the line? I mean, think about it - that's like betting on a racehorse going off at 50:1 while forcing everyone else to make the same bet. I'm sorry, but that mindset makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Praetorian

Someday you must meet my wife. She favors government distribution of free meth and crack on the condition of forced sterilization. Says it will end the gang problem in one generation!

She's probably right.

ON EDIT: actually, it makes me think of what I used to say to the panhandlers downtown Chicago. They'd ask for money, and unlike any good Republican, I'd always give it to them, but on one condition: I'd make them promise they weren't going to buy food with it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I suppose, but isn't that comparison a bit of a stretch? Are you implying that first trimester abortion is on par with murder, rape, or assault?
No, they're not similar, but the philosophy should be consistent.
When "let God be the judge" is so selectively applied, it just sounds like a get-me-off-the-hook statement. A bit of an easy out.

(I'm glad we can finally disagree on something. People were suspecting you were just using two different names)

You're too kind, Brooks. :) I only wish I were as informed as you are on most issues...

Prae,

Your concern seems to be with the woman. That is our major point of difference. Mine is with the unborn child. I don't see why a totally innocent victim should be sacrificed so that a woman can exercise some right of free expression.

Originally posted by Frogger
Prae,

Your concern seems to be with the woman. That is our major point of difference. Mine is with the unborn child. I don't see why a totally innocent victim should be sacrificed so that a woman can exercise some right of free expression.
My concern doesn't necessarily lie with the woman; my concern lies with the state of our country in general. That aside, do me a favor and define "victim". I'm sorry, but I hardly see an issue with expelling a viable mass of tissue when the stakes involve the child's future well being, the money spent on governmental aid to provide for it, and last but not least, the possibility of mom's piss poor habits being bred into her children from the get-go. If anything, my concern is for the child AND our nation. Christian morality aside, not allowing abortions to take place is a bad plan with terrible consequences, period. How is forcing some dipshit to have a child a good thing (for the child OR the parent)? How is forcing a raped woman to birth a kid justified in your mind? If anything, she never had the choice because some sanctimonious bureaucrat decided that abortion was "immoral". Now, and I don't know about you, but I don't think that decision should be up to our government...

Prae

I might agree with you at least a bit if I thought that children raised by less than perfect parents always turn out to be somehow sub-standard. That is not the case. Children of sub-standard and even disfunctional parents can grow up to be useful, happy people and children of parents who are viewed as ideal by the world may lead sad and unproductive lives.

To take away a child's chance at life simply because he might be unhappy growing up does not seem like a sufficient reason for abortion to me.

Originally posted by Frogger
Prae

I might agree with you at least a bit if I thought that children raised by less than perfect parents always turn out to be somehow sub-standard.
No, but the chances of it happening increase by at least a factor of 10. Outside of being raised in a decent, loving, two-parent environment, you're most likely dealing with shitty genetics to boot. IOW, it's probably better for everyone if that child never saw the light of day.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Christian morality aside, not allowing abortions to take place is a bad plan with terrible consequences, period. How is forcing some dipshit to have a child a good thing ?

Ain't you heard, Prae?!?!?!

Juh-heeeezuuuus wants ever last one of the 'lil zygotes for a sunbeam.

(If you doubt it, just ask the next superstitious --"Whah, as soon as the aig is fertilized, hit becums a human bean!!!" -- nitwit that you run into.)