SD bans all abortions

[BIG$COTT]

I GUARANTEE their opinion would change if their white daughter was pregnant by a black kid. We'd see them get the first fucking ticket to Mexico and those so-called "morals" out the window.

Mariano

Bingo...
Fuck all you anti-abortion guys for claiming that the people debating you are pro-abortion. nobody on either side of this issue wants to see abortion happen if necessary. I also think that this thread has forgotten a few things. first of all, Roe v. Wade is not a case dealing with when life begins, or whether or not aborting fetuses is murder, it is a privacy case. Meaning that regardless of what you believe, you need to stay out of the decisions of others. Whether or not i think abortion is necessary is not up to me... its a mothers private issue.
Secondly, (and this is playing off Mariano) let us not forget that a major reason that people pushed for the legalisation of abortion was to protect pregnant mothers. What do I mean?
example:
whatever your background is, you will sacrifice an embryo in hopes of making the life outlook for the embryo's mother better. This is the same for the rich republican senator who dosen't want his little angel to be distracted from private school as it is for the inner city mom who has the abortion because she knows that she does not have the means for providing for another child. with that said, it is naive to think that abortions wont happen. they happened before "Roe", they happen now, and they will happen if "Roe" gets overturned. It is important to realize that access to proper medical care for an illegal procedure is hard to find. I certainly don't want to see young women being exposed to backroom medicine in an attempt to fufill an action that would be carried out regardless of the law.
By no means should people be advocating abortion, but lets get a reality check and realize that in the same way people on this forum hold different moral values, people will apply their own morality to these kinds of situations. individuals will put their own self interest before anything else. I would rather see young women make mistakes early in life, learn from them, and become successes that have lived up to their potentials than to be forever burdened by bad judgement in their youth. Abortion doesn't go without consequence... i have yet to hear from a women who has had the procedure and enjoyed it. It is an emotionally devastating experience. My only hope is that people who choose to go through with the proceedure learn from it, and use it to better their lives instead of being further irresponsible with the actions (in the case of using abortion as birth control)

[royalflush313]

wow, gone for a 24 hours and so much escalation.

I want to remark 2 things. Note that, I'm assuming the non-connection of the state and church - meaning religious morals in regards to what is right/wrong is not a justifiable way of governing the citizens on the grounds that there exists no universl religious morality.

1)
- There is no objective truth as to whether if abortion is right or not. Best decision ultimately results from the most educated belief, and I am using belief in a very loose term.

- If I am right, that there exists no objective truthness as to what is right/wrong (or good/bad), then:

• Any act in itself cannot ever be used as the means to decide the correctness or the non-correctness. (we cannot simply say that the act of abortion is wrong, act of killing is wrong, act of stealing is wrong).
• We do not simply regulate 'killing,' but rather, there exists conditions such that these conditions satisfy any reasonable (don't argue with me about what is reasonable please) men and women to believe that the killing in the particular context was wrong. (e.g. Killing an innocent stranger for the purpose of self-entertainment and nothing more).
• Killing is an act. Abortion is an act.
• Then, like human killing, abortion cannot, on it's own have any grounds to either deny or allow.
• What needs to be argued for, is the circumstances in which the act of abortion should be regulated, and the circumstances in which it should be allowed, based on an educated belief, agreed upon any reasonable men and women.

• I can see that, at least some people are simply arguing, damn, abortion has to be denied because its immoral! Or it's the choice of woman, let them have the right! In my opinion, such is not a convincing one, and these are the very arguments that stops any refinement or escalation of the arguments, either for, or against.

2) Damn. asubimmer, some are really contributing to the discussion, but damn, you are really letting the anti-abortionist down with your non-sense. Please stop. This isn't a school, so I don't need the ad hominem card thrown at me.
I don't know which kind of Evolution you are talking about, but if wish to speak anything about the Survival of the Fittest or Darwinism, you should know very well that the Survival of the Fittest is the natural principle that Charles Darwin attribute as the cause for Evolution.

[mge_1]

ya heard this today too. it will in your states soon!

[AppState325]

wow, gone for a 24 hours and so much escalation.

I want to remark 2 things. Note that, I'm assuming the non-connection of the state and church - meaning religious morals in regards to what is right/wrong is not a justifiable way of governing the citizens on the grounds that there exists no universl religious morality.

1)
- There is no objective truth as to whether if abortion is right or not. Best decision ultimately results from the most educated belief, and I am using belief in a very loose term.

- If I am right, that there exists no objective truthness as to what is right/wrong (or good/bad), then:

• Any act in itself cannot ever be used as the means to decide the correctness or the non-correctness. (we cannot simply say that the act of abortion is wrong, act of killing is wrong, act of stealing is wrong).
• We do not simply regulate 'killing,' but rather, there exists conditions such that these conditions satisfy any reasonable (don't argue with me about what is reasonable please) men and women to believe that the killing in the particular context was wrong. (e.g. Killing an innocent stranger for the purpose of self-entertainment and nothing more).
• Killing is an act. Abortion is an act.
• Then, like human killing, abortion cannot, on it's own have any grounds to either deny or allow.
• What needs to be argued for, is the circumstances in which the act of abortion should be regulated, and the circumstances in which it should be allowed, based on an educated belief, agreed upon any reasonable men and women.

• I can see that, at least some people are simply arguing, damn, abortion has to be denied because its immoral! Or it's the choice of woman, let them have the right! In my opinion, such is not a convincing one, and these are the very arguments that stops any refinement or escalation of the arguments, either for, or against.

thank you for bringing some sanity back to this thread. After you left, people simply reverted to personal insults instead of actually trying to have a conversation.

[CleanAzzE30z]

With the slavery comparison, youre wrong. That was about people not having freedoms and rights, so it was corrected. This is about taking away a freedom and a right for a woman to do with her body what she pleases in these tough predicaments. Perhaps with banning abortion, the poeple who vote for it should also think about adopting all these kids that will inevitably grow up well undereducated and far form the ideal circumstances. The argument of "They should have thought of that before they fucked" is after the fact. It should not be a penalty that also at the same time brings a life into the world almost certainly to lead to reciprocating the cycle. Yes its a stupid decisiont o not use rubbers. but its reality and it happens, eliminating the option to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or life will do absolutely nothing to stop this from happening, all in the meantime creating more of a population that will be under the pverty line. How does this not make sense. This is the real world. Religious beliefs of right and wrong have no place in making law that has a population that is greatly diverse and could very well not be of the same school of thought. As I said before, if you are against abortions, dont get one. But Id like to see you be a single mother that has to work minimum wage with a child to take care of. Put yourself in other peoples shoes. Its easy to tell people what to do and what is right and wrong when youre not in the situation. Religious fundamentalism is bad no matter WHO is practicing it. Leave it out of the government, please. ;)

Mariano

[BimmerToad]

thank you for bringing some sanity back to this thread. After you left, people simply reverted to personal insults instead of actually trying to have a conversation.

I couldn't agree with you more....

you want proof that evolution doesn't exist?
.....
stupid people like you are still around

ok, Mr. Insanity, I assume you HAVE a degree in science, and know more about the topic than a PROFESSOR FROM BERKELEY?? you must be smart

you are a fool...you are talking about the survival of the fitest. Yes that is true to some extent. like you said the best fit ones are going to survive longer. but that is NOT evolution.

...way to show your own intelligence, and nice job making an ass of yourself with the quote.

Now to be fair, since I browsed through some pro-abortion websites reading up on your 'facts,' one of you should pick up one of the thousands of non-biased evolutionary biology books that are used to teach thousands of different college level biology classes.

Until a creationism 'scientist' wins an award in the scientific community for published objective scientific research, creationism has no scientific validity.

Maybe the creationism crew should go back to threads with less substance ....

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=64165

A little OT, but how do you guys feel about homosexuals? Evil? Spawns of Lucifer?

[CleanAzzE30z]

Bimmertoad- You should already know this, but god hates fags. Its Jesus's way to ostracize everyone who isnt like you. You didnt know that? Thats what he taught!! Love for your fellow man? understanding? Compassion? Stay off the pot, commie!!

Mariano

[AdironRider]

Imagine is we lived in the 1700's, when Tomas Malthus was considered "smart". Discuss.

[dude8383]

Imagine is we lived in the 1700's, when Tomas Malthus was considered "smart". Discuss.

lolzzzzz

[Insanity]

Also on that site where ASU took the bloody pic from:

NEW DVD!
The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED
Who is the dreaded beast of Revelation? Now at last, a plausible candidate for this personification of evil incarnate has been identified (or re-identified). Ken Gentry's insightful analysis of scripture and history is likely to revolutionize your understanding of the book of Revelation -- and even more importantly -- amplify and energize your entire Christian worldview!

Woe to you, oh earth and sea; for the devil sends the beast with wrath. And let he who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number.

Its number... is six hundred and sixty six.

[AppState325]

A little OT, but how do you guys feel about homosexuals? Evil? Spawns of Lucifer?

well, I could care less to be honest, it's their decision, they aren't killing anyone in the process.


you need a life, quit trying to stir up arguements all the time. Is your above post REALLY necessary? I've already told you, we obviously strongly disagree with each other on a LOT of stuff for different reasons. I've accepted that and MOVED ON, why don't you?

[AdironRider]

lolzzzzz

Im glad you got it

[thejimlab]

Woe to you, oh earth and sea; for the devil sends the beast with wrath. And let he who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number.

Its number... is six hundred and sixty six.

god bless iron maiden

[BimmerToad]

you need a life, quit trying to stir up arguements all the time. Is your above post REALLY necessary? I've already told you, we obviously strongly disagree with each other on a LOT of stuff for different reasons. I've accepted that and MOVED ON, why don't you?

Sorry if I hit another touchy subject.

You're right, we do differ on opinion on quite a range of topics, I just wanted to see if we could go 3 for 3 ... :D

[royalflush313]

Imagine is we lived in the 1700's, when Tomas Malthus was considered "smart". Discuss.

Malthus, whether or not someone agree with him (or Darwin) for that matter, is still an influential political economist who came up with some interesting theories.

Without Malthus, there's no Darwin.

One thing I really like about Malthus is the thesis that human population increased geometrically, while resources needed by humans increased arithmetically.
Meaning, population increased from 2-4-8-16-32-64 and so on, while resources increased from 1-2-3-4-5-6.
From there, Darwin likes to argue that Natural Selection takes place, where the superior gets to the resources, while the inferior population (should) diminish - and thus the objections to state institutions (asylums and what not) that allows for continual reproduction of the inferior which supposedly only adds to the problem. Natural selection is a means of natural population control.

I think that one of the short-comings of Malthus and Darwin is the lack of argument regarding human greed.

It's not math where 2+2 is always 4. Human nature etc., with no apparent objectivity must rely on discussion.

Malthus and Darwin may seem off right now, but arguments stem from the thoughts of these. Look at Thomas Hobbes for example - his philosophy would be ludacris if it were to be applied now - but from his philosophy came about other social contract theorists such as Rousseau and Locke. You also have to look at the context and the conditions in which these people wrote or theorized something, as their writings has to be put in context as it applies now, and not read literally.

Just a thought.

I've already told you, we obviously strongly disagree with each other on a LOT of stuff for different reasons. I've accepted that and MOVED ON, why don't you?

I agree with you on that!

You know what's funny about my arguments, and probably most of yours?

I 'believe' that everyone has some sense of morals which are created by one form or another.
I have a sense of moral that tells me that abortion can be justifiable. From there, I can come up with endless arguments. But the funny thing is, I can do the same in regards to objecting abortion.
I think that I can defeat my own argument regarding choice, with a life reply, then defeat it with a choice reply ...... and so on endlessly.

This is a major problem, because everyone already has the answer, then argues for it - where in reality, it should be arguing in order to find the answer.