SD bans all abortions

[hamann318is]

SURPRISE!!!! :roll:

I've made no real opinion in the matter, other than the fact that you don't use grammar on a internet board. That might be racism.

[e30sd]

define religion. As far as I am concerned, religion is nothing more than a belief system, which EVERYONE has. Quit hiding behind you marxist useless philosophy

stfu you moron, i'm correcting his quote.

[royalflush313]

and that gives you the right to decide if a life is worth living? My best friend's dad was an "abortion baby" his parents were told by the doctors to abort him, b/c he "would never be able to function in life" Well, tell that to him now, he's an A student at UNC- Chapel Hill.

Point, - we have no right to decide whether a life is "worth living" it's not your life to decide that, if you think you have that privelage - you are a sick individual. No human has the right to decide on the life of another.

as far as your facts about overpopulation, ok, I buy it, so let's kill all the hispanics, and go ahead and destroy all of Africa, the conditions they are living in are not NEARLY suitable to be living in. Since we are all so high and mighty and have the right to decide if a human should live, we should just kill them all

You better be careful of what you say.
I will ask again: Who has a greater human worth - the mother-to-be or the fetus ?
If abortion is allowed in the circumstances in which the mother-to-be will die through pregnancy and delivery, then what would you do?
Imagine: Your otherwise healthy wife is pregnant with your baby. Abortion will save your wife's life, but that would mean that you and your wife must decide to either: 1) Abort 2) Go on with the delivery, and thus, your wife will die.
Option 1) and 2) both violate your point "No human has the right to decide on the life of another."

Now, if you support such circumstancial abortion, then you are in contradiction with yourself.
Imagine this:
Mother-to-be with aids is pregnant, and consequently, the baby has/will have aids. The doctor has provided you with undisputable evidence of the aids virus, and has informed you that the baby will: 1) Die within 24hours of birth 2) Suffer and die before able to walk/talk and rationalize.

By NOT aborting, are you not "deciding on the life of another"? That is, consciously going on with the creation of the child knowing that the child will die a miserable, pre-mature death.

[arsevader]

define religion. As far as I am concerned, religion is nothing more than a belief system, which EVERYONE has. Quit hiding behind you marxist useless philosophy

Nobody ever went to war for a 'belief system' but I can show you thousands of wars that were fought on the grounds of religion.

...Plus it was Lenin who said that NOT Marx. ;)

[royalflush313]

Nobody ever went to war for a 'belief system' but I can show you thousands of wars that were fought on the grounds of religion.

...Plus it was Lenin who said that NOT Marx. ;)

Pretty sure that's a famous Karl Marx quote...but Lenin agreed and cited the same.

[arsevader]

Pretty sure that's a famous Karl Marx quote...but Lenin agreed and cited the same.

Yeah you're right, you get extra brownie points. ;) Like how you edited your reply after the fact. :)

"Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man"

[Rigmaster]

IMHO, men have no say in this. How the hell a man can decide what is right and wrong here is beyond me.

That is all....


Bret.

[chuckybob]

royalflush313 wins.

[AppState325]

Nobody ever went to war for a 'belief system' but I can show you thousands of wars that were fought on the grounds of religion.

...Plus it was Lenin who said that NOT Marx. ;)

how do you say that? Religion is nothing more than one's belief system. Wars over religion are fought b/c one side BELIEVES in something enough to kill over it.... way to show your own intelligence, and nice job making an ass of yourself with the quote.

[AppState325]

You better be careful of what you say.
I will ask again: Who has a greater human worth - the mother-to-be or the fetus ?
If abortion is allowed in the circumstances in which the mother-to-be will die through pregnancy and delivery, then what would you do?
Imagine: Your otherwise healthy wife is pregnant with your baby. Abortion will save your wife's life, but that would mean that you and your wife must decide to either: 1) Abort 2) Go on with the delivery, and thus, your wife will die.
Option 1) and 2) both violate your point "No human has the right to decide on the life of another."

Now, if you support such circumstancial abortion, then you are in contradiction with yourself.
Imagine this:
Mother-to-be with aids is pregnant, and consequently, the baby has/will have aids. The doctor has provided you with undisputable evidence of the aids virus, and has informed you that the baby will: 1) Die within 24hours of birth 2) Suffer and die before able to walk/talk and rationalize.

By NOT aborting, are you not "deciding on the life of another"? That is, consciously going on with the creation of the child knowing that the child will die a miserable, pre-mature death.

1) the percentage of cases where abortion was NECESSARY to save the mother are extremely low, most cases the baby is simply not wanted.
2) The point you tried to make about AIDs babies is irrelevant, due to the fact that mothers that have AIDs are required to have C sections, to prevent the baby from getting AIDs.

but, thanks for being intelligent in your replies instead of just accusing me of being a "Bible Basher" (though I haven't even touched on the Bible in ANY of my posts, I believe that you should have grounds other than religious reasons in issues such as this) like some people have, or "closed minded". I appreciate the respect.:D

[royalflush313]

1) the percentage of cases where abortion was NECESSARY to save the mother are extremely low, most cases the baby is simply not wanted.
2) The point you tried to make about AIDs babies is irrelevant, due to the fact that mothers that have AIDs are required to have C sections, to prevent the baby from getting AIDs.

but, thanks for being intelligent in your replies instead of just accusing me of being a "Bible Basher" (though I haven't even touched on the Bible in ANY of my posts, I believe that you should have grounds other than religious reasons in issues such as this) like some people have, or "closed minded". I appreciate the respect.:D

I enjoy debating with people. If one of us were 'right', there wouldn't be any issues here, or in any of the governments.
One can only accumulate information to add to the belief...

Correct me if I'm wrong but C-sections does not eliminate the possibility of the baby being born AIDS-free.
Further, as far as I know, there are no laws that states that HIV-positive women are required to have a C-section.

Either way, you are right, the AIDS example wasn't the best. The rate of transmission isn't 100% regardless of method of delivery. However, I still think that a hypothetical situation in which the pre-mature death of a child after delivery must be taken into account when anti-abortionists say no to abortion.

As for the percentages of the particular scenario being low.... that is quite irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, it is a possibility. And such a case is a case that contradicts your belief that "no human has the right to decide the life of another."

If one is an anti-abortionist, he/she must be ready to do the following:

- Knowingly give up the life of the mother.
- Have a child, as a result unconsential sex.
- Have a child regardless of any socio-economic status.

These are all of course based on the current available adoption or child support system.

Those examples may be of the most extreme nature, but the most extreme examples are not non-existent.

Exploitation of abortion, I object, and there should be a system that work to avoid exploitation. That, I don't know how - and I think this is worth debating more.

[Dave]

When Dear Leader signed the "Partial Birth Abortion" bill, here is a photo from the signing.

Can someone spot what is obviously VERY wrong with this picture?????

[thejimlab]

Dave, you're arguing with someone who can't form complete sentences. Seriously.

Somebody, *cough* thejimlab *cough*, read Freakonomics.

I like the Maddox view on it all. "I'm against abortion, but pro killing babies!"

One of my favorite recent books. I acknowledged the source in my previous posting (#9).

[arsevader]

how do you say that? Religion is nothing more than one's belief system. Wars over religion are fought b/c one side BELIEVES in something enough to kill over it.... way to show your own intelligence, and nice job making an ass of yourself with the quote.

Religion is much more than a personal belief system. You think everybody who takes part in a religious group actually believes all the same stuff as everyone else in that religion? What about kids who are born into a religion? I seriously doubt that they believe it without having someone telling them. Religion is about control whereas somones beliefs are about choice and personal growth.

Religion and Spirituality are 2 completely separate things and you'd be blind to think otherwise.

Yeah I really made an ass of myself, you sure showed me on this anonymous internet message board. It's a wonder I could get out of bed this morning. :)

[Scott314]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081...books&v=glance

For you Holy Rollers.

Tell me why it is you pay your Mega Church ministers 6 figures a year and pay for their homes and cars on top of it? Is it because they are so much closer to God?

It's sad that's how the American church presents itself to the public...

Sidenote: I didn't realize there was a flying spaghetti monster book. I've had a spaghetti monster desktop for ages :D