It's Official: I'm moving back to MO or KS....

[Mr. Kotter]

Oh, wait...Kansas and Missouri have their own problems.... :banghead:

No exceptions for rape and incest....

Talk about a waste of taxpayer's money, on spendy litigation....

:shake:

South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions
Legislation sets up court challenge

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Taco John]

Has anyone here read freakonomics?

[jspchief]

Has anyone here read freakonomics?No, but I've passed it over in the book store a dozen times. What's it about?

[Taco John]

It's about the hidden side of economics in America.

Here... read the Intro from pages 3 to 6. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006073132X/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/002-7316459-7875234?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-page)) (note, you'll need to click forward two pages... The link wont take you directly to it for some reason)`



They advance a hypothesis that is interesting to this discussion. I don't know that I necessarily agree with it, but it's one of those things that makes me scratch my head and wonder.

As far as this ruling goes, I'm in favor of states rights and applaud them for asserting their authority on the matter. I'm hoping more and more states assert their own authority against the Federal Government like they should.

[banyon]

It's about the hidden side of economics in America.

Here... read the Intro from pages 3 to 6. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006073132X/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/002-7316459-7875234?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-page)) (note, you'll need to click forward two pages... The link wont take you directly to it for some reason)`

They advance a hypothesis that is interesting to this discussion. I don't know that I necessarily agree with it, but it's one of those things that makes me scratch my head and wonder.

As far as this ruling goes, I'm in favor of states rights and applaud them for asserting their authority on the matter. I'm hoping more and more states assert their own authority against the Federal Government like they should.

I haven't read the book, but I might check it out.

But having read that excerpt, I'd have to say that his conclusion that legalized abortion is most directly responsible for the drop in crime rates is spurious at best, if unsupported by further evidence.

It could just be a contributing factor, combining with other factors like an increased incarceration rate (which also reduces the pool of potential active criminals).

Also, if legalized abortion were the only or the main reason behind the drop in crime rates, one would think that Ireland and Iran's crime rates would be sky high since they don't allow any.
___________________________________________________
RED
Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.
PINK
Abortion legally permitted only to save a woman's life or protect her physical health.
YELLOW
Abortion legally permitted only to protect mental health.
BLUE
Abortion legally permitted on socioeconomic grounds
WHITE
Abortion on request

[Mr. Kotter]

It's about the hidden side of economics in America.

Here... read the Intro from pages 3 to 6. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006073132X/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/002-7316459-7875234?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-page)) (note, you'll need to click forward two pages... The link wont take you directly to it for some reason)`



They advance a hypothesis that is interesting to this discussion. I don't know that I necessarily agree with it, but it's one of those things that makes me scratch my head and wonder.

As far as this ruling goes, I'm in favor of states rights and applaud them for asserting their authority on the matter. I'm hoping more and more states assert their own authority against the Federal Government like they should.

For those wishing a thesis from TJ's book, it is interesting if nothing else:

"Legalized abortion is responsible for the drop in violent crime in America over the past 15 years."

It was controversial when it first came out, and still is. I can see it accounting for a small percentage of the drop....but I think it's much too simplistic of an explanation. Policies and politics have helped much more, in my own mind. But it's interesting, nonetheless.

As for the ruling, I thought this might be one of the rare occasions TJ and I might agree.....I guess not. ROFL

As for the state's rights issue, 30-40 years I'd have agreed; Roe v. Wade and a long list of other case law since....make this a big uphill battle for SD to win, IMHO.

[mlyonsd]

It's about the hidden side of economics in America.

Here... read the Intro from pages 3 to 6. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006073132X/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/002-7316459-7875234?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-page)) (note, you'll need to click forward two pages... The link wont take you directly to it for some reason)`



They advance a hypothesis that is interesting to this discussion. I don't know that I necessarily agree with it, but it's one of those things that makes me scratch my head and wonder.

As far as this ruling goes, I'm in favor of states rights and applaud them for asserting their authority on the matter. I'm hoping more and more states assert their own authority against the Federal Government like they should.

That's fine but it's not your state tax dollars that are going to be wasted fighting the impending court battle.

I'm not for abortion but the way the SD law is written there is no way it can overturn the precedent of Roe. Fugging nuts and a waste of my money.

I wish they had passed the law in your state, not mine.

[Amnorix]

RED
Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.
PINK
Abortion legally permitted only to save a woman's life or protect her physical health.
YELLOW
Abortion legally permitted only to protect mental health.
BLUE
Abortion legally permitted on socioeconomic grounds
WHITE
Abortion on request

Anyone know which country is the lone red blob in Europe. Looks like probably Poland, but the map is so small...

Edit: Gotta be Poland. East of Germany and West of the large former Soviet Republics like the Ukraine. Looks like it's too far north to be one of the Balkan states...

[banyon]

Anyone know which country is the lone red blob in Europe. Looks like probably Poland, but the map is so small...

Edit: Gotta be Poland. East of Germany and West of the large former Soviet Republics like the Ukraine. Looks like it's too far north to be one of the Balkan states...


Plus...like Ireland, they love em' some Catholicism too.

[Amnorix]

Yellow -- Abortion legally permitted only to protect mental health

I don't understand this one. What do you do -- argue that if you hvae another kid you'll go crazy???

[Amnorix]

Plus...like Ireland, they love em' some Catholicism too.

yeah, that's what I'm figuring -- given the map location and the heavy Catholic population, it's gotta be Poland.

Italy is so small I can't figure out what the heck color it is.

[banyon]

I don't understand this one. What do you do -- argue that if you hvae another kid you'll go crazy???

This is the best I could find:

Mental Health Grounds
Laws in Category III expressly permit abortion to protect the woman’s mental health, as well as her life and physical health. The interpretation of "mental health" varies around the world. It can encompass, for example, psychological distress suffered by a woman who is raped or severe strain caused by social or economic circumstances.
____________________________

http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html

Maybe that's where the U.S. will wind up after the extremes on both sides agree to compromise.

[Taco John]

That's fine but it's not your state tax dollars that are going to be wasted fighting the impending court battle.

I'm not for abortion but the way the SD law is written there is no way it can overturn the precedent of Roe. Fugging nuts and a waste of my money.

I wish they had passed the law in your state, not mine.



There's no way a law like that would pass in Washington State.

[Adept Havelock]

I expect something similar from Gov. Haley Baboon and his legislature any day now.

[Frankie]

It's Official: I'm moving back to MO or KS.....

What's that website that alerts neighborhoods where Mr Kotter moves in? :p

[Lurch]

I expect something similar from Gov. Haley Baboon and his legislature any day now.

Yeah, it's almost as if several states were in a race to challenge Roe.

[Adept Havelock]

Yeah, it's almost as if several states were in a race to challenge Roe.

Yes. It's all rather pathetic.

At least SD can enjoy a new state seal and new tourism promo:

[Mr. Kotter]

Yes. It's all rather pathetic.

At least SD can enjoy a new state seal and new tourism promo:

That's funny.

Morbid. Sad. But funny. :banghead:

[go bowe]

not so much...

[CRONUS]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=54737

ROFL

Where did you find that Adept?

[Adept Havelock]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=54737

ROFL

Where did you find that Adept?

A friend sent it to me. I'll ask where they got it.

[stevieray]

I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone who sticks a coat hanger up their uterus becuase they can't handle the personal responsibility of their previous choices.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone who sticks a coat hanger up their uterus becuase they can't handle the personal responsibility of their previous choices.

Desperate people do stupid things--especially young desperate people. Banning the procedure in a state like SD, probably won't have much effect, because they'll just get them elsewhere. If the ban becomes widespread, it is reasonable to expect desperate tragedies will result.

No one likes abortion. However, the government and courts have (regrettably, in the minds of many) clearly established it as a woman's "right."

It will likely require a constitutional amendment to reverse that. That is unlikely to happen. Fortunately perhaps, advances like the "morning after" pill coupled with increased education and contraception have the potential to, eventually, make is a moot issue.

[patteeu]

Desperate people do stupid things--especially young desperate people. Banning the procedure in a state like SD, probably won't have much effect, because they'll just get them elsewhere. If the ban becomes widespread, it is reasonable to expect desperate tragedies will result.

No one likes abortion. However, the government and courts have (regrettably, in the minds of many) clearly established it as a woman's "right."

It will likely require a constitutional amendment to reverse that. That is unlikely to happen. Fortunately perhaps, advances like the "morning after" pill coupled with increased education and contraception have the potential to, eventually, make is a moot issue.

Desperate tragedies occur when junkies run out of dope too so should we create a free dope program?

[Mr. Kotter]

Desperate tragedies occur when junkies run out of dope too so should we create a free dope program?

No.

Unless they've been handing it out for 40 years....and it's accepted by the courts and society, as a "right."

[patteeu]

No.

Unless they've been handing it out for 40 years....and it's accepted by the courts and society, as a "right."

So "desperate tragedies" don't really have anything to do with your answer to stevieray?

[Mr. Kotter]

So "desperate tragedies" don't really have anything to do with your answer to stevieray?

Sure they do. If the government creates the tragedies (by legalizing the procedure in the first place)....then the government ought to err on the side of preventing tragedy.

If you want it changed, stare decisis says do it with an amendment.

[patteeu]

Sure they do. If the government creates the tragedies (by legalizing the procedure in the first place)....then the government ought to err on the side of preventing tragedy.

If you want it changed, stare decisis says do it with an amendment.

Stare decisis is more like a guideline than a rule. But that's beside the point, IMO. If abortion is criminalized and women decide to go to back alleys to have illegal ones then they are assuming the risk. It won't be the fault of the pro-life legislators or the judges who overturn Roe.

[Mr. Kotter]

Stare decisis is more like a guideline than a rule. But that's beside the point, IMO. If abortion is criminalized and women decide to go to back alleys to have illegal ones then they are assuming the risk. It won't be the fault of the pro-life legislators or the judges who overturn Roe.

Philosophically, I agree with you. But, politically, I'm a pragmatist. I wouldn't say it's their "fault," at least not anymore than the increased numbers of abortions sine Roe are their "fault."

However if prolifers really want to ban it, I just think the government has put themselves in a position that they need to require a constitutional amendment to "undo" what has been done.

[go bowe]

Desperate tragedies occur when junkies run out of dope too so should we create a free dope program?yes...

[patteeu]

yes...

LOL

Personally, I'm not against dope, I'm just against socialized dope. :)

[go bowe]

yeah, and you're not against healthcare, you are just against socialized medicene, huh?

[go bowe]

i am too, but i would like to see greater government controls in some areas and some form of universal health insurance (universal in that anyone can choose to be covered)...

[|Zach|]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameraobscura/109497302/

[Adept Havelock]

Desperate tragedies occur when junkies run out of dope too so should we create a free dope program?

Ever heard of govt. sponsored or supported methadone treatments?
Clean needle exchange programs?
Not much difference IMO.

I find it interesting a conservative that allegedly supports minimal government believes the government should have the power to regulate a womans body.

Oh...you must be a "social" conservative.

:rolleyes:

[banyon]

Ever heard of govt. sponsored or supported methadone treatments?
Clean needle exchange programs?
Not much difference IMO.

I find it interesting a conservative that allegedly supports minimal government believes the government should have the power to regulate a womans body.

Oh...you must be a "social" conservative.

:rolleyes:

He's a "libertarian" except when that requires him to disagree with Republicans. :p

[Adept Havelock]

He's a "libertarian" except when that requires him to disagree with Republicans. :p
ROFL

[patteeu]

Ever heard of govt. sponsored or supported methadone treatments?
Clean needle exchange programs?
Not much difference IMO.

I find it interesting a conservative that allegedly supports minimal government believes the government should have the power to regulate a womans body.

Oh...you must be a "social" conservative.

:rolleyes:

I'm aware of methadone clinics and clean needle exchange programs, but I don't like them and I don't support the concept.

I find it interesting that you think you know my position on abortion from reading that post. Are you freakin' Kreskin?

Should the government have the power to regulate how one siamese twin can treat it's attached sibling? My answer would be yes.

[patteeu]

He's a "libertarian" except when that requires him to disagree with Republicans. :p

I haven't gotten to it yet, but I think you just used my name in a thread title where you point out that I'm in disagreement with Republicans.

Here's how it really should go:

I'm a "libertarian" unless it either puts me at odds with the Missouri Tigers or on the same side as the Kansas Jayhawks.

I'm pro Missouri Tigers and anti Jayhawk unless it puts me in disagreement with the Kansas City Chiefs.

I'm pro Chiefs unless it puts me on the opposite side as Dick Cheney.

I always see eye to eye with Dick Cheney.

;)

[Adept Havelock]

I find it interesting that you think you know my position on abortion from reading that post. Are you freakin' Kreskin?



No psychic powers at all. Just my intuition from a number of posts you've made. If I'm wrong...I'm wrong. :shrug:

I notice you didn't deny that it's your position. You just whined about how I arrived at it. ;)

[patteeu]

No psychic powers at all. Just my intuition from a number of posts you've made. If I'm wrong...I'm wrong. :shrug:

I notice you didn't deny that it's your position. You just whined about how I arrived at it. ;)

OK, FTR, I do think the government should have the power to protect unborn life even if it is attached to it's mother's body. Not even the most pure libertarian would claim that the government shouldn't have the power to regulate a person's body if that person was swinging her fists into another person's face. I'm agnostic on the issue of when life begins though, so I wouldn't be what most people call pro-life. I certainly don't think the mother has a constitutional right to abort her fetus, but instead would leave the matter up to each state to decide just like we do for traditional criminal laws.

And I notice that you dodged my last question completely. ;)

[Adept Havelock]

Should the government have the power to regulate how one siamese twin can treat it's attached sibling? My answer would be yes.

In that specific case, my answer would also be yes.

I didn't dodge anything. I just refused to respond to a loaded question. One with a serious apples/oranges problem.

You obviously don't see a difference between an embryo and a fully developed human being. I do. ;)

It's the difference between a fertilized egg and a hatched chicken, IMO.

OK, FTR, I do think the government should have the power to protect unborn life even if it is attached to it's mother's body.

This begs the question, assuming your position, what form of (Homo Sapien) "unborn life" isn't "attached" to it's mother's body?

I'm agnostic on the issue of when life begins though, so I wouldn't be what most people call pro-life.

:hmmm:

Looks to me like you've decided when life begins. At the very least, you've decided it begins before birth. Who really cares if it's a religious or secular process you use to defend your assumption?

If you believe the government has control over a womans uterus, you pretty much qualify for the label "pro-life"..or as others might term it..."anti-choice". I just find it an interesting position for a libby who claims to want minimal government involvement in peoples lives. That's all.

[patteeu]

In that specific case, my answer would also be yes.

I didn't dodge anything. I just refused to respond to a loaded question. One with a serious apples/oranges problem.

You obviously don't see a difference between an embryo and a fully developed human being. I do. ;)

It's the difference between a fertilized egg and a hatched chicken, IMO.

Your framing of the question as if the only issue is whether or not a government should have the power to "regulate a woman's body" is similarly loaded. I'm a little bit surprised that you don't seem to get that.

This begs the question, assuming your position, what form of (Homo Sapien) "unborn life" isn't "attached" to it's mother's body?

Maybe I should have said "even though" instead of "even if."

:hmmm:

Looks to me like you've decided when life begins. At the very least, you've decided it begins before birth. Who really cares if it's a religious or secular process you use to defend your assumption?

If you believe the government has control over a womans uterus, you pretty much qualify for the label "pro-life"..or as others might term it..."anti-choice". I just find it an interesting position for a libby who claims to want minimal government involvement in peoples lives. That's all.

Well that's where you are wrong. I say I'm agnostic about it and that's what I mean. It only seems to you that I've decided that the unborn fetus is a living person because you've decided that it isn't. I can see both sides of this particular argument and I don't have a strong personal opinion one way or the other. I see it as debateable and, therefore, I think the people should decide the issue via the democratic process. Furthermore, I prefer to see this kind of highly charged, consensus-evading moral issue decided at the local or state level rather than at the one-size-fits-all federal level.

[Adept Havelock]

Thanks for clarifying your position.

[stevieray]

It's the difference between a fertilized egg and a hatched chicken, IMO.






:hmmm:

Looks to me like you've decided when life begins.


funny, aren't you doing the same thing?

I guess I must have the wrong dictionary, because I don't see where it says an embryo, organism of fetus isn't living.

Of cousre man has to determine that life only counts after being born, how else could he validate 4000 deaths a day? 40 million and counting.

[Adept Havelock]

I guess I must have the wrong dictionary, because I don't see where it says an embryo, organism of fetus isn't living.

I guess you must be in the wrong post, as I don't see anywhere I claimed an embryo or fetus were not "living". :rolleyes:



Of cousre man has to determine that life only counts after being born, how else could he validate 4000 deaths a day? 40 million and counting.

Sure it's alive. IMO, it's just not a Homo Sapien yet. It's merely a potential Homo Sapien. Just another potential mammal.

Like I said before, it's the difference between a fertilized egg and a hatched chicken.

Your view probably follows because you choose to see human life as somehow being "sacred". I see the "sacredness" argument as a fairy-tale we developed out of mere self-interest.

In other words, it seems to me the notion Human life is any more important than any other form is hogwash. Life simply is, be it an ameoba or advanced primate.

JMO.

I don't cry over 40 million potential Homo Sapiens anymore than I do over 400 Billion or so potential chickens whose lives have been lost since we began domesticating livestock. If you do, it's your problem.

Don't forget to cry about all those fertilized eggs that never successfully implanted, and ended up going down the sewer system...
:rolleyes:

[stevieray]

you see human life as being sacred. I see the "sacredness" as a fairy-tale

I'm good with this.

[Adept Havelock]

I'm good with this.

Agree to disagree: Always a good decision! Have a good night.