Does a 3-day waiting period violate your rights?

[The T]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9wcgC-Qojg"]YouTube - Ted Nugent- Funny Gun Rights![/ame]

What part of the Second doesn't Gubmint get?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea Big Government Socialists/Progressives whining about this stuff really is absolutely hilarious. Hey they wanted Big Government. Well here's their Big Government. Maybe they shouldn't be such Big Government Goose Steppers anymore? Maybe they should try caring about the Constitution all the time? Oh well,something to think about i guess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No... the argument is 'a compelling state interest"
The state, according to Roe, has such a compelling interest, in protecting the life of the unborn once into the 2nd trimester, and as such, may restrict the right.

Once more:
So.... does a three day waiting period violate your rights?

Ok, for clarification, does the SD limit this waiting period to 2nd trimester and later abortions only?

You continue to dodge.

Likely. this is because you do not want to have to admit to an inescapabe conclusion - that if waiting periods for guns do not violate your rights, then waiting periods for abortions violate your rights even less so.

Man up.

I'll take that to mean no, the SD waiting period does apply to all abortions.

Therefore, you proved the point. The State only has the right to claim compelling state interest in imposing a waiting period after the 1st trimester.

Case closed. You answered your own question and pretty much refuted your own premise.

 

[Lasher]

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor and receive counseling before undergoing the procedure, news agencies reported.

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law

Up to this point, liberals have regularly said no.
What say ye now?

Good sigs!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to be a chorus of one.

Anyway, Roe does not establish an unrestricted right to abortion. The law obviously had a public purpose in mind, one that you won't bother to research.
So you have lost the issue of "law of the land." You have failed to make every point you tried.

But Roe does protect the right of a woman to a 1st trimester abortion, and no claim of a compelling state interest in the potential life of the fetus, used as justification for infringement, applies to such abortions.

What is being infringed, exactly? SHe can still have the abortion. No one is telling her she can't. It isn't like she needs a permit, gd forbid.

OK, so your position is that waiting periods imposed on purchases of goods or services are not infringements on rights. That's one way of looking at it. Go argue with M14shooter, since I don't think he agrees that waiting periods to buy a gun are not infringements.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, for clarification, does the SD limit this waiting period to 2nd trimester and later abortions only?

You continue to dodge.

Likely. this is because you do not want to have to admit to an inescapabe conclusion - that if waiting periods for guns do not violate your rights, then waiting periods for abortions violate your rights even less so.

Man up.

I'll take that to mean no, the SD waiting period does apply to all abortions.

Therefore, you proved the point. The State only has the right to claim compelling state interest in imposing a waiting period after the 1st trimester.

Case closed. You answered your own question and pretty much refuted your own premise.

You agree then, that a waiting period on abortion does not violate your rights.
Good boy.

 

[The Rabbi]

But Roe does protect the right of a woman to a 1st trimester abortion, and no claim of a compelling state interest in the potential life of the fetus, used as justification for infringement, applies to such abortions.

What is being infringed, exactly? SHe can still have the abortion. No one is telling her she can't. It isn't like she needs a permit, gd forbid.

OK, so your position is that waiting periods imposed on purchases of goods or services are not infringements on rights. That's one way of looking at it. Go argue with M14shooter, since I don't think he agrees that waiting periods to buy a gun are not infringements.

So it's obviously your opinion as well that nothing is being infringed here. I also think waiting periods on gun purchases are not infringements. I do think they are bad public policy, however. Big difference.
I am glad we can agree here that the SD law is fine.

 

[Gadawg73]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success. I'm sure that sentiment is what motivated this Law in the first place. Also,Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) shouldn't be complaining about this Law. It's exactly what Big Government is all about. Now they just have to deal with the consequences.

 

[Gadawg73]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success. I'm sure that sentiment is what motivated this Law in the first place. Also,Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) shouldn't be complaining about this Law. It's exactly what Big Government is all about. Now they just have to deal with the consequences.

Abortion is a family decision that is a medical procedure.
In what way is that your right to impose your will, at the point of a gun through government, on another citizen?
That is what liberals demand.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success. I'm sure that sentiment is what motivated this Law in the first place. Also,Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) shouldn't be complaining about this Law. It's exactly what Big Government is all about. Now they just have to deal with the consequences.

Abortion is a family decision that is a medical procedure.
In what way is that your right to impose your will, at the point of a gun through government, on another citizen?
That is what liberals demand.

Exactly. That is what Liberals demand. So why are they so upset about this Law? Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) should be applauding this Law. This is what Big Government is all about. Can't have it both ways. If you're gonna be out there Goose Stepping for constant Government intervention in Citizens' lives,you have to accept Laws like this. You can't only care about rights and the Constitution when it's convenient to do so. You have to care all the time.

Personally,i don't agree with Government being involved with the Abortion issue. They should neither ban it or fund it. But that's just my opinion. Too many Big Government Goose Steppers want it both ways. Well,it just doesn't work that way. Big Government will behave like Big Government. That means they want in on your personal life. So people just need to stop pushing for more Government because only then will things change. Socialists/Progressives just have to bite the bullet on this one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.

That's the standard set by the anti-gun loons, so, if that is a valid standard, intellectual honesty demands that they'd accept that standard when applied to abortion.

 

[The Rabbi]

SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.

That's the standard set by the anti-gun loons, so, if that is a valid standard, intellectual honesty demands that they'd accept that standard when applied to abortion.

Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.

That's the standard set by the anti-gun loons, so, if that is a valid standard, intellectual honesty demands that they'd accept that standard when applied to abortion.

Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.

Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's the standard set by the anti-gun loons, so, if that is a valid standard, intellectual honesty demands that they'd accept that standard when applied to abortion.

Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.

Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.

WHy would you be interested in their opinion? Why would anyone? They have proven themselves totally inept, unable to make an argument. On guns, every opinion they hold has been proven wrong multiple times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.

Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.

WHy would you be interested in their opinion? Why would anyone? They have proven themselves totally inept, unable to make an argument. On guns, every opinion they hold has been proven wrong multiple times.

Liberals tend to argue whatever will give them the greatest political advantage at that moment, regardless of what posiiton they may have argued in the past. This is one of those cases, where a 3-day wait for a right they dont like doesnt infringe that right, where a three-day wait for a right they -do- like -does- infringe that right.

I, for one, enjoy forcing them to expose their hypocrisy.

 

[Old Rocks]

They have something like a two week waiting period in Ca. not to mention a course in gun safety before your 2nd Amendment right clicks in. Three days of counseling before hiring someone to kill your unborn baby seems reasonable

Three days of counseling from whom?

As far at the two week waiting period and a gun safety course, that sounds reasonable to me. Some of the antics I have seen from other hunters in the woods has made me a believer in mandatory gun safety courses. Then when these assholes shoot somebody they cannot blame ignorance for their carelessness.

Since I already own several guns, that waiting period would have no affect for me, and the gun safety course would be just another course taken, kind of like the refresher CPR classes.

As for your counseling session, I can just see some of the type of people that some would consider ideal for the counseling. Someone that would say to a fourteen year old girl that she should go ahead and have the baby, because her daddy is a pretty good man, so his kid should be OK.

 

[bucs90]

You must understand, liberals will not hesistate to kill a child. That child has no right to live. In fact, YOU and I do not have the FREEDOM TO BE BORN. Nope. Among other freedoms' we've lost, we no longer have the freedom to be born. That right to be born is only recieved if someone else decides to allow you to be born. Luckily, all our moms decided to allow us the freedom to be born.

 

[JohnA]

Funny that South Dakota wants to require a 72 hour waiting period for a woman to get an abortion, but only requires 48 hours to purchase a firearm.

How about a 72 hour waiting period and counseling for anyone wanting to purchase a firearm?

I, like many here, would want to know what this "counseling" entails and who is going to pay for it.

I think the differance is in the intent .
3 days before an applicant can own a gun gives time for the application to be checked to see if in fact its been done correctly and the applicant is in fact who he/she says he/she is and has no criminal background

Except that it is not.
-The background check is instant, and required by federal law.
-The three day period does not, by law, include a more thorough background check
-The waiting period is a cooling-off period designed to, at its finest point, save the life of someone that the purchaser may have in mind to kill when he buys the gun

S

NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO CHANGE THE APPLICANTS MIND .

Seperate issue. The question here is the waiting period itself.

ame with the three-day wait for an abortion - is a cooling-off period designed to, at its finest point, save a life. If a 'cooling-off' period is a sound reason to require a person to wair before exercising the right to buy a gun, then it is a considerably more sound reson to require a person to wait before having an abortion.

are you stupid or just cant read . this is what the law says


South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor and *receive counseling *before undergoing the procedure, news agencies reported.

RECEIVE COUNSELING not voluntary mandated means to bully her into changing her mind

read before you post .......









:

 

[The Rabbi]

They have something like a two week waiting period in Ca. not to mention a course in gun safety before your 2nd Amendment right clicks in. Three days of counseling before hiring someone to kill your unborn baby seems reasonable

Three days of counseling from whom?

As far at the two week waiting period and a gun safety course, that sounds reasonable to me. Some of the antics I have seen from other hunters in the woods has made me a believer in mandatory gun safety courses. Then when these assholes shoot somebody they cannot blame ignorance for their carelessness.

Since I already own several guns, that waiting period would have no affect for me, and the gun safety course would be just another course taken, kind of like the refresher CPR classes.

As for your counseling session, I can just see some of the type of people that some would consider ideal for the counseling. Someone that would say to a fourteen year old girl that she should go ahead and have the baby, because her daddy is a pretty good man, so his kid should be OK.

Lib attitude: I've got mine, everyone else can go to hell.
In fact hunting accidents are at their lowest point in history in this country. Safety courses probably don't do much since the issue is not so much ignorance as bad judgement.