Does a 3-day waiting period violate your rights?

[Wingsofwind]

Who does this 'counseling' and what guidelines do they use?

Three days of religious propaganda and an opportunity to pile on more guilt? Leave it to the 'Religious' Right to come up with this crap!

Eh ..kill it fast or you might grow a conscience. Right?

I for one know of no woman who expressed guilt over her abortion. Nice myth though.

A woman feeling guilty after an abortion is no myth.

My sister-in-law had one and she now believes she killed her only son. She now has 2 daughters and no wishes she never had an abortion.

 

[editec]

Does the state demand a three day period to receive counseling before having sex too?

No? Gee, why not?

Having sex is about as much the state's business as having an abortion.

 

[Wingsofwind]

A three day waiting period to buy a gun is a cool down period.

As is the period for abortions.


Well, lets see:
-In the case of the gun purchase, a life may end
-In the case of the abortion, a life will end
-In virtually every gun purchase, no life ends
-In virtually every abortion, a life ends.

So, given the threat posed by each act to the life of another, I'd say the 3-day cooling down period is far more applicable to abortions than gun purchases.

It is possible that an abortion must be performed within a narrow time frame.

It is possible that a gun is needed in a narrow time frame.

During that three day waiting period for a gun purchase, background checks can be run (although they rarely are). Does anyone advocate counseling for the purchase of a gun? Seems that in Idaho, they want those three days to inculcate some morals and religious bigotry to dissuade an abortion.

And if you absolutely positively need that gun today, chances are you're about to kill someone. Take the entire judicial system on your shoulders, act as judge, jury and executioner. Commit a violent crime against society. But no counseling is required. Seems strange, doesn't it?

Here in Missouri, we do not have to wait 3 days to buy a gun. It also only takes minutes to get a background check done. The gun shops can do the check themselves. The shop's owner or clerk can also deny a purches of a gun if they think the person is buying it for any criminal reason.

Also, if you absolutely need a gun today, chances are you need it for protection more than to commit a crime. Most legal gun purchases are NOT for a crime.

A gun is a tool. A tool that can be used for hunting, protection, or recreation.

An abortion is a procedure to stop life. Whether it is for preserving the life of the mother or to avoid the responsibility of raising a child. No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is to stop a life.

 

[Wingsofwind]

Does the state demand a three day period to receive counseling before having sex too?

No? Gee, why not?

Having sex is about as much the state's business as having an abortion.

Having sex does not use tax dollars, abortions do. Unless the one receiving the abortion is paying for it out right.

I'd say, if you do not want to have a child, you should take the precautions to avoid getting pregnant. Either by birth control or not having sex in the first place. Then you would not have to worry about having an abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Since that is the opposite of what I said, enjoy the neg reps for lying about my position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's the opposite of what I said. Learn to read.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's the opposite of what I said. Learn to read.

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's the opposite of what I said. Learn to read.

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's the opposite of what I said. Learn to read.

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

If she wants to do it SUnday and they are closed, is that an infringement? No. If she wants to do it at 6AM and they don't open until 8AM is that an infringement? No. Not everything is an infringement.
Somehow I don't think killing people ought to be convenient.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

If she wants to do it SUnday and they are closed, is that an infringement? No. If she wants to do it at 6AM and they don't open until 8AM is that an infringement? No. Not everything is an infringement.
Somehow I don't think killing people ought to be convenient.

A first trimester abortion is a woman's right by constitutional law.

No, not everything is an infringement, but my examples were.

 

[The Rabbi]

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

If she wants to do it SUnday and they are closed, is that an infringement? No. If she wants to do it at 6AM and they don't open until 8AM is that an infringement? No. Not everything is an infringement.
Somehow I don't think killing people ought to be convenient.

A first trimester abortion is a woman's right by constitutional law.

No, not everything is an infringement, but my examples were.

Just because something is a right does not make it an unlimited right. Just because something is inconvenient doesn't make it an infringement.
You have lost this argument, better luck next time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Then the 3-day wait for the abortion cannot sound unreasonable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 .......

Speaking of reading before posting...

Seperate issue. The question here is the waiting period itself

Did you want to address the previous points related to same that you chose to skip over?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

All Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) should applaud this Law. They constantly push for Big Government being involved in everyone's lives so they shouldn't have a problem with this. You can't only care about Rights & the Constitution when it's convenient. You have to care all the time. This whining you're seeing from Socialists/Progressives on this is just a matter of convenient outrage for them. They could care less about Rights & the Constitution the rest of the time. They're always cheerleading for Big Government control of Citizens' lives. So this is just more dishonesty & hypocrisy coming from them. Time for them quit their whining on this and simply accept it. This is actually their own creation. They wanted their Big Government...Well here it is. Now deal with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Since that is the opposite of what I said, enjoy the neg reps for lying about my position.

Really.
Explain then how a 3-day wait for an abortion violates your rights.
Be sure to compare and contrast this argument to your position that a 3-day wat for a gun does NOT violate your rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's the opposite of what I said. Learn to read.

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

So you agree that in the 2nd/3rd trimester, where the state DOES have a compelling interest, a 3-day wait does not violate your rights.
Good boy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually I asked you what was being infringed. You didn't answer, so I logically took it that you believed nothing was being infringed. Because if you had believed something was being infringed you would have stated it in response to my question.
So I guess wimping out and not answering questions isn't such a swell move after all.

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

So you agree that in the 2nd/3rd trimester, where the state DOES have a compelling interest, a 3-day wait does not violate your rights.
Good boy.

You're catching on, slowly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If she wants to do it SUnday and they are closed, is that an infringement? No. If she wants to do it at 6AM and they don't open until 8AM is that an infringement? No. Not everything is an infringement.
Somehow I don't think killing people ought to be convenient.

A first trimester abortion is a woman's right by constitutional law.

No, not everything is an infringement, but my examples were.

Just because something is a right does not make it an unlimited right. Just because something is inconvenient doesn't make it an infringement.
You have lost this argument, better luck next time.

I suggest you read Roe v Wade.

 

[The Rabbi]

A first trimester abortion is a woman's right by constitutional law.

No, not everything is an infringement, but my examples were.

Just because something is a right does not make it an unlimited right. Just because something is inconvenient doesn't make it an infringement.
You have lost this argument, better luck next time.

I suggest you read Roe v Wade.

I suggest you soak your head.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The infringement is the interference in the woman's decision to have an abortion. If she and her doctor agree to do it Monday, and the government says no you have to wait until Friday AND you have get counseled or go through whatever other hoops are in the law, that is infringement.

Produce a compelling government interest in that infringement and it might be constitutional, BUT, if it's a first trimester abortion, the fetus cannot be the compelling interest.

So you agree that in the 2nd/3rd trimester, where the state DOES have a compelling interest, a 3-day wait does not violate your rights.
Good boy.

You're catching on, slowly.

No, I was actually here long before I started the topic - it just took you this long to muster the honesty necessry to admit I was right.
I was betting 8-5 against that, BTW.

Now, recalling -everything- you've argued thus far:
Cite the compelling state interest in a 3-day wait to take delivery of a gun.