[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?
What part of the Second doesn't Gubmint get?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You continue to dodge.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?
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.
South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into LawSouth 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.
Up to this point, liberals have regularly said no.
What say ye now?
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.
You agree then, that a waiting period on abortion does not violate your rights.You continue to dodge.Ok, for clarification, does the SD limit this waiting period to 2nd trimester and later abortions only?
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.
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.
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 $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.
SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ 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.
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 $$ passing this legislation that very few, if any, women that will receive abortions will be subject to if they want it on demand.
Been pointing out this fact forever here and the big government folks ignore the facts.
If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success. I'm sure that sentiment is what motivated this Law in the first place. Also,Big Government Goose Steppers (Socialists/Progressives) shouldn't be complaining about this Law. It's exactly what Big Government is all about. Now they just have to deal with the consequences.
Abortion is a family decision that is a medical procedure.
In what way is that your right to impose your will, at the point of a gun through government, on another citizen?
That is what liberals demand.
That's the standard set by the anti-gun loons, so, if that is a valid standard, intellectual honesty demands that they'd accept that standard when applied to abortion.If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.SD law is fine but it will do nothing to stop abortion.
Cars and airplanes are in use these days. All they do is go to the next state if they want to avoid it.
So what the citizens of SD end up with is a waste of the taxper's time and $$ 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.
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.If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.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.
Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.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.If it saves just one baby's life,most in South Dakota will consider this Law a success.
Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.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.
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.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.Not really concerned about that - I'm more interested in the opinion of anti-gun/"pro-choice" side.Has Libocalypse surveyed every voter in SD to know this is the case? I doubt it.
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
Except that it is not.I think the differance is in the intent .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.
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
-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
Seperate issue. The question here is the waiting period itself.NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO CHANGE THE APPLICANTS MIND .
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.