South Dakota Passes Bill Banning All Abortions Except If Woman Is In Danger Of Dying

[Bonnie]

Still using the misleading, misogynistic and sanitized term "anti-choice" to describe those who are against abortion? I thought this was already obvious, but I'll state it anyway. We are all in favor of choice; the choice to refrain from sex if you are not ready to have a child. Or to use highly-effectove contraception every time, and if it fails, carry that baby to term. Once that woman conceives, like it or not, there are two people involved, and the abortion crowd doesn't care that this revered "choice" is denied to he/she who has the most to lose- the one whose life is about to be snuffed out.

We are not the anti-choice types. We are the anti-abortion types. The anti-snuffing out an innocent life types. Take your pick, but at teast call it what it is.

Actually Abbey ACLU Dem is the one who is anti-choice for the baby.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Why should the governments interfere with people's rights? Surely as republicans we believe that gov't should not play a part in people's lives. Let the women decide, if they feel bad, it's their stupid fault for having it in the first place.

 

[Mariner]

teens in the city high schools here in Boston have been told repeatedly of the consequences of sex and STD's, and yet short-sightedly continue to engage in unprotected sex. That's how my Catholic wife ended up with a bowl of condoms on her desk. It seemed the lesser of two evils to at least help safeguard them, since they're having sex anyway.

I agree with Abbey that it's more appropriate to say "anti-abortion" than "anti-choice" (even though I'm pro-choice myself).

Mariner.

 

[dmp]

Funny how that works - it's pro-choice ONLY if the woman chooses the 'right' side in their minds..

 

[musicman]

Why should the governments interfere with people's rights? Surely as republicans we believe that gov't should not play a part in people's lives.

You're missing the point. In a constitutional republic, we ARE the government. The conduct of our everyday affairs is our job, and we do it through our duly elected representatives. The central government in Washington is charged with a few, very specific responsibilities - none of which includes creating new "rights" out of whole cloth, in order to insinuate themselves into matters that are none of their business. Abortion policy is one such matter.

 

[5stringJeff]

Why should the governments interfere with people's rights? Surely as republicans we believe that gov't should not play a part in people's lives. Let the women decide, if they feel bad, it's their stupid fault for having it in the first place.

There's a saying that says something like this: 'Your rights extend up to the point where they interfere with my rights.' In the case of abortion, the right of a woman to do with her body what she desires is her right, up to the point where it interferes with her baby's right to life. That is why Republicans are generally for the restriction of abortion - it interferes with the most basic of all human rights - the right to live.

 

[Nienna]

teens in the city high schools here in Boston have been told repeatedly of the consequences of sex and STD's, and yet short-sightedly continue to engage in unprotected sex. That's how my Catholic wife ended up with a bowl of condoms on her desk. It seemed the lesser of two evils to at least help safeguard them, since they're having sex anyway.

I agree with Abbey that it's more appropriate to say "anti-abortion" than "anti-choice" (even though I'm pro-choice myself).

Mariner.

If people choose to have extramarital sex, they must face the consequences of their actions. It is not the role of the government to make sure everyone's life turns out perfectly. Only to protect the right to LIVE their lives.