Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To start, I'm not a fan of abortion if used for nothing more than birth control. Then again, I'm not a 16 year old girl who just found out she was pregnant, so there are other considerations. I know what my personal beliefs are in regards to my religious background, but I'm a firm believer that sometimes I have to think a little more in depth than what a religion views as a VERY black and white issue.
People can and DO argue about religion and government. Some say it has NO place in government issues, while others argue that religion is what this country was based upon by the founding fathers. I believe there should be a common ground, but where that lies is very tricky and will never be clear due to ones particular beliefs.
What I can tell you for sure is, I'm not for the taxpayers being expected to pay for lawsuits and court proceeedings that will arise when doctors (that will still take it upon themselves) perform abortions outside the parameters given by the new legislation.
All I can say is, I hope people are really doing their homework on this one and leave little to NO loopholes in the planning of this amendment.
On a side note,
If you go to ballotpedia.org (not spamming the website) click on South Dakota, then click on "South Dakota 2008 Ballot Issues" and look under the "External Links" section about half way down the page, you will find a PDF pamphlet put together by the South Dakota Secretary of State and the Election Supervisor. It contains all of the issues on the upcoming ballot and lists pro and cons to each issue. There are also points of contact and websites for the election offices.
The exceptions in this bill are a joke. Make sure you read the fine print on this one - they talk it up to better meet the needs to of the public, but the exceptions are very limited and legally defined and in othere areas to open to interpretation. The doctor here that delivered my last baby is not in favor of this bill because the "exceptions" are not as needed. I value his opinion and that reinforces my thoughts.
I agree it should no be used for birth control, but this is not the right bill.
I am in favor of the current restrictions - a 24 hour wait period, sonogram viewing and parental notification. South Dakota has one of the lowest numbers of abortions among the 50 states.
I also agree that even if this passes, it would go directly to the SC and be overturned.
If it passes, illegal and unsafe abortions will increase and patients will just cross state lines...
Also must add in for the people talking about BC etc - what about an IUD - the premis of that device is to stop a feralized egg from implanting - does that mean IUD's should be illegal as well?
Also must add in for the people talking about BC etc - what about an IUD - the premis of that device is to stop a feralized egg from implanting - does that mean IUD's should be illegal as well?
I do not think IUDs and BC should be illegal. They prevent life from taking place altogether. The morning after pill however stops life that is already occuring.
Also must add in for the people talking about BC etc - what about an IUD - the premis of that device is to stop a feralized egg from implanting - does that mean IUD's should be illegal as well?
Agree with Danny that it's a different premise to end existing life and preventing it from starting to begin with. Maybe the term being used as "birth control" is a little misleading. Maybe, "I don't want another screaming brat control" !!!
The thing is, it's not just her body anymore when she becomes pregnant. It is also a child's. And when has anyone been able to do what they want with their bodies? Isn't marijuana illegal because of what it does to your body? Meth, cocaine, heroin? It's even illegal to abuse prescription drugs. Suicide effects the body and look- illegal too.
This is where we disagree. As I've said before, to me a child is not a child until it can survive outside of the womb with or without medical help.
huh? I said a child that is not developed fully enough to survive outside the womb with or without medical intervention, to me is not a child yet.
Where did a child BORN with downs come into this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
