Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
South Dakota to ban abortions?; ...the perfect law.
Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 07:56 AM (4,181 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 03:20 PM
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 01:35 PM
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby.

My only real fear of death since having children has been leaving my children motherless at a young age. To me, and as the mother of three children, choosing to leave three motherless children was an immoral decision. I could never wilfully do that to my children. I don't see heroism in that - I see rigid, docrinaire stoicism.

That sounds like judgmental language to me. Are you judging St. Gianna's act to save her unborn baby to be immoral, or have I misinterpreted?


Quote:
 
It's funny.  I view children as priceless treasures and can be easily be brought to tears by witnessing an abused, unloved or neglected child.  I put so, so much more moral importance on caring for the born and breathing (and God knows, there are so many out there who need the care of people outside of their families), than obsessing over aborted zygotes that may or may not have even come to full term in the womb.  I just don't get the obsession with terminating pregancies early on when there are so many lives and souls of already-born children to worry about.


And there are women who treasure the inherent value of the unborn baby they are carrying and feel naturally inclined to do anything to save the life of their baby. I appreciate your sharing of your perspective, and I want to also share mine.

No doubt all that language of Jesus' that "greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for his friend" was actually an incitement to doing immoral acts.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
my my, 89th.

guess what. u r 0/4. not a good batting average.

webster vs reproductive health services actually specifically imposed restrictions on state funds for counseling for abortions. the supremes actually allowed states to legislate areas that were previosuly prohibited by roe. lucky missouri.

89th, all u have done is show how the r vs w is being limited.

your mandate , as i i gave it to u, was to find cases that courts EXPANDED r vs w.

u still have one shot, the danforth case, but ill have that one for u in a sec...
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Bach:

I don't even have a clue what you are arguing here. Even if RvW was widely misinterpreted and misapplied, it is de facto if not de jure the rule of the land. And the application of it on the State level is what is critical in the American system.

Prior to RvW virtually every state (if not actually) had laws on the books prohibiting abortion except in cases such as the life of the mother. All of these were discarded n the wake of these abortion juggernaut cases that 89th has listed.

What again is exactly your point? That people err in blaming RvW for widespread abortion in the US?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ok i reread all of danforth..its long and convoluted and still dont get ti all.

bottom line is that the supremes ruled that planned parenthood of missouri cahlelneged some of missouris abortion regulations under r vs w.

some were upheld and and some were turned down.

im willing to give u partial credit.

so lets call it .5/5 or 10% on your mission to find anythign which supports your (actually IT's, i suspect u just relied on him) claim.

10% is FAILURE my good boy. failure.
so sorry.

enough law for me for one day.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
last post for abit.

my point is, 89th (actually u IT) said that r vs w was missused by courts to expand the abortion mandate.

i asked for cases.

89th gave me 5 cases all proving the opposite.

u r welcome to continue the exercise, but i will only respond at a later time. i cant read anymore law for now.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 02:20 PM
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 01:35 PM
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby.

My only real fear of death since having children has been leaving my children motherless at a young age. To me, and as the mother of three children, choosing to leave three motherless children was an immoral decision. I could never wilfully do that to my children. I don't see heroism in that - I see rigid, docrinaire stoicism.

That sounds like judgmental language to me. Are you judging St. Gianna's act to save her unborn baby to be immoral, or have I misinterpreted?


Quote:
 
It's funny.  I view children as priceless treasures and can be easily be brought to tears by witnessing an abused, unloved or neglected child.  I put so, so much more moral importance on caring for the born and breathing (and God knows, there are so many out there who need the care of people outside of their families), than obsessing over aborted zygotes that may or may not have even come to full term in the womb.  I just don't get the obsession with terminating pregancies early on when there are so many lives and souls of already-born children to worry about.


And there are women who treasure the inherent value of the unborn baby they are carrying and feel naturally inclined to do anything to save the life of their baby. I appreciate your sharing of your perspective, and I want to also share mine.

I suspect your perspective will be quite different once you've had a child of your own.

As an anecdote, I remember my own feelings at being pregant with my second child. Although the pregnancy was very welcome, I also harbored a profound sadness for the displacement that the birth would cause my first-born and also a nagging worry that I could never love another being as much as I had my first child. Thankfully, these fears and feelings proved to be unwarranted, and I can honestly say that I treasure each one of my children as much as the other. Personally, and based on my own experience, I think that the love a mother (certainly not always, but commonly) has for a child is the strongest and most passionate love of all.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 03:52 PM
I suspect your perspective will be quite different once you've had a child of your own.

thanks for the patronization.

are you going to answer the question i asked about the apparently judgmental language you used about St. Gianna? i wouldn't want to misinterpret if that's not what you meant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 03:52 PM

I suspect your perspective will be quite different once you've had a child of your own.

You are the master of Conversational Terrorism, which you are quick and frequent to call others on.

That was a classic example of "You'll Get Over It".

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 03:38 PM
last post for abit.

my point is, 89th (actually u IT) said that r vs w was missused by courts to expand the abortion mandate.

i asked for cases.

89th gave me 5 cases all proving the opposite.

u r welcome to continue the exercise, but i will only respond at a later time. i cant read anymore law for now.

What I actually said was
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously" :angry: interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


After the Supreme Court decision, the State laws were overturned and subsequent State Court decisions had to regard RvW and DvB. It is not a matter of SCOTUS anymore. If you want to review the subsequent decisions of 50 State Supreme Courts tracing this history, knock yourself out.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 03:13 PM
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 03:52 PM
I suspect your perspective will be quite different once you've had a child of your own.

thanks for the patronization.

are you going to answer the question i asked about the apparently judgmental language you used about St. Gianna? i wouldn't want to misinterpret if that's not what you meant.

And you're not being jugmental with your view that a woman's choice to have an abortion is so immoral that it should be outlawed?

I was wondering how long it would take for your hub to run to defend you against the big bad kathyk.

As a matter of fact, Thumps, I guarantee you that your views will change profoundly once you've had children - in many arenas. And I can't imagine a more a striking example than the one given by your wife. No conversational terrorism there, at all. And if that seems patronizing - well take a look in the mirror.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I don't know how big you are, but I've never thought of you as bad. And MS is quite competant to take care of herself (as evinced by her handing you back your ass on a platter). :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
At least I don't have to resort to vulgarity and crass insults in attempt to gain the upper hand.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You resort to an even more invidious and immoral tactic -- calling into doubt a natural relationship between a husband and a wife.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Huh?
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 04:37 PM
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 03:13 PM
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 03:52 PM
I suspect your perspective will be quite different once you've had a child of your own.

thanks for the patronization.

are you going to answer the question i asked about the apparently judgmental language you used about St. Gianna? i wouldn't want to misinterpret if that's not what you meant.

And you're not being jugmental with your view that a woman's choice to have an abortion is so immoral that it should be outlawed?

I was wondering how long it would take for your hub to run to defend you against the big bad kathyk. As a matter of fact, Thumps, I guarantee you that your views will change profoundly once you've had children - in many arenas. And I can't imagine a more a striking example than the one given by your wife. No conversational terrorism there, at all. And if that seems patronizing - well take a look in the mirror.

you still didn't answer my question but rather seemed to dodge it by asking a different question.

never mind then if you don't want to clarify your statement. i just didn't want to misinterpret your words about St. Gianna.

and about your patronizing remark guaranteeing me that my poorly misinformed views will change once i have children -- my beliefs about what i would do in that grave situation are faith-based. your comment then implies that my faith will change. the nature and strength of my faith is a subject that's best respected and kept out of.

it's a free forum -- if IT has something to say, he will. everyone here knows that. :wink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jan 26 2006, 02:27 AM
What I actually said was
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously" :angry: interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


After the Supreme Court decision, the State laws were overturned and subsequent State Court decisions had to regard RvW and DvB. It is not a matter of SCOTUS anymore. If you want to review the subsequent decisions of 50 State Supreme Courts tracing this history, knock yourself out.

IT, i understood u were talking about the states courts limitations after r vs w.

89th didnt and instead gave me 5 SCOTUS cases which basically said the exact opposite, limiting r v w mandate.

and so, back to you, u said that R v W was interpreted generously to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.

and thats specifically what i wanted to see. an instance where the states allowed abortion for any reason way beyond the scope of roe. im still waiting.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

and about your patronizing remark guaranteeing me that my poorly misinformed views will change once i have children -- my beliefs about what i would do in that grave situation are faith-based. your comment then implies that my faith will change. my faith is a subject that's best respected and kept out of.


Faith based hence ultimately an area best respected and kept out of.

Hokum. Everything should be questioned, queried, examined, re-examined. No concept should be granted immunity from critical analysis, as ultimately the process of examination is all we have in our battle for understanding and meaning, if we stop using it we will lose sight of whatever path it is we are trying to follow.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Jan 25 2006, 05:05 PM
Quote:
 

and about your patronizing remark guaranteeing me that my poorly misinformed views will change once i have children -- my beliefs about what i would do in that grave situation are faith-based. your comment then implies that my faith will change. my faith is a subject that's best respected and kept out of.


Faith based. Hence ultimately an area best respected and kept out of.

Hokum. Everything should be questioned, queried, examined, re-examined. No concept should be granted immunity from critical analysis, as ultimately the process of examination is all we have in our battle for understanding and meaning, if we stop using it we will lose sight of whatever path it is we are trying to follow.

i was specifically addressing kathyk's remark that my faith will change because i am so poorly misinformed. that directly comments on the strength of my faith -- is that a subject for public dissection and critique?

yes, religion and the different views about it are very good to discuss. we can learn a lot about and from each other.

but digging in and questioning the strength of someone's faith is entirely different. do you see the difference?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
MS, this is why i regret now bringing in your personal statement in my conversation with IT, i just wanted to understand a specific point, and certainly not to undermine your personal beliefs.

i sincerly apologize if what i said before made others attack u, that was not my original intention (as i hope u know).

i said before in a post, speaking as a doctor, i would never judge a persons decision on this particular point, because it is too deeply personal and no one is in a position to judge.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 05:14 PM
MS, this is why i regret now bringing in your personal statement in my conversation with IT, i just wanted to understand a specific point, and certainly not to undermine your personal beliefs.

i sincerly apologize if what i said before made others attack u, that was not my original intention (as i hope u know).

i said before in a post, speaking as a doctor, i would never judge a persons decision on this particular point, because it is too deeply personal and no one is in a position to judge.

thanks, bach. your conversations are genuinely inquisitive and respectful. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 04:50 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 26 2006, 02:27 AM
What I actually said was
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously" :angry: interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


After the Supreme Court decision, the State laws were overturned and subsequent State Court decisions had to regard RvW and DvB. It is not a matter of SCOTUS anymore. If you want to review the subsequent decisions of 50 State Supreme Courts tracing this history, knock yourself out.

IT, i understood u were talking about the states courts limitations after r vs w.

89th didnt and instead gave me 5 SCOTUS cases which basically said the exact opposite, limiting r v w mandate.

and so, back to you, u said that R v W was interpreted generously to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.

and thats specifically what i wanted to see. an instance where the states allowed abortion for any reason way beyond the scope of roe. im still waiting.

Bach:

In Blackmun's Doe opinion the reason of the health of the mother "may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient." In short, no reason at all need to be truly considered to protect the life of the baby at any stage.

Warren argued in Roe that "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand." -- yet the fact of 45 million babies killed by abortion at all stages of development and in all states across America shows this to be hollow.

If this is some sort of matter of principle for you, I can't imagine what it could be apart from argumentiveness.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 03:37 PM
And you're not being jugmental with your view that a woman's choice to have an abortion is so immoral that it should be outlawed?

I was wondering how long it would take for your hub to run to defend you against the big bad....

I've been serving self imposed penance today for my earlier ad hominem attacks against you and Tom in this thread . But I do feel that I have something to say.

I think I understand exactly where musicascra and Ivorythumper are coming from in this. If correct, musicascra is saying that she would be willing sacrifice her life if that horrible choice be necessary, so that her unborn child can be born, grow and have children of his/her own then become grandparents themselves etc. God has already given her the gift of bringing that child into being in her womb. Her spirit and love will live on in the child regardless. We'll leave it at that.

Would it not be wonderful if we had the medical technology in place that when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the pregnant mother could go to her doctor and say, "I'm pregnant and don't want to go to term. Please take this embryo (fetus) from me and incubate it artificially so it may be given to a couple, unable to conceive on their own, for adoption and a loving home."

I think we all should work towards that goal, so that abortion on demand can be outlawed once and for all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
its not a matter of principle.

i dont live in the US and i have my own personal opinions as u know.

the thing that basically pushed me into gear was realizing 89th key had no clue what the supreme court said in the ruling he wants to repeal.

i then asked to see where r v w is used to allow abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

havent seen that either.

what im trying to show, is simply that a very strong pro lifer on this forum was not accurate in his understanding of the legal nuances he himself uses.

if u call it argumentation, then fine, im just trying to learn, and i learn by forming arguments.

Quote:
 
M:  An argument isn't just contradiction.
A:  It can be.
M:  No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A:  No it isn't.
M:  Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A:  Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M:  Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A:  Yes it is!
M:  No it isn't!

A:  Yes it is!
M:  Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A:  No it isn't.
M:  It is.
A:  Not at all.
M:  Now look.
A: (Rings bell)  Good Morning.






"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
my head hurts. there are so many useless bickering arguements in here :rolleyes2:

my question is this: if they do bring this law in that will allow an abortion to save the mother, will the procedure even be performed in the delivery room, when the child is at full-term? sorry if that has already been discussed, but i didn't feel like hunting through all 13 pages.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Bach, thanks for reading through the cases, I skimmed them as well, and my whole point behind all this was that there used to be laws per state, starting with Texas I believe, which strongly prohibited many cases of abortion...since RvW, that has changes and many cases have referenced RvW in their opinions, even if limiting it a bit. RvW set the stage for a WHOLE NEW level of abortion legal precedents, and laws ever since have sourced them.

I can't wait for RvW to be overturned. I GUARANTEE it'll happen soon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply