A victory for liberty

[Figleaf]

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

[DarkAngel_]

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

Yay! but isn't CNN a bit over the top, ya thank the 55% but what did CNN have to say about it this time?

[Guest Warwick Green]

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

Yes, but a very draconian law.

Referendum on legislation signed by Gov. Mike Rounds ® on March 6, 2006, which bans nearly all abortions in the state. The legislation is in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and is intended to serve as a constitutional challenge to that 1973 ruling. It would allow doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, and would not allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

[Riverwind]

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka?

[Guest Warwick Green]

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka?

Polls show that 65% of Canadians would support at least some restrictions on abortions. I believe that if Bill C-338 - that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks - ever gets onto the Order of Precedence it will pass.

[myata]

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka?

Exactly. I'd title the tread "A narrow victory for basic sanity" instead. Regarding the polls, one should be very careful about the question that is being asked. Individual attitude toward abortion is not the same as support for its legal prohibition.

[Canadian Blue]

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka?

Yeah I mean who would have thought that people would get emotional over something like abortion...

[Figleaf]

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

Yay! but isn't CNN a bit over the top, ya thank the 55% but what did CNN have to say about it this time?

Ummm... CNN reported the vote's outcome, that's all.

[Figleaf]

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

...

Polls show that 65% of Canadians would support at least some restrictions on abortions. I believe that if Bill C-338 - that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks - ever gets onto the Order of Precedence it will pass.

Jeez. It's hard to believe so many people would be willing to force women into childbirth.

[TravellingTimeMachineSalesman]

Looks to me like a US version of the "Final Solution" directed against the unborn.

[Guest Warwick Green]

If it had been a more reasonable provision (allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman) it might well have passed.

...

Polls show that 65% of Canadians would support at least some restrictions on abortions. I believe that if Bill C-338 - that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks - ever gets onto the Order of Precedence it will pass.

Jeez. It's hard to believe so many people would be willing to force women into childbirth.

The hard-core anti-abortionists support the SD law. No exceptions except where the woman's life is in danger. Last poll I saw in Canada 16% of the population were in favor of that.

[Canadian Blue]

The referendum would have passed if they had eased the restriction's on abortion.

Jeez. It's hard to believe so many people would be willing to force women into childbirth.

Theirs a bit more to it then that. Some people believe life starts at conception, and that include christians, atheists, muslims, jews, agnostics, etc. As far as I know a large portion of people in the US and even in Canada are pro-life, however many would compromise in order to make abortion rates go down through the use of social programs. Some people consider the right to life more important then reproductive rights, because, well its life. Others believe that it comes down to a woman's choice, and the woman must have the final say. It's a moral question more then anything, many people would consider abortion no better then infanticide. It's a debate that should be allowed in the democratic world as it does offer an important question to a society.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

[Black Dog]

Polls show that 65% of Canadians would support at least some restrictions on abortions. I believe that if Bill C-338 - that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks - ever gets onto the Order of Precedence it will pass.

As a staunch pro-abortion individual, I'd consider supporting a 20 week ban on two conditions

1. That it not apply to medically necessary abortions (ie. where the mother's life is endangered); and,

2. That a constitutional amendment is put forward to lock it in so that no additional abortion restrictions can be enacted.

This will give pro lifers a victory ("yay! abortion restrictions!") and-here's the good part-would have no affect on the number of abortions performed (since more than 95% of all abortions are carried out in the first 12 weeks). Call it a win-win.

[Figleaf]

Looks to me like a US version of the "Final Solution" directed against the unborn.

Why would you say "Final"?

[Figleaf]

Some people consider the right to life more important then reproductive rights, because, well its life.

I've never understood that formulation. Most people eat (formerly) living animals all the time. Even vegans eat vegetable life. If this is about the right to 'life', howcome there's so much animal and plant killing going on?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Theirs a bit more to it then that. Some people believe life starts at conception, and that include christians, atheists, muslims, jews, agnostics, etc. As far as I know a large portion of people in the US and even in Canada are pro-life, however many would compromise in order to make abortion rates go down through the use of social programs. Some people consider the right to life more important then reproductive rights, because, well its life. Others believe that it comes down to a woman's choice, and the woman must have the final say. It's a moral question more then anything, many people would consider abortion no better then infanticide. It's a debate that should be allowed in the democratic world as it does offer an important question to a society.

I agree that there should be a debate; however, such debate would be hijacked by the all-or-nothing set. Those who believe that no abortion should be permitted and those that are opposed to any restrictions. That's why Harper doesn't want to debate abortion - it would soon get out of hand.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Polls show that 65% of Canadians would support at least some restrictions on abortions. I believe that if Bill C-338 - that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks - ever gets onto the Order of Precedence it will pass.

As a staunch pro-abortion individual, I'd consider supporting a 20 week ban on two conditions

1. That it not apply to medically necessary abortions (ie. where the mother's life is endangered); and,

2. That a constitutional amendment is put forward to lock it in so that no additional abortion restrictions can be enacted.

This will give pro lifers a victory ("yay! abortion restrictions!") and-here's the good part-would have no affect on the number of abortions performed (since more than 95% of all abortions are carried out in the first 12 weeks). Call it a win-win.

It would be a win-win for everybody but the fanatics.

[Canadian Blue]

I've never understood that formulation. Most people eat (formerly) living animals all the time. Even vegans eat vegetable life. If this is about the right to 'life', howcome there's so much animal and plant killing going on?

I think a human and an animal are two completely different things. Same with vegetation, its not the same as a fetus. Human life is a completely different issue then a tree getting cut down figleaf.

[Riverwind]

I think a human and an animal are two completely different things.

That is your religious choice. In our society you are free to believe such things just like you are free to believe that Jesus is the son of god. However, I expect you to respect the right of others to have different religious beliefs. The majority of people do not believe that a fetus is a human life. Passing laws that treat a fetus as human is the same passing laws that force people to be Christian.

[Canadian Blue]

So a fetus is "sub-human"?

[jdobbin]

So a fetus is "sub-human"?

A fetus doesn't have legal rights that surpass that of the woman who carries it.

[Riverwind]

So a fetus is "sub-human"?

In my opinion it is as human as a toenail clipping. Genetically it is human cellular tissue but it is not something that I define as 'human'. Now I respect that fact that some people disagree but I oppose anyone who thinks that they can impose their definition of 'human' on me. Just like I would oppose anyone who wants to stop me from eating meat because they believe that killing animals is wrong.

[DarkAngel_]

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

Yay! but isn't CNN a bit over the top, ya thank the 55% but what did CNN have to say about it this time?

Ummm... CNN reported the vote's outcome, that's all.

i'm gonna faint....

[Guest Warwick Green]

So a fetus is "sub-human"?

In my opinion it is as human as a toenail clipping. Genetically it is human cellular tissue but it is not something that I define as 'human'. Now I respect that fact that some people disagree but I oppose anyone who thinks that they can impose their definition of 'human' on me. Just like I would oppose anyone who wants to stop me from eating meat because they believe that killing animals is wrong.

A resolution will never come about to the abortion issue until people of goodwill sit down and come up with a compromise - but I don't expect that any time soon.

[myata]

I agree that there should be a compromise, but why should it be about somebody's body (pun not indetended)? Should we also discuss and compromise on the shape of their nose? Size of their belly?