South Dakota To Hold Abortion Referendum

[Pale Rider]

South Dakota To Hold Abortion Referendum


Apr 28 06:14 PM US/Eastern

Voters in the midwestern US state of South Dakota will vote in a November referendum on abortion, reviving the country's already polarized debate on the issue, state officials said Monday.

Voters in the conservative state narrowly rejected a total ban on pregnancy termination in 2006, with 56 percent voting no, but exit polls showed a majority would have backed a ban if it had been less strict.

The 2006 text allowed for exceptions only if the life of the mother were in immediate danger. The 2008 version takes into account cases of rape, incest, or risk of grave health effects for the mother.

"All induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separated from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact," says the text to be voted upon on November 4.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080428221321.4zqml7t0&show_article=1

[theHawk]

I wonder if Planned Parenthood's knight in shinning armor, Obama, will come to their rescue. He's voted to preserve infanticide, so this should be outragous to him.

[Pale Rider]

I wonder if Planned Parenthood's knight in shinning armor, Obama, will come to their rescue. He's voted to preserve infanticide, so this should be outragous to him.

I heard that about hussein. But, if states can vote to grant queer marriage over federal law, then a state can vote to outlaw abortion over federal law. Hussein will just have to lose another one.

[mundame]

Again?

I'm pretty sure they already did this and it was defeated, of course.

[Pale Rider]

Again?

I'm pretty sure they already did this and it was defeated, of course.

You didn't read the article did you?

If you had, it's all explained.

[mundame]

You didn't read the article did you?

If you had, it's all explained.


Ooops, caught me. http://home.houston.rr.com/rixpix/ownedstick.gif

[Pale Rider]

Ooops, caught me. http://home.houston.rr.com/rixpix/ownedstick.gif

Well... I can't really get mad at someone for telling the truth... fahget a'bot it... :D

[midcan5]

Hopefully freedom for women who need to make this very tough decision is maintained. Some will always fight against another's right to live their life in privacy.


http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

[theHawk]

That decision is usually made at the time of conception.

Why anyone thinks its a "tough decision" between carrying the baby or murdering it out of convenience is beyond me.

[avatar4321]

Hopefully freedom for women who need to make this very tough decision is maintained. Some will always fight against another's right to live their life in privacy.


http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

i dont see anyone suggesting that we outlaw sex. so no matter what happens they will always have the freedom to make the tough decision.

[mundame]

i dont see anyone suggesting that we outlaw sex. so no matter what happens they will always have the freedom to make the tough decision.


When sex is outlawed, it's outlaws that have sex. And whenever that happens, you guys don't want the incest or rape victims to have abortions THEN, either. You think a woman should spend her life raising and caring for a child of rape.

A woman always, always loses if she pays any attention to this male conservative anti-abortion stuff, so we mostly don't.

[avatar4321]

When sex is outlawed, it's outlaws that have sex. And whenever that happens, you guys don't want the incest or rape victims to have abortions THEN, either. You think a woman should spend her life raising and caring for a child of rape.

A woman always, always loses if she pays any attention to this male conservative anti-abortion stuff, so we mostly don't.

utterly false. there are alternatives to abortion that dont require the woman raising or carring for the child. Why exactly should the child be punished for someone elses actions?

[mundame]

utterly false. there are alternatives to abortion that dont require the woman raising or carring for the child. Why exactly should the child be punished for someone elses actions?


Suuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrreee there are.



1) If the fetus is killed before it IS a child, no problem.

2) Breeding more rapists and incest-committers is so incredibly bad for society. As every livestock breeder knows, absolutely ANY quality can be bred in by selecting for the survival of the offspring with those qualities: like rape, criminality, incest, depraved behavior, in the case of humans.

Better not.

[Hagbard Celine]

Whoop-di-do. They'll have a higher instance of highschool drop-outs, a higher instance of unsafe do-it-yourself abortions, a higher instance of teens traveling out of state to get abortions, a higher instance of teen mothers who end-up uneducated and stuck in poverty and a higher instance of food stamp use. Good call South Dakota! :thumb:

[Hobbit]

Suuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrreee there are.



1) If the fetus is killed before it IS a child, no problem.

2) Breeding more rapists and incest-committers is so incredibly bad for society. As every livestock breeder knows, absolutely ANY quality can be bred in by selecting for the survival of the offspring with those qualities: like rape, criminality, incest, depraved behavior, in the case of humans.

Better not.

This degradation of human life down to the level of livestock is sickening. Whatever happened to free will and human dignity? I've actually met a woman who was the product of a rape, and she was quite happy to be alive and not the slightest bit antisocial.

[Pale Rider]

I'm a little on the side of abortion in the case of rape or incest. I kind of see it as a devil seed, because a rapist has to be possessed to do something like that, and I'd hate to be the one to force a woman to carry that devil seed. But do it fast, with like a day after pill or something. Don't wait until the fetus is two, three months old.

[Hobbit]

I'm a little on the side of abortion in the case of rape or incest. I kind of see it as a devil seed, because a rapist has to be possessed to do something like that, and I'd hate to be the one to force a woman to carry that devil seed. But do it fast, with like a day after pill or something. Don't wait until the fetus is two, three months old.

I used to think that until I met somebody who was conceived that way. Yes, it was a traumatic experience for her mom, but having the kid actually helped her cope with it. I don't condemn anybody for thinking the way I once did, but once you've actually attached a face to that idea, it becomes far harder to swallow.

[Pale Rider]

Whoop-di-do. They'll have a higher instance of highschool drop-outs, a higher instance of unsafe do-it-yourself abortions, a higher instance of teens traveling out of state to get abortions, a higher instance of teen mothers who end-up uneducated and stuck in poverty and a higher instance of food stamp use. Good call South Dakota! :thumb:

Yeah I know... it really sucks having to be responsible for keeping your fucking legs crossed doesn't it. What a bummer... the little kiddies can't run around fucking each other like junk yard dogs and to hell with the consequences. That's really too bad.

[PostmodernProphet]

As every livestock breeder knows, absolutely ANY quality can be bred in by selecting for the survival of the offspring with those qualities: like rape, criminality, incest, depraved behavior, in the case of humans.



funny then we still have abortions....you'd think by now we would have bred out all those folks who have unwanted children.....

[My Winter Storm]

South Dakota is obviously fucked in the head. They seem to want nothing more than to control a womans reproductive system, which they have no right to do.
All women in the State should move, at least then they will have the right to choose.

[krisy]

South Dakota is obviously fucked in the head. They seem to want nothing more than to control a womans reproductive system, which they have no right to do.
All women in the State should move, at least then they will have the right to choose.

Women have a choice to not jump in the sack if they don't want a child so badly that if they got pregnant they would have an abortion.

A woman(and a man) have all the say in the matter. Their reproductive choices are completely in their control.

Why do people think it's about controlling a woman's reproductive system? It has nothing to do with that.

[mundame]

Why do people think it's about controlling a woman's reproductive system? It has nothing to do with that.


No, I agree: it's not so limited as that.

Men want desperately to control women, and this doomed effort to control abortion is the big endeavor to teach women men are boss, everywhere, everywhen, and if they don't let Daddy control their sexuality, they get kicked out in the snow with an illegitimate baby to raise by themselves.

It's American men's version of honor killings: punish women for having sex.



Of course, that goes wrong when it's the MAN who wants her to get the abortion: when it's her father got her pregnant, or a married man who doesn't want his wife to find out, or an older man who doesn't want a conviction for statutory rape, or the boyfriend who "isn't ready for marriage" yet and never will be.

Then she's supposed to do what he says and get the abortion. As long as it's all under male control, that's what's really important about this issue.

[Hobbit]

No, I agree: it's not so limited as that.

Men want desperately to control women, and this doomed effort to control abortion is the big endeavor to teach women men are boss, everywhere, everywhen, and if they don't let Daddy control their sexuality, they get kicked out in the snow with an illegitimate baby to raise by themselves.

It's American men's version of honor killings: punish women for having sex.



Of course, that goes wrong when it's the MAN who wants her to get the abortion: when it's her father got her pregnant, or a married man who doesn't want his wife to find out, or an older man who doesn't want a conviction for statutory rape, or the boyfriend who "isn't ready for marriage" yet and never will be.

Then she's supposed to do what he says and get the abortion. As long as it's all under male control, that's what's really important about this issue.

You've GOT to be kidding me. The entire abortion lobby has pretty much blanketly stated that men have NO part in the debate, period...well, unless they agree that a woman should always have access to abortion on demand for any reason. It's a women's only club that takes ALL control away from the man. Consider the following:

Right now, it's a woman's (and only the woman's) choice whether or not to have an abortion, so other than the 2 scenarios of the man and the woman agreeing on whether or not to keep the child, what do we get?

If the man wants to keep the baby, offers to raise the child himself, and offers to free the mother of all parental responsibilities, the woman can choose to kill that man's own flesh and blood to avoid stretch marks, or in a worst case scenario, to spite him for some perceived wrong. She gets to remove all traces of the pregnancy and deny him a child he wants, no matter how petty the reasons.

If the man never wanted a child, never planned on having a child, and made this very clear to the woman before the relationship, but she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, then the father is saddled with, at the very least, child support payments for a minimum of 18 years, with absolutely no legal recourse to avoid it other than appealing to the mother.

I find, at the very least, the second part of this equation to violate the equal protection clause. Why should a woman have the choice to avoid all parental responsibilities, yet the man's entire parental future is held entirely in the hands of the woman?

[mundame]

The entire abortion lobby has pretty much blanketly stated that men have NO part in the debate, period...well, unless they agree that a woman should always have access to abortion on demand for any reason. It's a women's only club that takes ALL control away from the man.

That's how it ought to be; men should have no control whatsoever. The world being what it is, men often do promote their own welfare by persuading or ordering specific women they've gotten pregnant to get abortions; or pontificate and lobby on an issue that doesn't concern them about people that they don't know. Female people, of course.

I'm not sure which is worse......




Right now, it's a woman's (and only the woman's) choice whether or not to have an abortion,

Dat's wight, wabbit, and a recent article in the conservative Weekly Standard began that the war over abortion is over, and conservatives lost. I agree; it's all over but the gnashing of teeth by men who aren't being allowed to control women as much as they want to.





If the man wants to keep the baby, offers to raise the child himself, and offers to free the mother of all parental responsibilities.... She gets to remove all traces of the pregnancy and deny him a child he wants, no matter how petty the reasons.



Quite right. Men should not be allowed to raise babies by themselves! Very dubious situation. Very, very few women are willing to let that happen. It's probably an instinct: no, do NOT give a baby to a man! Not a good scene. Too often it's simply an effort to get the woman back, anyway, and the child would be maltreated if his agenda didn't work. That was the subject of a case in Pennsylvania several years ago -- a court did give the (unwed) father rights on the unborn child. The guy was abusive and threatening and obsessive and he didn't want to lose the woman; he wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't, for doubtless excellent reasons. Her mother and every feminist in America instantly rallied to her cause, including of course me, and the case was reversed immediately and she got an abortion without delay.



If the man never wanted a child, never planned on having a child, and made this very clear to the woman before the relationship, but she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, then the father is saddled with, at the very least, child support payments for a minimum of 18 years, with absolutely no legal recourse to avoid it other than appealing to the mother.


Poor guy. Maybe he should keep his zipper zipped. Just a thought. http://www.avatars-and-emoticons.com/msn-emoticons/sperm.gif

So let's see: you are saying that you hate and abhor abortion, but that it's terribly unfair this guy --- who is so stupid that he has sex with some woman he's not married to without protecting himself -- it's unfair this guy can't force an abortion on her???? Darn.

Serves him right. All the women who have had to raise illegitimate babies with no support at all? Let him pay. Let 'em all pay, till they wise up.


Why should a woman have the choice to avoid all parental responsibilities, yet the man's entire parental future is held entirely in the hands of the woman?

Because he was fool enough to screw her before he married her. You know, there was a time when this was frowned upon: and guess what, THIS is why. I suggest if you guys don't want to get saddled with costs of supporting a child you didn't expect or want, don't screw women you aren't married to.

[Pale Rider]

South Dakota is obviously fucked in the head. They seem to want nothing more than to control a womans reproductive system, which they have no right to do.
All women in the State should move, at least then they will have the right to choose.

So... let me get this straight... it's the states fault that a woman/man doesn't have the ability to contain their sexual urges? It's the states fault for a woman/man that hasn't any self control? Women/men should be able to fuck at will, night and day, fuck like junk yard dogs having unprotected sex, and when the woman gets pregnant, IT'S THE STATES FAULT???!!!

Why don't I follow? Could it be YOUR spin on this is FUCKED UP, and not the state of South Dakota? Yeah... I think so.

Here's the deal... IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT.... THEN KEEP YOUR FUCKING KNEES TOGETHER!!!

[Abbey Marie]

South Dakota is obviously fucked in the head. They seem to want nothing more than to control a womans reproductive system, which they have no right to do.
All women in the State should move, at least then they will have the right to choose.

So, in your opinion, it's all a conspiracy to control women, and the fetus/baby is simply a non-issue. What a weird and incomplete thought-process.

[Pale Rider]

That's how it ought to be; men should have no control whatsoever. The world being what it is, men often do promote their own welfare by persuading or ordering specific women they've gotten pregnant to get abortions; or pontificate and lobby on an issue that doesn't concern them about people that they don't know. Female people, of course.

I'm not sure which is worse......

Dat's wight, wabbit, and a recent article in the conservative Weekly Standard began that the war over abortion is over, and conservatives lost. I agree; it's all over but the gnashing of teeth by men who aren't being allowed to control women as much as they want to.

Quite right. Men should not be allowed to raise babies by themselves! Very dubious situation. Very, very few women are willing to let that happen. It's probably an instinct: no, do NOT give a baby to a man! Not a good scene. Too often it's simply an effort to get the woman back, anyway, and the child would be maltreated if his agenda didn't work. That was the subject of a case in Pennsylvania several years ago -- a court did give the (unwed) father rights on the unborn child. The guy was abusive and threatening and obsessive and he didn't want to lose the woman; he wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't, for doubtless excellent reasons. Her mother and every feminist in America instantly rallied to her cause, including of course me, and the case was reversed immediately and she got an abortion without delay.

Poor guy. Maybe he should keep his zipper zipped. Just a thought. http://www.avatars-and-emoticons.com/msn-emoticons/sperm.gif

So let's see: you are saying that you hate and abhor abortion, but that it's terribly unfair this guy --- who is so stupid that he has sex with some woman he's not married to without protecting himself -- it's unfair this guy can't force an abortion on her???? Darn.

Serves him right. All the women who have had to raise illegitimate babies with no support at all? Let him pay. Let 'em all pay, till they wise up.

Because he was fool enough to screw her before he married her. You know, there was a time when this was frowned upon: and guess what, THIS is why. I suggest if you guys don't want to get saddled with costs of supporting a child you didn't expect or want, don't screw women you aren't married to.

This whole post has to be some of the most one sided, man bashing, man hating, bull shit, I've ever read.

News flash... unless it's RAPE, the woman was a willing participant in getting pregnant. She had to undress, lay down, and WILLINGLY SPREAD HER LEGS!!! So this only blame the man post of yours above is pure horse shit.

[Trigg]

Voters in the midwestern US state of South Dakota will vote in a November referendum on abortion, reviving the country's already polarized debate on the issue, state officials said Monday.

Voters in the conservative state narrowly rejected a total ban on pregnancy termination in 2006, with 56 percent voting no, but exit polls showed a majority would have backed a ban if it had been less strict.

The 2006 text allowed for exceptions only if the life of the mother were in immediate danger. The 2008 version takes into account cases of rape, incest, or risk of grave health effects for the mother.

"All induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separated from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact," says the text to be voted upon on November 4.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080428221321.4zqml7t0&show_article=1


It's good that South Dakota has softened it's stance on this, since most people won't agree with a total ban on abortions.

I'd vote for a ban that took into consideration rape and incest.

I've heard the arguments on this board before regarding rape "it's not the fault of the child", and those people are right. But, for a lot of women, the psychological suffering of being forced to carry the child of a rapist, might be to hard to handle.

[Trigg]

South Dakota is obviously fucked in the head. They seem to want nothing more than to control a womans reproductive system, which they have no right to do.
All women in the State should move, at least then they will have the right to choose.

You obviously didn't read the article. The total ban almost passed, and the people who voted against it stated that they would have supported a less sticked bill.

Doesn't Australia have abortion laws??????

[Hobbit]

That's how it ought to be; men should have no control whatsoever. The world being what it is, men often do promote their own welfare by persuading or ordering specific women they've gotten pregnant to get abortions; or pontificate and lobby on an issue that doesn't concern them about people that they don't know. Female people, of course.

I'm not sure which is worse......





Dat's wight, wabbit, and a recent article in the conservative Weekly Standard began that the war over abortion is over, and conservatives lost. I agree; it's all over but the gnashing of teeth by men who aren't being allowed to control women as much as they want to.





Quite right. Men should not be allowed to raise babies by themselves! Very dubious situation. Very, very few women are willing to let that happen. It's probably an instinct: no, do NOT give a baby to a man! Not a good scene. Too often it's simply an effort to get the woman back, anyway, and the child would be maltreated if his agenda didn't work. That was the subject of a case in Pennsylvania several years ago -- a court did give the (unwed) father rights on the unborn child. The guy was abusive and threatening and obsessive and he didn't want to lose the woman; he wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't, for doubtless excellent reasons. Her mother and every feminist in America instantly rallied to her cause, including of course me, and the case was reversed immediately and she got an abortion without delay.



Poor guy. Maybe he should keep his zipper zipped. Just a thought. http://www.avatars-and-emoticons.com/msn-emoticons/sperm.gif

So let's see: you are saying that you hate and abhor abortion, but that it's terribly unfair this guy --- who is so stupid that he has sex with some woman he's not married to without protecting himself -- it's unfair this guy can't force an abortion on her???? Darn.

Serves him right. All the women who have had to raise illegitimate babies with no support at all? Let him pay. Let 'em all pay, till they wise up.



Because he was fool enough to screw her before he married her. You know, there was a time when this was frowned upon: and guess what, THIS is why. I suggest if you guys don't want to get saddled with costs of supporting a child you didn't expect or want, don't screw women you aren't married to.

Little misandry there? Every argument you made as to why the man's to blame for his situation goes just the same for the woman, and the idea that giving a man a child to raise on his own is practically child abuse is one of the most outrageous things I've heard all year.

The fact that so many women think they're the only thing their children need is yet another reason why we've been raising entire generations of wussy girly-men who couldn't please a real woman if they wanted and think fighting and sports are barbaric. I don't know what the hell your problem is, but you seem to think of us as sperm-dumping Neanderthals, whose sole purpose is to provide money and sex, then run off out of sight until you need another check or orgasm, and YOU, of all people, think MEN are shallow? Good luck with your test tube kids or your slave husband. No self-respecting man would EVER father a child with somebody with a worldview no wider than her own vagina.

[mundame]

the idea that giving a man a child to raise on his own is practically child abuse is one of the most outrageous things I've heard all year.



Nevertheless, it's the general conclusions all societies come to, including ours. You see a lot of men raising babies?


Didn't think so.

[Pale Rider]

Nevertheless, it's the general conclusions all societies come to, including ours. You see a lot of men raising babies?

Didn't think so.

That's because they work... not because they're any less capable than a woman.

[mundame]

That's because they work...


Most women work in this society.

[Pale Rider]

Most women work in this society.

Not as many as men.

[Hobbit]

Nevertheless, it's the general conclusions all societies come to, including ours. You see a lot of men raising babies?


Didn't think so.

It might have something to do with the fact that a mother has to be drunk or stoned 24/7 with no job and abusive before they'll even consider giving custody to the father. It's gender bias, the very thing feminists claim to be against, when what they really seem to be after is gender bias in favor of women.