BS: abortion south dakota

Subject: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM

I see South dakota is to forbid all abortions, including those desired by women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. Is this not as draconian and backward as anything the taliban came up with? Is the position of women in this place any different to that of women in the worst examples of patriarchal society? And where is compassion for the poor women who are the victims of male crimes?
Will the women of America fight to retain their freedoms or will they go back to subservience?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:24 PM

For a start, boycott South Dakota.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:29 PM

S. Dakota, as well as being conservative, has agreed to be the test case to see if they can slip this measure by the Supreme Court...that is, to test whether those two "I haven't made up my mind" new members are "on board" and whether "settled law" really means anything.

They will never get it thru their heads that some issues should not BE at the whim of whoever has the most votes, but be forever a matter of personal conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:31 PM

boycott S. Dakota? You mean don't go to Mt. Rushmore and stop digging for gold? What else can we DO to them? Maybe that's why they were chosen...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:19 PM

Banning abortion for rape and incest is just plain stupid.

Banning abortion because a woman and a man were careless and don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions is something else.

Why can't people see the common sense to the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

You know the answer to that, Martin....they 'think' they know an overriding issue. You & I may disagree with 'them', but zealousness allows a LOT of folks to stomp on other's rights in the name of righteousness.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:30 PM

The real fight won't happen until after Roe v. Wade is overturned and the reality sets in that the Christain Right, which it is neither, has highjacked the governemnt...

Yeah, then the tables will turn drasticaly and the orgabnizing that the anti-abortion folks have been doing won't be able to stand up to the majority, who when awakened, can bea force...

Right now everyone is sayin', "Hey, Roe won't be overturned... I mean this is America... Not friggin' Nazi Germany..."

Wanta bet???

Roe is going down!!! Guarenteed... Maybe not this year, but within 3 years it will be back to rich white women going on that "little vacation" to Mexico and poor black (and white) women getting the clothes hanger abortion in the back rooms of gas stations...

I **guarentee** this is going happen... This Supreme Court has been assembles by Bush to do just this as a reward to his scrwed up Chriatain Right base who couldn't care less if Boss Hog is hosin' them as long as Roe goes down....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:41 PM

Thanks, Bill D.

"They will never get it thru their heads that some issues should not BE at the whim of whoever has the most votes, but be forever a matter of personal conscience."

Absolutely right! Why should majority rule apply to personal decisions?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

Well said, BillD! Thank you!

Bobert, dammit (:-), your words have power. By making such "guarantees" you are putting that "out there" into the power of the consciousness to help bring it about; quit helping them out with all of their negativity, please?!! Yes, it is a possibility, but it does not have to be fact, esp. if we, the majority, do not give it the power of our words and beliefs.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:23 PM

And it ain't even "majority rule"... It's minority rule...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM

It's a vocal, self-righteous, "I know better than you" minority that has hijacked more than a few things of late. Pretty soon you'll have Pat Robertson out in S.D. running prayer-a-thons to get more money for himself and using a pittance of it to charter a dozen buses to D.C. with placards and "murder for hire" signs. Used to be said "let one of THEM have their daughter raped or knocked up by Uncle Joe, and they'd change their tune." Y'know what? I'm not at all sure they would!

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:14 PM

I am not too sure about that either Anonny.
I will not give them power by addressing their point of View.
For the simple reason I feel that I know better then they ever will about this issue for I am a woman and I have a choice and no-one elses moral standards or religious views or Court, no matter how Supreme, will ever be able to take MY choice away from me.
To me it is that simple. Really.
J

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:36 PM

Bobert: I mean this is America... Not friggin' Nazi Germany.

That is what a lot of people are saying, but when I list recent events here alongside the pages of the history books, this IS NAZI GERMANY, ca. 1932. The US could very well proceed along a very similar path.

Does anyone believe we don't have a few politicians every bit as ambitious as Adolph and his gang?

The majority of Germans were basically ok people, but "conservative religion" was used to break down resistance and impose a "state religion." Denial of civil rights to certain people was used to break down resistance. Appointments of "sympathetic judges" with "the right thinking" was used to emasculate the courts. Secret trials were used to eliminate "undesirables." Withdrawal, cancellation, and denial of social welfare benefits were used to eliminate objectors. Taxes favoring "the right businesses" were used to weaken other "less wanted" segments of the economy. "Emergency powers" were claimed by the politician(s) in power. Drastically increased penalties for broad ranges of crimes were imposed, in the name of "moral values" to provide a threat against objections. The work camps (prisons) were filled with "undesirables," often just to get them off the unemployment lists and make people believe things were ok.

And all the people just sat there, at each step of the process, because "it can't happen here."

Anybody see anything that doesn't show up in both lists?

John

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

Abortion on demand has always been wrong. Abortion for medical reasons or for pregnancies resulting from a criminal act, should be allowed.
Just imagine being raped by a stranger or a relation and ending up pregnant because of it. Without the option of an abortion you would have to live for another 9 months with this reminder of your violator inside you.
No one can live by the rules in the Bible, and most of the christian fundies know that, but then they only want to live by the bits that suit them and ignore the bits they don't like.
Pick & MIx religion I call it.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:52 AM

Alba,

Better start your savings account now so that when yer only "choice" is to get on an airplane and go to another country where you can exercise that "choice" that you think you'll have here in the US after Roe goes down...

Johnin K,

That's what I was saying. My statement about Nazi Germany was in quotation marks talking about the folks who are in denial that Roe is going down... I know the US is on a path taken by the Germans in the 30's and that's why I know that Roe is going down and guarentee it... It was a done deal when the Bush crowd, whoes family BTW had lots of ties to the Nazis, used the Cristain Right and a bunch of lawyers to highjack and Amercian eletion... That was the beginning of the end of the US as we know it...

Roe is going down... Fir sure...

And guess what... Democracy has allready gone down...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

Nope Bobert. No saving account. For that would be accepting the unacceptable in my opinion.
I'll do as have done for a long time on this issue and become even more pro active than I already am.
Again for me it is that simple. Really.
I am as determined on the issue of a Woman's right to choose as the people who would try to strip a Woman of that right.
J

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:58 AM

So Alba, a woman has the right to choose to be a baby killer because she screwed around one too many times and got careless, right?

That's not a right, Alba. That's not being responsible for your actions and mistakes. It's an easy way out at the expense of a life.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

...and the men involved in this "careless" act? What freedom do they lose Martin?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

After the 2004 election I remember a fundamentalist Christian leader stating that, as 'they' had put Bush back in the White House, he must do what they wanted him to. Right now these people seem to have the power because they are able to organise their followers into going to the ballot box and there isn't sufficient cohesive agreement amongst the mostly moderate majority of the population to make a real opposition. As a result laws like this can get on to the statute books.

As Kendall has said, the concern of these people lasts until the baby is born. After that they will take no responsibility for bringing into the world an unwanted life and it is likely that those children will be more poorly provided for due to lack of money or love or both. That is of no interest to the anti-abortionists who, if they think of it at all, will blame the mother for not taking care of the child.

Maybe these people should have to put their money where their mouth is and contribut say 50% of their income to help raise the children they have effectively brought into the world.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:16 AM

As South Dakota goes so goes the nation over the right to abort
here comes the Supreme Court.

Out on the western plains and bad lands rides a HERO
To the rescue rides Judge Alito.


Pretty much any medical care involves "killing something".
Its time we clean house and put an end to all medical science
and its wanton killing
except for criminals, Muslims and evil doers etc.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:23 AM

Alba,

While I respect your conviction and courage, be prepared for having to fight this battle in a post-Roe era... They have the votes now and now it's just figuring out whether or not to do it gradually or quickly. That's a marketing/political issue for the radical Republicans...

But, make no bones about it, Alito tipped the scale and it won't matter how pro-active you are now but how pro-active you will be after abortion is made illegal again...

But the battle will be alot harder next time because the right wing is so well organized (and financed) that it won't be like the last time... And the press is owned by the right wing, too...

Yeah, when that battle comes, I'll be beside you but know that it's going to take more than indignation to turn the country around since the Democrats have no political (or finacial) backbone to be a real opposition party...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:07 AM

Thanks Bobert.
I am prepared to do so if that is the case.
I used to get very upset when the issue arose but over the Years I decided that the best way to deal with my opinion on the issue was to quite simply walk the walk and talk the talk.
Arguement is futile when one is argueing with Fundamentalist thinking.
If any women chooses not have an abortion I support her right to that choice
If any woman chooses to have an abortion I support her right to have that choice available to her.
If a woman chooses not to use contraception I support her right not to do so.
If a woman chooses to use contaception I support her right to obtain and use the mtheod she chooses.
This issue goes way beyond the views of Religion and Ethics in my opinion.
Again I will say my views on the matter are really that simple but getting to the point were my views became defined was a tough road.
Sometimes it is easy to lose the big picture when people choose only to focus on a few pixels contained within it.
I am not of a mind to argue my position on this anymore. I have done that many times over the years and that fact has been a motovating factor in how I arrived at where I stand on this issue today
I respect others views even while disagreeing with some.
I reject shock language tactics as it serve no purpose. It is a hysteria of sorts and only indicates to me that some people nurture a rage at their inabilty to control all Womans Right to Freedom of choice.
So in my last post here on the subject I will just say that backwards is not a direction I am willing go on regarding this matter.
Everyone has an personal opinion and right to make their own choices.
Women are not excluded in that right.
Again it is really that simple in my opinion.
I have, I feel, no need for preparation. As I have, as some here know, been actively defending Pro Choice for many years now through my work outside my Music. I am grateful to that work that allowed me to gain a broader perspective on this subject.
On this issue I am and will continue to be very determined.
That is how it is for me.
Best of Wishes, as always, to all here
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

"No one cares after the baby is born"? Wrong! There are lots of families out there ready to adopt unwanted babies. Many will even pay the medical and prenatal expenses of the mother. I know this for a fact, because a close relative of mine went thru this experience. She is now married with a newborn, and is very glad she did not have an abortion when she was tempted to do so, a few years ago.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:36 AM

According to one US anti-abortion site, there are an estimated 1.4m abortions per year in the United States. Do you think the 'lots of families' you refer to stretches that far, MaineDog?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

As you see, there are many points of view, even among those of us who do not like the way the tide is turning.

"Abortion on demand has always been wrong. "
"There are lots of families out there ready to adopt unwanted babies."
"If any woman chooses to have an abortion I support her right to have that choice available to her."

etc......

The point, again, is that **BECAUSE** there is no agreement about the details and the proper 'limit' to individual decisions, it makes no sense for the most conservative elements to legislate some arbitrary point for everyone!
   The basic decision to accept or reject the abortion alternative, in 'almost' every case, is based on a personal belief. No one should impose an abortion on anyone who has moral/ethical/religious reservations, and no one should demand that those who honestly have different beliefs be subjected to the views of others!

ALL abortion is sad, awkward and often dangerous, and any efforts to reduce the need for them are to be commended. I don't know anyone who 'likes' the idea, but all human situations are different and it WILL be the case that women (and in many cases, their partners) will continue to resist the efforts of misguided zealots to determine, in some blanket form, what is best for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM

It is almost beyond belief that the Anti -Abotion lobby do not see that a right to choose is just that. Almost.

If it were seriously about saving the lives of Children, then surely the effort would be better applied to Africa, where millions of children could be saved every year by relativly cheap and simple steps, without having to kill doctors.

If it were about applying the rules of Bible, or saving souls, how about shutting down the pig farms and prawn fisheries, as they produce 'unclean' food. Or stopping people working on Sunday?

It's about power, and control over women. If the preachers leading it realise this is another question entirley....

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: leftydee
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

To those of you that oppose the right to choose and do not have a least one adopted child, kindly shut yer piehole. It seems you right-to-lifers are really worried about a fetus before it becomes a person but happy to let it fend for itself once it gets born. Which is less moral? Although I'm not FOR abortion, I think leaving a child to waste in poverty or in a home that doesn't want him is a far greater sin. So, put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

Alba, well-said. You know I am right there with you and we wimmin can be a Mighty Force when need be. Brings to mind one of my favourite quotes:

A woman is like a teabag; you never know how strong she is until she gets into hot water. - Eleanor Roosevelt -

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

Well, our daughter and her fella are moving out of SD.....ASAP

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:38 AM

I had an abortion at the age of 15. Both my partner and myself were both still at school and imagined, like some latter day Romeo and Juliet, we were deeply in love - maybe we were! I still believe my decision, not taken lightly, saved 3 people from a very unhappy future but the feelings of loss remain.

I have spent my adult life working with, and on behalf of, unwanted, neglected and abused children; if any of the pro-lifers could see the terrible emotional and often physical damage inflicted they may have a different sense of proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

A forced choice is not a free choice. A right to choose implies the absence of economic and social pressures that constrain that choice.

My impression is that not too much has been achieved in that direction in the USA in the years since the Wade decision. At any rate arguments about the issue on the Mudcat always seem to take for granted the overwheening presence of those kinds of pressures.

While that is the case, whether it's legal or not, you are going to continue to have an awful lot of unwanted abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

Why is it that the people most against abortion are also against open education aboout contraception?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:16 PM

Indeed, Kevin...when our 'freedom of expression' allows zealots to stand outside clinics and harangue and intimidate potential patients, 'free choice' loses most of it's meaning.....especially when doctors are threatened and shot.

"But we are **saving the babies*"!!!

no, you are ensuring that mostly untrained and careless amateurs will be involved...you will 'save' very few babies.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

This is just SOOOOO divisive, y'know? I am an advocate of choice; I am not an advocate of relentless retroactive birth control, although for a male, whoever asked about consequences, or losses of freedom is correct. The female has 9 months of her life consumed with pre-natal issues, not to mention medical risks involved.

It used to be that a very high percentage of abortions-into the 90's percentiles-were NOT because of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I don't know if that has altered much. The thing is, a person ALWAYS has the choice NOT to terminate a pregnancy. If there is a ban, or Roe v Wade is overturned, there will be little or NO choice for many. It IS a fact that the well-to-do can travel elsewhere and will; it is also a fact that much will revert to the "back alley" coat-hanger purveyors...and then likely two deaths will result. And this will also be punitive to doctors, pharmacies, pharmacists, planned parenthood and birth control which is also in the sites of the "pro life" lobby. There are already Catholic hospitals that refuse pregnancy terminations as policy, and some conservatively owned/operated pharmacies that will refuse to dispense contraceptives. Lookit that town that the owner of Dominoe's Pizza is trying to build someplace in Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

Because, Paul, it is not truly about preventing unwanted pregnancy. It is, as Bunnahabhain said, about controlling women, pure and simple.

That is why it is not about the life of a fetus, or the life after fetushood, or the life of condemned prisoners (as in capital punishment) or the lives of people who see the world differently from us (as in war), or the lives of Mother Nature's other beings, or about preventing abortions (as in sex education and open discussions of alternatives to intercourse), or helping people become more responsible sexual beings (also as in honest sex education).

Remember how Jocelyn Elders was forced to resign when she suggested that youngsters who felt irresistable sexual urges and wanted to remain unpregnant and disease-free should masturbate? Yeah, like that. I mean, what does masturbation have remotely to do with saving the "lives" of fetus-people?

Control of women. That is the only explanation that makes sense. I wish the pro-choice mouthpieces could more effectively make that point. And "we" have that fierce need to control women in common with...guess who? Great company, that.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

And in so far as they aren't focussing their anger on the things in society that mean that for a lot of women there doesn't seem any way of keeping their babies, they are indeed hypocrites. And no, they probably aren't in any way reducing the number of abortions - they might even be having the reverse effect.

But there's hypocrisy when people talk about "freedom of choice" as something that actually is in place, when in practice large numbers of abortions are in effect imposed on women.

It's a bit analogous to the pretence that was made that the abolition of slavery meant that equality and freedom for black Americans had been achieved.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

I agree and disagree. I also do not think abortion should be a retro form of birth control. That then begs other questions. The responsibility for a woman NOT getting pregnant rests with two people: the guy and the gal. It is very difficult to locate statistics (numbers) to do with pregnancies caused by rape. Set that aside for a moment, because it is another issue in the context of this particular post. Both people involved in mutually-consented to coitus have responsibility for the act(s) and its consequences. To me, it's that simple. So, in the headlong rush to provide abortion on demand, are people going to have a look at 'responsibility' to do with pregnancies resulting from sex that both parties have agreed to? Don't BOTH parties have responsibility? To me, the fundamental issue is not about controlling women. It is about controlling BOTH people in the stage before the pregnancy. And that falls to individuals, not States.

As to rape: The following may make you shake your head and want to kill someone:

"50 - 60% of teens were molested prior to their first pregnancy
30 - 40% were victims of rape or attempted rape
the age of first unwanted sexual experience was 9.7 - 12 years of age
the average age of the rapist was 22.6 years
50% of perpetrators were family members
over 75% of the sexual assaults involved force and weapons"

That is from here.

An expression I heard today: Policies are a way of not having to think about the situation.

IMO, blanket 'laws' are similar.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:16 PM

Another site to read. Shocking and cogent.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:51 PM

all of those statistics, as many times as I have seen similar ones, are shocking and cogent....and scary.

What I read between the lines of reports like this is that, although 'individual responsibility' is, technically, the best answer, it appears that the condition of society in general does not support personal responsibility well enough...Young men get more 'points' for conquests than for restraint, even young women (and girls) learn that getting dates and attention often comes at a high price. Add to this 50,000+ years of Nature not caring HOW it reproduces, but fine-tuning us to the responses that ensure propagation, and you have the need to refrain and reduce pregnancies overridden by some pretty powerful forces!

all that wordiness says: The deck is stacked against easy avoidance of unwanted children...especially for the young, vulnerable and uneducated.

Contraception and abortion are the two ways to cope when abstinence fails, whether voluntarily or not. Many places, contraception is forbidden or seen as weakness and morally reprehensible, and thus, not easy to obtain...especially for the younger girls who are most at risk.

We are not likely to teach young people to not desire sex, so we MUST teach them how to deal with it......sadly, I don't see enough of that happening.

Abortion needs to be seen for what it is....a faulty, sad, course of last resort...to be used but not praised while we try to remove the need for it.

I have my ideas, but I doubt the world is ready for mandatory contraceptive implants for 11 year old girls and VERY strict laws regarding rape (after VERY clear warnings from age 11-12 on for young men)....

won't work? We haven't really tried yet.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:04 PM

I did leave out sterilization, which the Chinese have been trying with very mixed results. I am not ready to propose it for the populace at large yet, but it certainly might be applicable for extreme cases......gotta think.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

Many places, contraception is forbidden or seen as weakness and morally reprehensible, and thus, not easy to obtain...especially for the younger girls who are most at risk.

It wasn't that long ago that this was true right here in the good ol' USA. Contraception was NOT available to me, as a teenager; thus I have a son who will be 36 this April, just 17 years younger than me. I wouldn't have changed having him for a minute, but there was NO alternative available then. I'd never even heard of abortion until several years later.

I used to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood. This was about 28 years ago. I remember getting so frustrated with the young women who would come to us. They would say they'd been having regular sex for a year or so and thought maybe they should come get on the "pill." The young men never came in with them, nor would they wear condoms. I would scold the girls for waiting so long to get protection and remind them, their ability to even know about the pill was thanks to the women who went before them and fought for those rights. Now there are whole generations who don't have a clue what it is like to have those choices taken away. Maybe they don't care, I don't know.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:46 PM

Sex is easy...stopping, preparing, planning and thinking are not. Sure there are ways to significantly decrease the odds of pregnancy, but they require availability, education and willingness...often of not only a girl, but also her partner...and her parents, church, school, peer group, doctor and often, in a small town, the community at large.

That's a lot of hoops to jump thru when her boyfriend is whispering "aw, c'mon, I'll be careful" in her ear.

I do think the 'morning after' pill might be a great help...if, if, if...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

BUSH GETS TOUGH

Front page of the Washington Post has a story of how the Bush administration is going after journalists who wrote about the huge NSA wire tapping program by using anti espionage laws.

Journalists = SPIES and as such could deserve capital punishment.
This could be the mother of all show trials brought by a dictator.

I hope the trial is public. Summary executions are done in secret.


Free speech used to include Journalists, right to free assembly, the right to petetion the government and redress complaints and the right to freedom of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:26 PM

I deeply regret that there are things like the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child here in the UK too.

Come back Molotov, all is forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM

Life is cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

I don't know why South Dakota wants to stop just with abortion!

- let's roll the goddamn clock right back to 1962 and get rid of sexual harrassment laws, re-segregate the want ads in the newspapers by gender, revoke the 1963 Equal Pay Act, get rid of Title VII in the Civil Rights Act & legalize sex descrimination, make sure women can't get credit cards or mortgages in their own names, require women to have two eyewitnesses to get a rape conviction in court,get women out of High School & College sport, close all the battered women's shelters, get rid of pregnancy leave and go back to firing maried women if they get pregnant- THE FRICKIN'GOOD OLD DAYS! that the Christian Right & the BuShites are pining for when they their wimmens could be kept barefoot & pregnant with the help & acquiescence of the government.

How soon some people bloody forget. George Mcovern must be in hiding out of embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

..."two eyewitnesses" usually meant she'd been raped 3 times, all of whom would claim she "asked for it".

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:44 PM

One journalist's opinion on Bush getting tough with journalists.

That's what they want, Greg, you nailed it.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM

Sooooo, how the HELL do we stop them????

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

It won't get through the Supreme Court. If it does, you can't stop them.