2/24 S.D. legislature passes near total abortion ban - no exception for
rape or incest.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/abortion_rights_debate
\_ Which is consistent at least. If you believe abortion is killing a
human life, why should those be exceptions?
\_ The so-called Christians who are behind this are usually
also strongly in favor of the death penalty, so no, they don't
even get to claim consistency.
\_ Your knee is jerking. There is a difference between innocent
life and a person condemned for a capital crime.
\_ I guess Pope John Paul II must have been another misled
knee-jerk athiest who just needed a patronizing talking-to
by one of the motd's asshole rightwingers. Too bad you
missed your chance.
\_ LOL. good one.
\_ Actually, if you follow fundamentalist Christian
doctrine, there isn't. What matters is that you accept
Jesus into your heart. If you sin on earth, God (or the
devil) will punish you. It's not man's place to mete out
punishment. At least, that's what the Christers believe.
-dans
\_ sorry my friend, but that's not the case. christians
have always recognized the necessity for earthly
authorities to mete out justice. we do have a
responsibility to ensure that it is just.
- socialist christian.
\_ I have a hard time understanding how you can be a
socialist and a *fundamentalist* christian. The two
seem likely grossly incompatible philosophies. -dans
\_ what do you mean by fundamentalist christian?
and how would that be incompatible with being
a socialist?
\_ Fundamentalist Christian: an individual who
believes that G-d spoke directly to the
authors of the bible, i.e. old and new
testaments, who then transcribed His without
alteration. Consequently, Fundamentalists
believe in the literal truth of the bible, and
that it is not subject to *any* interpretation.
As jrleek suggested, Jack Chick would fit this
definition. This gives rise to contradictory
and patently absurd ideas. For example,
their are passages in the Bible that state
that hearing the voice of G-d would destroy
the frail form of any human who hears it.
Similarly, Fundamentalist Christians believe
the earth is only 3000 (5000?) years old,
which flies in the face of the geological and
fossil record, i.e. dinosaur bones were put in
the earth by G-d to test our faith. Socialism
simply is not compatible with this literal
interpretation. Clearly, Mormons do not fit
this definition since they believe in the Book
of Mormon. One might posit Fundamentalist
Mormons who believe the literal truth of
all three books, but I have not ever heard
of someone who follows such a belief. -dans
\_ There are so many things about this post
that are stupid, and I wouldn't even know
where to begin pointing it out. Since
you've acutally chosen to sign your name
to your idiocy, I'll just let it stand.
\_ I take it by your lack of a counter
argument and swift resort to ad hominem
attack that you find my post offensive,
but correct. And you are correct, Many
things that Fundamentalist Christians
believe are stupid. -dans
\_ My friend, according to the Bible, the
early Christians do not own any possessions
and shared everything they had. You may
also be aware of the Bible, both the Old and
New Testaments, teaching us to take care
of the widows and the orphans, to help
the poor and the aliens, to forgive the
debts of others, and so on. There are
also mentions of not worrying about
accumulating earthly wealth, being rich
making it difficult to get into heaven,
trusting in the Lord to provide your
daily needs on a day to day basis (eg.
mannah while in the wilderness), etc.
There are also things like bringing the
Israelites out of slavery in Egypt,
Jesus admonishing the corrupted religious
leaders (Pharisees, etc.), Jesus including
all in his salvation, bringing the gospel
to the samaritans, greeks, romans,
ethiopians, eunuchs, slaves, peoples to
the end of the earth, all to be included
in his church as one, as brothers and
sisters.
\_ My friend, the bible also teaches that
you should be honest in your dealings.
If you believe in its teachings, why do
you argue in bad faith by presenting such
a one-sided, saccharine sweet description
of exclusively noble teachings from the
bible? Afterall, lies of omission are
still lies. What about the myriad of
truly atrocious practices that the bible
explicitly permits when read literally?
Nice fluffy things like owning slaves
and stonings in the public market place?
Treating the bible literally means you
don't get to pick and choose which
testament and teachings you do or don't
follow. As a lark, why don't you attend
the next local IWW meeting and suggest
that owning slaves would really advance
the cause of socialism, see how that goes
over and report back to us. -dans
\_ I think the problem is your narrow definition
of fundamentalist christian. You seem to
think it means "Jack Chick" -jrleek
\_ Google "liberation theology."
\_ Actually that's the fun part. The law declares life begins at
fertilization. So if you see a pregnant woman drinking, smoking,
taking drugs or engaging in behavior that may endanger the
pregnancy, can she be arrested for child endangerment? If she
she miscarriages, is that manslaughter? Fun, happy thoughts.
\_ Why stop there? Eating fatty foods, not taking enough niacin.
\_ No. See Section 4, the act explicitly exempts the mother
from liability.
\_ OK, but doesn't Roe v. Wade make abortions legal and doesn't that
have precedence? (I don't know the details of law-making, which
is why I'm asking.)
\_ Roe v. Wade was a crappy decision based on crappy law making
from the bench. If anyone was serious about making abortion
truly legal someone would've made a constitutional amendment
regarding everyone's right to their own body, medical info, etc.
\_ $20 says you weren't even born when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Your vast leaps of logic would be amusing if they didn't give
of such a stink. -dans
\_ Get your $20 out.
\_ Sign your posts. So you attended Cal before 1991? Not
many folks that old on the motd. -dans
\_ Roe is no longer controlling on abortion. It has been largely
superceded by Casey, 505 US 833 (1992). Under Casey one looks
at whether the regulation is pre or post viability to determine
constitutionality.
1. If the regulation is pre-viability, then it is only invalid
if it imposes an "undue burden" (ie it is not possible to
get an abortion.)
2. If the regulation is post-viability, then it is only invalid
if it does not contain a health exception. ("Subsequent to
viablity, the State [may] ... proscribe abortion except where
it is necessary ... for the preservation of the life or health
of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe, but
note that this does not explicitly require the state to make
an exception for rape or incest.)
of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe)
SD has done something very interesting. Section 4 contains the
health exception, as required under Casey. Section 1 attempts
to get into Casey prong 2 by defining post-viability as starting
at the moment of conception. It is unlikely that this definition
will be accepted b/c Casey strongly suggests that viability can
be advanced to a "point somewhat earlier" than the 24 weeks in
Roe. The earliest that even this ct is probably willing to go is
16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - generally accepted 4 week error
re date of conception).
The SD Legislature seems to expect this as shown by the sever-
ability provision in Section 10 and the reinstatement provision
in Section 11.
[ Yes I know that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was based on
the sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not
on the underlying law, therefore I doubt that he would vote
to reverse ]
16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - 4 week error). [ Yes I know
that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was largely based on the
sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not on the
underlying law ] |
http://csua.com/feed/