It's about to hit the fan.

Because oooooooobviously we know better than you women what's best for your bodies and your lives and we should be the ones telling you what you can and cannot do.  Duh!

(the above was written with dripping sarcasm to demonstrate what a ridiculous statement it is.  Please don't kill me.)

Women make up 50% of the voting population yet the government is run mostly by men.  Why?  I don't know, maybe women just like being told what to do.  just kidding

I'd say it's a great day for unborn children in South Dakota.

Let's see...

800 abortions performed in SD each year divided by 365 days per year = slightly more than 2 lives of unborn children saved each day this law is in effect... 

(not the enemy.gif)

Absolutely. 

Well tyrant it's good to see you've explored an area of this debate that no other single human in the solar system has thought of in this discussion.

While I'm basically pro choice I'd like to see Roe overturned for a reason almost as whacked as tyrants. We've listened to this debate for so long, and we've watched politicians and even entire political parties make careers out of Roe v Wade. So overturn it tomorrow so I can then find out what your next beef will be. 
The day will come when you can get married but you won't be allowed to %$#^.
Also, once overturned a whole bunch of #$@holes will have to shut up and a whole new set can chime in.

And for those of you wondering why men are ruling on this basic womens issue. Well get out your KJV, open to the New Testament and reread the story of the woman accused of adultery who Jesus saved. No mention there of the man she was caught with, who by the way, under Jewish law, should also have been stoned to death. The old double standard has been around a long time.

Finally let me say that the Republican party can little afford to have this law overturned. How else will they keep their modern day pharisees in business. This will be interesting. The far right court is here to stay so don't look for this thing to get settled until the opposition party is in power.

I noticed that nobody really responded to Dontracy's comment and I don't want to start an argument in which we all know what each side has to say and none of us are going to change our minds.  I respect his right to his opinion and I'm glad that this obviously pro-choice thread has not jumped down his throat about it.  I do want to address the strategy being employed here because of the following.

I've heard it argued that the best thing that could happen for the women's movement would be for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.  That today's younger women (let's say those under 40) who did not grow up having to march and protest for certain rights will be mobilized into a political force to rival all others.  It may seem in the short run like pro-choice has lost a battle, but that ultimately it will set the stage for them to win the war.  That the strategy being used in SD is clumsy and will actually end up having a negative affect on the situation in the long run from the pro-life point of view.  That pro-lifers' best strategy would be to try to continue to educate men and women about birth control, family planning, the benefits of abstinence and reach out to women in a helpful way providing acceptable alternatives to abortion.

I'm trying to take the passion out of the debate and analyze the political strategies involved here.  I think that there are a whole lot of women out there (20-40 yrs old) that are going to come completely unhinged if Roe v. Wade gets overturned and become a much louder political voice than they are right now.  What does everyone else think?

I'll chime in a little bit. 

I don't approve of abortion-but I am not one to judge, so...... 

I can only offer comfort to those hurt by it, and respect their decision, as much as I don't like it.  

ah, I'll stop here.   

I too am thankful that I have not been personally attacked because of my position. It's one reason why BT is so great.

However, I don't mind having my ideas picked apart, as long as I have the chance to respond to the criticism of the ideas.

I've posted a lot about pro-life issues over the past year. Just two points to bring up here again.

1. I think people's positions can and do change on this issue. From my early adulthood until ten years ago I was staunchly pro-choice. The change for me came from a search for the truth of the matter.

I didn't like my conclusion, that direct abortion is always wrong, but I couldn't fine a reasonable and consistent way out of that conclusion

2. The strongest arguements against abortion are not based in religion but in reason. If you look at my posts going back a year on this subject, I don't think I once appealed to a religious or theological arguement.

The philosophical and biological arguments are much better. For one, I recognize that my personal religious beliefs cannot and should not be imposed on another person. Also, arguements based in philosophy and biology are ones that are best suited for a pluralistic society.

I'd be happy to go through these arguements again, although I'm not sure how much of it I can do today.

I'm also interested in challenging some of the statements that have already been posted on this thread.

Just one more thing. While I'm happy about the new law in SD, I'm concerned that it won't be the law that finally brings down Roe, and may in fact cause a long delay in overturning Roe.

There are a lot of SCOTUS and constitutional issues here in play that I don't fully understand. I don't think that the new SCOTUS court will make a decision based on the kind of sketchy interpretation of the constitution that brought us Roe in the first place. So, I don't know what they will do when eventually presented with a law that is clearly a full frontal assault on an established decision like Roe.

I'm also not sure about Justice Kennedy in all of this. He is the one to watch in my opinion.

agreed. As a man, I don't feel quallified to have a stong opinion on the matter. In fact I just about sit the fence. I agree that it is a woman's body and that she should have the right to abort a fetus if she wants too. Would you rather have a mother who can barely support herself be forced to now raise a child, putting even more financial stress on the family? What will end up happening? The foster care system will get overloaded with these "unwanted" children. Not saying that will happen with all of them, but it will be enough to make a difference. Now doing it so late in the pregnancy that she's basicly giving birth is another thing, but that brings up the whole "When is a baby aware" conundrum.

The only falut I see to legalized abortion is accountability. If abortions were completely common place and regarded as normal, then there is so much less stress on safe sex and the like. If you get knocked up, no problem. Just take care of that later. No worries mate. That just doesn't jive well with me. Pregnancy should be something taken seriously.

Actually the thing I find strangest about it all is the strong LIBERAL influence out here.  You'd think, south dakota....farming state....strong republican support....  but look at who we elected to the senate. 

Matt, how is this playing in Rapid City?

What's the water cooler talk?

One thing I've never understood about this debate is why the pro-life contigent is usually found in favor of the death penalty.  Meanwhile the pro-choice crowds are usually anti-death penalty.  It seems counter intuitive.  If you're going to be anti-abortion it seems to follow that you would be anti-death penalty and vice versa.  I submit this as reason #5234 that the human race is completely batty.

bts 

I thought that people would be similarly mobilized upon having a president who takes executive power to a new extreme and who led us into an unjust and bloody quagmire of a war. I thought for sure that finding out that our politicians are all unbelievably corrupt might move people a litte. No dice.

I think we're just too comfortable. People have to suffer a little to be really motivated. I'm not sure that overturning Roe v Wade would do it.