It's about to hit the fan. (Page 2)

Brett, that one baffles me as well.

Personally, I am against abortion, and the death penalty.

I was anti-death penalty long before I was anti-abortion. Trying to resolve the inconsitency in my position is part of what led me to my conclusion that abortion is always wrong.

actually..... there isn't as much controversy here as there is in the rest of the states. They talk about it on the news and there are some groups that are speaking about it both ways, but its not even getting as much air time as talk of tax increases. I guess we're just a laid back state.

Now one thing to mention.... This state is not populated...AT ALL. There are two major cities, souix falls and Rapid City. Souix Falls is significanlty larger then rapid city and between two cities, they make up the majority of the state's population. So any issue requiring election, including state governor, senators, congress(wo)men, ect... is HEAVILY weighted towards Souix Falls. So the opinions of elected officials really don't reflect the state as a whole all that well. That and our counties (thus voting districts) are really bizzare and probably severly jurrymandered.  There is also a pretty significant difference between the west side of the state and the east side of the state.  The west side (where rapid city is) is in the hills, has lots of National Park land, and tends to attract the Outdoors type of person, who tend to be more of the liberal mindset. (Not that they are super liberal here, just not as conservative).  The East side of the state (where Souix Falls is) is more of the Bible belt of the state.  There are a few Jesuit universities there and it tends to be more of the strong religious "feel the wrath of an angry GOD" type of feeling.

A George Carlin stand-up rountine sticks out in my mind.  He lambasts the pro-life crowd for the harping on the sanctity of life and then sending people to the electric chair.  But then he completely ignored the other side of the coin... killing unborn kids but opposing the death penalty.

I'm with you, I'm (more or less) against both.  Although it's a lot easier for me to justify in my mind being pro-life and pro-death penalty than reversing both (i.e. killing innocents vs. killing depraved murders).

bts 

I understand that.

Here are the conflicts within the two issues, as I see it.

With abortion, we have the right to life of an innocent unborn child vs. the privacy rights of that child's mother.

With the death penalty, we have the right to life of a guilty criminal vs. the right of society to protect and defend itself.

It's the length of the URL in the first post.

On the flip side, I'm not pro-life personally, I would never, ever, ever have an abortion. I believe, however, that I'm not one to invade the privacy of individuals. An abortion is a decision that a woman makes on her own, representing only herself. I have no stake in it.

When my government chooses to off people however, they do it representing me. It is a public institution that I supposedly have a role in, doing something I find unconscionable. Therefore, I have a role in that murder (intentionally killing someone doesn't have a different name because the government does it) and will do what I can to discontinue further murders.

Actually, Kim, it's not. At least not according to Roe.

Justice Blackmun, in writing for the Court in the Roe decision, clearly states that the the decision to abort is not the personal choice of the woman, but is to be made in consultation with her doctor. He also is clear that the state has a stake in this decision.

It's part of why he came up with his three trimester solution to the problem.

John, I appreciate and understand the consistency of your position.

Ok, that doesn't change my opinion, really. Besides, the doctor informs her opinion and influences it, he doesn't make the decision in either way.

Let's just say that I think it's between her, her doctor, whatever her version of a higher power is and the knocker-upper, if he is relevant.

I understand what you're saying.

I was just blown away when I finally read Roe. (hat tip to ASA22 for encouraging that exercise) and found that it states clearly that the decision to abort is not soley a woman's choice. 

I have to say that I felt lied to, low these many years, by the pro-choice movement. 

To those who wish to see abortions cease, consider the effect that Prohibition had on drinking, and then ask again if passing laws is really how you can best accomplish your goal.

You cannot legislate abortions away.  You will only drive them underground. The only way to stop abortions is to change the attitudes of all those who would contemplate abortion.

I'm still in the pro-choice camp, though I personally feel that other than during the first tri-mester, I'm not as comfortable with the idea.  However, the choice is not mine to make for everyone else, so while I would probably advise and attempt to dissuade someone from seeking one, I respect will ultimately respect *their* decision.

Another note, is that our system of government is not always "majority rule".  The 'minority' is offered some protections from the 'majority' for very important reasons.

Very interesting post.  I actually never thought of comparing those two topics before.

Personally, I don't understand why a bunch of mostly old out-of-touch men can create laws regarding women's bodies.  I completely respect the rights of individuals to have opinions and make their own choices.  I would never presume to be all-knowing and to tell someone how they should live.  It surprises me every day to hear people tell others what they should or shouldn't do even on smaller topics let alone big life choices like religion, abortion, marriage, divorce, etc...  Why do some people think they have all the "correct" answers and they should tell everyone else what to do?  I just don't get it.

Steve, I believe that is true, though I also believe that we can protect and defend ourselves without resorting to capital punishment.  I also understand that this is a complicated issue and respect the right of citizens of Texas to pass laws that uphold the DP, even though I wish they would do otherwise.

Which brings up another interesting point.

Steve lives in Texas.  He can vote for legislators that will support his position on the DP.  I live in Pennsylvania.  I can, and do, work to try to get the DP laws here changed so that the DP is not used.

I think the death penalty issue rightly belongs to the states and its citizens.

Right now, the same is not true of abortion.  The SCOTUS took away the consitutional rights of the states and its citizens to decide this issue.  And they did it with very sketchy reasoning. 

I guess this whole thing just makes me sad ... why can't more energy be invested by BOTH parties into ensuring there are less unwanted pregnancies? Where is the education, the birth control, the respect for women that needs to come BEFORE pregnancy happens? It smacks of irresponsibility (crap. I don't think that's a word) and disrespect to claim that educating children about safe sex is not one of societies responsibilities, but then turn around and make abortion illegal. Abortions occur when pregnancies are unintended. Why aren't we working to stop them before they start?

Don, I know you are thinking of the potential lives that are being saves in South Dakota, but I can't help thinking about the actual lives that are being overlooked.

Wow, great comment. What she said...