South Dakota needs to be expelled from the Union
Ok, here it is: believe it or not, South Dakota has banned all abortions and made it a felony for doctors to carry them out EVEN IN THE CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST. The only exception is when a life of a woman is threatened. This obviously contradicts the federal law, codified with the precedent Roe Vs. Wade and then reaffirmed in the 1996 Supreme Court decision Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood. So, why is the conservative right doing this? Well, of course they want to force the Supreme Court to deal with this issue and now that they have a favorable balance on the court, they expect them to oveturn the Roe Wade.
It is very interesting to me that most people who are the most vehemently opposed to abortion are men! White, upper middle-class, probably impotent or sexually frustrated, men who want to control sexual behavior of all women probably because they either did not get laid enough and can’t pass by a woman without thinking “oh she is sexually promiscious,” or are impotent in the bedroom. This law takes South Dakota back to the Middle Ages, so I say we should expell them from the United States. Then the governor can proclaim himself an Emir and establish United American Emirates of South Dakota, with its man dominated dynasty, and they can even ban women from driving cars.
It is also ineresting that the same people who oppose abortion, arguging that they support “a culture of life,” are the people who support the death penalty, and who were vociferous in supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq which cost hundrends of thousands of lives. The conversative right in this country seriously has no shame whatsoever! I am just so damn tired of their whining about these bogus issues and their impotency driven attempts to stuff their “values” down our throats. Fuck them and their values! Ah….I feel better.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
if its a bogus issue what are you yapping about?
March 7th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Fyodor, though I am pro-choice, and I understand this a frustrated rant (not everything that is said is to be taken at face value), I think the way you present the issue is a little warped, particularly the way you attempt to force an issue into an issue of class/race.
To minimize the anti-choice movement to “upper-middle class white men” is not only an oversimplification, its an outright falsehood. In fact, the Right didn’t have the goal of winning the wealthy (already solidly in the Republican column) over to their cause when they started emphasizing culture war issues like abortion. When the Right emphasized issues like abortion, it was to break off working class and lower class voters who were sympathetic to the culturally conservative ideas from the Democratic party. Read your Thomas Frank.
Bush’s talk of a “culture of life” is interesting. I have read many of Foucault’s essays on Bio-power, in which he argues that after the Enlightenment, those in power had to justify their policies as in favor of life, even if they were actually very destructive. Post-Enlightenment, you can’t just rule through mere intimidation, power must be justified as in favor of a greater moral cause which values life. The abortion issue is a good example of this. Arguments against abortion could hardly be taken seriously if it was “God says don’t have an abortion.” It has to be backed up with “abortion is murder” (A very secular argument). Bush’s justification for the Iraq War were similar; Saddam had to be removed because he was a muderous dictator, not “I’m a soveriegn and I can do what I want.”
March 7th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I am also pro-life but i can see a valid point in Fyodors article.
Conservatives constanlty contradict themselves with abortion and death penalthy.
So, abortion is a murder but excecuting a man is not? I see.. so you have to wait 18 years until the baby is old enough to kill it. (16 in some states)
What happened to “thou shalt not kill”? or “love your enemy”?
I see what happened, we are just going to kill them if they are found guilty. Death Penalthy is nothing but revange. Why then do it? So they cannot kill again? You can do the same by locking them up for the rest of their lives. If you’re pro-life then be pro-life. Don’t try to cloud the issue by justifying the killing of 18 year old convicts vs saving an unborn baby.
Besides, i still have to see republican or democrat do something out of “moral” obligation. Its all politics and its about power. Nothing more. If you really believe that South Dakota is doing it for moral reasons then you’re naive and need to get out more.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:28 am
i dont know what an unlived life has to do with a failed life, but whatever. the fact still remains that moody says he’d kill a man who kills his wife yet the rest of us should just learn to deal with our feelings when the murderers prey on our loved ones. he can be judge and jury while the rest of us need to live our lives a different way. this conversation was had outside this forum, for those who are lost.
an unborn child, while naturally a sinner, has yet to accomplish foul deeds and therefore should suffer no end.
of course, the real issue is states rights, but thats hardly important to the intellectualy superior who frequent this place. seeing how you’re all concerned about the power-hungry in DC, you’re probably applauding SD’s choice to limit the feds ability to rule locally. or, you’re kneejerking again?
March 8th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
ash, the same argument of states’ rights was used by the state of alabama and other southern states to prevent african-american children from attending white schools….you think it would have been a great idea if the federal government had left that one in the hands of these states?
“an unborn child, while naturally a sinner?” these believes ash that you have are not shared by everyone in the country. this is why this should be a personal choice, not the one mandated by the government.
and regarding the death penalty: of course you would feel vengence towards someone who had murdered your loved one–but this is why we have this thing called a SOCIETY in whcih we have given the right to adjucate and decide disputes to our government/s (local and federal). what would happen if everyone was allowed to act out their urges and start murdernig each other?
March 8th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
What you left out of our conversation outside of the forum is that i said that i would indeed kill someone who killed my wife, but i also said that it would be wrong. What would one do in the spur of the moment doesn’t justify a need for death penalthy. Even thoug i think that way i also know that death penalthy is wrong, barbaric and uncivilized.
You also said that Bible says “eye for an eye” which also brings us to Fyodors point of everyone murdering each other. We are actually very close to that , but instead of individuals doing it, you have your state and goverment doing it for you.
We can argue as much as we want but the fact is that statistics show that death penalthy has no effect whats so ever. Like i said before, the only effect of the death penalthy is feeling of satisfaction when you see someone that murdered you loved one fry on that chair. therefore revange. It is known that countries with no death penalthy have lower murder rate then coutries with death penalthy. I know ash is going to need a chart explaining this, so Fyodor when you have a time please dig up a few articles or pie charts so ash can see this statistic.
March 8th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
CP is an issue I keep going back and forth on. Actually the death penalty does have a practical element to it. Some people are so dangerous that they are dangerous to even the harden inmates and gaurds of maximum security prisons.
Solitary confinement is even crueler than the death penalty in my opinion, so I think its completely rational to execute such a person. There is no revenge factor here, and no melodrama, as such a person probably isn’t afraid to die.
Also, the argument of the Left often makes against CP is based on the same assumptions as Christianity (that the human soul has value in itself, and can always be redeemed), thus the strange bedfellows of very devout Christians and secular leftists often coming together to oppose capital punishment. I used to believe that, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps the value of human life has to be earned.
Thus, since I am pro-choice and not neccessarily opposed to the death penalty, I suppose I am part of the vast “pro-death” lobby in America.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:45 am
babies are born sinners. you sin because you dont have information. i have heard you misquote christianity before, which is considered a sin. i forgive it (as most others would) because you just dont know what you are talking about. without education there is sin. all babies are born sinners. its plain and simple. it is no less true because it was written in the bible.
as for your willingness to seek retribution when you loose a loved one, but deny victimized families, you are typicaly liberal in that your view changes when you are directly effected, otherwise you sit on the fence searching for proper words to portray your mistruths about yourself.
statistics on the death penalty would be greatly altered if the penalty was actually carried out. a murderous person leads a nonproductive life. statistics would show that these people do nothing for themselves or others. they are invalid and a life-term is just a way to fund thier invalidity. Statistics show that county jails fill up in during colder months. Does crime go up? yes. why? talk to a homeless man (if you can be bothered). cause an effect.
lastly: states rights is consitutional. you have no education in this subject? you live in KY!!! (read ky constitutiuon for eye-opening experience!). read “a walk across america” for assistance with your segregation comments. dont be a robot man.
moody you are a good person but your politics are robotic.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
ash you need to read some other books other than the bible…
March 9th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
what would you recomend?
March 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Personally, I would recommend David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” That might shake up your world view a bit.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Or Nietzsche’s On Geneaology of Morals.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
the professor profits from the students success. you may quote me if you like.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
I guess I need to educate once again…
States Rights — That issue was solved in 1862 - There mere illusions that allow citizens to believe they have some sort of say, infact the only reason we have states, besides obvious economic reasons - Is to provide us feable minded citizenry some sort of historical pride.
Too regress - If there is in fact States Rights, I can hardly Believe ‘Brown vs. Board of Education , and Roe vs. Wade’ have any similarities what so ever. In thereory the federal Government’s primary responcibility besides wageing war is to defend it’s citizens rights, based on the Constitutions, and The Bill of Rights. As best I can remeber - The main theme of these docs is that All Men are Created Equal…. So… Brown vs. BOE , Good Job Federal Government….. There is also this amendment thing that mentions Freedom of Religion…
I think its impossible to argue, for or against abortion with out bringing in your Religious biases, and therefore should be protected, based on Freedom of Religion.
March 12th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I completely disagree, with your last statement. I think the ONLY arguments against abortion that can be taken seriously are those that don’t bring up religion. When someone starts their argument off from a religious standpoint, he is already putting himself at a logical disadvantage, because he is basing argument on an untennable position.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
By religion I guess meant moral base. Most people do base there moral attitudes on there Religion, Faith , or the great big spooky person in the sky…. So maybe I used the Term Religion too generically. But how else would you base an argument on life.
March 14th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
xcwillix
Every political argument is essentially a moral argument. Both sides of the abortion issue make claims to morality: pro-lifers that it is immoral to abort a fetus, pro-choicers that it is immoral for the state to have power over the individual and her body.
An argument for life could very easily be made by someone who does not believe in God in the traditional sense. In fact, many of the arguments against religion have been that it promises justice in some far off kingdom of heaven, or at some judgement day, not here and now. If someone believes that abortion is unjust, they might be just as committed to stopping it, whether or not they believe in God.
And yes, people can think human life is important without believing in God. In fact, without a God or heaven, the stakes become that much higher, don’t they?
March 17th, 2006 at 6:18 am
“…justice in some far off kingdom of heaven…”
you have a childs understanding of christianity. this is the equivalent of me saying “gravity? aint that what makes my dentures stay put?”.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
aint that what makes my dentures stay put?â€.
No, plastic clasps keep your dentures stay put. Otherwise your upper dentures would fall victim of gravity.
Didn’t know you had dentures Ash. Could’ve fool me.