[djskrimp]

I'm not trying to be gauche or a simpleton here, but isn't any rape violent? Even if the woman never makes a peep and the rapist is a gentle as can be, isn't the intrusion itself violent? I get the feeling that some males justify their rape because it wasn't "violent" and that she "was just playing hard to get". Anyway, how that applies to the topic is this: even if two situations SEEM the same, they may not be. At any rate, it doesn't matter the overall story, the 12 justices of the Supreme Court decided in 1973 something. For one man to second guess that is, at the very least, presumptuous. I would say that it is more likely going to be disastrous. Case in point: Most of the posters in here have made comments in an intelligent and well-thought manner, even if they may have let some of their frustration through, but it hasn't been the exact same answer. This governor of SD isn't concerned about his constituents, (Except the ones who put money in his pockets) or the people of the state he governs. He is on his own political bent, and this is exactly where citizens begin to lose their rights. This idea that he is protecting the innocent is a direct contradiction to the legislation he has set in motion: a blanket fix-action to such a delicate issue is bound to adversely affect some, and not help others at all. I keep my opinions about abortion to myself because I am of the firm belief that until something happens to you directly, you really shouldn't pass judgment or advice about it to others. (This doesn't always work, but I DO try to live by it.) It's also why I won't ever pass judgment on recreational drugs as I have never tried any. However, this isn't necessarily about abortion, this is about someone in a position of power exerting that power because of personal or political motivations.

This governor of SD isn't concerned about his constituents, (Except the ones who put money in his pockets) or the people of the state he governs. He is on his own political bent, and this is exactly where citizens begin to lose their rights. This idea that he is protecting the innocent is a direct contradiction to the legislation he has set in motion: a blanket fix-action to such a delicate issue is bound to adversely affect some, and not help others at all.

Totally. This is one man's ego/powertrip, and it's more about what he & his mates think about what peoples' lives are than what peoples' lives actually are. Those quotes in the story just suggest a typical conservative 'moral crusader' mentaility - simple, morally conventional thinking with enough distance from peoples' real situations to prevent any cracks developing in their perception of the issue they claim to be eligible to judge.

An arsewit, is what I believe I'm trying to say

[djskrimp]

An arsewit, is what I believe I'm trying to say

If that's the English equivalent of "asshat", then I concur.

The problem with this issue is that politics, as usual, interfere with the situation at hand. Abortion should be decided on a case-by-case system. For instance, consider this scenario:

A 20-year-old female, going to college and barely able to afford rent, is then kidnapped and violently raped. She conceives because of this act. Let's say in this case that she had absolutely no plans to have a child because she was neither mentally or financially ready to have one. Should she have to go through the anguish and torture of giving birth to child she never wanted or was prepared for? Are we saying bastard children of rape victims are going to be able to lead normal lives? If they are born, is it the mother's responsibilty to explain to the child how it was conceived?

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

Do you see how a broad, general ruling is grossly inappropriate for this topic? Each case should be scrutinzed carefully and no decision should come lightly.

but that would take so much... effort. I mean come on : beaurocrats dont make THAT much money: I mean all the washington monkeys only make 6 figures, and on the state level a bereezy 5 digit with full bennies..... why should we make them work so hard?
[/Sarcasm]

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

Dude, are you serious? You would use a child as a punishment for her promiscuity? "You had unprotected sex, now face the consequences, have a kid!" What the fuck has a child to do with the recklessness of the mother? Especially in these cases abortion should be an option! The process itself is gross, therefore not something a woman enjoys, now isn't that enough of a punishment, to have something cut inside of you and flushed out? Keeping the child doesn't make the girl face the consequences, it's the child who has to face the consequence of her actions. If the girl is stupid and aborts everytime she has sex that's HER problem, not of the child.

I took his post as being there to raise the point...that the two situations are very different and that one rule may not be suitable for all. However, that is always the dilemma of laws. How exactly do you prove the truth or determine what is right for each individual? (not aimed at anyone here...just raising the issue)

Yes, that is what I was trying to get across. This isn't a simple issue that can be fixed by a broad ruling that doesn't take individual circumstances into account.

Now, in my OPINION, if a female, no matter what age, doesn't want children, then she shouldn't engage in consentual sex. If you have consentual sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that you may conceive. Not accepting that consequence is irresponsible and immature. If you don't want to face the decision of having to abort, don't have sex. That's how I feel about it. You can disagree with me all you want; it's your right. I'm not going to shove my opinions and beliefs down your throat so please don't do so to me. And please don't try to say that I'm doing that with my stated opinion above. It's just how I feel. Everyone has their own choices to make.

whats most amazing is that these laws really only effect the poorer population in the country. I mean, what better way to keep them poor when you force them to have another mouth to feed?
It may come off as sort of a conspircacy, but on a whole, if you look at everything , there is no question the powers that be want to keep wealth and power within the good ol boy network. If this werent the case, dont you think education, etc would be better run?
Welfare for example, is meant simply to keep the poor .. poor. and dependant.

It may come off as sort of a conspircacy, but on a whole, if you look at everything , there is no question the powers that be want to keep wealth and power within the good ol boy network. If this werent the case, dont you think education, etc would be better run?
Welfare for example, is meant simply to keep the poor .. poor. and dependant.

That's a bit harsh. I agree that usually, power and wealth remains in the same parts of society (the powerfull and wealthy, duh ) but that doesn't mean that the powerful are trying to keep the poor poor.
Why would education be better when it's not ruled by the rich?
And I think welfare was meant to keep the poor alive. If they want to be rich, they should get a job to make more money. Welfare is just to feed them.

It may come off as sort of a conspircacy, but on a whole, if you look at everything , there is no question the powers that be want to keep wealth and power within the good ol boy network. If this werent the case, dont you think education, etc would be better run?
Welfare for example, is meant simply to keep the poor .. poor. and dependant.

That's a bit harsh. I agree that usually, power and wealth remains in the same parts of society (the powerfull and wealthy, duh ) but that doesn't mean that the powerful are trying to keep the poor poor.
Why would education be better when it's not ruled by the rich?
And I think welfare was meant to keep the poor alive. If they want to be rich, they should get a job to make more money. Welfare is just to feed them.

Regarding education> Poor or rich running the education program makes no difference: what the issue is the fact they really dont give a shit about education here. all the wealthy can put their kids through private schools. All the public schools here, especially in areas that are poor dont get much funding. Furthermore, one can teach here without actually having an academic degree. All you need to do is go to college take whatever classes and get a teaching certificate, then you are good to go.

And Im sorry: its damn funny arguing this with somebody who doesnt live here. regardless of what you read or study about the US, reality is very different here. I simply cant imagine talking to you how the Netherlands is run... well perhaps the whole Diamond indusrty maybe

No doubt, we have great Universities. ho can afford them? people with Money. they dont hand out scholarships to poor people like playing cards, it simply doesnt happen here.

And I completely disagree with you on welfare. It should be done away with because of the fact that people live on it vs have it temporarily to get back on their feet again.

Furthermore, one can teach here without actually having an academic degree. All you need to do is go to college take whatever classes and get a teaching certificate, then you are good to go.

What kind of school are you referring too?
Overhere if you want to teach primary school you'll have to pass some school but it's just nothing. It has been proven that 10 year old kids, on average, are better at maths (aritmetics really) and language than their teachers.
And for secondary schooly it's the same as overthere: get a certain degree of the classes you want to teach and a teaching certificate.

There's not really much wrong with that. If it would be very hard to gain the certificates to be allowed to teach, no-one would be interested in teaching anymore. As long as they know what the kids need to know, it's cool.

No doubt, we have great Universities. ho can afford them? people with Money. they dont hand out scholarships to poor people like playing cards, it simply doesnt happen here.

That's completely different here then. Overhere, the government hands out scholarships to anyone capable of studying anything. If you perform like shit, you have to pay them back tho.
Also, the lower your parents income (they are supposed to help you out in the costs), the more funding from the government.
But you'll have to understand, proper education just is terribly expensive.

And I completely disagree with you on welfare. It should be done away with because of the fact that people live on it vs have it temporarily to get back on their feet again.

Well if those people wish to live on welfare, instead of getting a job, fine by me. But they shouldn't go complaining about how poor they are.

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

This isn't a simple issue that can be fixed by a broad ruling that doesn't take individual circumstances into account.

Now, in my OPINION, if a female, no matter what age, doesn't want children, then she shouldn't engage in consentual sex. If you have consentual sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that you may conceive. Not accepting that consequence is irresponsible and immature. If you don't want to face the decision of having to abort, don't have sex. That's how I feel about it. You can disagree with me all you want; it's your right. I'm not going to shove my opinions and beliefs down your throat so please don't do so to me. And please don't try to say that I'm doing that with my stated opinion above. It's just how I feel. Everyone has their own choices to make.

Do you realize you completely changed your mind? In the first post the girl is paying for her promiscuity with pregnancy ("if you want to have unprotected sex, take into account that you may get pregnant and give birth to a child"), and in the second she's paying for her promiscuity with abortion ("if you want to have unprotected sex, take into account that you may get pregnant and have to abort the child")?

Which one is it then? Where is the line? Does the proverbial socially sensitive bureaucrat decide? Dou you really feel that way? Under what circumstances would you NOT allow a girl to abort the unwanted child? And further: how is it fair to use the conceived child as a means of punishment for the recklessness of the mother?

It may be your opinion, but my sense of justice finds your opinion offensive, so all I can do is try and find out how you justify your offensive opinion. Is that too much to ask? Am I shoving anything down your throat?

@ Biert

The rich are doing EVERYTHING to keep the poor poor. Why all the aid for Africa? To keep them dependant. If they become independant, they become competition. And everyone with power struggles to have as little competition as possible. If the poor become independant, they start caring for themselves, which means they are not under anyone's control and supervision, no one decides for them. People with power want to decide for everybody.

If Africa remains in shit, smart african people come and study in some western university and remain there, contributing to the west, only small percentage of them returns and tries to piss against the wind back home in Africa to change something. So your remark on getting a job if wanting to earn money is cynical and insulting. Welfare is so feeding the dependancy. Why give them food if you can organize things so they could make their own food? If the global standard rises, who will work for Nike for 0.025 cents an hour? The rich depend on the poor as much as the poor depend on the rich. But all the benefits of this mutual dependency go straight to the rich. You say all this sounds too harsh? How could it sound anything else if you want to describe the reality?

I got a slap on the wrist for starting this thread, it'll stay open while it remains friendly.

why a slap on the wrist? It's an important that needs to be discussed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this thread. No-one seems to be unfriendly?

And to Goat:
I didn't know you were talking on an international, worldwide level. I was thinking more nationally, which changes the whole perspective on the welfare issue.
And, maybe I'm being naive, but I can't believe the whole keep-them-dependant thing. I just don't think 'the rich' (talking on a world-wide level, I'm part of 'the rich') are up to such conspiracies (not on a consious level).

@ Biert

The rich are doing EVERYTHING to keep the poor poor. Why all the aid for Africa? To keep them dependant. If they become independant, they become competition. And everyone with power struggles to have as little competition as possible. If the poor become independant, they start caring for themselves, which means they are not under anyone's control and supervision, no one decides for them. People with power want to decide for everybody.

If Africa remains in shit, smart african people come and study in some western university and remain there, contributing to the west, only small percentage of them returns and tries to piss against the wind back home in Africa to change something. So your remark on getting a job if wanting to earn money is cynical and insulting. Welfare is so feeding the dependancy. Why give them food if you can organize things so they could make their own food? If the global standard rises, who will work for Nike for 0.025 cents an hour? The rich depend on the poor as much as the poor depend on the rich. But all the benefits of this mutual dependency go straight to the rich. You say all this sounds too harsh? How could it sound anything else if you want to describe the reality?

Interesting point. One thing I might add too the Africa subject: What good is it to weathly nations if the african govts are stable and without civil war? As long as theuy are fighting amonst each other, they dont use their resources. If they becme stable and united, they then not only use their resources but also market them in a fashion that is beneficial to the country. when you have a country like say the Congo; an assassination here, an arms deal there.. their cobalt isnt being used. OR, they desparately give it away for for some guns to kill the people they are at war against. Same goes for Diamonds. Check out the movie "Lord of War" if you can.