Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:36:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:37:07 PM EDT by ffhounddog]
I am currently in SWA and I have seen how the people here put religion above the good of the people or above common sense. Why is the US Govt wanting to impose christian values on all the US? I have read the bill of rights and it basically says I can believe in anything I want if I am a devil worshiper I can worship the devil, if I am Islamic I can practice Islam (not Islamic law) thats not Us law. After seeing what can happen if you let religion go against commen sense it has made me look at things in multiple percpective's.
I just want to know why Bush and Ashcroft want to impose the 10 commandments on me. So if someone kills my dog who I think as a kid I can kill their dog or a their kid if they dont have a dog. I think there is a place for religion and a place for work. Moral values is different that Relgious values because some religons do not have moral religious values. Please dont kill me for bringing this up just seeing what can happen has made me start to think.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:36:59 PM EDT
Simple, because republicans are in office.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:40:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Simple, because republicans a bible thumping "born again" christian is in office.



Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:40:34 PM EDT
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congress please..... or just being sponsored would be fine.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:48:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:52:44 PM EDT by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By Myke:
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congress please..... or just being sponsored would be fine.




S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01

South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade .

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.

Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a "little shocked" by the vote. "Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota," she said. "We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest."

National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans."

The antiabortion movement has focused primarily in recent years on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions on access to abortion, including pushes for parental-notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed. A 1992 Supreme Court decision again affirmed a right to abortion in a Pennsylvania case, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey , that said states cannot put an "undue burden" on women getting access to abortions.

Not all antiabortion groups agreed with the South Dakota supporters' effort to directly challenge Roe .

"If you're just reading the law as it stands now, South Dakota's law doesn't really stand any chance under Roe or Casey . I have to agree with those who think it's remote," said Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council and a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee.

He said there is not a consensus for a national approach to finding a way to overturn Roe . "There are lots of voices out there and nobody has a single strategy, so South Dakota has stepped in to fill that void," Donovan said.

Still, some abortion opponents are more confident than they have ever been that Roe could be overturned with two new conservative members of the high court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Roberts has not publicly expressed his view on abortion rights. Alito opposed Roe as a young Reagan administration lawyer and had a mixed record on abortion rights while a federal appeals court judge.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a federal law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional. The law passed Congress in 2003 but has been struck down by three federal appeals courts and has yet to take effect.

South Dakota is the first but not the only state to consider new abortion restrictions this year. Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky have introduced similar measures.

Rounds has indicated that he would sign the South Dakota measure if it does not jeopardize existing abortion restrictions while the legislation is challenged. In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill because of concerns that abortion restrictions would be eliminated during legal wrangling. Hunt said his bill has addressed the governor's concerns.

Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban's supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by "an anonymous donor."

Even without this latest ban, South Dakota was already one of the most difficult states in the country in which to get an abortion, those on both sides of the issue say. It is one of three states with only one abortion provider (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others), and its one clinic, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, offers the procedure only once a week. Four doctors who fly in from Minnesota on a rotating basis perform the abortions, since no doctor in South Dakota will do so because of the heavy stigma attached.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, which has a population of 770,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles. Last year, South Dakota passed five laws to restrict abortions, including one that would compel doctors to tell women that they would be ending the life of a "whole, separate, unique human being." That law has been blocked by a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company



Some bible thumping idiots trying to take an end run around the law. It's only the most recent example, there are lots more that are emboldened by GWBs "christian" BS.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:49:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:56:22 PM EDT by ffhounddog]
First is abortion rights I am pro-choice so if a woman wants to do it go ahead lets see what else its ironic im a catholic. There are more just have to do get to work. I voted for bush but there are just some things that should not be a law.
I am sure there is going to be some law making people be nice to everyone one day.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:31 PM EDT
Opposition to abortion is NOT 100% a religous issue.... next.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:56:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:56:22 PM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By Myke:
Opposition to abortion is NOT 100% a religous issue.... next.



I agree. What about the anti-pornography stance?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:56:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ffhounddog:
I just want to know why Bush and Ashcroft want to impose the 10 commandments on me.



Ashcroft?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:57:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:58:38 PM EDT by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By Myke:
Opposition to abortion is NOT 100% a religous issue.... next.





Suuuuure it isn't. I don't have time to search all the anti GWB sites for ammo against his religous BS. I am glad he is in office and not that Kerry fucktard but I wish he would can the fake-pious religious crap and stick to running the country. Religion is fine by itself, but should never co-mingle with politics, the founders of this country were quite clear about that (establishment clause). If you want to live in a theocracy head on over to the Middle East, they specialize in them.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:57:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Opposition to abortion is NOT 100% a religous issue.... next.



I agree. What about the anti-pornography stance?



Or the FCC idiocy as of late?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:58:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Opposition to abortion is NOT 100% a religous issue.... next.



I agree. What about the anti-pornography stance?



Or the FCC idiocy as of late?



Yes.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:58:37 PM EDT
yeah the anti-porn is another. if someone wants to do it its good money.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:59:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:00:43 PM EDT by Mordwyn]

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congress please..... or just being sponsored would be fine.



S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest...



Reading comprehension is our friend.... this was not passed by congress, it's a state matter

thanks for playing...

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:01:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mordwyn:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congressplease..... or just being sponsored would be fine.



S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest...



Reading comprehension is our friend.... this was not passed by congress, it's a state matter

thanks for playing...





Yeah, they are waiting for the inevitable Supreme Court challenge, where GWB's most recent appointees will have a shot at it, get a clue........next.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:02:57 PM EDT

What about the anti-pornography stance?


There is a large portion of this opposition which views porn as harmful to women both as performers and the inflated importance it gives to sex in a relationship..... once again not religous.

A better question would be "What about prostitution laws?," but even quite a bit of opposition to that stems froms reasons other that religion.

Anyway, those laws were in effect long before Bush.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:04:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mordwyn:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congress please..... or just being sponsored would be fine.



S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest...



Reading comprehension is our friend.... this was not passed by congress, it's a state matter

thanks for playing...




Yep, hello state sovereignty. If a state sucessfully bans abortion in this country and is pro-gun, i'm going to try to move there!

I'm a libertarian so for me it's not about "religion" as I view that as a foolish way to make political decisions. I do believe strongly in state sovereignty, and I have respect for any state that'd pass a law saying, .gov, go get fucked!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:06:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Myke:

What about the anti-pornography stance?


There is a large portion of this opposition which views porn as harmful to women both as performers and the inflated importance it gives to sex in a relationship..... once again not religous.

A better question would be "What about prostitution laws?," but even quite a bit of opposition to that stems froms reasons other that religion.

Anyway, those laws were in effect long before Bush.



You mean the most recent addition to the UCMJ (signed by GWB, cooincidentally) that make using prostitutes illegal for GIs even when its legal in the country (or state in NV's case) that you are in? Yeah, that was in effect long ago.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:13:27 PM EDT

I just want to know why Bush and Ashcroft want to impose the 10 commandments on me.

What? John Ashcroft is a lobbyist. He works for his clients, and are you going to claim his clients don't have a right to promote their views?z
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:14:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:16:55 PM EDT by Myke]

You mean the most recent addition to the UCMJ (signed by GWB, cooincidentally) that make using prostitutes illegal for GIs even when its legal in the country (or state in NV's case) that you are in? Yeah, that was in effect long ago.


Actually, YES. It WAS in effect long ago..... soliciting prostitution has long been listed as sexual misconduct in the UCMJ. Next.

ETA: Upon further review, it was added to the UCMJ in 1951... google is good. And I don't believe EITHER Bush was in office in 1951.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:18:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Myke:

You mean the most recent addition to the UCMJ (signed by GWB, cooincidentally) that make using prostitutes illegal for GIs even when its legal in the country (or state in NV's case) that you are in? Yeah, that was in effect long ago.


Actually, YES. It WAS in effect long ago..... soliciting prostitution has long been listed as sexual misconduct in the UCMJ. Next.



Yeah, there was just no punishment for it.



Anti-Prostitution Rule Drafted for U.S. Forces

By Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page A13

U.S. service members stationed overseas could face a court-martial for patronizing prostitutes under a new regulation drafted by the Pentagon.

The move is part of a Defense Department effort to reduce the possibility that service members will contribute to human trafficking in areas near their overseas bases by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.

In recent years, "women and girls are being forced into prostitution for a clientele consisting largely of military services members, government contractors and international peacekeepers" in such places as South Korea and the Balkans, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) said yesterday at a Capitol Hill forum on Pentagon anti-trafficking efforts.

Defense officials have drafted an amendment to the manual on courts-martial that would make it an offense for service members to use the services of prostitutes, said Charles S. Abell, a Pentagon undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

If approved, the amendment would make it a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to have contact with a prostitute, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, an Abell spokeswoman, said later. The draft rule is open to 60 days of public comment after being published in the Federal Register, she said.

Officials also are developing a training program for service members and contractors, to be distributed in November. The program will explain trafficking, department policy on it and possible legal action against violators, Abell said in a written statement.

Additionally, the military is reviewing regulations and procedures for placing off-limits those businesses where such activities take place and working with Justice Department officials to tighten rules on contractor misconduct.

Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of the 37,000 U.S. service members in South Korea, said another initiative started on the peninsula has been to "make on-base military life a more desirable experience, and attempt to diminish the seductive appeal of many of the less wholesome off-duty pursuits."

That effort includes offering expanded evening and weekend education programs, band concerts, late-night sports leagues and more chaplain activities.

All new arrivals to duty in South Korea are instructed against prostitution and human trafficking, and the military is working with South Korean law enforcement agencies, he said.

NATO officials in July outlined new guidelines adopted to ensure alliance peacekeepers do not encourage sex trafficking gangs by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



Thanks bible thumping assholes, for making something legal for 99.9% of the world's population basis for throwing 1.4 million of us in jail. I hate dummocrats but at least they aren't so uptight and idiotic about simple personal freedoms.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:21:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

I just want to know why Bush and Ashcroft want to impose the 10 commandments on me.


What? John Ashcroft is a lobbyist. He works for his clients, and are you going to claim his clients don't have a right to promote their views?z



Ashcroft's lobbying clients are Oracle and other software companies that sell software and data encryption technology. They are not trying to promote their views or anyone else's. They're trying to get government contracts.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:07 PM EDT
FROM YOUR OWN FREAKING ARTICLE!!!!


The move is part of a Defense Department effort to reduce the possibility that service members will contribute to human trafficking in areas near their overseas bases by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.


Yep... sounds ULTRA religous to me.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
I hate dummocrats but at least they aren't so uptight and idiotic about simple personal freedoms.



True that. They strongly support the personal right to keep and bear arms. And as Tipper Gore has shown, Democrats don't want gov't interference in what we listen to. Or as HRC has demonstrated, Democrats don't want to control the content of video games. Or, you just don't have a damned clue.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:27:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
I hate dummocrats but at least they aren't so uptight and idiotic about simple personal freedoms.



True that. They strongly support the personal right to keep and bear arms. And as Tipper Gore has shown, Democrats don't want gov't interference in what we listen to. Or as HRC has demonstrated, Democrats don't want to control the content of video games. Or, you just don't have a damned clue.




HAHAHAHA, I couldn't have thought of better examples. If anyone thinks that one party is better overall for personal freedoms and rights, they are mistaken.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:32:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:34:20 PM EDT by ffhounddog]
I vote Bill of Rights, Education, and Personel Respondsibility over everything else. Just I do not want to see a US like in Escape from LA where a ultra religious president takes over.

I also dont want an immoral president or person passing laws.

I guess I want a moral, religious but not in your face kind religious kind of president. Bush was like that the first term but things are starting to scare me. Iraq is fighting over their religions and I dont want to see that happen here. We have relgious extremists here but we are not looking at them. We also have Anti abortion terrorists (fire bombing clinics and killing doctors are terrorist acts) too but we dont do alot agaist them.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:38:20 PM EDT
Man, you guys say 'bible thumping' like the foundation on which this nation was built is a bad thing.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:42:10 PM EDT
Christ...here come the fucking "Christian Taliban" types, just cause someone doesn't want babies brains to be scrambled cause the mother is too busy to be bothered with dealing with the consequences of ehr actions.

Christian taliban....riiiight.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:45:58 PM EDT

I vote Bill of Rights, Education, and Personel Respondsibility over everything else. Just I do not want to see a US like in Escape from LA where a ultra religious president takes over.


Neither do I.


I also dont want an immoral president or person passing laws.



Nor this.


We have relgious extremists here but we are not looking at them.


So you're saying Bush need his own Waco or what?


We also have Anti abortion terrorists (fire bombing clinics and killing doctors are terrorist acts) too but we dont do alot agaist them.


1. When was the last bombing or shooting of a doctor? The last BOMBING I can remember occurred years ago..... and the shithead that did it was just caught last year (wasn't it last year?) Which brings me to.....

2. What assoles that did this were pardoned by the government or simply evaded conviction?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:58:13 PM EDT
I've gotta be getting on to bed.... the excitement of my Ags winning is starting to wear off, but as a final note on what I'm looking for from you (or anyone who believes your assertation.)

Where is the laws being voted on that require you to go to church on Sunday? To hang a cross in your home? To bow to the West five times a day? To...........

You see, THOSE are religous laws. Laws based on morality, unless it is morality ONLY defined by a certain religion, aren't applicable, unless you believe morality can stem from religion alone. You've already stated you don't believe that, so I don't see why they are brought up.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:24:50 AM EDT
because it works so well in the middle east?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:42:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:42:33 AM EDT by ffhounddog]
Well being religious is ok just do not force your personel moral idology on the people. That is what is going on in the SWA region. Some moral values coincide with relgious values but not all religious values can be imposed on a society. Didnt Jesus say: Give to Caeser what is Caeser's, but to God what is God's.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:14:34 AM EDT
because zealots and theocrats have taken over the gov't.

America is dead, this bastardization we have right now is not America anymore.
secret police
secret tribunals
spying on us
citizens of this country wisked away with no charge, rights or lawyer
etc
etc

sounds like old school russia or Iraq of 4 yrs ago doesn't it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:19:41 AM EDT
I'm not anti-abortion, but I don't think it's a FEDERAL issue. It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so under the 10th amendment, it's an issue best left to the state. Some states may ban it, but most (perhaps almost all) won't.
Roe V Wade is, IMHO, a bad ruling because it created a Federal law where none should exist. They should have kicked it back (just like most of the S.C.'s rulings) back to the state with a "none of the Fed Gov's business!"
The S.C. makes wrong, unconstitutional rulings all the time...look at the recent eminent domain ruling.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:22:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ffhounddog:
I am currently in SWA and I have seen how the people here put religion above the good of the people or above common sense. Why is the US Govt wanting to impose christian values on all the US? I have read the bill of rights and it basically says I can believe in anything I want if I am a devil worshiper I can worship the devil, if I am Islamic I can practice Islam (not Islamic law) thats not Us law. After seeing what can happen if you let religion go against commen sense it has made me look at things in multiple percpective's.
I just want to know why Bush and Ashcroft want to impose the 10 commandments on me. So if someone kills my dog who I think as a kid I can kill their dog or a their kid if they dont have a dog. I think there is a place for religion and a place for work. Moral values is different that Relgious values because some religons do not have moral religious values. Please dont kill me for bringing this up just seeing what can happen has made me start to think.


WTF are you rambling about? I swear, arfcom seems to be getting dumber and dumber.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:25:26 AM EDT


America is a Christian nation.

Get over it, or move.

I say this NOT because I'm a Christian, but because it is factually true.



Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:45:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:


America is a Christian nation.

Get over it, or move.

I say this NOT because I'm a Christian, but because it is factually true.






Do you mean most Americans are Christian? Yes, that is true and not at debate. I think some people see an issue backed by the religious right and think therefore it is solely a religious issue. I however am against abortion and I’m an atheist.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:46:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ffhounddog:
yeah the anti-porn is another. if someone wants to do it its good money.



What if they wanted to do it with your 2 year old daughter!!!!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:48:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Miracle_Pants:

Originally Posted By garandman:


America is a Christian nation.

Get over it, or move.

I say this NOT because I'm a Christian, but because it is factually true.






Do you mean most Americans are Christian? Yes, that is true and not at debate. I think some people see an issue backed by the religious right and think therefore it is solely a religious issue. I however am against abortion and I’m an atheist.



Specifically, I'm referring to

( 1 ) the Pilgrims who first came here, and gov't they established

( 2 ) the Founding Fathers and they gov't they established

( 3 ) what every President, Congress , state Constitution, etc has validated about the Christian orientation of this country, and the several states up until about 30 years ago or so.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:50:30 AM EDT
Simple. I believe it was James Madison who said this country and constitution were written for God fearing men and as long as we elected people of the Judeo Christian faith and beliefs, we would survive and prosper as a country. Look at the influence of non-christians like Roosevelt, Black, Hitlery, etc and how they have helped destroy what Madison said
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:52:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 6:54:49 AM EDT by dolanp]
On the contrary many of those men were not Christian and went out of their way to make sure Christian authoritarianism was not pushed onto this country.

As for religious 'law' many have given valid examples that are pushed 95% by Chrisitan thought. The stem cell debate is another good example.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:54:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
Simple. I believe it was James Madison who said this country and constitution were written for God fearing men and as long as we elected people of the Judeo Christian faith and beliefs, we would survive and prosper as a country. Look at the influence of non-christians like Roosevelt, Black, Hitlery, etc and how they have helped destroy what Madison said



The FF wrote EXTENSIVELY that very thing - this is a CHRISTIAN nation.

By that they meant what WIlliam Penn said - "Men will either be governed by God (i.e. self-governed) or they WILL be ruled by tyrants. "

In reality, the GREATEST danger to this nation is the godless man who will not self-govern.

Because it is his actions that FORCE politicians to make endless laws to imagine every kind of debauchery he might engage in, and prevent him from doing it in a way damaging to society.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:54:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:54:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 6:55:34 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
On the contrary many of those men were not Christian and went out of their way to make sure Christian authoritarianism was not pushed onto this country.



That's just dead wrong.

Its a fantasy in your mind. Wholly unsupported by ANY facts.

And a SHAMEFUL way for you to waste post # 556.



Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:55:38 AM EDT


And who said 'Christian taliban' was absurd?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:55:43 AM EDT
Wow -when did it become wrong to be faithful to your God and his teachings. or to have a moral stance based on those beliefs?

BTW -I think the 10 Commandments are a prety good basis for living a good life.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:57:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twl:
Regarding the "abortion issue", it is simply a matter of when it might be called murder.
If a woman is pregnant and wants to have the child, and then she is involved in an assault/incident which results in the death of the unborn child, it is called "murder" and the wrongdoer is charged.
If a woman is pregnant, and she decides she doesn't want the child, she can dispose of it as she pleases at any time, and it is called "perfectly all right" by abortion proponents.
It is a total double-standard that is ludicrous.



And those laws were intentionally designed to challenge pre-existing abortion laws by artificially creating this double-standard.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:57:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Myke:
Example of the religous laws currently being voted on in congress please..... or just being sponsored would be fine.




S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01

South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade .

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.

Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a "little shocked" by the vote. "Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota," she said. "We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest."

National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans."

The antiabortion movement has focused primarily in recent years on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions on access to abortion, including pushes for parental-notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed. A 1992 Supreme Court decision again affirmed a right to abortion in a Pennsylvania case, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey , that said states cannot put an "undue burden" on women getting access to abortions.

Not all antiabortion groups agreed with the South Dakota supporters' effort to directly challenge Roe .

"If you're just reading the law as it stands now, South Dakota's law doesn't really stand any chance under Roe or Casey . I have to agree with those who think it's remote," said Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council and a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee.

He said there is not a consensus for a national approach to finding a way to overturn Roe . "There are lots of voices out there and nobody has a single strategy, so South Dakota has stepped in to fill that void," Donovan said.

Still, some abortion opponents are more confident than they have ever been that Roe could be overturned with two new conservative members of the high court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Roberts has not publicly expressed his view on abortion rights. Alito opposed Roe as a young Reagan administration lawyer and had a mixed record on abortion rights while a federal appeals court judge.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a federal law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional. The law passed Congress in 2003 but has been struck down by three federal appeals courts and has yet to take effect.

South Dakota is the first but not the only state to consider new abortion restrictions this year. Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky have introduced similar measures.

Rounds has indicated that he would sign the South Dakota measure if it does not jeopardize existing abortion restrictions while the legislation is challenged. In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill because of concerns that abortion restrictions would be eliminated during legal wrangling. Hunt said his bill has addressed the governor's concerns.

Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban's supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by "an anonymous donor."

Even without this latest ban, South Dakota was already one of the most difficult states in the country in which to get an abortion, those on both sides of the issue say. It is one of three states with only one abortion provider (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others), and its one clinic, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, offers the procedure only once a week. Four doctors who fly in from Minnesota on a rotating basis perform the abortions, since no doctor in South Dakota will do so because of the heavy stigma attached.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, which has a population of 770,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles. Last year, South Dakota passed five laws to restrict abortions, including one that would compel doctors to tell women that they would be ending the life of a "whole, separate, unique human being." That law has been blocked by a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company



Some bible thumping idiots trying to take an end run around the law. It's only the most recent example, there are lots more that are emboldened by GWBs "christian" BS.



Hey, stupid! Roe V Wade was never law. It was a bad court decision. You folks are cracked if you think this is a religious thing.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:59:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:


And who said 'Christian taliban' was absurd?



See? That's all you clowns have.

No facts. No support for your arguments.

Just vitriol.

I laugh at you.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 7:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Myke:

You mean the most recent addition to the UCMJ (signed by GWB, cooincidentally) that make using prostitutes illegal for GIs even when its legal in the country (or state in NV's case) that you are in? Yeah, that was in effect long ago.


Actually, YES. It WAS in effect long ago..... soliciting prostitution has long been listed as sexual misconduct in the UCMJ. Next.



Yeah, there was just no punishment for it.



Anti-Prostitution Rule Drafted for U.S. Forces

By Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page A13

U.S. service members stationed overseas could face a court-martial for patronizing prostitutes under a new regulation drafted by the Pentagon.

The move is part of a Defense Department effort to reduce the possibility that service members will contribute to human trafficking in areas near their overseas bases by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.

In recent years, "women and girls are being forced into prostitution for a clientele consisting largely of military services members, government contractors and international peacekeepers" in such places as South Korea and the Balkans, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) said yesterday at a Capitol Hill forum on Pentagon anti-trafficking efforts.

Defense officials have drafted an amendment to the manual on courts-martial that would make it an offense for service members to use the services of prostitutes, said Charles S. Abell, a Pentagon undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

If approved, the amendment would make it a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to have contact with a prostitute, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, an Abell spokeswoman, said later. The draft rule is open to 60 days of public comment after being published in the Federal Register, she said.

Officials also are developing a training program for service members and contractors, to be distributed in November. The program will explain trafficking, department policy on it and possible legal action against violators, Abell said in a written statement.

Additionally, the military is reviewing regulations and procedures for placing off-limits those businesses where such activities take place and working with Justice Department officials to tighten rules on contractor misconduct.

Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of the 37,000 U.S. service members in South Korea, said another initiative started on the peninsula has been to "make on-base military life a more desirable experience, and attempt to diminish the seductive appeal of many of the less wholesome off-duty pursuits."

That effort includes offering expanded evening and weekend education programs, band concerts, late-night sports leagues and more chaplain activities.

All new arrivals to duty in South Korea are instructed against prostitution and human trafficking, and the military is working with South Korean law enforcement agencies, he said.

NATO officials in July outlined new guidelines adopted to ensure alliance peacekeepers do not encourage sex trafficking gangs by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



Thanks bible thumping assholes, for making something legal for 99.9% of the world's population basis for throwing 1.4 million of us in jail. I hate dummocrats but at least they aren't so uptight and idiotic about simple personal freedoms.



Back at ya asshole.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 7:00:18 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top