Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

S. Dakota Rejects Abortion Ban, Missouri Backs Stem Cells

npr.org — Contentious initiatives on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research brought out voters in South Dakota and Missouri. In conservative South Dakota, voters struck down a proposal that would ban virtually all abortions in the state. In Missouri, a new constitutional amendment enshrines the right to conduct embryonic stem-cell research.

Bury

attila 1 year 258 days ago, made popular 1 year 257 days ago

437 diggs
digg it

attila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Related to these ballot initiatives that creep into the voting both on election day, there was a strangely worded ballot initiative at the polls in Pennsylvania. It was something like this: YES | NO -- To authorize the Commonwealth to borrow $20 million to create a fund for the payment of compensation to veterans of the United States Armed Forces who served in the Persian Gulf Conflict and were Pennsylvania residents at the time of such service.

Bearing in mind, the Persian Gulf Conflict was fought in 1990 and 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Read about all the other ballot initiatives and referendums: http://tinyurl.com/eovek
- pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -28/+347 million abortions since 1973.
  1.3 million abortions in 2002.
  Over 3,500 abortions per day.
  Over 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2001.
  
  Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton called each abortion a "tragic choice".
- pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8"Saying there are too many children. is like saying there are too many flowers." ~ Mother Teresa
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@pedro101
  
  Of course, children aren't flowers. Flowers mostly take care of themselves, while children require a lot of work just to keep them alive, never mind to raise properly. If a potential parent cannot handle the workload, the child will suffer. So it really is possible for someone to have "too many" children, and it really is in the children's best interest to avoid that situation.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14pedro101: mother teresa obviously never met you.
- beguiledfoil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Those are some interesting.. no.. wait.. totally irrelevant statistics, pedro101. It's not the number of abortions which govern people's opinion on this topic, it's whether they consider fetuses (feti?) to be humans at their various stages of development.
  
  If you actually believe a few loosely associated cells stuck to the wall of a uterus to be a human, then you can go ahead and be upset about the 'murders' taking place. But at the same time if you fail to see the other side of the coin, and can't admit that, just maybe, those loosely associate cells aren't human life.. well.. then you're just being an *****.
  
  And as for your sympathy invoking Mother Teresa quote, I don't think the lovliness of children is justification for the pain and suffering overpopulation causes... but I have the ability to look beyond my own desires, and realize that my actions (such as having kids) have effects outside my direct sphere of influence... maybe you don't have that kind of empathy.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1@ CopperFalcon
  
  it's in the children's best interest to avoid the whole situation? So it'd be better for the child to never be born than to leave a difficult life? That seems strange to me. I've had bad times in my life but I doubt I've ever thought that everyone's life would be better if I had never been born. Thinking that way is just disgusting.
  
  + there is no overpopulation in America. There are only people that cannot take care of children. That is why we have the adoption system, no it's not perfect, but at least it gives the child a chance. Not to mention that having the kid will have more of an effect on the mother, forcing her to re-examine her life further and make decisions about having sex, hopefully smart decisions. No woman choses to have sex not knowing that they could get pregnant.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@nreynolds
  
  By not running around having unprotected sex with every woman I can find, I am preventing the existence of an uncountable number of children. To me, this is eminently moral for a number of reasons, not least because I could never support every child I could theoretically father. Yet to you, this kind of thinking is "disgusting".
  
  I think I'll be digging you down now.
- zebov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@CopperFalcon:
  
  Though your logic is correct, I don't think most people are aborting children because they have "too many" already. It would be interesting to see a statistic on how many abortions are done by those who already have children versus those that have none.
- zebov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@beguiledfoil:
  
  Finally someone sees the true debate over abortion. No one is going to say it is okay to kill a person. Thus, the discussion is not "Is abortion okay" but "How do you define a person." Thus, many of the arguments made by the pro-life side are rather pointless ("How can you kill all those babies?", "Look at this number of babies killed last year", "Doesn't it pull at your heartstrings?"). It's like telling someone they shouldn't be allowed to pick at their scab.
  
  I myself am pro-life, because I happen to define Human as that which is after conception. However, I know others don't feel this way and they have their reasons (very good ones) not to. So, if I am to try to "persuade" a pro-choice person to turn to the dark side, I will stick to discussions over the definition of Human Being. That's where the decision is made, not telling them that over 5 million scabs were been picked at last year. Because, seriously, who on that side cares?
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ CopperFalcon
  
  No. your logic is incorrect. Sperm cells will never become a human. Egg cells will never become a human. An EMBRYO will become a human. it's a completely different scenario that I've heard before and still is an incredibly dumb thing to say.
- jeffreym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As the events of the last six years unfolded, I felt that the majority of the American people had little hope of realizing the truth and overcoming ignorance. It seemed that folks were comfortable with:
  
  1. A lying, corrupt, cowardly president.
  2. Torturing prisoners, illegal wiretapping, eliminating civil rights and basically disregarding the Constitution.
  3. Banning stem cell research.
  4. Ignoring the human rights of gay individuals.
  5. Supporting an illegal and immoral war in order to increase personal wealth (as in Haliburton).
  6. Raping health care and prescription coverage for financial gain.
  7. Ensuring that the religious right-wing wackos are allowed to exert undue influence on government.
  8. Maintaining the pitiful state of our educational system.
  9. The deliberate destruction of New Orleans because the people were not part of the president's "base".
  10. Destroying the environment in order to line the pockets of the president's corporate cronies.
  
  On November 8, 2006 the American people (at least 40% of the eligible voters -- a 1% increase over 2004) -- wrested control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  
  Is it possible that the wheels of change are finally starting to turn? To answer that question, consider the following:
  
  1. Missouri listened to Michael J. Fox and voted to support stem cell research and newly-elected Senator Claire McCaskill.
  2. Arizona rejected a ban on same-sex marriages.
  3. 28 of our 50 governors are now Democrats.
  4. South Dakota rejected the abortion ban.
  5. Highest turnout of voters aged 18-30 in twenty years.
  6. First woman Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi (I thought my wife had the job first?)
  7. RUMSFELD FORCED TO RESIGN!
  8. RUMSFELD FORCED TO RESIGN!
  9. RUMSFELD FORCED TO RESIGN!
  
  Just when I thought I had to move to Canada with Alec Baldwin, the American people came through and delivered a technical knockout to President Chimpy McFlightsuit. Let's not stop now -- let's hit them while they're down. We need hearings, investigations, indictments and dare I say it? IMPEACHMENT!
  
  If the repuglicans thought they were justified in impeaching President Clinton just because he had his knob polished then Dubya is definitely owed an impeachment.
  
  If that fails, I bet for a gram of crystal meth that we could get Rev. Ted Haggard to obtain some presidential DNA on his blue dress for us. What's good for the goose.......
  
  On to 2008...
  GORE/OBAMA
Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3> S. Dakota Rejects Abortion Ban, Missouri Backs Stem Cells

What next, legalize gay marriage? See what you've done America?!
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10seriously, the whole "freedom" thing is just for show.
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the intarwebs.
deeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The stem cell amendment passing in Missouri makes me proud to be from here. At least we do something right, besides #1 in meth labs and faulty damns.
- stlcadet11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1also you have to remember STL is now the #1 most dangerous city in the nation! thanks east st. louis and north county (not so much florrisant). and i don't care if i say that cause none of the people from there read digg so ha!
  
  and yea i was Yes on 2 and sooo happy when it passed and McCaskill got elected to senate.
- deeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Amen to that. Good times.
- TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It passed because people are smart enough to make the right decision- is it better to use the embryos to help people, or would it be better to throw them away?
  
  http://digg.com/videos_educational/Research_or_the_Garbage_Can
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also because KC didn't want to lose its big research lab.
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Don't feel too smug over the victory. Unfortunately the battle over Missouri Amendment 2 may not be over. It passed in only 15 counties (including St. Louis and Kansas City) and failed in ~90 others (mostly rural). If incumbant (R) Jim Talent had supported the initiative, he would probably have retained his seat and the initiative would have been passed decisively. Too bad for him!!
  
  My biggest disappointment: It seems virtually no one read the text of the initiative, including Michael J. Fox, even though it's readily available on the web via Google and not difficult reading. The opposition said people wouldn't read it, and they went on to suggest the amendment would permit human cloning. If you read the text, though, prohibition of human cloning is the number 1 item.
  
  Here's the official text of Amendment 2 posted on the Missouri State web site:
  http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
  It prohibits human cloning and doesn't make any form of cloning legal that isn't already legal under Federal law. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a sociopolitical environment where stem cell research (and later therapy) can take place, to foster investment, etc. Unlike California's earlier initiative, no taxpayer money is allocated by this one.
  
  And here's the opposition's TV ad:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw
  Don't be fooled by it! (Note: the ad doesn't say 25 women died from donating eggs, it only implies it, because there are no documented fatalities from egg donation. A link between egg donation and 25 fatalities is made in the mind of the viewer, but no one person in the ad actually says it, because that would be a lie.)
- zebov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAHA! "faulty damns"... best pun ever.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea major drug co. are now going to make BILLIONS They are very happy. One couple who owns one paid 125 million of there own money for ad's because the knew they would get it back X10
- McSwankypants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@deeek
  
  While I too am happy that Amendment 2 passed, I will never forgive my fellow Missourians for passing the constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
  
  @STLcadet111
  
  I have not looked into it, but was East STL included in the stats? I mean, it IS in Illinois, not Missouri.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#1 in meth, #1 in crime, #1 in baseball. We just rock that much!
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@floorman56, your comments seem from another planet. If you live in Missouri, why would you be against developing biomedical technology, treatment centers and prosperity in your state? Pharmaceutical companies don't do therapeutic cloning, by the way. And $125M (from one donor??) is SEVERAL-fold larger than the combined advertising budgets for both sides.
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ninjaboy, Scott Morgan himself, the author of the Morgan Quitno crime rankings, publicly acknowledged that he'd be shocked if any criminologist believed the rankings. The highly publicized cited rankings only considered the very restrictive area of the City of St. Louis, not the greater metropolitan region. By Morgan's own analysis, when metropolitan regions are considered, Metro St. Louis comes out 129th of 334. Furthermore, all cities in Illinois (including Chicago and East St. Louis) were excluded from the rankings -- simply because they tally the incidence of rape differently in that state!
- OutofExile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the first time in 22 years I'm very nearly proud to be from Missouri. But not quite.
  
  This state is still the center of meth production, crime-stricken, home to some of the most extreme religious right, spends more money on sports teams than it does on helping people get on their feet or on healthcare, and disturbingly homophobic. It also possesses a really scary racist past. (A little over 100 years ago, the city I grew up in, Springfield, burned all the houses owned by African-Americans and lynched every black man who didn't run away when the houses burned because they thought one black man harmed one white woman).
  
  Also if I remember correctly the state overwhelmingly banned gay marriage, which is just unforgivable and bigoted.
  
  This is bittersweet. I'm almost proud. Almost. But it's gonna take a long time to make up for everything else...
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1our comments seem from another planet. If you live in Missouri, why would you be against developing biomedical technology
  
  Because drug co. are evil? ....I heard it here on digg
toomanydigglibs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2Ahhh I can see there will be fun times with you liberals in Congress. So proud to protect a spotted owl, so against protecting baby humans.....
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10note to self, block anyone who uses the phrase "you liberals".
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17calling an embryo a baby is like calling an egg a chicken.
- beguiledfoil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Owl hater.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3I do consider some eggs chickens. But in case you were wondering, the vast majority of eggs will not ever hatch even if taken care of, they're not really chicken embryo's. You can see if the egg you are going to eat would ever become a chicken by cracking it open and searching for a tiny little red dot. If it doesn't have one, it was never going to become a chicken no matter what.
  
  And considering an egg a chicken is nothing like considering an embryo a human. First of all, IT'S A HUMAN, NOT A CHICKEN. Humans are the most advanced and intelligent species and most importantly we have emotions. Do not compare eggs to embryo's. Things change when you're talking about your own species. I can understand that women face a tremendous burden when they become pregnant before they are ready but denying the unborn child (whether or not you consider it a human at the time) a chance to live is unforgivable compared to giving birth and having the child be adopted.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7nreynolds: "Humans are the most advanced and intelligent species.." heh, disproving your own statement every time you post.
- zebov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3toomanydigglibs:
  
  I am pro-life, but would like to refer you to the comments by myself and beguiledfoil above.
  
  Pro-choice doesn't think an embryo is human. Thus, abortion is not killing a baby. Your comment should not be "against protecting baby humans" but "against considering embryos as humans." That's the real argument.
- zebov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2digg this comment down... digg broke (yeah, I'm blaming digg, not myself)
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@nreynolds:
  >> "Do not compare eggs to embryo's."
  Embryos (notice that there is no apostrophe, it's a plural, not a possessive or contraction) are just fertalised eggs. Regardless of species.
  
  >> "Things change when you're talking about your own species."
  Why? While you are being so biased towards humans, you might as well go all the way and say that only blonde haired blue eyed tall athletic people count. Just because they are not as intelligent as most people (there certainly are exceptions) doesn't mean they are less deserving of life.
  
  >>"I can understand that women face a tremendous burden when they become pregnant before they are ready but denying the unborn child (whether or not you consider it a human at the time) a chance to live is unforgivable compared to giving birth and having the child be adopted."
  I am denying an unborn child a chance to live right now, simply by not looking for women to sleep with. In fact, every time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle, and doesn't get pregnant, that's a human egg, a potential child, dying. I guess if that is unforgivable we'd best start sleeping with any female who has hit puberty and isn't pregnant. And don't worry about over-population, it's not like population growth is exponential or anything, besides, everyone who has watched a 70's Sci-Fi knows that by the early 21st century we will have colonised space, with permanant settlements on several planets in our own solar system, and well on or way to others.
  
  Anyway, every minute I spend here on digg is a minute I could have spent out saving the lives of unborn children by sleeping around, without protection of course, and if any chickens get in my way, I'll kill them, because God knows they don't deserve life as much as the child I *might* concieve.
  
  (And since so many people seem to miss it, yes, that post was filled with sarcasm.)
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1no you're not. you aren't creating embryo's and killing them right now, thus you're not denying an embryo the chance to live.
  
  and things change when you're talking about your own species cause it's your own ***** species. If you'd rather not be the dominant creature on earth, fine.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nreynolds: dominant species on earth? we're not overpopulated as is?
QueenOfSwords, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Seriously, if men could bear children there would be no debate about abortion. Nada. None. It would just be legal.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11if men had to bear children, there would be no children.
- QueenOfSwords, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too true. :)
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3some men would likely agree with you. Other men would understand the child has the right to a chance of life. And inconveniencing (or even damaging) the man's life is a small price to pay compared to denying a being life.
  
  - not to mention I know lot's of women that are anti-abortion so I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7nreynolds: how noble of you. now you better get to the grocery store and save all those those eggs so won't get eaten instead of growing up to be chickens.
- siblmp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2My friend works with abortions in hospital. She described one occasion having to leave a collection of these 'loosely associated cells' on a window sill to die after one later abortion. It moved for over an hour before succumbing to cold. Makes you think.
- McSwankypants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@nreynolds
  
  Whether you refer to a mass of cells or a third term fetus, neither has any "rights."
  
  @siblmp
  
  Not claiming to be an expert on these matters, but that hospital needs to be shut down. No hospital is going to leave ANY biological ANYTHING out on a window sill; any biological waste has to be disposed of for obvious safety reasons. I am going to call BS on that tale (i.e. your friend is full of *****).
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ pintomp3
  
  no. because I eat animals. So I shouldn't
  
  @ McSwankypants
  - Oh. I know that unborn fetus's have no rights, legally. That doesn't make it right. For a while blacks didn't have rights, women didn't have the same rights, but what we did to them was wrong.
  
  - and in case any of you are wondering. I'm 16 years old and some of my best friends were adopted. Some of them might have been aborted if their mothers hadn't made the right decision. Oh, but you guys are probably all right, it would probably be better if my friends never existed, right?
- McSwankypants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@nreynolds
  
  Seeing as you are still quite young (and I will assume a devout religious person), I will not press the issue, but I implore you to take at least one ethics course when you get to college. You do not necessarily have to agree, but at least take it to understand why there is a HUGE difference between a mass of cells, a third term fetus, and a grown black person.
Cartman911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9My whole screaming argument with the ultra-Right is this: I believe in the right for women to have the choice to have an abortion. That being said I would hope it is not the answer to solving the problem of getting pregnant because you were stupid or drunk. It should be available as an option in a potentially life altering situation. If you get pregnant and carry the child to term to then get adopted, great! If you can't realistically do that then you should legally have the option of choosing an abortion. The right to abortion does not increase promiscuity or any of that other crap the clinic protesters throw at you. It is just that: A right. One I hope that STAYS legal.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In talking point form*: I believe abortions should be available, safe, and rare.
  
  *Because, unfortunately, talking points are an important part of modern politics.
whisk3rs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yet virginia, wisconsin, tennessee, south dakota, south carolina voted in favor of banning same-sex marriage...
fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Abortion is fine, but if a woman has the right to suction out the "sluff", why don't I have the right to kill the "sluff" who can't learn the rules of how to drive, etc. The problem is, you don't know what the potential of the aborted "sluff" is, while I can clearly see the jo-ball in front of me peaked at age 9 and seriously needs a steel bolt through the skull. But nooooo, if I was to pull them out of their car and play slaughter house I'D be the one going to jail.....

Then there is the fact that many of the same people who support abortion are against capital punishment!?! Are you kidding? You want abortion to stop health problems, or because the woman "can't take care" of the baby (all of which I agree with). People who rape and slaughter women, or ***** little kids don't pose a health risk, or a problem of who should take care of them?

Abortion is fine, but don't be a hypocrite, so too should capital punishment and the killing of those with too low IQ's.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who are you to judge someone elses potential?
  Einstein failed high school, and his parents originally thought he was retarded, yet he went on to produce some of the greatest works of mathematics and physics known to us.
  In fact, that imaginary person you just dragged out a car and beat to death may have been a bad driver, but little do you know, he was on his way to the lab to put the final touch on his cure to all disease, but now he's dead and we continue to suffer, thanks to you, you bastard.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now arguing the opposite side in the form of a badly written joke: The biggest flaw in Darwin's theory of Evolution is the formation of "Work Safety Laws". They exist only to protect the those stupid enough not to protect themselves. (And of course to stop those related to the idiot who killed himself from sueing someone else for not being as stupid.)
- fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dacheetah,
  
  Thank you for proving my point. I have no more right to beat some one to death for driving bad than a woman has the right to suck a fetus out of her stomach because she doesn't "think" she can take care of a baby.
  
  I'm simply saying it is hypocritical to allow one and not the other. It is also hypocritical to be for abortion and against capital punishment. Those were my points
nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I'm only for abortion if the mothers life in endangered....the second sperm and egg join..to me thats life...cause just 18days later there is a heart beat.

It may be a womans choice..but where does the kid inside the woman have a say so at. What if that dead child wanted to live and have a chance even though his selfish mother was a slut and slept around...not his fault. What if she doesnt want him after 10yrs of living...just cause he can think for himself what makes him so special that he has to live now? She might struggle financially later...so why should she deal with it then if she could abort so early to avoid the money problems?

Those small amounts of cell are a living thing that is growing, just cause it may not seem like much is there.....compared to the universe we are small cells...........to liberals, republicans dont seem like much either.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Just because someone is alive does not mean we protect it at all costs. Whatever food you ate was alive, even if you're a vegetarian. If you've ever eaten pork or beef, the animal that was killed was far more intelligent than an 18-day-old fetus. Hell, human sperm are not just life but human life; so why don't I see your type marching for THEIR rights?
  
  The fact of the matter is that your concern does not stem from ethics or morals, but from a simple and immoral desire to control the actions of others. That's why you cannot form a cogent argument for your stance on abortion.
  
  Also, please stop abusing punctuation. Ellipses are not an appropriate substitution for every other punctuation mark.
- nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The animal is also far more intelligent then a 1yr old baby...a cow can at least walk. So you are saying its fine to kill a new born also then? Don't try to tell me that what I'm saying comes from a simple immoral desire to control actions. I don't march for rights, I'm a normal guy with an opinion, but your childish views can't see past your own selfish values. A sperm is way different alone then it is with a joined egg, that can not even be made a comparison, cause like I said...why not just stick a tube in your head right now, who cares if you can think, cows thinks to.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The fact that I'm male and support women's rights should make it clear that the only one who can't see past their own selfish values is yourself, nesibus. The fact that you cannot support your opinion with anything besides fallacies should make it clear that the only one with childish views is you. Why shouldn't I say that your motivation is the immoral desire to control others' personal choices? I'm not making this up--it is YOU who have made that abundantly clear.
  
  And once again, please stop abusing punctuation.
- nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2support whatever you want brother, I just want all kids to have a chance to make something of their life. I'm sure you enjoy living yours.
- nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm getting dugg down for wanting a kid to have a chance at life? Man...what real men yall are, makes me proud to live in this country with you. Looks like the wrong kids were aborted.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The animal is also far more intelligent then a 1yr old baby...a cow can at least walk."
  
  A robot can walk, if programmed to do so, yet a robot does not possess any intelligence as such. Does that mean that a baby, unable to walk, therefore does not possess any intelligence either? Steven Hawkings can't walk either... I guess he's obviously less intelligent than a cow.
  
  Stupidest Argument Ever!
Sfmobius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As usual, we resort to name calling and cheap insults as if we were all still in high school. Grow up already.

Life is not black and white and trying to apply an answer in such terms is often futile.

The argument is made a woman has a right over own body. I do believe in that to a point. There is a set point under law when an abortion cannot be performed unless it comes down to a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby. Whether that date is correct is up for debate.

The argument is made it would be easier to have the child and then put it up for adoption. Thousands of children go unadopted in this country every year because they fall outside of the "right age". The matter is compounded even further as potential parents are no longer limited to US babies. They can just go over seas and get one. So is it ok to force children to grow up like cattle w/o any sort of parents at all?

The belief in the human soul falls within the realm of religion. Not everyone believes in the same God or even in God. In a country founded on religious freedom, is it now ok to throw that out the window and force one persons beliefs on the rest of us?

As for overpopulation, while this planet can support more of us, at some point we have to move beyond breeding simply because we can. The human race is in no danger of extinction due to low numbers. There was a time when that was the case.

Do I have the answer to all these questions? No. Do I make an informed decision? Yes. Do I believe in the right to an abortion. Yes. Do I believe in unrestricted terminations of full term pregnancies? No.

If life is so sacred then we have no right to kill anyone regardless of the reasons or age. You can't pick and choose when your morals apply.
lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rush was a huge help, I wish I could shake his chubby paw.
nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I've noticed two things on digg...if your a republican or a christian you will get dugg down no matter what you think...unless it agrees with the liberals on here...(most of which are young adults or teenagers)

The sad thing is alot of other people on here besides myself are simply stating to give a kid a chance at life...the same life the rest of you have and I'm sure you love living. Digging down a comment like that is almost sick.

What the hell is wrong with yall...the only thing I can think of is you have no kids of your own, cause if you did you would look at it and be glad you didnt end its life.

You tuck your kid in at night..and tell him hes just a choice you made and see how he feels about it.

See if he tells you its ok if you wanted him to never exist.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Think about it, I'm sure if asked, you would be say you are grateful that you are not dead, as would anyone who is not suicidal. But this is in hindsight. If given the choice of having "never existed", or living as I do now, to be honest, I wouldn't really care, because the fondness I have for my life is something I have gained from hindsight.
  If I were to travel to a parallel dimension where I had been aborted as a pre-sentient fetus (kind of a grey area, since you would have to define how far the brain has to have developed before the fetus is sentient. Clearly the single cell formed at conception is not sentiant, however it's also clear that by birth it is.), I wouldn't feel that paralell me had been robbed of the life I enjoy, as parallel fetus me had never reached a point where they would expect life. To the same extent, from witnessing my surroundings I hope to live to a ripe old age, and assuming I die of natural causes, I expect to live to a ripe old age. It's all relative to what is expected by the life form in question, not by a third party. Very few people will say that picking a flower is murder, because the flower is not sentient, and as such does not expect a long fruitful life, which (pun intended) would end after the flower has become a fruit, and spread it's own seeds. If however a flower had a face, and looked at you with tears in it's eyes as you threaten to tear it from tree that sustains it's life, and writhed around coughing and spluttering as it died, while the other flowers wept the loss of their friend, the obvious sentience and expectation of life here would make the picking of flowers immoral.
  And now that I realise that I'm too tired to proof read what I've just typed, and that do need more than 3 hours of sleep a night, I'll just comment that well, I havn't proof read it, and my brain needs "off-time", so if I said something stupid, then, um, oops.
oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The PA Gulf War Bill was worded "Do you support the commenwealth to be debted 20 million for restitutions of veterns of the Gulf War". I did think the wording was a bit odd as well.

It took us long enough to pull our heads out of our asses but thank god we did. Hopefully America can now move in a better direction.
one321, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was one of the proud South Dakotans that voted No on the Abortion Ban. I'm happy that it didn't pass.
krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FTA: "Voters resoundingly decided against the ban"

resoundingly. adj.
EMPHATIC, UNEQUIVOCAL

What a bunch of spin. The vote was 55-45. If one in twenty people had changed their mind, it would have gone the other way. That's does not qualify as "resoundingly."
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1English 101: Just because a word has a pre-determined definition, doesn't mean I can't use it with my own definition and never actually publish this definition, but assume that everyone understands what I'm saying based on the context of the word.
  
  /sarcasm.
  
  If they actually taught people how to speak English in schools. rather than the crap they do teach in the subject called "English", then it would be alot easier to understand one-another. The fact that English is made up of fragments of so many other languages, both ancient and modern makes it bad enough, when people abuse something that is already struggling to work, we get journalists and polititians.
SROSX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I live in SD and it feels god to stick it to these crazed people
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

S. Dakota Rejects Abortion Ban, Missouri Backs Stem Cells

Login or register to add a comment