Senate Committee Agrees To Extend Abortion Waiting Period

http://listen.sdpb.org/post/senate-committee-agrees-extend-abortion-waiting-period

Well this is a start.

BladeRunner wrote:http://listen.sdpb.org/post/senate-committee-agrees-extend-abortion-waiting-period

Well this is a start.

I wonder if we, meaning BR and I, can actually discuss this issue. I think we are both rather firm in our attitudes on this and we definitely don't agree.

On the issue of abortion, I'm probably even more against it than BR is. Why? Because I was adopted at birth in 1947. Had it been 1975 or 1985, I probably wouldn't be here, or at least there is a pretty good chance I wouldn't be here. To me, abortion is a real personal issue, to paraphrase, "there but for the grace of God, it could have easily have been me".

But the side I believe BR and I would not agree at all is that I am opposed to most anti-abortion laws. I do support the third trimester provision of Roe v Wade. But that is about as far as I go.

Why?

Because I have been subjected to religious discrimination in my life, and on many occasions. I've had a friend tell me that its too bad we will not meet in heaven because I don't attend the right church. I have religious tolerance. His church does not. Except when someone tries to enact their religious beliefs into the criminal law and tell me that I have to follow them or else. For that, I have no tolerance at all.

We all know that the vast majority of those in our legislature that want stronger and stronger anti abortion laws are motivated by their religious convictions. Pole after pole has establishes that a majority of those in SD believe in biblical creation and a "young earth". See religioustolerance.org.

I believe the founding fathers put the subject of religion as the first clause in the 1st Amendment for a reason. Most people are not religiously tolerant.

I believe that what motivates many in our Legislature is clearly an establishment of religion, clearly unconstitutional. No, they don't come right out an say as much, any more, but they used. They have learned to be more careful in what they say.

If I could ban abortion based strictly on its destruction of life, I would do so in an instant. But I will not do so if it means that I must join those who would so the same thing because of their putting religious conviction first, because it wouldn't end there.

BR: I hope we don't get bent out of shape over our differences. I'm not expecting to change your position. But likewise, I'm going to stand up for mine.

Tynda

Abortion is murder and nobody, not even the "mother" has any right to take the life of a defenseless child (clump of cells if your a liberal).

Religious intolerance is also something that is largely contrived. Yes one religion says if you don't join them your going to hell and another will say the same thing. Thing is, all of these religions, supporting texts, and beliefs are man made and therefore imperfect. Religion is the relationship an individual has directly with God, Jesus, Budda, yadda, yadda. No one really knows the correct text although for a Christian, the bible is a good start. A lot of fine people attend churches and some jackwagons but overall I have found it very enjoyable but more importantly spiritually satisfying. Don't turn away from religion because of this experience or they said this... The only person you are hurting is yourself, the relationship is with God and there is a sense of fulfillment when that relationship is achieved.

Thank you for reading my post and remember...I am never wrong.

Tynda wrote:
I wonder if we, meaning BR and I, can actually discuss this issue. I think we are both rather firm in our attitudes on this and we definitely don't agree.

I'd be happy to have an actual discussion with you about this topic.

Tynda wrote:
On the issue of abortion, I'm probably even more against it than BR is. Why? Because I was adopted at birth in 1947. Had it been 1975 or 1985, I probably wouldn't be here, or at least there is a pretty good chance I wouldn't be here. To me, abortion is a real personal issue, to paraphrase, "there but for the grace of God, it could have easily have been me".

But the side I believe BR and I would not agree at all is that I am opposed to most anti-abortion laws. I do support the third trimester provision of Roe v Wade. But that is about as far as I go.

Why?

Because I have been subjected to religious discrimination in my life, and on many occasions. I've had a friend tell me that its too bad we will not meet in heaven because I don't attend the right church. I have religious tolerance. His church does not. Except when someone tries to enact their religious beliefs into the criminal law and tell me that I have to follow them or else. For that, I have no tolerance at all.

We all know that the vast majority of those in our legislature that want stronger and stronger anti abortion laws are motivated by their religious convictions. Pole after pole has establishes that a majority of those in SD believe in biblical creation and a "young earth". See religioustolerance.org.

I believe the founding fathers put the subject of religion as the first clause in the 1st Amendment for a reason. Most people are not religiously tolerant.

I believe that what motivates many in our Legislature is clearly an establishment of religion, clearly unconstitutional. No, they don't come right out an say as much, any more, but they used. They have learned to be more careful in what they say.

If I could ban abortion based strictly on its destruction of life, I would do so in an instant. But I will not do so if it means that I must join those who would so the same thing because of their putting religious conviction first, because it wouldn't end there.

BR: I hope we don't get bent out of shape over our differences. I'm not expecting to change your position. But likewise, I'm going to stand up for mine.

Tynda

If you want, we can discuss this without religion at all. I am sorry for the way you have been treated by "Christians". I can't believe someone told you that he won't see you in heaven because you don't go to church. That is sad.

I agree with you on your statement that abortion should be banned strictly based on it's destruction of life. In my opinion religion does not have to be part of the discussion.

I admit that one of the reasons I feel this way is because of moral conviction and I do believe that our morals come from a God. But, if you don't want that brought up, I'm fine with it.

I think that abortion could be banned strictly based on scientific proof alone. It is a human life. A human life that has a constitutional right to pursue happiness.

Tynda,

I hope I didn't come across as rude or judgmental to your feelings regarding mainstream religion. I don't want to drive you away but let you know there is a deep joy that is waiting for you between you and God. Don't be afraid to pursue that avenue if you are so inclined. I have discovered a real sense of peace and joy even though sometimes church matters make me angry. I am there because of my relationship with God and no other reason.

Darth Cheney wrote:Tynda,

I hope I didn't come across as rude or judgmental to your feelings regarding mainstream religion. I don't want to drive you away but let you know there is a deep joy that is waiting for you between you and God. Don't be afraid to pursue that avenue if you are so inclined. I have discovered a real sense of peace and joy even though sometimes church matters make me angry. I am there because of my relationship with God and no other reason.

Very well said, Darth!

I have spent most of my life attending church, and since I moved to Sioux Falls 27 years ago, I have attended the same church. And....have been disappointed many times. If we are to look to only other Christians or church goers for our example, we will be disappointed often. In fact, I don't even consider myself a very good example to be considered.

We are human and we make mistakes. We will ALWAYS make mistakes. The beauty of it is that Christ died for us WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS. He didn't wait for us to be "good enough" before he decided to die on that cross. He did it BECAUSE we were sinners and had no other way to live eternity with Him.

We have to forgive ourselves and others and not see others' faults, but see God's grace, which covers all our sins.

As far as this topic of abortion goes, I will do my best not to bring up "religion" when discussing it with you.

Darth Cheney wrote:Abortion is murder and nobody, not even the "mother" has any right to take the life of a defenseless child (clump of cells if your a liberal).

Religious intolerance is also something that is largely contrived. Yes one religion says if you don't join them your going to hell and another will say the same thing. Thing is, all of these religions, supporting texts, and beliefs are man made and therefore imperfect. Religion is the relationship an individual has directly with God, Jesus, Budda, yadda, yadda. No one really knows the correct text although for a Christian, the bible is a good start. A lot of fine people attend churches and some jackwagons but overall I have found it very enjoyable but more importantly spiritually satisfying. Don't turn away from religion because of this experience or they said this... The only person you are hurting is yourself, the relationship is with God and there is a sense of fulfillment when that relationship is achieved.

Thank you for reading my post and remember...I am never wrong.

Thanks for the comments, Darth. Don't get me wrong, I've never turned away from Christianity. Different churches have different views on what they believe can and should be enacted into civil criminal law. I grew up in the Congregational Church, now the United Church of Christ. Certainly not the largest, but certainly one of the larger denominations in the US today. We have no national structure that can tell a local church what the can and cannot do. Guidelines, sure, but the variations between churches can be very wide. For example, Obama's church in Chicago is of the same denomination, just to make the point as to how widely UCC churches can vary.

In the UCC, you attend because you want to. Faith is not given to you, faith is something you must find for yourself.

But the UCC would never think of supporting any religious belief being written into the criminal law, including abortion. Technically the UCC is "pro choice", but that certainly does not mean that the UCC supports abortion. Our perspective is different. It means that we oppose enactment of religious beliefs into criminal law. Nor would we deny membership or be critical of a member who has had an abortion. As I said, each must find their own faith. You don't modify your faith to suit the particular Congregation to which you belong. If your uncomfortable, just talk about it. The UCC has no problem with variations in faith even within an individual Congregation. In my church, we are very clearly pro life, but neither pro life or pro choice has ever been expounded upon by any minister we have ever had. Both pro life and pro choice sit side by side and we respect each other's differences. We would never argue with each other over religious faith. It just isn't done in my church. If you have a belief in God and Jesus, the rest is man made detail. Because we can talk about our variations in faith, it makes us stronger.

Clearly the last thing we are ever going to do is demand, through the criminal law, that everyone must conform to some religious doctrine. This is clearly not true with some other denominations.

BladeRunner wrote:

Tynda wrote:
I wonder if we, meaning BR and I, can actually discuss this issue. I think we are both rather firm in our attitudes on this and we definitely don't agree.

I'd be happy to have an actual discussion with you about this topic.

Tynda wrote:
On the issue of abortion, I'm probably even more against it than BR is. Why? Because I was adopted at birth in 1947. Had it been 1975 or 1985, I probably wouldn't be here, or at least there is a pretty good chance I wouldn't be here. To me, abortion is a real personal issue, to paraphrase, "there but for the grace of God, it could have easily have been me".

But the side I believe BR and I would not agree at all is that I am opposed to most anti-abortion laws. I do support the third trimester provision of Roe v Wade. But that is about as far as I go.

Why?

Because I have been subjected to religious discrimination in my life, and on many occasions. I've had a friend tell me that its too bad we will not meet in heaven because I don't attend the right church. I have religious tolerance. His church does not. Except when someone tries to enact their religious beliefs into the criminal law and tell me that I have to follow them or else. For that, I have no tolerance at all.

We all know that the vast majority of those in our legislature that want stronger and stronger anti abortion laws are motivated by their religious convictions. Pole after pole has establishes that a majority of those in SD believe in biblical creation and a "young earth". See religioustolerance.org.

I believe the founding fathers put the subject of religion as the first clause in the 1st Amendment for a reason. Most people are not religiously tolerant.

I believe that what motivates many in our Legislature is clearly an establishment of religion, clearly unconstitutional. No, they don't come right out an say as much, any more, but they used. They have learned to be more careful in what they say.

If I could ban abortion based strictly on its destruction of life, I would do so in an instant. But I will not do so if it means that I must join those who would so the same thing because of their putting religious conviction first, because it wouldn't end there.

BR: I hope we don't get bent out of shape over our differences. I'm not expecting to change your position. But likewise, I'm going to stand up for mine.

Tynda

If you want, we can discuss this without religion at all. I am sorry for the way you have been treated by "Christians". I can't believe someone told you that he won't see you in heaven because you don't go to church. That is sad.

I agree with you on your statement that abortion should be banned strictly based on it's destruction of life. In my opinion religion does not have to be part of the discussion.

I admit that one of the reasons I feel this way is because of moral conviction and I do believe that our morals come from a God. But, if you don't want that brought up, I'm fine with it.

I think that abortion could be banned strictly based on scientific proof alone. It is a human life. A human life that has a constitutional right to pursue happiness.

Thanks for your comments. I would agree that a great many of our morals come from our religious faith. But we are not agreed on what that faith should be. If we were, there would be but one Church world wide. Clearly there is not. Not everyone believes that God even exists. Darth's comment is true. We really don't know how much of our religious beliefs are from God, or made up by mankind. Religion has always been a great way for despots to control the people. If Jesus were to return, I'm not sure we would even recognize who it was. I suspect that most religions would reject Him because Jesus would probably not fit the image we have been taught to believe. In other words, we wouldn't recognize Him because He would not be what we were expecting.

It is this uncertainty that is in part for my rejecting most legislation regarding abortion.

I respect your willingness to discuss abortion outside of religion, but the fact is that a great deal of our legislators simply cannot make the separation. And there in is the problem.

I have considered just accepting this and saying that we end up with the same result, abortion would be highly limited to those very, very few cases where the mother's life is truly at stake. But that is like making a pact with the devil, so to speak. I'm just not going to do it. Side note, in my faith, there is no devil, no anti Christ. There is God and his Son. Maybe even God sent several sons and daughters to us, we just didn't recognize them. Then again, I believe we are all God's children and that God has no less love for us than he has for Jesus.

But do we have the right to demand conformity by enacting very rigid abortion laws? Again, I firmly believe that many in our legislature do.

So, BR, religion cannot really be left out if the discussion because there are those in the legislature who won't let it be left out of the discussion.

As I'm sure you know, many of our strongest pro life legislators are also very much against sex education and availability of birth control, and those attitudes too are controlled pretty much by their religious beliefs. Ya just cannot get religion out of politics, at least not in Pierre, and that's for sure.

Tynda

Tynda wrote:
Thanks for your comments. I would agree that a great many of our morals come from our religious faith. But we are not agreed on what that faith should be. If we were, there would be but one Church world wide. Clearly there is not. Not everyone believes that God even exists. Darth's comment is true. We really don't know how much of our religious beliefs are from God, or made up by mankind. Religion has always been a great way for despots to control the people. If Jesus were to return, I'm not sure we would even recognize who it was. I suspect that most religions would reject Him because Jesus would probably not fit the image we have been taught to believe. In other words, we wouldn't recognize Him because He would not be what we were expecting.

It is this uncertainty that is in part for my rejecting most legislation regarding abortion.

I respect your willingness to discuss abortion outside of religion, but the fact is that a great deal of our legislators simply cannot make the separation. And there in is the problem.

I have considered just accepting this and saying that we end up with the same result, abortion would be highly limited to those very, very few cases where the mother's life is truly at stake. But that is like making a pact with the devil, so to speak. I'm just not going to do it. Side note, in my faith, there is no devil, no anti Christ. There is God and his Son. Maybe even God sent several sons and daughters to us, we just didn't recognize them. Then again, I believe we are all God's children and that God has no less love for us than he has for Jesus.

But do we have the right to demand conformity by enacting very rigid abortion laws? Again, I firmly believe that many in our legislature do.

So, BR, religion cannot really be left out if the discussion because there are those in the legislature who won't let it be left out of the discussion.

As I'm sure you know, many of our strongest pro life legislators are also very much against sex education and availability of birth control, and those attitudes too are controlled pretty much by their religious beliefs. Ya just cannot get religion out of politics, at least not in Pierre, and that's for sure.

Tynda

One quick question. I don't have a lot of time right now. I will be on later. The question is: Can a law on murder (not abortion but murder of someone already born) be legislated without religious beliefs?

How about theft?

BladeRunner wrote:

Tynda wrote:
Thanks for your comments. I would agree that a great many of our morals come from our religious faith. But we are not agreed on what that faith should be. If we were, there would be but one Church world wide. Clearly there is not. Not everyone believes that God even exists. Darth's comment is true. We really don't know how much of our religious beliefs are from God, or made up by mankind. Religion has always been a great way for despots to control the people. If Jesus were to return, I'm not sure we would even recognize who it was. I suspect that most religions would reject Him because Jesus would probably not fit the image we have been taught to believe. In other words, we wouldn't recognize Him because He would not be what we were expecting.

It is this uncertainty that is in part for my rejecting most legislation regarding abortion.

I respect your willingness to discuss abortion outside of religion, but the fact is that a great deal of our legislators simply cannot make the separation. And there in is the problem.

I have considered just accepting this and saying that we end up with the same result, abortion would be highly limited to those very, very few cases where the mother's life is truly at stake. But that is like making a pact with the devil, so to speak. I'm just not going to do it. Side note, in my faith, there is no devil, no anti Christ. There is God and his Son. Maybe even God sent several sons and daughters to us, we just didn't recognize them. Then again, I believe we are all God's children and that God has no less love for us than he has for Jesus.

But do we have the right to demand conformity by enacting very rigid abortion laws? Again, I firmly believe that many in our legislature do.

So, BR, religion cannot really be left out if the discussion because there are those in the legislature who won't let it be left out of the discussion.

As I'm sure you know, many of our strongest pro life legislators are also very much against sex education and availability of birth control, and those attitudes too are controlled pretty much by their religious beliefs. Ya just cannot get religion out of politics, at least not in Pierre, and that's for sure.

Tynda

One quick question. I don't have a lot of time right now. I will be on later. The question is: Can a law on murder (not abortion but murder of someone already born) be legislated without religious beliefs?

How about theft?

Short on time as well, but most certainly. Libertarians subscribe to a non-aggression principle which would certainly cover murder, assault and theft. It can even be used in the abortion debate to argue against abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

BladeRunner wrote:

Tynda wrote:

One quick question. I don't have a lot of time right now. I will be on later. The question is: Can a law on murder (not abortion but murder of someone already born) be legislated without religious beliefs?

How about theft?

Good point, If i had a scared pregnant 16 yr old daughter. I would want her to wait and consider ALL options. Before being corralled by the likes of planned parenthood.

I suppose those in favor of no waiting will also apply that morality to gun ownership too.

Tynda wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://listen.sdpb.org/post/senate-committee-agrees-extend-abortion-waiting-period

Well this is a start.

I wonder if we, meaning BR and I, can actually discuss this issue. I think we are both rather firm in our attitudes on this and we definitely don't agree.

On the issue of abortion, I'm probably even more against it than BR is. Why? Because I was adopted at birth in 1947. Had it been 1975 or 1985, I probably wouldn't be here, or at least there is a pretty good chance I wouldn't be here. To me, abortion is a real personal issue, to paraphrase, "there but for the grace of God, it could have easily have been me".

But the side I believe BR and I would not agree at all is that I am opposed to most anti-abortion laws. I do support the third trimester provision of Roe v Wade. But that is about as far as I go.

Why?

Because I have been subjected to religious discrimination in my life, and on many occasions. I've had a friend tell me that its too bad we will not meet in heaven because I don't attend the right church. I have religious tolerance. His church does not. Except when someone tries to enact their religious beliefs into the criminal law and tell me that I have to follow them or else. For that, I have no tolerance at all.

We all know that the vast majority of those in our legislature that want stronger and stronger anti abortion laws are motivated by their religious convictions. Pole after pole has establishes that a majority of those in SD believe in biblical creation and a "young earth". See religioustolerance.org.

I believe the founding fathers put the subject of religion as the first clause in the 1st Amendment for a reason. Most people are not religiously tolerant.

I believe that what motivates many in our Legislature is clearly an establishment of religion, clearly unconstitutional. No, they don't come right out an say as much, any more, but they used. They have learned to be more careful in what they say.

If I could ban abortion based strictly on its destruction of life, I would do so in an instant. But I will not do so if it means that I must join those who would so the same thing because of their putting religious conviction first, because it wouldn't end there.

BR: I hope we don't get bent out of shape over our differences. I'm not expecting to change your position. But likewise, I'm going to stand up for mine.

Tynda

[u]

We are dealing with that very issue in my church right now. Not that there is a huge problem with it there, but rather our human bias affects our spiritual walk very much and we need to be aware of it. See Peter goes to Cornelius in Acts. The Jewish customs were a stumbling block to the early Christian Jews. Nothing new under the sun huh?

One quick question. I don't have a lot of time right now. I will be on later. The question is: Can a law on murder (not abortion but murder of someone already born) be legislated without religious beliefs?

How about theft?

Absolutely. No doubt about it. Look to Russia and China, they don't let religion get into such issues.

Where our legislators cross the line, in my opinion, is when they try to tie conception to God's Will, or something like that, or try to attach the concept of a sole to the moment of conception, and use this as their basis for the positions they take on abortion legislation.

Many in our legislature do exactly this. I don't know when these things happen. Others don't know if they happen at all. Its still forcing religious doctrine by law when matters of a sole are strictly a matter of faith.

Short on time as well, but most certainly. Libertarians subscribe to a non-aggression principle which would certainly cover murder, assault and theft. It can even be used in the abortion debate to argue against abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Good discussion on your link. Couldn't take the time right now to read it all, but from briefly looking at it, there is no one opinion in the NA principal with respect to conception. The article is pretty clear about that.

Freedom Forever wrote:

We are dealing with that very issue in my church right now. Not that there is a huge problem with it there, but rather our human bias affects our spiritual walk very much and we need to be aware of it. See Peter goes to Cornelius in Acts. The Jewish customs were a stumbling block to the early Christian Jews. Nothing new under the sun huh?

Certainly understand. Every denomination, and often different local churches within a denomination, see things differently. Back to Darth's comment, in which he generally said that man really doesn't know what God prescribes for us because almost all we know of God is the product of man's interpretations, bias, etc.

But there is no question that when a religion gets majority control of government, a frequent result are laws based on what that religious majority wants. There are some good local examples in schools in Nebraska where funding for public schools is very difficult because religious schools are so dominant.

Tynda wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

We are dealing with that very issue in my church right now. Not that there is a huge problem with it there, but rather our human bias affects our spiritual walk very much and we need to be aware of it. See Peter goes to Cornelius in Acts. The Jewish customs were a stumbling block to the early Christian Jews. Nothing new under the sun huh?

Certainly understand. Every denomination, and often different local churches within a denomination, see things differently. Back to Darth's comment, in which he generally said that man really doesn't know what God prescribes for us because almost all we know of God is the product of man's interpretations, bias, etc.

But there is no question that when a religion gets majority control of government, a frequent result are laws based on what that religious majority wants. There are some good local examples in schools in Nebraska where funding for public schools is very difficult because religious schools are so dominant.

But Nebraska has a Blaine amendment in it's Constitution which makes funding of private religious schools with public funds very difficult if not impossible. Sectarian instruction in public schools will also be almost impossible.

http://www.blaineamendments.org/states/states_files/NE.html