• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

South Dakota making abortion illegal

Junkman

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
From an email........

As early as this week, the South Dakota legislature is expected to send a bill that would ban all abortions to the desk of South Dakota's anti-choice governor who has said, "[a]bortion...should always be illegal."

In the words of the ban's sponsor, "'I'm convinced that the timing is right for this,' noting the appointments of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the [Supreme] court." (New York Times, 2/22/06). Click here to help us fight politicians who won't respect a woman's right to choose.

Make no mistake: this ban is a direct attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. And, as I know you are aware, it is only the beginning. I am asking you today for your help. Please make an emergency gift to save our rights, our freedoms, our right to choose.

The good news today is that a generous donor has made a $100,000 challenge grant to match your donation right now. So this is your chance to double the impact of your gift. Please, give generously.

My quote in today's Washington Post said it all, "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...We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans."

Those who want to take away women's privacy and freedom wasted no time in putting the wheels in motion on plans that will ultimately lead to the dismantling or even overturning of Roe v. Wade. And to the women of South Dakota -- well, it already seems like Roe is overturned. This is a state where anti-choice activists have already made it nearly impossible to access reproductive-health care, let alone abortion services. If passed by the governor, the ban would outlaw abortion altogether without an adequate exception to protect women's lives and with no exception for women whose health is in danger or are pregnant due to rape or incest!

And this anti-choice victory means anti-choice forces will move on to other states to deny the rights of women across America.

If there was ever a moment that should galvanize pro-choice Americans, this is it. It's time to elect pro-choice candidates who will respect women's health and women's right to choose. I hope that I can count on you to stand with the women of South Dakota, and to stand with NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Help us take our work to defend a woman's right to choose twice as far. Please, click here to make your emergency contribution today -- our generous donor will make your gift go twice as far, when it's needed most. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America
Click to expand...
 
{Edit} -- Looks like Andy deleted his question before I got a chance to finish my answer! That's OK -- I'll let it stay, anyway.

The usual answer is that it isn't a baby until it's born. Before birth, it's stil a part of the Mother's body. The whole question revolves around the question of when life begins -- at conception or at birth? Generally, it's held that the "soul" enters the child's body at the moment of the first breath. If it isn't a person before that, then it isn't murder.

My own opinion is somewhere to the right of that. I believe, like most moderates, that abortion should be rare and a matter of last resort. I'm uncomfortable with "convenient" abortions. I think they are often carried out with little depth of thought.

However, I also believe that it is up to the individual woman to decide this issue for herself, and that no law should be made either way affecting her right to make that decision.
 
OkeeDon said:
... Generally, it's held that the "soul" enters the child's body at the moment of the first breath. ...
Click to expand...

Huh? "Generally" must mean among the liberal crowd. I'm not a radical anti-abortionist, but this statement made me wonder. What does "generally" mean, please. Generally about 40% of the population is completely anti-abortion, 40% is pro-abortion and 20% has their head in their ass so far they don't know what an abortion is.

I think there is a comprimise available (1st trimester). After that the technology nearly exists that the "fetus" could live outside the mother's body. Possible independant life, that would be the cut-off in my book.

Just my humble opinion.
 
OkeeDon said:
The usual answer is that it isn't a baby until it's born. Before birth, it's stil a part of the Mother's body.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily part of the Mother's body... it's a human life growing inside its mother's womb. That's two beating hearts... two lives, one with NO say in the "choice".


OkeeDon said:
My own opinion is somewhere to the right of that. I believe, like most moderates, that abortion should be rare and a matter of last resort.
Click to expand...

If they should be a matter of last resort, then abortion should be illegal, except “to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the mother or baby.


OkeeDon said:
I'm uncomfortable with "convenient" abortions. I think they are often carried out with little depth of thought.
Click to expand...

Abortions for the matter of convenience of the mother should be, without a doubt, illegal. There are literally more willing adoptive parents than there are mothers seeking "convenience" abortions. My wife and I have repeatedly offered to adopt, and the women have still gone through with the abortion. Why? Is it better to end the life of that baby than for it to grow up with loving adopted parents? I don't understand how anyone can see pictures of the beating heart and even think there is a choice in whether it continues beating.


OkeeDon said:
However, I also believe that it is up to the individual woman to decide this issue for herself, and that no law should be made either way affecting her right to make that decision.
Click to expand...

Again, if it's only for the mother's convenience, there should be no choice in the matter. In this county alone, the waiting list to adopt a newborn through Children Services is over ten years.
There are other options... life over the inconvenience of an unexprected pregnancy is a great CHOICE too!



P.S. When did it become acceptable start threads by cutting and pasting weekly emails from "pro-choice" groups into the debate and discussion forum? I guess this sets the precedent and I can begin posting articles from WorldNetDaily and Faith2Action. :whistle:
 
Last edited:
AndyM said:
P.S. When did it become acceptable to cut and paste weekly emails from "pro-choice" groups into the debate and discussion forum? I guess this sets the precedent and I can begin posting articles from WorldNetDaily and Faith2Action. :whistle:
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're referencing, but if it was something in my post, be advised that every word came directly from my personal thoughts and I don't even know where to find a "pro-choice" group. I resent the implication.
 
OkeeDon said:
Not sure what you're referencing, but if it was something in my post, be advised that every word came directly from my personal thoughts and I don't even know where to find a "pro-choice" group. I resent the implication.
Click to expand...

Nothing from your post Don...
This was the second thread started by Junkman with only the text of a email cut and pasted from NARAL Pro-Choice America. I have nothing against Junkman, but I don't agree with pasting an entire email into a post without any commentary or opinion, either for OR against what he posted. This thread is called "debate and discussion" after all.



I thought your post was very well thought out and reflected your views well with sensitivity towards my views also.
I'm sorry you mistook what I said was referring to your post.
Now you see why I don't get involved in the Debate and Discussion threads-- I have lots of opinions, but obviously can't express them well. :o
 
Last edited:
Finally!!!!

Now to those who think it is ok to kill a baby in the womb, be glad your mom did not think like you.

Sorry abortion is not an option.

Adoption is the way "out" for a birth parent............and no you can not come back in 10 years wanting to be a part of this life you left.
 
ddrane2115 said:
Sorry abortion is not an option.

Adoption is the way "out" for a birth parent............and no you can not come back in 10 years wanting to be a part of this life you left.
Click to expand...


Read an article the other day, can't say even where I read it, however it was talking about the lives of the mothers after abortion. 83% of the mothers that have an abortion are sorry they did it after the fact. I personally am against abortion at any stage. I even know of people that were told by doctors that there will be complications with their pregnancy and because of their faith and belief they still had the child. For the mothers that made a mistake and know they can't handle a child, adoption is there and I commend them for going through with the adoption. Abortion just isn't right.

murph
 
I do not favor or recommend abortion. I've never been pregnant. To the best of my knowledge I've never fathered a child that was aborted. If a woman wants to get rid of a fetus she will do it whether abortion is legal or not. The availability of decent medical care shouldn't be denied her if she elects not to carry the baby to term, in my opinion. This is a moral question that we should not attempt to answer for others by our governmental laws, but leave to those who have to answer to their maker in the end.
 
AndyM said:
................P.S. When did it become acceptable start threads by cutting and pasting weekly emails from "pro-choice" groups into the debate and discussion forum? I guess this sets the precedent and I can begin posting articles from WorldNetDaily and Faith2Action. :whistle:
Click to expand...

I know the rules of the forums and there is nothing stopping you from do what I have done. I don't do it often, but only when it is a thought provocing event.

AndyM said:
................Again, if it's only for the mother's convenience, there should be no choice in the matter. In this county alone, the waiting list to adopt a newborn through Children Services is over ten years.
There are other options... life over the inconvenience of an unexprected pregnancy is a great CHOICE too!
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the choice of adoption over abortion, however, it appears from National statistics, that there are a lot of African American (Black) and Hispanic children that are waiting for adoption, but there are not enough people willing to adopt these children. Seems that the demand is for "white" babies for the most part. Problem is that the greatest amount of abortions occur in the white population and the greatest amount of unwanted pregnancies that go full term are in the black and Hispanic populations. Every year, the amount of teenage pregnancies continues to increase and so does the women bearing these children staying a single parent. The fathers are not held accountable to support the child or mother, and the burden falls to Social Services to support them. The population of people that are on financial assistance programs continues to rise every year, and this is a drain on the entire Social Assistance system. If abortions are outlawed and there are not enough people that are willing to take these unwanted children, then what is to become of them?
My last question is........ Is it the right of government to "force" a religious or moral determination on someone that doesn't share in this belief? Shouldn't we as free citizens of the USA have the right to believe in whatever religion, or for that matter, no religion at all. Shouldn't we be allowed to make our own moral decisions, as long as they don't effect the rest of society as we know it. Who is to decide when a life begins?????? Science or religion??? Some religions feel that abortion is wrong..... other religions don't take the same stand and have no moral or religious prohibitions against it. The only reason that the US leads the world in infant mortality, is because every abortion in the US is figured into those statistics. In India, abortion is routine if the ultrasound determines that the child is a female, since they believe that only males are worthwhile. We, as a Nation, offer aid and assistance to India. Should we withhold this aid and assistance from them because they are one of the worlds largest abortion providers????? Should we offer aid and assistance to countries that have policies that are different than that of ours??? All this figures into the "double standard" that we as a nation subscribe to..... Junk.....
 
Junkman said:
I know the rules of the forums and there is nothing stopping you from do what I have done. I don't do it often, but only when it is a thought provocing event.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with it, but it just would have been nice to have some personal dialog along with the cut and paste.



Junkman said:
I agree with you on the choice of adoption over abortion, however, it appears from National statistics, that there are a lot of African American (Black) and Hispanic children that are waiting for adoption, but there are not enough people willing to adopt these children.
Click to expand...

Statistics can say anything. Not once when we have received a phone call about the possible adoption of a newborn have we asked what color was the skin of the baby. Knowing many others in the same situation, I can say the same about them too.



Junkman said:
My last question is........ Is it the right of government to "force" a religious or moral determination on someone that doesn't share in this belief?
Click to expand...

If abortion is a "moral determination" that should be a choice of the mother, than isn't murder of adults also a "moral determination"? If someone doesn't think it's morally wrong, should they be permitted to do it? "Thou shalt not kill" is also a religious determination... Should we legalize murdering adults because it's mentioned that it's wrong in the Bible?


Junkman said:
Shouldn't we be allowed to make our own moral decisions, as long as they don't effect the rest of society as we know it.
Click to expand...

It's ok to make moral desicions so long as they don't affect the rest of society? So if I went out and started kidnapping homeless people, it would be permissible, because nobody would miss them?

I'm glad I put more value on life than whether an indiviual's life might affect society as a whole... And I'm glad your parents made the right choice and you were born. Peace!
 
Junkman said:
My last question is........ Is it the right of government to "force" a religious or moral determination on someone that doesn't share in this belief? Shouldn't we as free citizens of the USA have the right to believe in whatever religion, or for that matter, no religion at all. .... Junk.....
Click to expand...
Legally, we are a Republic and each State has the right to have its own set of laws, those laws cannot reach beyone Federal law, but as the framework for the US has States granting rights to the Federal government, it seems that North Dakota can do this and there is no need to bring religion into the issue as it can be construed to be a legal choice made by the legislature of N.D. Most people, even non-religious people, find the proceedure of abortion to be repugnant.

As to Don's point about "GENERALLY" the soul is believed to enter the body at the first breath, I think that there are as many people who would disagree with that as there are who would agree with it.

As to the issue of adoption, most of the unadopted children are actaully unadoptable children in terms of society. Adoptable children are generally under the age of 2 and in good health. I think that if you look into the issue you will find many adolescents and teen-agers who are looking for adoptive parents, many of those children may never be adopted. They became orphans numerous ways, often due to the death of their parents but often due to the courts taking custody rights away. There is generally, as Andy pointed out, a very long list of people who will take an infant, and they will adopt one of any color, race or nationality.
 
Now to those who think it is ok to kill a baby in the womb, be glad your mom did not think like you.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if she had of I would have known about it. How can a baby be killed if it doesnt know its alive?

Do we have any predictions for the increase of unwanted babys up for adoption in South Dakota?
 
Mith said:
Yes, but if she had of I would have known about it. How can a baby be killed if it doesnt know its alive?
Click to expand...

That is a heck of an interesting question. But let me post a couple back to you.
  1. Are you sure it does not know it is alive because at some point, fairly early in the pregnancy, I believe doctors can detect brain waves in a fetus. Further, a fetus will react to simuli so does that mean it has some level of brain activity? Would that not equal some level of consciousness?
  2. Secondly, and I pose this only as a hypothetical question, but let us presume that there is no heaven or hell, no afterlife, etc. If I killed you, or you killed me, how would we know we were ever alive after we were killed? And if we couldn't know we were alive, then what difference would it make if we killed each other because it would not be wrong to do so because the foundations of morality are based on some form of greater being (Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Hindu-Buddist).
Just throwing the questions out there, not trying to level any judgements.
 
Sorry, I cant answer that without scaring myself and probably you, it keeps making me come across as a deranged killer which I am not.

With that I will say this, as far as we know the only thing bad about dieing is the fear of it, for all we know what comes next might be better. Even if nothing happens we wouldnt know about it, so how can it be bad. If the baby has no fear, it wouldnt know what death was, it wouldnt know what was going on, it may just be like falling asleep, you wouldnt think it any different.
 
When did God decide we are a person? Before you are even born he knows who we are. Here is what he told Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5 ......Here it is in different translations.

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (WEB)

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. (ASV)

Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy; I have given you the work of being a prophet to the nations. (BBE)

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I hallowed thee, I appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. (DBY)

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Before I formed thee in embryo I knew thee; and before thou wast born I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations. (WBS)

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. (JPS)

Before I form thee in the belly, I have known thee; and before thou comest forth from the womb I have separated thee, a prophet to nations I have made thee.' (YLT)

Abortion is murder plain and simple.....
 
Durwood said:
When did God decide we are a person? Before you are even born he knows who we are. Here is what he told Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5 ......Here it is in different translations.

.......................

Abortion is murder plain and simple.....
Click to expand...

That is if you believe in G-d and if you believe in the scriptures. There are those that believe in G-d, and also believe in the scriptures, but don't subscribe to all that is said. This is a uniquely individual decision that one must make on their own behalf. Remember Madeline Murray O'Hare???? It was her beliefs that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices sided with that successfully managed to eliminate the use of Bible reading from public schools. Not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs and our laws allow for this freedom of religion and freedom from religion. A prime example of this is the Catholic Church doesn't believe in artificial birth control, however, there are lots of practicing Catholics that also practice birth control despite the Churches prohibition.
 
Junkman said:
That is if you believe in G-d and if you believe in the scriptures. There are those that believe in G-d, and also believe in the scriptures, but don't subscribe to all that is said.
Click to expand...

Yep, you are right Junkman...but whether you believe in God or not doesn't change the fact that he is.

Dur
 
Durwood said:
Yep, you are right Junkman...but whether you believe in God or not doesn't change the fact that he is.

Dur
Click to expand...

or that could be said...........

but whether you believe in G-d or not doesn't change the fact that she is.

The one thing that I have learned a long time ago, is that you can't argue religion, and you can't change a persons religious convictions. It is like antisemitism. Some of the very people that practice antisemitism also can't accept the fact that Jesus was a Jew and also generally considered to be a Rabbi by many historians.
 
Junkman said:
or that could be said...........

but whether you believe in G-d or not doesn't change the fact that she is.

The one thing that I have learned a long time ago, is that you can't argue religion, and you can't change a persons religious convictions.
Click to expand...

I humbly dissagree with everything you just said Junkman. I have seen it happen. And to call God a she? Hummm, Jesus said that by seeing me you have seen the father. Jesus was a he was he not?

Dur
 
Remember Madeline Murray O'Hare???? It was her beliefs that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices sided with that successfully managed to eliminate the use of Bible reading from public schools.>>>>

Yeah, Ms. O'hare believes in God now, she has seen Him.
 
I won't argue religion. But, in this nation, under our constitution, it doesn't matter what you or I believe about religion. Unless it can be proven in a court of law, what you say or I say about God and scriptures does not matter.

The simple fact is that the Constition says that no law can be made regarding religion. That's easy; "no law" means "no law". The statements that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder are based in religious belief and cannot be established in a court of law. Therefore, there can be no law making abortion illegal. It's really that simple, and the Supreme Court has agreed more than once.
 
OkeeDon said:
I won't argue religion. But, in this nation, under our constitution, it doesn't matter what you or I believe about religion. Unless it can be proven in a court of law, what you say or I say about God and scriptures does not matter.

The simple fact is that the Constition says that no law can be made regarding religion. That's easy; "no law" means "no law". The statements that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder are based in religious belief and cannot be established in a court of law. Therefore, there can be no law making abortion illegal. It's really that simple, and the Supreme Court has agreed more than once.
Click to expand...

Don, I'm not going to argue religion either. But you are wrong in your logic. If people within a state support a position that is not within their liking, then they are allowed to change the law. It does not have to be religiously based. Therefore, unless the courts find that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, which they have not 'absolutely' done yet, then it is within the rights of an individual state to pass a law that forbids it. It does not have to have anything to do with religion, it is based on the issue of 'states rights' and how our nation is set up as a legal entity where states grant certain limited authority to the federal government.

I'm not taking a position on either side in this arguement, just playing a bit of devils advocate so far. But legally, the decision is not final. Under current law, and until the federal courts gets involved, the states do in fact have the right to ban abortion if they choose to. And states have had the right to limit abortions upheld in federal cases so it will certainly end up as a major court battle.
 
Ok Don, you say abortion is a religious belief, then murder in itself must be a religious belief. So why are there laws outlawing murder? Surely since it is one of Gods commandments then it could be considered a religious belief ,could it not? As Bob already pointed out it is a hollow arguement you are making.

Dur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top