South Dakota Law Goes Into Effect: Women Must be Told They Are "Terminating the Life of a

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh. I see. From your posts I gather you’re a pro-abortion atheist. Enough said.
 
I wonder if there will be an increase in the profits of back alley abortionists as a result of this new law?

A fair question.
 
onetimeposter said:
I wonder if there will be an increase in the profits of back alley abortionists as a result of this new law?

A fair question.
Click to expand...
Since that was never really much of an industry to begin with, and the pre-1973 figures were grossly exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, I suspect there will be no change.
 
rpp said:
Since that was never really much of an industry to begin with, and the pre-1973 figures were grossly exaggerated by several orders of magnitude, I suspect there will be no change.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that given the wonders of the Internet, one can easily get access to recipes for herbs that are abortifacients, which would “cut out the middle man”, so to speak.
 
Feedmysheep said:
Not to mention that given the wonders of the Internet, one can easily get access to recipes for herbs that are abortifacients, which would “cut out the middle man”, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Plus the stigma of unwed motherhood is unimaginable now, we know a lot more about the amazing lives of the unborn, and child care and flexible work-study arrangements are there for single mothers.
 
vz71 said:
As long as abortion is legal, there are no back alley abortionists.
Click to expand...
There were darn few when it was illegal. A lot fewer than what the baby murderers claimed. Why should we believe a murderer anyway? That is also a fair question.
 
stbruno said:
newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/23/sd-abortion-provider-closes-doors-instead-obeying-laws-old-media

SD passed a law that all abortion providers must include a statement that the procedure kills a life. However, this Planned Parenthood site closed their doors rather than comply. Interesting how this worked out. Congrats SD for saving lives!
Click to expand...
WOO HOO!! :extrahappy:
“The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier,” said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as “unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman’s life.”
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a barrier to convincing the woman to terminate her child, for sure, since most thinking people don’t like the idea of killing their own children. But I happen to think that it’s a vast improvement in doctor-patient communication, because the woman finally gets to hear what is actually going to happen to her with this procedure. 👍
 
onetimeposter said:
I wonder if there will be an increase in the profits of back alley abortionists as a result of this new law?

A fair question.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. That was never a profitable business, to begin with.

Girls with money go to “visit Aunt Sarah,” have their babies in private, adopt them out, and then come home again to resume their lives where they left off, with no one ever knowing they were pregnant.
 
40.png
Feedmysheep:
Ummm…could you elaborate, please? I’m having a difficult time gleaning any meaning from your post.

Thanks
Click to expand...
The United States, politically speaking, is not a Christian nation. I tend to frown at examples of politicians using their power to promote their religious ideals.
 
Shredderbeam said:
The United States, politically speaking, is not a Christian nation. I tend to frown at examples of politicians using their power to promote their religious ideals.
Click to expand...
The problem of abortion is not a “religious” problem. It is a problem of the life and death of the next generation of citizens. If 90% of the human race arrives unexpectedly, and if we kill every child who arrives unexpectedly, we will soon become extinct. Even Darwin would consider that a “catastrophic failure.”

You don’t have to be religious to realize that it takes getting pregnant and giving birth, to get a new generation.
 
40.png
jmcrae:
The problem of abortion is not a “religious” problem. It is a problem of the life and death of the next generation of citizens. If 90% of the human race arrives unexpectedly, and if we kill every child who arrives unexpectedly, we will soon become extinct. Even Darwin would consider that a “catastrophic failure.”

You don’t have to be religious to realize that it takes getting pregnant and giving birth, to get a new generation.
Click to expand...
If a woman wishes to force her own body to stop the flow of nutrients to the fetus inside her, it’s her call. You cannot really interfere on the basis of “global interest” (as opposed to national interest), as ultimately, the decision rests in the hands of the parents.
 
40.png
Feedmysheep:
Ahhhh…gotcha. Only Christianity concerns itself with protecting life.
Click to expand...
I’d be willing to bet that these politicians are religiously motivated.

And rpp, laws are usually based upon what is perceived to be the best interests of the people. They are not automatically the moral standard.
 
I want to move to South Dakota! Anyone know of a good parish?

Peace,

Gail
 
Shredderbeam said:
I’d be willing to bet that these politicians are religiously motivated.
Click to expand...
Well, last time I checked, the people got to elect those there politicians, so if they (the people) expected them (the politicians) to check their morals (religiously based or no) at the door, then yikes! they went and elected the wrong darn people!

And I’m no political guru, but I don’t remember anything about a politician having to divorce himself from his morals, no matter what their foundation is, once he takes office.

So you call it “religiously motivated”, I call it “adhering to one’s moral code”- toMAYto, toMAHto.
 
40.png
Feedmysheep:
Well, last time I checked, the people got to elect those there politicians, so if they (the people) expected them (the politicians) to check their morals (religiously based or no) at the door, then yikes! they went and elected the wrong darn people!
Click to expand...
Tyranny of the majority, then.
40.png
Feedmysheep:
And I’m no political guru, but I don’t remember anything about a politician having to divorce himself from his morals, no matter what their foundation is, once he takes office.

So you call it “religiously motivated”, I call it “adhering to one’s moral code”- toMAYto, toMAHto.
Click to expand...
A politician is to uphold the law of the land. Here in the United States, that law is secular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top