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.
Shredderbeam said:
Tyranny of the majority, then.
Click to expand...
Woo-hoo! C’mon benevolent dictatorship! Or perhaps a more genteel monarchy?
A politician is to uphold the law of the land. Here in the United States, that law is secular.
Click to expand...
No. Police officers are to uphold the law of the land. Here in the United States, a “politician” (and here I use the general term to apply to those in a lawmaking capacity, such as those who helped craft the SD consent law) helps to draft, debate, and pass law.

Didn’t you have high school civics?
 
jmcrae said:
And for many years, anti-abortion, for all of the obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
And many years from now will make abortion illegal, again for the obvious reasons.

While religion may be denied, the science will not be ignored long, and eventually the science will catch up with the church.

Of course, perhaps I am too optimistic.
 
Shredderbeam said:
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.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Don’t we have laws to protect people from murderers. How can you deny the most innocent and dependent their human right to live?
 
This just makes me mad! If there’s a law which states that aboriton is terminating a separate human life, then WHY DOES THE LAW ALLOW the termination of that separate human life?

edit- answering my own question, is it the Roe v. Wade decision? Federal ruling taking precedence over this state law?
 
If physicians must be concerned to tell women that an abortion is the termination of a human being,why are they doing abortions?
 
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...
Anyone can do anything they please. Isn’t that the way most relativists think? The morality of an adult killing their child is in direct proportion to killing their child, no matter how it is done. A fair answer.
 
rpp said:
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.
Click to expand...
The “back alley” dope dealer performing abortions out of the tool box is really just a myth perpetuated by the pro-abortion camp as a fear tactic.
 
vz71 said:
And many years from now will make abortion illegal, again for the obvious reasons.

While religion may be denied, the science will not be ignored long, and eventually the science will catch up with the church.

Of course, perhaps I am too optimistic.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note how modern science now undeniably recognizes the unique, individual humanity of the unborn from the moment of conception and that it is point that no longer even questionable. I wouldn’t say you are too optimistic. Its only a matter of time.
 
I guess pro-choice people see mothers having more rights than unborn babies. Furthermore, there is the business about the freedom to choose- not many westerners (read Americans and Europeans) like the option to choose taken from them.There’s also that thing about the separation of church and state- IMHO many westerners believe governments should not be religious- in other words religion should only be a segment of daily life, not coloring daily life. I may be totally wrong here since I’m neither pro-choice nor a westerner.

onmyknees, that’s exactly the point. Pro-choice people don’t see abortion as murder, but the exercise of the freedom to choose on the part of the mother.
 
mapleoak said:
Not ready to tro in da towel yet doh. You know, us Yoopers don’t give up dat easy.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a former Troll, I can say Eh! to that!

(and that’s “Troll” in the Michigan sense, not the online chat community sense 😉 )
 
Feedmysheep said:
Speaking as a former Troll, I can say Eh! to that!

(and that’s “Troll” in the Michigan sense, not the online chat community sense 😉 )
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread, but what is the “Michigan sense” of troll? 🤷
 
rpp said:
Not to derail the thread, but what is the “Michigan sense” of troll? 🤷
Click to expand...
I was from the lower penninsula, therefore, I lived “under” (as in south of) the bridge (connecting the upper and lower penninsulas).

Thus, a troll.

Ta-daaaa! Michigan humor!
 
Feedmysheep said:
I was from the lower penninsula, therefore, I lived “under” (as in south of) the bridge (connecting the upper and lower penninsulas).

Thus, a troll.

Ta-daaaa! Michigan humor!
Click to expand...
Ahh… What can a person say about Michigoshers? Michigoners. Michigiligans, Michi… What the heck to people from Michigan call themselves? 🤷
 
rpp said:
Ahh… What can a person say about Michigoshers? Michigoners. Michigiligans, Michi… What the heck to people from Michigan call themselves? 🤷
Click to expand...
I preferred “Michigander”, but that’s because I always thought the image of geese in down jackets was funny.

But your “Michigosher” might rank right up there.

I think “Michiganian” is the preferred term. But it’s been about 4 years since I’ve been up there, maybe they changed it in an attempt to stimulate the economy or something.
 
Feedmysheep said:
I preferred “Michigander”, but that’s because I always thought the image of geese in down jackets was funny.

But your “Michigosher” might rank right up there.

I think “Michiganian” is the preferred term. But it’s been about 4 years since I’ve been up there, maybe they changed it in an attempt to stimulate the economy or something.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Leave it to the politicians. :rotfl:

Ahem. Now back to the topic. Sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top