• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

SD starts up the abortion debate

Jinglebob

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
This law seems to be nothing more than political posturing in hopes of testing out the new Supreme Court.



Violation of the abortion ban is a Class 5 felony. Maximum of 5 years/$5000. Not exactly a murder charge.
And it only applies to the doc. Mom can't be charged.
Again, that's not really a murder charge. In other words, it's fine if she goes to another state. Which, in light of the fact that SD only has one clinic, the last I knew, a lot of women probably do anyway.

A Class 5 in SD also applies to perjury, prostitution, forgery, distributing over an ounce of marijuana, and threatening a juror.
Theft of a firearm and theft of over $1000, rioting and vandalizing property worth over $1000 and tampering with a witness are all Class IV felonies.

Even with this law, it seems that people still don't think the fetus is deserving of the same rights as an infant that has been born. Right? :???:

Your posts like this, are what made me think you were in favor of abortion.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Because I can see both sides of the issue? :???:
I don't favor abortion. I've never considered one. I've never known anyone who has. (or maybe I have and she just didn't tell me, knowing my opinion...)



But that doesn't suddenly limit my ability to see flaws. And i think this "law" is really nothing more than just testing the waters in the new Supreme Court.
Were it real, stealing a gun or rioting would not be considered more serious crimes than abortion.
confused-smiley-013.gif
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
Because I can see both sides of the issue? :???:
I don't favor abortion. I've never considered one. I've never known anyone who has. (or maybe I have and she just didn't tell me, knowing my opinion...)



But that doesn't suddenly limit my ability to see flaws. And i think this "law" is really nothing more than just testing the waters in the new Supreme Court.
Were it real, stealing a gun would not be considered a more serious crime than abortion.
confused-smiley-013.gif

We have funny laws like that now.

A few years ago, two young men were convicted of vehiculare(sp) homicide, in the death of a man, who happened to be of native american descent. They were sentenced to 3.5 years.

A few years later, one of these men's fathers was convicted of stealing cattle. He was sentenced to 9 years.

Does that make sense?

I can see both sides also, in the abortion debate. But I still think it's wrong to kill a baby. And yes, it is a baby, whether born or unborn.

When we preg test in the fall and the vet finds a fetus, he doesn't say, "Well theres a fetus in there but it ain't a calf yet." He says "She's bred". Meaning there is a live viable baby calf inside the cow. Without any complications, she will give birth to a live baby calf. If you reach in and break the neck of that calf fetus, she will abort and you have killed a calf, even tho' it hasn't been born yet.

If Dis insists that they are just a mass of cells, I could say that, that is all any of us are. A mass of cells. So when you cause a female to abort that mass of cells, you've killed a baby. Even if it is just a mass of cells. As any of us are.

Dis and all pro abortion people, are just are too cowardly to admit that they want to have the right to kill anyone who is a problem to them. When they allow that for people after they are born, then I'll go along with it, before they are born. And all of those who cause me a problem will be treated the same. Dis and people like her/him/it, cause me a problem.

See how it works?

You can defend yourself, that tiny mass of cells can't.

So I feel it is my duty to protect him/ her. Dis seem to feel it is her/him/it's duty to defend people who want to kill unborn babies. YOU want to straddle the fence, or so it seems.

No matter what terrible thing has happened to anyone, I can't see as killing a baby is in any way, ever going to make that problem better.

If a woman or girl gets raped or impregnated through incest, it is terrible. But why kill a baby and think it will make the problem go away or make it any better? Terrible things happen to people every day. We have to learn to accept that it happened and make the best of it. Callous, crude or realistic?

I do think it is possible to have a rape victim given a "morning after pill" and as I understand it this is still possible with the passage of this new law, in SD. If a girl is the victim of incest, I don't know what we can do, unless she would go to a health care worker as soon as it happens, and from what I've heard, the child is sworn to secrecy by the purpetrater(sp), so she will be 2 to 3 months pregnant by the time anyone will know that she is pregnant. And I've heard of few, if any, who believe in abortion, by that point.

So no matter how you argue it, I can never see abortion as solving any problems, just creating more.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
If a woman or girl gets raped or impregnated through incest, it is terrible. But why kill a baby and think it will make the problem go away or make it any better? Terrible things happen to people every day. We have to learn to accept that it happened and make the best of it. Callous, crude or realistic?

The real irony to all of this, is that the same liberal thought process that wants to kill the problem baby, is against capital punishment of the perpetrator of the crime. :???: :???: :shock:
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Very impressive responce Jinglebob,I totally second everything you say.I also get annoyed when because we don't agree with what some on the board say WE are the ones that are narrow minded,your post proved that is the opposite of that is true!
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Thank you all, but the problem is, I don't think Dis will even get a hint of what I'm saying. :???:

I'm all for woman having the right to their own body, but when they get pregnant, it ain't just their body.

Kind'a like free speech. I'm all for that, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowed theater with out some reprecussions also.

With freedom comes responsibility.
 

Tap

Well-known member
The liberals love taxpayers. Just think of all the taxpayers that have been aborted over the years.

Sorry, that was kind of sick, but not even close to the taking of a life in the womb.

There have been some damn idiotic letters to the editor in the RC Journal over this issue.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
YOU want to straddle the fence, or so it seems.

I haven't straddled the fence in the slightest.
I know exactly where I stand on the issue. I've even told you several times now. Perhaps the problem is yours that you're not comprehending? :???: Or maybe since I've been labeled a liberal, you're trying to stuff me into a stereotype and it's not working.

But I do think a "law" that places an abortion lower than vandalism isn't really trying to accomplish anything but to make people dig in their heels more.
Abortions used to be illegal. Yet they still occurred. The law didn't really do much of anything to 'protect' people.

What *is* doing something is education. That's the only reason the abortion rate has been steadily dropping for the past 25 years.
The law, or the lack of one, had no influence on that whatsoever.
 

CattleRMe

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Jinglebob said:
If a woman or girl gets raped or impregnated through incest, it is terrible. But why kill a baby and think it will make the problem go away or make it any better? Terrible things happen to people every day. We have to learn to accept that it happened and make the best of it. Callous, crude or realistic?

The real irony to all of this, is that the same liberal thought process that wants to kill the problem baby, is against capital punishment of the perpetrator of the crime. :???: :???: :shock:

Not me I'm all for capital punishment. Especially in the cases of child molesters. It makes me wonder why society thinks it is acceptable to release a convicted child molester back out into society that they rate at high level to molest again?

Jinglebob my question from your statement is this.......don't you think mentally that would be a huge stress for the victim to have to carry the baby to not have the choice? What if she saw the child she was carrying as a product of a monster? What if she hated it because of how it was conceived? Just questions I guess I think of.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
CattleRMe said:
[

Jinglebob my question from your statement is this.......don't you think mentally that would be a huge stress for the victim to have to carry the baby to not have the choice? What if she saw the child she was carrying as a product of a monster? What if she hated it because of how it was conceived? Just questions I guess I think of.

I think once you've been raped, you are going to have mental problems with it, no matter what. Killing a child, would only intensify the problems. Besides, as I've stated before, When a rape victim goes to the authorities, they will get counseling and either a "morning after pill", or something similar, to make sure they don't get pregnant. That should stop any chance of them having to carry a child caused by the rape.

In the matter of incest, unless they would go to the proper authorities quickly enough, they would have to carry a child to term, and the worst problem of that would be, if they are underage, they would have to rely on their mother or someone else, (if they were having incestous relations with their father) as to what to do with the baby. In that case, I would think the damage would already be done to the victim and by killing their child, you would only intensify their problems. It would seem abortion would be the quick and easy answer, but what about long term?

Killing a baby just never seems to make sense to me.

We as a society need to train ourselves to place babies born to these types of situations, into the arms of loving adoptive parents. That is the only sensible recourse, IMHO.
 

CattleRMe

Well-known member
Jinglebob When a rape victim goes to the authorities said:
I think your idea of us as a society providing the education and resourses to place these unwanted babies into adoptive homes is excellent. I also think we as a society need to stand behind it's ok to give a baby away in fact to me it's honorable when someone wants a better life for their child then they can give.

Some rural areas such as this one does not have the option of a morning after pill on demand for rape victims. A D&C is classifies asa surgical procedure and I'm not sure the legalities of when one can be done.

Ok so let's say they incest victim has to carry the child to term. What happens when something is wrong with it do to well i guess the term is inbreeding?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
CattleRMe said:
Some rural areas such as this one does not have the option of a morning after pill on demand for rape victims. A D&C is classifies asa surgical procedure and I'm not sure the legalities of when one can be done.

I THINK THAT A VICTIM OF A CRIME IS PAID FOR BY THE COUNTY OR STATE. MY WIFE SAY'S SHE IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, THAT THE VICTIM IS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL OR AT LEAST ADMINISTERED TO BY A DOCTOR, USING WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE, TO STOP ANY PREGNANCY FROM HAPPENING. I WOULD ASSUME IF THE VICTIM DIDN'T WANT THIS DONE FOR RELIGOUS REASONS OR WHATEVER, THEY COULD DENY THIS TREATMENT.

Ok so let's say they incest victim has to carry the child to term. What happens when something is wrong with it do to well i guess the term is inbreeding?

AS FAR AS INBREEDING, I DON'T THINK IT'S AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM AS PEOPLE THINK. THE ROYAL FAMILIES OF EUROPE HAVE BEEN INBREEDING FOR YEARS. OF COURSE, I DON'T THINK YOU COULD MAKE A CASE FOR IT BASED ON THAT!
:wink:
 

Latest posts

Top