• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

Pah

Pah

Uber all member
kevmicsmi said:
I dont support the bill, I support Roe V Wade being overturned though. Two different issues
Click to expand...
Not in my mind and not in the mind of politicians in South Dakota. You statement must have a nuance that escapes me - or is it just smoke and mirrors?
MyInbox said:
The following 11 states are all considering abortion bans:
Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri,
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West
Virginia.

Ohio is even proposing a ban that would also make it a crime for
anyone to accompany a woman to another state to receive abortion
care.
Click to expand...
What is done IS copy the words that worked. We have seen it often in the Destructive Marriage Bills denying rights to all those not married including the ones "forbidden to marry".

But in all this fervor, the woman escapes criminal liability. The fetus is still of "pocket money" value to most Americans. I think the politicians are cowardly by avoiding courting certain defeat of the issue. They compromise law and they compromise Christian faith to do so.
 
dawny0826

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Draka said:
The thing is Dawny, that by outlawing the whole thing you take it as blind faith that the "statistics of the majority" are what is only going to be affected. It does not take into account the ones that really need it. There are many different circumstances that may indeed WARRANT an abortion, but by not seeing that it condemns those people unfairly because of the acts of others. It's like group A ruining things for group B...see what I mean? There are always ones that are in strange circumstances where they may see that they have no other choice. I once had a friend that got pregnant, in her marriage and had one girl already, and her husband was so adamant about only having the one child that he took hold of her daughter and threatened to leave with her and do "things" to her if she didn't have an abortion. My friend was so frightened for the life and well being of the child she already had that she did have the abortion...even though she didn't want to. Were there other courses of action that she could have taken? Maybe, but that was the only thing she felt she could do at the time due to his threats. My point is that you never know what goes on behind closed doors or in the lives of everyone that might even contemplate abortion. By making it illegal you leave the ones that may need it, for reasons you don't understand, out in the alleys looking for some other means of having it done...like it use to be. Why punish all for the acts of some?

And abstinence isn't such a terrible concept. As I said, I was abstinent for over 3 and 1/2 years. The thing is, things happen beyond our control. Who is anyone to judge what other people can and cannot handle? Just because you or I may be able to handle an unexpected pregancy in different situations doesn't mean every woman is capable of doing that in their situations.

Understand that I am pro-choice...not pro-abortion. There is a difference. I just think that by taking away the CHOICE you take away a woman's dignity to know what is and isn't right for her and her situation. As if she isn't smart enough to know what is best in her own life. I don't think I would ever be capable of having an abortion...but I certainly don't judge the act of which...some may find it their only viable recourse. Who am I to deny them that just because I wouldn't do it myself?
Click to expand...

Even based upon the scenarios that you've provided, I see no justification for abortion. I do understand the point that you're making.

I can't embrace the pro-choice mindset because to do so would be to completely sell myself out. Spiritually speaking...religiously speaking...morally speaking...abortion is just so wrong to me.

I fully acknowledge that not everyone shares my beliefs and views. I expect that they will support their own causes and speak out for what they consider to be right...just as I am and do.
 
kevmicsmi

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
Pah said:
Not in my mind and not in the mind of politicians in South Dakota. You statement must have a nuance that escapes me - or is it just smoke and mirrors? What is done IS copy the words that worked. We have seen it often in the Destructive Marriage Bills denying rights to all those not married including the ones "forbidden to marry".

Click to expand...

Why would it be smoke and mirrors? Do I have to support this bill, to be against the courts decision of Roe v Wade? Absolutely not. One is legislative, one is judicial.....and if you dont see a HUGE difference, then I hope you never become a judge.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It is obvious to me that South Dakota's new law is a humane way to treat victims of rape and incest. Victims of rape and incest need something to distract them from the horror they've been through. And what is more distracting than a new baby? I am dismayed that so far only the male legistlators of South Dakota have had the empathy and compassion to think about this special need of victims of rape and incest to be distracted from their pain by having a baby. I can only hope that humanity they've displayed catches on with other male legistlators across the country.
 
D

DakotaGypsy

Active Member
Said with tongue in cheek I trust, Sunstone?

Nothing quite so fun as having a rapist's baby. Or giving birth to your very own half brother or sister.
 
D

DakotaGypsy

Active Member
Hmm, how would the relationship of an incestuous child be described? It would be more than a half sibling.

And, if the incestuous relationship was with a sibling, would you birth your very own niece or nephew?
 
dawny0826

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Sunstone said:
It is obvious to me that South Dakota's new law is a humane way to treat victims of rape and incest. Victims of rape and incest need something to distract them from the horror they've been through. And what is more distracting than a new baby? I am dismayed that so far only the male legistlators of South Dakota have had the empathy and compassion to think about this special need of victims of rape and incest to be distracted from their pain by having a baby. I can only hope that humanity they've displayed catches on with other male legistlators across the country.
Click to expand...

I can't fathom the horror of rape or incest.

However, I don't see how these circumstances warrant aborting an innocent life, especially when the morning after pill is effective and can be made available to a female who has been raped. I believe it works successfully 75% of the time if taken within the first 24-48 hours of sex...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Regardless of the negative rep that adoption receives...it's still an available alternative.

Statistically speaking...special victims makes up a very small percentage of individuals who are receiving abortions within the US.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
MidnightBlue said:
Sorry, not buying it.
Click to expand...
You must spread some Karma around before giving it to $userinfo[username] again.

:149:
 
kevmicsmi

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue said:
Sorry, not buying it.
South Dakota politics are generally dominated by the Republican Party and the state has not supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, especially notable when one considers that George McGovern, the Democratic nominee in 1972, was from South Dakota. In 2004, George W. Bush won the state's 3 electoral votes by the overwhelming margin of 22 percentage points with 59.9% of the vote.

​
That's even better than Shrub did in South Carolina. (But based on 2004 election results, SD is still much better than Utah, the most ignorant state in the union, where 72% of the vote went to Shrub.)
Click to expand...
:biglaugh: :biglaugh: THEY ARE NOT SENSIBLE BECAUSE THEY VOTED AGAINST GEORGE MCGOVERN?????:biglaugh: :biglaugh: LET ME GUESS THAT DASTARDLY STATE VOTED AGAINST JIMMY CARTER TOO!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
When I heard that South Dakota did this, my initial thought was "don't they have to follow the Constitution in South Dakota? Who the hell do they think that they are?"

Honestly, I don't think that this law has a snowball's chance in Hades of making any kind of national change, unless of course people stop valuing things like freedom, justice, and democracy (which, IMHO, is a fundamentalist Christian value and not a Republican one, but that is debatable).
 
Pah

Pah

Uber all member
kevmicsmi said:
Why would it be smoke and mirrors? Do I have to support this bill, to be against the courts decision of Roe v Wade? Absolutely not. One is legislative, one is judicial.....and if you dont see a HUGE difference, then I hope you never become a judge.
Click to expand...
Yep - smoke and mirrors. You don't get a judical review until the bill becomes law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top