Worthy News: South Dakota House passes ban on abortion, challenging co

[George]

In a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the South Dakota House of Representatives easily passed a bill Feb. 9 that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/bpnews-net-...y-asp-ID-22627/

[O'Dannyboy]

Opponents of the bill tried unsuccessfully Feb. 9 to add an amendment making an exception for rape and incest.

This really should have made it. Its a shame how single minded some people can be.

If the bill becomes law and is overturned by the Supreme Court, these pro-lifers say, then the high court's legal precedent for Roe will have been strengthened.

Yes, it would and any further failures would only serve to prevent what they hoped to change in the first place.

I guess I understand where they are going with this. They are simply "getting the ball rolling" in the hopes that this next Justice to retire, in October, will also be replaced by a Pro-life Judge. We can only hope this is the case and that we will see some serious rewriting of the nations abortion laws.

[apothanein kerdos]

This really should have made it. Its a shame how single minded some people can be.

Why? Why should a babe die because of someone's sin?

[Scarletprayers]

This really should have made it. Its a shame how single minded some people can be.

Why? Why should a babe die because of someone's sin?

Amen!

[O'Dannyboy]

Why? Why should a babe die because of someone's sin?

Incest is definately not a justifiable reason but rape in any form is definately a situation where I believe the woman should have a say. I assumed in this instance, incest was refering to rape by a childs father since they put rape first. I would agree that the wording of the line they wished to add was perhaps too vague in the diferentiation of the two "reasons for exception". A child resulting from the mutually consenting intercourse of a male and female should never be considered for adoption unless that pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or where severe deformation would reduce quality of life to nothing more than daily suffering. Understandably this would be tough to determine at an early stage but perhaps as medical knowlege improves some levels of genetic testing will identify certain defects early.

[apothanein kerdos]

So if someone rapes another person, and that woman concieves....the punishment for that baby is death? So....between two conscenting adults the baby is a baby with life....but in the case of rape, the baby is no longer life? Why the double standard? Why should the mother be allowed to kill life because of what happened?

[O'Dannyboy]

Yes, I agree. The baby is alive at conception, but there has to be a middle ground, a comprimise. We need to look at both sides. What if the woman was raped and carried the child full term only to be at risk of dying herself. What then? Should she be forced to die for a child that was forced upon her? Yes, I would be happy if not one child had to be aborted. I can tell you this, if you outlawed all abortion on the planet, it would still occur. So, would you choose to regulate those abortions that did occur, or would you prefer that these desparate women use a coat hanger, or worse, abandon the baby in a dumpster? Thats the truth of it.

The world your thinking of, where values as high as yours, are commonplace, is not here yet.

[Guest AGC 4 Life]

What if the woman was raped and carried the child full term only to be at risk of dying herself. What then?

I "support" abortion only when the mother will die if she has the baby. Beyond that I consider abortion to be America's holocaust. Its like my grandfather used to say all the time: "Its the consequences of your actions".

[Kabowd]

Yes, I agree. The baby is alive at conception, but there has to be a middle ground, a comprimise.

Why? Why does there need to be a compromise on an issue of life or death?

What if the woman was raped and carried the child full term only to be at risk of dying herself. What then? Should she be forced to die for a child that was forced upon her?

According to national statistics, abortions as the result of rape, incest or health amount to less than 6% of all abortions. In fact, as an example, The Alan Guttmacher Institute (a group which advocates widespread availiability of abortions), reports that out of the 1.31 million abortions that occured in the US in 2000, less than 1 % were due to rape or incest. This is a very liberal organization (named after the founder of Planned Parenthood), so this isn't a statistic pulled from an anti-abortion or pro-life group. On the same site, they list these statistics on the reasons women have abortions:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing

7.9% Want no (more) children

21.3% Cannot afford a baby

10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job

14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy

12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy

2.8% Risk to maternal health

3.3% Risk to fetal health

2.1% Other

Here is the link. So according to an organization that supports abortion rights, at least 94% of all abortions occur for selfish reasons. Hmmm.

I can tell you this, if you outlawed all abortion on the planet, it would still occur.

This is an apathetic and defeatest attitude. So because people will inevitably sin, we should just throw our hands in the air and make it legal to do so? Why don't we just make child pornography and statutory rape legal too then?

So, would you choose to regulate those abortions that did occur, or would you prefer that these desparate women use a coat hanger, or worse, abandon the baby in a dumpster? Thats the truth of it.

Abortion is murder whether it's done in a back alley or in a sterile hospital room. So do we make it "legal" just so that the murder happens in a cleaner facility? We should never make murder easier for anyone. There are consequences to sin and if a person is going to attempt taking the life of an innocent unborn child, they should be ready to face the dangers and risks to their own health. We should make it harder to sin, not easier. A selfish person who chooses to murder their baby should be forced to risk their own life if they are going to take the life of another. It's obvious that the vast majority of these people think only of themselves, therefore, by making them consider the risk to their own life and health this could prevent them from following through with murdering an innocent baby.

By the way, no matter where the abortion occurs..it is ALWAYS dangerous to the child. That is the truth of it.

The world your thinking of, where values as high as yours, are commonplace, is not here yet.

And higher values will never be commonplace if we have mindsets such as yours that promotes compromise and bows to popular opinion instead of boldly standing for what is right.

[apothanein kerdos]

Welp, that covers what I wanted to say.