Posted on 02/22/2006 2:49:16 PM PST by Tim Long
The South Dakota Senate just passed a bill that bans almost all abortions in the state. It now goes to the governor to be signed.
Everyone is in some danger of dying whether they are a pregnant woman or not. Car accidents, random meteors, hunting trips with the V.P...stuff happens.
Hopefully the law is written better then this summary implies.
I'm terribly sorry to hear that. It's true of a shocking number of women, and I hope and pray that you have complete healing in that area.
But I must point out that you were unable to answer the question. If we're not talking about a life, then why should the procedure be banned at all, and if it is a human baby... then why does someone's mental health enter into the equation at all?
And no, I'm not ignorant of all the issues involved. I helped foster about two dozen little souls from birth to adoption three to six months later when most of the mother's fell somewhere close to that line (and add drug dependency, youth, and birth defects into the mix).
I think she and Stevens will retire the moment there's a liberal President. Three years is therefore the minimum.
Anything before that would take a miracle (no, I'm not praying for someone's death)... though it isn't out of the question. Stevens is only a couple years younger than the record a may not make it, and Ginsburg has had intermittent health issues.
But there's no way that they both make it seven more years. It makes the next presidential election massively important. If we win that one... the court changes for decades.
Don't be ridiculous. An ectopic pregnacy can never result in a surviving baby... that's clearly "god's will" that the baby perish. There's no reason for the mother to die as well.
Even the strictest Catholic hospitals in decades past had a policy of "if it's the baby or the mother, we're going to save the baby"... but it was never "if the baby is going to die and there's nothing we can do about it... we still won't save the mother.
Praise God! Praying for an end to abortion.
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #14 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #15 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #16 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #17 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #18 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #19 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #20 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #21 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #22 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #23 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #24 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #25 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #26 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #27 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
Fantastic start. One down, 49 to go.
"The South Dakota Senate just passed a bill that bans almost all abortions in the state. It now goes to the governor to be signed."
Good Job!...
Oh boy!....here comes the looney left.....and the NOW gals.
It isn't humane to force a female who is a victim of incest or rape to carry a child to term. The healing from the violence takes years - if ever.(I know from personal experience). Delaying that is extremely cruel to the female victim. Why would you want to extend her suffering? BTW, I've never had an abortion and don't believe in it beyond a few weeks of impregnation.
First of all, abortion would extend the suffering longer than the 9 months it would take to carry the child. Adding an abortion into the list of horrors will not help a woman to heal. There are plenty of women who can attest to this.
Second, most of us here believe that pregnancy is not a disease or something to be avoided at all costs. Even if the pregnancy delays the healing of someone who has been attacked, saving a woman this delay is not worth sacrificing the child's life.
Third, the number of cases where a woman becomes pregnant after violent attack are extremely small... even smaller than the chances of becoming pregnant after one act of intercourse. And the typical woman only has a 25% chance or less of becoming pregnant in one month when she's TRYING to become pregnant, unless she is using fertility drugs or timing methods. Women are generally only fertile for 3 days out of 28 days.
I forgot to add that the stress the woman has after a violent attack make it less likely that she will ovulate and become pregnant. That's why a woman is less likely to become pregnant after rape than from one act of consensual sex.
....unless you've walked a mile in this woman's shoes...never presume to judge how she feels and what she had to go through.....
I am much more devoted to God's will than the average Catholic hospital (which, in many cases, also dispenses RU-486).
The fact that you do not capitalize "God" tells me something.
You have still never answered what many of us are arguing. We're not talking about a woman's mental health; we're talking about tearing apart babies as a solution.
BTW, I've never had an abortion and don't believe in it beyond a few weeks of impregnation.
And what authority do you have to say when life begins? Medically defined, life does begin at conception.
Every pro-lifer supports allowing abortion in the case of the life of the mother.
Untrue statement. I am opposed to abortion in all cases. The issue isn't the life of the mother or the health of the mother. It's the life of the pre-born baby.
It tells you that you weren't paying attention to the post. I'm not about to actually assign such a motivation to Him... so I put it in lowercase intentionally.
And your unwillingness/inability to deal with the substance of the post tells me something.
Doesn't sound like it... but that's not my call. which, in many cases, also dispenses RU-486
A dishonest debating point. They do so after the legislatures and the courts forced them to. Some Catholic Church health insurance plans have been forced to pay for abortions too. But it certainly wasn't by the choice of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.