Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

email from Planned Parenthood on SD abortion ballot question

Posted on 06/21/2006 10:20:09 AM PDT by Gopher Broke

FW: We’re certified

Dear friends,

I usually don't do this, but the message below is just too important not to pass on to you right away...

I just received the email below from my friend Sarah Stoesz, the President of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota Action Fund. She's in a fight in South Dakota that we all have a huge stake in and she needs your help.

http://www.standupsd.com/petition

Anti-choice extremists have targeted South Dakota in their latest attempt to outlaw abortion. As Sarah describes in her report below, they are funneling millions of dollars and bus loads of activists to enact a near-complete ban. And if they succeed in South Dakota, there's no telling what comes next.

In recent weeks, South Dakotans have done their part by successfully forcing a challenge to the law. They delivered more than twice the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot in November. But now it's our turn.

Please stand up for South Dakota today.

http://www.standupsd.com/petition

Start by signing the StandUpSD.com petition. Then, if you can, make an early contribution to help give Sarah all of the resources she will need in the months ahead. Now that the signatures are certified, she needs to raise at least $250,000 before July 1st to put 15 field organizers on the ground throughout South Dakota. That's about $100 dollars a day per organizer.

Will you donate $100 right now to help fight the abortion ban in South Dakota?

http://www.standupsd.com/contribute

Please don't wait. Take action now.

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards President Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc.

-----Original Message----- From: Sarah A. Stoesz Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:36 AM To: Cecile Richards Subject: We're certified!!!!

Dear Cecile,

It's official! On November 7th we're on the ballot in South Dakota! With the help of hundreds of volunteers, our tiny SD staff and coalition partners collected nearly twice the number of signatures needed to prevent the abortion ban -- HB 1215 -- from taking effect on July 1 by forcing it to the ballot.

Since you and I met last month we've made great progress. Here's a brief report:

First (obviously) is the signature certification today.

As you know there were many rumors that the anti-choice leaders of this bill were planning to challenge the validity of our signatures and the deadline for handing them in. I think we really shocked them by getting so many petitions so much quicker than they thought.

The polls in SD are still really tight. I don't know about you, but when I talk to my friends and family around the country they just don't seem to get how serious the effects of this law are for everyone nationwide... how urgent this fight is. But when I talk to people on the streets in SD -- whether they consider themselves pro-choice or not -- they know this law goes too far. But will they vote??!!

Oh, and how the opposition is organizing! They'll be bringing in bus loads of people and millions of dollars to this fight. They also have an anonymous donor who has pledged $1 million for the Governor to defend this thing.

My next goal is to get 15 full time staff members on the ground. We really need people to be able to start the painstaking work canvassing, flyering, making phone calls, etc.

So, it goes without saying that we've got our work cut out for us. But, as you and I both know, this is simply not a battle we can lose, so I'm throwing everything we've got into it and more. I'm estimating that we'll be committing millions of dollars directly to this campaign. This is, of course, on top of the money it takes to keep our two clinics open in the state.

So, starting today, I'm on the road to raise $250,000 to hire the 15 field organizers we"ll need. We've identified a handful of great candidates and we're on the search for more. These are people from South Dakota, leaders in their communities. They will be our key to victory in November.

Cecile, thanks again for your partnership in this fight. It's truly the biggest challenge of my life and I only hope that, with your help, we can get Americans from all over involved. This is not going to be won in South Dakota alone.

I look forward to speaking with you soon,

Very best -

S.

P.S. We've launched our new campaign website. Check it out at www.StandUpSD.com. Tell everyone you know to sign our petition and help get the word out!!!

Sarah A. Stoesz

President and CEO

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

1965 Ford Parkway

St. Paul, MN 55116

[end of forwarded message]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Minnesota; US: North Dakota; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: abortion; cultureofdeath; killbabies; murder; plannedparenthood

1 posted on 06/21/2006 10:20:13 AM PDT by Gopher Broke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
Excuse me, this is the Business of South Dakota not lunatic Liberal activists in St Paul Mn.
2 posted on 06/21/2006 10:22:39 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who prefer slogans over solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

The South Dakota ban does not even include an exception for women who are raped. It deserves to be overturned, and Ronald Reagan, a strong supporter of rape exceptions, would agree with this effort.


3 posted on 06/21/2006 10:24:59 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

Translation: "Planned Barrenhood (aka, the Sisterhood of Soulless Ghouls) needs baby-blood to fuel our Sterility Machines. Won't you help us keep the flow of baby-blood free and unimpeded?"


4 posted on 06/21/2006 10:29:30 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals -- regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

So, you pretty much believt that the child conceived by the act of rape should be punished more severely than the rapist?


5 posted on 06/21/2006 10:29:53 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
The South Dakota ban does not even include an exception for women who are raped.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a baby was conceived via rape, it doesn't mean he's somehow less human and deserving of the death penalty.

Ask a child who was conceived via rape, put up for adoption, and subsequently raised by a loving family if he'd rather be dead. Not everyone was given life under ideal circumstances. That doesn't mean that death is a better option.
6 posted on 06/21/2006 10:33:19 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals -- regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I disagree with the "except in the case of rape or incest" illogic.

I have heard most of the political and emotional rationale for that position and though they are seductive, they are not convincing. From the political perspective, one might suggest that there is a better chance of getting anti-abortion legislation passed when exceptions are allowed and I have no reason to doubt that assertion. From the emotional angle, we all have heart-felt sympathy for the victimized mother.

There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role in the most divine function of God's nature when the initiation of that process was without the mother's normally assumed consent. We would be assigning to her the responsibility to carry into this world a new soul who will be a seemingly unholy combination of her own self and of a man who is either freightenly unknown or sinfully familiar.

There is, of course, the almost inescapable temptation to assume this new person will somehow not be good because the genetic code of a rapist was used in his/her construction. Or that the new person will somehow not be complete because of the potential for physiological problems to arise when daddy is grandpa.

Adoption is always an option when the post-birth burdens outweigh the natural desire of the mother to nuture a child which is, after all, still half her.

On any scientific or logical rationale, assuming human life has value, I would ask two questions:

1) Does it continue to grow and change via natural biologic process?
If the answer is 'yes', then it is alive.

2) What will it be if the process is allowed to complete?
If the answer is 'human', then it has rights.


7 posted on 06/21/2006 10:36:37 AM PDT by BuddhaBrown (Path to enlightenment: Four right turns, then go straight until you see the Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

This is as it should be; not determined by a group of judges, but voted on by the people of that state.

South Dakota, the nation's eyes are on you. People will hate whatever decision is made, but at LEAST the people of South Dakota will have made the decision. It will be a decision made by the people, not forced on the people.


8 posted on 06/21/2006 10:37:21 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
So, you pretty much believt that the child conceived by the act of rape should be punished more severely than the rapist?

I don't think that the woman should be punished more severely than the rapist: by being forced to carry a child, conceived in violence, who looks like her rapist.
9 posted on 06/21/2006 10:37:49 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a baby was conceived via rape, it doesn't mean he's somehow less human and deserving of the death penalty.

Do you disagree with Reagan?

Ask a child who was conceived via rape, put up for adoption, and subsequently raised by a loving family if he'd rather be dead.

I'm concerned about the effects that this will have on the woman. I don't believe in pushing her around, after such a horrible atrocity.
10 posted on 06/21/2006 10:39:44 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

If the child were conceived by a man who later, say, beat the mother, or robbed her, or stole her car, should she then be permitted to kill the baby?


11 posted on 06/21/2006 10:40:31 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

Murder is murder, no matter WHO you kill!


12 posted on 06/21/2006 10:42:25 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
And how many children are we talking about??? How many children in South Dakota are conceived by rape?? And because maybe a couple were conceived by rape this makes a law that doesn't make exceptions for this case unjust. All those other unborn people have a right to die? All the talk about excluding incest and rape by Planned Parenthood is a way of diverting people from the real issue. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are being terminated for one reason only - their presence is inconvenient. And this termination is being dressed up in women's rights issues.
13 posted on 06/21/2006 10:48:11 AM PDT by Essie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I added all three states because the last letter in the post above is from the Planned Parenthood head over all 3 states:

Sarah A. Stoesz

President and CEO

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund


14 posted on 06/21/2006 10:49:28 AM PDT by Gopher Broke (I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Teddy Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

Why do you assume that a woman who is raped automatically wants to have an abortion?


15 posted on 06/21/2006 11:04:35 AM PDT by apackof2 (That Girl is a Cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

This should be voted on by the people, not a few old men. (Just like the immigration issue should be voted on by the people). Then hopefully get the issue out of politics.


16 posted on 06/21/2006 11:05:36 AM PDT by tkathy (The "can do" party can fix anything. The "do-nothing" party always makes things worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
I'm concerned about the effects that this will have on the woman. I don't believe in pushing her around, after such a horrible atrocity.

I'm concerned about the effects that this will have on the woman. BABY. I don't believe in pushing her around, she will never be the same woman after such a horrible atrocity, as ABORTION

17 posted on 06/21/2006 11:08:29 AM PDT by apackof2 (That Girl is a Cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

"Anti-choice extremists have targeted South Dakota in their latest attempt to outlaw abortion"

Should this read: "Anti-life extremists have targeted South Dakota in their latest attempt to keep murder legal" ?


18 posted on 06/21/2006 11:11:37 AM PDT by tdewey10 (It's time for the party to return to the principles of President Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

Aargh. I hate not being able to edit posts.

Shouldn't this read...


19 posted on 06/21/2006 11:12:13 AM PDT by tdewey10 (It's time for the party to return to the principles of President Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
This should be voted on by the people, not a few old men. (Just like the immigration issue should be voted on by the people). Then hopefully get the issue out of politics.

Are you for real?

We have a democratic Republic were we have elect represenatives that make laws

And we can secondly also have petition drives like this to put issues on the ballot

So you consider wholesale genocide to be just a "politcal issue?"

20 posted on 06/21/2006 11:14:06 AM PDT by apackof2 (That Girl is a Cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
OOps post #17 was meant for you
21 posted on 06/21/2006 11:15:44 AM PDT by apackof2 (That Girl is a Cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Are you accusing Ronald Reagan and George Bush of supporting murder, because they support exceptions for rape?


22 posted on 06/21/2006 11:17:51 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
Are you accusing Ronald Reagan and George Bush of supporting murder, because they support exceptions for rape?

This is an emotional arguement to coverup the fact that 40,000,000 babies have been murdered by their own mothers.

23 posted on 06/21/2006 11:49:39 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

yes, because babies should always be punished for the crimes of their fathers.

if it's murder, it's murder and there never is a justification for it.


24 posted on 06/21/2006 11:50:20 AM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

This is a pretty mute point in the abortion debate, since life of the mother, rape and incest comprise less than one percent of all abortions performed in this country.

The prodeath crowd likes to throw these exceptions up because they distract the right to life crowd, but the fact of the matter is that these abortions arew extremely rare.


25 posted on 06/21/2006 11:55:44 AM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
Are you accusing Ronald Reagan and George Bush of supporting murder, because they support exceptions for rape?

From here:Sexual Assault Statistics

1 - 5% become pregnant as a result of the rape.

78% of women raped or physically assaulted since they turned 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, live-in partner or date.

You're using a poor excuse for murdering innocents.

26 posted on 06/21/2006 12:05:09 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
The prodeath crowd likes to throw these exceptions up because they distract the right to life crowd, but the fact of the matter is that these abortions arew extremely rare.

They are puny exceptions in the face of murdering the helpless.

27 posted on 06/21/2006 12:06:49 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; AntiGovernment; Mr. Lucky
About pregnancies which result from rape:

Two studies of women pregnant due to rape or incest have been done (1979 and 2000). Both found that the women who carried their pregnancies to term and gave them up for adoption healed emotionally from the rapes faster and "easier" than did those who aborted the babies conceived by rape. The women viewed the abortion as a second act of violence in addition to the violence of the rape.

Interestingly, the organizations which promote abortion using the "rape and incest" reasoning have never bothered to ask those same women their opinions.

An excellent book on this subject is Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, by David Reardon. He conducted the 2000 study; this book details the findings.

28 posted on 06/21/2006 12:07:00 PM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

South Dakota, the nation's eyes are on you. People will hate whatever decision is made, but at LEAST the people of South Dakota will have made the decision. It will be a decision made by the people, not forced on the people.

And THAT, my friend, is the most important point and can apply to countless other subject about which the people have spoken, only to be over-turned by judges, including school bussing, gay rights and on and on. Let each state decide and then let everyone live where they choose. Good post!


29 posted on 06/21/2006 12:15:13 PM PDT by hardworking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

I'm not anti-choice. I'm anti:
- kill baby whenever it's not convenient for me;
- kill baby when it's the wrong sex;
- kill baby when it has a slight defect;
- kill baby when it isn't going to be tall/smart/cute enough for my narcissistic liberal-self.


30 posted on 06/21/2006 12:15:19 PM PDT by SantaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SantaLuz

Don't you love the word games? If they are pro-choice then we're anti-choice. But why when we are referred to as pro-life, they aren't referred to as pro-death or anti-life?


31 posted on 06/21/2006 12:33:53 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Absolutely. And I cannot understand why someone who was opposed to the murder of the unborn, with exceptions for rape and such, would oppose this bill. In the long run, isn't it better that one or two women every few years have to bring a child into this world who was conceived through rape than to murder hundreds of innocent children every year?

Tough cases make bad laws.


32 posted on 06/21/2006 1:42:03 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
I don't think that the woman should be punished more severely than the rapist: by being forced to carry a child, conceived in violence, who looks like her rapist.

Thats a tough one. On the surface I would tend to agree with you. Even though she could have the baby adopted and never see the child, it would still be an agony to go through a pregnancy like that. I just have a problem though with saying "its ok to kill a baby if it makes it easier on the mother". In effect, that is what most abortions are, a convenience, no matter the circumstances so that makes this exception not really an exception at all.
33 posted on 06/21/2006 3:30:58 PM PDT by D1X1E
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

"Anti-choice extremists"

Then I'm an extremely anti-choice extremist right here--unashamed and proudly so.


34 posted on 06/21/2006 5:29:54 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

I know a beautiful young woman who is intelligent, is very attractive, is kind and caring and is a lovely person in every way. Her father is in prison serving time for serial rape. Ethel Waters, the black singer and actress of the 40's and 50's, was conceived by rape. The compassionate thing to do with such a child is to allow it to be born and then give it up for adoption. Think about it - how would WE like to be punished for the sins of our parents, for which we are completely innocent? The only thing a baby wants is to be loved and cared for by those around him. He can't understand why he should have to suffer and die. Abortion is a brutal and painful procedure for a baby. Most of us have experienced the sweetness and innocence of a newborn baby as we held it in our arms. All babies are as sweet and innocent no matter how they were conceived. They deserve mercy, compassion, and a chance to live a good life. As for the woman, I know it will be difficult, but it will only take a few months out of a lifetime. And she will always have the knowledge that she did the right thing by allowing the child to be born and giving it a chance.


35 posted on 06/22/2006 9:59:36 PM PDT by wontbackdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
"and Ronald Reagan, a strong supporter of rape exceptions, would agree with this effort."

Reagan was wrong on this. Because the act of creation was heinous in this case doesn't make the innocent life any less precious. People calling for these exceptions are hypocrites. You're either for innocent life or you're not. You don't make exceptions for certain classes of innocents. When you yeild that ground, you give the opposition all of the initiative.
36 posted on 06/22/2006 10:11:23 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wontbackdown
Think about it - how would WE like to be punished for the sins of our parents, for which we are completely innocent?

Excuse me, you're perfectly fine with punishing the women by FORCING them to carry the child, conceived in violence. So what has the women done wrong to be forced to carry the rapists' child, with all the additional psychological trauma that this will bring her?

My opinion: let the one decide who is going to carry the child.
37 posted on 06/23/2006 4:10:17 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: D1X1E
Thats a tough one. On the surface I would tend to agree with you. Even though she could have the baby adopted and never see the child, it would still be an agony to go through a pregnancy like that. I just have a problem though with saying "its ok to kill a baby if it makes it easier on the mother". In effect, that is what most abortions are, a convenience, no matter the circumstances so that makes this exception not really an exception at all.

But there is a difference, let's not forget that! A women who has been raped, did not choose to get pregnant. A woman who gets pregnant by negligence or whatever, could have prevented it.
38 posted on 06/23/2006 4:11:50 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
Parse it as you will. If I am reading correctly, your position is that a woman who is negligent and becomes pregnant should be punished for her behavior by being forced to carry the child and not allowed to have an abortion. The woman who conceives through no action or responsibility of her own, indeed through an act of violence which she may never overcome, should be allowed to rid herself of additonal pain by being allowed to murder the child. In this world there is no guarantee of freedom from pain and horror even those things not of our own making. You have yet to address the pain of the murdered baby. Nor am I convinced that the woman would not be adding to her own pain by living forever with the knowledge that she murdered an innocent. I truly am not trying to be argumentative on this though I guess I am doing so. Perhaps I am hoping you have a magic answer to some painful questions. Thanks for the post and some though provoking discussion.
39 posted on 06/23/2006 8:31:44 AM PDT by D1X1E
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBrown
There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role...

Pregnancy brought on by rape is a sticky subject for many pro-life advocates. Whether the victim is an adult or a minor, they will suffer psychological damage from the rape itself. Add to that their requirement to carry the results of that awful experience for nine months, and then go through the birth process.

I confess that if this happened to my young daughter, I might lose my soul, because I cannot imagine allowing, or forcing, her to go through this. If it happened to an adult, I really could understand if she chose abortion.

Are all moral decisions black and white? Or do circumstances factor into every particular situation?

40 posted on 07/27/2006 12:31:56 AM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
...child conceived by the act of rape should be punished more severly...

Mr. Lucky, it is so easy for us to make a judgement when we view something in an abstract or undetached way. We have to put ourselves in the same situation and then honestly answer the question, "What would we do?"

Then, if we are sure that our wife, sister, mother, daughter (even if she is 13 to 21 years old) has a moral obligation to carry a child, conceived because of a rape, for nine months and then give birth, only then can we honestly espouse that belief.

41 posted on 07/27/2006 12:54:49 AM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Two wrongs don't make a right.

I completely agree with that, so, on this subject, I'm straddling the fence.

If you are male, you're not going to get pregnant, whether you are married, dating, or raped. Therefore, you may not even be capable of imagining what it's like to be pregnant, let alone brought on by a vicious rapist. You simply cannot put yourself in such a victim's shoes!

While I truly appreciate the strong abhorrence many men have for abortion, I don't believe they all understand the devastating effects of rape.

While I've never been a victim, I can well believe the trauma some women have suffered.

42 posted on 07/27/2006 1:13:34 AM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
...should she then be permitted to kill the baby?

Since you didn't specify that the man raped the woman, can we assume they both agreed to a sexual relationship? And that she chose to have this baby?

I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. Logic is missing.

43 posted on 07/27/2006 1:21:56 AM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
...isn't it better that one or two women every few years have to bring a child into this world who was conceived through rape...

Sure, unless you are one of them. Give it some thought.

44 posted on 07/27/2006 1:43:06 AM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

as a victim of such a monstrous attack, believe me, I gave the possible situation quite a bit a thought.


45 posted on 07/27/2006 8:09:25 AM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson