South Dakota Votes to Ban Abortion

Filed in Politics, Science, Social IssuesTags: Sanctity of Life

GOP Bloggers reports that the South Dakota house has voted 47-22 to ban abortion, with the sole exception being mortal danger to the mother:

This is throwing down the gauntlet to the culture of death - this isn't warm and fuzzy, this is stern defense of basic human morality. After a century of moral disintegration, finally a courageous deed in service of humanity's true needs.

Indeed.

The pro-aborts are going absolutely psycho. This from How Bout This:

And now, my PRO-CHOICE rant:

Bring it on; this should be entertaining.

So....how many are against abortion but for the death penalty?

Ah yes, the old canard of the moral equivalence crowd. I'll admit, I prefer erring on the side of life, even with the worst of our criminals. However, capital punishment at least has reasonable justification, given the heinousness of the action of those so condemned. Equating the execution of a murderer or other such convict with the murder of an innocent and defenseless unborn child is baseless and asinine.

How many are against abortion but, in general, for pro-active military action?

You mean, pro-active military action that frees 50 million people from the clutches of tyrannical dictators, who rape, pillage, and - yes - kill indiscriminately? You mean, pro-active military action that releases Kurds and other Iraqi political dissidents from the fear of mass extermination, death by shredder, and other horrors? Yes, I'm in favor.

How many are against abortion but are also against the availability of contraceptives to teenagers?

Why should an innocent, defenseless unborn human child die because of the inconvenience caused to a couple teenagers who exercise their freedom of choice by having sex? Since when, by the way, were contraceptives unavailable to teenagers? They seem to be hanging in the aisles of grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations all across the country. Teenagers' money serves suitably as legal tender for the purchase of such contraception.

How many are against abortion but choose never to adopt?

How many abortion mills clinics or abortion advocates propogate adoption as an alternative to abortion? Couples in this country are waiting by the thousands to adopt. No shortage of demand for adoption exists; however, a million or so abortions annually severely inhibits the supply of babies to be adopted.

It seems to me many people need to put their morals where their mouth is: adopt some unwanted kids, protest needless violence, and educate teenagers about the ways to avoid pregnancy (and STD's, while we're at it).

The problem is not with pro-life advocates not putting our "morals where our mouths are", but with pro-abortion advocates not encouraging people NOT to put other things where they don't belong, unless they are willing to accept the consequences. Well over ninety percent of abortions in this country are purely for reasons of convenience. For the record, we do protest needless violence: the violence perpetrated against innocent, defenseless unborn humans.

Next we have this gem from "confusionsetsin":

That didn't take long did it? This is unbelievably immoral and blatantly unconstitutional. If you get raped in South Dakota and become pregnant, the South Dakota House wants to use the threat of criminal sanctions to force you to give birth. As the article notes, this is being done to force a legal challenge by pro-choice groups in hope that this goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can re-hear the abortion case and issue a new ruling. Unfortunately, the idiots in South Dakota don't realize that because this is not legal in any sense of the word that the lower courts will strike it down completely and will end up strengthening abortion rights in the country.

"Unbelievably immoral"? Protecting the life of unborn humans is "immoral" to this moonbat. "Blatantly unconstitutional"? Please, O sage of constitutional wisdom, show me where abortion is addressed in the U.S. Constitution? Please, great protector of constitutional knowledge, can you explain the Tenth Amendment with respect to abortion? Again, well over ninety percent of abortions are purely for reasons of convenience. Even so, the developing human child is not at fault for incidents of rape or incest. Punish the criminal; don't victimize the innocent.

And this ever-popular means of fear-mongering, brought to us by kristeljohns:

Anyone wanna place bets on whether or not I'll end up treating women who have been injured or rendered infertile due to botched back-alley abortions in my future career in the field of OB/GYN?

I wouldn't worry your pretty little liberal skull about that one; from this one sentence, odds are you're too stupid to make it through medical school. Good start on the field of medical moonbattery, though.

These are children, not a choice. baby aborted in second trimester

God bless you, South Dakota!

Feedback

Comments (Comments are closed)

One Response to “South Dakota Votes to Ban Abortion”
  1. mark says:

    baby: the other, other white meat!

    get in my belly!