Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FINALLY!!! Rapists can Procreate in S. Dakota
Originally posted by PVS
if the rapist has the rights of any father, then yes, i believe he would have a say, and the power to prevent her from putting the kid up for adoption.
I think that all women in South Dakota should move to another state.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So you will believe Genesis but you won't follow one of gods cardinal rules??Thou shall not kill....
I think hes quite blunt on the subject 😉.... If your going to make amendments to his top ten, Why not to half of this book??
WTF?!?
All I said is that the girl having to keep a rapists baby probably won't go through.
It's hard to say if abortion in this case is wrong.(for me, anyway)
You're right, it's killing, and a sin, but so is rape. (there is no "cardinal" sin in my religion,.. it's all sin. All sin is equal. It all shows the heart of a person...... off topic.)
Anyway, I'm not "amending" anything.
It's this bill (a damn fine piece of legislature if I do say so myself), that needs some slight "amending".
More encouraging is the end of the article that says 7 more states already have bills like this on the table. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re: FINALLY!!! Rapists can Procreate in S. Dakota
Originally posted by Makedde
I wonder that when the rapist goes to prison, can he demand to see his child? Would the woman be forced to bring the child to the prison to see him? Would the rapist be able to force the woman to keep the child, and have a say in his/her upbringing?
That certainly seems the way things could headed there. That's why its important for the people to pressure their government officials to veto this bill. If not we will more than likely have a much more confused, poor and violent society.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FINALLY!!! Rapists can Procreate in S. Dakota
Originally posted by meep-meep
That certainly seems the way things could headed there. That's why its important for the people to pressure their government officials to veto this bill. If not we will more than likely have a much more confused, poor and violent society.
I feel so scared for these women. 🙁
Originally posted by meep-meep
That certainly seems the way things could headed there. That's why its important for the people to pressure their government officials to veto this bill. If not we will more than likely have a much more confused, poor and violent society.
Good luck with that.
The officals all passed it already.
If the govennor (who the article says is Republican and Pro-Life) signs it, it's law.
Then it will be called un-constitutional and sent to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for some,.... my side has already stacked the deck.
😈 😄
Originally posted by sithsaber408
WTF?!?All I said is that the girl having to keep a rapists baby probably won't go through.
It's hard to say if abortion in this case is wrong.(for me, anyway)
You're right, it's killing, and a sin, but so is rape. (there is no "cardinal" sin in my religion,.. it's all sin. All sin is equal. It all shows the heart of a person...... off topic.)
i think what he means is that whether or not a child is concieved by way of rape, that child is just as innocent in the eyes of god as a child concieved in love. so if you adhere to the bible, it would seem that this decision is right in line. see what happens when an ancient book of stories is translated in the strictest sense? it gives rights to the rapists and strips away the rights of the victim...and by extention the child, since they are forced into an existance which is partially dictated by a sexual deviant.
now comes an issue which we CAN connect to paedophila, so the possibilities are endlessly dismal and tragic.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Let me rephrase: women should have the right to terminate the torment that can be the result of rape, despite of the fact that it will take form of a human later on.
Also, all rapists should be terminated as well, in the most painful manner possible so they feel relief entering hell.
I agree! 🙂
Originally posted by PVS
i think what he means is that whether or not a child is concieved by way of rape, that child is just as innocent in the eyes of god as a child concieved in love. so if you adhere to the bible, it would seem that this decision is right in line. see what happens when an ancient book of stories is translated in the strictest sense? it gives rights to the rapists and strips away the rights of the victim...and by extention the child, since they are forced into an existance which is partially dictated by a sexual deviant.now comes an issue which we CAN connect to paedophila, so the possibilities are endlessly dismal and tragic.
Right.
The Bible did that. :/
Idiot lawmakers with good intentions did it.
They should have included causes for incest and rape, (seeing as how they included medical emergecies) which most pro-lifers have already agreeed as being fair and just.
Don't blame God for the messes that humans make. 😉
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The Bible did that.
an ancient book cant do a thing but sit there.
i dont blame the bible or jesus. way to twist my words.
thats a very weak tactic, so please refrain.
anyway, i blame the bible thumpers
who seem obsessed with utilizing scripture in the most perverse way.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They should have included causes for incest and rape.
Erm.. No... Are you killing something? Is it going against the 10 commandments?
It doesn't matter if the baby has defective genes! You can't change the bible, and I don't think god ever gave clauses on incest or rape...
Originally posted by PVS
i blame the bible thumpers
who seem obsessed with utilizing scripture in the most perverse way.
Exactly! You can't quote the bible and stick so closely to it in one thread then go against it in another. Either stick with the exact meaning or be prepared to accept that the bible got it wrong in other areas as well...
Originally posted by Makedde
Amercia is totally ****ed up. Can't the President step in and do something about this? I would have thought he would have the power to do that.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Erm.. No... Are you killing something? Is it going against the 10 commandments?It doesn't matter if the baby has defective genes! You can't change the bible, and I don't think god ever gave clauses on incest or rape...
Exactly! You can't quote the bible and stick so closely to it in one thread then go against it in another. Either stick with the exact meaning or be prepared to accept that the bible got it wrong in other areas as well...