I may choose to stand in front of a moving train but I cannot choose what will happen to me when that train hits me. It’s a consequence I have no control over. That is the reason why we have the freedom of choice. We choose the action but we cannot choose the consequences of that acion.

If two consenting adults choose to conceive (action) they cannot choose what will happen as a result of that conception, which is the birth of a child (consequence) In this kind of case, where the woman gives birth to a child, the couple should nt be allowed to abort the child but to face the consequences of their action by allowing them to have that child. It is their responsibility that the child grows into a loving and nutured enviroment.

However, if a woman is pregnant as a result of rape, an incestutous relationship or is faced with a sitiation where her life is in danger, she should be allowed to choose what she wants and her wishes ought to be respected.

In the event that her life is in danger, her wishes should be paramount to that of the unborn child. If she wishes to sacrifice her life to save that of the unborn child, then her wishes should be respected and implemented.

South Dakota, please respect your women and listen to her side of the story. They are equal partners to men. They deserve to be heard, it is their god given right.

It would be interesting to find out if women were consulted in the making of these laws. It affects women and it applies exclusively to women hence I cannot emphasise enough on the need to get the women of South Dakota involved in this process.

Ambiguous only to idiot laymen like us.

Take a look at Indiana, where I live. Instead of going directly after abortion and Roe, the Indiana State Legislature is passing a law that would require clinics to improve their facilities to make them “safer� � but the requirements would shut down every clinic in the state because of the costs involved.

Yeah, that’s pretty weak.

Take a look at Indiana, where I live. Instead of going directly after abortion and Roe, the Indiana State Legislature is passing a law that would require clinics to improve their facilities to make them “safer” — but the requirements would shut down every clinic in the state because of the costs involved.

During House hearings, legislators kept arguing about the safety of the woman as the driving motivation and the urgency to implement the requirements in the Summer of 2006 without any existing facility being grandfathered. Yet two days later the same committee passed legislation requiring updated sprinkler systems in nursing homes — but grandfathered existing nursing homes until 2008.

Public health and safety indeed….

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

This is purely a political tactic to test the supreme court. They are doing something similar with partial-birth abortions in New Hampshire. When the court strikes down the law, they will have the option of rejecting it based on lack of said exception. That will tacitly re-open the Roe v. Wade issue, in that the abortion ban could be valid when the exceptions are added.