S. Dakota Judge: Abortionists Must Tell Women Abortion Terminates a Human Life

Thank You, God!


Judge: Abortionists Must Tell Women Abortion Terminates a Human Life

Women seeking an abortion must be told that the procedure ends a human life, a federal judge ruled Thursday, upholding part of a South Dakota law.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier said doctors must disclose to pregnant women that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Thanks to God, indeed !!!

In case you missed this huge victory earlier this year, Supreme Court Upholds Right to Display Graphic Abortion Signs…

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals that said the graphic images of aborted babies displayed on vehicles and elsewhere are protected speech under the First Amendment. … The judges also said that ‘the government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear, or even anger.’

The vehicle in question was a large truck displaying huge pictures on its side and was parked on a street in front of a middle school as students arrived for classes. CBR also plans to demonstrate at colleges.

“America will not end abortion until America sees abortion.”

Awesome! :slight_smile:

Those pictures are so disgusting. Come on, you’re in public, there are all sorts of little kids around (like my niece) and if you tried to make that into a movie it’d be rated R for extreme graphical violence.

"U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier said doctors must disclose to pregnant women that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Seems like a matter of such common sense, like telling people that jumping off a cliff might kill you. While I’m glad of the ruling, it’s a sad commentary that such a ruling is even needed.

So, if we can accept that abortion is indeed taking a human life, one would think it would be logical that taking human life = murder?

That’s the idea.

Common sense would dictate that we do so. However, the law often lacks common sense. According to our legal system, being a human life does not necessarily mean that you are a human person.

According to our legal system, children are the property of their mother.

Three cheers for the judge!

It really staggers me that more people aren’t pro life. Isn’t it sort of common sense/knowledge that a “fetus” (and I use that term only because pro-choicers do) is a human life?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but South Dakota also passed a very strict pro life law a few years ago, right?


Of course be better that it didn’t happen at all… but atl east should would be getting the truth.

Thank Jesus, God and Holy Spirit.

Property can be sold. Kids cannot be sold. Hence, kids are not property.

A skin cell in a petri dish is human life, too. The word “human” does not have a single meaning in these discussions, and there certainly is no general agreement about the implications of the word. That’s why the appeal to “human” has failed for the past 37 years.

Try making the argumant without using the word “human.” It’s an interesting exercise.

As in many pro-abortion diatribes, semantics are used to distort the truth. The argument was not about human life, but a human being. It draws an equivalence between you, me, a child in africa dying of malaria and an embryo about to be aborted, This equivalence is their dignity as human beings and their inherent right to life.

A skin cell may be “alive” but it is not a human being.

Please stop obfuscating what abortion is ontologically. Face up to it and oppose it.

Human being is just as nebulous a term. I wonder how many people over the years have considered an invisible cell a human being? When arguments are based on a term, one can’t expect to get anywhere unless there is some common understanding of the term. It’s also been used for 37 years. How’s it working?

This is a good start!

No, it’s not. A skin cell is part of a human; it is not human, and it is intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise. Of course, since the pro-abortion position depends on intellectual dishonest, such assertions are not surprising but are no less spurious despite their regularity.

– Mark L. Chance.

A new and distinct individual of the human species, genetically distinct from its mom and dad, has its beginning at conception. If not killed, it will develop into an embryo, a toddler, an adolescent, an adult, and a senior citizen. Basic biology.

See how useless the word really is? Each side wraps itself is a righteous cloak and demands its definitions be accepted by the everyone. Like I said, 37 years and counting…

What kind of skin cell is it? Is it a human skin cell?

Agree. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that.

In 2006 South Dakota voters rejected a measure that would have banned nearly all abortions. South Dakota voters rejected a similar measure in 2008.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.