Forcing women to bear the children of their rapist is wrong

This post was written by marc on March 5, 2006
Posted Under: Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

The State of South Dakota has passed a law that prohibits all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. What this means is if a woman is raped she is forced by the State to bear the child of the rapist against her will. And this is touted but South Dakota as “moral”? I don’t think so. Some of us have a different standard of what is right and wrong and my values say that it is fundamentally wrong to force the victims of rapists to bear the children of their attacker.

Reader Comments

Well if the poor dumb crackers want that badly for the women to leave the state then why not?
It normally would leave the high school boy’s in any other state in a bout of loneliness but I have been to S.D. and I can vouch that the wool bearing livestock will be happy to take up the slack.
So really it is a win-win proposition for the Gawd-Fearing denizens of america’s northern-most Butt Hole,The male population will get it’s jollies at the expense of an embarrasing social rash(No ProCreation alone is Blessing indeed)
And the In-Bred Maven’s can go where abortions have nothing to do with garment hanging utensils and receive some new Chromatoids that have not been re-re-re-re-reinforced through all the years of Chinchilla style In-Breeding.
If this is the best that the Fundies can come up with(I am going to need an home oxygen tank just to replenish the supply after all the hearty para-oxyism’s)to drive people away from the rightwing Vote-For-God scheme then put me down as a whole-hearted supporter!
What will they think of next,666 Tattoo’s for unbeleiver’s?
Then Everyone will know who the real Anti-Christ is! Yep that’ll do it.

Written By Ranzeroxe on March 5th, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.