"medically inaccurate at best and unethical at worst"
Medically inaccurate eh? forgive me if I don't take your word for it...and whats more unethical than ending a new life?

The only reason for an abortion is when an unforeseen issue is developed which places the mother in mortal danger or forced conception(rape,incest,etc...). Passed that the mother to be made her choice when she didn't cross her legs.

For the writer: most abortions aren't done because of difficult situations for men and women, such as threat to the life of the mother. Most are done because they slept together just to have sex and oops theres a baby. Consequence to a bad desition. If we are honest 95% of the abotions are because people just want to have sexualrelations outside marrage and don't want to face the consequences.
I just call that murder and pure selfishness. If your going to play with a rattle snake eventually you will get bit.

Joey,

What "difficult situation" are you writing about? People know that if they eat to excess that they're going to get fat. That is the consequence of eating too much. People know that if they drink alcohol in excess, that they're going to get drunk. That is the consequence of drinking too much.

People know that if they have sexual intercourse, that a pregnancy might occur. That is the consequence of having sexual intercourse.

That is not a "difficult situation". That situation is 100% avoidable when people are disciplined.

You don't kill the cook because you're fat. You don't kill the bartender because you're drunk. You don't kill a child because you choose to have sex.

Except in those rare cases where the mother would die if the pregnancy continued or in case of rape or incest where the mother had no choice when sex was forced upon her, both the mother and father (because it really does take two), must be made to know that they are executing a human being because they are in a "difficult situation".

Joey Richards, these babies have just as much right to life as you, and if you have been involved in killing any of them, they have more right to life.

Abortion destroys lives. It destroys the life of the child. It also destroys the life of the mother.

These women are often feeling desperate, alone and not in the best frame of mind to be making such a serious decision. They need to understand the full implications of what they are doing.

Children aren't the only victims of abortion. Women need to understand that this is something that may haunt them the rest of their lives.

Thanks for writing this letter Joey. I'm with you.

I wonder if South Dakota is so awash with trained medical personnel that they can force them to do little recitations which don't save any lives, but do ease the consciences of state lawmakers anxious to put the state in a class by itself when it comes to abortions. Of course, maybe having doctors leave the state is exactly what they want, but there is a thing called the "law of unintended consequences" which was evidently ignored.

The writer concludes with,

"We will always fight against any regulation or obstacle that prevents women and families from making the best decisions for their health."

But that's the whole point of the law. Abortion is almost never the best decision for a woman's health.

It depends on when a fetus is a baby. If as some would have you believe life starts at conception, then god performs more abortions then all the doctors in the world combined.

What happened to you. What if you had been aborted. "medically inaccurate" that an abortion causes death? I think that is an absolute fact. "Medically unethical" as an MD I would have to justiry such an act by grave consequences to the mother. Inconvenience does not qualify.

My friends, I ask: what is so wrong with adoption?
This is a bizare society we live in where life means so little as to snuff out the most helpless and most innocent among us.
We wouldn't want to ' own-up ' to the consequence of our actions would we? In many of these cases the couple wants to pretend they are married, but then refuse to take on the resposibilities of such.

Anonymous @ 8:10

That is some sinister, twisted logic you use. God performs abortions? First of all, I seriously doubt you actually believe in God. That aside, to equate mis-carriages with abortion, as you seem to do, is as false a comparison as equating natural death with murder. By your logic, God is the worst serial killer the world has known! Such an assertion is laughably pathetic. If you want to find a justification for abortion, you will have to do better than that.

Just wanted to point out an important piece that was edited out: Rather than promoting health restrictions that make a difficult choice even more difficult, we should be promoting efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies: access to affordable birth control and medically accurate comprehensive sexuality education.

Joey

Mr. Richards says, "The letter writer and lawmakers opposed to common-sense preventative solutions ... fail to see the detrimental burden it places on women and men in difficult situations."

If Mr. Richards thinks these people can't see something he thinks they should, then I think it would be wise for him to be more specific about the "detrimental burden" he is speaking of so those people, and the rest of us, can know, specifically, what he means.

In the meantime, I think the right to life of the children so many women and men carelessly produce, trumps just about every "detrimental burden" to those men and women that I can think of.

All these comments are still missing the point of the debate. The question of whether abortion is morally wrong in a given situation - a situation that is unique for every prospective mother and family - is a question that, in a free society, MUST be answered by that individual.

I'm won't argue that some abortions are not performed out of "convenience," for some certainly are. But generalizing the issue and saying that ALL abortions are just a matter sexual promiscuity and "dodging" of consequences unjustifiably simplifies and generalizes the issue.

It is wrong to judge the decisions others make unless you're close enough to their situation to understand it as intimately as they do. Period. Don't spout off and call all abortion patients sexual whores who are simply dodging the "consequences of their actions;" many situations that end in abortion are much, more more complicated than that.

And, above and beyond all this, the question of personal moral judgment still is the most relevant. Society's laws should NOT be designed to impose one moral belief structure on all of us, and that is exactly what the SD law is designed to do. That's why it's unethical.

Mike Richards hit this one right on the head, Joey.
I doubt there are many who don't see and have compassion for those mothers (and Fathers) who find themselves in the horrible position of considering ending an unborn human being's life because of rape, incest or life threatening situations, but the huge majority of abortions are performed for convenience sake. Yes, a mother in financial distress or embarrassed that infidelity or indicression might be publicly known is still acting out of convenience. The unwillingness to even see the lack of personal responsibility in such actions is blatantly apparent to the rest of us Joey. The "my body, my choice" argument is farcical at its core. Three bodies at a minimum are involved. Emotionally many more, and as a society that allows this type of murder to thrive, countless are affected. The narcissism prtrayed by those who would propound such an argument is pathetic in its selfishness. Contraception, education and basic self control are all alternatives to the killing of innocents. There are too many examples of those who, inspite of rape, incest etal, have carried to full term, kept or adopted to other families, beautiful children rather than abort.

...too many who have accepted responsibility not required to let those off the hook on this one for the mere convenience of a "my body, my choice" attitude of irresponsibility.
The original focus of the post was a law in S Dakota requiring doctors to advise potential aborters of ALL the risks of their actions, At a minimum, this is a responsible position to take in the faces of those who fail to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Any ethical medical practitioner would do at least this for a woman clearly in jeapardy. Why should they not do the same for all. Just because someone does not see the car careening at them to their peril, should we, as a society, not warn them because, after all, "it's their body." If the person in the car's path carried an infant in their arms, would we still say, "her body, her choice," and walk away guiltless. Such an exampl is not so far-fetched.

Wonder if anyone has ever pursued the study that compares the 'birth of abortion' with the rise of violence among teens. When I attended high school, the worse you might witness was a 'fisticuff' after school. Never the kind of violence now witnessed against teachers and students. Have our youth been thus induced by our adult disrespect for life?
I have a pin given out many years ago with the rise of abortion of the soles of a pair of feet, perfectly formed, a quarter of an inch in size that represent that 'fetus' that is often aborted and touted as not 'a living entity'. Finally the truth is coming out. Thank you S Dakota.

Joey, you came on here to add the part that was eliminated from your letter. Maybe you could come back on and illuminate for all of us on how you think that a doctor, informing the patient fully and completely, is detrimental to the patient and how it is unethical?

Your 3rd paragraph is false because no one is doing anything you claim; the doctor and patient are still making the decision. Can you tell us who you think is now making the decision?

How does informing the patient with all relevant information interfere with common-sense [whatever that means] prevention? What do the two have to do with each other? One can give prevention information while at the same time giving true facts about abortion to the patient.

Who is the "we" in your last paragraph? My guess is you are employed at Planned Parenthood. Your last sentence is false because no one is stopping anything from happening; just being informed. Isn't that what Planned Parenthood is all about? Information? Or just when it controls the information?

I'd make them watch the 3D ultrasound as the abortion is happening so they can see their child being destroyed.

If abortion is murder and wrong, why is it OK to “kill the baby” if the mother was raped? Why is this not murder?

Everyone is a moral relativist, but the line each draws is just in a different place.

It's ironic - some of the same people who love this law, and oppose abortion, are the same people who were writing recently about their support for capital punishment. I guess all life isn't sacred after all...

I await the semantic rebuttal arguments...

As a physician, I believe medical ethics requires a physician to explain in comprehendible details all of the "benefits" and "consequences" of any procedure. This is known as informed consent. To not fully inform a patient of the possible adverse effects is a breech of this ethic. I also believe that it is malpractice.
There are black box warnings on multiple medications as well as precautionary warnings as well. It is the duty of the physician to explain these, and the same goes for abortion. Many of these warnings are for psycological side effects that may occur, including depression and increased suicidality. Abortions can cause the same side effects, so it is imperative that they are discussed as well in full. If I prescribe a medication knowing that it might increase suicidal thoughts, but fail to give this warning, I can lose my license and be sued for malpractice if the patient kills themself. If a woman commits suicide related to an abortion, the physician should be held to the same liability.

As for abortion itself, how can it be justified in most cases? The fact as stated by others, is that it is a convenience issue in 95% of cases.
As for the moral issue, it is okay to dictate some morals in society. Spousal and child abuse is illegal. So are rape, murder, robbery, etc. Every law is based on a moral code. It is legal in many countries to abuse your wife or children, and make your young children work. We condemn this based on MORALITY.
To put it into proper context. It is LEGAL to deliver a fetus completely, except the head, extract the brain killing the baby, and then complete the delivery. But for the same exact situation, if you deliver the head and then extract the brain killing the baby, then it is ILLEGAL. Really, how are these 2-situations different in act and cruelty? The fact is they are both truly infanticide, but one is labeled legal as an abortion.
As a physician, I have never heard of one single situation, in any text or journal, where killing the baby prior to delivery is any more protective to a mother's health than delivering the baby alive.

In the interest of fairness, the state of SD should also explain the childbirth mortality rate, risk of stroke and other complications, and financial impact involved with carrying a pregnancy to term.

Okay, here is your "semantic rebuttal." One major difference when discussing abortion and death penalty:
One is innocent and has not had a chance at life, the other has had a chance and is condemned as no longer fit for society. On deserves a chance, the other blew it.

Now allow me to question your logic, why is it that so many abortion advocates are also so strongly in support of animal rights, yet they are quick to kill a helpless, innocent human? They are the first to defend the rights of animals to live and be protected above the standards many humans receive. I realize this doesnt apply as a blanket standard, but it applies enouhg to the pro-choice group that it makes me wonder how their priorities have become so far twisted.

I know of 3 acquaintances that have undergone abortions, every one of them have been the result of irresponsible sexual activity. Not one has had the issue of life threatening medical issues requiring the end the pregnancy for health. Abortion has become a cruel method of birth control for irresponsibility under the guise of choice and face it- it is simply barbaric.

The risks associated with pregnancy are not required to be disclosed, as for the great majority of people physicians are not involved in causing the pregnancy, they are involved in causing the abortion, which is a medical procedure the same as any surgery.
Why do so many people defend abortion? Individuals make a clear choice to engage in activity that they know can lead to pregnancy without appropriate precautions. Having sex implies an assumption of risk on behalf of both parties involved.
I assume risk when I buy stocks. If the stock loses value, I take the loss. I cannot go back and say, "I invested only if it makes money, so give me my money back." This is what is being done with abortion. They took a risk, and lost and don't want to face the consequences of going through a pregnancy and having a baby, a known risk. If criminal activity is involved in the devaluation of my stock, I have the right to attempt to recoup this. If criminal activity was involved in causing the pregnancy, Ie rape or incest, then it becomes an acceptable course of action to seek an abortion. Otherwise, accept responsibility!!

Here is some better questions:
How can liberals Oppose the right to life of innocent babies, and Support the right to life of a convicted murderer?
How do you oppose killing animals for food, but approve killing babies for convenience sake?

My point is, we need to focus on prevention of the need for abortion. When our country provides affordable birth control and medically accurate comprehensive sexuality education then maybe we will begin making positive steps concerning this issue.

I have no personal experience in the matter, but can believe that most abortions are the results of consensual sex. So the comments that say, in effect, "Well, whadya expect?" have a certain validity.

But let's not pretend that the South Dakota legislature is uniquely concerned with women and their health when they require doctors to give their pre-canned recital. To the lawmakers, these women are would-be murderers acting brazenly in their own economic interest, hiding behind a 35 year-old court ruling as a way to avoid the justice they so richly deserve.

"The Speech" becomes, in effect, South Dakota's last chance to scream "DON'T DO IT!" Female health issues are secondary and not accurately portrayed. Both sides know it. One shudders to think what penalties would be given out to men, women and abortion providers if the SD legislature had the final say.

I don't favor abortion, but the alternative enforcement against it is too scary to consider. The best decisions should be made by women and their families. We can sort through the penalties in the next life.

re 2:24 and 3:12

Thank you both for making my point for me. First, let's tackle 2:24 -

Yours is a perfect semantic rebuttal. Thank you! You are differentiating regarding the circumstances under which it is "right" to take a life. So, when someone asks you, "Is it right or wrong to take a life?", you have to reply, "It depends on the circumstances." That's your only recourse. You cannot say that all life is precious. Your absolute morals are not so absolute after all. And sorry, I was talking about taking human life, not about animals. That's presenting an argument not in evidence. It's irrelevant...and you admit yourself that it is a blanket statement based only on your opinion. Next!

3:12

First, it's "Here ARE some better questions." "Questions" is plural. And two, you avoid my point. That's the tactic of someone that has no solution. And your questions aren't any "better" than...wait, I didn't ask any questions. They're just questions. But to answer you: I don't think abortion is killing babies. I don't support the death penalty. I eat meat.

So what does that make me? I guess I'm no absolutist. And neither is anyone else.

@ hold on... 5:27,

You're avoiding the question of agency.

There are absolute principles involved. The absolute principle is whether the mother had agency to engage in sexual relations. If she had agency and chose to engage in sexual relation, then she has the obligation to accept the consequences of that agency (as does the father).

The only mitigating factor is health. In those rare circumstances where it is evident that either the mother or the child may die, if the pregnancy continues, then it is up to the mother to decide who is more important, herself, or the child.

That is a question that only someone as wise as Solomon could answer, but many, perhaps most women can answer can answer that question. My own wife had to answer that question. When told that continuing the pregnancy would cause her to rupture and bleed to death, she chose to continue the pregnancy. She did not rupture and the baby was born healthy.

Most mothers would gladly give down their own life to protect the life of their child. Some may have a differing view. How many have to make that decision? Not very many.

I think it's safe to assume that the majority of these comments have been made by men, considering most of the them refer to the woman as a "mother." Let's clarify something, NOT ALL WOMEN ARE MEANT TO BE MOTHERS. NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE THIS MYTHICAL INNATE DESIRE TO PUMP OUT BABIES AT THE WILL OF HUSBANDS, BOYFRIENDS, RAPISTS OR INCESTUOUS PERSONS. If men ever had to make such decisions that drastically affected their minds, bodies and lives, abortions would be free.