Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
"Millions of women have had abortions...you're saying that millions of women are walking around damaged because of abortions?" Absolutely, YES.
"I'm saying your wrong." Right back at you, Hildy.
"Women who choose to talk about it in that way are...damaged anyway and their abortion provides a very convenient excust." I would say they are remorseful, having worked with many of them, often in, or suspecting, another "unplanned pregnancy". I don't think you ought to be putting all these women in the same category of being "damaged anyway."
"But there are many more who have their abortions and go on with their lives and it has no effect on them." I completely disagree.
"You might not like that, it doesn't fit into your world view, but it's the truth." I would say the same to you. One day we all WILL know the Truth, and I would lean towards that being respecting innocent life. Sorry you don't agree with me, I am REALLY sorry about that.
Thank you so much for your gracious, life-affirming words. You have been a channel of His blessing to me today.
I think you are too easily assuming that the Supreme Court would strike down congressional action to limit their jurisdiction. With the current justices on the bench, I think four would say it is okay (per Congress's explicit power in the Articles) and we might could convince Kennedy. However, if Bush gets another nomination before 08, the possibility becomes even more likely. Don't dismiss the idea too quickly - I think it's the best Constitutional way to defeat Roe at this time (since an amendment is a no go).
I appreciate your line of thinking with allowing tons of Hispanic immigrants into the US hoping they sway things more conservative. However, most illegal Hispanic immigrants are Mexican -- and Mexicans tend to be the more liberal of the various nationalities we call "latino." Then-Gov Bush did a pretty good job of pulling them our way in Texas but other states have been very unsuccessful. Mexicans have a very different idea of government than do we conservatives because of their history of suffering under colonialism and never-ending corruption in their government. The Latin Americans and especially Cubans are our more favorable voters.
But, since it's on my mind, the Republican Party SHOULD be able to bring ALL Hispanic voters to our side on the life issue alone...but I am afraid we often don't target our message in the right way so as to reach out to these voters. (We're too busy praising Tancredo for being outraged that they speak a different language than we). I do think that is something the party should be more concerned about.
When I was in the high school debate club we debated abortion, and I used the same argument. I challenged someone to tell me to my face now that they knew that I was personally affected by a rape and pregnancy.
One girl actually did try to say I shouldn't be here, but later I learned she had had an abortion and felt terribly guilty.
Why should society reward rapists by allowing them to forcibly breed? The law typically does not allow one to benefit from his wrongful actions.
Why should a raped woman, or a raped man, be forced into slavery or involuntary servitude, in violation of the 13th Amendment, by being required, in the former case, to carry the rapist's spawn to term and, in the latter case, to pay the rapist to support her spawn?
People murder for selfish reasons and thus this selfishness will far outweigh any guilt in most cases.
"I did the right thing at the time"
"I did it for my future"
"I was not ready"
I, I, I
The fact that abortion is legal in this country even further drives the guilt down. But the word "I" will always cover the guilt that is found in us all.
You are right though, when you said "some women have regrets, but its hardly a given". Many of the women I grew up with had an abortion at one point; some regret it, some do not. While I cannot understand not regretting it, I cannot judge them. That's God's place, not mine.
As much as I regret and repent what I did, I cannot honestly say what I would feel if I had been raped at 17, as opposed to simply being silly and irresponsible. I cannot bring myself to condemn women who've made that choice after a rape. And to whose who say that any women can claim she was raped, I have to tell you very few women would put themselves through that to get an abortion. I find it offensive.
We all know that no one is going to change anyone's mind on this issue. But I feel compelled to speak out both against abortion and in defense of women who suffer post abortion regret.
Completely false.
First you're the one who has let his political druthers supplant his faith. Not the other way around. So don't attempt to lecture any body here with your hypocrisy. And don't tell us not to make the Reagan-Bush comparison...when there are far better Reaganites out there than this administration.
Your atacks on Reagan, typical of RINOs and leftists, implies that you're totally unaware of the political realities that Reagan had to contend with. Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House, with a large RAT majority. And you could NOT think of a bigger socialist snake-in-the-grass. He was a formidable enemy. Chris Matthews still faithfully echoes his evil mindset.
But Reagan went over his head with Prime Time speeches on the areas where he deemed it vital to try and push the good fight. And he always won.
Bush, has failed to go on in prime time to pitch for anything. He has only done his perfunctory SOTU and Inauguration stuff. And, in contrast to Reagan, has had a much more favorable legislative environment to shape the future of government...and he has squandered all the opportunities a conservative would have grasped. Plus, he exacerbated those areas you ascribe as Reagan 'failures'...increased the bloated Education snafu, where the marxists feather their socialist-indoctrination machine nest. Added a whole new bureacracy, Homeland Security, when the FBI was sufficient. It Just needed to have the Hand-cuffs off. And what has he done about the NEA, National Endowment for the Arts?
And let's be fair, apparently you still fail to appreciate that Reagan met all of the really important pledges.
JOB ONE was fighting and winning the Cold War.
He did.
Which was considered IMPOSSIBLE. Virtually none of the public thought we would win it. Not in a billion years did any liberals think it would happen, and not in thousands of years for most conservatives. He did. And he fought to make it happen.
Bush, on the other hand, has a republican congress. And what has he done with those two terms? He has given the OTHER EVIL EMPIRE, the People's Republic of China, a complete PASS, and is letting them build and build and build. No effort to topple them whatsoever. Indeed, he fails to recognize their true nature, and praises them extravagantly and falsely. He ignores the plight of the people in general, and of the political prisoners. His aides handed the monsters of Beijing a little, secret list of prisoners of conscience the State Dept. wanted released. Reagan never went to a Summit unless the Soviets handed 'em over. The Chinese Communists, when the Bush administration handed them this belated list... laughed all the way to the Politboro. No one has been released. "In your face, GWB!" Was the clear message. And what did he do? Nothing. Still played along. Still praised their "progress". Failed to visit any Christian home churches, or visit any dissidents as did Reagan.
Which means to me that this administration is not impressive in displaying Christian courage of convictions... And what to make of the bland pat-on-the-back speeches? Followed by the wacko crapola about 'retreating' 'protectionism' at the SOTU? Pretty blind, with immense, heavy, self-imposed scales over his eyes.
You, and apparently Bush are the ones putting your trust in Princes. If you know your Bible, you will know this to be true.
Now since you fail to know much real history about Reagan, having learned a false, revisionist version, let's let you read something about his economics record. Maybe you will learn something. Thanks for playing. As for your slam against Theodore Roosevelt...keep in mind that Planned Parenthood is also for that. But Theodore Roosevelt also strongly supported the anti-infanticide laws...putting any imputed pet theories underneath a God-centered moral compass. So nice try, but no cigar...CINO.
June 10, 2004, 2:13 p.m.
Debt, Lies, and Inflation
EDITOR'S NOTE: The August 31, 1992, issue of National Review, set out to set the record straight about the Reagan administration's economic record. We reprint the content of the issue here.
The pro-entrepreneurial policies supported by Ronald Reagan and supply-side economics pose a massive threat to interests of the rent-seeking Democratic and Republican establishments, as well as to the ideological commitments of left-leaning media and academic pundits. It is not surprising, then, that the American public has been subjected to an unprecedented disinformation campaign against "Reaganomics." The campaign was carefully crafted to appeal to conservatives who have long been convinced that public debt is a certain road to national collapse. President Reagan was shown to have increased the public debt even more than the despised Jimmy Carter. President Reagan's policies had left Americans uniquely burdened with red ink, and the country was collapsing beneath the "Twin Towers of Debt." Only another tax increase could save us.
The twin towers of debt were budget and trade deficits, and the implication was that only Americans were burdened with these ills. As the result of them, we had been rendered economically uncompetitive, hopelessly in debt to foreigners, and at their mercy. The day the Japanese stopped buying our Treasury bonds, interest rates would skyrocket, and our economy would plunge over the precipice. Moreover, federal irresponsibility had encouraged corporate and household debt to explode as well. Wherever one looked, the U.S. was smothered in debt.
This story has been repeated relentlessly for a decade despite its lack of any factual basis. Throughout the dis-information campaign, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) twice a year published internationally comparable statistics on public, corporate, and household debt that reveal nothing unique about U.S. debt levels. If we have too much debt, so do our competitors in the Group of Seven industrialized countries. If we are dependent on our G-7 partners to finance our debts, who is financing theirs?
As the information in the table below(?) shows, U.S. public debt as a share of gross domestic product is below the G-7 average. U.S. corporate debt as a share of GDP is the lowest of the G-7 countries. And U.S. household debt as a share of GDP, while above average, is lower than Japanese and British household debt.
The OECD's measure of public debt, which includes federal, state, and local, reveals nothing unusual about the growth or level of U.S. public debt. During the 1980s, only Germany and France have had public-debt ratios consistently lower than the United States', and the difference is not large. The UK has had a lower ratio only since 1990, and Japan's ratio has been lower only since 1986. Italy and Canada have substantially higher ratios. The U.S. ratio has almost doubled since 1980, but Canada's has increased fourfold. All the public-debt ratios have increased except the Japanese and British, which fell during the second half of the decade proof governments can bring debt, under control. Moreover, the British ratio fell following the massive Thatcher tax-rate reduction proof that tax-rate reduction does not cause debt to rise.
U.S. non-financial corporations may be over-leveraged and burdened with junk bonds, but their aggregate gross debt ratio is by far the lowest in the Group of Seven.
The gross household debt ratios suggest that if the American consumer is overburdened, so are the British, Japanese, and Canadians. It is Germany and Italy, with extremely low ratios, that are the anomalies.
Overall, there appears to be a rough balance of sorts. Countries with relatively high public-debt ratios tend not to have high corporate and household debt ratios also, and vice versa. But whatever we make of the figures, one thing is clear: The United States is not uniquely burdened with debt.
The Twin Towers of Debt argument was constructed by economists such as Martin Feldstein, who apparently lack the ability to read balance-of-payments statistics. According to their totally spurious argument, large budget deficits from the loss of tax revenues brought high interest rates. Lured by high interest rates, foreign money poured into the U.S. pushing up the dollar and causing the trade deficit. Thus, the two pillars of debt were both due to cutting tax rates. Between 1982 and 1983, when the U.S. became a net importer of capital, many academic economists joined Feldstein in putting out the story of foreign money pouring into America to finance over-consumption caused by the Reagan tax-rate reduction. Reaganomics was portrayed as an extreme form of Keynesianism that was causing America to disinvest and deindustrialize.
In fact, the official balance-of-payments statistics show no evidence of the foreign money that allegedly was financing excessive U.S. consumption. As the table below (?) shows, between 1982 and 1983 foreign-capital inflow into the U.S. actually fell by $9 billion. The change in the capital amount of the balance of payments resulted from a $71-billion fall in U.S. capital outflows. During 1982-84 there was no significant change in the inflow of foreign capital into the United States. However, U.S. capital outflows dropped from $121 billion to $22 billion - a decline of 80 per cent - throwing the U.S. capital account into a $100-billion surplus. It was this collapse in U.S. capital outflow that created the large trade deficit, which by definition is a mirror image of the capital surplus.
Why did American investors suddenly cease exporting their capital and instead retain it at home where it supposedly was subject to reckless policies of inflationary debt accumulation? After all, such a dangerous program as Reagan's was alleged to be should have resulted in capital flight. Why then the sudden preference of American capital for the U.S. as compared, for example, to West Germany, a country with an economic policy that everyone considered sound?
The answer is so obvious that the only mystery is how economists and financial writers missed it. The 1981 business-tax cut and the reductions in personal-income-tax rates in 1982 and 1983 raised the after-tax earnings on real investment in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world. Instead of exporting capital, the U.S. retained it and financed its own deficit.
The spectacle of almost every economist misinterpreting the source of the capital surplus is extraordinary. Economists looked at the net figure, ignored its composition, and, seeing what they wanted to see, erroneously concluded that the net inflow was foreign money financing American over-consumption.
After convincing themselves and many others on the basis of this fundamental error that the U.S. was dangerously dependent on foreign capital, economists began warning of the consequences. The inflow of foreign money to finance our consumption, they declared, was keeping the dollar high, thus wrecking the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Furthermore, our addiction to foreign capital meant that the U.S. would have to maintain high interest rates in order to continue to attract the money, thus undermining U.S. investment and deindustrializing America. If U.S. interest rates or the dollar were to fall, foreign capital would flee, depriving us of financing for the "twin deficits."
This doomsday scenario was picked up by journalists and kept international markets unnerved. U.S. economic policy came under ever-stronger criticism from our allies. America's "twin deficits" became the scapegoat for every country's problems.
Then, in the autumn of 1985, Secretary of the Treasury James A. Baker III engineered the political fall of the dollar, which plunged, along with U.S. interest rates, in 1986 and 1987. Remarkably, foreign capital inflows to the U.S. promptly doubled.
But what about the debt? Isn't it historically high, and, unlike the past when we "owed it to ourselves," don't foreigners hold a dangerously high percentage? The answer to both questions is "no." The accumulated public debt today as a share of GNP is less than half what it was in 1946. We financed World War II by borrowing, and at the close of the war the public debt was 127 per cent of GNP. This huge debt overhang did not prevent the postwar expansion of the U.S. economy. Taxes were not raised to pay off the debt, and government spending was not cut. Government spending has grown consistently during the postwar period, as has the public debt. But the economy grow, too, and we grew out from under the debt.
During the 1980s, the ratio of public debt to GNP rose slightly, back to where it had been under John Kennedy. Under George Bush the ratio has risen further, due in part to his resumption of tax-and-spend policies and to a weak economy, but primarily to the negative impact the 1986 Tax Reform Act has had on real-estate values and insured financial deposits. Unless the bailout of insured deposits becomes an ongoing activity of the government, the deficit should decline again, both absolutely and as a share of GNP, as it did in the latter part of Reagan's second term.
As for foreign holdings of U.S. debt, the official U.S. statistics show they peaked in 1978 as a percentage of the total. The recycling of petrodollars had a bigger impact on foreign holdings of U.S. debt than the budget and trade deficits of the 1980s.
But what about investment? Isn't it true that investment measures show the U.S. to be in decline? The illusion of the U.S. as a disinvesting nation was created by incompetent economists measuring investment in net nominal terms, without adjusting for inflation and for shifts in the composition of investment. During the 1980s, prices of capital goods in the U.S. rose only about half as fast as the overall U.S. inflation rate. Unless an inflation-adjusted measure of investment is used, the decline in the relative price of capital goods can be misinterpreted as a fall in investment's share of GDP.
Measuring investment net of depreciation or replacement of the capital used in production has the same result. On the surface net investment seems to be a more reliable measure than gross investment. However, net investment fails to make any adjustment for the shift in the composition of investment from longer-lived assets, such as buildings, to shorter-lived assets, such as equipment, that generate more rapid depreciation. Net investment has been falling as a share of U.S. GNP for the past 25 years as a result of a rise in the depreciation rate corresponding to an increase in equipment's share of investment. By misinterpreting a change in asset mix as a decline in investment, economists painted a false picture of disinvestment. As the table below(?) shows, real gross investment's share of GNP in the 1980s was unprecedented in the postwar era.
Prompted by criticisms from economists that U.S. Government statistics were failing to detect a weakening in the nation's industrial base, the Commerce Department undertook a two-and-a-half year study of American manufacturing. The study, released in 1991, shows that the 1980s were years of an almost unbelievable revival by U.S. industry.
In a front-page story that must have been galling for that paper's editorial writers, the New York Times reported on February 5, 1991, that the rate of growth in U.S. manufacturing productivity had tripled during the 1980s and now was on a par with Japan's and Europe's and that manufacturing's share of GNP had rebounded to the "level of output achieved in the 1960 when American factories hummed at a feverish clip." Far from losing its competitiveness, the report revealed, the U.S. had experienced an unprecedented export boom.
But the high Japanese saving rate, used to deflate American economic success in the 1980s, is apparently another fable. In the spring 1989 issue of the Quarterly Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, University of Pennsylvania Professor Fumio Hayashi points out that most of the "apparent savings-rate gap between Japan and the U.S. is a statistical illusion attributable to differences in the way the two countries compile their national income accounts."
The Japanese value depreciation at historical cost rather than at the higher replacement-cost figure that Americans use. As a result, Japanese accounting understates the value of assets used in production and makes Japanese investment look higher than it is. Another source of the saving-gap illusion is the U.S. practice of counting all government expenditures including money spent on roads, schools, and warships as consumption, whereas Japan counts such spending as investment. Once the accounting systems are put on an equal footing, Hayashi finds, the notoriously wide difference in the savings rate disappears.
Economists who look carefully at the subject have found that the gloomy view of the U.S. as a community of spendthrifts is without foundation. For example, Robert E. Lipsey of Queens College and Irving B. Kravis of the University of Pennsylvania studied savings and investment rates in industrialized countries and found that America's bad reputation is based on careless comparisons and narrow measures of investment. This is consonant with other distortions, for example the myth that Reaganomics was based on the belief in self-financing tax cuts and that the deficits prove its failure. In fact, all the official public documents setting out the Reagan program show that the tax reductions at the heart of the 1981-85 budget plan are based on the traditional Treasury static-revenue estimate that every dollar of tax cut would lose a dollar of revenue.
President Reagan's economic program was set forth in an inch-thick document, "A Program for Economic Recovery," made available to the public and submitted to Congress on February 18, 1981. Tables in the document make it unmistakably clear that the Administration expected the forth-coming tax cut to reduce revenues substantially below the amounts that would be collected in the absence of such a cut. Without the tax cut, revenues were projected to rise from $609 billion in 1981 to $1,159.8 billion in 1986. With the tax cut, they were projected to rise from $600.2 billion in 1981 to $942 billion in 1986. The total six-year revenue cost of the tax cut was thus estimated at $718.2 billion.
As the tax-rate reduction was expected to slow the growth of revenues, receipts as a percentage of GNP were expected to fall from 21.1 per cent in 1981 to 19.6 percent in 1986. Accordingly, the document spelled out the necessity of slowing the growth of spending in order to avoid rising deficits. The Administration planned to hold the annual growth of spending to 6 per cent during 1981-84 and to 9 per cent during 1984-86. On this basis, the Reagan budget projected a rise in spending (including the defense buildup) from $654.7 billion in 1981 to $912.1 billion in 1986.
A summary fact sheet showing the expected revenue losses and planned spending reductions was put out for wire transmission. Months of testimony and debate followed, during the course of which the massive revenue losses were in the forefront. After the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was passed, the Treasury Department issued to the media a comprehensive report on the legislation, including a three-page table detailing the revenue loss for each of its provisions. (Between introduction and final passage of the bill, the estimated total six-year revenue cost has grown slightly, from $718.2 to $726.6 billion.)
The Reagan deficit forecast was off, not because of a "Laffer curve forecast," but because of the inflation rate unexpectedly collapsed. This surprised almost everyone, especially the critics who had repeatedly claimed that the Reagan tax cuts would be inflationary. Since monetary policy was a "weak sister," pundits proclaimed that not even tight money (itself unlikely) could subdue the inflationary impact of such a large tax cut.
As any economist should know, a budget forecast is based on an assumption about the growth path of nominal GNP. If the inflation forecast is wrong, so will be the GNP, revenue, and deficit forecasts. The consumer price index tells the story: For 1981 the Reagan Administration forecast 11 per cent inflation versus 8.9 per cent actual; for 1982, 8.2 per cent versus 3.9 per cent; for 1983 6.2 per cent versus 3.8 per cent; for 1984, 5.4 per cent versus 4.0 per cent. (In 1981 critics had derided what turned out to be a pessimistic inflation forecast as "optimistic," a "rosy scenario," and "not credible.") The unanticipated disinflation, together with the loss in real output from the 1981-82 recession resulted in GNP during 1981-86 being $2.5 trillion less then forecast with an estimated loss of federal revenue of $500 billion, and higher real spending than intended. This is the cause of the budget deficits.
Lest we forget, supply-side economics was controversial because of its claim that worsening "Phillips curve" tradeoffs between inflation and employment were the product of a policy mix that pumped up demand while reducing incentives to supply. By reducing the growth rate of money while improving incentives, the economy could escape from its malaise.
Supply-side economics made good on its promise, and Ronald Reagan delivered both the longest peacetime U.S. expansion and disinflation. This achievement has been buried under a pack of lies told by people whose reputations exceed what their integrity warrants. They succeeded in their goal of pushing the Bush Administration away from successful policies and toward self-destruction.
At the time of this writing Mr. Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in 1981-82, holds the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
![]() |
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
http://www.nationalreview.com/reagan/roberts200406101413.asp
|
I respect Reagan. I admire Reagan. I know what he accomplished, and what he failed to accomplish. But I don't want to lose any of my admiration for him because of folks like you on FR inflating the good he did so you can join the left in bashing President Bush, so I'm staying out of these discussions in the coming weeks.
I respect President Bush as much or more than I respected President Reagan, and I admire him as much or more too. He is a man of faith, completely trustworthy, who has the strength of character to lead this nation during some of its most difficult days. God has chosen him to lead us right now because of his strength and his obedience, and he needs our prayers, not our castigation.
Now, I will respond to no more chapters of your book, so you can save them for someone else. Happy nostalgia to you, Paul! But don't forget to pray for President Bush.
Write your own.
Isn't there some sort of procedure that if a woman is raped there won't be a pregnancy?
After you meet someone who was a result of a rape it makes it more real that it is still a human being.That being said nothing in life at least my life has never been easy. Rape or not it would still be my child.Why is it that we choose not to think of it that way?
For whatever reason, people do. Some people don't believe that it's a baby at conception. Maybe it's all a rationalize process..I'm just answering your question.
Like I said I met a young girl who was a result of rape,it's hard to stand there and talk to her and believe she should've died. After being raped why is it considered easier to kill your child than to try to love it. Women need love and support at those times. She and the baby did nothing wrong. But real love is hard these days when we have the convenience of abortion to take it's place.
No need. There will be plenty of books positing my views. :)
It's not that I have a dislike for them they are just pointless in most cases. More than that they are unnecessary. Unless you're writing a fictional novel or the like.
Well, here's where I was going with it.
I have found that people often hold principles they haven't sufficiently held up to real life possibilities. Your comments gave me the opportunity to make a point about this.
I am strictly pro-life, and don't believe exceptions for rape or incest are logical or permissible. Nevertheless, when you say, for example, that a biological father (rapist) who wouldn't go away, would be killed for messing with your family, I find that uncomfortably similar to aborting a child whose existence is perceived as messing up the family dynamics. Not to equate them morally, but you didn't say you'd kill him for rape, but rather for trying to have a relationship with his offspring, which is not in itself an evil thing.
In fact the child of a rape is capable of blowing a family structure to kingdom come, and this is why some women might choose to abort. They think of the effect on the husband who'll never accept that baby, the children who'll have to deal with the divorce, the life-altering hardships afterwards, etc.; and they decide not to carry the child to term. This is killing, but one sees their reasoning.
And I see yours, but it's still killing. The man who, after raping your wife, by some awful twist of fate gains legal leverage and even visitation rights---does he deserve to die for it?
The law nowadays is pretty screwy. His parents could get grandparent rights in some jurisdictions. Would you threaten them? If he repented and seemed genuinely sorry, would you forgive him the rape (as the Lord exhorts us more explicitly than He ever did about abortion) and kill him for the domestic interference?
Now, I don't quite believe you'd kill anybody, which gets us back to my earlier point. Folks don't always think things through.
And mostly they don't have to.
And those who do have to are mostly women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.