Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban

AFP ^ | 1 March 2006

[TigersEye]

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.

I can't imagine equating my own imaginings of how difficult the raising of a child would be to a direct and intentional assault on my self/family by an adult. Not only can I not find a moral comparison I can't see an ethical connection or any logical connection at all.

...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.

I am unable to compartmentalize his actions as having no connection there. In your hypothetical; first he rapes my wife, then he tries to use the legal system to gain further access to her life, my life and the baby he concieved by rape. To me that is an ongoing assault directed at my family. Sounds evil to me.

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.

I do see the reasoning and it is faulty on many levels. Not the greatest of which is that it is all based on assumptions.

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?

Anyone who sets their mind to press an ongoing assault on my family needs to die. I have a right and a duty to defend my family and out of compassion for the perp I have a duty to stop him from committing an act that will send him to a hell realm for a very, very long time.

Now, I don't quite believe you'd kill anybody, ...

In the hypothetical you describe; you may be right. Not taking life is one of the most important practices I adhere to. But it is not an absolute. Therein is one of the problems with hypotheticals. A hypothetical establishes certain points as givens while leaving huge gaps in the way things actually manifest. Ordinarily I would not consider taking a human life unless that person were presenting a threat to the life of another person.

In your scenario though the antagonist is demonstrating an unbending intent to continue causing major problems for my family without apparent end. And let's not forget it started with one of the most violent and intrusively degrading acts there is. Other specific factors would present themselves in real life affecting my actions. Those could be speculated upon ad infinitum.

Bottom line; it would probably be better to beat him so badly that it took weeks to recover. That leaves him his life but gives him enough to think about that he leaves us alone for good. But you describe someone who is likely too psychotic for even that to work. If so then killing him would be my choice. I wouldn't ask myself if he deserved it I would ask myself if it was appropriate. Therein lies the weakness of hypotheticals. Only being in the actual experience can answer what is appropriate in the moment.

Folks don't always think things through. And mostly they don't have to.

That was my original point to you. It is not necessary to think things through if you know the meaning of cause and effect, remain aware of what is and act appropriately to it. The moment you start to think about it you've blown it.

FWIW I didn't mean to demean Socrates or thinkers in general. Thinking and philosophizing is a wonderful game to play. I was simply indicating that philosophy (or contemplation) are an unsound bases for accessing or applying wisdom in action. You may argue that 99.9% of us do that 99.9% of the time but nonetheless... I'm sure you can see where all that thinking has gotten the human race. ; )

If he repented and seemed genuinely sorry, would you forgive him the rape ...

There is no point in forgiveness if you hold no ill will in the first place. An admittedly difficult state of equanimity to achieve in the face of the act of rape but not beyond the realm of possibility. You should understand my hypothetical responses were given as my hypothetically residing in that state of equanimity not as emotionally based reactions.

[Arrowhead1952]

But real love is hard these days when we have the convenience of abortion Supreme Court rulings allowing the murder of unborn children to take it's place.

I fixed your reply.

[twippo]

"Well I would not consider myself a hero. It's the most expedient thing to do and I would want to move on as if nothing happened and have a normal family."

Some families are anti-adoption (from the point of view of the birth mother, not being adoptive parents), because they feel possessive over the baby. My classmate got pregnant in the 11th grade (I don't know if it was from rape) and gave the baby up for adoption. My mother made the comment how horrible it was to give your parents' grandchild away, that it was unforgiveable, etc. That's my fear if I ever had a crisis pregnancy. I wonder if some women out there have had abortions for that reason.

[fabian]

I don't think killing the baby is going to stop a rapist from raping. They do it out of uncontrolled hate, not a desire to have a baby. Having and giving the child to be adopted isn't forcing anyone into slavery...except that the woman has been forced to endure a horrible rape. But to further rape her by abortion is only going to make the emotional trauma worse.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Whether abortion in the wake of rape stops the rapist or not is immaterial. It is an appropriate legal remedy to ensure that the rapist doesn't benefit from his or her crime.

Forcing a raped woman to carry the seed of a rapist to term is indeed a form of slavery.

I'm quite surprised at the size and intensity of the pro-rape lobby here at FR.

[fabian]

That is a really bizarre thing to say: " pro-rape lobby here on Freerepublic". I said in my posts how horrible it is but that I just don't think the baby should be killed because of it. Of course the rapists shouldn't benefit and the child could be adopted by loving parents. I don't know why you are misrepresenting what my opinion is.

[tlj18]

If someone wants to have an abortion I'd even go so far as allow them to terminate in the 1st 3 months.

Why only the first three months? Why is it different after three months?

God never meant for us as individuals to judges. He does command us to obey the laws of the state.

Yes, but what about when Christians have the ability to influence what those laws are? Christians had absolutely no influence when that particular Scripture was written.

Therefore those of us who are actually true conservatives understand that it's a States rights issue. We believe the people get the choice. If California wants abortions for everyone at anytime.. let them.. that's their choice. If South Carolinans want to not have any abortions in any case that's their choice. People can move to where they feel most comfortable.

Yes, that's correct, even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it wouldn't stop any abortions, just reverse it back to a states' issue.

As far as yourself.. you just make sure you aren't involved in a decision to have an abortion. Preach to others about the importance of not having an abortion. Stop trying to force everyone to be your kind of Christian. That's not what the bible teaches at all. It says to mind yourself and let God worry about the rest.

Well, if abortion is murder, don't Christians have a justifiable objective to stop the acts?

Also, based on your paragraph above, it seems you would have little objection to supplying terrorists with weapons; after all, it is their choice as to how they use those weapons. Just wondering.

[tlj18]

I had one when I was 17 and have had to deal with the guilt all my life. I have repented and am pro-life (and have been for years). But think about it--if a million women have had abortions since 1973, do you really want to arrest us all--over 30 million American women? Including those who are now witnessing for the pro-life cause about the mistake of having an abortion? Millions of children suddenly without their mothers? I don't mind facing God's judgment, but no way will you or anybody else take me away from my precious daughter in this life.

No, I was just thinking through if abortion was banned. If it is considered murder, then should it be treated like any other murder. And the mother would be considered an accessory to the crime.

I wasn't supporting the execution/rotting in prison of mothers and doctors, just extending the logic from the point of if abortion was considered murder. If you treat abortion different from other murders, then you are saying that unborn babies are worth less than people who are already born. I find such a difference very difficult to logically defend.

Of course, our laws are not based in logic, but on politics and asinine notions of justice (such as putting people in prison, which I'm sure you will intensely disagree with me).

But I was speaking theoretically and philosophically, not pragmatically. Just if you followed cold, hard logic - what would that logic dictate?

[Almondjoy]

It's not different after 3 months for us Christians. However viability is certainly an aspect the state must look at when making the right decisions on laws.

Again Christians shouldn't be worrying about laws. We should be worried about helping that individual. What do you think is better.. changing a law and having people go to jail.. or working with that person first and changing their mind on that issue so they don't committ the sin in the first place? I don't think God intended us to lock everyone up for sinning do you?

No.. Christians do not have a duty to stop sin. In fact God knows that it's inevitiable that we will lose to evil and sin. Our job is to help save as many people as possible. Saving people is not by sending more people to jail or making more acts illegal. It's by showing them the love of Jesus Christ and helping them to help themselves when it comes to sin.

How do you jump to terrorists in all this?

[tlj18]

For starters, because forcing a woman (sometimes a young girl) to spend several months walking around obviously pregnant, when it's the result of rape or incest, is indescribably cruel. Is she supposed to explain the circumstances of the conception to everyone she knows at work/school and in her neighborhood? Or just let them assume that she can't keep her legs together or remember to use reliable contraceptives? Not to mention that it prevents her putting the horror behind her and starting to recover psychologically, and that delay can have a permanent impact.

I certaintly agree that it is not a good situation, and that there aren't good options. But I think it comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder, and if murder is worse (or not) than the inconvienence, stigma, extreme embarassment, lifelong resulting mental issues, etc.

I'm not unfeeling, and I understand the dilemma far more than you might think. Right now, any individual can make that choice.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

That is a really bizarre thing to say: "pro-rape lobby here on Freerepublic". I said in my posts how horrible it is but that I just don't think the baby should be killed because of it. Of course the rapists shouldn't benefit and the child could be adopted by loving parents. I don't know why you are misrepresenting what my opinion is.

By your own words you are a true friend to rapists and an enabler of slavery. Forcing the raped party to carry a pregnancy to term is slavery, plus emotional torture. If one chooses to do so--fine; but, morally, one can't force this. I'm certain your neighborhood rapists appreciate your support.

[ariamne]

I wasn't supporting the execution/rotting in prison of mothers and doctors, just extending the logic from the point of if abortion was considered murder. If you treat abortion different from other murders, then you are saying that unborn babies are worth less than people who are already born. I find such a difference very difficult to logically defend. Of course, our laws are not based in logic, but on politics and asinine notions of justice (such as putting people in prison, which I'm sure you will intensely disagree with me). But I was speaking theoretically and philosophically, not pragmatically. Just if you followed cold, hard logic - what would that logic dictate?

I don't disagree at all with putting people in prison who deserve it, to punish the criminal and to protect the rest of society.

I am not a danger to society. And as for punishment, everytime I look into the eyes of my beautiful living daughter and see the potential of a sibling there--that is my punishment.

I suppose if logic would dictate that if you made abortion a crime, and the statute of limitations never runs out for murder, than you should arrest all 30 million women for murder. Good luck with that. But I don't know how you could arrest them for a killing that was NOT a crime (legally speaking) when they did it.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

"...but only if she was truly sorry about what she did."

Of Course. That's assumed. Christ didn't forgive anyone who wasn't contrite. A lot of people today like to ignore that part of the forgiveness stories.