Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Remember when? *sigh*:
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
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.
If you wife, sister or daughter got raped by a thug do you want them to carry the child? How about if you son raped his sister? I am against abortion except for rape and insect. Absolutism can be very destructive.
Not much of a Christian if he supports the Murder of children.
Does this mean that Bush supports the murder of children?
b'shem Y'shua
Only those who get upset about the killing of babies.
So saying it's ok to kill a child because of the crimes of someone else is nothing to be upset about?
I have never understood why there should be an exception made for rape and incest. If abortion is murder, then wouldn't it still be murder under the proposed exceptions? But of course, the demands for these exceptions aren't grounded in reality - it's all politics. To make it look like pro-life people are compassionate. But it really makes such people look like fools.
By being consistant in his positions? That not antagonism, that is leadership. The right thing does not change to the wrong thing just because it is unpopular.
I agree, but not explanation so far it seems...
I remember reading a story, not that long ago, where a woman had a child which was conceived by rape and when the child was born, the Father actually sued for joint custody and was AWARDED it. I'm not making this up.
I can see this thread is going to be ugly as hell.
There are a great number on the right who favor exceptions for rape and incest.
This is not unusual.
I do not favor such exemptions.
But, many do. I am not upset here. The president's position is one that many right here on FR adhere to.
See? They're all extremists
I'd rather be an "extremists" who says that killing an innocent child is wrong in all cases than a moderate who says that killing an innocent child is ok in certain circumstances.
Remember when? *sigh*:
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Rape or incest? Cmon.
they're both bad. Both. How about when the mother's life is in danger, are you against abortions in that case? Should the mother die so the baby can be born?
But shouldn't the wishes of the would-be mother be taken into account as well? If she were forced to have a child because of a rape, that would be pretty rough. Imagine looking into the eyes of your child and reliving that moment... over and over again.
There have to be exceptions... extreme cases. Abortion is not birth control, but to ban it completely is definitely not the right thing to do.
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.