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.
It might be her child biologically, but I know for me I could never love a child of mine conceived in such a manner. Even with adoption there is always the fear that the child will try to find you, causing the pain to resurface years later. And what about the pregnancy itself? Being pregnant is a very public situation, while rape is something most women don't want to advertise to the world if it happens to them. Say you are married at the time of the rape. How do explain what happened to the baby without mentioning the rape? That's if you give up the baby, which would be a must, since no man wants to raise another man's child, especially if the child will clearly look different than the couple's other children.
It does not necessarily mean the issue "returns to the states". The USSC could totally federalize the question. There are a number of methods for doing that and sound arguments behind them.
depression after abortion happens to 99.9% of people who have had convenience abortions and THEN TALK ABOUT BEING DEPRESSED. There are people who have abortions and never really think about it in those terms ever. You might not like the way that sounds, but it's true.
You're probably right, in general, that men don't understand the issue. But here's my position. I support a reasoned compromise on this issue. Allow all abortions up to around 8-12 weeks. Bar all abortions after that except for rape, incest, and life of the mom.
But my sister, who opposes all abortion restrictions, also thinks I don't understand--because I'm a man.
depression after abortion happens to 99.9% of people who have had convenience abortions and THEN TALK ABOUT BEING DEPRESSED. There are people who have abortions and never really think about it in those terms ever. You might not like the way that sounds, but it's true.
Well, I have news for you, he's not wrong. What is wrong is to rush this piece of legislation through the SD legislature. I'll bet you the governor doesn't know what sham he penned his name to.
So is it ok to kill innocent babies as long as their father was a criminal?
Of course, the Courts can cut off a rapists' rights - are you really arguing against basic biology here? If you are, as for the gang-rape scenario, only one sperm fertilized my daughter's egg, so (as someone pointed out above) a simple DNA test will provide the identity of that father. Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't this taught where you went to school?
I haven't been snooty or rude at all....
I have been honest...
honesty and truth hurts..
I just refuse to buy the holier than thou "I'm a victim. You have no right to judge" pitch....
it stinks when that won't sell to one that has been there.. it ticks people off... I know that.. I understand that...
You think this is the first time I've had people get angry with me for pointing out that this is wrong?
I'm no better.. I just chose better....
I did it for love of my child... and because I believe in right and wrong... that is it...
I know everyone is capable of those two things...
you can call me anything you like.... it won't change the fact that I am no hero.. I just won't buy the victim story to justify the murder of an innocent child....
I am weighing in here only to say...that I won't be weighing in. : )
Moving right along, I also don't really agree that one gender is unable to perceive and understand the feelings and emotions of the other. It might take a bit more work, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility, no?
My best suggestion, is to keep this to an abortion war, without infusing the gender wars into it.
Sorry, my bad.
really? I think you just tipped the scale!
:-)
I agree with you, but I think bizarre is just a little weak, the biggest damn fruitcake statement I ever heard, would be more to the point.
Clue ~ a newborn can be moved on the adoption market in minutes.
I have to disagree with you. I've met more than a few women who've had them and regretted them bitterly. I do think that a lot of women who've had abortions because the boyfriend wanted it or because it got in the way of their career do regret it later on (esp. if they go on to have other children).
Abortions are frequently paid for by the state. And Planned Parenthood is funded by taxpayer dollars.
If you find any such woman (raped or not) willing to undergo the pregnancy and adopt out the child, I will pay for it.
You're right, he did say "rape" at first. At first I was shocked too but from the rest of the post he meant incest. And he did say incest in the end:
In the case of rape, it's usually the perpetrator who wants the abortion. The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation. The perpetrator wants to "destroy the evidence." It's great we are so sensitive to the needs of those who commit incest.
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.