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.
Well if we're using personal examples....I am the descendant of a rapist.
You know, she survived the rape. A beautiful, strong, vibrant, loving woman, raising a child on her own, the child of a man who dragged her into the woods and raped her.
Would I have rather she be spared that pain and I not exist? That's kind of like asking black people if they're grateful for slavery because at least they get to live in America now. If I could ask her, I know for sure what the God-fearing woman's answer would be.
Killing the child does not erase the rape. It just adds violence to violence.
And maybe you think I'm radical, but even if killing the child COULD somehow magically erase the evil rape, it would still be 100% wrong. It's wrong to harm an innocent to make someone else feel better.
Cold, hard fact of life is that babies get sold every day in this country.
It's certainly legal.
So, ultimately, it IS about outlawing abortion? Maybe I missed your point.
sure they are different the conception is.. the burden of carrying the child is different.. no one is arguing that ......but their the life of one baby is no less precious than the others.. no matter how it was conceived...
What crime did the baby commit that would make it's "justifiably homicide" ok? Killing the criminal who committed the rape or incest would be justifiable, killing the innocent child would not be.
Communication is a wonderful thing. We males might not be able to personally feel it or experience it, but we can hear and read about it. In that sense, our species is a wonderful and unique thing.
but men are NOT incapable of understanding the precious gift of life....even if you do think they are half brain dead....
(just tryin' to lighten things up guys...... please take it with a grain of salt...)
You know, for some reason I believe you...
God Bless ya clawrence3
He's always been above board about the rape incest exception. It is the same position as Ronald Reagan
The real difficulty is that Bush will reliably stand for what he believes in...even when it antagonize his base.
Is that a good thing?
I think Scalia would go along with that.
ROFLLL!!!
I've made all my cases...we're just never going to agree. That's all.
How dare I what? Point that you said someone's feelings and mental state make it justifiable to kill an innocent child?
You either think that dismembering innocent children is wrong, or you don't.
You live an isolated life.
There does not need to be a crime for "justifiable homicide" - for instance, it can be the killing of another in self-defense when danger of death or serious bodily injury exists, even if the other person does not know they are posing said risk - I will grant you such force used must be reasonable and cannot be excessive. If there is some reasonable step short of deadly force, that should always be used first. Let me know if you have any further questions.
I predict your next response will be something along the lines of, "Are you equating bearing a child with slavery?", to which my response will be, "Yes, if she is forced against her will to bear a child whose conception she bears no responsibility for".
So there is really no point in arguing any further, as neither of us shall persuade the other in this matter.
I agree and that's why I'd never have one myself. I'd give it up for adoption. I wouldn't wait to report the crime either that way I could take the pill and no conception to begin with.
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.