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.
***very few states are going to ban abortion for adult women in the first 10 weeks, very few.***
Today, the MS House Committe voted to ban most abortions. This is a committe controlled by RATS!
The states that would ban most abortions are: AL, MS, LA, NE, ID, UT, and SD.
Glad to see you know your place! LOL :) (most on here would have you thinking the opposite).
So you think rapists can't be fathers? You need to sit down with your mom and have a talk about the birds and the bees.
Ummmmmmmm.....and you say I'm speaking from emotion ??
My Mom explained the facts of life a long time ago....Mom + Dad, usually in bed (but sometimes things got weird - sofa, etc.), sperm + egg = child.
What version did you get?
Funny, I don't recall my Mom saying, "and son, if you rape a girl, it's ok because now YOU ARE THE DAD!!!"
The rest of your post does not warrant an answer.
Your Mom needs help, and so do you, and I'd get my money back for the explanation you got.
sarcasm duly noted...
But I guess I am on the horns of a moral dilema.
I do not think abortion is moral.
And yet I do not think that so-called conservatives should be rushing out to cede authority over our lives to the state, especially in an issue as sensitive as this one.
When it comes to consenting adults, there is absolutely no "excuse" for abortion. None. Yet with rape and incest I actually do see a grey area.Call me a hypocrite, but I'm being as honest as possible.
I also know that there are actually few rapes that result in pregnancy, yet I would still feel more comfortable having the victim of a rape make the decision with regard to the pregnancy, instead of Janet Reno.
Remember, the state that can force a woman to have a child concieved in a violent rape....
could just as easily become the state that could force a woman to have an abortion of a child concieved in love...
First of all I don't make ethical decisions based on what-ifs. To answer your what-if, I would do all I could do. I presume it would not be too difficult to get custody of my own wife's baby. If not then I'd fight harder. Presuming he was still alive. And presuming his was still alive and tried to insinuate himself into my and my wife's life after raping and impregnating her it wouldn't last very long. His life that is.
Well it is painful to be on the horns of a moral dilemma. Very difficult and I do not envy you. I am not calling you a hypocrite or anything else. I wonder if you can "look the issue in the face". Can you come to terms with the fact:
Abortion takes the life of an innocent child.
The difficulty is knowing that and standing up and saying, "Yes, abortion is murder, but it is still right."
In effect, Bush is agreeing with Justice Rehnquist.
-- From the Justice's dissent in Roe:
"-- I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," - against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, - embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights.
But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law.
The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this.
If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one. --"
As we see Rehnquist believed, like Bush, that an outright prohibition on abortion "where the mother's life is in jeopardy", would be an "invalid objective" for a State law.
First of all, I too think Jesus would forgive her, but only if she was truly sorry about what she did. A lot of people on this thread are practically defiant about the right to kill an innocent unborn child.
Nevertheless, I don't think any amount of "torment" on the part of the woman justifies murdering your child. And then to try to rationalize that decision to God is just the height of audaciousness, IMO.
It's things like this that make politics seem hopeless. I would have rather not found out about this.
You've just restated the well worn and most basic argument the left uses in their push for abortion; i.e. that the child won't be loved so it needs to be killed.
It comes in many variations, the child won't be loved, the child will probably grow up poor, the child might grow up to be a criminal, etc. It amounts to a declaration of the guilt of the unborn with a sentence of death. There is no way to know how a child will grow up without allowing them that chance. Through a loving mother, see eeeevil conservative for a fine example, or through adoption, the child may grow up with a fantastic life of love and happiness. It's disingenuous to apply unknowns as fact just to argue for death.
morality aside, if we as republicans push this, I suspect a massive backlash from the left.
If I were a liberal democrat I would be salivating over this....
Cue James Carville:
"Look at what the Right-wing, Bible thumping crazies over there want to do...no compassion for rape or incest victims....yep folks, if your daughter is gang-raped by illegal aliens, the Wing-nut Republicans will force your daughter to carry that child to term, hell, they don't care what you say, nah, 'cause they're a buncha knuckle draggin neanderthals who think a vicious gang-rape is just God's way of blessin' ya with another lil angel.You know what they is, they is fascist. Fascist. Bible thumpin Nazi kooks"
the ads won't be quite so obvious, but that's pretty close, actually.
and it'll work on many unthinking folks.
But on some level I do respect those who say "politics be damned, if we can't end all abortions, we'd rather end none."
There is an honesty in this approach that is refreshing in this cynical age.
I'm prefectly at peace with losing seats over a moral issue. In fact a few years in the political wilderness might be good for the conservative movement....help us clear our heads.
He is doing the same thing his dad did....Bush 1 had it sewed up and it seemed like he just quit and handed the election to Bill.
Hope I am wrong but I think Senor Whore Hey Bush is in the process of doing the same thing for the Hildabeast.
Wow, you had a post pulled? I think the best I've done was having a couple of keywords removed. I love keywords.
Why not? I don't think insinuating oneself is a fatal condition. You certainly wouldn't kill him for that, would you? It isn't a valid reason to kill a person who is just an inconvenience.
Mind you, I'm on your side here. I don't think abortion is right in such cases. Just...well, curious.
As for "I don't make ethical decisions based on what-ifs," you ought to try it occasionally. Socrates (a notoriously inconvenient person) recommended it.
hehe..point taken.
actually, i work with a fellow who i copy that from.
He's a barely-informed democrat who is convinced that republicans are nazi's in disguise.
I told him if that were true, I'd have had him sent to the camps long ago...
That could get messy. What if he and his family pleaded for mercy in court? And the victim decided she'd rather forgive him than see him ab--- er, executed. In effect, it would often be that rapists were put to death on the say-so of the victim.
Now, let's take it another step. What if she'd like to forgive him and not see him put to death, but there's a good chance, her lawyer says, that if she forgives him, he'll take her to court and try to get visitation rights or even custody? Who knows if that affects her decision whether to recommend clemency or not?
For that matter, what about the women who might take advantage of a law that called for executing rapists? Maybe some men would be accused of rape because they were, you know, inconvenient.
It could get real messy.
Considering that we live in a democratic republic, FRiend, YOU should "f-ing" care. Unless FReepers are now going to advocate the kind of judicial activism we supposedly can't stand, "I'm right and that's that!" is going to get us nowhere. I'm surprised this has to be spelled out.
I prefer to mostly read and seldom post BUT there are a few things that must be said on this thread.
First, I am SO sick of all the "Bush is alienating his base" rhetoric on FR. The President has never changed his position on abortion so stop acting so shocked by this!!! And, news flash, you will never agree with any elected official on everything. Quite complaining and be grateful we have him in office and not the french-looking candidate.
Second, although the rape, incest, and life/health of the mother debate is interesting, it's purely academic and has no relevance at this time. IF Roe ever gets overturned, the best scenario we can hope for is that the Court will hold that abortion laws should be left up to the states (pre-Roe situation). Therefore, this decision won't be up to the President or any national official. It will be up to the local legislature...then all us FReepers can hit the pavement and try to get our guy elected.
Also, even if there is a rape, incest, life of the mother exception, that would eliminate almost every single abortion. Why? Because the left has greatly exaggerated those situations -- they very rarely happen. Although I believe it's still murder, if abortion were illegal in all 50 states EXCEPT for those three instances, we would have fewer abortions in this country than we had pre-Roe v. Wade (since more than a dozen states had some form of legalized abortion pre-1973).
Sorry for the long post...Okay, I have to go to bed now.
If "his base" gets mad at them.. well they are loons.
Frankly this is what most of his base wants. Religion out of politics.
We want common sense. We don't want the death of babies are on hands because of irresponsiblity.
Most of us adhere to the do not judge rule. I can't imagine what it must be like for a woman to have to carry a child born of incest or rape.
Rather it's wrong or not is between that person and God. The gov't doesn't need to legislate morality.
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.