Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban

AFP ^ | 1 March 2006

[Sir Gawain]

Absolutism can be very destructive.

You probably wouldn't enjoy reading the Bible. It might be too much absolutism for you to handle.

[TigersEye]

If a man was doing what you have suggested I would most certainly consider it an attack on my family. Legal or not he would die. Legally recognized or not it would be self defense. (I would hope to be smart enough and lucky enough to avoid legal entanglements but those possibilities would not factor into the decision.)

I am somewhat amazed that you would consider a man who rapes your wife and then tries to gain access to your family and your families assets on the specious legal grounds that he's the father of the baby to be "an inconvenience."

There is no need to consider the "what-ifs" of every conceivable consequence of your actions if you simply recognize 'what is' and act appropriately. The reliability of cause and effect makes doing the right thing the best thing in all situations no matter how it 'seems' to turn out. The shaky thinking in your example is probably the result of taking "thinkers" like Socrates seriously.

[Almondjoy]

Because there are some of us that want common sense in our politics. Most of us aren't out there to legislate morality. We are out there to get rid of abortion as a matter of irresponsiblity.

If someone wants to have an abortion I'd even go so far as allow them to terminate in the 1st 3 months. What they do as far as sinning is between them and God.

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

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.

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.

[TigersEye]

I told him if that were true, I'd have had him sent to the camps long ago...

LOL Good answer.

Better answer? - "Yes, that's true. I already sent a file on you to my higher ups recommending internment."

[tpaine]

curiosity wrote:

Last time I checked, even the most extreme libertarians considered protecting innocents from murder to be a legitimate exercise of state power.

States have murder laws that can apply to abortion. They could be enforced.
If you are aware of such a murder, demand that your state prosecutor indict, then hold murder trials of women who have had abortions.

I doubt the feds could find a way to stop a State from holding trials. - And I also doubt that they could ever actually jail any women.

[RebekahT]

Um, the Supreme Court would throw out any such verdict because it would violate the "right to privacy" in Roe. States have to obey the Supreme Court.

[nickcarraway]

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant incest.

[jan in Colorado]

Ping to read later.

[pollywog]

I can understand the life of the mother( although taking ababy is most often NOT necessary).....but incest and rape are STILL killing a baby!!! Nope, Bush is wrong on this and he is disturbing his base!!!!!!!!

[pollywog]

I would answer yes!!To kill a child no matter what, is STILL murdering a innocent one. Who are we to call the shots? that is in God's control.I hardly think God would say " oh sure, go ahead and destroy that one"!!!

[beezdotcom]

What about statutory rape? Why should some 25 year old creep get the right to call him a father after raping a 14 year old?

Tsk, tsk...is that the only scenario you can come up with? In some states, an age difference of only a year (17 and 18, for example) can be considered statutory rape.

[Lexinom]

For what it's worth, here's one study:

What percentage of rape pregnancies are aborted?

Less than half. The balance carry the baby to term. In one study of 37 rape pregnancies, 28 carried to term. S. Makhorn, in Psychological Aspects of Abortion, Mall & Watts, Univ. Pub. 1979, Pg. 58

source

[freepatriot32]

bush has been going out of his way to bash and give the finger to his base for the last 5 years

[Lexinom]

A) The child is innocent, and abortion is a form of execution more brutal and painful than that discharged against the most hardened criminal.

B) How on earth does adding the trauma of abortion salve the trama of rape?

C) There is no dishonor in becoming pregnant as a result of rape.

D) Adoption is always available. No one is "forcing" the mother to keep the child.

[The Worthless Miracle]

I admit - I used to be on the fence, but I looked at the pictures of fetuses, and I saw how the democrats celebrated abortion - & then I realized the sickness of the left. They would have you believe that they want abortion to be rare, solemn, unfortunate - BUT in realiy, they celebrate it. They. Celebrate. Abortions. Look at any rally, protest, anything, they love it- they are nihilistic death worshippers, hiding the nature of their beliefs.

[Just A Nobody]

I only read the first 50 and the last 15.

The only thing I would say at this point is why didn't the President simply say that it was a state issue and does not involve him at this time.

[Lexinom]

You can also see in The Silent Scream video (which I would never want to watch again) the heartrate of the 8-week-old fetus escalating as he is slowly torn away from his warm and protected home - piece by piece.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Fine. But don't you have a counterargument?

[Graymatter]

I used the word "inconvenience" to reflect someone else's use, on this thread, of that word. They were likening a pregnancy resulting from rape to an inconvenience.

Naturally, I would consider a man who rapes your wife and then tries to gain access to your family and your family's assets on the specious legal grounds that he's the father of the baby to be worse than an inconvenience. Nevertheless the law would not permit me to kill him. Nor do I think I could justify killing him outside the law.

Thus I am somewhat amazed that you readily answer,
"If a man was doing what you have suggested I would most certainly consider it an attack on my family. Legal or not he would die. Legally recognized or not it would be self defense. (I would hope to be smart enough and lucky enough to avoid legal entanglements but those possibilities would not factor into the decision.)"

There is so much in there, but I don't wish to detain you in hypothetical situations, since you dislike them. :)

[SeeRushToldU_So]

It is still wrong to kill the child, no matter what the reasons are or who it troubles.

We all have bad things happen to us, some are worse than others.