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.
You probably wouldn't enjoy reading the Bible. It might be too much absolutism for you to handle.
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.
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.
LOL Good answer.
Better answer? - "Yes, that's true. I already sent a file on you to my higher ups recommending internment."
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.
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.
Sorry, I mistyped. I meant incest.
Ping to read later.
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!!!!!!!!
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"!!!
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
bush has been going out of his way to bash and give the finger to his base for the last 5 years
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.
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.
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.
Fine. But don't you have a counterargument?
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.
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.