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.
Help me out. What is consistent about "There is a child in the mother's womb unless that child is a result of rape or incest?" What grows in the womb if there was rape or incest? A polyp? A cat?
Making exceptions for rape or incest is basically saying there is no human life in the womb. Especially when it very unlikely that a child will develop because hospitals give drugs to rape victims to prevent pregnancy.
Have you read post 825? We sit here and talk about it, and a freeper went through it (getting pregnant from being raped).
If you are certain that you will not change your mind, then I pity you. I never close my mind to divine revelation. Who can be so certain that they are absolutely correct in matters where morals and strong feelings intertwine so deeply?
I don't know if you are religious or not, but if you are, pray for God to grant you wisdom on the subject before reading post 825.
LOL!
You are so pompous and busy deciding who is aloud to speak, checking credentials, and looking down your nose....you totally miss it when someone makes fun of you....
it's rather cute actually...you walked right into proving the point I was making! and it only took me 3 words! LOL!
Thanks for making my day! what a swell way to start me day!
:-)
WTH? Who is sending Bush his talking points these days?
I will now have to read the thread to get the rest of the story.
Why do you think there should be an exception for rape or incest? Setting aside life of the mother, if it is murder when there is no rape or incest how does rape or incest make it cease to be murder? Bush's position is inherently hypocritical. He admits that the entity in the womb is a human being, but he still believes that under those circumstances that the mother should be allowed to kill the baby. It is killing the baby for the crime of the father, which is a complete reversal of justice.
So GW ran on it? Does that make it right to kill the unborn becuase of what the father did?
You're right. Why make a rape victim carry a child to term. Just kill the baby, after all, it's her fault that she's the product of a rape. I jsut hope she isn't the baby that God designed to cure cancer.
My statement comes from an evangelical talk show. The comments were made on the show and people made known that they infact did take oral contraceptives and was not aware that some types of common oral contraceptives prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.
Since the show was on an evangelical formated station (not Catholic), focused on that statement of fact and callers responded with questions and concerns that they infact had used oral contraceptives without knowing that they could be aborifacients, then it can be extrapolated that it is common. In addition, a good number articulated that they were involved actively and passively with pro-life causes and were not aware of this issue.
Thank you for your kind and even-tempered reply and questions to my statements.
Try this link...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
Over 18% of the families in South Dakota do not have fathers present in the home.
Over 27% of the babies born in South Dakota are born out of wedlock - third highest in the nation.
Over 76% of teen births in South Dakota are out of wedlock.
http://bayh.senate.gov/issues_fatherhood_trends2.html
I am pro-life to the point where I believe that a child conceived during a rape (very rare) or incest should not be murdered. That is MY position.
However, I understand that there are many who are pro-life who disagree with that, and I also understand that a pro-life bill with no exceptions would fail. FAIL.
The question is, do we want NO progress made, or do we want MAJOR progress made?
Those who are saying that President Bush is 'angering his base' by making those exceptions are just plain wrong.
Even those of us who are complete pro-Lifers understand that others disagree on these points and are still against abortion.
President Bush is consistently pro-life, and anyone who screams that he is not because of this statement is lying.
Understand that?? They are LYING. (which is, in case they don't know it, a SIN).
I feel the same way, ksen. Thanks for posting.
When the debate about whether or not a child of rape should be aborted (I don't think they should) turns to attacking this very strong PRO-LIFE President, the motives of the attackers are clearly suspect.
Perhaps they do not want lives to be saved. Perhaps they just want to spout off on an Internet forum against President Bush.
I really don't think motives are pure in all cases here.
If all abortions other than rape or incest cases were ended, then millions upon millions of babies will be saved. If the exception is not in the laws, then they will not pass.
What kind of choice do they want to be made? Keep the exception and save lives, or remove the exception and keep the status quo?
Not much of a choice to me.
Thank You, Lord, for a strong and consistent pro-life President! Amen.
Now I want to see all the freepers that were in hysterics over Terry S. in Florida comment on this...should be interesting.
The dirty little secret is that in the Midwest, as in most other areas of the USA, marriage is not the norm in the coming generation.
The Lord is at work in this country to save the lives of the unborn.
PLEASE, do not use this as an excuse to bash the most pro-life President we have ever had............and the very reason that the pro-life movement has been emboldened.
You are on the WRONG track here, Aussie if you use this to bash President Bush.
PRO-LIFERS..........PLEASE THINK! We are finally making progress!! God is at work!
If you are pro-life you should know that telling the truth is important.
Where is the moral compass of the Bush bashers? Where is your honor?
A consistent pro-Life position, and revolutionizing the Supreme Court is 'stupidity?'
You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
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.