Posted on 04/05/2006 9:33:51 PM PDT by Coleus
PHILADELPHIA -- Republicans in Washington are always willing to weigh in on the issues that are important to their conservative base -- Iraq, immigration, taxes, federal spending, the Medicare drug plan, the Dubai ports deal, you name it.
But, lately, hardly anybody in the GOP camp seems eager to address the historic event that transpired this month out on the high plains and now threatens to roll eastward, to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is, of course, abortion. For the party of the elephant, the new South Dakota law -- which prohibits the procedure for every woman in the state, unless she is dying -- is truly the elephant in the room.
It puts Republican politicians, especially those seeking the 2008 presidential nomination, squarely on the spot. If they side with conservatives -- who tend to vote heavily in the primaries, and who generally hope that the South Dakota law will be a weapon to overturn Roe v. Wade -- they risk alienating the independent voters who often swing November elections and generally desire that the right to legal abortion be preserved.
That explains why not a single Republican with White House aspirations has declared that the South Dakota law should be the model for an ultimate ban on abortions nationwide. It's a crossroads moment in the 33-year-old debate. Grass-roots conservatives are clearly forcing the issue, hoping this law might ultimately find a receptive audience in Washington on a high court now staffed with two Bush appointees.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds calls the law "a direct frontal assault" on the landmark 1973 ruling. Yet, even ardent foes of abortion acknowledge that the issue is dicey especially for Republicans, who appear to have the most to lose. Jack Pitney, a former national Republican official and Capitol Hill staffer who closely tracks GOP politics, called the abortion law "a delicate situation for the Republicans."
He said, "It makes a lot of them nervous. It's one thing to just talk about banning abortion -- and they do that all the time, because it's a great way to fire up the base and raise money. But it's another thing to actually ban abortion nationwide. "Because that would raise all kinds of uncomfortable questions that could hurt the party politically -- such as, if this is truly a crime, whom do you jail? Very few Republican candidates want to answer that question."
I would keep the options open for rape, and incest, just my opinion
I still think its her choice, to force her have the child is also robbing her of her childhood and she could also have the same feelings if she were to give the kid up for adoption.
But don't you understand, the GOP is going to get all of these undocumented workers' votes. They gonna vote Republican......GWB has a Plan!
I agree that it doesn't help. The buck has to stop somewhere. I say it stops with the woman who has the "choice." You are right about indifference among nonbelievers. When you will kill your child because you don't want to get fat, don't want to ruin your life, don't want to be responsible for a child, or don't want to have to pay child support, you have some serious priority problems.
Pro-life bump. We need to hold their feet to the fire on this.
While I question the timing of the South Dakota vote (I only count 4 votes, at most, to overturn Roe), I fully uspport what they are trying to do. Hopefully, the ambitious national Republicans won't try to scuttle it.
The time has come to start demandign protection for teh unborn.
BTW, how is it that the killing of the yet-unborn Conor Peterson by his father was murder, but if his mother had chosen to do it at the same point, it woudl be permitted legally? Does that make any sense?
The "choice" is. however, more limited than the feminists claim. Seldom is the woman unfettred in her actions. It is the differenve between the Norma McCorveys and the Sarah Weddington's of this world.
""I would keep the options open for rape, and incest, just my opinion""
But are the options for *you* or for the rape victim? Could it be for family pride and honor and maintaining control?
Do you automatically believe (or at least suspect) there was no rape if she doesn't want an abortion?
Have you ever seen an abortion?
Well, if you read many of these pro-life threads, you've run into one of our best writers, who is the child of rape.
The choice is unilateral. If your wife told you to jump off a cliff, or, more relevant, kill your child, would you? You cannot excuse bad behavior just because women are the ones behaving badly.
Not excusing, just looking at the cause. Those who make choices under pressure by others cannot be held to be fully responsible, or others share that responsibility. Boyfreind or parent who wants to ditch the babe surely shares responsibility.
I would leave it to the mother carrying the child in cases of rape or incest. Why should they carry a child if they do not want it? Would a girl that was forced to a carry a child be a responsible mother(would she take care of herself during the pregnancy) or would she drink, smoke and do drugs or workout excessively?
In some way, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but, if you object to abortion because you believe it is murder, then you have to accept that logically it is murder, no matter what the circumstances.
Though I sympathize with your exceptions, we have to acknowledge that aborting a child of rape, e.g., is murdering that child. If one chooses that route, they have to admit it was murder.
I agree, it is stil murder. it's also murder to kill the baby to save the life of the mother.
They win by 3% because they don't take a strong stand on important issues. If they stood strong on abortion and illegal immigration, they would have landslide victories as far as the eye can see.
I understand you completely. If we believe that abortion is murder, and we have this child conceived by rape, don't we have to acknowedge that, unfortunately, we murdered this child, even if it WAS done to protect our 12 year old? I can see myself opting for abortion for my young daughter, but I should not deny what I have done.
To thine own self be true.
I would give her the choice, both pro and con.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Abort the rapist. Keep the baby.
By the way, in general, incest is rape. At least in the argument abortion proponents are making. Otherwise they would be talking about two "consenting adults" committing incest and having an unwanted pregnancy. In this case, again, abort the criminal not the child.
Who to punish? Start with those performing the abortions. I think the mothers seeking abortions should be counseled, just as someone attempting suicide would not be charged with attempted murder.
She's not for limiting abortion. It's a ruse.
If i was 12-14 year old girl and I was raped I would want the choice. I would probably have the baby and put him/her up for adoption. Now if i were an athlete girl like very good at it or a model, I would think twice before giving birth.
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.