Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Remember when? *sigh*:
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
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.
In the case of rape, it's usually the perpetrator who wants the abortion. The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation. The perpetrator wants to "destroy the evidence." It's great we are so sensitive to the needs of those who commit incest.
Freeper. Please.
I'm sorry, I know how alot of you feel, but to make a woman carry a baby conceived from rape is so incredibly wrong.
The last week?
Bush has been bashing his base ... at least since he was reelected.
The sad thing is im afraid your right...... Man needs to wake up.
And killing a baby isn't?
Seriously. That's a bizarre enough statement that I'd honestly like to know the reasoning behind it.
I see, so you'd rather murder a child for the sins of his father.
Why are you against abortion in case of insect or rape?
Actually, if ya' jus' gotta' kill somebody why not take the rapist out and execute him.
It's not the baby's fault. Why should he or she be executed for the crimes of another?
I can't imagine many freepers being upset about the president's statements. Only those who are looking for something to be upset about.
You're right, killing an innocent child is much better. /sarc
Is there really an epidemic of people being impregnated by incestual sex? I know it happens, but I don't see why such an extreme example is always brought up - as if people who get abortions do so with great reservation and take it so seriously... In reality, abortion has been made into something that is a viable guilt-free option for unwanted babies.
Coming out this way, with a law that will be crushed, will merely paint us as extremists. I know people don't like to hear that but it's true--this is just the type of law that makes moderates go "See? They're all extremists!"
If you wife, sister or daughter got raped by a thug do you want them to carry the child? How about if you son raped his sister? I am against abortion except for rape and insect. Absolutism can be very destructive.
Not much of a Christian if he supports the Murder of children.
Does this mean that Bush supports the murder of children?
b'shem Y'shua
Only those who get upset about the killing of babies.
So saying it's ok to kill a child because of the crimes of someone else is nothing to be upset about?
I have never understood why there should be an exception made for rape and incest. If abortion is murder, then wouldn't it still be murder under the proposed exceptions? But of course, the demands for these exceptions aren't grounded in reality - it's all politics. To make it look like pro-life people are compassionate. But it really makes such people look like fools.
By being consistant in his positions? That not antagonism, that is leadership. The right thing does not change to the wrong thing just because it is unpopular.
I agree, but not explanation so far it seems...
I remember reading a story, not that long ago, where a woman had a child which was conceived by rape and when the child was born, the Father actually sued for joint custody and was AWARDED it. I'm not making this up.
I can see this thread is going to be ugly as hell.
There are a great number on the right who favor exceptions for rape and incest.
This is not unusual.
I do not favor such exemptions.
But, many do. I am not upset here. The president's position is one that many right here on FR adhere to.
See? They're all extremists
I'd rather be an "extremists" who says that killing an innocent child is wrong in all cases than a moderate who says that killing an innocent child is ok in certain circumstances.
Remember when? *sigh*:
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Rape or incest? Cmon.
they're both bad. Both. How about when the mother's life is in danger, are you against abortions in that case? Should the mother die so the baby can be born?
But shouldn't the wishes of the would-be mother be taken into account as well? If she were forced to have a child because of a rape, that would be pretty rough. Imagine looking into the eyes of your child and reliving that moment... over and over again.
There have to be exceptions... extreme cases. Abortion is not birth control, but to ban it completely is definitely not the right thing to do.
Nope since the Whine All The Time Choir was never on his side to start with. Their knee jerk opposition to anything done by Bush demonstrates the lie that they ever part of the base
The cases of of pregnancy upon rape or incest are very rare but I think that abortion is not a problem in these cases. Also abortion shall be allowed in case of a choice between the baby life or his mother life. In all other cases it should be prohibited.
Fighting to stop the Holocaust was ugly as hell but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was, without question, the right thing to do.
Actually, Bush ran on this position from the very first. It was part of his campaign statement in 2000.
For all practical purposes, it's not that politically significant at the moment. I happen to disagree with Bush about two of the three, but it will be well after Bush leaves office before we are in a position to confront these issues.
Meanwhile, the headline is misleading. Bush is simply giving his own position, when pressed by some trouble-making interviewer. He is not telling South Dakota what sort of laws they should pass.
In a way it's irrelevant, but I can't help speaking up on the issue of rape. Rape is not the baby's fault. Why kill the baby for a crime of which it is completely innocent.
As for the mother, rape is a horrible business in any case. But I personally believe it is better to have the child, and adopt it out, than to kill it. Killing it solves nothing, and will only make the mother feel even worse.
Certainly.
I am against abortion except for rape and insect. Absolutism can be very destructive.
And compromise is disgusting. You'd murder some children but not others, by your arbitrary standard.
Goodness sake! As a guy that was adopted I am for the bill as it stands. However Bush was asked a Question and he answered it. What was he suppose to do change his position to satisify the "base". Pleaseee people. That being said I also understand that almost all Americans favor those exceptions. I take what I can get if it ends most abortions. But Bush has done nothing wrong here
Studies show incest victims rarely voluntarily agree to an abortion. The victims see the birth of their child as way out, because it will expose the illicit sexual activity of incest. It's also a chance to have a loving relationship that won't be exploitive.
The person committing the incest will often force abortion upon the victim to keep the crime secret. Unfortunately, other members of the family may also do this to avoide shame, etc.
The last week?
Bush has been bashing his base ... at least since he was reelected.
The media tells the sheeple so.
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.