Abortion Ban Will Test ‘Moderate’ Republicans

[DeclinetoState]

By Joe Conason

Whatever else may be said about the august legislators of South Dakota, who have arrogated unto themselves the decision of every woman in that state as to whether to continue a pregnancy, they have accomplished something that could prove important to the entire country. Long before the repercussions reach the U.S. Supreme Court, their law criminalizing abortion may finally bring a measure of candor into this controversy.

Such honesty will not be welcome among those who have sought to placate the religious right without arousing the moderate majority. But the passage of the South Dakota bill, soon to be imitated in dozens of other states, should at last require every one of those politicians to explain why he or she believes that rape and incest demand exceptions to the anti-abortion rule.

For anyone who really believes that from the moment of conception every fetus becomes a human being, with the same inalienable rights as any other person, there can be no moral distinction in cases of rape or incest. When pregnancy results from a brutal crime, the perpetrator is not the fetus but the rapist. Yet many supposedly pro-life politicians still insist on that exception, despite its rejection by the Catholic hierarchy and Protestant fundamentalist theologians.


http://www.observer.com/20060320/20060320_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp

Joe zaps McCain further on:


Proving his zeal to make himself acceptable to his critics on the religious right, for instance, Mr. McCain authorized the release of a transparently stupid statement to the press. His spokesman said that the Arizona Republican “would have signed the [South Dakota] legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law—in whatever state—to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.” Signing the legislation, of course, would have outlawed the exceptions.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

From the quote segment:
"For anyone who really believes that from the moment of conception every fetus becomes a human being, with the same inalienable rights as any other person, there can be no moral distinction in cases of rape or incest."

:claps: Absolutely!

[Truth_Hunter]

From the quote segment:
"For anyone who really believes that from the moment of conception every fetus becomes a human being, with the same inalienable rights as any other person, there can be no moral distinction in cases of rape or incest."

:claps: Absolutely!


... Worrying about rape or incest AFTER YOUR DAUGHTER or YOUR SISTER gets raped or abused is focusing on symptoms over causes and deflects discussion from the real problem.

If rapists and child abusers weren't let off without punishment by the Judge Edward Cashman's of the world, fewer of your daughters and sisters would even be put in the situation in the first place.

Actually punish criminal molesters and rapists, and everything 'downstream' starts to take care of itself.

[Venus de Smilo]

From the quote segment:
"For anyone who really believes that from the moment of conception every fetus becomes a human being, with the same inalienable rights as any other person, there can be no moral distinction in cases of rape or incest."

:claps: Absolutely!

Jor Conason is one of the most rabid lefties in what passes for mainstream journalism these days.

He's simply trying to foment strife among 'pubs.

Read a few of his columns and you'll see, but do keep a barf bag handy.

[Native American]

Such honesty will not be welcome among those who have sought to placate the religious right without arousing the moderate majority.

One error (and there are many) in his editorial is that the "religious right" is the majority, while his so-called "moderates" are the minority.

[Native American]

For anyone who really believes that from the moment of conception every fetus becomes a human being, with the same inalienable rights as any other person, there can be no moral distinction in cases of rape or incest.

Similarly, for anyone who really believes it isn't a human being from the moment of conception, there can be no moral distinction between killing a 6-month human being in the womb and killing a 12-month human being out of the womb.

Which means this abortion ban will test "moderate" Democrats as well as liberal Democrats.

[Native American]

Jor Conason is one of the most rabid lefties in what passes for mainstream journalism these days.

He's simply trying to foment strife among 'pubs.

Read a few of his columns and you'll see, but do keep a barf bag handy.

Exactly. And this particular pro-abortion editorial is replete with all the usual pro-abortion assertions and claims, one or two of which I have already highlighted.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Jor Conason is one of the most rabid lefties in what passes for mainstream journalism these days.

He's simply trying to foment strife among 'pubs.

Read a few of his columns and you'll see, but do keep a barf bag handy.

Regardless, doesn't make the statement any less valid or correct. There's essentially no difference in the life created by a loving act and that which is created criminally (rape/incest). BOTH human lives are equal, and circumstance of conception shouldn't negate one over the other.

[Republican_Legion]

One error (and there are many) in his editorial is that the "religious right" is the majority, while his so-called "moderates" are the minority.

I agree with that.

[DeclinetoState]

Similarly, for anyone who really believes it isn't a human being from the moment of conception, there can be no moral distinction between killing a 6-month human being in the womb and killing a 12-month human being out of the womb.



What about a 12-year-old? Or a 28-year-old?

Of course, if the person of whatever age is about to be given the needle for shooting a woman to death in the face, but has since written a children's book while sitting on death row, then the most morally reprehensible thing that humanity could ever think of doing would be to kill that person.

At least, according to your average garden-variety liberal.

[Nutrider99]

Regardless, doesn't make the statement any less valid or correct. There's essentially no difference in the life created by a loving act and that which is created criminally (rape/incest). BOTH human lives are equal, and circumstance of conception shouldn't negate one over the other.
Patricia Ireland said that every sex act is a case of rape. If this is true, then every child is conceived by rape, and therefore rape can be no excuse for killing the unborn. Come on, N.O.W. hags. You can't have it both ways!

[ldb83]

Regardless, doesn't make the statement any less valid or correct. There's essentially no difference in the life created by a loving act and that which is created criminally (rape/incest). BOTH human lives are equal, and circumstance of conception shouldn't negate one over the other.

I can't even whole-heartedly disagree with this statement because it's entirely logical.

Stepping back a bit though, I see that there's more to this issue than logic. I think there are a lot of women who would terminate their pregnancy however possible if it was from forceful rape. If it's banned everywhere, a lot of women would resort to self-performed or back-alley abortions. It doesn't matter how immoral you think they are by doing it... they won't change their minds because YOU think they're a bad person. Some women will not allow the offspring of a monster who raped them to grow inside them. So if you'd fight for an all-out ban on abortion knowing full well that abortion will not go away--only become less safe--you are also valuing one life over another; the life and health of the fetus over that of the mother.

[Republican_Legion]

I can't even whole-heartedly disagree with this statement because it's entirely logical.

Stepping back a bit though, I see that there's more to this issue than logic. I think there are a lot of women who would terminate their pregnancy however possible if it was from forceful rape. If it's banned everywhere, a lot of women would resort to self-performed or back-alley abortions. It doesn't matter how immoral you think they are by doing it... they won't change their minds because YOU think they're a bad person. Some women will not allow the offspring of a monster who raped them to grow inside them. So if you'd fight for an all-out ban on abortion knowing full well that abortion will not go away--only become less safe--you are also valuing one life over another; the life and health of the fetus over that of the mother.

Troll, If some dude wants to blow his brains out with a 12 gauge shotgun it is his fault not the gun. If a women wants to get a illegal abortion and she dies its her own fault. You view on the issue is in line with the typical Liberal Democrat 'Safe and Rare' theorie. Again your saying the child is guilty of a crime. Backalley abortions are just like Illegally owned guns, if someone gets hurt by them its not the goverments fault, its the persons involved at fault.

[ldb83]

Troll, If some dude wants to blow his brains out with a 12 gauge shotgun it is his fault not the gun. If a women wants to get a illegal abortion and she dies its her own fault. You view on the issue is in line with the typical Liberal Democrat 'Safe and Rare' theorie. Again your saying the child is guilty of a crime. Backalley abortions are just like Illegally owned guns, if someone gets hurt by them its not the goverments fault, its the persons involved at fault.

Some women would rather die than bear the child of someone who raped them. You'll never understand that.

[Nutrider99]

Some women would rather die than bear the child of someone who raped them. You'll never understand that.
What if we gave a two-week window of opportunity to rape victims and outlawed all other abortions? That would cut the number from 3,500 abortions per day to maybe 11 (0.3% of abortions are from rape or incest). Wouldn't that be a good thing? Elective abortions account for 98% of all abortions. The great catch phrase of the liberal debate is a non-starter. Like everything out of a liberal's mouth, it is a lie designed to cloud the real isssue. The abortion industy is a wholesale slaughter house for the unborn. You ask why God let 9/11 happen? I ask why He hasn't sent swarms of locusts already. We have become a culture who wants to kill everything but our enemies. Terrorists in Guantanemo Bay are allowed to pray in a government prison, but our "free" children aren't allowed to pray in schools. This is what happens when you let liberals in positions of authority.

[Republican_Legion]

Some women would rather die than bear the child of someone who raped them. You'll never understand that.

You'll never understand that somepeople are just so stupid they would kill themselfs.

[ldb83]

This is all you needed to write...

What if we gave a two-week window of opportunity to rape victims and outlawed all other abortions? That would cut the number from 3,500 abortions per day to maybe 11 (0.3% of abortions are from rape or incest). Wouldn't that be a good thing? Elective abortions account for 98% of all abortions.

It's hard to pick out the meaningful stuff when so much of it is just repetitive babble about the nature of liberals. But in answer to your question though: I'm not sure where those figures are from, but if accurate I'd say that it would be a good thing relative to what others are demanding. Personally, I would never want my daughter to have the idea that abortion is always an option when making decisions about sex. At the same time, an all out ban on abortion is not some magic solution that makes everything fair. Neither extreme of this debate is good.

[DesertFox]

an all out ban on abortion is not some magic solution that makes everything fair.Killing a baby is fair?

[Native American]

Some women would rather die than bear the child of someone who raped them. You'll never understand that.

Women who selfishly think like that, and who want to take their senseless anger out on an innocent little child, are disgusting.

[Native American]

It doesn't matter how immoral you think they are by doing it... they won't change their minds because YOU think they're a bad person.

Maybe it won't change their minds, but of course it does matter how immoral we think they are, because we create laws based on our morals. And if our morals say killing innocent human beings is wrong, and if we're the majority, then the laws will implement our morals, not theirs.

[ldb83]

Women who selfishly think like that, and who want to take their senseless anger out on an innocent little child, are disgusting.

Senseless? SENSELESS ANGER?!?! Do you even UNDERSTAND what rape is? You'd better think about rephrasing before I whip out my Thesaurus and look up retard and begin listing them all off for you.

[ldb83]

Killing a baby is fair?

Letting a mother of 3 die because she can perform neither cesarean nor a normal birth is fair?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I can't even whole-heartedly disagree with this statement because it's entirely logical.

Thank you. (I think, :smirky: )

Stepping back a bit though, I see that there's more to this issue than logic.

Why? And what is "more" than logic? Or should I say, what outweighs logic?

I think there are a lot of women who would terminate their pregnancy however possible if it was from forceful rape.

So? Doesn't change the facts as I have stated. Doesn't make the child any less of a child than one conceived of love. So, you are asserting it is okay to make a value judgment on life ... on who lives or dies based upon subjective worth?

If it's banned everywhere, a lot of women would resort to self-performed or back-alley abortions.

And you can show proof, or evidence, that this assertion is correct, or is it merely an assumption?

It doesn't matter how immoral you think they are by doing it... they won't change their minds because YOU think they're a bad person.

Wait, wait, wait ... I thought we were talking about logic, and you've changed the parameters to morality.

Some women will not allow the offspring of a monster who raped them to grow inside them.

And that is the child's fault, how? The CHIlD didn't participate in the rape, but was a victim of circumstance as much as, in fact even more so, than the mother.

So if you'd fight for an all-out ban on abortion knowing full well that abortion will not go away--only become less safe--you are also valuing one life over another; the life and health of the fetus over that of the mother.

No, not at all ... I am applying logic and reason. The child did NOTHING to create the circumstance in which it finds itself. HOW is forcing death upon the child MORE logical than requiring the mother to respect its life? HOW is forcing death upon the child MORE compassionate than requiring the mother to respect its life? HOW is forcing death upon the child MORE just than requiring the mother to respect its life? The GUILTY party is the rapist, and any and all punishment should be meted out to him, and him alone.

That abortions become "less safe" is ridiculous. There WILL be blackmarket abortions, and with the advancement in technology, there will be fewer deaths (injuries). HOWEVER, there will also be MORE living children. MOST people are law abiding citizens, and they want to live within the confines of it (law) ... they seek abortion NOW because it IS legal, they will not seek abortion as frequently if it is NOT legal.

The "rape/incest" argument is always trotted out to help lend the appearance of abortion as necessity. It is not. The MAJORITY of abortions performed are not because of rape/incest, or even medical emergency, but of CONVENIENCE. Eliminate (i.e. outlaw) convenience abortions, and I will wager you'll see a DRAMATIC drop in abortion rates.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Letting a mother of 3 die because she can perform neither cesarean nor a normal birth is fair?

Please site a case where this has been necessary.

[Republican_Legion]

Senseless? SENSELESS ANGER?!?! Do you even UNDERSTAND what rape is? You'd better think about rephrasing before I whip out my Thesaurus and look up retard and begin listing them all off for you.

Jee just after jAK troll being banned we have another pro-abortion nazi making rants that no one agrees with.

:trollhook

[ldb83]

Jee just after jAK troll being banned we have another pro-abortion nazi making rants that no one agrees with.

So we have people who believe a woman's anger after being raped is senseless, and we have people who think the fetus is as much of or more of a victim of rape than the woman. Some people here don't know what rape is.

Don't misinterpret my emotion as pro-abortion rants. It's stupidity that I lash out at, not anti-abortion. Homeschool and Kathy and others make good points for their case. Native American and a few others do not, and instead say things that are so out of touch that I have to read them a few times to verify they actually wrote that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

So we have people who believe a woman's anger after being raped is senseless, . . .

Anger is logical, expected, and a natural reaction.

. . . and we have people who think the fetus is as much of or more of a victim of rape than the woman.

That would be me. The child most definitely is at the very least as much of a victim as the woman -- not only was its existence brought about by a criminal act, but its death will be brought for no guilt on its part.

Some people here don't know what rape is.

As a product of rape, a former victim of rape, and the mother of an aborted child conceived of rape, I'm quite familiar with it, so that would not be me that you speak of.

Don't misinterpret my emotion as pro-abortion rants. It's stupidity that I lash out at, not anti-abortion.

Very well.

Homeschool and Kathy and others make good points for their case.

Thank you. A question though ... they are good points, but not persuasive? If not, care to explain why not?

Native American and a few others do not, and instead say things that are so out of touch that I have to read them a few times to verify they actually wrote that.

My suggestion, those who do such things, merit no response.

[True Grace]

So we have people who believe a woman's anger after being raped is senseless, and we have people who think the fetus is as much of or more of a victim of rape than the woman. Some people here don't know what rape is.

Don't misinterpret my emotion as pro-abortion rants. It's stupidity that I lash out at, not anti-abortion. Homeschool and Kathy and others make good points for their case. Native American and a few others do not, and instead say things that are so out of touch that I have to read them a few times to verify they actually wrote that.

I was repeatedly raped one night when I was 16 by 2 guys. It's how I lost my virginity (I certainly don't have any quaint stories to tell of my "first time", I assure you).

And I knew....way back then, as traumatized as I was, that I could never and would never kill an innocent child within me if I happened to have conceived. I only had to stop and realize that the child was just as much a part of me as it was anyone else.

I don't take the issue of rape lightly, because I have been there. But the honest truth is, a woman who has been raped or anyone who suffers a crime has lifelong consequences from it. Killing an innocent child won't make the pain go away. And the woman always has the option of giving the child up for adoption, just as every other woman does.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I was repeatedly raped one night when I was 16 by 2 guys. It's how I lost my virginity (I certainly don't have any quaint stories to tell of my "first time", I assure you).

And I at 15, on a "date," and lost mine as well. I share your thoughts.

And I knew....way back then, as traumatized as I was, that I could never and would never kill an innocent child within me if I happened to have conceived. I only had to stop and realize that the child was just as much a part of me as it was anyone else.

Sadly, I wish I had had more within me to withstand the pressure. I'm sure had they (abortions) NOT been legal, I would most likely be the mother of a grown, married daughter, possibly with grandchildren right now.

I don't take the issue of rape lightly, because I have been there. But the honest truth is, a woman who has been raped or anyone who suffers a crime has lifelong consequences from it. Killing an innocent child won't make the pain go away. And the woman always has the option of giving the child up for adoption, just as every other woman does.

So very, very true. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/Crying.gif

[ldb83]

Thank you. A question though ... they are good points, but not persuasive? If not, care to explain why not?
Given your story, your points are as valid and relevant and almost as persuasive as any could be.

The reason they don't persuade me to change my position is that I don't believe restrictions make us all better or safer. I do believe that if a medically performed abortion was impossible (illegal), there would be more unsafe abortions. That should be common sense.

I don't think morality (right and wrong) is determined solely by law. We have underage smokers and drinkers, drug users, etc. and threat of legal repercussions is a minimal deterrent. I would strongly oppose my wife, girlfriend, daughter or any other family member having an abortion, but that doesn't mean that I support legislation to try to wipe the country clean of it.

How and what you teach your children will have a far greater impact than the law. Friends of mine whose parents were crazy disciplinarians were always more unruly. Children whose parents guided and supported them had a much stronger sense of what is right and wrong, because they were allowed to decide for themselves.

Some people on this forum don't seem to care about that. They seem so obsessed with the set of rules being established that there's no other thought or care about the implications that that would have on the real world. The rules are right, so nothing else matters. I don't agree.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Given your story, your points are as valid and relevant and almost as persuasive as any could be.

How does that old saying go? Almost only counts in horsehoes and handgrenades? :smirky:

The reason they don't persuade me to change my position is that I don't believe restrictions make us all better or safer.

Would you agree that stopping abortion from happening makes the child safer?

You seem to be mixing up the argument again. Perhaps a more direct question -- if you agree that both lives are equal regardless of circumstance of conception, then why does one deserve to die because of its circumstance of conception? Isn't this illogical?


I do believe that if a medically performed abortion was impossible (illegal), there would be more unsafe abortions. That should be common sense.

How so? Based upon what information do you make this conclusion?

Let's reason it out: IF it's illegal ...
1. ... then that's the first impediment to obtaining one. Those who are law abiding citizens, will remain law abiding, and this will eilimate THESE from the abortion-seeking pool;
2. ... then it will be much more difficult obtaining an illegal abortion, so given the difficulty, this will eliminate those unable to find an illegal abortion provider from the abortion-seeking pool;
3. ... based upon supply and demand the cost will be quite prohibitive, so this will eliminate many who cannot afford them from the abortion-seeking pool;
4. ... on the flip side of the supply and demand coin, the benefit to give one's child up for adoption would probably increase making it more beneficial all the way around to give up the child (and receive money), than destroy the child (which will cost a lot of money);
4. ... with illegality comes defunding for abortions from the government, so this will eliminate these from the abortion-seeking pool;
5. ... lastly, MOST individuals aren't so mentally unstable that they would harm themsleves, so this would negate those facing no other alternative from trying to self-abort.

Can you show me by the same process how you can support your assertion?

I don't think morality (right and wrong) is determined solely by law.

Why do you believe abortion to be an issue of morality, and not logic? Is murder a moral issue, or legal one -- or both?

We have underage smokers and drinkers, drug users, etc. and threat of legal repercussions is a minimal deterrent.

True, yet if they engage in those behaviors and ANOTHER is harmed, there are serious repercussions, wouldn't you say?

I would strongly oppose my wife, girlfriend, daughter or any other family member having an abortion, but that doesn't mean that I support legislation to try to wipe the country clean of it.

I have yet to understand why not.

How and what you teach your children will have a far greater impact than the law.

Well that's not quite true, is it. You cannot teach one whose denied existence, can you? What are we teaching children when we legally sanction the killing of children based upon circumstance of conception, want, and unlove?

Friends of mine whose parents were crazy disciplinarians were always more unruly. Children whose parents guided and supported them had a much stronger sense of what is right and wrong, because they were allowed to decide for themselves.

Rabbit-trail or red-herring ... either way, this is of no relevance to our discussion.

Some people on this forum don't seem to care about that. They seem so obsessed with the set of rules being established that there's no other thought or care about the implications that that would have on the real world. The rules are right, so nothing else matters. I don't agree.

But can you explain WHY you don't agree? I've yet to see a real reason, much less a logical one. (No offense intended)

[DoctorDoom]

The reason they don't persuade me to change my position is that ..."... my young, inexperienced brain is full of liberal mantras and I am immune to logic, reason and common sense."

[Maggie_T]

:grin:

Or " ... my liberal Big Brothers have spent a lot of their time indoctrinating me. Who am I to overturn such effort?"