Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban

I couldn't agree more. The rape and incest argument is a strawman. A woman who gets pregnant by rape or incest (which happens very rarely) generally wants to keep the baby because they don't think one wrong justifies another wrong. Family members, etc, usually are the ones who "encourage" the woman to have an abortion in theses cases. Oftentimes it is beause they don't want the reminder of what happened or think it brings shame to the family.

For more information on this, browse around
http://www.elliotinstitute.org/

I can't find the specific article at the moment, but they used to email you a chapter a week of a book about that subject.

 

I agree "if" we start being realistic about the way we handle rapists.

-64% of rapes are not reported.
-I would argue one reason is the second important fact- rape convictions only average a 65 month actual jail sentence- 48% of the original sentence.
-Only 1 out of 13 reported rape crimes is solved.
-13% of convicted rapists spend no time in jail.
- On average, about 46% of released rapists are rearrested within 3 years... which sounds good until you consider that only 1 out of 13 rapists are caught and convicted.... out of the 36% of rapes that are reported.
- I have seen estimates that around 93% of rapes are committed by repeat offenders.

The bottom line is: Protect our women and children. Lock rapists up and keep them until they die. You can't trust them on the streets.

Or else my preferred course, treat violent rape exactly the way you treat murder. The death penalty should be an option if it is for murder.

 

I can see the newly appointed SC striking this down very soon with GW's blessing.

 

If "the life is in the blood" then the collection of cells is not "alive" for the first several days.

 

It is unconscionable to revictimize a rape victim by forcing them to carry to term the fetus produced by the rape. It is unconscionable to force a young girl to have carry to term a fetus caused by her father forcing himself on her sexually.

 

Ethel Waters, was a child born from a teenage rape victim. Her voice in service to the Lord blessed untold millions.

 

Totally irrelevant. Once a person is born, it is hoped they will do good.

 

I think a lot of Christians believe in the "rape, incest, and health of the mother" exceptions. I've come to believe the Bible doesn't offer such exceptions even thought such "problems" can be a burden to the mother and the family. I don't believe the child should be killed for the benefit of the mother. That's a hard line to take for many Christians and I can understand how they might come to that conclusion. I think a victim of rape or incest has a big burden to bear but it's something they should bear. I think medical professionals should do all they can for the health of the mother and child but never make a choice of one over tghe other. Our ultimate hope is in the promise that in the eternal life with our Lord there will be no pain no suffering no evil. In this life there will be these things and some of them will be terrible for those who suffer them.

 

Dragoon, you have inadvertently made an excellent point.

You said health of the mother, not life. Now I'm not debating your position, just pointing out the tactic that pro-abortion advocates use. (not calling you one, either)

If I was put in the terrible position of choosing between saving the baby or my wife, I do feel that is a choice I/my wife should make.

"Health," though is a catch-all phrase. It has been argued that mental & emotional health qualify as a health issue. This allows "health" to carry such a broad range of meaning that one can abort if being pregnant/giving birth causes stress or sleepless nights.

"Health of the mother" has been the sticking point at the center of the barbaric partial-birth abortion controversy. The pro-abortion crowd wants that phrase in there, which gives the aborter and the provider carte blanche to abort.

Once again, not arguing you feel that way, Dragoon, just showing how carefully pro-abortionist folks word their arguments and twist meanings.

 

It is unconscionable to revictimize a rape victim by forcing them to carry to term the fetus produced by the rape. It is unconscionable to force a young girl to have carry to term a fetus caused by her father forcing himself on her sexually. </font>[/QUOTE]It is amazing that someone calling themself a Chirstian would advocate killing a baby to "solve" these problems. Where does it say that life will be easy, that there will be no problems, pain, suffering. Does the Bible teach that we should choose the easiest way to aleviate our suffering and pain. I believe the Bible teaches that we need to bear our cross. Sin causes pain and suffering but the answer to that suffering is not more sin. The most evil act I can think of on this earth is abortion. And on this forum there are so called Christians defending it.

 

I don't believe any father would want his 12-year-old daughter to have to carry a baby after being raped. Big talk from a few, but not realistic. And don't denigrate me by say "calling themself to be a Christian". That is NOT your call to say who is and is not a "real" Christian.

 

As it is not your call to determine what a Christian father/grandfather would do regarding his grandchild.

 

While I agree with you 100% JGrubbs, from a political standpoint, I look at this in two ways:

First of all, the pro-abortionists did not get us to this point in one fell swoop. Make the exceptions to get the law passed. (Either as a bargaining tool or up front.) Then, work on getting those loopholes closed. Why do I say this? If this law does get passed, then it would save most babies from abortion, instead of saving none. (Much like banning the partial-birth abortion only saved a very small fraction of a percent, it does save some, which is better than none.)

My second view on this is that abortion should be decided at the state level any way, and not the federal level. If we could get these decisions back where they belong, then it would be much simpler to get the law passed in one fell swoop.

 

No father may want their daughter to carry a baby under these circumstances, but to act on the emotions surrounding this is very selfish, shows total disreguard for the victim, and is in great disconnect with reality. This also turns it into a quality of life issue verses a sanctify of life issue.

What possible justification can one give for aborting this child? Shame is most likely the main culprit. Perhaps finances, future plans, etc. All of which are mere inconveniences. None can justify the taking of life.

People need to do their homework. The majority of these young ladies don't want to have abortions but are coaxed into it by their selfish relatives.

I volunteer at a CPC/PRC and it is depressing to see how many fathers who are deacons or church leaders who urge (if not force) their daughters to have an abortion so they can avoid the "shame"
(I am talking here strictly about pregnant teenagers in general)

If the deacon body or the pastor make you feel shame or guilt over this, then perhaps you need to go to a different church, not abort the child.
But I digress...

A woman has done nothing wrong in the case of rape or incest. Pressuring these women into having an abortion or making them feel guilty for carrying such a child to term, is both selfish and irresponsible. This puts the blame on the victim and not the criminal. And then it causes that poor girl to suffer doubly by forcing her to have an abortion. Then on top of that it is also taking a life!

It's no wonder many victims of rape and incest don't report what happened, because society likes to put the blame on the woman. Which is evidenced by the light punishments for such crimes.(Scott J do you agree?)

This issue is very near and dear to my heart for several reasons (and about which I will not go into detail for the protection of certain individuals)

For more info, go here:
http://www.afterabortion.info/rape.html