The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on October 20, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
-
Abortion ban returns to ballot in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - Two years after South Dakotans rejected a nearly total ban on abortion, voters on Nov. 4 will decide another sweeping but less restrictive ballot measure that would probably send a legal challenge of Roe v. Wade to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The initiative would outlaw abortions but includes exceptions for rape, incest and pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the woman. Some voters said they wanted those exceptions when they rejected the tougher 2006 measure 56 percent to 44 percent.
Opponents say the new measure would jeopardize the patient-doctor relationship because physicians could be criminally charged for exceeding its bounds. They also argue that its exceptions are too narrowly defined and that it would force some women to carry an unhealthy fetus.
Leslee Unruh, the executive director of VoteYesForLife.com and the measure's main proponent, said it's legally sound.
Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said the initiative could threaten legalized abortion in every state, especially if it goes before a 2011 or 2012 Supreme Court that would probably tilt to the right if Sen. John McCain becomes president.
MORE (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081018/D93T2PBG1.html)
I just can't find a way to agree that the circumstances of conception, no matter how horrible, should equal a death sentence for a baby. "Mental hardhsip"? ::) Every child is a mental hardship on parents, but we deal with it, learn from it, and move on.
-
While I agree, putting that aside for a moment and assuming for the sake of argument that some allowances dependant upon the circumstances of conception are permissable, I still can see no justification whatsoever for an allowance of abortion in the case of incest.
If the incestuous coupling were non-consensual (likely to be most cases but I'm guessing), then the rape allowance already permits abortion and thus a specific incest allowance is redundant.
If the incestuous coupling were consensual, then what reason is there to terminate the pregnancy? The fear of the possibility (which, contrary to common belief, is most definitely not a certainty) of retardation? But then either an allowance for the abortion of retarded children exists independantly, in which case this is a redundancy, or it does not, in which case such fear is not sufficient reason to terminate the pregnancy.
Simply put, in no way can an incest allowance for abortion be justified.
-
We have a personhood amendment on the ballot here in CO.