Why The Latest Attempts to Overturn Roe v. Wade Will Likely Fail

If you have found this article, you probably already know that
South Dakota and Mississippi have recently passed bills into law
which will effectively BAN all abortions. All abortions, that is,...
abortions which are not "necessary to preserve the life of the
pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant
woman".

According to Fox News, many other States have simular bills at
the ready. And most (if not all) of these bans are targeted at the
overturning of Roe v. Wade.

As much as I too would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, I
believe that there is already a fatal flaw in some of these Bills/laws.

Under the "South Dakota Abortion Act", abortions in cases of rape
and incest will be banned, made illegal and will be just as punishable
as any of the other more common reasons for elective abortions
would be.

Rape and incest pregnancies will be treated no differently and no
more favorably (to the woman/ rape victim),.. than pregnancies
where she and her mate actually consented to have sex, had
intercourse and that CHOICE resulted in an un-planned or un-
wanted pregnancy.

I believe that this is a fatal flaw in the ban(s).

Specifically, these bans (if they don't include exceptions for rape
and incest) will violate women's rights to self defense.

Consider this excerpt from a lengthy debate I had on the ACLU's
website.


Date Posted: Dec/22/2003 2:17 PM
Posted By: Chuz Life

Rocket88 posted (in light blue)>>
"Chuz has repeatedly noted that he supports a government-imposed
ban on abortions, with exceptions for rape and incest".

True and False. I challenge you to post anything where I mentioned
my position on incest Rocket.
_______________________________________

Rocket88 continued, saying>>
"Either a (HUMAN) zygote is a human being, or it isn't".

True. And the emphasis (above) is mine.
_______________________________________

Rocket88 then added>>
(I'm not sure whether Chuz thinks a (HUMAN) zygote has to be
implanted or not to be human).

The answer is NO. It is either a human life or it isn't. An attached
human. A non-attachect human. Both are still human. (again
the emphasis of your wording (above) is mine)
__________________________________________

Rocket88 continued>>
"If it is a human, then to kill it because its father is a rapist is not
just hypocritical, but downright cruel".

Newsflash! I agree! The thought of killing a baby because it's father
is a Rapist is un-acceptable. And there is no way that I could evetr
accept or support a "rape exception" on that basis.

But you are an IDIOT if you believe that is the reason that I
support a "rape exception" to a ban on "elective" abortions.

The reason that I support a "rape exception" to any "ban on elective
abortions" is because I view "ALL" pregnancies as a THREAT to a
woman's life.

READ THAT AGAIN.

"The reason that I support a "rape exception" to any "ban on
elective abortions" is because I view "ALL "ALL" pregnancies as
a THREAT to a woman's life."

AND! AND! AND!

Because I see a CLEAR distinction that can be made, between a
THREAT to a woman's life that she "consented to" (consentual sex).
And a threat to her life that was FORCED upon her (RAPE).

In my opinion, which NO-one has to accept, unless they are compelled by my reasoning,.... The woman who is RAPED has a right to defend herself against that threat that she did not invite (consent to). And in a case of sonsentual sex, where the woman (and her partner) did INVITE that risk with their ACTIONS (even if not their thoughts), That justification is lost. It's much like (as I've explained in earlier threads) the cases in Vietnam where children were being used as weapons. My neighbor told me of some of these,... where it was sometimes necessary to kill CHILDREN who were either shooting at the US soldiers. Or in one case that I know of, running toward US troops with grenades. Is it wrong to kill a child? One would think so. But it's not that simple. If the child is putting your life in imminent danger, and you did not invite that threat??? In my opinion, in that case (Rape),... sad as it is to see a child killed... In cases of rape, it's justified as "self defense". But, also in my opinion, you can't INVITE (consent) a child into your pressence and then Kill them for being a threat. "WITHIN REASON".

Because, I also support the "life of the mother exception". Where-in, even in a "consentual" pregnancy a "normal" "managable" amount of risk (threat) can become "un-managable". AND, in those cases, where "if the pregnancy were allowed to continue" BOTH the mother and child will die..... I support the decision to abort. Which is also a "self defense"
justification.
___________________________________________

Rocket88 continued with his slanderous tactics>>
"The only basis for the rape/incest exception is that he wants to punish
the sluts who engage in consensual sex".

My reasoning for my position is explained in detail above. There is no
"punishment" element to my position. Requiring people to respect the
lives of the children they create is NOT punishment. It is (IMO) an act
of humanity. And, prohibiting people from killing their (prebron) children without
justification is not punishment either. That too, (IMO) is an act of
humanity.
____________________________________________

Rocket88 marches on, saying>>>
"Like most pro-lifers, Chuz lacks the courage of his convictions.
If a zygote is a human, then all forms of chemical birth control should
be outlawed; indeed, taking the Pill should be a capital offense, since
it has the capacity to destroy a zygote".

You hang yourself with your own words Rocky. Having the "capacity"
to do something is NOT the same as doing it. But more to your point
I DO believe that all forms of "birth control" that "terminate the prgnancy"
(post contraceptives) should be banned (except in cases of Rape).
In other words, if the product PEVENTS conception (condoms,
spermacides, etc.) It should remain legal. (IMO) But, if the product is
designed to KILL a child after it's life has began,... it should be for legal
use, only when legally justified (rape).
_____________________________________________

Rocket88 lamented>>
"And there should be no exceptions for rape".

I think that most people disagree with you here Rocky. I'm sure that
most people who support the "rape exception" haven't taken the time
to understand and explain "why" they do. (as I have). But, even if we
look at it from a pragmatic point of view. It's a politically strong position.

I think it's also a legally justifiable (and supportable) position. "Self
defense" against an un-invited threat (RAPE) verses the assumption of
a reasonable amount of risk by ones actions (Consent). Even if the
measurable physical threat is absolutely the same.

I should add here that in these debates I've spoken to at least TWO
women who were raped, and who KEPT the children that were conceived
in those rapes. One of which frequents these forums. And women who
can do that deserve only the best that life has to offer. But life is not
that fair. And in at least one of those womens cases, her child has
special needs. Can you imagine? This is all very very emotional stuff.
It affects me a lot more than I let show. But, I can't let my emotions push
asside my basis for reason. The best I can do is to form my position on
the FACTS, and to remain considerate of the emotions that my positions
envoke.

_______________________________________

Rocket88 closed with>>
"If you support a rape exception or are not willing to make possession of
birth control pills a crime, you are a hypocrite".

The onus is on you to detail my hypocrisy. I think you are going
to have a hard time doing that. Because I've done my level best
to make sure that I'm not hypocritical in my positions. In fact, I'm
very consistant in my positions; In that I use the same justification
for rape pregnancies that I do for any other "life of the mother"
exceptions.

If I may use an analogy, "Bungee jumping" is a very life threatening
(but controlled) event. When someone "consents" to bungee jump,
they "assume" that risk,... and they would not have a right to attack
the bungee operator to "defend themselves".

Contrast that to a guy who grabs a person "against their will" , lashes
their legs and tries to throw them off a bridge. Which one, do you
think would have a right to "self defense"?

Ahhh, I digress. This may all be over your head. Rocky
-------------------------
CHOICE:
http://www.nv2.cc.va.us/home/jetaylor12/eng123/images/partialbirth.jpg
"If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are
denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled." --ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740
ACLU/LEFTIST/ FASCIST:
One who Proudly declares that
a Child is NOT a Child; Until it lives too Damn long and
LOOKS too much LIKE a Child; to be denied anymore. -L.L. Brown