So may I assume that you're against the death penalty, then?

At last.....something that we can agree upon.

That was good. Very good.

However, I know for a fact that she is not yet sexually active. I must say that I resent the implication.

I'm not accusing you of either; I'm just saying that it is too often a policy of, "it won't be my kid."

As for why I would not want my daughter or any other female to carry the product of rape, you obviously have no clue as to the physical and psychological ramifications of being the victim of such a crime. It is devastating, in every possible way.

And for you to suggest that the "origins" of the child have no bearing, then you truly don't understand the physical and mental torture that a woman experiences at the hands of a rapist.

so i don't really feel all that sorry for every single mother because even though a great majority of the time the father is the deadbeat, he does so by his own accord and is held accountable by possible loss of custody, parental right, etc. but the mother isn't held to these same standards.

It is ironic that those who stick with morals when it comes to abortion, consider having sex out of wedlock to be okay.

In any case, mother should have more rights, after all, she is the one who is having the child.

The only victim in the middle is the child.

I don't see as the biological mother why she can't have the baby for the same amount of time or having a joint custody even after three years.

except they don't have joint custody. she has complete custody. he gets to see his daughter at most one weekend a month during the "school year" (he's a teacher) and in the summer time. so that doesn't sound like joint custody to me.

Once the child starts going to school though, he/she should be able to choose a parent over the other though, it is a pain to change schools all the time.

This is the exact reason I'm pro choice. Having a child with someone you hate is a pain for the child in the first place and the parents later on.

And how many deaths will it take till we know,
that too many people have died? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind. - Bob Dylan

Originally posted by Double-J:
I can understand you don't want the child to suffer; but can you honestly tell me that murdering the child is a better solution than life?

Originally posted by afsaneh77:
Unless you want a parentless child up for adoption and then maybe after he/she by some miracle gets adopted see the biological mother and/or father claiming the child. Add two more people to that picture. Four people trying to tear a child apart and each has a right.

I can't go and preach to people they shouldn't have sex before marriage or they shouldn't get an abortion.

Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
JJ, You still have no clue. You are speaking from a male's viewpoint and have no idea what it is like to feel the pain, helplessness, shame, humiliation and complete and total violation that comes with being raped. To suggest that a woman "will get over it", that it's only temporary, further proves that you have no understanding. And to suggest that a woman carry her rapist's child for nine months, go through the agony of childbirth only to give it away, you really are ignorant [b]in this area. It seems that we can argue this point forever and never agree, so let's leave it alone. [/b]

Originally posted by raggingbull2003:
In my opinion abortion is worse than murder. In abortion, you are never even giving the child an oppurtunity to experience life.

Originally posted by raggingbull2003:
When did I ever refer to the life of the woman? I never said that the life of the woman was more valuable then that of the unborn child

Originally posted by Double-J:
"Miracle?" There are parents desperate everywhere to adopt because they cannot have children themselves. People resort to illegally adopting children because they can't get it done through the standard system.

Originally posted by Double-J:

If everyone in the world sat back and watched atrocities happen, and just said, "I can't go preach," we'd likely still be living in the stone age. As humans, as a race of peoples, we have the right, the need, the requirement, to do all that is possible to preserve the sanctity of innocent life; I cannot see how speaking out against infanticide is not "right." People who are in favor of murder do it all the time, claiming it to be "women's rights."

WASHINGTON — President Bush has picked Judge John G. Roberts Jr. (search) to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search).

Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, his name has been floated for months as a possible Bush selection for the high court.

Bush announced the nomination to the American public at 9 p.m. EDT — with Roberts appearing alongside the president.

"The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American. And so a nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law," Bush said.

"I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts. And tonight I am honored to announce that I am nominating him to serve as associate justice of the Supreme Court."

Stuart Taylor, a senior writer and columnist for National Journal, said Roberts was only on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for two years, but he is well-qualified for the job.

"He doesn't have an extensive record there. But he is very well-qualified. He had a reputation of being one of the best, if not the best, appellate litigator in the country. Conservatives are very comfortable with him. They think he is one of them, but he'd be easier to confirm ... because he doesn't have a controversial paper trail and he has a lot of friends across the political spectrum," Taylor told FOX News.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said that the president had done his job by selecting Roberts and he had made the right decision.

"Judge Roberts is an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law. He has enjoyed a distinguished history of public service and professional achievement. It is clear to me that Judge Robert's history has prepared him well for the honor of serving this country on our nation's highest court, and I strongly support his nomination," Cornyn said.

Experience at the Court

Roberts is no stranger to the Supreme Court. He served as a law clerk to Rehnquist and was the deputy solicitor general during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush, where he argued cases in front of the court. He also served an associate counsel to President Reagan during Reagan's first term.

Bush nominated Roberts to D.C. Circuit Court on Jan. 7, 2003. He was confirmed four months later. During his confirmation hearing to the appeals court, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade is "the settled law of the land.

"There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts told the panel.

A Successful Head Fake

Roberts' nomination comes as a surprise after an all-day festival of speculation in Washington and on the cable news networks, where the race was handicapped in favor of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith "Joy" Clement. Clement was seen as an uncontroversial, moderate jurist who would likely be passed through Congress without an enormous fight.

But as evening approached, Clement herself told a network news broadcast that she had not been selected. That led to speculation that Bush would go with a more conservative nominee, one who would please his ardent supporters.

Earlier in the day, Bush was cagey about whether he'd name his pick on Tuesday.

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds, but who share the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said when asked by reporters Tuesday during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is ... I'm confident about where we are in the process."

Two Republican sources very close to the Supreme Court nomination process told FOX News that the groundwork had been laid for a public disclosure, but the timing of the announcement was up to Bush.

Earlier on Tuesday, FOX News learned that Clement was interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she was the choice for the high court. Activists had already prepared a video testimonial from long-time lawyer friends of Clement.

White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered to replace retiring O'Connor, who was the first woman on the court.

Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones (search), who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and is considered a favorite of the Christian right.

Clement, who is believed to be less ideological than Jones, was among nearly a dozen judges Bush nominated to the bench in May of 2001, and her confirmation was relatively speedy. A Jones nomination would likely have led to a fight with many Democrats, who claimed that Bush has nominated too many judges who they consider to be out of America's mainstream.

Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Other possible candidates were conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Bush Poring Over 'Curriculum Vitae'

Regardless of the many names floated throughout the day, one certainty was that the nominee was going to be conservative.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the so-called "Gang of 14" senators who crafted an agreement that called for the use of a judicial filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances," said the president was in a good position to send a conservative judge to the Senate for confirmation.

Democrats expect a conservative to be named, Graham explained, and Bush campaigned on that promise in 2004.

Graham noted that simply being conservative was "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the "Gang of 14" agreement.

"President Bush campaigned he would pick a solid conservative, I expect for him to live up to his promise. Our goal is to make sure a solid conservative sits on the Supreme Court that is not beholden to any special interest group," Graham said.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa., was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hoped Bush would select a jurist who will bring "balance" to the court.

Roberts got the final invitation from the president after Bush had lunch with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Later, the president called Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Minority Leader Harry Reid, Specter and Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy to tell them that Roberts was the nominee for O'Connor's seat.

Cornyn said now that the president had made his choice for the Senate to confirm, "the nominations process should reflect the best of the American judiciary — not the worst of American politics."

Confirmation hearings could begin in September, after Congress returns from its traditional August recess.

JJ, You still have no clue.

You are speaking from a male's viewpoint and have no idea what it is like to feel the pain, helplessness, shame, humiliation and complete and total violation that comes with being raped.

To suggest that a woman "will get over it", that it's only temporary, further proves that you have no understanding.

death is death. Your daughter, despite her traumatic experience, will live. I know that sounds cold and clinical, but it is the truth. Her baby, yes, HER baby, would be DEAD.

And to suggest that a woman carry her rapist's child for nine months

You would save the life of the mother at the expense of the unborn child, but

You would rather see someone murdered than have an unborn child aborted.

What I don't understand is how abortion is worse than murder, but saving the mother's life (If that's your position on that. I'm still not sure because of what I quoted of yours above) isn't worse than abortion.

they should be qualified in everything there is needed to raise a child because we don't want to see an unfortunate kid come out of a hole and fall into a deeper one.

If there are absolutely no legal ways for this matter women would resort to illegal ways.

It is ironic that you talk about stone ages because in order to make sure a woman is not going to have an abortion is to keep her tied up for nine months.

SB, there are medications for preventing a pregnancy a few hours after an unwanted sex. I think clinics should start educating women for what they can do to prevent geting pregnant in such cases.

What frightens me in reading some of these posts is the complete and utter disregard for women, as if we were just some vessel designed to carry on the human race.

We should be forced to carry and deliver the products of rape or molestation??

What if it was an 11 or 12 year old girl that had been molested? She might be capable of bearing children. Should she be forced to carry the product of her rape? What if Shasta Groene were a few years older, and Mr. Duncan had made her pregnant during the six weeks he held her? He murdered her mother, mother's boyfriend and one of her siblings, and then repeatedly molested her and her brother, killing the brother. In your logic, if she were to become pregnant, she should be forced to carry that child and then give it up. What if Elizabeth Smart, who was older, had become pregnant by the man who kidnapped her from her bed, and raped her for months? Should a child be forced to carry a child?

And where do you draw the line? Is birth control abortion? According to the Catholic Church, using birth control is a sin because it halts creation. Is it the "murder of unborn children"? Where does it end?

It is really degenerating for women to be forced to carry an unwanted child, let alone the product of rape. It is disgusts me how can some people be so ignorant not to think it over what a woman might go through in such cases.

Human is given brain. It is good that he/she uses it sometimes.

Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
JJ - First of all, I have no idea why you resurrected this thread. It was long over. As I said in an earlier post, you have your view and I have mine. Let's just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
I can understand why you posted the update about the confirmation proceedings, but why go back and start quoting from old posts? Been there, done that, let's not beat a dead horse.

You're always going to believe one thing, and I, in my infinite wisdom, will believe the only thing that rational, thinking humans possibly could believe.

And, FYI, my former boss, who was a registered democrat and quite liberal in her thinking, considered me to be a conservative.