Home - List All Discussions

What do people here think of abortion in the case of rape?

by: nsanford

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, is it okay for her to abort this child? I mean it was against her will, so is it fair to force her to carry this baby to term? I think abortion should definetly be allowed in this case.

reply from: AshMarie88

Rape was NOT the child's fault. Abortion will not undue the rape. It only makes one more innocent, defenseless dead human being.

Why should a child conceived from rape be killed? But why not a child conceived from consensual sex? What difference is there between both children, besides how they were conceived and their dna?

Abortion is against the child's will, DEATH. DEATH, abortion, is PERMANENT. 9 months is NOT that long to wait to give someone a life, is it?

EDIT: Why not abort the person who actually harmed the woman? Why the innocent human who did NOTHING, who is being punished for something someone else did? Is that really fair?

I only have one exception, and that's only if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. That makes more sense than to allow abortion because of rape.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, nsanford. AshMarie has answered your question pretty well. There's an old saying about that: "Abortion for the child of rape is the only case in which an innocent bystander is executed for a crime". There's a lot of truth in that, think about it.

reply from: nsanford

Rape was NOT the child's fault. Abortion will not undue the rape. It only makes one more innocent, defenseless dead human being.

Why should a child conceived from rape be killed? But why not a child conceived from consensual sex? What difference is there between both children, besides how they were conceived and their dna?

Abortion is against the child's will, DEATH. DEATH, abortion, is PERMANENT. 9 months is NOT that long to wait to give someone a life, is it?

reply from: nsanford

But if the woman wants it, why shouldn't she be able to have and abortion. She has already been through a horrible experience, why put her through the pain of having the rapists child. If her mental health was at risk I think that abortion should be allowed

reply from: yoda

Nsanford, that's like asking "if the woman wants it, why shouldn't she be able to kill her born child that was concieved in rape?" That woman has also been through a horrible experience, why put her through the pain of having a born child of rape?

You're asking us to agree that the child's life is less important than eliminating all reminders of the rape. You're asking us to agree that killing her baby will wipe away some of her pain, and not leave her with the knowledge that she has killed her own innocent child because of what it's father did. You're asking us to agree that two wrongs will make a right.

We can't agree with any of those assertions, nsanford. None of them make sense to us. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you want to be a probabykilling advocate, that's your business.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Killing a child is only another horrible experience.

Now I know of women who were raped and got pregnant. One of the last problems that came to their mind when they were raped was if they would become pregnant. Based on the fact that only about 1% of abortions are done because of rape, I don't think the other pregnant rape victims think the baby is at fault, either. If there was a mental risk, it was because of the rape and not because of being pregnant.

Besides, a rape victim doesn't even have to take care of the baby, except for the nine months of pregnancy. When the baby is born, s/he can be given up for adoption. Simple as that!

reply from: nsanford

I am not a probabykilling advocate. I just want to make that clear. I think abortion is one of the most evil things on the planet, but it's not something that you can compare to murder or anything. The fetus(or baby, to me these can be used interchangingly) is inside the mother, so murder is not a real accurate description. I believe abortion is evil, but that's my opinion. Anyone else has a choice, becuase it's their body.

reply from: yoda

Why can't abortion be compared to "murder or anything", ns? What does the location of the victim have to do with it? And whose body is the baby's body? Does the baby's body belong to the mother, like a slave belongs to it's master?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Wait...what? Just because the fetus is inside the mother doesn't mean it has its own separate life? If its life is ended, it dies. The mother is still alive. One person died; one didn't. The mother did not die in the process of an abortion because she was taking her own life, she was taking someone else's. The taking of an innocent person's life is murder. That is what happens during an abortion.

reply from: nsanford

This is one of the things that stops me from saying I am pro-life. You refuse to admit that the baby's place of residence is important. You forget while your protecting the baby, you forget about the mother. You cannot pretend that if a mother is unwillingly pregnant, that the baby is not under her control to some degree. If the fetus cannot survive outside the mother, then yes, the place of residence is important.

reply from: NorthStar

My position on abortion in the case of rape is analogous to my position on high-speed car chases. I agree that such an abortion is wrong, but the critical issue regards who should be held responsible. I think the rapist should be held responsible, not the woman. If abortion resulting from rape is a problem in a state, that state should work harder to punish rapists for causing unwanted pregnancies. That way, fewer such abortions will occur because fewer rapes resulting in pregnancy will occur. Ideally, rapes should never happen. If rapes never happened, the issue of whether women should be punished for abortions in such cases would not exist.

The only time I think the woman or the abortionist should be held responsible is if the abortion is very late in pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

Agreeing that something is "important" is a long ways from saying that it justifies killing an innocent human being.

Yes, the location of the baby is important in the sense that it locks the two human beings to each other in a physical relationship for 9 months, and makes them a "team". Yes, whatever affects one of them affects the other, and that does put the baby under her "control".

But does that location, which the baby had nothing to do with, and has no way to change, in any way justify the mother to kill the baby for "other than dire health reasons"?

If you think it does, then we certainly do not agree on that.

reply from: yoda

Then how about changing our laws so that killing very young born kids is punished less than killing older born kids?

If age is your criteria, wouldn't that make sense?

reply from: nsanford

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, Yoda.
But now I have a completely off topic question. If by some miracle Roe v. Wade is overturned, and abortion becomes illegal, would you support the government forcing women to carry a fetus to term?

reply from: bradensmommy

2 wrongs don't make a right either! If I was raped I would not kill my child, he/she did not ask to be created.

reply from: yoda

I would have no problem with any state legislature passing laws to criminalize abortion, or a constitutional ammendment being passed to afford unborn babies the same civil rights as all other Americans. I guess you could call that "support", but I'm not sure if that could accurately be termed "forcing a woman to carry to term", any more than laws against killing born kids "force" mothers to raise them. I see no reason to discriminate against the unborn just because of their location.

reply from: Alexandra

Never mind that pregnancy is a completely normal process, huh? Yeah, why should women endure something that was intended to occur?

That's what I don't get--people who think that pregnancy is an illness or disease or something.

I am the mother of a four-year-old boy. My pregnancy wasn't exactly a cakewalk--but I'd do it again!

reply from: nsanford

At risk of sounding very harsh, I do. Once again, the main reason I am not pro-life is because I believe the fetus could not live without the mother, the mother should have a say. What you're probably going to say is that also justifies murder. No way, the only reason I say that is because the fetus is in the mother's body. Therefore, she has some control.

reply from: AshMarie88

The woman will remember the rape anyway, EVERY DAY OF HER LIFE. Aborting will not change that.

reply from: AshMarie88

This is one of the things that stops me from saying I am pro-life. You refuse to admit that the baby's place of residence is important. You forget while your protecting the baby, you forget about the mother. You cannot pretend that if a mother is unwillingly pregnant, that the baby is not under her control to some degree. If the fetus cannot survive outside the mother, then yes, the place of residence is important.

That is just it, IT'S LOCATION!! Location doesn't determine how human someone is. Location doesn't make a big difference, think about it.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yes, just like whether I live in New York or Tokyo doesn't decide whehter I am more important as a person. For some reason, this can't seem to apply to babies for the pro-choice lobby.

reply from: NorthStar

Then how about changing our laws so that killing very young born kids is punished less than killing older born kids?

If age is your criteria, wouldn't that make sense?

There are two reasons why I draw a distinction in these cases between early and late abortions.

First, I do not believe that early abortions cause the death of a human being. This reason does not lead to a conclusion that young born kids should be killed. We are discussing this issue in another thread.

Second, I think it is reasonable to expect that women, even in those situations, get their abortions before the third trimester. Virtually all abortions already occur before that time anyway, so such a demand would not seem to be very onerous. This reason might apply to infants if you thought that women needed more than nine months to kill their child, but I do not think that women would need such a long time period.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Rape should never justify the death of an unborn innocent child.

If the woman has been put through the horrible experience of rape, why put her through the horrible experience of abortion. In addition of having been violated, why should a woman also bear the burden of ending a human life. Why should the rapists crime in turn, become the mother crime?

This statement is something of a contradiction and I think that the statement shows a real uncertainty about the matter. How can abortion be awful and not murder? How can abortion be killing and not murder?

I can imagine nothing worse than a woman who has been raped and then facing the decision to end a human life. Life must be cherished and not a single child must not suffer as a result of something as horrible as rape.

reply from: yoda

In making this assertion, you do not have a single leg to stand on. I can show you numerous definitions of both "human being" and "Homo sapiens" that do not contain a single hint of a minimum size, age, or developmental status. In other words, the human organism belongs to it's species from fertilization. How could it be any other way? So your objection to my analogy with born children does not hold up.

In reading this last paragraph, I see your opinions expressed but no logic, rhyme, or reason behind them. What moral difference could it possibly make if you kill the gestating human at two days, two weeks, or two months?

reply from: Skippy

That's a very interesting point. Even in places where abortion is illegal, women who obtain abortions, and the doctors who perform them, are not charged with murder. Take mexico as an example. Abortion is mostly illegal, but the crime one is charged with for aborting isn't murder. It's "obtaining an illegal abortion" and carries a penalty ranging from no jail time to a few years. Murder, on the other hand, will get you life in prison.

Also, if a woman self-induces an abortion, it's not even a crime under mexico's anti-abortion laws.

Heck, even those uber-backwards muslim countries that execute women for having abortions don't charge the woman with murder. They kill her for "depriving a father of his offspring." Creeeeeeepy.

Anyway, I think your point that abortion really isn't analogous to anything else is a good one.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it is a good one. Abortion isn't analogous to anything else, except perhaps killing your own born child. If there is a hell, and if evil people go to it, there will be a special place in it for it's supporters.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

You don't know right from wrong nsanford. You need to find a good church with a good pastor and sit under their teaching for a few years and learn right from wrong.

Its wrong to murder a baby regardless of how he/she was conceived.

reply from: theamericancatholic

nsanford

Yeah... So what? Would you judge a human beings right to live based on its ability to survive without assistance? Better go out and pull all the plugs on the life support machines then.

reply from: Sigma

No, not even that. Pregnancy is a unique situation and a person with born children is hardly a comparable one.

reply from: Bito

That's a very interesting point. Even in places where abortion is illegal, women who obtain abortions, and the doctors who perform them, are not charged with murder. Take mexico as an example. Abortion is mostly illegal, but the crime one is charged with for aborting isn't murder. It's "obtaining an illegal abortion" and carries a penalty ranging from no jail time to a few years. Murder, on the other hand, will get you life in prison.

Also, if a woman self-induces an abortion, it's not even a crime under mexico's anti-abortion laws.

Heck, even those uber-backwards muslim countries that execute women for having abortions don't charge the woman with murder. They kill her for "depriving a father of his offspring." Creeeeeeepy.

Anyway, I think your point that abortion really isn't analogous to anything else is a good one.

Why shouldn't it be murder??? We Are Not talking about how happy we are about the laws; we're talking about how we can change them to save babys' lives and heal our wounded culture. At one time in history it was lawful to buy and sell black people and chain them to your porch. Did that make it right???

Bito

reply from: yoda

That's a very cold hearted statement. A living human child in the womb is there through no fault or decision of his/her own, and you have no reason to make such an uncompassionate statement. To single out unborn children for elective extermination is completely heartless and cruel.

A child is a child, no matter how small, and no matter where it is. Open your eyes, even if you won't open your heart.

reply from: Sigma

lol, it was a statement of fact. The fetus is in a unique situation. A born child is not in a similar enough situation to make a direct comparison.

It also does not matter what you call it, the situation will remain the same. You would do well to open your own eyes.

reply from: yoda

"FACT"? You express your twisted, cold hearted opinions and call them "FACT"??? PT Barnum said there's one born every minute, you need to go find one to listen to your nonsense.

REALLY???? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT????

Oh, good... then tell us why you are CONSTANTLY COMPARING a violinist hooked up to a comatose man to a fetus in the womb???? HOW CAN YOU compare those two things, if a fetus is in a "UNIQUE SITUATION"????

reply from: Sigma

Yes. It is a fact.

Yes. First of all, the Violinist Argument is an analogy, it hasn't really happened (to my knowledge). Second of all, the Violinist is not in the same situation as a born child with it's parent so your point is meaningless.

reply from: Bito

lol, it was a statement of fact. The fetus is in a unique situation. A born child is not in a similar enough situation to make a direct comparison.

So what if the child was hooked up on life support?? Would that make it a "similar enough situation"? Both the baby and the child would need our love and support to make it through.

Bito

reply from: yoda

"Not in the same situation"? How can the violinist NOT be a "born child"? Do you know of any violinists who play in the womb?

You've stuck your #12 firmy into your throat on this one.

reply from: Sigma

Bito

No, because life-support machines do not have rights that need protecting.

yodavater,

*sigh*
Try to understand. The violinist is not in the same situation as that of a born child with its parents.

You said: Abortion isn't analogous to anything else, except perhaps killing your own born child. This was comparing the relationship the fetus in the womb has with the woman and a born child with its parents. The Violinist is does not have the same relationship with the other person that a parent has with a born child. That is why they cannot be direct line compared.

I have no doubt you still don't understand.

reply from: yoda

Wait, Sig....... the violinist DOES HAVE the same relationship with the person who is doing the operating on the organ donor........ EXACTLY the same relationship!!

Get over it Sig, either a fetus is in a unique position, or it isn't. Most people with half a brain know that gestation is TOTALLY UNIQUE, and not comparable to anything else...... although you try constantly to do that.

reply from: Sigma

Well, you just excluded yourself

With your statement, you said a born child could possibly be compared with the fetus in the womb. You are seriously ridiculous, completely twisting around your stance once you begin to lose. I'm amazed you don't choke on your contradictions.

Ah, well, I've had my fun with you

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, you just excluded yourself

With your statement, you said a born child could possibly be compared with the fetus in the womb. You are seriously ridiculous, completely twisting around your stance once you begin to lose. I'm amazed you don't choke on your contradictions.

Ah, well, I've had my fun with you

FYI, the medical term for PREBORN CHILD is fetus. They mean the same thing. But child is less dehumanizing than fetus.

reply from: yoda

SURE it can, Siggy....... a CHILD is a CHILD, no matter how small, and no matter where it is.

GESTATION, on the other hand, is a totally unique process.

Got it? You CAN compare any CHILD to any CHILD, but you cannot compare GESTATION to ANY OTHER PROCESS.......

Clear now?

reply from: yoda

Wait, Sig....... the violinist DOES HAVE the same relationship with the person who is doing the operating on the organ donor........ EXACTLY the same relationship!!

reply from: Sigma

So you cannot compare the relationship the fetus has with the woman with the relationship the born child has with it's parents, correct?

I don't know why you're bringing up organ donation. I've said nothing about that.

reply from: yoda

No, it's not quite the same, is it? Similar in some ways, worlds apart in others.

SURE you have, Siggy. It always comes up with your violinist analogy. More like "organ theft", really.

reply from: Sigma

Then you cannot compare killing the fetus with killing a born child, since the relationships are not directly comparable.

The Violinist argument has nothing to do with organ theft.

reply from: yoda

Sure I can. It's not JUST the pregnancy we're talking about here, there's also a baby involved that is being killed....... did you forget about that little detail? KILLING A CHILD is the same thing, whether it's gestating or whether it's done with gestation. You still kill an innocent child.

reply from: Sigma

Ok, so you cannot compare the pregnancy relationship to any other relationship including the relationship between a born child and its parents, correct?

Yet you say that a parent killing their child is the same as a woman aborting the fetus? Is that what you’re trying to say?

reply from: jgalclassy

I feel the same way you do. Although it is still so sad for the child. But a woman should not be responsible for anothers actions.

reply from: Bito

No, because life-support machines do not have rights that need protecting.

....and the unborn baby doesn't have rights that need protecting?

Bito

reply from: yoda

Ok, so you cannot compare the pregnancy relationship to any other relationship including the relationship between a born child and its parents, correct?

Yet you say that a parent killing their child is the same as a woman aborting the fetus? Is that what you’re trying to say?
That's right.

The living relationship is different, but the killing part is the same. Now you've got it, congratulations!!

reply from: yoda

Excellent point, Bito. But I predict Sig won't see it that way, he considers the right to throw the baby away more important than the right not to be killed in innocence.

reply from: domsmom

Too bad these babies have to get nutrients and oxygen via the mothers blood. I mean who ever heard of such a thing? How dare that baby violate a womans body! {/sarcasm}
Has anyone ever heard of another way for humans to exist, for new people to get here?

Unfortunately, to people with the same view point as Sigma, a new persons right to life (which they legally dont have BTW) should never outweigh the womans right to kill him/her.

reply from: Sigma

Perhaps, but the woman essentially provides the body for the fetus so her rights are paramount. If a machine were supporting the life of the fetus, there would be no contest of rights because machines have no rights.

reply from: Sigma

So the killing is the same, but the situation the killing takes place in is radically different and cannot be compared. Is that correct?

reply from: yoda

And the baby has NO RIGHTS, eh Sig?

reply from: yoda

The situations are different, Sig. But killing an innocent baby is killing an innocent baby, no matter where it takes place.

That's the part you just don't feel in your cold heart, Sig. It's the act of killing the baby that is so horrible to me, even if it means nothing to you.

reply from: Sigma

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

So if a person accidently drives over a child, it is exactly the same or it is comparable to a parent coming in and slitting her child's throat during the night?

reply from: yoda

So "greater rights" is a euphemism for "she has the right to kill it", eh? From where does that "right" spring, Sig?

Oh, PARDON ME! I forgot to add "intentionally" to the phrase "killing a baby". Can you ever forgive me?

Or was that one of YOUR silly questions?????

reply from: Bito

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

Just because the baby relies on his mother doesn't mean that the mother has the right to harm her unborn baby.

Bito

reply from: nsanford

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

Just because the baby relies on his mother doesn't mean that the mother has the right to harm her unborn baby.

Bito

Yes, she does. It is inside her, and she gets to decide whether she wants something to be attached to her. If that will result in harm, then that is her decision.

reply from: yoda

Right! Thanks to the probabykilling 1973 decision of the probabykilling Supreme Court, she gets to decide that!

And you're here to defend her right to kill that baby, right?

reply from: Sigma

Not really, no. Her rights, all of them, should be given consideration before any is given to what is growing inside her. Her freedom to remove the fetus is one of those rights, yes.

I see. So the circumstances surrounding the killing change the morality of the killing, yes?

reply from: Sigma

She does have the right to remove it from her body, however, even if death will result for the fetus. You have the right to remove anyone from living off of your physical body.

reply from: nsanford

Right! Thanks to the probabykilling 1973 decision of the probabykilling Supreme Court, she gets to decide that!

And you're here to defend her right to kill that baby, right?

Nice way to put it, Yoda. I'm starting to realize no matter how calmly I post my opinions, you guys will always insult me or the pro-choice movement in general. But to anwser your question, yes. She gets to decide wether she wants something attached to her. Period.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, that is something I realized quite a bit ago We generally ignore yodavater, he doesn't actually have any points.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I don't think abortion is right in ANY way of it being concepted. A baby is a baby. It's alive when it is concepted carelessly; it's alive when it's concepted through rape/incest. It is a living baby no matter what.

reply from: Tam

Not really, no. Her rights, all of them, should be given consideration before any is given to what is growing inside her. Her freedom to remove the fetus is one of those rights, yes.

Just to clarify: Sigma's position is that if a mother wants to kill her unborn child for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever that is more important than the life of an innocent human child. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Whether the killing is intentional or accidental certainly does change the morality of the killing! That is the entire point behind what yoda and I, and many others, consistently say about early delivery to save the life of the mother. If the child dies during emergency life-saving measures intended to save his/her mother, but that death was an accidental result of those emergency measures, that is a regrettable but allowable outcome. If the child is intentionally killed for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, that is unacceptable.

There is DEFINITELY a difference between an accidental death and a homicide.

reply from: Tam

By "we" here, Sigma means "Sigma."

Right! Thanks to the probabykilling 1973 decision of the probabykilling Supreme Court, she gets to decide that!

And you're here to defend her right to kill that baby, right?

Nice way to put it, Yoda. I'm starting to realize no matter how calmly I post my opinions, you guys will always insult me or the pro-choice movement in general. But to anwser your question, yes. She gets to decide wether she wants something attached to her. Period.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to respect someone who consistently says things that are

1) not provable but a matter of opinion

and

2) egregiously immoral in one's own opinion.



What did Yoda say that you found so insulting? He said three things.

1) "Right!" He said that you are right.

2) "Thanks to the probabykilling 1973 decision of the probabykilling Supreme Court, she gets to decide that!" He explained why that is the case--because of a court decision.

3) "And you're here to defend her right to kill that baby, right?" He pointed out, quite accurately, that your purpose in posting here is to defend the same sentiment reflected in that court decision.

I don't see why you find that insulting. It's all perfectly true, and you must have realized already that anyone who opposes killing children in the womb would not be persuaded by your specious "It is inside her, and she gets to decide whether she wants something to be attached to her." position!

reply from: yoda

Oh good, that sounds so much better the way YOU say it! Now, I'm going to stay perfectly calm while writing this post, so don't you worry about a thing!

Let's see now, how is it that you do that.... you just leave off all the "ugly" words like "kill" and "baby", and instead use "pretty" words like "decide" and "attached"..... right? Oh yeah, that sounds so much better! Why, it almost sounds like a campaign speech!

Gee, I'm so glad you set me straight on that, ns! Now I can use your euphemisms and sound just like a probabykilling advocate! ...................... THANKS!

reply from: yoda

Hey, now you've got a probabykilling buddy, Sig, so now you can say "we"!

reply from: Sigma

Not quite it. Her desire is not what is more important, it is her right to disconnect another attached to her that is more important.

The circumstances surrounding killing can indeed change the morality of such.

Actually, I meant “we” as in “many here participating in discussions interrupted by yodavater”.

Tam, though you won't admit it, I'm sure you realize that yodavater should not participate if he cannot at least be civil enough to refrain from insults.

reply from: dignitarian

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

Just because the baby relies on his mother doesn't mean that the mother has the right to harm her unborn baby.

Bito

Yes, she does. It is inside her, and she gets to decide whether she wants something to be attached to her. If that will result in harm, then that is her decision.

nsanford:

I've been trying to follow some of your postings. One thing I've noticed is a complete lack of any basis in criterion for any of the statements you are making.

For example: "It is inside her, and she gets to decide..." to kill her unborn baby. This is a brainless statement; What do you base it on?

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: bradensmommy

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

This is one of the reasons why I don't even bother with him anymore...this is the same guy that thinks its okay for serrogate mothers to abort even though its not her child to begin with.

Just because the baby relies on his mother doesn't mean that the mother has the right to harm her unborn baby.

Bito

Yes, she does. It is inside her, and she gets to decide whether she wants something to be attached to her. If that will result in harm, then that is her decision.

nsanford:

I've been trying to follow some of your postings. One thing I've noticed is a complete lack of any basis in criterion for any of the statements you are making.

For example: "It is inside her, and she gets to decide..." to kill her unborn baby. This is a brainless statement; What do you base it on?

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: tabithamarcotte

You're right! She DOES get to decide whether a baby becomes attatched to her! What is the solution to this dilemma?

DON'T GET PREGNANT.

reply from: bradensmommy

I didn't say that. I said the woman's are greater while the fetus is within her.

Just because the baby relies on his mother doesn't mean that the mother has the right to harm her unborn baby.

Bito

Yes, she does. It is inside her, and she gets to decide whether she wants something to be attached to her. If that will result in harm, then that is her decision.

nsanford:

I've been trying to follow some of your postings. One thing I've noticed is a complete lack of any basis in criterion for any of the statements you are making.

For example: "It is inside her, and she gets to decide..." to kill her unborn baby. This is a brainless statement; What do you base it on?

Regards,

Dignitarian

This is one of the reasons why I don't even bother with him anymore...this is the same guy that thinks its okay for serrogate mothers to abort even though its not her child to begin with.

(I think I said this in the words between, had to change it because even I was like WTF?)

reply from: Sigma

Dignitarian was replying to nsanford, bradensmommy, not to me.

reply from: bradensmommy

all these damn quote crap got me all confused, but anyway, I was still saying though this is how you feel and it really sickens me. Someone mentioned something about you and I was trying to quote what was said but the quote button is annoying me.

reply from: yoda

OH you poor baby! Has that mean old Yodavater insulted poor little Sig again? Oh NO!

What was it this time? Did he accuse you of supporting the legalized killing of babies? That cad!

How dare he tell the truth about you!

reply from: Tam

Not quite it. Her desire is not what is more important, it is her right to disconnect another attached to her that is more important.

The REASON for your position might be that "she has the right to disconnect another attached to her" blah blah blah, but the actual POSITION is that if the mother wants to kill her unborn child FOR ANY REASON--whether or not HER reason is "I don't want this child attached to me"--you think her desire to kill the child--even if it's NOT for the reason YOU would grant her permission to do so--outweighs the child's right to live. Correct?

reply from: Sigma

No, my position is that she has the right to disconnect the fetus from her body. Whether or not she desires to do so, she has the right to do so.

reply from: yoda

Oh, we ALL know about legal rights, Siggy, you don't have to run hide behind that cover!

Come out of the closet and speak FOR YOURSELF!

YOU believe that a woman has a MORAL RIGHT to KILL her BABY as long as it is attached to her, DO YOU NOT???

reply from: AshMarie88

No, my position is that she has the right to disconnect the fetus from her body. Whether or not she desires to do so, she has the right to do so.

And that position is disgusting. *puke*

reply from: Sigma

Ah, you mean when Bito replied to me?

reply from: trekkiemom

Just because the child was conceived out of rape, doesnt mean the baby has any less right to live. I mean give the child up for adoption if you dont wish to keep it but for the love of God..dont kill it. Its not the babys fault!

reply from: trekkiemom

I got news for you lady...just because the woman was raped doesnt give her the right to end the life of the child she now carries! It wasnt the child's fault that it was conceived that way. Ive read about countless people that are in high positions that were concieved out of rape..a few of which Im told were presidents, senators, and the like. I agree with Ashmarie88...MAYBE in the case of an eptopic pregnancy (baby growing in the Fallopian tube) itd be permissable because a baby cannot grow properly in the tube and would kill the mother. But any other case its Murder....pure and simple! I honestly dont know how doctors who perform abortions can sleep at night. I mean they took a "hypocratic oath - to 'do no harm'." well I got news for those doctors...abortion is doing harm to an innocent, helpless little life that just happens to not be born yet.

reply from: hischild

Abortion is murder, killing of an innocent human being whom has no chance at life do to the mother's decesion to kill her unborn child for conveince. No matter the reason. Rape, incest, health problems, no father in the pic, a disease, no matter the reason. You are still killing an innocent child who has no chance at life. I'd like to ask many women, "Aren't you glad your mother was PRO-LIFE?" She'd be non-existant, not even a human being anymore but probably a piece of experiemental body part for the scientists that would be torn into shreads.

Rape is not a reason, only an excuse for the woman to use when she just 'don't want a child' -- (right now)
O how convienant ::SIGH::

I love Life and we all should respect life. Sadly the Govn't is dis-respecting life more and more as life goes on w/ out life. PLanned Parent Hood would go crazy, if Abortion was illegal. WHY? No more $$ from our tax dollars, no more Govn't funds, No more murders. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!!

His Child

reply from: hischild

Again, so what if it's rape, This child is still a human and it's not this babies fault nor the mother's that she is pregnant with a human life. Give this child to someone who desperatly wants a child who can't have one.
This baby done nothing wrong to be murdered and to not have a chance at life. Poor little innocent soul!

But to those who are pro choice or pro abort. -- you have to think of the mother 1st right? Who says it's a beatufiul thing to put 1 life over the other. All Humans are = in the womb or out of the womb.

Life is Life - Cherish it while you have the chance.

reply from: nsanford

Come now, do you know the mental damage that could come from knowing you're carrying the rapists child? Sure, some might use rape as an excuse, but the bottom line is, she did not ask to pregnant, and should be able to decide.

reply from: yoda

To "decide" what? Why do you always leave off the most important verb? Ashamed to say it?

What crime did the baby commit? What offense did the baby give to anyone? When did the baby ask to be placed in the uterus? When did the baby have the ability to leave?

When a baby concieved in rape is aborted, that makes rape the only crime for which an innocent bystander is executed.

reply from: nsanford

To "decide" what? Why do you always leave off the most important verb? Ashamed to say it?

What crime did the baby commit? What offense did the baby give to anyone? When did the baby ask to be placed in the uterus? When did the baby have the ability to leave?

When a baby concieved in rape is aborted, that makes rape the only crime for which an innocent bystander is executed.

You want me to say it? Fine, by your definiton it's murder. But as I said and will continue to say, you cannot force someone to do something with their own body. Period. End of story.

reply from: yoda

No, no, that's not what I want you to say....... I want you to say WHAT you are advocating that a raped woman be allowed to "decide"....... what do you want her to be able to "decide"? Why can't you say it?

And no, abortion isn't murder (technically), it's simply legal homicide.

And yes, you can force someone to do something with their own body, but that's not what this is about. This is about trying to protect the body of the baby, and trying to get the baby's mother NOT to kill it.

reply from: Tam

No, my position is that she has the right to disconnect the fetus from her body. Whether or not she desires to do so, she has the right to do so.

FOR ANY REASON, whether or not that reason is "I don't want this baby attached to me". If the reason is "I want to kill this baby because I'm a homicidal maniac" that would be irrelevant, because IYO, she has the "right" to have an abortion for ANY REASON. You have NEVER advocated forbidding abortion to women whose reason was not specifically "wanting to disconnect". It doesn't MATTER what HER reason is--ANY reason would be okay with you--because you believe she has the right to abort that pregnancy. That YOUR reasoning has to do with attachment does NOT mean you insist that HER reasoning have anything to do with attachment. She should be permitted to kill any baby in her womb, for any reason she deems worthy--isn't that true in your opinion? Between implantation and birth--that is to say, for the entirety of "pregnancy"--the babies are attached to the mother. So your position is that at any time during pregnancy, the mother should be permitted to have a legal abortion. The fact that YOUR reasoning has to do with attachment is what is BEHIND your position. But your position is that she has the right to an abortion whether or not she wants to exercise that right. In other words, your position is that she has the right to kill her unborn child for whatever reason she wants.

Isn't that true? Or do you really believe that only those women whose reason is specifically "wanting to disconnect" should be allowed legal abortions?

reply from: Sigma

Which is why my position is: "She has a right to disconnect the fetus". Her reason or desire is irrelevant.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Does a mom also have the "right" to "disconnect" when the baby is 1 month past birth? If not, then why not? Location?

reply from: Sigma

Yes. It's called adoption, fostering, and babysitting.

reply from: yoda

Then WHY is it "not correct" to say that your position is "Defending the legalized KILLING OF BABIES (if they are attached to another against the other's will)"??????

reply from: Sigma

Because you're overgeneralizing and oversimplifying to the point of absurdity.

reply from: yoda

Then why did you APPROVE THE STATEMENT???

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Come now, do you know the mental damage that could come from knowing you're carrying the rapists child? Sure, some might use rape as an excuse, but the bottom line is, she did not ask to pregnant, and should be able to decide.

Pregnancy does not often come up when it comes to the woman's mental health condition after the rape occured. I've been around women who have gotten pregnant from a rape, and they say the baby is one of the blessings.
This may not apply to all women, but apparently it does to most because a very, very small percentage of abortions are done because of rape.

reply from: Sigma

You asked about a specific situation. If it satisfies the conditions I put forth about being allowed to disconnect anyone attached to the woman, it would technically apply.

You are oversimplifying and overgeneralizing about my view by characterizing it as that.

reply from: yoda

If there was any "oversimplification", you should have stated it then. It's too late to back out of it now, you're on record.

Stand behind your position like a man, whether you are one or not!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

What? Baby-killing is not what you support (hence "baby-killing")? Abortion kills a baby. Get over it.

reply from: yoda

You hit the nail on the head, tabitha. It isn't the "oversimplification" he doesn't like, it's the use of the words "KILL THE BABY"....... even though he did agree to it, and even though it's totally accurate.

Those words just weigh on them, don't they?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Nope. They're the only group I know of that cringe at the call of their own name. Besides pro-choice. They're incredibly clingy to that...

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Come now, do you know the mental damage that could come from knowing you're carrying the rapists child? Sure, some might use rape as an excuse, but the bottom line is, she did not ask to pregnant, and should be able to decide.nsanford, as I have said before, a baby is a baby. Nothing on this green earth can change that. Zip, zero, nada, none, nothing. A baby is a baby if it is concieved from rape. A baby is a baby when it is concieved from a regretted steamy night with a boyfriend. NOTHING justifies killing it.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Defending: to stand for
Legalized: something that is legal
Killing: ending the life
Babies: any unborn/born very young human

So we get: To stand for the ending of a life of any unborn/born very young human that is legal. Seems accurate to me.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Some pro-choicers tend to ignore and blatantly despise the simplicity of the honest term: "pro-baby killing."

reply from: nsanford

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

What? She has no right to kill something unwillingly attached to her? The fact remains that until the fetus can survive without the mother, she has control. She is the dominating part of the relationship, and was here long before the baby, so her rights need protection.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Oh so, now the big guy gets to hurt the little guy (who did nothing to the bigger person, by the way)??? Oh yes, what a good system!

Of course people don't have a right to kill someone attatched to them!! You can't fight nature, nsanford! Gestation is IMPERITIVE to live; a baby HAS to be connected to the mother in order to develop and continue life!!! What is SO hard to understand about BASIC and SIMPLE biology???

All the mother has to do is keep the baby from 5 - 9 months, and that is IT. Is it SOOO frickin hard to trade such a SHORT amount to give someone a LIFE???? I don't think so!

Excuse me, but the baby did not choose to be here. Why must an innocent person be punished for a crime s/he did not commit? Has society fallen this far?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

What? She has no right to kill something unwillingly attached to her? The fact remains that until the fetus can survive without the mother, she has control. She is the dominating part of the relationship, and was here long before the baby, so her rights need protection.In your opinion. I believe that the baby and the mother are equal because they are both people. The baby get no less rights, including the Right to Life.

reply from: nsanford

If the mother thinks so, yes. For the last time, the mother's rights exist already, and more important to society in general.

Laurissa and Tabitha, are you related? I just realized you have the same last name!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

The baby's rights exist already, too! The baby is in fact here, a person, and so on and so forth. The woman's right to lifestyle does not trump another person's right to life.

And yes, Laurissa is my sister.

reply from: JohnKWalker

Although this position is contrary to the National Right to Life Committee's (an organization I greatly respect) official statement opposing legal abortion even for forcible rape, since the pro-life goal is to provide EQUAL legal protection for the lives pre-birth as applies to everyone else, rather than GREATER protection, I don't see how anyone can logically adopt an absolutist position, unless also opposing the life-of-the-mother exception. Since the latter is based on the principle of self-defense, the former must also fall under the same exceptions in Western moral thinking, and forcing a woman who has proven (in court) that her pregancy resulted from such an assault, and who reacted responsibly by reporting this in a timely fashion and fully presses charges against her assailant, would be at least as objectionable as requiring someone to donate a bodily organ to someone else. Yes, it is absolutely true that a baby conceived in this way (which is extremely rare) is as innocent as any other, but I don't understand how this truth trumps the equal innocence of the raped woman. We should certainly encourage such a woman to bring the baby to term and support her in every way, but legally forcing the matter would in effect be kidnapping.

An even more salient point on this matter is that neither America nor any other Western nation would ever support pro-life legislation without such a rape exception. So anyone who demands such absolutist "purity" is, rather arrogantly, sacrificing the millions of babies legally executed who are conceived from consensual sex.

reply from: bradensmommy

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

What? She has no right to kill something unwillingly attached to her? The fact remains that until the fetus can survive without the mother, she has control. She is the dominating part of the relationship, and was here long before the baby, so her rights need protection.

Typical, typical answer from a pro-choicer...

Do you not realize that an infant cannot survive without its mother?
Do you not realize that paralized people cannot survive without someone to help them?

Do we have the right to kill these two different individuals when we don't feel like taking care of them any longer?

I'm so sick of hearing the same answer and the same excuse every damn time.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Exactly! The fact that a three year old needs his/her mother is completely ignored. I suppose a three year old should be able to be killed, too, since s/he is the "lesser dominant" of the relationship...

reply from: danib

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

What? She has no right to kill something unwillingly attached to her? The fact remains that until the fetus can survive without the mother, she has control. She is the dominating part of the relationship, and was here long before the baby, so her rights need protection.

Typical, typical answer from a pro-choicer...

Do you not realize that an infant cannot survive without its mother?
Do you not realize that paralized people cannot survive without someone to help them?

Do we have the right to kill these two different individuals when we don't feel like taking care of them any longer?

I'm so sick of hearing the same answer and the same excuse every damn time.

reply from: danib

It seems like unborn babies better start banding together and try to think of a way to live without being connected to another. I was trying to explain this to my unborn son just last night, but he didn't seem interested.

reply from: bradensmommy

When you start understanding words and phrases and reading posts I strongly suggest not even trying to be sarcastic.

reply from: Tam

When you start understanding words and phrases and reading posts I strongly suggest not even trying to be sarcastic.

? What? Do you mean that sarcasm will go right over the head of certain posters?

reply from: bradensmommy

When you start understanding words and phrases and reading posts I strongly suggest not even trying to be sarcastic.

? What? Do you mean that sarcasm will go right over the head of certain posters?

lol, gotta love ya Tam!

reply from: yoda

John, there's something troubling about that line of reasoning. I understand and accept innocence as a defense against being killed, but not as a justification for killing another innocent person. IMO, there is nothing short of defending your own life that can even begin to justify that. Even then, it's not the most heroic thing to do. When you get into the area of justifying the killing of innocents, you are treading on dangerous ground.

The idea of protecting unborn babies from being killed has nothing to do with how they were concieved, but rather that they have done nothing to deserve to be killed.

reply from: danib

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: danib
It seems like unborn babies better start banding together and try to think of a way to live without being connected to another. I was trying to explain this to my unborn son just last night, but he didn't seem interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you start understanding words and phrases and reading posts I strongly suggest not even trying to be sarcastic.

Oh, well sorry for offending you.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why abort the baby for the crime of SOMEONE ELSE? Why not abort the person who actually raped the woman?

reply from: nsanford

For the last time, it's not her body. It's the baby's body. It has its own DNA codes, organs, limbs, head, and body. It can be asleep when the mother is awake and vice versa. It can live without the mother in a incubator by 5+ months. Bottom line: A BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I know, it's using her body, but she has no right to kill the baby because it is not killing her and it is not a parasite.

What? She has no right to kill something unwillingly attached to her? The fact remains that until the fetus can survive without the mother, she has control. She is the dominating part of the relationship, and was here long before the baby, so her rights need protection.

Typical, typical answer from a pro-choicer...

Do you not realize that an infant cannot survive without its mother?
Do you not realize that paralized people cannot survive without someone to help them?

Do we have the right to kill these two different individuals when we don't feel like taking care of them any longer?

I'm so sick of hearing the same answer and the same excuse every damn time.

Do you realize there are other ways to stop caring for an infant that is no longer wanted? Or for anyone else you no longer wish to care for? Adoption, or something. But with pregnancy, the only two way to get stop caring for the fetus are birth and abortion. If the woman refuses to do the former, we cannot, I repeat, cannot force her to do otherwise.

Which is why this nonsense in South Dakota makes me extremely angry!

reply from: yoda

How was it done before 1973, ns?

reply from: galen

the problem with the rape/ incest defense is that most abortions do not happen because of these horrible crimes. the loophole that is created by this exception though will no no ends if it is the only way to obtain one. how many women out there will cry one or the other when it is thier only means of procuring the vile operation? how many men will end up wrongly accused for the same reason? * shudder* what a can of worms.
The nice thing about immediate danger is that all the medical records will proove that this is the case. There will be no more made up excuses in the medical chart. if you are in that type of life threatening medical situation you would be in a hospital. no more Ab mills to turn to. i applaud SD for closing the loopholes that allow shdy quaks to get away with murder.

mary

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

The real problem with the rape/incest exception for abortion is the fact that these people do not understand that it is fundamentally wrong to punish a child for the crimes of their parents.

Also, and even more disturbing, is the argument many use which says "The mother would have to be reminded of the rape every time she looks at her child" as justification for killing that innocent baby. They actually think that if the thought of someone brings to mind a traumatic event that that is justification for killing that person

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

I am glad that you have revealed that you are angry about this law passed in South Dakota nsanford. It shows us that you truly are a pro-abort and are probabykilling.

reply from: bradensmommy

You didn't I was just confused by your post. What exactly is your stance on this issue?

reply from: bradensmommy

I just hate that a state would outlaw such a great thing....MURDER!!!

dammit, I'm gonna whine and write my senator about that because its NOT right!

reply from: JohnKWalker

John, there's something troubling about that line of reasoning. I understand and accept innocence as a defense against being killed, but not as a justification for killing another innocent person. IMO, there is nothing short of defending your own life that can even begin to justify that. Even then, it's not the most heroic thing to do. When you get into the area of justifying the killing of innocents, you are treading on dangerous ground.

The idea of protecting unborn babies from being killed has nothing to do with how they were concieved, but rather that they have done nothing to deserve to be killed.

Yes, by stipulating the equally innocent status of children conceived through rape, I agree that this falls on questionable ground, but the point is that somehow forcing women who have proven in court that they were raped and have acted responsibly really would require some form of judicially imposed kidnapping.

More pertinently, the sensible leadership within the pro-life movement has always been willing to compromise this narrow point as a "bargaining chip" in legislative battles. Unfortunately, the kooks in South Dakota failed to do this while repeating the exact same mistake they committed two years ago (when their law was immediately enjoined and quickly overturned), needlessly setting the movement back again and severly (perhaps permanently!) delaying the day that genuine life-protective laws can appear. I guess it's worth it though, to prove how "pure" they are....

Ditto the severest possible criticism for the schizoid speakers at the March for Life who have deluded themselves into believing (as one of them was quoted) that "this could be our last rally!", as well as the childish maneuvering by So. Carolina Sen. DeMint I detailed in a thread last month. Does anyone ever learn from even recent history? Frankly and very, very seriously, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

reply from: Genesis

Why does abortion being murder depend upon how the child was conceived? It doesn't. Abortion is murder. Period.

To explain why abortion after rape is possibly worse than abortion after consentual sex, we have to realize what the experience of rape is like and how it relates to abortion itself.

Rape is a violent act. So is abortion. Rape consists of someone forcefully violating and intruding upon someone else. So does abortion. If you think about it, the two experiences are very much the same (this statement coming from someone who has experienced both).

So given that abortion is murder regardless of the circumstance in how the child was conceived, and rape is-like abortion-a violent, intrusive act, why should we allow abortionists to put women through the very thing they are trying to escape by having the abortion? It completely defeats the purpose.

reply from: yoda

Again, this line of reasoning leaves me very concerned. Why do you single out rape conceptions as deserving of protection from "judically imposed kidnapping" when the law involved would be the exact same law as would apply to all abortions? In other words, if what you are saying is a legitimate objection to outlawing abortion in case of rape, it's also a legitimate objection to all antiabortion laws, since in all cases the "judicial effect" is precisely the same.

"Compromise" which is paid for by the lives of one particular class of babies is not a concept that is attractive to most antibabykilling activists, myself included. And I don't think it helps to call the folks in South Dakota "kooks" just because you disagree with their strategy. The ultimate fate of such laws is more in the hands of 9 unelected, biased justices than the public, at least for now. When it is finally time for the public to speak on this issue, it will be up to the people to decide which babies deserve protection.

We have a very diverse and colorful membership in our "movement", you might even say it's not so much a movement as it is a mob of angry people. But we get plenty of help in pointing out the differences of opinion among us from the probabykilling crowd, we don't really need to do that ourselves. It's perfectly fine to disagree on tactics and strategy, but we really need to avoid making personal attacks on each other, IMO.

reply from: Sparklestar

ANyone who argues against the right to abort the offspring of a man who has violated a womans body int eh most heinous way possible, is truly anti-woman

will somebody PLEASE explain to me how pro-lifers feel they can take the moral ground, when at the same time, they advocate such suffering, indignity, and place a non-sentient fetus over and above a woman who is aware of the atrocity???

reply from: yoda

Personal attacks are irrelevant to the subject at hand, don't you think?

The atrocity that we are concerned with is the unjustifiable killing of an innocent baby for the crimes committed by his/her father.

That taking of innocent life is by far the greater evil in that situation, IMO.

reply from: Sparklestar

i apologise if my post came across as a personal attack, it certainly awasn't meant that way.

i am sure you can apprecaite that both "sides" have equally as passionate views on the subject
as a woman, i often feel "attacked" or "threatened" by the pro-life arguements, hence my interst in "fighting for my rights" if you like!!

in the rape sceanrio, am i right in deducing that you would place the existance of the fetus above the wishes of the rape victim?

if so, why?

and what if the "woman" was a 12 year old girl?
even worse, what if the conception came about through incest? would the fetus still coem first then?

reply from: Tam

Hi Sparklestar, welcome to the forum.

I see you have some great questions. In order to help arrive at an answer that you can understand and respect, I would like to see a bit where you are coming from in asking the questions, by asking a couple of my own.

First of all, there are those who believe that even after birth, whether or not a baby is allowed to continue living should be decided by his/her mother and/or parents, for a period of time (opinions vary as to the time period--I've heard ones ranging from "when the baby leaves the hospital" and "one day after birth" to "until his/her first birthday"). I assume (I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but those views are pretty rare) that you don't share those views--that you would not support anyone taking action to intentionally kill a newborn child. I'm not sure how you feel about partial-birth abortion, in which a child is pulled mostly out of the womb and then killed while his/her head is still in the birth canal. Most people, even most people who support abortion in general, do not support late-term abortions or partial-birth abortions. So, please let me know--where do you, personally, draw the line? Or, is it that you don't support any abortions except in cases of rape or incest, in which case--same question, where do you draw the line? Because presumably you wouldn't support the killing of children conceived by rape after a certain time--perhaps birth, perhaps sooner--so where is that line?

Thanks

reply from: yoda

Yes. The life of an innocent baby, or any innocent human being, is more important to me than the "wishes" of any other human being, regardless of age or situation.

To take any other position would be to honor anyone's "wishes" that another innocent human being be dead. That is simply not a wish that I would honor.

The baby in those situations did nothing to deserve a violent death. Abortion in those cases amounts to the only situation where an innocent bystander is executed for the crimes of it's father.

reply from: Genesis

According to whom? You? What power do you have over truth?

Have you ever been raped or had an abortion, hon?

reply from: Genesis

Am I correct to assume you are placing the quality of emotional health of the mother over the physical existence of her child? If so, why?

See my first question.

A lot of Pro-Choicers advocate the quality of life being more important than the physical existence of the unborn children. But where these people go wrong is that they are separating the mother and her offspring. You cannot help the child w/o helping the mother, likewise, you cannot help the mother w/o helping the child. If we separate the two, we are then fighting one against the other. It won't work, it never has.

How will abortion for that 12 year old solve her problem of being molested? Abortion does not "fix" that problem, it only prolongs it by protecting the abuser and "getting rid of the problem" by aborting the child.

Also, abortion is forever. Nine months is not.

Here's a staggering statistic for you. The waiting period for adopting a baby in America is at least 12 months because there are more adoptive parents than potentially adoptive children.

reply from: JohnKWalker

"Compromise" which is paid for by the lives of one particular class of babies is not a concept that is attractive to most antibabykilling activists, myself included. And I don't think it helps to call the folks in South Dakota "kooks" just because you disagree with their strategy. The ultimate fate of such laws is more in the hands of 9 unelected, biased justices than the public, at least for now. When it is finally time for the public to speak on this issue, it will be up to the people to decide which babies deserve protection.

We have a very diverse and colorful membership in our "movement", you might even say it's not so much a movement as it is a mob of angry people. But we get plenty of help in pointing out the differences of opinion among us from the probabykilling crowd, we don't really need to do that ourselves. It's perfectly fine to disagree on tactics and strategy, but we really need to avoid making personal attacks on each other, IMO.

The necessity, with a legitimate rape exception (i.e. proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court, reported as soon as reasonably possible, and credible by fully pressing charges and testifying), for, in effect, imprisoning the women throughout the gestational period, while undeniable and, in my opinion, absolutely compelling, is not even the core argument I made about the distinction with conception resulting from consensual intercourse. The real point I made is that recognizing the scientific personhood of pre-born human beings would require providing protection to them EQUAL to that of everyone else, but not GREATER status, which is what failing to allow a forcible rape exception would entail. As I mentioned, this would be the equivalent of forcing someone to donate an organ to someone else with a recognized "greater" status. Further, it is both impractical and morally objectionable (in fact, it supports the pro-abortion argument) to completely separate personal responsibility (in this case, whether the sex act resulting in conception was consensual) from the legality of abortion as a permitted "response."

The practical reason that legally permitting abortion in the extremely rare case of pregnancy resulting from rape differs in this way is that, as existed prior to state legalization and Roe v. Wade, there would always be MD's, even generally pro-life ones, willing to perform the procedure early in pregnancy for such a victimized woman. General prohibition of the remaining 99% of reasons for abortion would require state AG's and/or the federal Justice Department to start prosecuting abortionists (nearly all of whom would already be known, having advertized their services) for the purpose of, at first, invalidating their medical licenses, and eventually, imprisoning them. Only the most Kevorkianesque ones would do so in this situation, whereas many would for rape victims, and juries would be extremely unwilling to convict the latter. And please keep in mind that any particular feature of a law, whether proposed or in place, that tends to undermine respect for its overall purpose weakens support for it in general.

If you can point out any logical flaws in my reasoning here, please point them out. I really am trying to participate in a productive consensus within the pro-life movement, rather than engage in needless and endless debate. And, since I make it a point to avoid personal invective, I apologize for labeling the South Dakota legislature "kooks" (although I do believe there are different rules for describing politicians and official pro-life leaders than for earnest rank-and-file pro-life supporters). My point is that they have stubbornly failed to learn by history, even their own recent history, and their obstinancy will continue to severely damage, perhaps fatally, the cause they claim to support. The President of South Dakota Right to Life is actually a member of the legislature there and has led this stupid effort, but as I have learned here in Arizona, the National Right to Life Committee is too weak to discipline its own affiliate organizations (e.g., by decertifying them), even when those satellite groups act in blatant contradiction to its own sensible, well-established consititutional strategy.

reply from: CAS

The baby is dependant on the mother for life...so you are saying the baby is not an individual life.

Are people who are on life support not alive? because they are supported by machines are they merely now part of the machine, making it okay to unplug them at any moment? I'm not even talking about long-term life support...people are often on life support after surgery, during surgery, illnesses, etc. and it's temporary.

The gestational limit for survival gets lower every day. A baby at 22 weeks gestation is viable, many have lived. Aborted babies have survived after botched 24-week-abortions in the UK.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=15187088&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=the-baby-who-survived-three-abortions-name_page.html

And lastly, abortion IS painful. The baby does suffer and many clinics to not even take that into consideration. We cannot etuhenize a dog by ripping it apart, yet it's okay to do so to a baby?

CAS

reply from: grkg1970

When one man robs a bank and kills his hostages do we punish his son for what he did?

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=237051


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics