Home - List All Discussions

An argument for abortion being legal for raped women

by: JRH

1. A person should not have to support another person using their body if they have not consented to do so.
2. A raped women does not consent to sex.
3. If a woman does not consent to sex she does not consent to pregnancy.
4. If she does not consent to pregnancy then she has not consented to bear the fetus inside her.
5. If someone uses your body without consent, as happens in a rape and the above mentioned pregnancy, you have the right to stop them using any means required.
6. From 1,4, and 5, woman should not have to support a fetus because she has not consented to do so and so she can abort.
The only way this argument fails is if you deny 1. If you deny 1, however, then there is no longer any justification for not making people do whatever helps other people survive. There is no argument that can be made against forcing people to give up their property to feed the hungry or making them work as slaves to build hospitals. There is no argument against forcing them to donate one of their kidneys. It's a bad road to go down.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

1. No one should have to die because they came into existence through violence.
2. The child does not consent to be conceived.
3. If the child does not consent to being conceived, it cannot be blamed for the woman being pregnant.
4. A person has the right to do anything to their own body, but that right stops where another human's body begins.
5. If someone purposely harms you against your will, it is assault and even murder.
I do not deny your #1 completely. I do feel that all human beings have the right to control their own bodies. The child inside of the woman is not her body; it is the baby's body. It has a right to control its own body. As we cannot ask it what its wishes are, we can at least assume it wishes to stay alive, as survival is the basest instinct and one of the intrinsic human rights. Humans have a right to live.
It's not about consent. The woman didn't consent to pregnancy even if she consented to sex. The child didn't consent either. There are forces at work that are ultimately out of our true control, though we try with drugs and contraceptive devices. Nothing wrong with that. But just because the pregnancy is an accident or the result of a rape does not change the very basic fact of what it IS: a child, growing and living. A new human being. A new life. Not potential life. It IS alive. It is alive and it is human and it is a baby. It deserves the same protection the woman deserves.
Neither the child nor the mother has the right to control each other; but the only solution that violates neither of their rights doesn't exist at this point. The closest solution is birth. It involves the death of no one, and only violates the woman's rights if she views it that way. Other women view pregnancy as a right in and of itself. The right to bear children. The right to be the safe home for the child. The right the responsibility and the honor.
Pregnancy is only a violation of your rights if you view it as such. It is completely subjective. What is not subjective about pregnancy?
The living child. That is a fact: a living, growing fact.
Throw all of the opinions out of the window and you come to two things. The mother and the child. They are facts. The child is dependent on the woman. This is a fact. Assuming this is an unexpected pregnancy, neither the mother or the child chose for this to happen. Facts. Whether she chose it or not, she is now bearing the life of another human being within her, and it contains half of her DNA. As the sole provider for that life, she is responsible for it.
Now one line of opinion: it is irresponsible to let something that you are the sole caretaker for die due to neglect. It is even more irresponsible to purposely kill it yourself.

reply from: xLoki

That line of thought posees a problem when putting into the context of abortion and pregnancy. See, that above statement could technically apply to the fetus as well, the fetus' rights ALSO should stop where another human's body begins. So you have two 'competing' rights here. Pro-lifers want the woman's body to be at the mercy of the fetus, and pro-choicers want the fetus' body to be at the mercy of the woman.
This is why so many people want an exception for rape. If the pregnancy is terminated, that fetus/zygote/embryo/whathaveyou will never have to go through the mental anguish or psychological trauma that a rape victim might have to go through if she were forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

reply from: ChristianLott2

There is also trauma from aborting a baby. The anguish a mother would feel having slaughtered her own child and regretted it and the absolute trauma - the murder of an innocent child.
Abortion is all nice sweet and peaches and cream, huh?

reply from: daveS

And 9 months of pregnancy is less traumatic? And then add on childbirth? Do you know any women who have gone through pregnancy and childbirth? It's traumatic for the 9 months, and it is a constant reminder of the violence.

reply from: galen

As a rape victim who had the child concieved in violence, and then raised him i have to say that the trauma of the unwanted assault and pregnancy was less than the trauma i witness each time i go to counseling and listen to women who did abort. If you bear the child and raise or adopt out him or her you can deal with the violence that was committed upon you, without having comitted another controlling act yourself. You get to go on with life knowing that you played no part in the crime and acted in the best intrest of yourself and others. you have no remorse and no furthur pain to adress as you would if you suddenly realised years later that you yourself commited an act of violence and controll upon another defensless human.

reply from: carolemarie

Rape and incest pregnancies are rare. To ban the other 98 %, I am willing to support the exception for them.

reply from: micah

Actually, the link between abortion and depression was shown to be false.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28050494/

And unlike Fetus Morning Post, that's a real news source.

reply from: micah

Forcing any woman to bear a child is evil no matter what the circumstance. I suppose forcing a raped woman to do it really shows the heart of the pro-life movement.

reply from: galen

and so what of the child micah.. it too is innocent of any wrongdoing, yet abortion forces the same type of trauma on the child, not to mention what such a procedure does to the woman. its like a third assualt, the second being the exam by medical personell after the rape.
Possibly the persons who make the exception or the non exception are women who actually became pregnant after a rape, they IMHO are the only ones who have a true perspective on this problem, and thankfully our numbers are smaller then the population of women and men who experience sexual assault.

reply from: scopia19822

"Rape and incest pregnancies are rare. To ban the other 98 %, I am willing to support the exception for them."
Oh Carole! NO! NO! Those babies deserve the same protection as the rest of the babies do.

reply from: scopia19822

"Actually, the link between abortion and depression was shown to be false."
Than what do you call us women who have had abortions who suffered no psyc problems before the procedure and who now suffer them? I think Post Abortion Sundrome would be considered a sub category of PTSD if it ever makes it into the DSM. And any trauma of any kind can cause a person to suffer PTSD and depression. I have been diagnosed with PTSD and the threapist listed the abortion as the primary cause. I cant stand the sound or sight of a vacum cleaner, epescially the canister type that dont require bags because they remind me of the suction machine. THey sunctioned out my uterus after the D&E to make sure they got everything out. I cant stand graham crackers because that i what they tried to force me to eat before they flung me out the clinic door.

reply from: AshMarie88

And 9 months of pregnancy is less traumatic? And then add on childbirth? Do you know any women who have gone through pregnancy and childbirth? It's traumatic for the 9 months, and it is a constant reminder of the violence.
Oh and like abortion will cure constant reminder of being raped? It'll cure nightmares? It'll cure the pain?
Even if she gives birth and never sees that child again, will the pain be any worse than if she aborts and STILL has nightmares and is still traumatized?

reply from: micah

Where do you get this idea that raped women want to have their rapist's baby?

reply from: micah

Because you don't like the decision you made, you want to take the decision away from every woman? If a study showed that women who had their rapist's babies did worse, then would you support abortion?

reply from: sheri

jr, what of conjoined twins? What if one decides that they no longer wish to support the one without the heart? Would that person be justified in letting the other one die in a seperation surgery? Before you answer yes, i would like to make the one without the heart a scientist on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer, or even more likely to make you care, the cure for syphilis.
You should be able to feel this persons pain, big brain- no heart.

reply from: galen

i notice that micah has no reply to what i wrote....

reply from: scopia19822

"Because you don't like the decision you made, you want to take the decision away from every woman? If a study showed that women who had their rapist's babies did worse, then would you support abortion? "
Your new here so let me fill you in. I was FORCED by my ex boyfriend to abort our daughter when I was 18 weeks. He came to my high school while I was in the parking lot in getting my books out of my car, he worked as a armed security guard for a bank so he had a gun that he used on his job. He told me if I didnt go with him he would shoot me in the head where I stood. Me being scared, frieghtened and naive thought the best thing to do would be to go to the clinic as surely once I told him what they were doing they would call the police. I live in a city that is on the TN/Va border. So he took me across town and across state lines to the clinic. It turns out that his mother who works at the hospital where this "doctor" had admitting privalages and had arranged for them to "take care of the problem". Because my ex had recently been charged with statutory rape with a 13 yr child, he was 21. He was looking at some time and if I showed up pregnant it would establish he had a preferance and pattern of having sex with minors and would hurt his defense in court. So they had to get rid of the physical "evidence". When I arrived for the clinic and told them what was happening, my pleas, cries and wishes went unheeded. He had given them the cash and it was his wishes that mattered not mine. I was told it was for my own good, be a good girl and sign the forms, but say Im 18 not 17 since the state required parental consent. They refused to let me call my mother. When I was in the procedure room, I told them no I didnt want it. I tried to get up off the table and make a run out of the emergency exit down the hall. The abortionist, told the nurses to restrain me while he slipped a mask on my face and gassed me with nitrious oxide. When i came too, they were turning off the suction machine. I asked the gender of my child as I had to know, he told me that after they "assembled" the parts the fetus was a female. I was told to eat a couple of graham crackers, dress and leave. No follow up, no Rhogam shot as Im O-, nothing. I had no choice and Im sure that Im not the only woman this has ever happened too, but prochoicers say these things dont occur, they want to shut women like us up as we are considered traitors to the cause.

reply from: BossMomma

While I admit that you probably suffer some Post Traumatic Stress due to the circumstances that led to your abortion, it has been proven that most of the women suffering from Post Abortion Depression have a history of depression that is not in any way related to the abortion.

reply from: micah

I'm not going to address the needs of a zygote any more than I would for one of the guy's left over sperm, but let me address the comment about hurting the woman further: Why don't you leave that decision to her?

reply from: BossMomma

Some women do choose to keep the child, not all women view the baby concieved of rape to be some monster.

reply from: scopia19822

"Some women do choose to keep the child, not all women view the baby concieved of rape to be some monster."
Some men who rape also have children from "consensual" relationships. If the child they father as a result of rape as a monster, than would it not be logical that those other children would be monsters as well. Why not kill those children as well?

reply from: micah

That's a very horrible situation. Do you believe that frequently happens at Planned Parenthood? What do you think is the proper solution to prevent something like this from happening again?

reply from: micah

That's fine. It's her decision.
Some women do choose to keep the child, not all women view the baby concieved of rape to be some monster.

reply from: galen

_____________________________________________-
possibly if you read the WHOLE statement and then you would realise that unless you have gone through this trauma you have little realization of what you are speaking of. Unless you have lived this trauma.. you can empathise and you cn theorize but you ultimately can not know what goes on in the mind of a woman who is pregnant by her rapist.
it smacks of arrogance for someone who has not gone through this to say that they know what is best for us.

reply from: micah

I'm talking about a few day old fetus, who is dependent solely upon the raped mother. You're talking about a 5 year old child. I think you can see the difference.

reply from: BossMomma

Some women do choose to keep the child, not all women view the baby concieved of rape to be some monster.
While some disagree with me rape is a hard case that I would make exception for by supporting the MAP. The Morning After Pill can be gotten from any OB/GYN by anyone who has had unprotected sex with or without a rape kit.

reply from: scopia19822

"That's a very horrible situation. Do you believe that frequently happens at Planned Parenthood? What do you think is the proper solution to prevent something like this from happening again?"
Not to the extent as to what happened to me. Do I believe there is alot of coecion and cajoling to get the women to abort, yes as its the clinics staff job to sell abortions. Not to mention how many women are told by employers you cant continue to work here and be a mother, so she has an abortion because she cant afford to feed herself without that job, much less her unborn child, especially if she already has children. She has a parnter who doesnt want to be a father so shes told its the child or the relationship. Abortion is a tool that abusers use to exploit their victims. What should be done is to pass laws to make employers subject to criminal penalties if they fire a pregnant employee because she doesnt abort. Others who coerce/force a woman into abortion need to be held criminally responsible. These free standing for profit abortion clinics need to be shut down as they are often underregulated if they are regulated at all. If we must have abortions in this nation than they should only be allowed to be performed in hospitals, where an 3rd party will not be able to so easily be able to get help in order to force/coerce a woman to abort.

reply from: JRH

Correct. I will assume for this that a fetus is a person. While a fetus may have a right to it's body it's use of the woman's body is wrong. She has a right to abort it to stop from using her body. It's right to it's body do not include the right to her body.
5 is not true in all cases. When someone is violating your body, as in rape or a rape pregnancy you have the right to kill them to defend your own body. It is your right to stop them from using your body.
But it does not have the right to use the woman's body to live no matter hat it wants. The woman has the right to remove just like you have the right to remove a rape victim.
Oh yes it is.
The woman does not have the right to use someone against their will either. If the fetus is a person we treat it the same as a normal person when we deny it that right.
The fetuses rights are not violated when it is removed to stop it form violating the woman anymore than killing a rape victim violates their rights.
DUH. All violations are violations because we see them as such.
A woman has the right to do that. She also has the right to abort.
The very idea that human life has value it subjective. You can claim that pregnancy is an objective things,however, this means nothing since all moral arguments about what to do during pregnancy are subjective.
Not if she does not want to be. To claim otherwise is to make her the slave of the fetus.
It is your right to not help anyone and kill those who violate your rights.

reply from: BossMomma

The child is not a monster regardless of how it is concieved, but that is how some rape victims view it. I was raped many times and had I been impregnated I do not know whether I would have continued the pregnancy. It is a hard case and we have no idea how frequently it happens as it is so often not reported.

reply from: micah

If we were to survey a group of raped women, what percentage would you say would be willing to forgo abortion and go through a pregnancy that was a result of their rape? Any sort of ballpark estimate will do.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm talking about a few day old fetus, who is dependent solely upon the raped mother. You're talking about a 5 year old child. I think you can see the difference."
No I dont, logically if the unborn child is a monster than so is the other child/children since they both have the same father. The born child could be a rapist just like his father, so why not rid the world of a potential monster? There is no difference between a preborn child or a born child. I however do support the giving the MAP to rape victims who go to the ER for a rape kit.

reply from: micah

I know we have different political views on abortion, but you seem like a reasonable person. If we give up our reproductive rights, how do we know whose hands they will end up in? Could you imagine having to plead a case for a medical procedure to a guy like yodavader? I don't think people like him are as rare as we would like to think.

reply from: micah

I have never called a fetus a monster. Where did you get this from? I merely consider a few-day old fetus as practically a non-entity, like a rock or a sperm.

reply from: galen

_________________________________________________________
i will give you some rough facts... probably 75 % OF WOMEN ABORT AND OF THOSE PROBABLY 90% REGRETT IT AND HAVE A HARDER TIME IN THERAPY RESOLVING THIER ISSUES REGARDING THE RAPE... MOST STATE REGRETT THAT THEY INFLICTED VIOLENCE AND CONTROLL OVER AN INNOCENT LIFE FORM.
women in my experience and experience of other physicians and nurses i have been in contact with, state that while pregnancy carries its own psycho social problems these women who carry to term ultimately do etter in the long run.
So the point seems to be that if aborting causes larger issues to stay unresolved by most of the women and carrying to term seems to help women re establish themselves and thier autoomy, why have women abort in order to ( possibly) ease the mind in the short term , when doing so will hinder recovery in the long term?

reply from: BossMomma

Frankly I don't think abortion rights will ever be revoked, with the majority in support of abortion on demand it is simply unrealistic. I prefer to make pro-life resources more available to women so that they desire to choose life for their children. Abortion will likely never be illegal, but with compassion and hard work by those who truly care, it can be reduced to a moot point.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have never called a fetus a monster. Where did you get this from? I merely consider a few-day old fetus as practically a non-entity, like a rock or a sperm.'
I never said you did, however Boss said that not all women view their child who are concieved via rape as a monster, so when a unborn child an entity?

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: micah

I'm not trying to give you a rough time or anything, but I do have to ask you to provide some sort of source for those stats.

reply from: micah

I think it's a continuous process, and we could never define an exact moment. If I said it occurs on minute x, all you would have to do is say "well on minute x minus 1, the entity looks very similar".

reply from: galen

well then you would have to be a rape survivor and come to group with the rest of us....
you asked for a rough estimate and i gave you what i could.. privacy being what it is , you can belive or disbelive . I hope you never have to find out first hand.
i would not wish the experience on anyone.

reply from: micah

I don't doubt your sincerity, intelligence, or compassion. In an alternative world where there were just our two views, we could probably work something out. The problem is that there are a lot of people in the pro-life camp who care nothing for the woman or her unborn child. It's merely a cover to rollback women's rights. They wouldn't be happy until every woman was reduced to a uterus on legs. As you've probably noticed, the "pure" pro-lifers don't tend to be too woman-loving.

reply from: galen

in contrast to your views i do not feel thatat all... despite some of the language used here , i feel that most pro lifers feel for both the woman and the child.
It seems to me that the new found feministic views that say you can only choose one or the other... my view and the view of those i associate with, is there is a way to save BOTH, child and mother... there are more than enough people who wat to adopt a child and do not care what the parentage is... why not save yourself the heartache of killing a child and at the same time make another couple ( or parent happy. Why brden youself with an act of controll and insult on another defensless creature... in many minds you then become no better than yor abuser.

reply from: micah

I don't think many people would have a problem with that argument. But that's not the argument the pro-life crowd makes. They want to force a woman to have the kid, go to jail, or have a back alley abortion.

reply from: galen

in the case of a rape victim i have not ever heard any one hear or elsewhere say these things.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm aware, as you've noticed I'm considered a pro-abort by our resident pro-fetal men, strangely enough all are jaded half educated loonies with a grudge against this or that ex. However there are extremists on both sides of the fence. I try to do all things in moderation and with sound logic.
Women's rights should be equal to mens rights and no man has the right to kill a child, why should a woman? Women are more than a uterus on legs, but they shouldn't be reduced to a walking tomb in the name of modern feminism. I support classic feminism, as you know the founding mothers of feminism were pro-life. Abortion was never their intent.

reply from: micah

Okay, this is one debate we can settle right here.
Ask Faithman, ChristianLott, or Yodahater what should happen to a raped woman who aborts her fetus.

reply from: galen

i have... they all agree that they have not a leg to stand on in that situation and it is best left up to her therapist and other advisors how to help her... in this case if she has already aborted what is done is done. in other cases they agree with my arguments about counseling her beforehand and why. In fact on this board and from various of the hard heds i have recieved several referralls throughout the years.

reply from: micah

It is unfair to equate pro-choice extremists with pro-life extremists. It's just like when TV compares the Christian extremists to the Muslim extremists. No matter how "extreme" a pro-choicer gets, he still advocates putting the choice in the woman's hands. On the other hand, look at your pro-life extremists. They have suggested putting women into cells to force them to have babies, and imprisoning them if they do not follow the state's regimen.

reply from: galen

yeah and the choice is to kill millions of children... some choice.... in my book all extremisim is bad.

reply from: micah

Okay, I'll wait for the pro-life triad (faithman, yodavader, and christian lott) to chime in, but I have a feeling that they do not think a woman who aborts should go unpunished by the state, even if the pregnancy was a result of rape.

reply from: galen

with the exception of some; if you can get through HOW something is said you get to What is being said.. and that is something you can look at in a rational manner... sometimes though you can not.

reply from: BossMomma

I do not believe in double standards, one extremist is as bad as the next as both are unreasonable, illogical and, ultimately harmful to the cause they represent. For example, the poster JHR is a fan of Peter Singer and does not consider a newborn a person, therefore it is not unethical to kill a newly born infant. Would you not say that is an unethical extreme? Choice can only go so far before it becomes murderous in entirety. The pro-fetal trio will never get anywhere with their mind set and so I really pay them no mind.

reply from: JRH

I do not believe in double standards, one extremist is as bad as the next as both are unreasonable, illogical and, ultimately harmful to the cause they represent. For example, the poster JHR is a fan of Peter Singer and does not consider a newborn a person, therefore it is not unethical to kill a newly born infant. Would you not say that is an unethical extreme? Choice can only go so far before it becomes murderous in entirety. The pro-fetal trio will never get anywhere with their mind set and so I really pay them no mind.
I'm not longer as much as fan of Singer as I was. I disagree with him on a variety of things. I have even considered becoming pro life for non rape/ dangerous pregnancies. I have not yet done so but I did consider it. I eventually decided that it is ridiculous to think of non sentient beings as people. As for killing infants, I never said I think it is moral. I said it is immoral to force parents to care for their children.
One thing that I do not understand about you is that you seem to think that being associated with him makes one illogical or crazy. In reality, he is the most influential living philosopher and a respected Princeton professor. The guy is far from illogical-his mind better than than your and mine I'll bet.

reply from: Rosalie

Because men do not get pregnant? Men's health or life are not at risk by pregnancy or childbirth, ever. They do not have to make sacrifices because of their status. Pregnancy is a unique situation, unique only to women, and as such it must be treated.

reply from: Rosalie

That's not logical at all.
The born child/children are not results of the rape. They are in no way prolonging the trauma of the woman being forced to give up her rights to bodily autonomy. I really don't see how you can ignore the difference.
It's not that the fetus is a "monster". But the way in which it came to be is incredibly traumatic and the trauma CAN be made even worse by forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy.
For a great portion of raped women, continuing the pregnancy that resulted from their rape is THE EXTENSION of their rape. Can you really not understand that?

reply from: sheri

Jr, Our founding fathers were slave owners, very rational, highly intelligent men who had a moral blight so repulsive we can all agree it was wrong. It seems so obvious to us we wonder how such smart people couldn't see it, maybe abortion will be like that years from now. Maybe these otherwise very smart people like Singer, just cant see the forest through the trees.

reply from: AshMarie88

5 day old fetus? LOL! There's no such thing.

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, the majority of women raped would choose to have their babies, like 70%. I know this because of past studies and polls, I'll find some for you later.

reply from: sk1bianca

many raped women want to give birth to the child. they were victims of violence and would never use violence against a defenseless being.
we should stop judging people, especially children, by their parents or by the way they were conceived. it's simply not fair. nobody should pay with his life for a crime someone else has commited.
and how comes that the "trauma of the woman being forced to give up her rights to bodily autonomy" (for 9 months or so...) is always worse that the trauma of the child being dismembered?

reply from: micah

Here's an interesting task: try to find out where the bible says slavery is wrong. Look up what the Bible says about slavery. In every case where slavery is brought up, it talks about how to regulate slavery, and not that it is wrong.

reply from: BossMomma

Because men do not get pregnant? Men's health or life are not at risk by pregnancy or childbirth, ever. They do not have to make sacrifices because of their status. Pregnancy is a unique situation, unique only to women, and as such it must be treated.
Sugar I really am done debating with you, you've insulted me too many times to be worth the effort.

reply from: micah

Yeah, you would have to provide some sort of source for that. I quite frankly don't believe it at all, and most people wouldn't. But again, if you show me a source, I'm willing to change my mind.
Moving forward, let us suppose in some alternate universe that 95% of raped woman would choose to have their rapist's baby. It would still be wrong for us to force the remaining 5% to have a baby against their will.

reply from: faithman

This is where you misunderstand. "Slavery" in the bible was indentured servitude. It is never a matter of actually owning a fellow human being as property, and considered less than human. We had the same thing here, as people would indenture themselves to buy passage, and then work for a time to pay off the ticket. The bible also declares a year of jubalee in which all debts are forgiven, and servants released from the financial obligation and set free. What we had in america comes no where near this biblical concept of servitude. It was mostly condemned by the scripture. The major influence on slavery in america was the theory of evolution that said that the african was not an equal being to white eropeans. American slaves were consider unhuman beast of burden. No where in the bible does it say anything close to that.

reply from: sk1bianca

even if the Bible tells slaves to be obedient towards their masters, it clearely states that there's no real difference between slaves and free men, and that all people are equal in the eyes of God.
Galathians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is in all.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Ephesians 6:8
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
and the punishment for slavery is slavery
Revelation 13:10
He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: micah

Wouldn't you think something written by God would outright condemn slavery? Doesn't that at all kind of surprise you?

reply from: sheri

Are you dragging the bible into this to prove my point? It's true that even great kings of the bible went along with slavery, very smart people can be blinded by conventions of the day. It is a diffacult thing to be truly open minded and see things through the eyes of a slave or the not fully developed eyes of a 4 week old preborn.

reply from: faithman

Once again you are confused. the bible uses the word servant, not slave. And once again the bible does not condone the "owning" of fellow human beings as beasts of burden. You are simply a word twisting moron who doesn't understand what they are talking about. The kind of slavery practiced in america is condemned in the bible. But you really don't care about that. You just want to mock people of faith and the God they believe in. SSSSOOOO direa mouth, poop on.

reply from: Banned Member

Having an abortion does not make you un-raped.

reply from: micah

Nobody ever said it did.

reply from: BossMomma

Once again you are confused. the bible uses the word servant, not slave. And once again the bible does not condone the "owning" of fellow human beings as beasts of burden. You are simply a word twisting moron who doesn't understand what they are talking about. The kind of slavery practiced in america is condemned in the bible. But you really don't care about that. You just want to mock people of faith and the God they believe in. SSSSOOOO direa mouth, poop on.
Actually the old testiment does give guidelines to SLAVERY in which one human owned another. It was Jesus in the New Testiment that spoke against it.
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

reply from: micah

The words for employee and slave are completely different in Greek, and the bible uses the latter. Slave means slave. The translators did not get it wrong.
BossMomma, you're right about the Old Testament condoning slavery. The problem is that the New Testament never reverses itself. I didn't catch where the New Testament says that slavery is now no longer okay (Though wouldn't it surprise you that God would say that slavery was ever okay?)

reply from: faithman

Once again you are confused. the bible uses the word servant, not slave. And once again the bible does not condone the "owning" of fellow human beings as beasts of burden. You are simply a word twisting moron who doesn't understand what they are talking about. The kind of slavery practiced in america is condemned in the bible. But you really don't care about that. You just want to mock people of faith and the God they believe in. SSSSOOOO direa mouth, poop on.
Actually the old testiment does give guidelines to SLAVERY in which one human owned another. It was Jesus in the New Testiment that spoke against it.
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
The person was not bought, their services were. The were not considered less than human, or simple beast of burden. It is exactly the same when we go to a job today. You sell your service to a boss. At the end of a contract, you are not held as property.

reply from: micah

That interpretation was made up by modern theologians. Try finding it in church history before the anti-slavery movement became popular.
And read this if you think that slaves in the bible were merely employees:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

reply from: faithman

Nice try, but you are not the only one with a concordance. The hebrew[5640] means bond servant, not own slave. Bond servant is about a money contract. After the obligation is fulfilled, the bond servant, not owned slave is free. The new testiment greek is dealing with a time when most of the pagan world was enslaved, and had no resemblance to indentured servatude. The practice is not condoned in the scripture, and as a matter of fact, the scripture warns "masters" to treat their servants as human beings, not property to be exploited.Once again, the thyle of slavery practiced in america comes no where near indentured servatude, and is actually condemned in the scripture.

reply from: faithman

Once again you are confused. the bible uses the word servant, not slave. And once again the bible does not condone the "owning" of fellow human beings as beasts of burden. You are simply a word twisting moron who doesn't understand what they are talking about. The kind of slavery practiced in america is condemned in the bible. But you really don't care about that. You just want to mock people of faith and the God they believe in. SSSSOOOO direa mouth, poop on.
Actually the old testiment does give guidelines to SLAVERY in which one human owned another. It was Jesus in the New Testiment that spoke against it.
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
Thanks for actually making my point. Even though you are using a very bad version of the bible, the real intent comes thru. people did not lose their humanity because they were bond servants. A real bible uses the word servant, and only uses the word slave once. and slaves once as well. It would be a good idea to use a bible that wasn't produced by bull dykes, and people who wanted more to explain away than adherance. We have enough confusion as is without using something that was produced to cause it.

reply from: CharlesD

Slaves in ancient times also had ways they could legally earn their freedom. Slaves in 19th century America had to escape to a free state. American slavery was also based on an idea that certain humans were inherently less valuable than other humans based on ethnic differences. There are large differences between the two systems.

reply from: Rosalie

Because men do not get pregnant? Men's health or life are not at risk by pregnancy or childbirth, ever. They do not have to make sacrifices because of their status. Pregnancy is a unique situation, unique only to women, and as such it must be treated.
Sugar I really am done debating with you, you've insulted me too many times to be worth the effort.
So put me on ignore if you have to, that's your prerogative.
You insult women all the time by calling them selfish and cowardly all the time and SUDDENLY you act offended. I don't buy this.

reply from: faithman

Because men do not get pregnant? Men's health or life are not at risk by pregnancy or childbirth, ever. They do not have to make sacrifices because of their status. Pregnancy is a unique situation, unique only to women, and as such it must be treated.
Sugar I really am done debating with you, you've insulted me too many times to be worth the effort.
So put me on ignore if you have to, that's your prerogative.
You insult women all the time by calling them selfish and cowardly all the time and SUDDENLY you act offended. I don't buy this.
http://www.prolifetube.org/video/cureforabadday-1

reply from: lukesmom

Actually this is untrue. I carried my son to term with a fatal diagnosis. Many of your "prochoicers" here and other places have called me a bad parent, accused me of causing my son and other children unnecessary suffering and pain. I have been accused of wasting medical professionals time, hospital resources and insurance funds that could have gone to other, evidently, more "worthy" people than my son. I have talked to hundreds of women who have encountered the same and worse as in medical professionals who refuse to care for them during pregnancy. One woman who delivered her child had hospital staff refuse to give her child ANY medical treatment and the list goes on and on and on. Prochoice extremists advocate for abortion ONLY, forget choice. I find your so called "choice" laughable when dealing with many of you extremists. Your "choice" leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth due to personal experience.

reply from: lukesmom

How very condecending and untrue in many cases. Are you even married or in a committed relationship? My dh made MANY sacrifices for me because of OUR pregnancy. He worked 12-14 hr days 5 days a week so I could be home along with many other sacrifices. How DARE you downplay a man's role or risk in pregnancy.
You are soooooo focused on one person in this you can't see anything or anyone else. Dear Lord, woman, take off your blinders and join the rest of us in living a REAL life.

reply from: Rosalie

How very condecending and untrue in many cases. Are you even married or in a committed relationship? My dh made MANY sacrifices for me because of OUR pregnancy. He worked 12-14 hr days 5 days a week so I could be home along with many other sacrifices. How DARE you downplay a man's role or risk in pregnancy.
You are soooooo focused on one person in this you can't see anything or anyone else. Dear Lord, woman, take off your blinders and join the rest of us in living a REAL life.
I have a fiancé and we have a child together.
And you, again, do not understand my post at all. Whoa, what a surprise. Are men PHYSICALLY involved in the pregnancy? Do they have ANYTHING to do with fetal gestation? Like ... are their bodily resources used by the fetus? Does the pregnancy make them swell? Does the fetus ever sit on their nonexisten cervix or kicks them into their insides?
If your husband experienced all that, then you better alert medical community. They will surely be interested.
I dare downplay the man's PHYSICAL role in the woman's pregnancy because men AREN'T pregnant and DON'T GIVE BIRTH. Or do you want to say that men get pregnant and give birth? Is that what you're saying?
I was talking about the physical aspect exclusively and you are just looking for an insult.

reply from: lukesmom

How very condecending and untrue in many cases. Are you even married or in a committed relationship? My dh made MANY sacrifices for me because of OUR pregnancy. He worked 12-14 hr days 5 days a week so I could be home along with many other sacrifices. How DARE you downplay a man's role or risk in pregnancy.
You are soooooo focused on one person in this you can't see anything or anyone else. Dear Lord, woman, take off your blinders and join the rest of us in living a REAL life.
I have a fiancé and we have a child together.
And you, again, do not understand my post at all. Whoa, what a surprise. Are men PHYSICALLY involved in the pregnancy? Do they have ANYTHING to do with fetal gestation? Like ... are their bodily resources used by the fetus? Does the pregnancy make them swell? Does the fetus ever sit on their nonexisten cervix or kicks them into their insides?
If your husband experienced all that, then you better alert medical community. They will surely be interested.
I dare downplay the man's PHYSICAL role in the woman's pregnancy because men AREN'T pregnant and DON'T GIVE BIRTH. Or do you want to say that men get pregnant and give birth? Is that what you're saying?
I was talking about the physical aspect exclusively and you are just looking for an insult.
I was not trying to insult, you are actually looking for an insults and not very adverse to throwing them out frequently, are you? My dh and many other father's do have a PHYSICAL role in a woman's pregnancy. No, they don't physically carry the child but they do physically and emotionally support the pregnant woman. You are purposefully being obtuse and insulting. Truthfully, I pity men for never being able to carry life within themselves. That said, why is it you want every woman to be a man? Is it because YOU want to be a man because you have no idea what being a woman is all about? Not an insult, just an observation from your posts here.

reply from: Rosalie

I meant that you are looking for something in my post that you could consider insulting and then you are just oh-so-outraged. Read what I actually wrote, not what you would've wanted me to wrote so you could take offense.
This statement can mean only one thing: that they are pregnant and give birth. In that case, I want a proof.
Emotional support was NOT what I was talking about and could you kindly explain what you mean by "physically support the pregnant woman"?
Not at all, you don't understand what I am talking about.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT MEN ARE NOT PREGNANT AND DO NOT GIVE BIRTH AND THEREFORE DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PREGNANCY IN THE WAY THE WOMAN HAS TO DEAL WITH IT. Do you want to disprove this?
What does this have to do with the topic?
I don't, please stop lying.
I don't, stop lying.
I actually love being a woman and I wouldn't want to be a man at all. Why do you have to lie?
No, you're trying to lie about me AND insult me with your lies. You can't accomplish that but seriously, why all the lies? Lying is disgusting.

reply from: scopia19822

"And you, again, do not understand my post at all. Whoa, what a surprise. Are men PHYSICALLY involved in the pregnancy? Do they have ANYTHING to do with fetal gestation? Like ... are their bodily resources used by the fetus? Does the pregnancy make them swell? Does the fetus ever sit on their nonexisten cervix or kicks them into their insides?"
It depends on what you mean by Physically? I assume you mean actually carrying the child of course human biology would say no. But yes men do play a physical part in the pregnancy. When I couldnt bathe myself or even clean myself after using the bathroom in the last trimester, my husband had to carry my 200lb ass into the bathroom and bathe me in the shower, that really hurt his back. So we both had back pain during the pregnancy. He also did all of the cooking, cleaning, houswork etc because I was confined to bed . Those are all are physical acts and just as demanding and physcally draining on his body as supporting the unborn child is on the woman. Did I also mention that my husband also cleaned up my puke because for 6 months all I did was throw up. And if you look at animals the male seahorse actually are the ones that carry and birth the young. Emperor penguins are egg layers, but its the male that keeps the egg warm until it hatches and cares for the young after birth, while the mother goes and hunts the food. While men may not play a primary physical role, they do play a physical role by doing everything they can to alleviate the pain and suffering some women go through. It takes two to create a child, and during gestation the woman plays her part by carrying the child, eating well and taking care of herself. The father does all he can do to support her and see that her needs, hence the needs of his child are being met. I know that isnt a good enough explantation for you to support the rights of a man having some say of whether his unborn child is aborted or not, but in the real world where people who dont see abortion as an option both parents have their roles and responsibilties even before the child is born.

reply from: sk1bianca

according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5% (other sources say between 1-4.7%).
according to the FBI, there were 90,427 rapes in 2007. applying the 5%, this would result in about 4,500 pregnancies.
i asumed the number of abortions in 2007 would be around 800,000 (which i guessed looking at the numbers usually reported by the guttmacher institute).
even if we (falsely) asume that all pregnant rape victims terminated their pregnancies, this would only account for 0.56% of all the abortions. not even 1.5%.
wether we like it or not, the elliot institute is the only one who did a major study of pregnant rape victims. the results are supported by the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA).

reply from: lukesmom

And of course Rosalie will argue every sentance because unless a man is actually pregnant he cannot physically suffer. Sue finds it funny that Rosalie implies that pregnancy is actually a suffering situation. Sue hated being pregnant with all 6 of Sue's pregnancies but can't say Sue suffered much. Rosalie, yes, Sue knows in some pregnancies there is physical suffering so save Rosalies fingers.

reply from: Rosalie

Of course that's what I meant because that's what we have been talking about. Physically, pregnancy only affects the woman, same with childbirth. Men are NOT pregnant, they do NOT give birth and they do NOT face the same physical challenges or risks that are tied with pregnancy and childbirth simply because they lack the ability to be pregnant and give birth. That was the ENTIRE point and I can't believe someone was actually trying to argue against that.
That's taking care of you but it has nothing to do with ACTUALLY gestating or birthing the baby.
My fiancé has been extremely helpful and emphatic when I was pregnant. He helped in every way he could - but as he is now looking over my shoulder and agreeing with me, he would never EVER consider it a physical involvement because he had physically nothing to do with me going through the pregnancy and childbirth. He helped out as much as he could. But he never gestated the fetus, his health was never at risk, he was never in pain as a direct result of the pregnancy and/or childbirth.
No. Cleaning the house is not as draining on the man's body as pregnancy and childbirth is. I definitely disagree with you.
It's got nothing to do with the argument at hand... because the person who is pregnant is clearly the one who is physically affected by it. It's females as far as humans are concerned and males when it comes to seahorses.
If they choose to do that.
Men get involved in the pregnancy by their own volition. The woman cannot will the risk, pain, discomfort, insomnia, tiredness, morning sickness, peeing every 5 minutes and all the other things away. And that's the great difference.
That would be the ideal version, yes.
Again, if he chooses to. And the leve of this support and commitment varies greatly.
You are right, it's not.
Both me and my fiancé consider abortion and option. I never had to have one because we have taken all the precautions we could and we planned our child. We CHOSE to have that child, we WANTED to have that child and we HAVE GIVEN her all our love from the beginning, because we CHOSE to be the parents, we CHOSE to have her and she changed our lives.

reply from: lukesmom

Exactly how is Sue lying and insulting?

reply from: Rosalie

Your use of the 3rd person to indicate sarcasm is incorret.
Just thought you should know. But I guess you still don't understand that, do you?

reply from: faithman

Your use of the 3rd person to indicate sarcasm is incorret.
Just thought you should know. But I guess you still don't understand that, do you?
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Rosalie

Exactly how is Sue lying and insulting?
You're still using it wrong. Have you ever had any English classes, beyond middle school? I had no idea that you are really not aware of this way of expressing sarcasm and that you actually cannot use it (which you have just proven). How sad - and it's even more sad that you keep doing it and obviously think that you are being either hilarious or smart. Well, you are hilarious but not in the way you think you are.
Anyway, you are lying because you said that I wanted to be a man, wanted other women to be men and had no idea what being a woman means. Neither of these is true and it's quite clear that your goal was to insult me by saying these lies.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.
Exactly how is Sue lying and insulting?
You're still using it wrong. Have you ever had any English classes, beyond middle school? I had no idea that you are really not aware of this way of expressing sarcasm and that you actually cannot use it (which you have just proven). How sad - and it's even more sad that you keep doing it and obviously think that you are being either hilarious or smart. Well, you are hilarious but not in the way you think you are.
Anyway, you are lying because you said that I wanted to be a man, wanted other women to be men and had no idea what being a woman means. Neither of these is true and it's quite clear that your goal was to insult me by saying these lies.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: sk1bianca

i love it how some people don't even bother to read the posts before expressing their oppinion...

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: lukesmom

Exactly how is Sue lying and insulting?
You're still using it wrong. Have you ever had any English classes, beyond middle school? I had no idea that you are really not aware of this way of expressing sarcasm and that you actually cannot use it (which you have just proven). How sad - and it's even more sad that you keep doing it and obviously think that you are being either hilarious or smart. Well, you are hilarious but not in the way you think you are.
Anyway, you are lying because you said that I wanted to be a man, wanted other women to be men and had no idea what being a woman means. Neither of these is true and it's quite clear that your goal was to insult me by saying these lies.
Truthfully, I am having a lot of fun at your expense as I find you very insulting and have a "cobb up your a##". I guess I am giving you a little taste of your own medicine and it doesn't taste very good does it? You play nice, I'll go back to playing nice with you too.
Can an opinion be a "lie"? No. My opinion of you by what you have posted is that you are not happy being a "woman', if you even are a "woman". I have meet many who are not. I also see you advocating for women to be more like men in denying natural female reproductive functions and advocating women sacrifice their children for their own sexual pleasures. Not very "womanly" in the nicest sense of the word. Now if you can reply without insults and condencending remarks, I will reply nicely. If you can't, well, I can't promise anything.

reply from: CharlesD

And that figure is for all forms of unprotected sex. If you narrow it to forcible rapes, the odds of pregnancy go down from there. I've come across figures as low as 1 pregnancy out of 1000 forcible rapes. That is not including statutory rape, because some of them are consensual. (19 year old and a 17 year old, etc.)
I have also seen statistics indicating that roughly half of rape pregnancies end in abortion. Basically, a very minute number of the total number of murdered babies every year were conceived by rape. Even if you allow that exception, and that is another debate that we can have, you would outlaw over 99% of baby murders.

reply from: CharlesD

A common problem around here.

reply from: scopia19822

"But he never gestated the fetus, his health was never at risk, he was never in pain as a direct result of the pregnancy and/or childbirth. "
His health wanst at risk? You take into account a woman's mental health as a reason for her to abort. You dont think that that pending fatherhood and taking care of his pregnant wife/girlfriend would not put a mans mental health at risk? You are about as stubborn as a mule on your view of abortion and nothing will ever convince you otherwise. But I can tell you that my husband barely held on to his sanity during my pregnancy. Im also glad that you "planned" your daughter, however most of us arent ''planned" , but that doesnt mean that those who are planned have anymore right to exist than those who didnt. My mom told me many times that if she had found out she was pregnant earlier she would have aborted my ass without as much as a 2nd thought because I "ruined" her life, my mom is about as prochoice if not more so than you are. Even though she didnt have to be a parent to me until I was 14 and she told me too frequently that she wished shed aborted me and thinks that women should be given the "choice" she wasnt given. Of course if she wasnt stoned most of the time maybe she would have realized earlier and had the abortion, hence niether I nor my son wouldnt be here. She did everything she could to try and get me sent to a group home or put in foster care, but she never succeeded. Of course you may say that her attitude and the mental abuse she heaped on me is reason enough for women to be able to abort. Of course my sister, the "planned" one could do no wrong was the apples of moms eye and was constantly loved and doted on.
That is why I want nothing to do with the modern feminist movement and get so disgusted by the prochoice rhetoric, its the same crap my mom spews to me and still spews. But what scares me the most is I know legally she could have had me killed had she found out sooner. That isnt right, this isnt the ancient days of Rome and Sparta where a parent has the power of life/death over their children Do you think my aunt/uncle "planned " on taking me? No they didnt, they had just lost a child to SIDS 6 months before and were still grieving, my aunt could not stand to be around babies or pregnant women at that timem but when she heard that I was about to become a ward of the state of Virginia she got on a plane, flew up and filed an ex parte order for temporary custody because she had a conscience and believed it was her duty and obligation to care for me as I was her flesh and blood. She wasnt going to put up with the idea of her niece being put into foster care as she believed and many southerners that its the duty of families to take care of our own. She took me not because she "wanted" me, but because it was the right thing to do and that it was her responsibilty. I take it very personally when I hear the saying that every child should be a wanted child, because too me that is them saying that I have no right to be here.

reply from: Rosalie

True story, Spinwiddy. True story.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That line of thought posees a problem when putting into the context of abortion and pregnancy. See, that above statement could technically apply to the fetus as well, the fetus' rights ALSO should stop where another human's body begins. So you have two 'competing' rights here. Pro-lifers want the woman's body to be at the mercy of the fetus, and pro-choicers want the fetus' body to be at the mercy of the woman.
This is why so many people want an exception for rape. If the pregnancy is terminated, that fetus/zygote/embryo/whathaveyou will never have to go through the mental anguish or psychological trauma that a rape victim might have to go through if she were forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
It's not a problem though, because you don't have the right to KILL someone else first and foremost, so that superceeds any other right aside from your right to not die. So it is a stalemate, but it is neither a permanent situation nor one that needs "curing" in most cases. The only solution that violates the fewest rights and maintains the most life is to give birth.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And 9 months of pregnancy is less traumatic? And then add on childbirth? Do you know any women who have gone through pregnancy and childbirth? It's traumatic for the 9 months, and it is a constant reminder of the violence.
My mother was not traumatized. Neither was my grandmother. Or most women I know of. It is negative thinking like yours that convinces women to kill their children. They are told pregnancy is traumatic - yet how does that explain the "pregnancy glow" many women have? A trauma is an experience that is against the norm, and that is unhealthy/bad for you. A normal pregnancy is far from uncommon; most women will become pregnant. Most pregnancies are healthy and not bad for the woman.
And making it through 9 months of pregnancy is CERTAINLY less traumatic for the child than an abortion is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

In the meantime, would you refuse legislation if it had those exceptions, even knowing full well it would prevent 98% of all other abortions? Would you let all those babies die for a few more decades just to try to get a "full" ban (which will never happen)?
Which do you think would save more children?

reply from: micah

As if there would ever be a partial ban..

reply from: lukesmom

And 9 months of pregnancy is less traumatic? And then add on childbirth? Do you know any women who have gone through pregnancy and childbirth? It's traumatic for the 9 months, and it is a constant reminder of the violence.
My mother was not traumatized. Neither was my grandmother. Or most women I know of. It is negative thinking like yours that convinces women to kill their children. They are told pregnancy is traumatic - yet how does that explain the "pregnancy glow" many women have? A trauma is an experience that is against the norm, and that is unhealthy/bad for you. A normal pregnancy is far from uncommon; most women will become pregnant. Most pregnancies are healthy and not bad for the woman.
And making it through 9 months of pregnancy is CERTAINLY less traumatic for the child than an abortion is.
Pregnancy is traumatic??? Dave has never been pregnant evidently. I have been pregnant 6 times and while I don't necessarily enjoy being pregnant. I was never "traumatised" even with my last when I knew he was going to die. LOL! By Dave's words most of the world's population is walking around traumatized!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe there can be. Most of the US population wants to see restrictions put in place even if they call themselves pro-choice. Like no elective late-term abortions - which there is already a restriction on, so your comments are pretty silly - and even the reasons a woman can abort.

reply from: micah

The anti-choicers have been trying for almost 4 decades to get significant restrictions on abortions, and have failed (and that was with more conservative politicians and judges). I would think after 35 years my comments would be more reasonable.

reply from: Banned Member

Very nice! You have just justified less than 1% of all abortions. Are you now ready to make the other 99.6% illegal?

reply from: carolemarie

Elective abortions need to be banned.They do not help women, they make them weak.

reply from: CharlesD

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response to that question. They would rather keep the discussion on the so called hard cases.

reply from: micah

There are no hard cases in legalized abortion for me. I've never been unclear on my position. I support legal abortions for any reason.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response to that question. They would rather keep the discussion on the so called hard cases.

reply from: AshMarie88

BUMP.
This story was sad and touching, thanks for sharing

reply from: Banned Member

An unconfused cold blooded killer. No ambiguity, no trickery, excuses. You don't happen to work for Planned Parenthood do you? I bet you have a picture of Margaret Sanger in your home don't you? The patron villain of infant death, eugenics and racist genocide.

reply from: micah

Charming. Let me state that I personally wouldn't have an abortion for any reason, but I support legalized abortion for any reason. As far as Margaret Sanger goes, she did support eugenics, but I bet you wouldn't appreciate an in depth history of racism and the church. She might make a good discussion topic.
An unconfused cold blooded killer. No ambiguity, no trickery, excuses. You don't happen to work for Planned Parenthood do you? I bet you have a picture of Margaret Sanger in your home don't you? The patron villain of infant death, eugenics and racist genocide.

reply from: carolemarie

Then abortion will always be legal, because most human beings think being raped or an incest vicitm is so horrible that they can't imagine forcing them to have the baby.
If prolifers would concentrate on the 98 percent of all other abortions, we might win....

reply from: lukesmom

Evidently YOUR unborn children are more special than others. How are YOUR unborn children any different from any other unborn children? Attitudes like yours really sicken me.
Margaret Sanger has been discussed here ad nauseum so please don't start PP's sacred cow crap about Margaret Sanger again.

reply from: JRH

So if I am being raped I can not kill the rapist? If you can kill a rapist for violating your body you may do the same to a fetus.
No, that is the solution which makes the raped woman the slave of the fetus.

reply from: JRH

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response to that question. They would rather keep the discussion on the so called hard cases.
I will answer it if you answer this question: Do you think raped woman should have the right to abort?

reply from: Banned Member

I apologize. You're not an unconfused cold blooded killer. You are a moron and immoral hypocrite.
To the extent that you support abortion for another you take part in the same killing that you would not give your word to for your own children. You would kill your own children but you are more than happy to allow other people to kill their children. How gracious of you. How charitable. Worse than being a cold blooded killer youself, you are a spineless observer participating in the deaths of unborn children by your passive indifference, even incapable of feeling for either the victim or the perpetrator. There is a certain voyeuristic psychopatholgy to you. How charming!

reply from: micah

It's a question of the lesser of two evils. I consider the worst evil forcing a woman to have a child against her will. (I'm not saying every abortion is necessary wrong, but I think we all agree that at least some abortions are morally wrong.)

reply from: sk1bianca

you can't "force" a woman to have a child, when she is pregnant she already HAS a child. not wanting him doesn't change that. abortion doesn't change that. it just makes her the mother of a DEAD child.
continuing the pregnancy -> nobody is killed
abortion -> the baby is killed
which one of these is the lesser evil?

reply from: Rosalie

Why should they be any more special? She is making a choice for herself. Period.
Pro-chociers do not force others to have an abortion. You have probably lied about it so often that you actually believe that but it's still a lie.

reply from: Rosalie

Is that what you thought you were doing? Ahaha. ALl right, then.
I'll tell you once more - I am only playing as nice as those around are. All I see around here is lies and insults so I basically see no reason why I should water down my responses
No, of course an opinion is not a lie. And you are free to express all your opinions, even if they're stupid. I have a lot of opinions about you, too, but I'm willing to bet that if I voiced by one of them, you wold start shrieking about me disrespecting you and your private issues. It's amusing enough to imagine.
Let's do a small analysis here, shall we?
You are basing your "opinion" on the two things you know about me: 1) I'm a pro-choice feminist (probably the stereotypes and lies you spread about pro-choice women AND feminists are a great factor here), 2) I'm a mother. That's the only two things you know about me and that's what you're basing your opinion on. If you think that's enough.... I don't know but I'm more than just a little amused right now.
Well, this could go both ways, you know? Maybe you have had 6 kids for only one reason - and that reason is that having kids is the only thing that makes you feel like you are a woman. Because you cannot achieve that feeling any other way.
Hm? Well I of course don't think that because that's just ridiculous but it's as valid an opinion as yours.
I'm quite willing to bet that I'm more feminine than most of you here since so many of you consider the word fashion to be almost a swear-word. There's only one thing I can honestly say I dislike about being a woman and that's being on my period but I after 16 years, I can deal with it just fine, even though it's still not my most favorite thing in the world.
I mean sure, you cannot know that I'm in fact very feminine and most of my leisure-time activities are very typical for women who actually enjoy being women - but you cannot know that because you've never bothered to ask, for you to attack me the two things you know about me are enough, right?
Oh dear, this has been so much fun. Next time you have another opinion, please present it because I'm rather enjoying an anti-choicer sharing her opinion of me ON THE INTERNET. (Hint: look for sarcasm in this sentence.)

reply from: Rosalie

No. His health was never at risk as a direct result of pregnancy and/or childbirth.
Yes, because the woman's health, mental AND physical, is DIRECTLY affected by the fetus SHE is carrying.
I really don't understand how you cannot see a difference between a pregnant woman and a man. I really don't.
And I'll repeat myself once again - men have choices, too. And men are NEVER at risk (especially physical, which is ALL I have been talking about here and you are side-tracking A LOT) as a direct result of a pregnancy because they are never pregnant, they never give birth and therefore they are never directly affected or at risk as a result of such condition because they are not capable of being pregnant or giving birth.
You got that right. I am stubborn about my pro-choice views - because I have made an informed, free choice to be pro-choice and I couldn't live with myself otherwise.
I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID THAT UPLANNED BABIES ARE SOMETHING LESS THAN PLANNED. Will you stop putting words to my mouth? Unplanned does not mean unwanted.
I don't believe it's right to tell kids that they have ruined their mothers' lives, under any circumstances. Either have the kid and cope with the fact that this is what you chose or don't have the kid and cope with the same fact.
And don't blame this attitude on pro-choice or I will start telling you about the wonderful pro-life women I have witnessed screaming at their daughters that if they could live with themselves afterwards, they would've aborted them etc.
It's not something exclusive to pro-choice or pro-life. It's something exclusive to women who have made a bad choice, an uninformed choice or were forced to gestate/abort, regret it and then take it out on others.
I'm sorry but I don't understand why you are telling me this. What does this have to do with men not being physically affected by pregnancy and childbirth?
And yes, every child should be a wanted child. I stand by that and I'm not going to stop saying that. Because unplanned does not mean unwanted.
You don't understand the phrase if you feel like you have no right to be here when someone says that. Wouldn't you wish that you were wanted? Wouldn't it be better for EVERYONE if you were wanted? You ARE here, and that's great that you are, but wouldn't you want for everyone to be wanted and loved? I sure as hell would.
It is an idealistic scenario that will never be accomplished but the more children born out of love and because they are wanted instead of some warped sense of obligation the better.
It has nothing to do with the children who were born unwanted. It's got everything to do with pro-choicers wishing for babies to be loved and wanted and feeling that unwanted children are missing out on this and that's not fair - it's got to do with the QUALITY of life and with emotional background every child should have. That some don't have it doesn't mean they shouldn't be born, it means we should keep trying to improve their quality of life so they'd have everything children should have.
I really wish all children were wanted and I see nothing wrong with mothers WANTING to have children. And neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that there's something wrong about wanted children.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, an unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic. But you probably wouldn't understand that.

reply from: sk1bianca

i believe it's unfair to be killed just because, at some point in your life, a certain person doesn't "want" you.
and i'm pretty sure there are more women who regret the "choice" of abortion than those who regret giving birth (wether they kept the baby or not).

reply from: nancyu

A child's father is physically affected by a child in many ways after the child is born.
"Daddy, Pick me up!" "Daddy give me horsy back rides!" (remember sometimes born children kick, too!) then "Daddy I buy me things!" "Daddy I need money for clothes, a car, and for college!"
Rosalie, do you think he should have the right to kill his child then? Should he be forced to care for his children?
He isn't forced to, is he. But he is expected to. I expect a father to support his children for at least 18 years, regardless of any inconvenience, pain and hardship. I have no problem with laws mandating this, and I would demand laws (if there were none) to prevent him from killing them.
I also expect a mother to carry her children in her womb for 9 months regardless of any inconvenience, pain and hardship. I have no problem with laws mandating this either, and I demand laws to prevent her from killing them. I also demand that those laws be enforced.
Life ain't all peaches and cream, honey. We don't get to kill to make it so.

reply from: nancyu

In the case of rape, there is only one who can force a woman to bear a child, and that is the rapist. The pro life movement does not force women to bear children. Duh.

reply from: Rosalie

Oh my goodness, so you REALLY do not understand what it means, do you?
Pregnancy is a very unique situation. In this situation, zygote/embryo/fetus is PHYSICALLY attached to the woman and directly affects her health and sometimes life.
There is no other situation that is like pregnancy so your attempt to compare pregnancy to fathers picking up their kids is not only the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week but also a sign of extreme dim-witedness.
No and no. CHILDREN ARE NEVER PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO THE MAN, THEY NEVER LIVE INSIDE OF HIS BODY AND OFF HIS BODILY RESOURCES, THEREFORE MEN CAN NEVER BE DIRECTLY PHYSICALLY AFFECTED BY PREGNANCY AND/OR CHILDBIRTH.
I can't believe you don't understand that.
Your expectations and demands means nothing to other people, just so you know.

reply from: nancyu

You think this is dimwitted?
(first of all learn to spell, dimwit.)
It seems you think being kicked from the inside is soooooo much worse than being kicked from the outside, and therefore justifies murder.
Now that's dimwitted.

reply from: CharlesD

You're making too much sense. Some people are incapable of seeing such obvious logic.

reply from: micah

I think that's so basic that pretty much anyone can understand it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think that's so basic that pretty much anyone can understand it.
Indeed. But I do not believe that simple, easy to understand fact justifies killing the child in any way, shape or form.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, an unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic. But you probably wouldn't understand that.
We were not specified with "unwanted pregnancy". It was stated that PREGNANCY (in general) is traumatic, aka, ALL pregnancies are traumatic. Which is wrong. Secondly, not ALL unwanted pregnancies are traumatic. Thirdly, it sometimes happens that WANTED pregnancies become traumatic!
So the most correct original statement should have been "Some pregnancies can be traumatic".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if I am being raped I can not kill the rapist? If you can kill a rapist for violating your body you may do the same to a fetus.
I don't believe it is right to kill rapists as punishment after the rape. During the moment of the assault, of course a woman (or man) cannot know if s/he is in mortal danger, so their actions at the time are justified due to plausible risk. If they kill the rapist in the attempt to defend themselves from the perceived risk of immediate death, then there is nothing wrong with that. All humans have the instinct to survive. That is also why I am okay with abortion to save the mother's life.
No, that is the solution which makes the raped woman the slave of the fetus.
Lol! Slave... Slavery involves the intentional subjugation of another person and the purposeful removal of some or all of their rights. An unborn child is not purposely doing ANYTHING to the woman. In fact, it was created inside of her without it's permission too!
Eggs and sperm don't give consent to meet and fertilize. The zygote doesn't give consent to be swept by the mother's body down into the uterus. All of these actions are unconscious and automatic. There is no INTENT behind the physical formation of a pregnancy after the ejaculation of sperm. Both the mother and child are victims of the rapist's forced act of sex.
The child is brought into existence against its will, and the woman is obviously physically violated by the rapist. But the sperm themselves have no mal-intent. The woman's egg has no mal-intent, and the child certainly has no intentions of harming the mother in any way. To call her a slave and the child the oppressor is just nonsense. They are equally victims of the rapist. You would not kill one victim in any other case just to make the older one feel better.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree. Elective abortion is harmful.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have been. You just haven't noticed.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Uh, so yeah, did you not read that sentence about the fact that late-term elective abortions being illegal?

reply from: JRH

Rape is rape even if the person doing it is sleep walking. In any case, one may be made a slave by the state (as a law banning such abortions would do) even if the person whose slave you are made does not understand it. As an example, in the pre civil war south a young male baby could inherit a large group of black people that become his property. While it is true that he did not make them his slaves by his own design they were still his slaves.
This is irrelevant. The fetus is using her body; it does not have a right to do so.
I would kill a rapist who was sleep walking if the woman wanted his dead; in the same vein one can kill a fetus in such a pregnancy without entailing more guilt.

reply from: JRH

So if a woman knows she will not die in the rape she can not kill the rapist? LOL

reply from: micah

Not exactly. The decision was to make certain late-term abortion *procedures* illegal. While the supreme court ruled that individual states can place additional restrictions on late term abortions (as if a woman can't just pay the car toll to another state), states must allow exceptions for "mental health". Let me make the bottom line clear: If someone wants to get an abortion, they will.
Again, this is significant progress in 35 years?

reply from: JRH

There is no greater evil than the purposeful removal of individual autonomy.

reply from: JRH

You're making too much sense. Some people are incapable of seeing such obvious logic.
Answer the question charlesd. Do you think rape victims should be able to abort? Make your view on these "hard cases" a bit more clear.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if a woman knows she will not die in the rape she can not kill the rapist? LOL
That is not what I said at all and clearly shows your lack of reading comprehension.
"During the moment of the assault, of course a woman (or man) cannot know if s/he is in mortal danger, so their actions at the time are justified due to plausible risk. If they kill the rapist in the attempt to defend themselves from the perceived risk of immediate death, then there is nothing wrong with that. "

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Rape is rape even if the person doing it is sleep walking. In any case, one may be made a slave by the state (as a law banning such abortions would do) even if the person whose slave you are made does not understand it.
That doesn't make any sense at all. People who want to rape and murder are not "slaves of the state" just because the law tells them they cannot kill their victim; this technically makes the wanna-be murderer a slave to their victim because the law is telling them they do not have the right to kill them. Which is just nonsense.
That's so not even the same situation at all that I'm not even going to address it.
This is irrelevant. The fetus is using her body; it does not have a right to do so.
It's not irrelevant, it's extremely important. Sorry you can't see that. You accuse the child of being a slave driver and I have shown you how it is instead just as much a victim as the mother is.
I would kill a rapist who was sleep walking if the woman wanted his dead; in the same vein one can kill a fetus in such a pregnancy without entailing more guilt.
I cannot speak for how anyone would feel in the situation of a rape taking place; as I said, defending ones life in the sight of imminent and possible death/injury is not reprehensible in any way. But to kill the other innocent person who is also in the room, huddled in the corner and scared to death, is wrong. That is what you do when you kill the child for his father's sins.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who can say what significant progress means? I think the fact that the majority of Americans would support further bans on abortion is a significant gain. It may not be in law yet, but the way I feel about it is that we must first change society before we can change the laws; so the fact that there aren't as many laws as YOU think there should be, doesn't bother me at all. I see progress in a different light than you.

reply from: micah

Here's another thing. Suppose that pro-lifers had enacted a lot of restrictions on abortion. Most of those restrictions would be illusory, and pro-choice would remain the de facto law of the land. For example, let's just suppose that pro-lifers had succeeded in banning abortion, but made an exception for rape and health of the mother. Those exceptions alone would be large enough to fly a 747 through. If someone wanted an abortion, they would say they were raped. And "health of the mother" could mean just about anything.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, but not every woman could use that excuse because they would have to get medical proof of the rape and/or the medical danger they are in.

reply from: JRH

Yes, but not every woman could use that excuse because they would have to get medical proof of the rape and/or the medical danger they are in.
Do tell! How one can get medical proof of rape?

reply from: JRH

Flawed analogy. One does not have to serve someone if they are not allowed to violate their rights by killing them; one is made to serve the fetus in this case.
It is an analogy. It is not supposed to be the same situation. If you can not refute me at least don't make sad attempts to dodge.

I never said is had the intent of a slave driver. I said the woman was made it's slave if she is not allowed to abort. I did not say the fetus was the one that made her so.
The fetus is using the woman's body. It is thus guilty of violating her rights even it was unintentional.

reply from: JRH

So if a woman knows she will not die in the rape she can not kill the rapist? LOL
That is not what I said at all and clearly shows your lack of reading comprehension.
"During the moment of the assault, of course a woman (or man) cannot know if s/he is in mortal danger, so their actions at the time are justified due to plausible risk. If they kill the rapist in the attempt to defend themselves from the perceived risk of immediate death, then there is nothing wrong with that. "
Right, but if they know there is no such risk we can conclude based on your statements that they may not kill the rapist.

reply from: lukesmom

Why should they be any more special? She is making a choice for herself. Period.
Pro-chociers do not force others to have an abortion. You have probably lied about it so often that you actually believe that but it's still a lie.
Have you spoken to scopia? She was forced into an abortion. She is more than likely not the only women ever forced. Heck, I have talked to many women who's SO/husbands give ultimatums thus forcing abortion. How is any of this a lie. You really do throw that word around so much no one believes you anymore. Kinda like the boy who called wolf. Doesn't reflect well on you.

reply from: micah

Forcing someone to have an abortion is wrong. Can you admit forcing someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy is wrong?

reply from: nancyu

There is no greater evil than the purposeful removal of individual autonomy.
Killing an unborn child is the purposeful removal of his individual autonomy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Can you agree that forcing someone not to kill someone else is wrong? (this is sarcasm)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if a woman knows she will not die in the rape she can not kill the rapist? LOL
That is not what I said at all and clearly shows your lack of reading comprehension.
"During the moment of the assault, of course a woman (or man) cannot know if s/he is in mortal danger, so their actions at the time are justified due to plausible risk. If they kill the rapist in the attempt to defend themselves from the perceived risk of immediate death, then there is nothing wrong with that. "
Right, but if they know there is no such risk we can conclude based on your statements that they may not kill the rapist.
How could any person ever know that? You're just talking nonsense. No woman is going to believe their rapist if he says "I'm not going to kill you". Please. Self-defense in a moment of crisis is just that: self defense.
A pregnancy is not a moment of crisis. It is a 9 month period that is very well understood.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Flawed analogy.
So was yours.
She's not "serving the fetus" at all. I just do not view pregnancy as a submissive/dominant situation at ALL, especially considering the helpless position of the child. On the contrary, the woman is in power over it; she gives it air, she gives it food, she can force feed it any chemical she wants. If anyone is at the mercy of the other, it is the child being at the mercy of the mother.
It is an analogy. It is not supposed to be the same situation. If you can not refute me at least don't make sad attempts to dodge.
Nah, just like you I'll say "flawed analogy". Why is it that you can get away with it but I can't? When you say it, you're being smart. When I say it, I'm just "dodging". Hypocrite.
I never said is had the intent of a slave driver.
Slave owner, slave driver, what's the difference? You are implying that the fetus is exerting its will over the woman and that is false.
The fetus has to be the owner if she is the slave. In which case, again you are implying that it is exerting conscious control and force over the woman.
The fetus is using the woman's body. It is thus guilty of violating her rights even it was unintentional.
I don't feel it is using her body. Pregnancy is much closer to a symbiotic relationship that a parasitic one. It is only pro-choicers who use the language "it is using her body", which again implies it is consciously doing something to harm and subjugate the woman.

reply from: lukesmom

You "playing nice"? ROLMAO! You are on the scale of fman for insults. That really should make you proud. <sarcasim, btw> Fman has integrety though which, of course, you lack as a proabort.
Yup, I have seen you call people stupid and all kinds of other names and you expect to be treated with respect? Doesn't work that way. I could care less about your opinions of me. They are most likely false as you don't know anything about me or my life. You assUme alot though. FYI. I don't "shriek", never have and most likely never will. I don't really have a need to. I certainly don't have to "shriek" about what you post about my "privite issues" since you don't know me or my "private issues".
Sure. You advocate killing unborn humans for whatever reason. That makes you and assessory to legalized murder. Heck, you may have murdered one of your own children before he/she was allowed to be born. You also come here and insult, accuse and have an attitude. You are not here to contribute anything or learn anything. You are in essence trolling. That is all I need to know about the likes of you. We have seen your kind before and will again after you're gone. Quite truthfully, you are what you advocate aborting, a nuisance.
Nope, way off and BTW, I don't have 6 kids. Gotcha.
Being "feminine" or fashionable does not make a woman and if this is how you define womanhood, you have a lot to learn yet and are NOT a woman. Heck, that would mean a manikan is a woman. Now, I may not care much about fashion, can't afford it and never cared about it. I find people more valuable and important than things and I find what a person is on the inside more important than what you see on the outside. There are many beautiful things and people in this world that are rotton when they are opened up. Hey, sounds like the proabort industry!
Oh don't worry. I take nothing you say seriously as it is always the same old proabort rhetoric that "choicers" use when they can't think for themselves. Until next time Imelda.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, an unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic. But you probably wouldn't understand that.
You mean you didn't know?! I thought you knew all about me! I have had 2 unwanted pregnancies. SAY IT AIN'T SO! Gotcha again.

reply from: lukesmom

No, taking a human life is wrong. Pregnancy ends naturally. If a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy she doesn't need to become pregnant, in most cases, rape is the exception to this.

reply from: JRH

It is only when the government forces the woman to bear the child that it becomes so.
Which is fitting since it needs to use her body in order to live.
I explained why yours was flawed in another part of my post. You just said you it was a different situation. If you can explain why it's flawed then you can compare the two.
Slave owner, slave driver, what's the difference? You are implying that the fetus is exerting its will over the woman and that is false.
Not the will of the mind, but the body is using the woman. That's a fact.
I already explained to you it does not have to be aware for law to make it a slave owner, just as the baby in my analogy does not. Don't you think infants can own property legally?
A symbiotic relationship implies she gains something from it. What does she gain? Not that it matters, since if she does not consent it is irrelevant if she does gain something.
No, just as I say a rapist who is sleepwalking is using someone I say a fetus uses someone.

reply from: JRH

There is no greater evil than the purposeful removal of individual autonomy.
Killing an unborn child is the purposeful removal of his individual autonomy.
No, it is the defense of the woman's autonomy. She has the right to kill it as you have the right to kill a rapist.

reply from: scopia19822

"Charming. Let me state that I personally wouldn't have an abortion for any reason, but I support legalized abortion for any reason. As far as Margaret Sanger goes, she did support eugenics, but I bet you wouldn't appreciate an in depth history of racism and the church. She might make a good discussion topic."
Margret Sanger is apart of a shameful part of American History. She wanted to elimate Jews, blacks, Catholics, the disabled, mentally ill/retarded and other "undesirables". I live in Virginia a state with a very shameful past in eugenics and forced sterilizations. From about the 1920s until the 1970s the state used to mandate that mentally ill/retarded , disabled, Native Americans, biracial people and mixed race couples who wished to marry all had to be sterilized. In the 1930s Hitler sent people over here to Virginia and other parts of the country to learn about eugenics and how to implement eugenic policies, which the Nazi government did with the Nuremberg laws in 1935. Former Governor Gilmore under threat of impeachment from the General Assembly formally apologized for theses practices in the late 1990s. However they still are practicing eugenics against the poor. In the Commonweath of Va if a low income woman goes into a health department or social services office for anything she is most likely going to be asked if she is interested in obtaining birth control or sterilzation information.

reply from: Rosalie

Funny you should say that because I don't lie yet I see almost NOTHING but lies around here from most of you. Almost all the time, really. It's mind-boggling.
I know that Scopia was forced into abortion. I'm trying to explain to you that this is NOT what PCers support because we believe forced abortion to be just as disgusting as forced gestation. If you paid any attention or actually forgot about the propaganda for a while, you'd know that.
I will stop throwing that word around so much when you people stop lying about EVERYTHING. It's quite disgusting.

reply from: Rosalie

You mean you didn't know?! I thought you knew all about me! I have had 2 unwanted pregnancies. SAY IT AIN'T SO! Gotcha again.
When did I say I knew everything about you?
And if you'd actually read what I said, I said-- "Unwanted pregnancy CAN be extremely traumatic." In other words, just because YOURS weren't (or so you seem to imply) doesn't mean everyone else's wont.
No go back to the grammar school you obviously just dropped out from.

reply from: Rosalie

I pretty much find it funny myself now.
How could I expect decency, respect and intelligene on a pro-life board? Funny indeed.
Why wouldn't I? This board is obviously a free-for-all. And if people here say that feminists hate men then yes, they are stupid. If they say that pro-choicers feed on the blood of newborns and support infanticide, then yes, they are stupid. I have no reason to respect people who say stuff like that.
Just like my opinions of you would be most likely false, your opinions of ME are false - but of course you don't understand that, do you? You just wouldn't be able to survive without double standards.
And you're publicly sharing a very privat issue in the link in your signature, so I guess I know at least one of your private issues.
And I'm proud of that, no matter what you call it.
I may have!
Yes, I have an attitude because I disagree with the bull***** and propaganda you keep spewing out. So yes, and I'm proud of that.
I'm educated and I know a lie and propaganda when I see it. I have nothing to learn from the likes of you.
Oh yeah, I know that everyone who disagrees with you is trolling.
And I have never called a fetus "a nuisance". Your words.
Grammar school strikes again, I see. You didn't understand that statement, did you? It wasn't about the number of kids. It was about illustrating that maybe the only way how you can feel like a woman is by using your uterus repeatedly.
It pretty much goes with your mindset so I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Says who, YOU? Oh, what an authority you are on womanhood!
I guess you still don't understand that your opinion matters only to a few people.
So basically all you are saying that only women who see having children as the only purpose of them being alive are real women? Then I'll gladly pass.
I happen to think women are not defined by how many times they've used their uterus.
Likewise. Now go and copy & paste some more propaganda and lies.

reply from: sk1bianca

so the unborn child is like a rapist.
so pregnancy is like rape.
so being forcibly deprived of your life forever is a "lesser evil" than losing your autonomy for 9 months.
...
PS i'm pregnant. i guess i'm beeing raped right now... poor me.

reply from: Rosalie

so the unborn child is like a rapist.
so pregnancy is like rape.
so being forcibly deprived of your life forever is a "lesser evil" than losing your autonomy for 9 months.
...
PS i'm pregnant. i guess i'm beeing raped right now... poor me.
You can't read, can you? The point here is that FORCING a woman to have sex is analogous to FORCING her to continue a pregnancy. Both are hideous and evil deeds, both of them infringe upon her bodily autonomy and both are done against the will.

reply from: sk1bianca

you can't read, can you?
i was reffering to the JRH's "lesser evil" theory.
pregnancy is NOTHING like rape. one's "will" doesn't change the fact that abortion kills an innocent human who did not ask to depend on his mother's body for survival.

reply from: nancyu

There is no greater evil than the purposeful removal of individual autonomy.
Killing an unborn child is the purposeful removal of his individual autonomy.
No, it is the defense of the woman's autonomy. She has the right to kill it as you have the right to kill a rapist.
And killing a rapist removes his individual autonomy as well. The only question is whose individual autonomy most needs to be protected

reply from: Rosalie

WILL and WILLINGNESS changes everything. If you are willing and consent, it's not rape. If you are not, it's a heinous, unforgivable, evil deed. It's the same with forcing people to continue pregnancies against the will. Will changes everything.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy. If everyone sat there and did nothing (the opposite of force) she would still be pregnant... and she would give birth in nine months.
Abortion forces the child to die.
Staying pregnant does not "force" the woman to do anything at all. Pregnancy is normal and natural. Abortion is not.

reply from: lukesmom

Well at last it is beginning to get through to you. If you are willing and consent to the risks of intercourse, pregnancy is not against your will. Abortion, though is against the will of the unborn.

reply from: Rosalie

Well at last it is beginning to get through to you. If you are willing and consent to the risks of intercourse, pregnancy is not against your will. Abortion, though is against the will of the unborn.
Consent to intercourse is consent to intercourse. It is not an automatic consent that I will carry any possible resulting pregnancy to term. That's just stupid to assume.
And fetuses do not have the capacity to will anything and even if they did, as long as they are physically dependent on the woman, it doesn't matter anyway.

reply from: Rosalie

You always try to pull this off but you never quite manage it. Just because you think the choice is not a good one and you are against it doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist. It only means you don't like it.
Women have two choices: to continue the pregnancy or to end it by having an abortion. Take one of these choices again and she's left with one option, whether she likes it or not. She is forced to continue the pregnancy against her will. You cannot change that. But no wonder it seems to rub you the wrong way. It should rub everyone the wrong way, everyone who cares about women and the quality of life should feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being forced to remain pregnant against their will.
And on another note, I never quite understood why anyone would bother with the "It's not natural!" argument. Many things that we do and all the surgeries that we have are not natural. Just because something's not natural doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You always try to pull this off but you never quite manage it. Just because you think the choice is not a good one and you are against it doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist. It only means you don't like it.
Of course the choice exists. The choice to murder exists too. Doesn't make it right.
I have the choice to murder someone too.
Take away the right to murder and you're only left with the choice not to.
If NO ONE did anything at all, she would remain pregnant. Taking action to remove the pregnancy is active. Doing nothing is passive. If you do nothing, the pregnancy will end on its own. You cannot force someone to stay pregnant any more than you can force someone to stay alive by preventing them from commiting suicide. "Being" alive is a natural state. I don't think most people say "they're violating my right by forcing me to stay alive!"
I think your interpretation is completely wrong.
yes, you are implying that pregnancy is unnatural, and that the passive child is forcing itself consciously upon the woman, and that pro-lifers tie women down to tables and "force" them to stay pregnant.
If we "forced" women to "stay pregnant" we would prevent her from giving birth past her due date! We also do not "force" her to "give birth" since that naturally occurs on its own and I don't know of any pro-lifers running around promoting premature induction of prenancy. Both claims are nonsense.
If that were the case I would certainly be horrified, as I can't see how it would be healthy to force a woman to be pregnant past her due date. That doesn't save babies. They are ready to come out.
It's just part of the argument. It's certainly not the crux of my argument.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well at last it is beginning to get through to you. If you are willing and consent to the risks of intercourse, pregnancy is not against your will. Abortion, though is against the will of the unborn.
Consent to intercourse is consent to intercourse.
Yes.
You don't have a choice. Murder is wrong.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes it is, if you know that intercourse has a risk of pregnancy even with the use of contraceptives. You accept that risk and in accepting the risk, you also accept the responsibility of the consequences. It is called implied consent. So, again I will repeat (you are a slow learner evidently and need much repeation), if you don't want to deal with pregnancy, don't have intercourse. It is called being responsible and having self control.
And neither do infants, bet you condone killing them too.

reply from: sk1bianca

children are not "mistakes" and having them dismembered and thrown in the trash doesn't "fix" anything.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Millions of females are also dead from abortion...

reply from: Rosalie

The "choice" to murder is not legal and it has nothing to do with exercising your rights to your bodily autonomy.
WHY did I think you were smarter than that?
She wants to have an abortion. Someone forcibly stops her. That's interference, that's evil.
Women are not here to "do nothing", sit through a pregnancy like wombs on legs and just go through with it just because they were (un)fortunate enough to be born with the ability to gestate.
I am implying no such thing. Pregnancy is natural but not all things natural are good and just because something is natural doesn't mean we should automatically just accept it.
If a woman wants to have an abortion and you try to prevent her from getting it, YOU ARE FORCING HER TO REMAING PREGNANT against her will. Fact. Don't like it? Don't be "pro-life".
By being aware of risks I'm not saying I accept the consequences if I can do something about them.
I'm aware of the risks of getting STDs but if I ever was so unfortunate to actually have an STD, I wouldn't just ride it without interfering - just because I was aware that the risk was there. I'd go to the doctor and actively do something to make it go away.
And your insults are doing nothing for your cause. All you can spout is that if I don't agree with you, I'm a "slow learner". Reading your posts causes second-hand embarrassment. Then again, the same can be said about posts of most of your fellow "pro-lifers" so I guess it's a pro-life thing.
I dont agree with you and I never will agree with anything as disgusting as you promote. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Infants are not physically attached to any other human being for survival. They do not put anyone at risk by existing inside of their body. They are different from fetuses.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The "choice" to murder is not legal and it has nothing to do with exercising your rights to your bodily autonomy.
I don't have the right to move my arms in a manner that causes your death? You're violating my bodily autonomy!!!
She wants to have an abortion. Someone forcibly stops her. That's interference, that's evil.
"She wants to kill her child. Someone forcibly stops her. That's interference, that's justified."
By "do nothing" I meant "not abort".
I am implying no such thing. Pregnancy is natural but not all things natural are good and just because something is natural doesn't mean we should automatically just accept it.
Not all unnatural things are "good" either. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because you can kill your child in-utero doesn't mean you should.
If a woman wants to have an abortion and you try to prevent her from getting it, YOU ARE FORCING HER TO REMAING PREGNANT against her will. Fact. Don't like it? Don't be "pro-life".
"If a woman wants to kill her child and you try to prevent her from killing it, YOU ARE FORCING HER NOT TO KILL HER CHILD against her will. Fact."
By being aware of risks I'm not saying I accept the consequences if I can do something about them.
You still have to deal with your broken leg after a crash; your "will" or "acceptance" won't make it go away any faster. And amputating it may be faster, but that's not really a "cure". Neither is killing the child in the other car that crashed into you.
Treatment is not refused to a pregnant women; there is plenty of treatment she undergoes during gestation. I am simply against "treatment" that involves the purposeful death of another human being. No other "treatment" in the universe involves purposely killing someone else to "preserve" the "bodily autonomy" of someone else.
I promote not killing children. I'm sorry you find that to be disgusting.
Infants are not physically attached to any other human being for survival. They do not put anyone at risk by existing inside of their body. They are different from fetuses.
That is a fact, but that fact does not make the fetus any less human, not does it give you the right to kill it.

reply from: Rosalie

You clearly do not understand what bodily autonomy means. It means that you have the right to make decisions about your body and what happens or doesn't happen to it. You have the right to decide whether someone will live off your body and your bodily resources or not. THAT'S what it's about.
You're only making an idiot of yourself but like I said, I'm no longer surprised. My fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt to begin with.
As long as the child in question is living inside of HER body and OFF her bodily resources, it is in no way justified.
Then I don't get your point. Sure, if they don't abort, then the pregnancy will continue.
But that's not what some women want. THEIR body is involved as the organism that provides everything and that in many cases suffers damage, so she has the right to call the shots.
Because YOU think I shouldn't? Your opinion does not negate my rights.
You are still forcing her to remain pregnant against her will. You don't seem to be too comfortable with that. I wonder why that is.
Will has everything to do with it. If you had forced me to the situation, then all the blame is on you because I didn't want to be in the situation to begin with.
And this statement of yours does not negate my statement that by being aware of risks I'm not saying I will accept the consequences without doing anything about it.
You missed my point completely. Go back and re-read what I was actually reacting to and saying.
I don't care if you don't like my reproductive choices.
I do find it disgusting because you omit one very important 'detail' - that you'd have to abuse and control women in order to do that. And that I find disgusting and unacceptable.
I have never said fetus was not human (CAN YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL ALREADY?) and the fact that my body is the hosting organism that is affected and often damage (temporarily or permanently) by the pregnancy, I have every right to kill it.

reply from: faithman

Killers have to blur that line to justify their evil deeds. Darkness avoids light, because it is exposed for what it is in light. The borties want to cover their issue, and as the profetii killer has said herself," fight tooth and toenail" against the light of personhood for the womb child. Personhood is the light. The line drawn in the sand. The distinction between false and true. If things seem shadowy, it is no time to compromise. It is time to turn up the light of personhood until there is no more "what if" shadows. Just the simple fact of womb child personhood, and the final judgment of citizen jurist as to what punishment for those who destroy the preborn. That is the way it is for the born person, that is the way it should be with the womb child person.

reply from: JRH

How is she using your body against your will? A fetus IS using the body of a woman.
You can kill someone raping you. A fetus can be said to be "raping" the woman again is she did not consent to have sex in the first place. That is the example you forgot.


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