Home - List All Discussions

Exceptions

by: carolemarie

I have gone back and forth on exceptions, well not the life of the mother, that should be obvious to anyone, but on rape and incest.
I can really can see both POV, which is why I kind of want to allow the person who is the vicitm the right to decide what to do. I can't make that choice for another person...rape and incest are terrible crimes and can and do destroy the lives of those who survive them. Birth doesn't end the problems. Now we have what to do with the baby. Is it healthy to raise it, is it right to give it up, what if the family wants the baby gone and the child wants to keep it? Or the otherway around?
Or is your position that after the baby is born, you don't care about the situtation anymore....

reply from: faithman

AAAAHHHH the "what if" song of the pro death vulture. We deal with what is. What is a "fetus" killer? What is abortion killer? You need to clean that cess pool you call a mind from the fecal matter of pro-death "what if's" if you want to be called pro life. Do yourself, and everyone else a favor, and listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_RnBM5o00I&feature=PlayList&p=04EF336B4C325FF1&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL. Cheap grace is not the gospel, and "What if's" excuses, and exceptions are not pro-life no matter how many times an unrepentant baby killer cries to the contrary.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Killing the baby doesn't end the problem either, and then you're just punishing the baby for something it didn't do. It's not that I didn't care about the baby, it's that I can't see how killing it to "get rid of the problem" is a better solution. You're basically saying that the child is going to be too much of a bother to deal with so it deserves to die!

reply from: carolemarie

No, what I am saying is that having the baby is the begining of another set of problems for the crime victim. I just feel terrible for the girl...and this was a 5th grader we were discussing.
I am just not sure that forcing a kid to have a baby is a good solution.
I dont know what would be a good solution...I am not sure there is one!
I just come back to that girl and I don't want to add to her trauma...
Do we have a right to insist that in these hard cases that we can make people give birth? What about the prolifers who want to force women to die to give birth....it is the same principle, the babies life over everything.....

reply from: carolemarie

I don't think killing the baby is a great choice either....
There doesn't seem to be a good choice. If we leave it to individuals, perhaps they can get guidence from their pastor, from counselors so they can summon up the ability to do this..
I think it would be horrible to have to be pregnant, shamed by the world, because people will assume you slept around and then have to go through childbirth. I think that would make the trauma so much worse.. Raoe is not pleasant, and grown ups have difficulty coping how much more does a child.
I thinik it would be terrible to have no choice in what happens to you....

reply from: faithman

http://www.abortionno.org/

reply from: carolemarie

And you would just force the girl to have a baby. Where is the compassion for her?

reply from: carolemarie

Maybe it is a cop out, but I can't make the deciison for people living through shuch a terrible situtation. So I will let them make it.

reply from: JRH

The real issue is one of consent. A raped woman never gave any sort of consent for the fetus to enter and her body and has no obligation to allow it to live.

reply from: JRH

This is the best position. We should not remove their autonomy.

reply from: gilleiosa

The fetus did not "enter" It is not an alien. It is a baby.

reply from: JRH

The fetus did not "enter" It is not an alien. It is a baby.
"Use" then. The point stands: the woman has not given consent to help it.

reply from: faithman

The first 6 words of your post are the most honest thing you have ever posted here.

reply from: carolemarie

Perhaps if we had a culture of life women would be more willing to have the baby in those circumstances. I just can't see making her have the baby. It seems like a second rape

reply from: Teresa18

Carole, I asked you these questions in another thread, but I can't find the thread.
Why are you pro-life? Are you pro-life because you believe the unborn child is a person? If so, do you believe all persons have the Constitutional right to life?
Do you believe all persons are made in the image of God? Do you believe God creates all person for a reason? Do you believe God is the giver and taker of life or human beings?

reply from: carolemarie

I am prolife because God is. Humans are created in the image of God
Do I believe God heals people? Yes, but I still go to the Dr.
Do I believe I have to die for a fetus, do I believe God would want me to? NO
I am not as sure for rape and incest.....but perhaps

reply from: faithman

Abortion is never nessisary to save mom, and it is most assuredly killing the child. The child not being able to survive life saving treatment for mom is one thing. To purposely kill the child is another. And ther you go using fetus in a general dehumanizing way again. The word womb child just taste bad in a baby killing mouth don't it?

reply from: carolemarie

I thnk womb child sounds strange, like a different specics or something.
Baby/fetus/unborn all convey the same thing.

reply from: Teresa18

Do you believe the unborn child is a person? If so, do you believe all persons have the God-given Constitutional right to life?
Do you believe God creates all person for a reason? Do you believe God is the giver and taker of life or human beings?
I support efforts to save both in that situation. If only one can be saved, I support focusing efforts on saving the mother. I don't think the child should be deliberately killed, but if the child dies in the process of saving the mother, that is sad but necessary to save her.
What I'm referring to in my post is rape/incest and deliberate killing instead of efforts to save both lives.

reply from: faithman

No they don't. Fetus is not a general term for life in the womb. It is used for a specific stage of development. Unless of course you are a blatant baby killer and want to dehumanize the preborn as best you can. Womb is location. Child covers all stages of development properly. Thus womb child is not the same term as fetus. It only sounds strange to those who would be looking for an excuse to kill them.

reply from: carolemarie

Originally posted by: carolemarie
I am prolife because God is.
Do you believe the unborn child is a person? If so, do you believe all persons have the God-given Constitutional right to life?
I believe it is a person or as it develops it will be a person...
Humans are created in the image of God.
Do you believe God creates all person for a reason? Do you believe God is the giver and taker of life or human beings?
Of course.
Do I believe I have to die for a fetus, do I believe God would want me to? NO
I support efforts to save both in that situation. If only one can be saved, I support focusing efforts on saving the mother. I don't think the child should be deliberately killed, but if the child dies in the process of saving the mother, that is sad but necessary to save her.
What I'm referring to in my post is rape/incest and deliberate killing instead of efforts to save both lives.
The life of the mother is what is says, to save her life. That is not killing.
Rape and incest are intolerable situtations that the person has to have some choice in her fate. IT will effect her life forever.-------------------------
"To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny."
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God

reply from: lukesmom

The real issue is one of consent. A raped woman never gave any sort of consent for the fetus to enter and her body and has no obligation to allow it to live.
And the unborn child did not ask/consent to be put in the woman's body either and he/she certainly doesn't consent to being killed because of inconvenience either.

reply from: gilleiosa

I agree lukesmom. No matter whether there is consent, life is created. It is not our place to destroy it. Also...to the question of life saving treatment to save the mother...there is a difference between purposefully aborting a baby to save the mother and doing a c section (as my wife had) to save the mother and then giving the baby treatment to save its life after it is delivered (as my son had). We were not 100% sure that our son would live, but we were at a facility where it was their goal that they save my wife and my son. I don't know if I am wording this correctly, but there is a huge range of things that can be done for children as early as 24 weeks gestation if they have to be delivered due to the mother being in distress, and even before that time I would want doctors to do everything they could to save the child. Life starts at conception and a child should not be discarded at any point.

reply from: carolemarie

That is great, if it can be done.
But if it can't, she still has the right to defend her life.

reply from: yoda

Wow, that's word for word just exactly how proaborts justify all abortions.... without your name at the top, I would have sworn that came from Rosalie.
So...... your solution is to kill an innocent bystander?
Wow, how compassionate of you!

reply from: yoda

OH GOOD GRIEF!!
NOW you are sounding EXACTLY LIKE A PROABORT!!
"PERSONHOOD" is NOT a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

reply from: faithman

Conflict of interest?

reply from: yoda

Self-contradiction, I'd say.....

reply from: carolemarie

a zygote is not a person, but it will be a person. There are stages of development. or where you unaware of that fact?
It is alive, and a human life, so killing it is wrong.

reply from: yoda

PERSONHOOD is NOT a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT!!
A ZYGOTE IS A PERSON BECAUSE IT IS A HUMAN BEING.
I've had this very argument with many, many proaborts, but this is the first time I've had it with someone who says they are prolife......

reply from: ChristianLott2

it's like nailing jelly to a wall, yv. she's a space cadet.

reply from: carolemarie

Human life and personhood are different things. Personhood implies personality, which a zygote doesn't have yet. It is however a living human life and nobody should get to kill it.

reply from: yoda

You are repeating PROABORT PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html
">http://encarta.msn.com/diction...217/person.html
per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
">http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16
">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...erson&x=16&y=16
Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: carolemarie

This is beside the point.
On the exceptions for rape and incest, I just can't see how to reconcile the needs of the born victim with the needs of the womb child.
The baby shouldn't have to die
The mother shouldn't be forced to bear the child of her rapist against her will
The onlyl way to balance the rights of both is to let the victim, after counseling and the facts make the decision.
I can't see forcing her

reply from: Teresa18

What? You are starting to sound just like the pro-aborts. You do not believe that a distinct person is present at conception with the DNA blueprint to grow for a lifetime? If not, at what point do you believe the child will be a person?
Do you believe all persons have the God-given Constitutional right to life?
Ok, if you believe God creates all persons for a reason, then wouldn't that hold true for children are victims concieved of rape and incest? Don't you believe that God has a plan for them? Don't you believe that God gave them life and only he, not humans, have the power to take it away?
Here's what the Pro-Life Physicians say about it:
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

The rape and incest are over. How is killing an innocent child for the crimes of his/her father going to change what happened?

reply from: BossMomma

If the baby of rape or incest is born it should be loved and cherished as any other baby born of loving conception. I feel that rape/incest is an exception as it occurs so rarely and it is a devestating event to be raped, I can only imagine how much more so if pregnancy occurs.

reply from: yoda

One of them is killed, and the other becomes a baby killer?
YOU call that "BALANCE"?

reply from: carolemarie

It is never over. It scars people deeply.
ending the pregnancy gives her back her life the way it was. Being forced to carry that baby is a daily reminder of the rape.

reply from: yoda

Isn't this about the most stunning thing you've ever heard a "prolife activist" say?
I'm in shock.........

reply from: yoda

LIKE HELL IT DOES!!
SHE WAS NOT A BABY KILLER BEFORE THE ABORTION!!!
She can NEVER have her life back like it was before the rape! That has been taken away from her, and that's why rape is a horrible crime!
But you DON'T HELP HER BY LETTING HER KILL HER BABY!!

reply from: carolemarie

Bossmama: Yes, that would be the best situtation.
But I couldn't do that, and I am pretty tough. I would want to not deal with it at all, and for me to move past that, I would need to feel like I was in control and making the choices. That would allow me to do it.....but saying too bad I think it is too much to do to someone

reply from: carolemarie

I am not for abortion in the case of rape.
I am for the option to be there, because I can't force someone
Honestly, I would love to see those children born, but not at the cost of the child who was raped....

reply from: yoda

Which is EXACTLY what every PROABORT says.......
How are you any different with respect to babies of rape than the proaborts?
p.s. Can you "force" someone not to kill a newborn baby?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

SHUT UP, YOU STUPID MORON.

reply from: yoda

Now we've heard from the resident proabort trash mouth.....

reply from: CharlesD

How many rape victims become pregnant? Best estimates put it around 1 out of 1000 rapes.
Not even half of those pregnancies end in abortion. We need to focus elsewhere.
That's like arguing that abortion should be kept legal because all women impregnated by leprechauns have the right to abort.

reply from: Teresa18

Pro-abort 101. You're being swept over the pro-abort waterfall of language twisting and euphemisms to justify abortion.

reply from: yoda

Either that, or she is trying to mislead us.......deliberately......

reply from: carolemarie

Prolifers and Prochoicers use words to convey feelings. Personality is something a person has and a zygote doesn't. They are both persons, but the charactoristic of personhood have to do with the essence of you...
The zygote will grow and develope those things.
Life is a continumim and there are stages.

reply from: Teresa18

Killing the baby is just acting as an agent of the rapist's aggression.

reply from: yoda

Carole says a zygote is not a person......

reply from: CharlesD

The whole idea of separating personhood from humanness is a relatively new idea conjured up to justify killing people who haven't been born yet. A human being is a person. Would you argue that a feline is not a cat until after it is born, or that something could be a canine without being a dog? How absurd would that be? Being a human is what makes one a person, nothing else.

reply from: Teresa18

You are for abortion in the case of rape because you support its legality. Pro-aborts often say today they aren't personally for abortion but are for keeping iegal for others to make the choice.

reply from: CharlesD

You could say that an embryo doesn't possess all of the qualities of personality, but in reality you could make the same argument about a newborn infant. We are constantly developing and changing all of our lives. At no point during that development are we not deserving of life. Passing through the birth canal inherently changes nothing.

reply from: yoda

You are a liar and a nasty one at that..... and you contradicted yourself very, very badly in that second sentence. "Personhood" is nothing more than the fact of being a person.
Either you are drunk, or emotionally unbalanced, or just plain nuts.

reply from: yoda

And she knows that "personality" and "personhood" are two totally different things.
I am beginning to question her sincerity in this discussion.

reply from: Teresa18

Personhood is the state of being a person. Zygote is the earliest stage of life a person goes through. Just because a person doesn't have personality in that stage, doesn't mean he/she isn't as much of a person as in the toddler stage. A person is equally a person through all stages of life.

reply from: faithman

Please carole. Please be quiet for your own good. You are asking for a heck of alot of grief. I have only "picked " on you to hopfully wake you up. But you are just making it imposible for those who have defended you to keep doing it. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot. This is just getting very very sad. You are forcing us to do what we don't want to do. But as long as you take these pro-death positions, you are forcing true pro-lifers to confront you in defence of the womb child. Please keep your pro-death tendancies to your self and spare us this sad spectical. I am not being sarcastic. I am just trying to save you from the pro-life wrath to come if you don't stop this!!!!!!

reply from: CharlesD

Like I said, over half of pregnant rape victims DON'T abort. Why do we keep debating this?

reply from: yoda

I'm trying to figure out why someone who is supposed to be a prolife activist and "leader" in the prolife community would abandon a baby because of what it's father did. It makes no sense to me. It bothers me greatly.

reply from: Teresa18

Using a high estimate from the Guttmacher there could be as many as 13,000 abortions per year due to rape and incest.

reply from: yoda

Not to mention, if someone could get such an "exception" accepted by the prolife community, that would be like a "foot in the door" to other exceptions, and pretty soon..... well, the exceptions would be the majority.

reply from: faithman

SHUT UP, YOU STUPID MORON.
OOOOOOOHHH YES !!!!!! I FFFEEEEELLLLL the LOVE!!!!!

reply from: carolemarie

I find this a very difficult issue Charles. I don't want to cause anymore pain to the mother and I oppose abortion. I just find rape and incest particularly disgusting crimes and the idea of bearing that baby is horrible....
unless you make the choice to do it. Then it would be able to be tolerated. But if it was against your will, how horrible.
I can't find an acceptable solution other than let her decide.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you think that a baby conceived in rape is "disgusting" too, right?
That means you think a baby is just as bad as it's father, right?
"Bad seed"?

reply from: carolemarie

Ah, so you think that a baby conceived in rape is "disgusting" too, right?
That means you think a baby is just as bad as it's father, right?
"Bad seed"?
That isn't what I was saying. The baby is innocdnt of anything.

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8QBk-SgADY&feature=PlayList&p=04EF336B4C325FF1&index=1 These are medical professionals, not a person who has the glaring conflict of interest of having murdered her own.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, as a rape victim I don't know that had I been impregnated as a raped teenager that I'd have given birth. I already had an abusive stepfather, a mother who'd rather let her husband vent that abuse on me than her and, I was working and going to school so that I could pay the rent and utilities my stepdad demanded for me living in his home. People who would take away choice all together often do not consider what extremes some girls/women endure already without the pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

So WHY did you say: "I just find rape and incest particularly disgusting crimes and the idea of bearing that baby is horrible...."
What's so horrible?

reply from: carolemarie

I think it would suck to be pregnant with a rapist child.

reply from: yoda

Really?
And avoiding that "sucking feeling" justifies killing that baby?

reply from: carolemarie

See, that makes sense Boss mama:
That is why I am for letting the victim choose what is best for her....
I have been raped and I don't think I would have been able to do it....I had way too much anger
Rape and incest are difficult situtations, they are not the usual thing, so compassion for the victim is okay

reply from: BossMomma

If my situation were sound I would have the baby, I would view the baby as MY baby, not his. Just as I view my daughters as MY daughters and none of their fathers since that biotch ass snake hasn't had a damn thing to do with either of the girls since our break up because he can't bear to face me. Giving birth is a way of taking back control too, had I aborted as my ex wanted me to I would have given him control of my bodily autonomy and my childs.

reply from: carolemarie

Do you think there should be exceptions in these cases?
I keep going back and forth....

reply from: yoda

Anger at the baby? Is that what you were angry about? Or did you transfer your anger at your attacker to your baby? Did you think you were hurting your attacker by killing your baby?
WHICH "VICTIM"????
The baby, or the rape victim???
And how is it "compassionate" to cooperate with an abortion?????

reply from: yoda

Yeah, you do.... but you always wind up back on the side of killing the baby.

reply from: faithman

Well, as a rape victim I don't know that had I been impregnated as a raped teenager that I'd have given birth. I already had an abusive stepfather, a mother who'd rather let her husband vent that abuse on me than her and, I was working and going to school so that I could pay the rent and utilities my stepdad demanded for me living in his home. People who would take away choice all together often do not consider what extremes some girls/women endure already without the pregnancy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8QBk-SgADY&feature=PlayList&p=04EF336B4C325FF1&index=1. I do not try to minimize your story or pain. It really explains alot. You are to be commended for doing so well inspite of a difficult history. But look into the eyes of one of your children, and try to tell yourself you would have them killed if their daddy was a rapist. Me thinks the ole ruff ass bossmomma I know would slap a fool for saying that. So slap yourself for thinking it, and gfet back to defending those who can not defend themselves. Do what your mom would not do for you. All innocent life deserves to be protectede from evil aggression. Whether it is a little teenage girl, or a helpless womb child.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Please carole. Please be quiet for your own good. You are asking for a heck of alot of grief. I have only "picked " on you to hopfully wake you up. But you are just making it imposible for those who have defended you to keep doing it. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot. This is just getting very very sad. You are forcing us to do what we don't want to do. But as long as you take these pro-death positions, you are forcing true pro-lifers to confront you in defence of the womb child. Please keep your pro-death tendancies to your self and spare us this sad spectical. I am not being sarcastic. I am just trying to save you from the pro-life wrath to come if you don't stop this!!!!!!
What did you do now, Fogducker? Promote yourself to God? Make a threat against CaroleMarie? What are you trying to "save" her from - you and your little "army of God?"
You are a cruel, selfish, disgusting excuse for a "person" and a glowing advertisement for those who should never have been born in the first place.
Shut up and leave these women ALONE! You stinking, shallow pervert! You are going to HELL!!!

reply from: faithman

Please carole. Please be quiet for your own good. You are asking for a heck of alot of grief. I have only "picked " on you to hopfully wake you up. But you are just making it imposible for those who have defended you to keep doing it. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot. This is just getting very very sad. You are forcing us to do what we don't want to do. But as long as you take these pro-death positions, you are forcing true pro-lifers to confront you in defence of the womb child. Please keep your pro-death tendancies to your self and spare us this sad spectical. I am not being sarcastic. I am just trying to save you from the pro-life wrath to come if you don't stop this!!!!!!
What did you do now, Fogducker? Promote yourself to God? Make a threat against CaroleMarie? What are you trying to "save" her from - you and your little "army of God?"
You are a cruel, selfish, disgusting excuse for a "person" and a glowing advertisement for those who should never have been born in the first place.
Shut up and leave these women ALONE! You stinking, shallow pervert! You are going to HELL!!!
AAAAAAAHHHHH theres the love again!!!!!!! Counting it all joy!!!! Yepper, counting it all joy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

Count that as an endorsement...... I'd feel very bad if she said something "nice" to me.....

reply from: Teresa18

Carole, these questions got lost in the fray but are back on page 2:
Do you believe all persons have the God-given Constitutional right to life?
If you believe God creates all persons for a reason, then wouldn't that hold true for children are victims concieved of rape and incest? Don't you believe that God has a plan for them? Don't you believe that God gave them life and only he, not humans, have the power to take it away?
I have some other posts to you on pages 3 and 4 that you may not have seen.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

One of them is killed, and the other becomes a baby killer?
YOU call that "BALANCE"?
From Physicians for Life:
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother's life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother's illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."
Even THEY agree that the life of the mother is more important and that SHE should be saved if both cannot!

reply from: Teresa18

Yes, but they say the child should not be deliberately killed which was the point I was trying to make.

reply from: BossMomma

There is no such thing as a God given right to life in the constitution. There is the legal right of born persons to life, liberty and, property which cannot be revoked without due process. There is a biblical advocasy of children when Christ stated that whom ever should molest these little ones is better to tie a mill stone about his neck and drown in the sea. Matthew 18:6. Or, 'And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:13-14). Christ loved children and blessed and healed them where ever he went, it is sad today that children are sometimes not even loved by those who concieve them.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Yes, but they say the child should not be deliberately killed which was the point I was trying to make.
EXACTLY. I definitely understood what you meant. The quote, however, is for a few idiots around here who simply cannot grasp the concept that sometimes, in very rare cases, medical problems occur which CANNOT BE SOLVED without the death of either the mother or the baby, and in those situations, EVEN PROLIFE MEDICAL DOCTORS believe that the mother's life is more important.
Some of the men on this forum would prefer to save the babies, turn them into orphans and find other wives, apparently. Now, if the MOTHER insists on saving the baby at the expense of her own life, THAT IS HER OWN CHOICE. But it is NOT up to the husband and father of the child to choose his child over his wife.

reply from: faithman

There is no such thing as a God given right to life in the constitution. There is the legal right of born persons to life, liberty and, property which cannot be revoked without due process. There is a biblical advocasy of children when Christ stated that whom ever should molest these little ones is better to tie a mill stone about his neck and drown in the sea. Matthew 18:6. Or, 'And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:13-14). Christ loved children and blessed and healed them where ever he went, it is sad today that children are sometimes not even loved by those who concieve them.
In the latin bible the high lighted words would have been the word fetus. The very word bortheads use to dehumanize the womb child, is the very same word the latin scripture used to discribe the preborn john the baptist, and the born Christ Child the wise men visited. Talk about hijacking a words meaning........

reply from: yoda

WILL YOU PLEASE TRY TO KEEP UP?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?
We're talking about rape and incest, NOT LIFE OF THE MOTHER!!!!!

reply from: ChristianLott2

WILL YOU PLEASE TRY TO KEEP UP?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?
We're talking about rape and incest, NOT LIFE OF THE MOTHER!!!!!
They want to change the subject to protect their murderous interests. Their intent is to deceive, not to speak plainly.

reply from: BossMomma

Of course, I feel compassion for the fetus, the woman and, the born child. I can respect that there are those who are extreme in their position as long as they can respect that there are those who have a happy medium. I oppose the 98% that are done just because baby wasn't planned, I feel that it's a cop out to kill out of convenience as there is no compassion in such act and it cheapens the miracle occuring in the womb.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, no one can be that stupid.......

reply from: CharlesD

I've seen some of those numbers, and some other estimates that come in a bit lower, but the one number that keeps standing out is that over half of the women who end up pregnant from rape choose to keep the baby. That is something that the people who will argue for rape victims being able to abort won't tell you. I heard one woman say that the child was one good thing that came out of an otherwise awful situation. When a woman is raped, you have one victim. If she aborts, you have two.

reply from: JRH

So an alien race that was super intelligent would be in the category as a starfish?

reply from: Teresa18

It doesn't say it in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence, the basis on which this country was founded and kept in mind when Constution was written, says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Founding Fathers make clear that our rights come from God, and it is merely the government's job to secure them.
Yes it is.

reply from: JRH

The real issue is one of consent. A raped woman never gave any sort of consent for the fetus to enter and her body and has no obligation to allow it to live.
And the unborn child did not ask/consent to be put in the woman's body either and he/she certainly doesn't consent to being killed because of inconvenience either.
It does not matter. It has no right to use her to live without her consent no matter how innocent it is. Sorry.

reply from: yoda

That's very true. The DOI may not be legally binding, but it is the founding document of this nation.

reply from: Teresa18

Yes, that's about the highest estimate. Other estimates put the number lower.
I concur 110% with your last two sentences.

reply from: scopia19822

"Perhaps if we had a culture of life women would be more willing to have the baby in those circumstances. I just can't see making her have the baby. It seems like a second rape"
I would view abortion as the 2nd rape. Many women view rape kits as a 2nd violation, which may be one reason most rapes go unreported. Being raped doesnt give one the power of life/death over a child. God is the giver/taker of life. Anything else is playing God and is wrong.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8QBk-SgADY&feature=PlayList&p=04EF336B4C325FF1&index=1

reply from: nancyu

Neither do you.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5273

reply from: carolemarie

Killing the baby is just acting as an agent of the rapist's aggression.
Yes, that is true...
I just will have to think about it some more....I still believe a woman can protect her life, but I am just unsure what the right thnig is on rape/incest.

reply from: rsg007

I'm trying to figure out why someone who is supposed to be a prolife activist and "leader" in the prolife community would abandon a baby because of what it's father did. It makes no sense to me. It bothers me greatly.
Do you not understand that this is not about what the baby's father did? It's not about punishing the baby for the crimes of its father. It's not even about killing the baby because it might grow up to be like its father (though I can see how this could be a concern to some).
It's about PHYSICALLY not wanting to carry the product of a horrendous and violent violation.
Some say an abortion, perhaps like a rape kit, would be like a second rape to some women. Do you agree? If so, it must stand to reason that the pregnancy would feel like a second rape to other women.
To carry a constant reminder of a rape for 9 months is more than anyone should be forced to do.
Try and dig deep and find some humanity: Whatever a woman wants after being raped, she should get. She is an integrated member of society with thoughts, feelings, fears, desires. An unborn child doesn't know what the word "rape" means. Hell, it doesn't even know what a word is.

reply from: rsg007

Ah, so you think that a baby conceived in rape is "disgusting" too, right?
That means you think a baby is just as bad as it's father, right?
"Bad seed"?
That is absolutely not what this is about. Of course the baby is innocent, but that doesn't mean a raped woman shouldn't get to do whatever she wants in order to recover from her trauma. And don't say an abortion would just be more trauma. Perhaps that's true for some women, but I'm sure it's not for others. And you don't get to decide.

reply from: CharlesD

9 months < forever
Pregnancy is temporary. Death is a bit more permanent.

reply from: BossMomma

Don't worry, when you are raped and impregnated I totally support your choosing life.

reply from: rsg007

So WHY did you say: "I just find rape and incest particularly disgusting crimes and the idea of bearing that baby is horrible...."
What's so horrible?
You really DON'T get it, do you? Just try to think what it might be like to carry around a constant reminder of your rape. Just imagine what it would be like physically.
Kind of like if someone sodomized you with a baseball bat and left it up there for 9 months. How'd you like that?
And don't jump on the comparison of a baby to a baseball bat--it's an unfortunate reality that a lot of rape victims are probably unable to see the baby as anything more than an extension of the rape.

reply from: rsg007

Really?
And avoiding that "sucking feeling" justifies killing that baby?
I think it's a little more than "sucky," don't you? Come on, really think about it.
Carole's sentiment is right but her word is not strong enough.

reply from: rsg007

If my situation were sound I would have the baby, I would view the baby as MY baby, not his. Just as I view my daughters as MY daughters and none of their fathers since that biotch ass snake hasn't had a damn thing to do with either of the girls since our break up because he can't bear to face me. Giving birth is a way of taking back control too, had I aborted as my ex wanted me to I would have given him control of my bodily autonomy and my childs.
That's your choice, and a good point, but this isn't necessarily about who the baby's father is. It's a lot about the physicality of carrying a rapist's baby for 9 months. Can you see that?

reply from: CharlesD

I think my house has the wrong kind of plumbing.

reply from: rsg007

Oh OK, so just because it's only 9 months of pain and anguish, it's OK to make a woman go thorough that. We're not talking 9 seconds here. 9 months is actually a long time and carrying a rapist's baby can have lasting scars on a woman.

reply from: ChristianLott2

rsg, do you consider yourself pro life or pro choice?

reply from: BossMomma

I think my house has the wrong kind of plumbing.
I was being sarcastic, as a rape victim this is a touchy subject for me. When you will never face that risk how can you place such expectations on a rape victim? You have no idea what kind of devestation she has already undergone, you have no idea what she will face. I know I'd have likely faced a miscarriage induced beating as a raped pregnant teen, I am not the only one to face such circumstances.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yes, that is true...
I just will have to think about it some more....I still believe a woman can protect her life, but I am just unsure what the right thnig is on rape/incest."
The right thing to do would be to offer the mom counsling, the sooner she begins it after the assault the better. Offer moral support and help he by taking her to prenatal appointments and help her decide whether adoption or parenting is the best option for her. Also if material needs are an issue help with referrals to obtain the things she will need during the pregnancy and beyond even afterward if she chooses to parent.

reply from: rsg007

rsg, do you consider yourself pro life or pro choice?
Pro-choice

reply from: BossMomma

If my situation were sound I would have the baby, I would view the baby as MY baby, not his. Just as I view my daughters as MY daughters and none of their fathers since that biotch ass snake hasn't had a damn thing to do with either of the girls since our break up because he can't bear to face me. Giving birth is a way of taking back control too, had I aborted as my ex wanted me to I would have given him control of my bodily autonomy and my childs.
That's your choice, and a good point, but this isn't necessarily about who the baby's father is. It's a lot about the physicality of carrying a rapist's baby for 9 months. Can you see that?
You need to read a few of my other posts dear, I'm with Carole on hard cases.

reply from: churchmouse

I cant see both views because I believe all life is valuable.
I know that you think that the unborn is a child of God, created by God for HImself. He wants fellowship with us and the unborn child too. If you believe that abortion on demand is wrong that woman should not get to decide to kill because the child is innocent, why do you think the woman of rape or incest should be able to kill......is the baby inside the woman of rape less deserving of Gods plan? Is he/she innocent?
Rape is an act of violence. But abortion is an act of violence too. By taking the stance that abortion is ok for rape victims, you are saying that the violence taken out on the unborn is justified. The child is innocent carole. Do two wrongs make a right? You know what its like to live with the abortion decision. Can you imagine a woman having to live with the act of rape against her and then live with the fact that she killed her own child?
We have to protect all life because it is God given. Do you know any scriptures that say abortion is ok if the woman was raped? Or if incest occured?
The godly, the righteous choice is easy Carole. It is life for the unborn child.
You said that it would be horrible if the woman got no choice. Well that is what the woman will have if abortion is illegal. She will not be able to kill her unborn, she will have no choice. Do you see this as good or bad?
I thought you wanted abortions to become illegal because you recognized the unborn as a child of God.
Was I wrong?
Where is the compassion for the unborn child that will be dismembered alive? What excuse would you tell God?
The victim could get counseling and help from the professional community, she is going to live with it her whole life anyway. Rape is violent.......but she will also have to live with the fact that she, through an act of her doing, also created violence.
Well what about a man and woman who had a lot of children and no money and were living in extreme poverty....is abortion warrented for this case?
How about a couple who knew their child was going to be deformed?
I mean you could come up with a lot of sob stories, the world is full of them. But the fact is you as a Christian have to see how God views it Carole.
As bad as rape is......no innocent child in the womb deserves death. So for me this is a no brainer. It is sad......but lots of things are sad. With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE HOWEVER.
We have to err on the side of life. We have to pray that Gods will be done in the womans life who was brutally raped, that she heals and knows that by allowing her child life, she DID THE RIGHT THING.
I know your heart is good carole but I honestly believe you are wrong and I base that by the scriptures.
I am pro-life because God is. Well me too. Wonderful.
God is pro-life, He created us in HIs image. He designed life. So when the sperm meets egg........something miraculous happens. Whether its wanted or not......it is a human living baby, a creature of God.
Did he also not created the baby in the womb whose mother was raped? Would he think that by killing this little one that it would solve a problem,, make the rape go away?
Do you think God would think killing his child conceived by rape was a good thing? Its not about what we think Carole. Its not about what makes sense to us....because we can't possibly understand everything about the nature of God and why things are what they are. Why do bad things happen to innocent people? There are a lot of questions we will never get the answers to. but regardless of what we know we must follow the law, the Word of God.
I just dont see how you can say this. How is killing the innocent one in the womb......balanced? You are dismembering it alive.
It will never give her life back the way it was. Was your life ever the same after your abortions? Mine certainly was not.
You work with SNM Carole, you must know the women that suffer in silence over this. The fact is for many women, they regret their abortions because they changed their minds later in life and realized what they had done. So the woman who is raped will live with that crime.....and will also live with the crime she allowed to happen. Will her pain be less? Or, will her pain be doubled?
The option? Carole you sound like the pro-choice person that says, " I dont believe in abortion personally but think if others want to do it they should have the right."
A baby in the womb is a human, a living human being. And if you believe it is a life, a child of God.....how can you justify your position against the scriptures? Where does God give, outs......where does God say things have to be balanced? Where does it say life is always fair.
Please pray on this carole and ask God to help you understand. That baby in the womb is innocent. That baby didnt do anything wrong. It has little hands and feet and a heart that beats. God loves that baby. God has a plan for that baby.
Think about this in Gods terms not yours or mine.
I have searched the scriptures and I believe every child in the womb has Gods fingerprints all over it. To kill it would be sin, even if the mother suffered an act of violence.
I pray you reconsider your position. You need to search the scriptures.
Why should the rape baby have to suffer even though pregnancy from rape is rare. Are you and carole saying, hey a few token babys sacrificed......thats ok?
You should take your own advise. You have not picked on her, that is putting it mildly. You daily lynch her.

I do not agree with CArole on this. In fact some of the things she says just want to make me cry. But that does not mean I should call her names and say hurtful things about her. And you shouldnt either.
It is Gods child carole, it is innocent you should know that. It is 50% the womans DNA. If she aborted she would be killing part of herself.
Please carole look at the bible to see how God views all this. Not whether it makes sense to you.....WHAT DOES HE SAY.
God bless.

reply from: rsg007

If my situation were sound I would have the baby, I would view the baby as MY baby, not his. Just as I view my daughters as MY daughters and none of their fathers since that biotch ass snake hasn't had a damn thing to do with either of the girls since our break up because he can't bear to face me. Giving birth is a way of taking back control too, had I aborted as my ex wanted me to I would have given him control of my bodily autonomy and my childs.
That's your choice, and a good point, but this isn't necessarily about who the baby's father is. It's a lot about the physicality of carrying a rapist's baby for 9 months. Can you see that?
You need to read a few of my other posts dear, I'm with Carole on hard cases.
OK, sorry, I just wanted to clarify to some of these idiots on here that it's not about punishing the baby or killing the baby because of who its father is, but rather about the physical aspect of carrying a rapist's baby.
Your post seemed to address only the former point.

reply from: BossMomma

Why should the rape baby have to suffer even though pregnancy from rape is rare. Are you and carole saying, hey a few token babys sacrificed......thats ok?
.
Ok, first off responding to your long posts is a pain, secondly, it's not a few tokens and baby is dead. It's a distraut violated woman seeking to get some aspect of her former life back. You make it sound like such a thoughtless course of action, was it that easy for you when you aborted? Yours wasn't even a hard case as I recall.

reply from: BossMomma

If my situation were sound I would have the baby, I would view the baby as MY baby, not his. Just as I view my daughters as MY daughters and none of their fathers since that biotch ass snake hasn't had a damn thing to do with either of the girls since our break up because he can't bear to face me. Giving birth is a way of taking back control too, had I aborted as my ex wanted me to I would have given him control of my bodily autonomy and my childs.
That's your choice, and a good point, but this isn't necessarily about who the baby's father is. It's a lot about the physicality of carrying a rapist's baby for 9 months. Can you see that?
You need to read a few of my other posts dear, I'm with Carole on hard cases.
OK, sorry, I just wanted to clarify to some of these idiots on here that it's not about punishing the baby or killing the baby because of who its father is, but rather about the physical aspect of carrying a rapist's baby.
Your post seemed to address only the former point.
I was just stating what I would do if I had been raped and impregnated as an independant adult, I would have the baby. However, the next unfortunant woman should have the right to terminate or give birth same as I. I know this probably makes me sound very pro-choice but this being something I have personal experience in I can't be judgemental.

reply from: nancyu

Oh OK, so just because it's only 9 months of pain and anguish, it's OK to make a woman go thorough that. We're not talking 9 seconds here. 9 months is actually a long time and carrying a rapist's baby can have lasting scars on a woman.
The baby is DEAD. F O R E V E R. (I think forever is longer than 9 months, but let me get my calculator just to be sure. [9 months < forever] yup. Thanks CharlesD)
The mother will have killed an innocent person. And she will have to live with that for the rest of her life.
Ask cm how pleasant that can be. Of course if she has no conscience, then it's no big deal, right carole?

reply from: rsg007

Oh OK, so just because it's only 9 months of pain and anguish, it's OK to make a woman go thorough that. We're not talking 9 seconds here. 9 months is actually a long time and carrying a rapist's baby can have lasting scars on a woman.
The baby is DEAD. F O R E V E R. (I think forever is longer than 9 months, but let me get my calculator just to be sure. [9 months < forever] yup. Thanks CharlesD)
The mother will have killed an innocent person. And she will have to live with that for the rest of her life.
Ask cm how pleasant that can be. Of course if she has no conscience, then it's no big deal, right carole?
Let's see...does the baby know it's dead? Nope.
Would the woman know she had to suffer through a pregnancy she didn't want to carry? Yep. Might she have lasting scars because of this? Perhaps.
No contest as far as I'm concerned.
And just because your morals are all screwed up and you don't think you have the right to spare yourself the pain of carrying a rapist's baby, doesn't mean other women won't realize it's OK to think of themselves in such a situation.

reply from: CharlesD

If abortion is so important for rape victims, then why don't more of them actually abort? All the numbers I've come across show that more than half of pregnant rape victims don't abort. I have female friends who have been raped. Over time, they have experienced a good amount of healing. Death does not heal over time.

reply from: carolemarie

It is the option that is important. Choosing to do something is healing. Being forced to do something breeds anger and hate....
I think we can agree it is a hard place to be...

reply from: Banned Member

Killing an unborn person wrong every time. If you can justify abortion for a bad circumstance, why not any circumstance?
If a woman has been raped, why do you think that an abortion is going to change anything? other than to produce a dead baby?
Why should a woman who has been raped kill an unborn child to hide the rapists crime?

reply from: carolemarie

??It doesn't "hide" the crime at all. Rapist are still prosecuted if the woman doesn't get pregnant.

reply from: Banned Member

Why kill the unborn child? What does that accomplish? other than produce a dead child and further victimize the woman?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Choosing to murder and having a 'choice' to murder is evil.
It's very simple for people who honestly believe murdering an innocent person is wrong.

reply from: JRH

I don't care. because it does not matter. People have the option of eating nothing but candy, but few do so. This does not mean they should not have that right. Same thing.
This has nothing to do with the issue of consent, which is all that matters.

reply from: carolemarie

Why kill the unborn child? What does that accomplish? other than produce a dead child and further victimize the woman?
I know you think being raped is no big deal, but it is, falling pregnant would be devastating, and some people just couldn't do it....in this case abortion is an act of self protection

reply from: faithman

Why kill the unborn child? What does that accomplish? other than produce a dead child and further victimize the woman?
I know you think being raped is no big deal, but it is, falling pregnant would be devastating, and some people just couldn't do it....in this case abortion is an act of self protection
Once again you lie. Make your point without putting words into some ones mouth just once why don't you!!! Show one post where anyone other than you said rape is no big deal. Show it or admit you were mistaken in saying it!!!! Abortion is always an act of self protection. It is also never nessisary to do it.

reply from: carolemarie

Self-protection is a valid action. And if it is necessary depends on the persons feelings

reply from: rsg007

At least you are consistent. Then again, who said consistency is always necessary or good.
Of course an abortion won't CHANGE the fact a woman was raped. Duh. This isn't about change. It is about lessening, in any way possible, the pain a woman goes through after being raped. The only moral thing to do in a situation like this is acknowledge that the woman's rights supersede (and yes, that's spelled correctly) the unborn child's and stay out of her choice to abort or not.
How would it hide his crime? If a woman wants to report a rape she will and if she doesn't, she won't. Aborting won't necessarily have an effect on that. If she doesn't abort and someone notices she's pregnant, she can always lie if she doesn't want to reveal the rape. If she does abort and she reports the rape, DNA can still be taken from the child and used to catch the rapist. If she doesn't report it until after the abortion then yes, that evidence is lost but even with it, the rapist can lie, say the sex was consensual.
Your arguments are poor and your disrespect for women is showing.

reply from: rsg007

Only the woman who has been raped can say whether abortion is important for her. It is not up to you or me or anyone else to decide what she should do in this incredibly difficult situation.
What is the source for your "numbers"? I'm sure many women who are raped are pro-life, so they don't get abortions. Just because they and your friends chose to heal from rape one way doesn't mean there aren't millions of women who need to abort to heal.
Your statement about death not healing over time represents a classic difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers I think: You think that death is absolutely the worst thing ever. I think prolonged, excruciating pain and suffering (physical or psychological) is absolutely the worst thing ever.

reply from: carolemarie

God is in control, even in terrible situtations....so we can help them work through the anger and choose life...for the baby and so they can move past the mess.
I have had to revise my position simply because the answer is God....

reply from: yoda

That is PRECISELY the argument that proaborts use to justify all abortions. You are just a tiny step, a period or a coma away from being a full fledged proabort.......

reply from: yoda

By disposing of the "DNA evidence".

reply from: yoda

And of course, the proaborts say that ALL abortions are "acts of self protection"...... so you're almost there.......

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's my stance on it too.

reply from: Teresa18

Are you saying you are now pro-life in cases of rape and incest?

reply from: yoda

Bump for Teresa's question......

reply from: ChristianLott2

can't you read?
this isn't a joke. she is actively attempting to deceive. that you or anyone else would defend her or call her pro life is a betrayal to the pre born.

reply from: rsg007

By disposing of the "DNA evidence".
Only if she reports the rape after the abortion. Otherwise, DNA can be taken from the child before or at the time of abortion. And even with DNA, who's to say the rapist won't lie and say the sex was consensual?
And do you really think it's a good thing for a woman to carry a rapist's baby just to try to convict him?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's the point. She could report it, but much later. In the meantime, if he pressures her into an abortion, and the baby is "disposed of", it's much harder to prove.

reply from: rsg007

At least you are consistent. Then again, who said consistency is always necessary or good.
Of course an abortion won't CHANGE the fact a woman was raped. Duh. This isn't about change. It is about lessening, in any way possible, the pain a woman goes through after being raped. The only moral thing to do in a situation like this is acknowledge that the woman's rights supersede (and yes, that's spelled correctly) the unborn child's and stay out of her choice to abort or not.
How would it hide his crime? If a woman wants to report a rape she will and if she doesn't, she won't. Aborting won't necessarily have an effect on that. If she doesn't abort and someone notices she's pregnant, she can always lie if she doesn't want to reveal the rape. If she does abort and she reports the rape, DNA can still be taken from the child and used to catch the rapist. If she doesn't report it until after the abortion then yes, that evidence is lost but even with it, the rapist can lie, say the sex was consensual.
Your arguments are poor and your disrespect for women is showing.
And by the way, Yoda, I explained why it wouldn't hide his crime in the above post, part of which you quoted. Selective reading much?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Maybe we should round up all the children of criminals and butcher them all. Would that make you feel better?

reply from: yoda

No, it seemed like an immaterial point. Whether or not it can be proven that intercourse was consensual is totally off point with regard to DNA evidence.

reply from: rsg007

Yeah, that's the point. She could report it, but much later. In the meantime, if he pressures her into an abortion, and the baby is "disposed of", it's much harder to prove.
So you want rape victims to carry their rapist's baby in order to convict the rapist. Sorry, but it's her decision as to whether to carry the baby, report the rape, conserve the evidence--it's ALL up to her.
And if he's manipulative enough to pressure her into an abortion (and that's assuming the rapist is known to her, which not all of them are) then why isn't he manipulative enough to just claim consensual sex when faced with the DNA evidence?
Stop avoiding these questions.

reply from: rsg007

No, it seemed like an immaterial point. Whether or not it can be proven that intercourse was consensual is totally off point with regard to DNA evidence.
Explain please.

reply from: rsg007

Maybe we should round up all the children of criminals and butcher them all. Would that make you feel better?
Who the father/parents of the baby are has nothing to do with it, as I've explained here several times moron.

reply from: yoda

DNA is just one type of evidence. Proof of rape also requires other types, like evidence of force. The lack of one type of evidence does not negate the usefulness of the other type, even if the case is too weak without proof of force. So, the DNA evidence is still legitimate, and still something that a rapist would like to destroy, even if force cannot eventually be proven.

reply from: rsg007

DNA is just one type of evidence. Proof of rape also requires other types, like evidence of force. The lack of one type of evidence does not negate the usefulness of the other type, even if the case is too weak without proof of force. So, the DNA evidence is still legitimate, and still something that a rapist would like to destroy, even if force cannot eventually be proven.
But without proof of force, DNA doesn't really mean anything, other than the fact they had sex. In my opinion, the lack of proof of force does negate the usefulness of the DNA to a large degree. Your reasoning is not clear: You say "the lack of one type of evidence does not negate the usefulness of the other type, even if the case is too weak without proof of force." Well, if the case is "too weak" then it's too weak, no matter what other evidence there is, especially DNA which could have resulted from consensual sex. So the DNA is NOT "still legitimate" even if force can't be proven. Besides, it's not a reason to force a woman to carry a child to term.

reply from: yoda

You don't seem to grasp the importance of timing. If charges are not filed right away, the rapist might think that destroying the DNA evidence is important in the event they are filed later.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Than why do you keep using it as an excuse to murder a baby?

reply from: rsg007

Than why do you keep using it as an excuse to murder a baby?
I don't. Go read my posts.

reply from: rsg007

You don't seem to grasp the importance of timing. If charges are not filed right away, the rapist might think that destroying the DNA evidence is important in the event they are filed later.
I suppose he might, but who says he's even in a position to coerce the woman into an abortion? Even if he knows her, she might not be as easily coerced as you'd like to believe. My initial post was in response to Augustine asking why the WOMAN would want to hide the rapist's crime--he didn't say anything about the rapist coercing her. I still believe it doesn't hide the crime, and anyway, it's not a good reason to force a woman to remain pregnant. I can only assume you think it is though, since you didn't answer that part of my post.
Do you also think it's a good idea to force a woman not to shower for 9 months (or more) in case she washes away fluids deposited during the rape?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

We need a few explanations before we begin. First of all, the "latin bible" of which faithman speaks must be the Latin Bible, or 'Vulgate' translation. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic by Jerome between 382 and 405 CE, this text became known as the 'versio vulgata', which means 'common translation'. (More information on Biblical languages: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html)

Jesus the Messiah spoke in the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic language. This is the language in which the disciples and the apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes recorded the Scriptures. The New Testament has been preserved in this sacred, scribal language since the Apostolic Age. The whole Bible was originated in this language. The New Testament Scriptures were already in use in the Ancient Aramaic language for five hundred years before Christianity became the religion of Europe. The first Christians in Europe were the Romans under Emperor Constantine. The Bible was not read by the Europeans in their vernacular until the Gutenberg Press was invented in 1440. The Reformation began after that, when the Protestants came up with their own Bibles and interpretations.
The collection and order of the books which make up the Vulgate version of the Bible differs slightly from the ones in the King James Version; it includes several of the Apocrypha.
The Vulgate was the standard version of the Bible for Roman Catholics for over one and a half millenia. Since Latin was only studied by priests and scholars, the vast majority of people could not read or understand the Vulgate, even though they would hear passages from it every time they went to church.
Until 1450, when Gutenberg printed this text, copies were also very rare and expensive. During the Protestant reformation in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Bible was finally translated into modern languages, against great resistance from the Church. Finally in the mid-20th Century, the Roman Catholic church abandoned the use of Latin for liturgy. However, this (the Vulgate or Latin Bible) remains one of the most historically important Latin texts.
The Latin text presented in the Vulgate translation and in the Polyglot Bible is based on the text of the 1598 Vulgate, which was used as the standard text of the Vulgate until 1979. It is derived from data files created by the Clementine Vulgate Project (for more information, see http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html), which have been released into the public domain.
As for medical terms, Faithman, nobody "hijacked" the meanings of any words. Your ignorance of Latin, medicine, etymology and science, as exhibited by your screed on words "hijacked by bortheads to dehumanize the womb child" is astonishing. In order to help you understand real words used by real people, including everyone from doctors to teenagers, here are some germane definitions from Yoda's friendly friends at dictionary.com:
embryo
the young of viviparous [reproducing by giving birth to live offspring rather than eggs] animals esp. of mammals in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month
em·bry·o
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
[Medieval Latin embry?, from Greek embruon : en-, in; see en-2 + bruein, to be full to bursting.]
Embryo
The young of an animal in the womb, or more specifically, before its parts are developed and it becomes a fetus.

Embryo
Pertaining to an embryo; rudimentary; undeveloped; as, an embryo bud.
embryo
An animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages
embryo
An animal embryo is the animal as it develops from the single cell of the zygote until birth. Among humans and most other mammals, the embryo is carried in the mother's womb.
embryo
an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage,the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
embryo
An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
embryo
An animal in its earliest stage of development, before all the major body structures are represented. In humans, the embryonic stage lasts through the first eight weeks of pregnancy. In humans, other placental mammals, and other viviparous animals, young born as embryos cannot thrive.
fe?tus?
the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
fe·tus
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Fetus
The young or embryo of an animal in the womb, or in the egg; often restricted to the later stages in the development of viviparous [bringing forth living young rather than eggs, as most mammals and some reptiles and fishes] and oviparous [producing eggs that mature and hatch after being expelled from the body, as birds, most reptiles and fishes, and the monotremes] animals, embryo being applied to the earlier stages.
fetus
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal
fetus
The embryo of an animal that bears its young alive (rather than laying eggs). In humans, the embryo is called a fetus after all major body structures have formed; this stage is reached about sixty days after fertilization.
fetus
1398, from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. "Germania quos horrida parturit fetus," Horace), but this was not the basic meaning.
fe·tus
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : - a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
baby
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
baby
A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Infantile or childish.
Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.
Baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.
2. A small image of an infant; a doll.
baby
1. a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"
2. an unborn child; a human fetus; "I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"

baby
1 : an extremely young child;especially : INFANT
child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl
2. a baby or infant.
3. a human fetus.
child
A person between birth and puberty.
A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
Child
1. A son or a daughter; a male or female descendant, in the first degree; the immediate progeny of human parents; -- in law, legitimate offspring. Used also of animals and plants.
2. A young person of either sex. esp. one between infancy and youth; hence, one who exhibits the characteristics of a very young person, as innocence, obedience, trustfulness, limited understanding, etc.
child
1. a young person of either sex
2. a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age
child
1 : a son or daughter of any age and usually including one formally adopted
2 : a person below an age specified by law : INFANT, MINOR child under 16 years of age
child
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth
child
A person between birth and puberty.
An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
Child
This word has considerable latitude of meaning in Scripture. Thus Joseph is called a child at the time when he was probably about sixteen years of age (Gen. 37:3); and Benjamin is so called when he was above thirty years (44:20). Solomon called himself a little child when he came to the kingdom (1 Kings 3:7). The descendants of a man, however remote, are called his children; as, "the children of Edom," "the children of Moab," "the children of Israel." In the earliest times mothers did not wean their children till they were from thirty months to three years old; and the day on which they were weaned was kept as a festival day (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:7, 9; 1 Sam. 1:22-24; Matt. 21:16). At the age of five, children began to learn the arts and duties of life under the care of their fathers (Deut. 6:20-25; 11:19). To have a numerous family was regarded as a mark of divine favour (Gen. 11:30; 30:1; 1 Sam. 2:5; 2 Sam. 6:23; Ps. 127:3; 128:3). Figuratively the name is used for those who are ignorant or narrow-minded (Matt. 11:16; Luke 7:32; 1 Cor. 13:11). "When I was a child, I spake as a child." "Brethren, be not children in understanding" (1 Cor. 14:20). "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro" (Eph. 4:14). Children are also spoken of as representing simplicity and humility (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). Believers are "children of light" (Luke 16:8; 1 Thess. 5:5) and "children of obedience" (1 Pet. 1:14).
Really, Faithman, do you have ANY argument with these legitimate dictionary definitions? Or do you believe that "proaborts" have infiltrated the dictionary industry and changed simple words into complex medical terms designed to frustrate you?

reply from: yoda

Who says? Who says no rapist will ever be in that position? Are you denying that many rapists whose victims are children do have the power over them to force them to submit to abortions they don't want?
I don't think anyone should ever be forced or pressured into an abortion, and I don't think that any unborn baby should ever be electively forced to die. And that's a good reason not to allow elective abortions.

reply from: Teresa18

Can't you?
This was recently posted, and Yoda asked her too:

reply from: yoda

Bumping to find out what Carole's "new position" is.....

reply from: carolemarie

Last night I was still trying to sort out a reasonable position that balanced the rights of a victim with the rights of the baby.
I clicked on the link to Faithmans dead baby video and decided to watch it. I was sickened by watching that baby die, it was horrible and i was just sitting there crying and it hit me that it still wouldn't be okay if the baby was conceived in rape, it is never okay to do that...

reply from: Yuuki

Well then, the only reason I can see for you being on the faux-lifer list is being okay with birth control. Same goes with me.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not for the personhood bill. That is what makes them mad....

reply from: Yuuki

I am pro-personhood, but I haven't read enough of the actual bill to know if I am against it. I am still pro-contraception and that bothers them too.

reply from: carolemarie

Well, before you are for something, it is generally a good idea to read what you are for...
You may not like it ....
I don't like the fact that it doesn't clearly delinate what the punishment for violating it.

reply from: LisaAnne

I think everyone is very upset over how prevalent abortion is and how it seems to stand as strong as ever. We naturally play the blame game, and I always know emotions will run high. What we need to do is bring all sides together to make this violent act against women and unborn children a thing of the past.

reply from: 4given

All sides of what- the abortion debate or are you talking about the prolife differences?

reply from: CSK001

Hi,
Thanks for sharing your ideas and views with us. I'm a new one in this forum. Please keep updating me.
CSK
Step into the future and tell everyone how the world will end. iProphesy is free end times prophesy game. Check it out before it is too late!
http://www.iprophesy.net

reply from: 4given

Bothers who? You contradict yourself here.. I am for.. but don't know.. pro-abortifacient.. Huh?

reply from: Banned Member

There is no common ground between life and death. There is no common ground between those who are for life, and those who are for abortion.

reply from: JRH

So even though she has not consented in any way to let the fetus use her body she has no right to remove it? I was wrong about you. You really are just another faithman. It's sad.

reply from: JRH

There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

reply from: lycan

I am pro-personhood, but I haven't read enough of the actual bill to know if I am against it. I am still pro-contraception and that bothers them too.
I haven't heard of this new personhood bill. Is it anything like the one they defeated in Colorado?

reply from: ChristianLott2

You are pro-abortifacient. Abortifacients are NOT contraception. You know this.

reply from: JRH

You are pro-abortifacient. Abortifacients are NOT contraception. You know this.
You should ad Yuuki to the faux lifer list. Maybe as Puuke.

reply from: JRH

I agree.
There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

reply from: ChristianLott2

I agree.
and I'm sure millions of babies just breathed a great big sigh of relief.
I will update the top post of the Faux Life thread.

reply from: churchmouse

You are right, but He did give us free will. I dont believe God killed my unborn, I did it on my own.
God bless you carole.......I knew you had a tender heart. I knew you would change your position. You are a woman of faith.
PRAISE GOD and God BLESS YOU.

reply from: faithman

I am pro-personhood, but I haven't read enough of the actual bill to know if I am against it. I am still pro-contraception and that bothers them too.http://www.prolifealliance.com/LCA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf . This explains the life at conception act. It does not discuss "punishment" because it isn't nessisary. Each state already has laws on the books governing murder, man slaughter and the like. What this does is put the final out come in the hands of a jury of WE THE PEOPLE, not them the judges. Punishment is a strawman, and not a good reason to oppose the quickest way to stopping womb child slaughter in all 50 states at one time. Don't make the issue what it isn't.

reply from: faithman

And by the by, I copied and pasted the vid address from a 4given post. She is the one who brought it to the forum. I have to admit I wept as well when I saw it. What a horrible thing to do to a dog, much less a little defencless child. We must never give a doctor the power to do it. We should send it out in email to everyone on your list, and encourage others to do the same. Willing ignorance is a sorry excuse for murder.

reply from: yoda

The problem with that theory is that not all sides want to make abortion a thing of the past. One side wants desperately to make it a routine, normal part of society. How do you expect to join with them?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

By disposing of the "DNA evidence".
And just how, exactly, would an abortion dispose of a rapist's DNA evidence? The remains can be saved and examined for DNA to prove or disprove fatherhood. The crime of rape can more easily be proven when there is a pregnancy than when there isn't.
No woman here is interested in protecting rapists. I cannot say whether or not it is important to some of the men.

reply from: yoda

What does that mean, exactly? What "exceptions" are you now endorsing?

reply from: yoda

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?

reply from: churchmouse

You know here we have carole who has now changed positions on rape and incest and not one word from Yoda and Faithman.
THAT SAYS IT ALL.

reply from: faithman

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?
Some are burned in an on site furnace like at Tillers. Some are put into an industrial garbage disposal, gound up and washed down the sewer, and some are sold for experimentation. Some are simply thrown in the dumpster out back of the "clinic". Some find there way into the abortionists tummy as lunch. Some are used in pagan ritual. But I guarantee that abortion clinics don't want to keep evidence around that would make them conspirators in crimes like statutory rape. That would cut into their predatory men customers.

reply from: carolemarie

For DNA, you dont need much, just a small tissue sample from the fetus. It doesn't have to be alive.

reply from: galen

______________________________________________________
If you belive in God then yes this is right... he can do anything... we as a specieces seem to get ourselves in more of a mess when we hold tightly and controll things instead of letting God handle them.

reply from: faithman

Maybe we should have a law requiring abortion clinics save DNA evidence in case a crime is committed. Or we could simply insist that the Life a t conception act be passed and put an end to this mess all together.....

reply from: yoda

No, I think that what says it all is that you overlooked my post to her......... are you blind?

reply from: yoda

What does that mean, exactly? What "exceptions" are you now endorsing?

reply from: scopia19822

"What does that mean, exactly? What "exceptions" are you now endorsing?"
She says that rape/incest arent valid reasons to abort, I guess Fman reached her. However Im not sure how she feels about the life/health clause. With all of the treatment options out there today there really is no reason to justify abortions in those cases except removing a ectopic pregnancy. Most of the time even though labor may be induced early mom and baby can get as close to term as safely as possible this day and time.

reply from: faithman

No, I think that what says it all is that you overlooked my post to her......... are you blind?
Willingly so I would say.

reply from: JRH

There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

reply from: yoda

I haven't read all the threads yet today, so I'm asking her to state her "new" position clearly. I'm not holding my breath, however.

reply from: carolemarie

I think it is a valid reason to consider if you are putting your hope in a law. They are only as good as they are written.
I will never support a bill that aims to punish women.

reply from: yoda

What exceptions do you support now?

reply from: yoda

I'm holding my breath now, waiting for carole to say which exceptions she supports now...... and I'm about to turn blue.....

reply from: faithman

Oh no, not again.
Life act conception act's only aim is to attribute personhood to the womb child. Punish women is a strawman. Anyone who is truely pro-life, and wants the quickest way to end the slaughter, would be for it. It places the final out come where it belongs. A jury of WE THE PEOPLE!

reply from: Yuuki

Contracpetives. That's about the ONLY thing a personhood bill might make illegal that I am worried about.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Oh no, not again.
Life act conception act's only aim is to attribute personhood to the womb child. Punish women is a strawman. Anyone who is truely pro-life, and wants the quickest way to end the slaughter, would be for it. It places the final out come where it belongs. A jury of WE THE PEOPLE!
So if she's really against rape abortions I guess the only thing I have against these pro aborts now is the use of abortifacients.

reply from: yoda

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Would you please use the correct term for it? This is the second time I've asked you in two days.

reply from: yoda

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
No, I took down my faux lifer list but I am still keeping a copy of it on file. If this turns out to be bogus it's going right back up.

reply from: yoda

Yeah I took mine down too, because I felt I made my point. I'm still skeptical about the "new position", and I don't think we ought to take anything for granted.

reply from: faithman

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
They may come home to RRRRRRROOOOOOST!!!

reply from: JRH

Please respond to my point about your newly embraced fascism.

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: Yuuki

Would you please use the correct term for it? This is the second time I've asked you in two days.
I do believe I said contraceptives the other day, and I don't recall you ever asking me to call them "abortifacients". I won't. Condoms are NOT abortifacient. These things aren't really "birth" control, they are ovulation and/or fertilization control. The word contraceptive covers it all.

reply from: Yuuki

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?
If the remains are evidence needed to prove paternity, they can be saved and tested.

reply from: faithman

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?
If the remains are evidence needed to prove paternity, they can be saved and tested.
They can be but they are not.

reply from: carolemarie

Please respond to my point about your newly embraced fascism.
I didn't see a question....I will answer if you repost it...

reply from: yoda

And if they don't know that they will be needed, at that time? They will be disposed of, right?
And then later, if the girl works up the courage to file charges, it will be too late, right?

reply from: yoda

Have your responded to my often repeated question yet?
(Hint: It's "What exceptions do you support right now?")

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?
Some are burned in an on site furnace like at Tillers. Some are put into an industrial garbage disposal, gound up and washed down the sewer, and some are sold for experimentation. Some are simply thrown in the dumpster out back of the "clinic". Some find there way into the abortionists tummy as lunch. Some are used in pagan ritual. But I guarantee that abortion clinics don't want to keep evidence around that would make them conspirators in crimes like statutory rape. That would cut into their predatory men customers.
Yeah, they do the same thing with amputated phalanges and appendages. Same with appendices, spleens, gallbladders, tumors, etc. I hear chicken-fried spleens are fabulous! Maybe you can cook some up for your family. What the heck, use gallbladders in your rituals and spleens in your victuals.
Your posts are getting more bizarre by the day. Have you been checked for Alzheimer's or other illnesses/conditions that the affect the brain lately? There really is something wrong with you if you believe any of the tripe in this post.
Nobody even MENTIONED statutory rape. The discussion was about rape, period. And clinics are more than willing to return the remains of aborted fetuses to the parent(s) for burial or cremation.
Are you really that ignorant??? Do you think that hospitals deny mothers the chance to bury their miscarried or stillborn babies? Of course, some of the miscarried remains are not very substantial, depending on how early in the pregnancy the miscarriage occurred. So, too, are the remains of aborted fetuses often insubstantial - any suggestions on how to preserve the body of a 6-week embryo, which is tiny.
"Week 6: Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, your baby is about 1/8 of an inch long. The neural tube along your baby's back is now closed, and your baby's heart is beating with a regular rhythm.
Basic facial features will begin to appear, including an opening for the mouth and passageways that will make up the inner ear. The digestive and respiratory systems begin to form as well.
Small blocks of tissue that will form your baby's connective tissue, ribs and muscles are developing along your baby's midline. Small buds will soon grow into arms and legs."
Sorry, FMan, but 1/8" is quite small and a "body" that size would be hard to capture because it is surrounded by blood clots and other tissue. Nevertheless, some states have enacted laws governing the disposal of aborted, miscarried and stillborn fetuses:
See: http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-12-141.1.html - "Every hospital and clinic in which abortions are performed or occur spontaneously, and any laboratory to which the aborted fetuses are delivered, shall provide for the disposal of the aborted fetuses by cremation, interment, or other manner approved of by the commissioner of human resources. The hospital, clinic, or laboratory may complete any laboratory tests necessary for the health of the woman or her future offspring prior to disposing of the aborted fetus.
(2) Each hospital, clinic, and laboratory shall report, on a form of the type and confidentiality provided for in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-12-141, and provided by the commissioner of human resources, the manner in which it disposes of the aborted fetus. Such reports shall be made annually by December 31 and whenever the method of disposal changes. The commissioner of human resources shall provide forms for reporting under this Code section.
(b) Any hospital, clinic, or laboratory violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00."
From: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=145.1621 - "Purpose.The purpose of this section is to protect the public health and welfare by providing for the dignified and sanitary disposition of the remains of aborted or miscarried human fetuses in a uniform manner and to declare violations of this section to be a public nuisance.
Subd. 2.Definition; remains of a human fetus.For the purposes of this section, the term "remains of a human fetus" means the remains of the dead offspring of a human being that has reached a stage of development so that there are cartilaginous structures, fetal or skeletal parts after an abortion or miscarriage, whether or not the remains have been obtained by induced, spontaneous, or accidental means.
Subd. 3.Regulation of disposal.Remains of a human fetus resulting from an abortion or miscarriage, induced or occurring accidentally or spontaneously at a hospital, clinic, or medical facility must be deposited or disposed of in this state only at the place and in the manner provided by this section or, if not possible, as directed by the commissioner of health.
Subd. 4.Disposition; tests.Hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities in which abortions are induced or occur spontaneously or accidentally and laboratories to which the remains of human fetuses are delivered must provide for the disposal of the remains by cremation, interment by burial, or in a manner directed by the commissioner of health. The hospital, clinic, medical facility, or laboratory may complete laboratory tests necessary for the health of the woman or her future offspring or for purposes of a criminal investigation or determination of parentage prior to disposing of the remains.
Subd. 5.Violation; penalty.Failure to comply with this section constitutes a public nuisance. A person, firm, or corporation failing to comply with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 6.Exclusions.To comply with this section, a religious service or ceremony is not required as part of the disposition of the remains of a human fetus, and no discussion of the method of disposition is required with the woman obtaining an induced abortion."
See: http://www.kotapress.com/section_articles/childDeath/miscarriage/mcgregor_miscarriage.htm for update on Kansas law.
And these are just THREE states that I easily found.
Sorry, Faithman, but fetuses for lunch, medical research, pagan rituals or any other such nonsense are not allowed.

reply from: yoda

Were you looking in the mirror while typing that?

reply from: carolemarie

There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
You have a point. I find myself wanting the exception, but stuck on the fact that abortion is icky, you should watch that video

reply from: yoda

What a strange statement. You "want" a rape exception? Why?
And is the "ickyness" of abortion the only reason you are having second thoughts? Not any compassion for the main victim of abortion, or anything like that? Just the "ickyness" factor?

reply from: rsg007

What a strange statement. You "want" a rape exception? Why?
Hmmm, let's see, perhaps because she realizes how awful it would be for a raped woman to be forced to carry her rapist's baby. You still haven't answered what you think it would be like to do this: Great? Not that bad? The best thing ever?
Ever considered that all this is exactly what she means by "icky"? Or are you not that smart?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, she said she thought it "would suck". Does that cover it?
That's a rather stupid question, since I don't know what it feels like to carry any baby, much less a particular one. But I'd like to think that I could separate my anger against an attacker from my feelings about my own child..... it is half the woman's, you know that, right?
No, honestly I don't think that "icky" means all that. Do you?

reply from: Shenanigans

NEWS FLASH: Abortion of a "rape baby" doesn't make the woman unraped. She still has to live with the horror of that crime for the rest of her existance.
Abortion only serves those around her, making the ever swelling belly of the victim a constant reminder of the trauma she's experienced. It becomes the great big emotional white elephant. No one wants to talk about rape. No one wants to say to the rape victim three months later "how you going?" people are awkard and want to avoid getting into socially and emotionally unstable situations which could warrent them to actually have a meaningful conversation with the victim. People around the victim just want her to "get over it".
That's what I really detest abotu the pro-chocie to kill unborn children lobby. They have used the most horrific and detestable act, rape, to justify their blood lust. Even if the only exception for aboriton was rape, it'd account for a little over 1% of the total abortions. The pro-choice to kill unborn children lobby has peddled and niggled away at society to the point the general populace of idiots think "lady was raped, lady now pregnant, lady MUST WANT an abortion" and heaven forbid the lady doesn't want an abortion - people won't beleive her cos according to the pro-choice to kill unborn chidlren experts, no lady would want to carry her rapist's baby! Guess what, it's her baby too!!
As for the events after the birth - if the lady decides to keep the child, then all manner of support must be given from social to finanical to emotional. If she wants to place the child for adoption, then great, same still applies, emotional counselling and the likes must be provided.
This might come as a shock to some of the pro-choice to kill unborn children people out there, but not all Pro-Lifers want to sherk their responsibilities when the child is born.

reply from: yoda

Carolmarie says it does. She says the abortion is to get her back to her life that she had before the rape.

reply from: rsg007

Yeah, she said she thought it "would suck". Does that cover it?
That's a rather stupid question, since I don't know what it feels like to carry any baby, much less a particular one. But I'd like to think that I could separate my anger against an attacker from my feelings about my own child..... it is half the woman's, you know that, right?
You still don't understand that it's not about the child, who his father or mother is, or separating one's anger. It's about the physical and mental feeling of being pregnant with the result of a violent violation.
Kind of like being arachnophobic and having a huge tarantula (now I'm sure you'll jump on me for comparing a baby to a spider) crawling on your skin. You might be able to use mind over matter to convince yourself it's only a spider and it's not that bad, but I bet the physical repulsion and anxiety would overcome anything your rational mind can tell you.

reply from: yoda

That is where I will never agree with you.... when you are contemplating on the cold blooded killing of an innocent person...... It MUST BE about that intended victim!!
If you think of a baby as being as repulsive as a spider, then you have a mental problem that is not related to having been raped.

reply from: Shenanigans

http://www.afterabortion.org/news/Victims.html

This sums it up nicely - and starts to chip away at the lies the pro-choice to kill unborn children have engrained in this society

reply from: rsg007

That is where I will never agree with you.... when you are contemplating on the cold blooded killing of an innocent person...... It MUST BE about that intended victim!!
What about the woman? She is a victim. Just because the rape is over, doesn't mean she's not a victim any more. Why shouldn't what she wants/needs count? She is a sentient member of society who will have to deal with the long lasting effects of carrying a child if she doesn't want to do so.
And why is it cold blooded killing? It's really more like self-defense: The woman is protecting herself from further trauma.
If you think of a baby as being as repulsive as a spider, then you have a mental problem that is not related to having been raped.
Actually, I don't find spiders or babies repulsive at all. I was comparing the psychological anguish of having arachnophobia and having a spider on you with the psychological anguish of being raped and becoming pregnant as a result. Try to keep up.
And yet again, you bring it back to the baby. It's not about the baby. It's about the woman and how she feels, which is the true parallel to the spider.

reply from: faithman

That is where I will never agree with you.... when you are contemplating on the cold blooded killing of an innocent person...... It MUST BE about that intended victim!!
What about the woman? She is a victim. Just because the rape is over, doesn't mean she's not a victim any more. Why shouldn't what she wants/needs count? She is a sentient member of society who will have to deal with the long lasting effects of carrying a child if she doesn't want to do so.
And why is it cold blooded killing? It's really more like self-defense: The woman is protecting herself from further trauma.
If you think of a baby as being as repulsive as a spider, then you have a mental problem that is not related to having been raped.
Actually, I don't find spiders or babies repulsive at all. I was comparing the psychological anguish of having arachnophobia and having a spider on you with the psychological anguish of being raped and becoming pregnant as a result. Try to keep up.
And yet again, you bring it back to the baby. It's not about the baby. It's about the woman and how she feels, which is the true parallel to the spider.
Boy!!! Just when you thought low life sum bag death scancs couldn't get any lower, or scummyer......

reply from: faithman

Aw geez..... tell me that you know that most "abortion remains" are disposed of as medical wastes, right? You do, right?
Some are burned in an on site furnace like at Tillers. Some are put into an industrial garbage disposal, gound up and washed down the sewer, and some are sold for experimentation. Some are simply thrown in the dumpster out back of the "clinic". Some find there way into the abortionists tummy as lunch. Some are used in pagan ritual. But I guarantee that abortion clinics don't want to keep evidence around that would make them conspirators in crimes like statutory rape. That would cut into their predatory men customers.
Yeah, they do the same thing with amputated phalanges and appendages. Same with appendices, spleens, gallbladders, tumors, etc. I hear chicken-fried spleens are fabulous! Maybe you can cook some up for your family. What the heck, use gallbladders in your rituals and spleens in your victuals.
Your posts are getting more bizarre by the day. Have you been checked for Alzheimer's or other illnesses/conditions that the affect the brain lately? There really is something wrong with you if you believe any of the tripe in this post.
Nobody even MENTIONED statutory rape. The discussion was about rape, period. And clinics are more than willing to return the remains of aborted fetuses to the parent(s) for burial or cremation.
Are you really that ignorant??? Do you think that hospitals deny mothers the chance to bury their miscarried or stillborn babies? Of course, some of the miscarried remains are not very substantial, depending on how early in the pregnancy the miscarriage occurred. So, too, are the remains of aborted fetuses often insubstantial - any suggestions on how to preserve the body of a 6-week embryo, which is tiny.
"Week 6: Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, your baby is about 1/8 of an inch long. The neural tube along your baby's back is now closed, and your baby's heart is beating with a regular rhythm.
Basic facial features will begin to appear, including an opening for the mouth and passageways that will make up the inner ear. The digestive and respiratory systems begin to form as well.
Small blocks of tissue that will form your baby's connective tissue, ribs and muscles are developing along your baby's midline. Small buds will soon grow into arms and legs."
Sorry, FMan, but 1/8" is quite small and a "body" that size would be hard to capture because it is surrounded by blood clots and other tissue. Nevertheless, some states have enacted laws governing the disposal of aborted, miscarried and stillborn fetuses:
See: http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-12-141.1.html - "Every hospital and clinic in which abortions are performed or occur spontaneously, and any laboratory to which the aborted fetuses are delivered, shall provide for the disposal of the aborted fetuses by cremation, interment, or other manner approved of by the commissioner of human resources. The hospital, clinic, or laboratory may complete any laboratory tests necessary for the health of the woman or her future offspring prior to disposing of the aborted fetus.
(2) Each hospital, clinic, and laboratory shall report, on a form of the type and confidentiality provided for in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-12-141, and provided by the commissioner of human resources, the manner in which it disposes of the aborted fetus. Such reports shall be made annually by December 31 and whenever the method of disposal changes. The commissioner of human resources shall provide forms for reporting under this Code section.
(b) Any hospital, clinic, or laboratory violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00."
From: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=145.1621 - "Purpose.The purpose of this section is to protect the public health and welfare by providing for the dignified and sanitary disposition of the remains of aborted or miscarried human fetuses in a uniform manner and to declare violations of this section to be a public nuisance.
Subd. 2.Definition; remains of a human fetus.For the purposes of this section, the term "remains of a human fetus" means the remains of the dead offspring of a human being that has reached a stage of development so that there are cartilaginous structures, fetal or skeletal parts after an abortion or miscarriage, whether or not the remains have been obtained by induced, spontaneous, or accidental means.
Subd. 3.Regulation of disposal.Remains of a human fetus resulting from an abortion or miscarriage, induced or occurring accidentally or spontaneously at a hospital, clinic, or medical facility must be deposited or disposed of in this state only at the place and in the manner provided by this section or, if not possible, as directed by the commissioner of health.
Subd. 4.Disposition; tests.Hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities in which abortions are induced or occur spontaneously or accidentally and laboratories to which the remains of human fetuses are delivered must provide for the disposal of the remains by cremation, interment by burial, or in a manner directed by the commissioner of health. The hospital, clinic, medical facility, or laboratory may complete laboratory tests necessary for the health of the woman or her future offspring or for purposes of a criminal investigation or determination of parentage prior to disposing of the remains.
Subd. 5.Violation; penalty.Failure to comply with this section constitutes a public nuisance. A person, firm, or corporation failing to comply with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 6.Exclusions.To comply with this section, a religious service or ceremony is not required as part of the disposition of the remains of a human fetus, and no discussion of the method of disposition is required with the woman obtaining an induced abortion."
See: http://www.kotapress.com/section_articles/childDeath/miscarriage/mcgregor_miscarriage.htm for update on Kansas law.
And these are just THREE states that I easily found.
Sorry, Faithman, but fetuses for lunch, medical research, pagan rituals or any other such nonsense are not allowed.
The abortion industry ignores the law all the time.

reply from: rsg007

That is where I will never agree with you.... when you are contemplating on the cold blooded killing of an innocent person...... It MUST BE about that intended victim!!
What about the woman? She is a victim. Just because the rape is over, doesn't mean she's not a victim any more. Why shouldn't what she wants/needs count? She is a sentient member of society who will have to deal with the long lasting effects of carrying a child if she doesn't want to do so.
And why is it cold blooded killing? It's really more like self-defense: The woman is protecting herself from further trauma.
If you think of a baby as being as repulsive as a spider, then you have a mental problem that is not related to having been raped.
Actually, I don't find spiders or babies repulsive at all. I was comparing the psychological anguish of having arachnophobia and having a spider on you with the psychological anguish of being raped and becoming pregnant as a result. Try to keep up.
And yet again, you bring it back to the baby. It's not about the baby. It's about the woman and how she feels, which is the true parallel to the spider.
Boy!!! Just when you thought low life sum bag death scancs couldn't get any lower, or scummyer......
The only thing "scummy" about that is refusing to acknowlewdge the truth about how a pregnant woman who has been raped might feel.

reply from: nancyu

That is where I will never agree with you.... when you are contemplating on the cold blooded killing of an innocent person...... It MUST BE about that intended victim!!
What about the woman? She is a victim. Just because the rape is over, doesn't mean she's not a victim any more. Why shouldn't what she wants/needs count? She is a sentient member of society who will have to deal with the long lasting effects of carrying a child if she doesn't want to do so.
And why is it cold blooded killing? It's really more like self-defense: The woman is protecting herself from further trauma.
If you think of a baby as being as repulsive as a spider, then you have a mental problem that is not related to having been raped.
Actually, I don't find spiders or babies repulsive at all. I was comparing the psychological anguish of having arachnophobia and having a spider on you with the psychological anguish of being raped and becoming pregnant as a result. Try to keep up.
And yet again, you bring it back to the baby. It's not about the baby. It's about the woman and how she feels, which is the true parallel to the spider.
YES WE KEEP BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BABY. ANNOYING AIN'T IT? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR. IT'S SOMETHING YOU KEEP FORGETTING ABOUT.
THE BABY.
THE BABY IS http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: CharlesD

I'll pose this question again. If it is so important to have abortion as an option for pregnant rape victims, then why do over half of those women NOT abort. Why is it that so many pregnant rape victims choose to have the baby rather than kill it? What do they know that we don't? Could it be that in the long term it is worse for a woman to have been raped and then to have killed her child than for her to only have to deal with the rape? Why compound the trauma of the rape with the possibility of even further psychological and emotional trauma that many post abortive women go through? Could it be that not aborting might actually be what's best for the woman? Hmm... Apparently a lot of rape victims have seen it that way.

reply from: carolemarie

If you choose to do the right thing I think it would be healing... but you have to decide that, not have it forced on you... I keep thinking of that video, that was so brutal and I just can't see that being right, no matter what...
I hate the fact that you have to decide to choose the woman or choose the fetus! I want to choose both

reply from: Yuuki

You're only choosing the fetus over the woman when you demand she has to die for it. Otherwise, you are choosing both.

reply from: churchmouse

The video got to her. That is what changed her mind she said.
So if a woman killed her newborn baby you thinks she should not be punish or held accountable?
The gangsters got sick of their lists?......awe

reply from: carolemarie

The video got to her. That is what changed her mind she said.
So if a woman killed her newborn baby you thinks she should not be punish or held accountable?
I was talking about a bill that would punish women who got abortions. I believe they are desperate and are victims. I would support a bill that punished those who profit from abortions!
The gangsters got sick of their lists?......awe

reply from: LisaAnne

I think as pro-lifers we should back off exceptional issues such as rape and health. These are exceptional cases, and tend to make the issue even more emotional and divisive. Instead of trying to change hearts, we spend 99% of the time debating 1% of abortion cases.

reply from: 4given

I agree . "We"? Who is "we" and what are your exceptions?

reply from: Teresa18

Good for you, Carole! Ideally a women would never be raped, let alone get pregnant from it. However, when a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, there are two victims - the woman and her child. It is a difficult situation, but we have to remember that the child is an innocent person made in the image of God. The child has a right to life, and God has a plan for the child.

reply from: Teresa18

Wait, so are you opposed to abortion in the case of rape or not?
You don't have to. Only in the abortion scenario does one person die.

reply from: Teresa18

Abortion is about all cases. It's about whether there is a right to kill an unborn child in the womb of his/her mother. If the unborn child is a person, then he/she has the right to life regardless of the circumstances of conception and pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

The rape is in the past, it cannot be undone. The woman is not the intended victim of an abortion, the baby is. Didn't you know that?
As long as unborn babies are the intended victims of abortion, it will continue to be "about the baby".

reply from: yoda

There you go again, getting too complicated for carole. She thinks that to "choose the woman", you have to allow her to kill the baby.

reply from: yoda

See, you have to read the fine print.......
Lib tried to tell her that.... too complicated for carole.

reply from: faithman

Abortion is about all cases. It's about whether there is a right to kill an unborn child in the womb of his/her mother. If the unborn child is a person, then he/she has the right to life regardless of the circumstances of conception and pregnancy.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: yoda

As much as I'd like to, we can't. For one thing, the proaborts won't let us. For another, if we don't oppose such exceptions, we will be accurately characterized as illogical and hypocritical. And finally, if we abandon all discussion of "exceptions", then we will have no right to claim any moral high ground. And without that, how can we oppose abortion at all?

reply from: nsanford

What exactly makes this true? Moral high ground is relative.

reply from: faithman

What exactly makes this true? Moral high ground is relative.
Only to idiot punks like you. It is an absolute fact that a human child is conceived when sperm hits the egg. It is an absolute fact that a concieved womb child person is slaughtered by the act of abortion. It is an absolute fact that only a borthead fool would advocate the intentional murder of an innocent womb child. The only thing "relative here is just how far you have stuck your pro-death head up your relative willingly ignorant behind. I would say SSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOO far you are turn wrong side out.

reply from: faithman

The video got to her. That is what changed her mind she said.
So if a woman killed her newborn baby you thinks she should not be punish or held accountable?
I was talking about a bill that would punish women who got abortions. I believe they are desperate and are victims. I would support a bill that punished those who profit from abortions!
The gangsters got sick of their lists?......awe
You ganged up on three, and have the audasity to call someone a gangster? Now that is rich. Folks back off to take you at your word that you have changed, and you slam them with sarcastick remarks? Just as we thought. You only claimed a change to garner sympathy from the weak minded. Just goes to show you can't trust a rabid pro-death dog. They bite you everytime.Thanks for dashing our hopes.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Very good point, LisaAnne! We should be spending 99% of our time debating the 99% of abortions that are NOT related to rape or incest.

reply from: faithman

The video got to her. That is what changed her mind she said.
So if a woman killed her newborn baby you thinks she should not be punish or held accountable?
I was talking about a bill that would punish women who got abortions. I believe they are desperate and are victims. I would support a bill that punished those who profit from abortions!
The gangsters got sick of their lists?......awe
Here is where killercarole has lied, and set up another straw man. No where in the life at conception act, does it deal with punishment. It just simply deals with establishing that a womb child is a person under the 14th amendment of the constitution. It puts the issue under due process of law already on the books. But this killer uses the pretense of punishment as a diversion from what is actually being presented. The life at conception act says that a womb child is a person, not a dehumanized fetus. It uses the very language of roe to rectify the injustice of that court discission, just as the 14th amendment did for the unjust dred scott descission. the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to act. Article 3, section 2, futhure confirms this constitutional reality. Only a blatant pro-abort with conflict of interest would oppose these simple truths. Only an unrepentant killer would oppose the cure for the insanity, in favor of fellow killers. But you can believe the flamming pro-death wolf in PL wool if you like. But a true pro-lifer knows this issue has always been about personhood, not tea and chocolate girly emotion compassion for the killers. We need to establish equality thru personhood for the womb child by the simple act of congress with the authority of the instruments of our government. Then let the punishment chips fall where they may by state law, and the discission of citizen jurist.

reply from: yoda

We can claim moral high ground if we believe, as we do, that electively killing innocent unborn babies is immoral.
But of course, you don't believe that, do you?

reply from: JRH

Good for you, Carole! Ideally a women would never be raped, let alone get pregnant from it. However, when a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, there are two victims - the woman and her child. It is a difficult situation, but we have to remember that the child is an innocent person made in the image of God. The child has a right to life, and God has a plan for the child.
The right to life any person has does not include the right to use non consenting individuals. If you will die no one must help you simply because you require it-they have the right to refuse to help you and let you die. If you attempt to use them to continue your life then they have the right to stop you from using them by any means necessary. This applies to the rape situation because the woman did not agree to have sex, and thus she did not in any way agree to be pregnant. If she did not agree to be pregnant then the fetus has not been given consent to use her body . Therefore, abortions should be allowed for rape victims even if a fetus is a person. Denying this leads to many philosophical problems.
If you can justify violating autonomy to save lives in this case how can you argue against it in others? Why can't we force people to save lives by making them work certain jobs? Why can't we take their property from them in order to save lives? Under your proposed system, no one has the right to control their own lives if they can save someone else. Their life is owned collectively.....

reply from: nancyu

The video got to her. That is what changed her mind she said.
So if a woman killed her newborn baby you thinks she should not be punish or held accountable?
I was talking about a bill that would punish women who got abortions. I believe they are desperate and are victims. I would support a bill that punished those who profit from abortions!
The gangsters got sick of their lists?......awe
You are uneducated as to what personhood is all about. First of all it's not a bill! Second, it doesn't say a thing about who gets punished! I find it unbelievable (in fact I don't believe you) that you are this ignorant.
It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. An unborn child is a person. It really is just as simple as that, but you claim your ignorance, and you're not quite sure when a fetus becomes a person, blah blah blah....bulloney.
You're supposed to be pro life.
That means you know that the life of a human being (a person) begins at conception. And any potential consequences don't hold a candle to the consequences that thousands of children per day are dealing with right now. As we type and argue over "what if the woman was raped, it's not faaaaaiiiirrrr?!"

reply from: yoda

And now we know....... "The rest of the story".

reply from: JRH

Here two of my recent posts about the rape issue. I have yet to see a coherent response to either.
The right to life any person has does not include the right to use non consenting individuals. If you will die no one must help you simply because you require it-they have the right to refuse to help you and let you die. If you attempt to use them to continue your life then they have the right to stop you from using them by any means necessary. This applies to the rape situation because the woman did not agree to have sex, and thus she did not in any way agree to be pregnant. If she did not agree to be pregnant then the fetus has not been given consent to use her body . Therefore, abortions should be allowed for rape victims even if a fetus is a person. Denying this leads to many philosophical problems.
If you can justify violating autonomy to save lives in this case how can you argue against it in others? Why can't we force people to save lives by making them work certain jobs? Why can't we take their property from them in order to save lives? Under your proposed system, no one has the right to control their own lives if they can save someone else. Their life is owned collectively.....
There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/FuseTalk/Forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5997&enterthread=y

reply from: nsanford

I know. More to the point of my post was your reasoning that can't claim moral high ground over others if you believe in exceptions.
Anyone can "claim" moral superiority, for any reason.

reply from: yoda

Oh technically you can claim anything, as you say... but in doing so you will make a fool of yourself by your self contradictions if you allow "exceptions".
It is totally self-contradictory to say that unborn humans deserve our protection unless their fathers were rapists, or next of kin, etc. Their parentage has nothing to do with their intrinsic moral status.

reply from: nsanford

I see your point. Protection should be extended to all, not some. Hmm...

reply from: nancyu

Here two of my recent posts about the rape issue. I have yet to see a coherent response to either.
The right to life any person has does not include the right to use non consenting individuals. If you will die no one must help you simply because you require it-they have the right to refuse to help you and let you die. If you attempt to use them to continue your life then they have the right to stop you from using them by any means necessary. This applies to the rape situation because the woman did not agree to have sex, and thus she did not in any way agree to be pregnant. If she did not agree to be pregnant then the fetus has not been given consent to use her body . Therefore, abortions should be allowed for rape victims even if a fetus is a person. Denying this leads to many philosophical problems.
If you can justify violating autonomy to save lives in this case how can you argue against it in others? Why can't we force people to save lives by making them work certain jobs? Why can't we take their property from them in order to save lives? Under your proposed system, no one has the right to control their own lives if they can save someone else. Their life is owned collectively.....
There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
"><br ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
<br ">http://...m/wat...muHg86Mys7I
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/FuseTalk/Forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5997&enterthread=y
I sometimes skim your posts. I rarely agree with anything you have to say, and there is no point in arguing with you.
To Quote Nellie Gray who said it so well, "You either believe in killing innocent human beings or you don't" Obviously you do. At least you know who you are and are honest with yourself. What more could anyone ask from a pro abort wad of tissue?

reply from: faithman

AAAAHHHH the "what if" song of the pro death vulture. We deal with what is. What is a "fetus" killer? What is abortion killer? You need to clean that cess pool you call a mind from the fecal matter of pro-death "what if's" if you want to be called pro life. Do yourself, and everyone else a favor, and listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_RnBM5o00I&feature=PlayList&p=04EF336B4C325FF1&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL. Cheap grace is not the gospel, and "What if's" excuses, and exceptions are not pro-life no matter how many times an unrepentant baby killer cries to the contrary.


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