Home - List All Discussions

Hi, I'm Rebecca Klessling .............

Did I deserve the death penalty?

by: yoda

Feminists for Life (www.feministsforlife.org) supplies speakers for various Prolife functions, and our local chapter of TRL has invited FFL's Rebecca Klessling to speak at their annual banquet, later this month.

In the ad they sent out, she is quoted as saying "My crime was being concieved through rape. So, the next time you hear people talking about 'exceptions' to abortion for rape and incest, think of me. My name is Rebecca. I am that exception."

reply from: Allizdog2000

SueYu would probably say something to the effect of: She shouldn't be living, she is a beast just like the man that violated her mother.

reply from: AshMarie88

Choicers wouldn't care either way.

reply from: scopia1982

Choicers wouldn't care either way.

The Bible says that children are not to be put to deaht for the sins of their fathers,( 2Kings 14:6), but yet many people who call themselves Christians think a child of rape should be aborted because they are some sort of monster. I guess these people only use thier bible for a paperweight or a coffee table decoration.

reply from: AshMarie88

Choicers wouldn't care either way.

The Bible says that children are not to be put to deaht for the sins of their fathers,( 2Kings 14:6), but yet many people who call themselves Christians think a child of rape should be aborted because they are some sort of monster. I guess these people only use thier bible for a paperweight or a coffee table decoration.

Exactly...

Me and some of my other friends constantly debate with this "Christian" woman online, who is pro-choice. She says she is a minister, but I don't believe it. No one can be pro-choice and Christian... And if they are, then they really are not Christian.

reply from: yoda

Probably a lot of proaborts think that, and some of them are bold enough to say it. That's the attitude a lot of them took about Gianna Jessen, the young woman who lived through an attempted saline abortion. They really hated her.

reply from: Tam

Probably a lot of proaborts think that, and some of them are bold enough to say it. That's the attitude a lot of them took about Gianna Jessen, the young woman who lived through an attempted saline abortion. They really hated her.

And they call themselves pro-woman and us anti-woman. What a crock.

reply from: Allizdog2000

What did Gianna do to offend these people? Survive an attempted murder, now she speaks out against it. Another woman I saw on CBN was moments away from being killed by an abortion provider, the mother sneezed, the abortionist decide not to do the abortion because he was afraid she was sick and sent her away.

The pro-Abortionists/Pro-Deathers have no regard for life or death, unless it's their own.

reply from: yoda

"Anti-male" would be more accurate, and "anti-baby", of course.

reply from: yoda

I see you answered your question. That's all she had to do to make them hate her, survive.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

Thank you for posting this.

Mark Crutcher of LDI is right, there is NO such thing as "pro-life with exceptions" -- there is pro-life and there is "pro-choice with restrictions"

-- pro-choice except no sucking the brains out of partially-birthed babies, pro-choice only if the baby has down's syndrome or is missing some fingers or MIGHT SUFFER (kill it now to end it's potential for experincing future pain!), pro-choice provided the woman feels that her memories of a rape would be to hard to live with if she doesn't kill the child that she is carrying, etc.

reply from: Valfar

Because we all know there is nothing more rewarding than being violated twice - once by the rape and once for being forced to carry your rapist's child. After all, men's rights are being violated in that they have no say over what happens to the sperm they have forcefully injected into the women they rape!

reply from: sarah

What else we all know is that you can't read with comprehension. But, just in case you're able to comprehend by reading it twice:

Apparently you don't think she deserved to live, well you'll just have to get over it, she did.

reply from: AshMarie88

How is the woman being violated a second time if she CHOOSES to carry her child to term?

Are you suggesting she SHOULD abort?

reply from: Valfar

Actually, the point of the original post in this thread was to discredit abortion in the case of rape. My post was a reply to that.

I really don't care about that woman or her background. If her mother decided to carry her to term, good for both of them. The fact is that you completely missed the point of my post. If you think rape victims deserve to be raped twice by being forced to birth a child forced on them through the original rape - you need help.

I am suggesting it is wrong to force rape victims to carry their rapists child to term without the option of aborting.

reply from: AshMarie88

I am suggesting it is wrong to force rape victims to carry their rapists child to term without the option of aborting.

If you think the 2nd victim from rape, the child, should be just another choice, you too need help.

Grow up, get married, have a child... Watch your child's ultrasounds. Maybe you'll come to realize abortion is wrong.

reply from: Valfar

So you think a zygote should have more rights than the woman victimized by the rapist??? Do you think the rapist should have custodial rights to the child, should she keep it, as well??? How much more in the middle ages do you want to keep women? How are women empowered to live as they choose when they 1. Get raped and 2. Are forced to live with the byproduct of that rape for the next 18 years?

reply from: prolifejedi

Valfar, if that's REALLY your name.............does an abortion take away the pain of the rape? Does it fully erase the memory? I don't see how it CAN. Rape is a horrible thing. And an abortion on top of that is WORSE.

reply from: AshMarie88

So you think a zygote should have more rights than the woman victimized by the rapist??? Do you think the rapist should have custodial rights to the child, should she keep it, as well??? How much more in the middle ages do you want to keep women? How are women empowered to live as they choose when they 1. Get raped and 2. Are forced to live with the byproduct of that rape for the next 18 years?

At the point the unborn is killed, most of the time, the unborn is then a FETUS, not a zygote.

Giving rights to "zygotes", fetuses, whatever, isn't giving them more rights than the mother, it's just making them EQUAL human beings.

Just like giving blacks rights, wasn't giving whites less rights, but making everyone equal.

reply from: Valfar

That is a completely subjective viewpoint. That may hold true for you but it most certainly may not hold true for the next rape survivor.

Not in cases of EC (which is currently behing witheld from rape survivors receiving hospital treatment in some places)

What about the rights of the woman raped? Doesn't she have the right to live her life as normal as possible before the rape?

You never did answer my other question about should the rapist have custodial rights?

reply from: dadserna

Val

Pro-choice people always try to portray us a attempting to take away women's rights. As if we want to make women some lesser form of human. This is completely false. Most prolifers consider women to be precious creations from God. As such we protect women. We cherish them before they are adults, as young girls, as babies and even when they are still in their mothers womb. If you would be honest with yourself, you would have to admit that about half of all aborted babies are female. So who's really trying to take something away from whom?

reply from: Valfar

That's really terrible spin, actually.

Why don't you address protection and rights for women when they are adults instead of trying to shift the attention back to when they are in the womb? As I've already queried, how does the anti movement justify saying that part of the healing process for rape should include being forced to bear the rapist's child?

reply from: prolifejedi

My brother in law knows of a woman that speaks at pro life functions - she was raped. But she KEPT her baby. She chose to have her baby even though her child's father RAPED her.

ProLifers don't love these women any less than they would love a child in the womb. Or a 15 year old that was molested. We care about all the women and want to help them. Rape is a hard case, but does a little child deserve to die because of the sin of his/her father?

reply from: Valfar

I repeatedly ask about the rape victim and no one seems to want to address that. Instead they try to deflect it back to the forced conception.

Now, as I have previously asked multiple times and repeatedly not received a straight answer on: how does the anti movement justify saying that part of the healing process for rape should include being forced to bear the rapist's child?

reply from: sarah

Who is forcing anyone to bear a child? Do you know of any rape victims that are being chained and not allowed out?

You'd just poo-poo the statistics that say the abortion is traumatic as well, so what's the point?

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-life is pro-women.

reply from: Valfar

I suppose outlawing abortion even in cases of rape and incest (like most antis support) could be considered forcing a victim to bear her rapist's child. I suppose you have another definition of it?

reply from: theflyingpen

Not if that requires killing another human being to do so.

When my parents had my little brother, my life as I knew it was thrown out the window. All I wanted was to be the star child again. But I couldn't kill my little brother in order to attain it.

Of course, this is JUST an analogy - I'll go ahead and disclaim that it lessens a rape on a woman. But it does show that you can't just kill people (especially your own family) to make things right again.

I would say that completely depends on the woman and man in question, and the situation. Most rapes take place with men a woman knows; if she decides to let her child live, then I would say she has rights to withold custody from him AND demand child support payments.

If they were friends before the rape and she has a forgiving heart, and decides he can see his child, then I guess he should. In this situations though, I believe it should depend solely on the mother and/or the mother's family.

If the man scats and she doesn't even know who he was, then of course the options are limited.

reply from: Choicer

Not if that requires killing another human being to do so.

When my parents had my little brother, my life as I knew it was thrown out the window. All I wanted was to be the star child again. But I couldn't kill my little brother in order to attain it.

Of course, this is JUST an analogy - I'll go ahead and disclaim that it lessens a rape on a woman. But it does show that you can't just kill people (especially your own family) to make things right again.

I would say that completely depends on the woman and man in question, and the situation. Most rapes take place with men a woman knows; if she decides to let her child live, then I would say she has rights to withold custody from him AND demand child support payments.

If they were friends before the rape and she has a forgiving heart, and decides he can see his child, then I guess he should. In this situations though, I believe it should depend solely on the mother and/or the mother's family.

If the man scats and she doesn't even know who he was, then of course the options are limited.

I do like you, flyingpen. Trying not to be creepy here.
Its just the way you answered. You dont lose your temper or bring personal insults into it. You just answered the question with dignity and honesty AND put your point accross. Very admirable. Ok ill stop kiss-assing now.
Even if I didnt agree with you, i listened. If you put a few insults in here and there i would have discredited you completly. funny isnt it? the realisation that insults and shouting never got anyone anywhere

reply from: scopia1982

I repeatedly ask about the rape victim and no one seems to want to address that. Instead they try to deflect it back to the forced conception.

Now, as I have previously asked multiple times and repeatedly not received a straight answer on: how does the anti movement justify saying that part of the healing process for rape should include being forced to bear the rapist's child?

When a woman who aborts due to rape or incest it is most often not her choice. She is pressured into it by society and those close to her, because our society has made it compulsory for women who become pregnant as a result of rape to abort the child or she is considered crazy. At the time of having the abortion, she is still recovering from the rape itself. It often takes months or years to come to terms with just the rape itself. She may feel relief after having the abortion, but this is most often temporary. She will go through threapy and comes to term with what happened to her with the rape. But when that is all said and done, she is traumatized again from the guilt of the abortion and often feel that she has been raped all over again. I have been raped and have aborted (child not the result of a forced rape). And from my own experience the abortion was worse than what any rapist could have done to me. Abortion is a form of rape IMO, because it is the most invasive thing a woman could go through. The abortionist knife enters the most sacred realm of a woman and not only kills her child, but also butchers the female organs.

reply from: Tam

I repeatedly ask about the rape victim and no one seems to want to address that. Instead they try to deflect it back to the forced conception.

Now, as I have previously asked multiple times and repeatedly not received a straight answer on: how does the anti movement justify saying that part of the healing process for rape should include being forced to bear the rapist's child?

Sigh . . . why must you continually force me to repeat myself?

By "being forced to bear the child" you mean "being prevented from killing the unborn child." That is quite different. When you have urine in your bladder, if I pay a doctor to sew your bladder shut, I am preventing you from urinating. But if I advocate for a law that says you cannot pay a doctor to cut open your bladder and empty it of urine, that is not the same thing as saying I am forcing you to urinate against your will. If I do nothing, you will eventually urinate. It's a natural process, and as the bladder fills, you eventually succumb, even if you don't want to (in which case you might wet your pants). But forbidding you from paying for surgery to artificially empty your bladder is NOT the same thing as forcing you to urinate. No one is forcing you to urinate. That happens naturally, because, you gotta go. Likewise, if your womb contains a child, that child will be born, unless the mother dies. Even if the child dies, a still birth will occur. Ash can no more "force" anyone to "continue a pregnancy" than she can "force" someone to urinate--or to exhale. These things happen naturally. Your euphemisms may hide from yourself the nature of what you advocate, but they don't hide it from me.

What's that? You say, you DIDN'T force me to repeat myself? That you never held a gun to my head, that I repeat myself of my own free will? Well, if you say that, you're right. I was only using that phraseology to make the point all the more clear. I choose to repeat myself, because you choose to miss the point.

reply from: yoda

Perhaps we emphasize babies because no one is trying to justify killing innocent adults, and it isn't even legal to do so? Didn't think of that, did you?

We don't. The rapist "forced" her, we're just saying the innocent child so created deserves the same protection as any other child.

reply from: Uruviel

I absolutely agree that the child of a rape should not pay with his or her life for what his or her father did. It is a human life and it should be born.

I have oftened wondered what would be my reaction should I ever find myself in this situation. Naturally, the very thought of the act is so abhorrent, I would pray that my attacker kills me in the process. It would be very hard for me to carry the memory of that act in my head for the rest of my life, I must admit. If I did live through it, however, and became pregnant as a result, I would definitely carry the child to term. I would give the child birth. But I would immediately give the child up for adoption.

reply from: theflyingpen

Man, so have I!! Refusing to admit abortion as a viable option does limit the options I have, but thankfully I have a loving and supporting family.

1) I'd be able to finish this semester and the next of college (this all depends when I would be raped, of course)

2) I'd have to take a break from college to deliver the baby and be able to bond with it. I would probably cut my apartment lease and move in with my parents to help me, since I'm not married yet.

Because of who my parents are, I know they'd support me through the rest of college and I could continue through at least Nursing School. Two years and I have my BSN, which equals limitless job security. With a job, I could continue to live on my own, with the help of the daycare hospitals provide working mothers.

3) After graduation, I could get married! (Haha, I told my prospective fiance that if I ever got raped and became pregnant he'd be a Daddy!! ...needless to say, he didn't look too thrilled about it...but at least he knows where I stand on it...as if he didn't before )

It would DEFINITELY kick start my life for me - I always envisioned having children much later in life - but of course, it's totally possible to switch stuff around. I could always have my kid and raise him/her and then continue to Med school and beyond.

It's good to have a plan though, I think.

It parallels the plan I have for myself should I ever become pregnant after consensual pre-marital sex, as well. But like I said, I'm not planning on having kids til I meet my other life goals. Hence, I abstain because that is the only way for me to be 1,000% positive my kids wait on their Mom.

reply from: Valfar

That's just like saying "I didn't kill the guy I ran over in my car while I was driving, he killed himself by running in front of me!" - You wouldn't apply that logic to any other situation (and it most certainly wouldn't hold up in court) so why start with this one?

What about a little "protection" for the rape victim? Hasn't she endured enough trauma without having to give birth to her rapist's child (assuming she doesn't want to keep it?). Yoda, answer my other question I've asked in this thread: Should the rapist have rights to the child if it is born?

But you are most certainly justifying rape victims being victimized twice - once for the rape and once for the unwanted byproduct of that rape.

If you want to play semantics with the word "force" than go ahead. But you know as well as I do that laws forbidding abortion even in cases of rape ostensibly "force" (or strongarm, if you will) a child of a rape to be born whether the victim wants it to be or not.

I still don't understand, and no one on this forum is yet to explain it to me in plain terms, how passing laws ensuring the rape victim can not abort a child conceived via a forced rape is good for the rape healing process for the victim?

reply from: cali1981

It's very simple, Valfar. When a rapist degrades and victimizes a woman, he takes from her something that no one has the power to give back. There is no logical basis for believing that allowing a woman to inflict violence upon her own son or daughter will lessen the effects of the violence that was done to her or eradicate the memory of the experience. A woman who was raped will carry the memory - and probably the pain - of that for the rest of her life. And if the rapist forced her to conceive a son or daughter, she will carry the memory of that son or daughter for the rest of her life too, whether she allows him/her to live or pays someone to kill him/her.

I have yet to read of a woman who had a child by a rapist who says that she wished she had just aborted him/her. It seems that once such women are able to deal with their feelings, whether shame, dirtiness, guilt, anger, or helplessness, they seldom view their son or daughter as another bad thing that happened from the situation, but maybe the only good thing that came out of it. It is difficult to imagine how a dead son or daughter can contribute to the healing process. Conversely, it is fairly easy to imagine that experience making things that much harder for the woman.

As Tam once said, there is no problem to which killing your child is a solution.

reply from: dadserna

If this is just spin then why don't you address it. Submit your logical arguement to convince me that you can kill females in the womb in the name of feminine rights. The truth is that the prochoice movement is not concerned with women, but rather with me, me, me, me, me.

As for how carring a baby to term after rape can help the healing process:

I don't know of anyone who claims that the victim is completely healed, either by motherhood,counseling or just plain old time. The question is, how can she best recover and best live afterward. Now I'll be honest enough to admit that I've never been raped and I am a man, so this is second hand. 2nd hand is closer than I would have preferred.

When a woman is raped she has been treated as a thing. Her personhood is taken away from her and she often feels little or no self worth. If she did something foolish which put herself in danger she will often feel guilty.[ I want to clarify that no matter what she did I am not suggesting that she is in any way responsible. The rapist is 100%] In fact especially with cases of spousal abuse or child abuse a priority is to establish that the victim was not at fault. A clear distinction between the victim and the perpetrator is necessary. When this same victim has an abortion she removes the personhood from the baby. She treats it like a thing. She blurs the line between victim and perpetrator. So the question is not how does motherhood help. It should be how does abortion hurt the healing process.

PS don't forget to respond to the 1st part

dad

reply from: yoda

That's just like saying "I didn't kill the guy I ran over in my car while I was driving, he killed himself by running in front of me!" -
Absolutely not. No child of rape is a part of the rape itself. Your analogy is facetitous.

There is no "protection" in abortion. There is only the killing of an innocent "bystander" for the crime of another. How do you protect someone by making them a killer of innocents?

How does that question relate to abortion? Show me the connection, and I'll answer it.

Total, absolute nonsense. Asking a woman not to kill her own flesh and blood child is not "victimizing" her. That's like saying we "victimize" a child molester by asking him not to bother children.

That sort of "force" is what keeps you alive. If there were not laws against homicide, you'd probably already have been killed by now. Do you weep for the potential murderers who might have killed you had we not "forced" them to leave you alive?

By preventing a woman from becoming a babykiller, the woman is able to heal from the trauma of rape without having an additional trauma to torment her. She can always put the child up for adoption, and put the entire episode behind her with a clear conscience. The same cannot be said if she kills that child.

reply from: bradensmommy

What pro-choicers don't realize is that only 1 percent of abortions are from rape anyway. The women who are getting abortions are married women with 2 + kids and should be either getting thier tubes tied or having thier husbands get a vesectomy if they are done with having kids anyway. I don't know about y'all but I'm sick to death about how abortion and rape are always tied together when it is such a low percentage in the first place. I believe that if I was raped and got pregnant I would give the baby up for adoption, I was thinking about taking the morning after pill but that can cause some severe reproductive problems, about as bad as an abortion would.

I have always been pro-life because I think that if a person is adult enough to have sex, they are adult enough to handle the consequences brought about if there is any.

Every action has a consequence and people need to realize that and not use something as genocidal as an abortion to get rid of thier "inconvenience" or "problem"

No child is unwanted, period...

reply from: Tam

That's just like saying "I didn't kill the guy I ran over in my car while I was driving, he killed himself by running in front of me!" - You wouldn't apply that logic to any other situation (and it most certainly wouldn't hold up in court) so why start with this one?

LOL Dude, that is so funny. Do you realize how that sounds? You're talking about killing someone by accident and claiming that the person was committing suicide. Not only does that not change anything to do with a child of rape, you are actually making the point that it's wrong, when you've killed someone, to blame the person you've killed. Don't you realize how much that falls right in line with what we're saying about not killing a child of rape? If you don't see what I mean, I'll make it much clearer, but I suspect I don't have to!

I will get to the rest of this later today or tomorrow . . . no time right now.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, bradensmommy.

Diversion is a main tactic of proabort rhetoric. They also try to divert us to the subject of "threat to life of the mother", even though that only accounts for about 3% of abortions, and we don't classify that as an "elective" abortion anyway.

Any old diversion they can think of is what you usually hear from them, they don't want to discuss the main category of abortion, the "elective" abortion that has nothing to do with rape, incest, or threat to life.

They don't want to talk about why the idea of killing little babies is repugnant to (most) people.

reply from: bradensmommy

Its just funny that pro-choicers never have any good arguements or good logic to back up thier ignorance.

reply from: yoda

It's tragic, really.

But how can they have any? What good argument or logic is there for killing innocent babies in the womb? Their position is so far removed from human decency and morality that all they can do to support it is lie, twist, and divert.

reply from: Tam

Whether or not the rape survivor considers her unborn child a further victimization is a matter of opinion--HER opinion, not yours or mine. If she does view the child as further victimization--it is victimization at the hands of the RAPIST, the only person of whom the rape survivor was a victim. What a rapist does to his victim is no one's fault but his.

Me, play semantics with the word "force"? No, far, that would be YOU.

reply from: Tam

If you want to play semantics with the word "force" than go ahead. But you know as well as I do that laws forbidding abortion even in cases of rape ostensibly "force" (or strongarm, if you will) a child of a rape to be born whether the victim wants it to be or not.

Just as laws forbidding murder "force" you to allow to live some people you might prefer to eliminate. All laws are "force" because they are enFORCEd by people with guns who seize you if you don't comply with them. But I am not the one in charge of enforcing laws--that would be the police and other law enforcement agencies (that's why they're called that).

So the real question is: do I want the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES of this country to ENFORCE laws that prevent murder? Definitely. Do I want laws against murder to protect all human beings, born or unborn? Definitely. Does that mean that I want to force someone to have a child she doesn't want? Definitely NOT. That is a typical proabort twisting of reality to make me look like a control freak when in fact I just want to protect innocent children from harm. That is how prolifers are painted as folks who just want to control other people. That is a lie. It is up to law enforcement to enforce the laws and it is up to the legislators to make the laws. I can only state my opinion. In my opinion, murder laws should protect all human beings, born and unborn. To you, that means I am standing here with a gun to the head of a pregnant woman who wants to kill her child, preventing her from doing so and thereby "forcing" her to give birth to the child. In reality, I am doing no such thing. No one forces a pregnant woman to have a child. She already has one. No one forces a pregnant woman to give birth. That happens naturally. I am not ashamed of my opinion. I will state it loudly and clearly as often as necessary. But I will not allow you to pervert it into some sort of desire to control women's bodies and force them to do things they don't want to do.

reply from: Uruviel

Yes. This is exactly what I would do and not look back. I could never end the life that the rapist put inside me, but neither would I want the child to be a part of my life after I give him or her birth. Someone else can adopt the child without a skewed eye and hopefully raise it with love. There are many people looking to adopt infants.

reply from: bradensmommy

And pro-choicers think that the US is so populated enough...how come so many people who can't have kids are adopting overseas?? Yeah, its cheaper but there aren't enough kids here to suffice the childless couples.

reply from: yoda

Well said, Tam! "Pervert" is precisely the right word to use concerning the arguments of proaborts.

reply from: NewPoster1

If you want to play semantics with the word "force" than go ahead. But you know as well as I do that laws forbidding abortion even in cases of rape ostensibly "force" (or strongarm, if you will) a child of a rape to be born whether the victim wants it to be or not.

Just as laws forbidding murder "force" you to allow to live some people you might prefer to eliminate. All laws are "force" because they are enFORCEd by people with guns who seize you if you don't comply with them. But I am not the one in charge of enforcing laws--that would be the police and other law enforcement agencies (that's why they're called that).

So the real question is: do I want the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES of this country to ENFORCE laws that prevent murder? Definitely. Do I want laws against murder to protect all human beings, born or unborn? Definitely. Does that mean that I want to force someone to have a child she doesn't want? Definitely NOT. That is a typical proabort twisting of reality to make me look like a control freak when in fact I just want to protect innocent children from harm. That is how prolifers are painted as folks who just want to control other people. That is a lie. It is up to law enforcement to enforce the laws and it is up to the legislators to make the laws. I can only state my opinion. In my opinion, murder laws should protect all human beings, born and unborn. To you, that means I am standing here with a gun to the head of a pregnant woman who wants to kill her child, preventing her from doing so and thereby "forcing" her to give birth to the child. In reality, I am doing no such thing. No one forces a pregnant woman to have a child. She already has one. No one forces a pregnant woman to give birth. That happens naturally. I am not ashamed of my opinion. I will state it loudly and clearly as often as necessary. But I will not allow you to pervert it into some sort of desire to control women's bodies and force them to do things they don't want to do.

Whether you like it or not you do have a desire to control women's bodies and force them to do things they don't want to do.

You have a desire to prevent women from obtaining abortions, thus you have a desire to control their bodies.

You have a desire to force women to give birth, thus you have a desire to force them to do things they don't want to.

I should remind you that "force" can be achieved physically or by imposing one's views on others. By supporting laws, legislators, or judges who are opposed to legal abortion you are attempting to impose your views on those who are in favor of legal abortion, thus you are attempting to force pregnant women to give birth. The only one who's twisting reality is you.

reply from: bradensmommy

we force pregnant women to give birth??

Hmm...we sure as hell didn't force them to have sex (I'm not even talking about the rape situation because only 1 percent of abortions come from rape).

If a woman is pregnant she is a mother period, even if she aborts, gives it up for adoption, ect.

I would never have an abortion because I don't think a child deserves the death penalty for anything, they didn't choose to be concieved, they were concieved because of an act of sex because believe it or not, sex brings upon children!

My goodness, if people actually learned that growing up I shouldn't have to keep reminding that to people. I'm so sick of people saying that sex nowadays is for pleasure, my Goddess, if that was true how come there are abortions?

Ignorance definately is bliss I must say!

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, "NewPoster1"!

Let's examine your premise a bit: Hmmm........ yes, most Prolifers have a desire to "prevent" abortions, by persuasion or by statute. That's true.

But let's examine some parallel examples of this: most Prolifers also have a desire to "prevent" murder, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, etc., etc., so they have a "desire to control the bodies of lawbreakers".

Are you with me so far?

reply from: NewPoster1

Welcome to the forum, "NewPoster1"!

Let's examine your premise a bit: Hmmm........ yes, most Prolifers have a desire to "prevent" abortions, by persuasion or by statute. That's true.

But let's examine some parallel examples of this: most Prolifers also have a desire to "prevent" murder, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, etc., etc., so they have a "desire to control the bodies of lawbreakers".

Are you with me so far?

My premise was that she was incorrect to say she wasn't trying to force pregnant women to give birth. By supporting measures that would make abortion illegal she is attempting to impose her views on pregnant women, thus she is attempting to force them to give birth.

Are you with me so far?

reply from: yoda

Well insofar asw I already agreed with you, your question seems superflous....... don't you think?

But I see you totally ignored my points about other things that we do to "control the bodies" of other people....... was that too complicated for you?

reply from: Tam

That is a lie. You don't know me or my desires. I have stated plainly that I have no such desire.

Another lie, a false conclusion.

Again false. I've explained it to you, but you can choose to pretend you don't get it.

LOL Nice try, though. Keep dreaming.

reply from: Valfar

Then

Interesting that you use the term "bystander". If the child isn't even conceived until well after the rape has ended, what is it a bystander to? I think you meant to say "byproduct"

It is used to underscore the notion that antis are unfriendly to the rights of rape victims by wishing to inflict a multitude of hardships on them after the original rape such as forcing to bear a child out of rape and forcing them to share custody with their rapist (should they decide to keep it)

Wrong. Asking a rape victim to keep the byproduct of her experience is like having a criminal break into your house and being told not to fix the window he broke in through but instead to keep it broken as a reminder of the violation.

We aren't talking about homicide, we are talking about rape survivors dealing with unwanted byproducts of those crimes. Stay on topic.

And you operate under the assumption that all abortion for all women is a trauma. You know as well as I do this is FALSE. You have no evidence of it and no impartial analysis of it to back that claim up. Most women, in fact, do not regret or have issues with thier decision to abort. It's a pretty long stretch to try and say otherwise on your part.

reply from: dadserna

Val

I must assume you are a coward.

reply from: dadserna

Pro aborts always completely disregard the fact that they are promoting a womans right to kill her baby. Talk about FORCE. They don't mind when the woman forces her views upon the baby. The last time our legal system regarded so highly the rights of one group of people, while it also disregarded the rights of another group was during slavery. When you people ridicule babies in the womb by calling them less than human or nonpersons, you are following an age old human tradition. If you had been around 2 centuries ago we know where you would stand. Reproductive rights over the right to live. Property rights above the right to liberty. Bow down at your altar of convenience.

reply from: yoda

It is used to underscore the notion that antis are unfriendly to the rights of rape victims by wishing to inflict a multitude of hardships on them after the original rape such as forcing to bear a child out of rape and forcing them to share custody with their rapist (should they decide to keep it)
Are you always so unwilling to answer a question? The personal qualities of "antis" has exactly WHAT do do with the morality of abortion? Is that clear enough?

Never heard of adoption? That's how you "fix the broken window".

Only because you are unwilling to discuss the logical extension of your "arguments". You make these specious arguments, and then will not support them.

Show me where I said any such thing! The fact that having an abortion makes a woman a killer of an innocent child is real and permanent, whether the woman has enough conscience to regret it or not.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it amazing how they can ignore that point?

reply from: Allizdog2000

Valfar... Do you think a person that came into being via due to should be executed for the sins of their father? I'm not talking about abortion, I am talking about in the here and now. Them as an adult? If no, then why not?

reply from: cali1981

Valfar

You have not addressed my response to your question. I think I made some points that no one else did, and if I took the time to answer you, you should take the time to acknowledge and comment on my response.

It's very simple, Valfar. When a rapist degrades and victimizes a woman, he takes from her something that no one has the power to give back. There is no logical basis for believing that allowing a woman to inflict violence upon her own son or daughter will lessen the effects of the violence that was done to her or eradicate the memory of the experience. A woman who was raped will carry the memory - and probably the pain - of that for the rest of her life. And if the rapist forced her to conceive a son or daughter, she will carry the memory of that son or daughter for the rest of her life too, whether she allows him/her to live or pays someone to kill him/her.

I have yet to read of a woman who had a child by a rapist who says that she wished she had just aborted him/her. It seems that once such women are able to deal with their feelings, whether shame, dirtiness, guilt, anger, or helplessness, they seldom view their son or daughter as another bad thing that happened from the situation, but maybe the only good thing that came out of it. It is difficult to imagine how a dead son or daughter can contribute to the healing process. Conversely, it is fairly easy to imagine that experience making things that much harder for the woman.

As Tam once said, there is no problem to which killing your child is a solution.

reply from: dadserna

Cali

your right they always frame the debate in a way to where they are basically saying that if childbirth and motherhood does not CURE the victims pain then she should have an abortion. Val and other proaborts turn a blind eye to the pain that is inflicted by abortion. Pain to the mother as well as the child.

reply from: yoda

I really like that statement. I don't think it can be repeated often enough.

reply from: yoda

I was priviledged to hear Rebecca Klessling speak last night at a banquet/fund raiser for the local RTL chapter. She was awsome. She knows how to put a very human face on what is an just an abstraction to far too many people. She said (paraphrasing) "A lot of people say they're against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Whenever I hear that, it cuts me to the core of my being, because they are saying my mother should have been able to legally kill me, since I was a child of rape." She related how she was adopted from the hospital and raised by Jewish parents, but eventually became Christian. She tells about finally getting to know her birth mother at the age of 18, and becoming friends with her. Her mother told her the story of how she tried twice to abort her illegally, but couldn't go through with it because of a dirty "office" the first time, and a snowstorm the second time. She said that she once phoned her mother and asked her something that had been eating at her for a long time: "Would she have aborted me in 1969 if abortion had been legal then?" The answer was "yes". She said that was the most painful thing her mother ever said to her. "But not knowing what I know now", she added. Rebecca is a practicing attorney in the field of domestic abuse.

Rebecca said that was small comfort. She said that it really hurt her when people told her she was "lucky" to be alive. "Was it just luck?", she asked rhetorically. "Were the other 45 million babies that didn't make it out of the womb alive just unlucky?"

She related how she discussed abortion with one of her law school professors. She said she asked him about his adopted daughter: "What if she had been aborted?" His answer was an offhand "Well I'd just have adopted someone else". "Wow", Rebecca commented, "How would you like to have him for a father?"

reply from: scopia1982

Yoda, I would love to have been able to hear this woman speak. My husband volunteers for a local crisis center and one woman that works over there is prochoice and thinks that it is imperative that abortions be allowed for rape victims. I bet if she got to meet Rebecca and hear her story she would change her tune...

reply from: Tam

I really like that statement. I don't think it can be repeated often enough.

Thanks, guys! Another good point--although anyone who supports capital punishment might disagree--is that violence is a problem, not a solution to problems. Abortion is a violent response to a non-violent person (an innocent unborn baby). No matter how they may delude themselves into thinking that their violent response is directed towards their rapists, women who abort their children because of their having been conveived through an act of violence are committing an act of violence against their children, not their attackers. If the woman would only open her eyes and see whom she is attacking, she would see an innocent baby, not a violent criminal. Rapists should be punished severely, but killing a child is not an appropriate punishment particularly considering that the child has committed no crime whatsoever.

reply from: Tam

One can only hope. It's shocking -- appalling, really -- how prochoicers can dehumanize even born adults in their efforts to hide from themselves the nature of that which they support.

There was a greek myth about -- was it Athena?? -- springing full-grown from the head of her father, Zeus. Prochoicers seem to think we are all born that way--that we go from nonexistence to full "personhood" at the instant of birth. Unfortunately for them and this little fantasy, science and technology tell a somewhat different story. A beautiful and awe-inspiring story of life and how precious it is.

reply from: yoda

Her appearance brought that home to me. We can talk all day long about abortion, but until one puts a human face on the discussion, it's mostly academic, about as meaningful as watching grass grow.

Rebecca put a lovely human face on the discussion. She related how many times people would say very callous things to her, like "If women had the constitutional rights they deserved in 1969 you wouldn't be here." She said they devalued her entire life, not to mention her very existence today, as being less important than their right to kill babies.

reply from: Alexandra

You know, for all the pro-aborts' screaming and hollering about carrying "the rapist's" child, they forget one little thing:

It's the woman's child too. Yes, that child is part of the rapist but he/she is also of the same blood as the mother. That child is still her flesh and blood.

Whether or not a woman has her unborn child killed, the fact is that child has/had an existence. Abortion can wipe out the child's life but won't wipe out the fact that at one time, that child was there. It's much better to let the child live and either raise the child, or let a loving couple adopt the child and give him or her a good, loving home. Everyone wins. The mother doesn't have to raise the child if it distresses her, the child gets a loving home, and potentially a childless couple gets a child.

Every child IS a wanted child...even if the parents don't want him/her.

reply from: AshMarie88

How would you respond to a choicer saying "If every child is a wanted child, why are there so many children in foster care, being abused and whatnot, and in orphanages?"

I never know...

reply from: Alexandra

Good question. I believe that for every child who's in foster care, etc., there's SOMEONE out there who would want that child for their own. It's a matter of finding them.

reply from: cali1981

Here's a quote from On Message for you to think about...

And here is another one, referring specifically to black adoption, but certainly applicable to other adoptions (as is pointed out at the end):

The bottom line is, the fact that there are some kids in foster care and orphanages does not mean that they are not wanted. Adoption processes are unnecessarily complicated and expensive. Pro-aborts would like to pretend that this is not the case, and that the only reason for this situation is unwantedness, but anyone with half a brain can see that nothing is that simple.

reply from: yoda

The phrase "every child a wanted child" carries with it the inference that every unwanted child should be a dead child. Otherwise, how would anyone eliminate all those children who are not adopted? That's the real meaning of that phrase, "Kill all unadopted children".

Does not being adopted mean a child is disposable?

reply from: Alexandra

I know about Planned Barrenhood saying that. That's why I said all children are wanted.

My brother-in-law's stepson and his late wife had adopted a little girl, who's about five, and they have their own daughter who's a year old. Unfortunately his wife died while 8 months pregnant with their son--they both died as the result of a car accident back in March. But from what I hear they also did foster parenting.

A friend of mine is sterile due to an abortion she'd had (she's now pro-life). She and her husband adopted a little girl.

reply from: shady1080

Hi, I just wanted to say that I agree with you on that. I'm just glad to see there are other people out there who see that rape and incest are not valid excuses for abortion. Thanks-- Sandi Burnett

reply from: Tam

Okay! Since we were on the subject of backing NP into a corner and waiting for a reply, I thought I'd bump this thread and recap some of the discussion so NP might be encouraged to respond.

I was having a conversation with Valfar about the concept of FORCE, a concept NP has been wrestling with in the Viability thread as well. To recap:

And that was the last NP had to say on this subject in that thread, at least so far. So I'm bumping it so we can pick up where we left off, if NP does come back.

reply from: yoda

NP seems not to like to put too fine a point on things. One thing I wish I'd said already is that preventing abortions does not force birth.... it prevents the death of a baby that already is alive and growing. Nature "forces" birth, not laws against abortion.

reply from: cali1981

Great point.

And Tam, great summary of everything that has happened so far in this discussion.

reply from: Christian4life

.

You never did answer my other question about should the rapist have custodial rights?

The fact that a person created from rape is still A PERSON has nothing to do with "custodial rights'. You just prove how ignorant you really are by going off on such a tangent. Quit trying to change the subject.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

What is the point of your question "should the rapist have custodial rights"? I don't see how it relates to any of this. Besides, a rapist would not want a constant reminder of his crime, would he? He wouldn't respect the life of the baby, just like he didn't respect the woman's body and dignity.

By "live her life as normal as possible before the rape", don't you mean "live her life as normal as possible AFTER the rape"? If I am correct in my assumptions, then all I have to say is that having a baby is normal. It happens three times every minute.

Which of the rape victim's rights are you talking about? Life? Lifestlye? Murdering an unborn baby only because it is a prodcut of evil? In the case, of life, the baby's and hers are equal. In the case of lifestlye, the baby' life is more important. You would not say that a rape victim should kill her five year old because s/he interferes with her lifestyle, would you? As for a "product of evil", I don't think that anyone would think that that was a good reason.


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