Scary. South Dakota has passed legislation banning ALL abortions, except in extreme "mother's health" cases.
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
Here's hoping you don't get raped in South Dakota, wives and daughters! Although this new ban on ALL abortions has a clause for health of the mother, it has nothing for victims of rape. And lets be honest. "Health of a mother" abortions aren't enough to keep a clinic open. These women may have to go out of state, waste valuable time and resources to go out of state-if there IS a clinic out of state! Same with rape victims who may have to travel to get an abortion. This is absolutely WRONG. Don't we care more about our women's future and rights than we do about our dislike of abortion? Don't like abortion, DON'T GET ONE! But don't punish other women for your views. Would this legislation have been possible without the promise of a conservative Supreme Court? I sincerely hope that John Roberts is the "not as conservative as we think" justice, and will help uphold Roe, but I'm not entirely convinced. Roe is only federal law as long as the Supreme Court says it is. Oh, and who will pay for babies that parents couldn't afford to have? Who will adopt them from our already faulty and overcrowded adoption system? Who will pay for their health care and college? We are setting these children up for abuse, emotional and physical. We are setting these children up for poverty, and failure, right from their entrance into this world. Republicans. Love the fetus, hate the child.
When the D.C. Democrats backed down from their promise to filibuster Alito, I couldn't believe it. We need a new generation and breed of Democrats in D.C. I understand that its a one-party government right now, but they seem to have lost their backbone even before that happened.
The only thing I disagree with is banning abortion in the case of a rape. Otherwise, sex is a conscious choice that you are making. If you dont want children, abstinence is the way to go.
Not if you want to have sex before marriage or want to have sex during marriage but don't want to have children. I understand that your principles (which since you referred in another post to homosexuality being a sin, as well as premarital sex) based on religion is how you feel. However, not everyone shares those religious principles you accept. Some people enjoy sex for a variety of reasons and believe that it is moral to have sex without the intention of getting pregnant. I myself believe that sex is good when the relationship is healthy. It is a part of this experience called Life. I don't want to die from being afraid to live life because something might happen. Their are precautions that can be adhered to prevent risk of disease or pregnancy. Abstinence might be the way to go for you, but it isn't necessary the way to go for people who have different beliefs and paths than you.
thank you ramognino, perfectly said.
Your welcome. And thank you for saying thank you. ;-)
incest too I hope? Unless you were automatically including incest as a rape--which it is imo!
Wow this makes me so happy. I only wish Connecticut would pass a law like that. Abortion is muder, so I applaud South Dakota.
So move there.
Hey peppermintfrost, I think I railed against your statement that money is all evil. However, I mostly agree with you now: if you don't want kids, then don't f***! DUH!
I am neither conservative nor Christian, but I still don't like abortion. Of course, it also depends on when the baby is aborted. If it is conscious and has feeling, then it is alive. If it is a clump of 5 cells in the woman, then it's not murder. Also, babies resulting from rape can still be put up for adoption. These babies have a chance to lead healthy, fulfilled lives just as any other baby does! Should we kill all other people who lead unhappy lives too?
My email:
jonathan_homrighausen@yahoo.com
Studies show the pain impulse is not developed until the 28th week or so. Consciousness is later.
I understand that people do not share these beliefs with me, but sex=children. That is the main purpose and a side effect. Whether you want it or not it's a package and comes with sex.
Sex=children. If it did, it would mean that every single time you had sex, you would get pregnant. You only have a short period of time, relatively, when you CAN get pregnant. By your own words, its actually the other way around. Becoming pregnant is much more of a side-effect to sex than sex is a side-effect to procreating. Otherwise, people would be getting pregnant almost every single time they have sex. Reality, however, is otherwise.
A side effect? God did not create sex so that children would be a "side effect." Children are a blessing to a couple, which is why unmarried people should abstain from sex, and why a woman should not abort a pregnancy.
Whether children are a side effect or result of sex steal means that it produces children. And I highly doubt that anyone having sex does not know that children could result from sex which means that they are taking a risk and should be willing to handle what comes along with it. It cannot always be voided.
Yes, but the fact that sex does not always create children and only in a short time window of opportunity (and still it is rather possible a baby won't be created anyways), suggests that sex is more than just making babies. Otherwise, sex would only make babies.
That is an excellent point! I never thought of that and I agree.
I read your comments on that other thread, and I agree with what you said. You seem to recognise the trauma to women when raped and even the fact that deciding to have an abortion may be a traumatic decision in itself.
Also, you recognise the qualty of life after birth.
Have you no heart for the poor children that could be born and unwanted because you are demanding their birth?
Sorry, but I think abortion is a far kinder choice. And before you throw out the adoption reasoning, I suggest that you call some adoption agencies and social services offices ask about the number of children already waiting for adoption and foster homes.
Then do some research with secular post-adoption councelors who can vouch that many, many adoptions do not go well for the children.
Uhm... wait... Are we actually debating about whether or not sex = children? What can I say... Should I say something about it? WEll..yeah I will. Here it goes: Sex, at first 'in the beginning', was just a means to create more human beings. Simple. But with humans, it's not 'just' about that anymore; it's also a way of strengthening the relationship, connecting with eachother on a level that's both physical ánd mental / spiritual.
I hope that's the end of this... 'debate'.
Nolie: I wrote about this as well, and it truly is a sick, discusting law. Here's another quote from the Washington Post article:
It's heartwarming how these anti-choice supporters reason, how compassionate they are:
""The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene."
I'll copy some of my comments here:
"What a great and sympathetic guy! He's delighted, yes you read that right, he's delighted that there are no exceptions in cases like rape or incest. When a women gets raped: Too bad, can't have an abortion. You probably should even be happy that, although the rape an sich was horrible, the result is terrific! Enjoy! Without it you wouldn't even be pregnant right now!
As I understand it, the Supreme Court isn't, or should I say 'wasn't'?, very 'delighted' with laws like these. Laws that don't take into account little thingies like 'rape' or 'incest' or even 'health'. In the past we could be 100% sure the Supreme Court would turn this law down without thinking about it too much, but with this new conservative Court, anti-choice people think they've got a chance:
"Still, some abortion opponents are more confident than they have ever been that Roe could be overturned with two new conservative members of the high court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "
Purely my opinion: Based on the history of the US Supreme Court in matters like these I don't think it'll stand a chance. Roberts, imho, isn't as so-called conservative, as most people think.
Although it won't stand a chance in my opinion, it's not a very good sign that anti-choice people like this charming fellow Rep. Roger W. Hunt, are getting more and more confident. Just imagin this worst case scenario: Bush will be able to choose yet another Supreme Court judge during his Presidency.... That'll be nasty."
Ha: I don't need my own blog anymore: I can spread my opinion through yours! ;) :D
hehehe... Your opinions are always welcome Michael. It is sort of a strange debate, sex vs. procreation...
I think people have been using it outside of procreation for as long as it has existed. The only difference is our society is FAR more open about its sexuality now. I'm not entirely sure if that's a good thing.
It does seem sort of patronizing to women doesn't it? All these little men(unfortunately, we don't have terribly many women politicians, it's slowly becoming more equal... but certainly not representation for half the population....) going around telling us we should be THRILLED to be pregnant, even by a rapist, and that they're going to see us have that lovely child for us to care for and mother and love and advocate family values to no matter WHAT we think, or how many restrictions they have to make.
I buy into Clintons idea of abortion. "Safe, Legal and Rare" If we kick up our social programs a notch, help women to NOT have the choice between an abortion and food, stop treating unmarried mothers like whores, encourage adoption and refine the beaurocracy in that system to where that is a positive looking option as well, that will bring the abortion rate down. WITHOUT restrictions, or bans. Of course, some people will still need abortions, and they will have access to them, but the system would be FAR more caring, and far more equal for women.
It seems to me that as women, we have a huge liability that guys don't have. It's possible for a guy to hide an illigitimate child, or distance himself from it, but it's pretty darn hard to hide a pregnancy for a woman... Our very futures and jobs can be taken away or shifted simply by the timing of that conception. All we want is a little more control and stability over ourselves and our health. Birthing is pretty darn hard-excruciating even, and it takes a heavy toll on our bodies. The problem is the Republicans aren't just against the practice of Abortion, they're against our having CONTROL. That's why the FCC, at the Republican appointmentees insistance, refused to allow a safe and legal NON ABORTIVE birth control to be widely dispensed. That's why they sought to discredit menopausal hormone treatmentss-the same hormones are used in common birth control, and they thought they could question it for the same reasons.
I hope you're right about Roberts, I really do.
I am a prochoice mother. I am only 21 but I chose to have my child, this child is not a burden, but a choice! Do you not see how precious that is? I once had to have an abortion because I was on medications and my birth control failed. The meds I was taking caused horrific defects to my child. I did not have an abortion for convienience, i don't believe in that, but if i had that child i think i would have killed myself because that child would have never had a life. As far as rape victims, haven't they gone through enough pain? Imagine the guilt of never being able to look at you child without thinking about how he or she got here. Think of the guilt the child would feel if he or she found out. Especially if the mother had no choice but to have him/her. We are a civillized sociaty now we need to make laws based on justice not some book that is only on the side of white christian men.
So should we kill elderly people who are very sick so they don't have to live with problems? Every person deserves a life. Or with that thought, if you knew your child was going to have Down's Syndrome would you kill it? Many mothers would....but people with Down's Syndrome live very fulfilled, independent lives, in comparison to Down's Syndrome patients from years ago. THey still have a right to life.
As for rape, the child is a pain? No. The lack of the child is a bigger pain. Always wondering what may have been.
This is not just about Christian views. It is about the right to life....it does not matter what religion you are. Killing your child is murder.
Perhaps those elderly people would choose to die, rather than decay away. THat's irrelevant. A long fulfilled life is very different from a batch of cells that may or may not develope into a healthy person.
I don't believe NOT having a child from rape would be a bigger pain. Imagine if YOU were violently raped, and had the child. Chances are, you'd be nervous about things that reminded you of your rapist, every time you looked into your childs eyes, you'd see their fathers. And you'd be afraid.
And just because a child with Down's syndrome MAY live a healthy life, with effort, it doesn't mean you should set them up to have that struggle. Perhaps it's kinder to allow them to be born into a HEALTHY body, next time around.
And if you really believe that "no matter what religion...." then you really don't understand religious differences, or compassion. Not everyones religion is your own.
I only hope you never have to deal with what those women affected by this issue have and will continue to deal with. I don't know if you could handle it. A woman already has to be ridiculously strong to get past a rape, let alone being raped again by the system.
If you don't like an abortion, don't have one. But don't tell ME what is ok in your religion for my uteris.
It is not only my religion. People of all religions are pro-lifers just because they realize that abortion is murder. Why does a person need to be religious to realize that? Fifty-three countries, making up twenty-five percent of the world’s population, prohibit abortion except to save the mother’s life. Do you really think all of those countries are Christian? No, many are Muslims and other religions. They still realize that abortion is murder though.
And women think the abortion will make them forget about the rape. Obviously that won't happen, so what has the abortion accomplished? Making 9 easier months for you? And I know some rape victims who do have guilt every day about aborting their baby.
And there is no way you should abort that Down's Syndrome baby. In today's society so many people with diseases can live normal lives. If we kill babies based on disease, women will take it too far and kill their babies based on tiny things that they think are "wrong" with them.
It's not that women think that abortion will help them forget about the rape at all. It's about far more things than that.
There are certain times in life that people want to have children. What if a woman was not emotionally, financially, (or any other reason) ready to have a child then she got raped. You think she should still have that child even though she can't afford it? You would rather the child be born and not be healthy?
Also rape comes with so many emotional problems. A woman who is raped and has the child can develop negative feelings toward the child because he/she can bring back the terrible memories. You would rather have the child born with a future of abuse? I'm not saying that it would happen but it could happen. I read once about a woman who did have her rapists child and she loved the child but she said that every time she looked in her childs eyes, she saw the rapists eyes and she couldn't help but have a negative feeling from it.
I have seen your posts before and I have a question for you... A 12 year old girl gets raped, you think she should have the baby?
I have asked you this question twice peppermint. So what is the answer?
Yes, she should have the baby. Did you really expect me to say that she should have an abortion? No, she shouldn't.
That is so sick.
More sick than murder? I don't think so.
If a 12-year old is raped, it's obviously a very unfortunate circumstance. Should she kill her baby as a solution to the problem? No, then she would be a murderer. Should she go kill the rapist the next day? No - then she would be a murderer in that case too. A raped person can't kill the rapist unless it is under self-defense. They can't just go kill them another time or they'll be charged with murder. Of course, the rapist will go to jail, but one could say that a woman won't feel good until the rapist is dead because every time she hears his name she'll remember the rape. But that still doesn't give her the right to kill him if not in the act of self defense. The same should go for her child. She should not kill him. It isn't in self defense unless it's life threatening to her. It's an unfortunate event, but nothing is solved by having the abortion.
Thats the thing. You think that they do it as a solution and ive said before THEY DONT DO IT AS A SOLUTION. If a 12 year old girl gets raped and pregnant, her own life is at stake. A 12 year old isn't fully developed and it could cost her her own life to have a baby. And she isn't going to have a life, her life is going to revolve around that baby. So yes, I do believe it is more sick because the baby isn't a person yet when it is in the first trimester.
Well I believe that it is a person. And many 12 year olds would be healthy enough to survive childbirth.
My brother and I were talking about this situation. He brought up a good point. The song Brenda's got a baby by Tupac talks about a 12 year old girl getting pregnant and her life turning to prostitution and such. It is a true story. She turned to prostitution to take care of the baby and ended up throwing the baby away in the trash can. He brought up the point that if the baby survives, that baby has a very high chance of becoming a really messed up person. Turning to drugs and abuse. Main point is there are so many things that can go wrong when a woman isn't ready to have the child. And yes, many 12 years olds are healthy enough to have a child, all im saying is what if she is not? She still may decide to have the child, but you still want to take the choice away from her.
But you can't kill a person based on what could possibly happen in their future. Let's say technology becomes much more advanced: if doctors found out that by the time the child turned 8, its parents would die and it would be left an orphan, would you think that the woman would be justified in having an abortion? In life there are always what-ifs, but that doesn't mean a child should be killed just in case one of those what-ifs is realized in the future.
No but I do think that a woman should have the right to abort knowing that the child is going to be a burden on her own life or she knows she can't take care of the child. I really do respect your views and see your point but I think that in cases of rape it would be wrong to take that option away from the woman.
I also think that when it happens to someone the whole story changes. Someone on here posted about how a woman would protest about the right to life and anti-abortion but then her daughter got one and she told the people, "i dont expect you to understand my daughters situation." To someone, their own situation could be worth it, but they want to take that right away from everyone else?
Can you give a reason why it's murder? Can you give one reason why a fertilized egg, blasteocyst, or fetus that yet lacks a functioning nervous system is in any way distinct from, say, an unfertilized egg (which women kill monthly) or an ordinary skin cell (which we kill daily)? The point at which an egg becomes a baby is indeterminate - NOT absolute - and therefore declaring that the state gets to tell the women how to use her body based on an arbitrary definition of life is imposing tyranical corporal control.
Descartes argued that "I think, therefore I am." This implies that thought is existence, that thought is the foundation of life. What interpretation are you using, that a couple of cells has rights?
It's completely different from "an unfertilized egg (which women kill monthly) or an ordinary skin cell (which we kill daily)?"
It has a unique DNA sequence, which will never be repeated ever again. It is a unique human that is alread growing and developing every second. An unfertilized egg isn't growing, doesn't have its own DNA sequence, etc. The same goes for a random skin cell.
It's so much more than a couple of cells.
My heart has the DNA of a unique human being and the capability to grow and develop. But if it fails and I need a transplant, I can get one legally, and the old heart dies outside of my body. The heart is not me just because it has my DNA. I am my consciousness.
"google "help for rape victims" over 11,800,000 sources come up. Do you think that maybe they have so many sources because of the destruction it does for a women? AND it's a crime--don't forget that a viscious crime was committed and it's a travesty to make any women continue being raped for another 9 months and untold labor Here's the link, check it yourself
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=help+for+rape+victims
then after you spend some time investigating the complete harm, then ask yourself if it's ok if YOUR raped for you to bear the seed of your rapist after that.
Excuse me peppermint frost, "the wondering about the child" AFTER YOU"VE BEEN RAPED? WHAT GALAXY DO YOU LIVE ON?
HAVE YOU BEEN RAPED? HAVE YOU HAD AN ABORTION? HOW DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WOULD WONDER OR GIVE A SH*T ABOUT THE SEED FROM A RAPE" HOW DARE YOU? HOW DARE YOU!!!!
YOU only speak for yourself.
Me..I have been raped. I have survived. AND it will be over my DEAD body before I'd give birth to the rapist's child and I would NEVER ever ever wonder about the seed of that violent act.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I F*****G WONDER? I WONDER WHY MY RAPIST WASN"T ABORTED SO THAT I WOULDN"T HAVE BEEN RAPED! I WONDER WHY PEOPLE LIKE YOU FOCUS ON A BLOB IN A WOMB INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE ONES ALREADY HERE!!! I WONDER WHY YOU STAND THERE AND SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE CRIMINAL RAPES AND SEXUAL ABUSES OF INNOCENTS AND YOU DO NOTHING TO STOP IT!!! YOUR BEHAVIOR IS CONTEMPTIBLE. I WONDER HOW YOU CAN GET UP EACH DAY KNOWING ONE IN TEN GIRLS WILL BE RAPED AND YET YOU DO NOTHING TO STOP THAT HORRIBLE CRIME. YOU ARE CONTEMPTIBLE.
THE only 'seed' I would worry about is one created in a loving environment. AND I have had that type of thing happen. (An oopsy!) Sadly, it ended in miscarraige. However, that doesn't mean that in my married state that that oppsy would have been aborted. I'm not willing to have an abortion myself except in cases of rape, incest, harm to the fetus, or harm to myself. However, I'm not going to force someone else to have the same views.
Actually I do know someone who has faced guilt every day from the abortion she had following a rape. So don't tell me, how dare you. Even if at the moment if abortion the woman feels fine, she may one day realize the gravity of what she has done and regret it.
It's not a BLOB in a womb. It's a human being with unique DNA - a human that won't get the right to life because other people don't consider it to be alive. A human that could have grown up to be a Nobel prize winner, for all anyone knows.
How do you know I do nothing to stop it? Don't write things that you have nothing to back up. My own father was and is a wife beater. I could have been one of those babies aborted because of sexual abuse since my father was still beating my mom when she was pregnant with me. I'm doing my senior project on teacher students about domesti violence and how to get out of situations like that. Don't tell me I'm doing nothing about it.
Saying abortion should be illegal is not not caring about rape victims.
The bacteria my immune system kills every day have unique DNA. They are not human beings. I am not a murderer because I kill them.
The bodies in a morgue have unique human DNA. The treatments they receive are pretty extensive. In fact, they kill off any flesh that's still alive. Morgue workers are not murderers, though, because the body is not a conscious human being with a mind that can be murdered - it has no functioning nervous system.
Oh you are so full of shit, you were never even raped, idiot. Let me guess, it happened at Duke? You were a stripper hired by the Lacrosse team?
No. It happened in second grade by the gym teacher. And it happened again in middle school by the school bullies.
Grow up.
And let me add that your personal attack is unacceptable and out of line.
Let me guess...you're a guy! Let me guess another guess since you love to attack people....you're a supporter of the duke rapists. (future rapist yourself perhaps...?)
Oh be quiet. Let me guess, your a feminist? Potential whore? That person was out of line, but leave men out of this.
P.S. I think you meant to say the DUKE players, since they HAVEN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING!!
Dittohead,
How come you're so supportive of the 'alleged' duke rapists;however, there that person attacked a blogger in a personal way and you let that slide? Huh? Somehow you're angry that the person didn't use the word 'allege" however you didn't demand an apology from the person who verbally attacked her on this blog?
What kind of ethics is that? So you're ok with a person who was assaulted by a pedophile being verbally abused but you <em>must </em> support the alleged duke rapists and smear her as being a feminist. It's very interesting that you side with the person who attacked someone instead of showing sympathy and compassion for the person who was attacked. That speaks volumes!
I give you points for tact. "Oh be quiet" said to the person who responded to an uncalled for personal attack. It's so revealing to all the blog readers to see that you and your 'side' have your priorities straight. It's so nice that you revealed your true heart of compassion and your true desire to eliminate rapes and crime. And how interesting that the people who want to destroy lawyers through "tort reform" suddenly respect the law enough to protect "alleged" rapists instead of stopping the smear of victims of rape. (You must be friends with Ann Coutler too. Tell Ann Hi from those of here who actually have Christian compassion.)
<strong>If being a feminist means being against rape and against pedophiles raping children (girls and boys), then being a feminist is a darn good thing! </strong>
Signing off as:
PROUDLY A FEMINST!
I wonder if you'd treat your own mother or sister the way you treated that poster or the woman at Duke. You're clearly incapable of compassion. I find your comment discusting and immature. Please go back to freerepublic.com where that type of angry, hostile, disgusting, and maniacal response is the norm.
How many children with special needs have you adopted?
Well I'm obviously too young to adopt but I would not be unwilling to adopt a special needs child. I babysit for a family that has 2 special needs children that they adopted along with their 4 other children. Many people are drawn to adopt children with disabilities because it makes them feel so great to be giving one of these children hope of a better future and a great life. These children should not be killed.
Personally, I side with you on this. Prochoice but anti-abortion for your own private decision.
I saw another post on a different thread that spoke equally as well. The quality of life after birth, the fact that adoption centers have thousands of unadopted kids who end up in our foster care system, and the fact that couples only want to adopt "perfect littlle babies."
Good for you for making the difficult choice to keep yours. The children conceived in healthy relationships are indeed a joy. (And even some in unhealthy relationships) But the fact is that you made this decision in a private way and you support others being able to trust in the guidance from their own families and doctors to make their own decisions as well.
I am 24 and I had my daughter when I was 22. I was still in college and I wasn't sure at first if I could go through with the pregnancy, but in the end, I was glad that the choice was mine.
I never felt trapped by my pregnancy because I had chosen whether or not I wanted to carry that child.
No woman in this world needs her choices made for her by the government. We are living, breathing, rational, intelligent human beings, and all we want is to be treated as such.
To those of you who are "pro-life," why do you need the government to do your work for you? If you are right, then you should be able to convince every individual woman in this country to agree with you.
By involving the state, through this law and the others that will inevitably follow, you are telling American women that we are too stupid to know what is best for us and our bodies.
Not every woman wants to be a mother. Not every rape victim wants to carry the child of her rapist. Not every victim of incest wants to carry her father's child or her brother's child or her uncle's child.
For those who want children, pregnancy is a joy (though an uncomfortable one). For those who do not, it can be a nightmare from which there is no mental or emotional recovery.
Extend your compassion to these women, and not just to the embryos they carry. We are not cattle and we are not chattel.
Katherine,
Great comment!
I know as a person who suffered extreme morning sickness for nine months and 18 hours of labor that the 9 months can be both the best time of your life or the worst. For someone who doesn't want the child I can only imagine how awful it would be.
Also, for someone who is giving it up for adoption that too is a heartwrenching decision.
I'm giving a standing ovation for both of your posts. Beautifully said.
I've got a somewhat different reasoning however. I'm what you could call a real liberal. A European liberal. It simply means that the government should have as little power as possible, lots of freedoms for the individual citizen, andsoforth.
In other words: I just don't find it the government's duty to decide for a woman whether she'll have an abortion or not. It's non of the government's business.
I feel the same way, I just find it particularely patronizing and damaging when they interfere.
I do believe in manyof the social programs however... I've seen them help a lot of people, and I've seen them not help a lot of people enough. Limited government is good, but we shouldn't tolerate poverty or starvation because the government has no power to do anything about it.
It's why I hate it when I see all of Americas wealth going to the already rich, and the corperations, and the wars.
Oh, and thanks for the standing ovation... *curtsies loopiest ballet curtsy*
The other factor to consider is that for men, it is physically and legally easy to create a baby and leave. The weight of procreation lies easy on men. In contrast, the weight of procreation lies heavily on women. Procreation means a radical change in their bodies physically, tremendous emotional affects, immediate responsibility for an entire future of a possibly new individual, and also financial burden and limitations that can prevent also an educational future. Men, on the other hand, have a choice to leave or not and even if they don't, it is still an easier weight to bear overall. Stripping women of their right to abortion is an undeniable situation of social inequality and undercuts their right to pursue happiness.
This viewpoint seems fine to me as long as you also don't feel that the government should be able to put execute murderers, or even put them to jail, since abortion is murder, so the mother is a murderer.
abortion is not murder. prior to 25 weeks the embriyo would not be able to survive without a host.
Regarding what you are referring to, late term abortions are extremely rare and usually only done because the mother's life is at risk.
Also, peppermintfrost, I know women who have had to had late term abortions. You know why?
Well, they had to have those because the baby actually died in their womb and yet the body did not begin labor to get rid of the dead fetus.
I also know a women with the same choice, she knew her baby was dead, or so ill that it would die upon birth, yet she carried it to term. (Yes, the baby was dead when it was born.)
That's not true. Babies have survived as young as 10 weeks now with modern technology.
If the baby is already dead then I don't think it's considered abortion; it's just an extraction of a dead baby...they don't actually kill the baby. If it had a chance of being alive, though, then that is wrong in my opinion.
Ya! Finally some people standing up for the innocent babies that are mudered by their uncaring parents. When is a baby not a human being? Only when the liberals are pregnant. Go SD - protect those that can't protect themselves.
Can't protect themselves? How about a girl raped and impregnated by her father? She can't protect her self. How about a woman who is born into a horrible situation, whose husband is abusive to her, and would likely be to a child as well?
And I don't think you understand the level we care at. We care for our children ONCE THEIR OUT of the uteris! We care about their education, and environment. We care about their upbringing, and being a good parent at a good time. We care about our childrens future. That's why we shouldn't have to just pop them out into a world that can't support them and will only degrade and force them into unfulfilled lives. Is that your God's plan?
What if you were raped? Rape is a mortal crime against women. to make her carry a child nine months after a rape is a continual crime and rape of the women. I suggest you go talk to rape counselors and visit with women who have been raped before you force them to endure 9 months more of hell. And then 18 plus years after that.
Do those things give a girl the right to hurt another human being? No. With that logic, I guess any victim of a crime hs the right to kill somebody if it makes them feel better. But that isn't the case. If my uncle was murdered that wouldn't give me the right to murder his daughter. Oh, but I could say the daughter would leave me with bad memories of the murder and I wouldn't be able to raise her now that her dad died? So what? People need to sometimes deal with bad issues, but a solution is never murder.
18 years of hell? So a baby brings absolutely no joy? It would help the woman to forget about the rape and give her something to live for. The rape can never be reversed and she will always remember it whether she has the baby or not.
How can you only say you care about the baby once it's born? What makes it suddenly change the minute it's born? It's pretty much the same 1 day before the birth, but you wouldn't carea bout that life? It's viable. It could live outside of the woman's body. SO what makes it "better" once it's born?
Not a human being. A vicious side effect of a shattering event. Perhaps this baby would provide joy. For some people it might. But what about the woman who would be driven insane by it? What about the woman who might abuse the child because it's impossible to love something that reminds her SO much of the traumatic event. If you would really love that child then good for you, but don't endanger the REAL child by putting him in a home with a mother who can't love him.
You wouldn't force someone who had been brutally beaten and burned to NOT get reconstructive surgery that could help them move forward and appear normal again, I bet. Why would you force these women to bear a public tatoo of their tramatic incident? Because that is what the child would be if she kept it. Adoption? Our system is already abusive and overcrowded. We can't afford to take care of all the children who need it, why not make THAT system better before you decide to consign thousands of new babies to it?
One day before a birth, the fetus is viable, it can survive. That is the SCIENTIFIC definition of when it's a baby. Before that, it's simply a parasitic collection of cells that are growing. Do you recognize science?
I have to admit, your ignorance towards the effects of rape. I don't feel like you recognize the trauma. You look at it through rosy glasses, as though it's something that can be moved past like a bad haircut-just a little bit of time to feel better and then its normal again! I know many rape victims who are not normal, YEARS after the event. And I picture any of these women with a child, even a WANTED one, and I pity the child.
But I'm done responding. I know you aren't actaully LISTENING when I try to explain what the situation involves. Your religion won't hear otherwise.
faulty logic there peppermintfrost.
Murder of someone already breathing and eating independantly of the person is not the same as growing fetus that eats and breathes inside the body of the woman. sorry, I hate this analogy to a parasite but in essense that is what a parasite is. It can't live on it's own but requires a 'host'. But that is what a fetus is until it reaches the age of 'viability' when it can live outside the womb without the mother's nutrients. Use to be the age of viability was about 25 weeks (I belive) which is why Roe V Wade was ruled in this way.
So..your uncled gets killed by a living breathing self supporting human, then that is murder to turn around and kill him.
If you get raped, you DID not chose to have that ovum impregnated and you would rather not host that ovum at the expense of your health, then it's simple--scrape it out and implant the seed in people like you who could carry it to full term. How about that for a solution? The rape victim is allowed to chose not to host a "parasite" and YOU could HOST the genes and the result of the rape without all the growing scars.
I certainly hope you visit rape counseling places so you can see how uncompassionate your stance is.
But the fetus CAN survive on it's own by 10 weeks or earlier nowadays with advanced technology. WIth your view, is it not murder to kill a person in a coma or one who needs a respirator? Because they are "parasites" of the technology. I still would consider that murder and I'm pretty sure you'd be in a lot of trouble if you went to the hospital and started shotting those people by saying, "well, they can't support themselves so it isn't murder."
And it isn't uncompassionate. My mom was violently abused by my dad and even though I wasn't I still have many scars from witnessing that. I still don't think that gave her the right to have an abortion though.
I know of no child who is able to survive at 10 weeks old with technology. I'm sure those children end up being very very ill and probably dying young because their lungs are so under-developed. But if that's the case then give the women who wants the abortion pitocin so she goes into labor and put the baby on advance life support systems.
Regarding life support for adults: well, I'm sure you and I would disagree about living wills as well and if a person has the right to have assisted suicide anyways.
Someone in a coma or with a respirator still has a functining brain. A 10-week-old baby can feel no pain and has no mind.
Tyson...sounds like a BOY"s NAME...
Hey tyson..what if your girlfriend gets raped or your wife. How do you like the idea of her carrying another man's child? SHe probably doesn't want to if she's been raped.
Like nolie said, "are YOU going to be there to look into that baby's eyes and see the F******* rapist? aRE you going to work your butt off to pay for the clothes, education, food, medicine of this child who was not brought to this world in a LOVING way--but instead a violent act of sexual abuse? And are you going to raise the child of this crime with a child you and your wife (or girlfriend) created through a LOVING RELATIONSHIP with the same LOVE AND TENDERNESS or is there going to be something 'different' about the child from the rape that prevents you from really giving the child the 100% that he/she deserves?"
Grow up tyson.
SD is not protecting people who cant protect themselfs. they're perpetuating a crime on innocent lives.
here ya go: google says 1,160,000 sites for helping incest victims. Where's SD's laws protecting THEM? How many LIVING INNOCENT young girls are impregnated by older brothers, cousins, fathers, etc..when THEY DIDN"T ASK FOR IT?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=help+for+incest+victims
Rape and incest victims are part of those who can't protect themselfs.
AND "when is a baby not a human being" you said and answered "Only when the liberals are pregnant." WEll YOU'RE so WRONG on that--the RED STATES HAVE A HIGHER ABORTION RATE THAN THE 'LIBERAL' BLUE STATES. AND THAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED BY THE GOV'T RECORDS, HOSPITAL RECORDS! What's also documented is that the people in the red states HAVE MULTIPLE ABORTIONS whereas the people in the blue states WHEN they have an abortion it's only ONE!
Tyson...you are nothing but a person who doesn't understand the value of life because YOU TAKE THE LIVES HERE and you SLOWLY MURDER THEM by taking away jobs, food, healthcare, heat, gas, etc...and you leave people to live a terrible life before they waste away.
LIBERALS value life. You only value fetuses.
ADOPTION
Adoption is something to give a lot of thought to in 'normal' concentual sex situations. I agree with you on that. I'm particularly more supportive of open adoptions where you have a better guarentee that the child is being taken care of properly.
You're probably too young to remember the story of Lisa who was beaten and abused for all her life before her adoptive father killed her. (That was not an open adoption situation. That was a backdoor adoption.)
At any rate, I agree with you that adoption is certainly a viable option. And furthermore, I do know someone who did give her baby up for adoption through an open adoption. I'm sure it hurts, but she was too young to raise the child on her own.
Now that I'm calmer, peppermint, I apologize for my earlier rudeness. As a victim of rape, I find this whole conversation about making rape victims carry their rapist's baby incredibly vile and incredibly uncompassionate. Nonetheless, I should not have called you an idiot.
I do however hope you will go to a rape hotline center and see for yourself how aweful rape is so that when you think about this question, you have more understanding about it.
(excuse spelling errors--forgot to preview/spell check)
The issue is not whether there are other options - there clearly are. The issue is whether you are going to make them options or state mandates. Think about what the country would look like if every woman were forced under penalty of law to sacrifice nine months of her life every time an infant was conceived. Woman would be the government's incubators. Is it ethical to tell them we're going to use their body against their will? Doesn't that kind of corporal control sound a bit like rape itself? You can argue that adoption is a better option - but even that argument loses its validity if you claim that there aren't any options at all.
Weirdly most people are able to read without using capital letters.
Why do so many people call it 'murder'? Murder is killing another human being. Scientists don't agree about whether a fetus is a human being yet. Actually the 'normal' theory is that they aren't. So, how's that possible murder?
I wonder about this at times as well, but I'm wondering: Why do yóú call it murder? Is it due to science or religion?
Due to religion. Religion ignores science unfortunately.
caps= added emphasis (sometimes considered yelling.)
my caps were intentionally used for added emphasis.
The fetus has a unique DNA sequence and 64 chromosomes, making it a homo sapien. This isn't even about religion when deciding if it's human or not. The scientific facts say it is. THe only species with 64 chromosomes is homo sapiens, or humans, so you cannot even being to tell me that the baby isn't human.
It's murder because it's the killing of that human being.
A fertilized egg is a human being? I cannot logically regard a one-celled organism to have the full blown consideration and status of a human being. It is a fertilized egg to me. Nor do I regard sperm or unfertilized eggs to be human beings either even though they have human DNA.
My skin cells have 64 chromosomes, and I kill them regularly. An organ transplant doctor kills an entire semi-functional system of such cells, complete with DNA, albeit unconscious, much like an unborn fetus.
Is the word choice you want "Human" or "viable"?
those double posts were not intentional in this thread. I have no idea why they did that.
Nolie,
I know it's about religion, but I hoped they'd answer it; I was looking forward to lecture them about a little thingy called seperation of Church and State ;).
In short: seperation between Church and State people: convictions out of religion shouldn't be legislated. S.i.m.p.l.e.
(i know why you used capital letters; rhetorical question; it's a sign of being frustrated, in debates; never show whether your frustrated or not. ;)
did i use capitals? or is that directed at someone else?
Sorry, I seem to keep intercepting everyone elses messages today... oops...
Ha, sorry I didn't make myself clear enough. No, it wasn't directed at you :). It was directed to a 'guest'.
haha, well it's your blog, so every message is, in a way, also directed at you ;)
Hey; I was just thinking: Is this like one big blog owned by American students (from the same university or school or program or something)? If so; a great initiative!
No the blog is all across the u.s. It's not just one school.
I'm the guest who used the caps and I wasn't really thinking abut a debate or anything like that.
My sense is that the caps give emphasis--but in this emotional thread--the emotions can not be contained by lower case.
I think that abortion should be outlawed, but the whole rape thing is dumb. Even so, if the girl doesn't want the kid, then put it up for adoption. The baby doesn't deserve to be killed for something that wasn't their fault. They deserve a chance to live and be someone.
Do a woman's egg cells she kills monthy also deserve that chance? Just because it's a potential child doesn't mean it's life should be protected.
You act like "just put it up for adoption" is an easy thing to do. It's nine months of a woman's life, not to mention extreme pain and post-partum depression. Is it really up to the government to say "eh, it's no big deal, I don't care about your life, why not just put them all up for adoption"?
In the words of my mother "So out of the millions and millions of sperm one just happened to crawl up inside you and now you want to consider it human life?"
Yes.
Pregnancy is 100 percent avoidable. It's called "Let's not have sex yet" and "If you really loved me, you would wait with me"
Or its called "Birth Control and Condoms plus spermicidal lubricant"
There are SOOOOOOOOOOO many ways to prevent pregnancy even if you want to have sex. Would you rather spend thousands on a baby plus the 9 months, or 20 bucks on contraceptives. Hm...tough decision. ::sarcasm::
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
And if the birth control fails?
Or if the rapist isn't considerate enough to put on a condom?
I'm sorry peppermintfrost, how you cannot truly understand the trauma these women go through. I used to say the exact thing you did, how life is a blessing, how abortions should be illegal, how having the child will be great because its a reminder of what God can give you. But then something happened...and to go around knowing what happened, how you couldn't help it, asking yourself whether or not you could have prevented it...that takes months, if not years, if not a lifetime, to get over. The mental anguish that you suffer far outdoes the amount of happiness you might recieve from giving birth. The baby is a constant reminder of what happened, and flashbacks could turn harmful to the mother and her child. Adoption is risky as well, considering that many children are not adopted and end up to live a life as an outcast or in poverty...or even worse, turn to a life of crime. Flashbacks, panic attacks...all while your baby is crying and needing something else. So what happens? The birth ends up being counterproductive, and the child may be subsequent to beatings as a way of "getting revenge" upon the man who placed the child on the mother in the first place. So while I do not debate with the fact that they are a life...I would not doubt for one moment that God would not want one of His children to be born into that kind of life like that. They will be born unto someone else, if you believe in recarnation, thereby into a better life, one that they deserve.
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
Great comment, i actually agree with you on something!