Dear Baby,
Mommy can't have you, she can't bare to look into the eyes of the child of her rapist. Mommy can't stop thinking about the horrible thing which has happened to her. If I have you baby I will look at you and see the horrible look in your fathers eyes as he pulled on my hair and said "you like that you dirty whore!" Mommy will see daddy's disgusting sweaty body on top of her taking her free will as he thrusts. Although I will never forget this horrible moment in my life having you in it will make me mentally ill. You would not be born into this world with two loving parents, but with one parent who is the scum of the earth and the other parent wishing she did not have to look into your eyes. The love you should receive will not be there. Please understand baby that your life here would not be a good one, but a regreted one.
-Mommy
(I think you see my point in writing this in reply to "letter from the womb." Horribly things like rape can happen and women should have the choice to keep the baby or not.)
So instead of punishing the rapist you punish the innocent child who did absolutely nothing to deserve it. There *are* other options, like adoption.
exactly i was going to mention adoption.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
There is a terrible hunger for love.
We all experience that in our lives - the pain, the loneliness.
We must have the courage to recognize it.
The poor you may have right in your own family.
Find them.
Love them.
dear baby-- mommy is selfish. she doesn't want to deal with you. she doesn't realize that you can bring her sweetness and love that can make the crime a thing of the past. dear baby, i'm sorry you will be killed. i would have loved to kept you. I would have been a good mother to you.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
If a woman is forced to have a baby after rape, that is nine months before she is allowed to begin healing, adoption or not. Some women may be strong enough to deal with the situation, but some may not be. If the woman is strong enough to have the baby and views it as a way to make good from bad, then fine, but if the woman is so emotionally traumatized that she can't eat, sleep, or function normally at all, you are going to be the one to look her in the eye and tell her
"Look, you selfish broad, you have this baby or you're a horrible person"? If the mother seriously cannot bear to have the child, she should not have to. Rape is enough of a mental strain. Pregnancy, even a happy one, is a mental strain as well. Combine rape and an unhappy pregnancy and the result will not be some rainbows and a field of flowers.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
exactly my point to this writing... looks like these people don't realize how horrible of a thing rape can be for a woman and how it can fuck someone up mentally.
Thank you! Finally, some one understands. Stop calling the woman selfish! Whoever wrote that about her must be men because you don't have to go through pregnancy and you think "big deal, just give her up for adoption". Do you think she wants to go through the pain of pregancy and delivery on top of being raped? No. I wouldn't. I feel like I wouldn't deserve to go through the pain of giving birth while the rapist forgot all about me and raped some other girl. I would be so enraged. Stop being jerks you guys.
Dear Daughter,
You're a dirty whore but a hot one.
Bear my offspring.
What the hell was that comment about? I was right, you men don't take this seriously. For all you care, you don't care about anything but sex. Jerks. Women have to go through pain of childbirth, often pregnant because they were raped, and all you can do is sit back and make fun? Unbelievable. What are you, like 15 years old? Yeah, your brain isn't fully developed yet. Just wait until you are 45 and you have a daughter. How would you feel then?
oh li=ook at that, baby-- moomy does realize your a human growing inside of her! huh. i guess your not "just a cell' after all.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
yeah that response wasn't childish or anything. The whole point is that GOVERNMENT SHOUOLD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION. They are inflicting upon the free will of women. plain and simple. It is against the constitution and the founding principle that this country was built on.
And don't bring up the "rights of the unborn child" until you are born and receive your birth certificate, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. because until you receive that birth certificate you are NOT an American Citizen.
So stop talking about whats right and wrong for the woman to do and start thinking about what the GOVERNMENT should and shouldn't be doing.
for a full view of my opinion (which i think a lot of you should take into account.....especially "pro-life" people.....when in debate.
So here you go:
http://www.progressiveu.org/210710-abortion
ever wondered why pro-choice is called choice when the opposite of pro-life is pro-death? and there is nothing worng with sharing your opinions especially when its something youre passionate about. you don't have to be rude. that hurts. its just wrong.
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.- Mother Theresa From her National Prayer Breakfast Speech Against Abortion (1994)
~
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless....
Mother Theresa of Calc
> ever wondered why pro-choice is called choice when the
> opposite of pro-life is pro-death?
One might just as easily call the "pro-life" movement "anti-freedom." As much as some might like it to be otherwise, the simple fact is that the "pro-life" movement is based entirely on an opinion about the definition of "life" that is not objectively supportable in either a scientific or constitutional manner.
percivale
*oh look at that, baby-- mommy does realize your a human growing inside of her! huh. i guess your not "just a cell' after all.*
You basically called a person a hypocrit to their face without actually CALLING them a hypocrit. Saying something without saying it bluntly is in my opinion sarcastic and immature. I may have been rude, but at least I was stating my opinion. flat out.
we (as in a society and the government, who's responsibilty is to also ensure a separation of church and state) can tell other people not to kill each other because killing another citizen is an infliction upon his rights AS A CITIZEN. Not because they are living, because they are a CITIZEN. that's all the governemnt REALLY cares about. an unborn child DOES NOT have right's as a citizen.
There are many things Mother Theresa considered as destroyers of love and peace. Don't think an overpowerful government isn't one of them.
> we (as in a society and the government, who's responsibilty
> is to also ensure a separation of church and state) can
> tell other people not to kill each other because killing
> another citizen is an infliction upon his rights AS A
> CITIZEN. Not because they are living, because they are a
> CITIZEN.
To be fair, this isn't precisely true. Those rights which are considered to be "unalienable" are in fact afforded under the law to persons who are not citizens. The real question is when in the course of pre-natal development does a fetus become a "person," who then is possessed of the basic rights afforded to ALL persons. Historically (and even in the historical doctrines of the christian church), that demarcation was usually considered to occur at the moment of "quickening," and not at "conception."
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate when that moment actually occurs, as our understanding of pre-natal development increases.
percivale
A government does not care about your inalienable rights unless you are a citizen of that governments country.
If you left the states and murdered someone in Costa Rica and then returned to the United States, you would not be tried for murder in the US. You would be expedited and returned to Costa Rica for trial and judgment under their law. Our government would not care about the Costa Rican citizen. They would only get involved and make laws regarding the murder of it's citizens. And the only reason they would expedite you to begin with is because they also made a law stating that you are subject to the laws of another country. If you were to go to Costa Rica and there was no law (hypothetically) stating that it was illegal to kill a Costa Rican citizen, and you killed one, you could return to America scott-free. There would be no trial for you. Because as I said the government only cares about your inalienable rights as a citizen.That is who they are here to make laws for.
ETHICAL laws are to be made by God and no other.
> A government does not care about your inalienable rights
> unless you are a citizen of that governments country.
I cannot speak for what might or might not happen in Costa Rica, but in the United States we have a Constituion that requires the government to provide certain basic civil protections to everyone within our borders. There is often a disconnect between the philosophical underpinnings of that Constituion and its practical application, but the theory at least is that unalienable rights are innate to all persons, regardless to which country they swear allegiance.
> ETHICAL laws are to be made by God and no other.
Fortunately, our Constitution also protects us from those who mistakenly feel that their religion should serve as the basis of our law. To quote my favorite founder...
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1779)
percivale
When i say "doesn't care" I mean they wont deal with you in their system. THEY often won't take any action for you.
If the government cared so much about our unalienable rights "life, liberty, and the pursuit of wealth" then why are they in an uproar about citizens from Mexico coming into the U.S. to make a living (purusit of wealth). A person should have the right to live here and work here ang go to school here regardless of whether they are a citizen or not (if the government works the way you say it works, and those rights are innate to all peoples).
As far as civil protection from the government, its not because they really care. They WILL give you civil protection, but this doesn't really mean anything beyond putting you in a cell or room until they figure out where to send you off to next they won't DEAL with you. Why do you think there's refugee camps? if there are citizens of another country seeking refuge, we don't just open our doors and say "have at it. Our house is your house" we lock them away in a concentrated area behind a fence somewhere, where we keep track of everything they do, and the second issues are dealt with in their country, we send them back. They aren't allowed to stay. And the only way they ARE allowed to stay is if they become a citizen.
And I am well aware of the constitution protecting us against religion making ethical decisions (i think its an extremely good idea). I was simply playing devil's advocate to those who are "pro life" because they are focused on the ethics of the situation, not the government's role in the decision....and more often than not a pro lifer's ethical decision is based of their religious beliefs.
They don't see that government doesn't care about right or wrong in an ethics stance....they care about what is right and wrong based off of an inlfictions of a persons rights as a citizen. Ethics comes in on a personal level, whether it be from within you or from God (as some use). But regardless of where it comes from, this personal level should not be interfered with by the government.
> When i say "doesn't care" I mean they
> wont deal with you in their system.
> THEY often won't take any action for you.
Who is this "THEY" that you are taliking about? The government is a system of rules, and has no motivation of its own. It is contrained by the Constitution, and behaves accordingly unless someone subverts that process. That is why we have a Court that permits us to address such subversion, and to set the train back on the tracks as it were.
> If the government cared so much about
> our unalienable rights "life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of wealth" then why are
> they in an uproar about citizens from
> Mexico coming into the U.S. to make a
> living (purusit of wealth).
I'm not quite sure where you get "the pursuit of wealth," though I suppose it could be extrapolated from the implied right to own property. But in any case, "they" aren't in an uproar because Mexican citizens are coming here to earn a living, "they" are in an uproar because those immigrants are coming here illegally, and subverting the process (as inefficient and poorly managed as it may be) which is intented to allow entry into this country while still protecting our interests.
> A person should have the right to live
> here and work here ang go to school here
> regardless of whether they are a citizen
> or not (if the government works the way
> you say it works, and those rights are
> innate to all peoples).
The simple answer is "they do." Anyone can come here. All that is asked is that they let us know when they're coming, and wait in the same line as everyone else who wants to come. And when they get here, they have to accept the commensurate responsiblities that come with that privilege. I don't like waiting in line at the movie theater, but that doesn't permit me to just sneak in though the side door, nor does it exempt me from paying the same ticket price that everyone else has to pay.
In general, I am very sympathetic to the plight of the undocumented alien. After all, "give us your tired, your hungry, your poor" is ALSO an American value. But, I think it is more than a little absurd to suggest that it is not in a country's legitimate interest to control its own borders. "Border security" may be a republican buzz-word for the next election cycle, but it is not a phrase without meaning.
> As far as civil protection from the
> government, its not because they really
> care. They WILL give you civil protection,
> but this doesn't really mean anything
> beyond putting you in a cell or room until
> they figure out where to send you off to
> next they won't DEAL with you.
Again, the government is not a person, but a system. It has no motivations. When the system breaks down, it is because WE THE PEOPLE have failed in OUR duty to see that it runs properly.
> Why do you think there's refugee camps?
> if there are citizens of another country
> seeking refuge, we don't just open our
> doors and say "have at it. Our house is
> your house" we lock them away in a
> concentrated area behind a fence somewhere,
> where we keep track of everything they do,
> and the second issues are dealt with in
> their country, we send them back. They
> aren't allowed to stay. And the only way
> they ARE allowed to stay is if they become
> a citizen.
That's because the rights and privileges that one recieves in this country comes with a commensurate responsiblity. Accepting citizenship is a way of demonstrating that a refugee is willing to do accept that burden. As for why we have refugee camps, the answer is simply that when such a situation arises, it almost always involves a LOT of people, and such numbers are difficult to handle. And, there is also a question of sovereignty. Accepting refugees from another sovereign nation is always a tricky business, and if we want OUR sovereignty to be respected, then we have to consider the ramifications of accepting political refugees and handle those sigutaions carefully. And, the U.S. has a far more liberal stance on these situations than most other countries, despite what some might think.
> And I am well aware of the constitution
> protecting us against religion making
> ethical decisions (i think its an
> extremely good idea).
Then on this point, we can agree.
percivlae
im not even going to get into government having its own motivations or not. "they" is the people that make up the government. "we" (the contrast to "they") are not the government (no one ever said a democracy IS the people....democracy is FOR the people). we simply vote on what we think government should do.
secondly, I understand what youre saying about there being processes and protection of our borders and our people and our sovereignty and such. but the thing is is that it still uphold what I had to say. If civil rights are innate to everyone, the process would not exist. I'm not saying it would be good for those rights to be innate to everyone....it WOULD cause a lot of chaos because legalities wouldn't matter (its one of the main reasons a Utopian society would never work).
if the government really felt those rights were innate and of upmost importance (the highest ensured) our country's sovereignty would be held to the way side. There would be no lines. There would be no green cards. There would be no student visas. Basically there would be no need for citizenship (when those innate rights were coming into play).
when it comes down to it, in order to receive permanent rights from the United States, you HAVE to be a citizen, because THAT is where the true priority of the government lies (well hopefully). with its people. with its citizens. As you said before, we regulate people coming across the border to PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. We don't allow political refugees to stay because of OUR SOVEREIGNTY.
we ensure the life of our citzens and often cancel the natural rights of those who are not citizens in its wake. meaning we are not holding them equal to all. we hold them innately to our citizens and our citizens alone.
and as I said before you are not a citizen until you are born and receive your birth certificate, so therefore the government should hold upmost priority for the mother (the citizen) and allow her (and the father of the child...if he so chooses to be involved) to make the choice she chooses about her own body.
that is my point.
going back to what you had said about what we consider a person when talking in terms of abortion (because I forgot to respond to this):
I dont really see how there can still be debate about what a person is.
until a fetus can survive outside of the mother's body, I don't see how it can be considered a person. A person should not rely on another person to physically survive (and i dont mean in terms of needing to be fed...im talking about being physicall connected...needing their system to sustain your system.....and i dont want to talk about siamese twins either...thats different). A fetus can not survive on its own until after the second trimester. And even late second trimester abortions are already illegal (unless there is a medical issue) so i dont really understand what people are still debating about.
if a fetus can be considered a person just because it is conceived, then why do we not consider someone on life support a person? why is it okay to terminate life there (with permission from family/spouse), but not in the life of a fetus (with permission from family/parents)? sigh, maybe this is a separate debate all in its own.....and again with the skinny boxes.... ithink we have a couple more turn arounds before they get too skinny tho, so if you wanna respond go ahead. FaithHope isnt evene involved in any of this and shes the one i commented to >.< hehe so now im not really trying to argue (sometimes religious people irk me and i was still fueling off of her comment when you jumped in, so sorry if you got the sharp end of that stick), im simpy here for friendly debate.
plus i never asked you whether or not you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" (funny how the sides aren't really the opposite of each other, but are still considered opposite sides....) or maybe you're neutral....??
Perhaps that might be true in a democracy. But, the U.S. is no such animal. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The essential differnce between the two is that unlike a democracy, a republic has a pre-established set of rules that is protected from the will of the mob, and which cannot be just changed on a whim.
I think you are extending the concept of "innate civil rights" beyond the scope of those rights which the American mythos exthols as "unalienable." In the 14th Amendment, the Constitution refers to the "rights and privileges" of citizenship. This is an important concept. Another important concept is the understanding that unalienable nature of certain rights is a two-way street. If you wish to exercise your liberty by kidnapping your neighbor, the government prevents you because your right to liberty does not include the right to violate HIS right to liberty.
> if the government really felt those rights were innate
> and of upmost importance (the highest ensured) our
> country's sovereignty would be held to the way side.
That would only be the case if all other government felt the same way about those rights. But since they do not, we have formed a country that DOES respect those rights (in theory, at least). If we lived in a "perfect" world, we wouldn't NEED laws, or governments, or citizenships. But we don't, and thus we are left to do the best we can within the territory that we can reasonably control.
And yes, we are a country. Yes, we have citizens. No, non-citizens do not enjoy all of the same privileges that citizens enjoy. But they DO enjoy the most basic rights, i.e. those that are considered unalienable. When an ILLEGAL immigrant is restrained, it is not because he does not have rights, but rather because he has infringed upon the rights of others in a criminal fashion. And like any criminal, he can reasonably then be incarcerated, and deported.
As for the idea that we "often cancel the natural rights of those who are not citizens...we are not holding
them equal to all," I have to disagree. We are treating criminal immigrants the same way we treat criminal citizens. If a citizen breaks the law, he pays the price for breaking the law. The same goes for those who break the law coming across our border. However sympathetic I may be for the reasons that drive so many people to cross the border illegally into our country, the fact remains that their actions are unlawful and violate the rights of everyone else in this country.
But turning back to the topic of the thread, my position throught these debates has consistently held that the government should not interfere in the mother's choice regarding whether or not to have an abortion until such time as the child can legitimately be held to be possessed of the rights of human personhood--that point being usually construed somewhere between the end of the first and the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy.
percivale
"Perhaps that might be true in a democracy. But, the U.S. is no such animal. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The essential differnce between the two is that unlike a democracy, a republic has a pre-established set of rules that is protected from the will of the mob, and which cannot be just changed on a whim."
Detail: A Republic is just a government with representatives from different regions making decisions in an assembly. Rome was a Republic, but had no Constitution. We're a constitutional republic, and a Democratic Republic because the choose those representatives rather than the existing government appointing them.
That's all. Carry on.
Punish an innocent child? I was under the assumption that abortion takes place on a bunch of cells with no developed brain capable of thought or free will........my mistake.
After seeing no less that a half-dozen of these "letters" to and from "the womb" over the last few weeks, I have finally had enough. A fetus in the early stages of development cannot read, nor can it write a letter. This fact might seem rather rediculously obvious, but it speaks to the absurdity of this kind of emotion-based rhetoric.
The bottom line is that the question of abortion is a LEGAL issue. And, just thinking something is "wrong" is not a sufficient reason to make the practice illegal. To quote the Court in Roe v. Wade...
> "We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and
> emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous
> opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and
> seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's
> philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of
> human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life
> and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes
> and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's
> thinking and conclusions about abortion.
>
> In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial
> overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
>
> Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional
> measurement, FREE OF EMPTION AND OF PREDILECTION. We
> seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we have inquired
> into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and
> medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's
> attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We
> bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-
> vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):
>
> '[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing
> views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and
> familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our
> judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them
> conflict with the Constitution of the United States.'"
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=...
The kinds of arguments that we see in these blogs are utterly without rational merit. Instead, these "letters" are merely attempts to confound the dispassionate consideration of the issue, and to obscure the law with irrelevancies. When you engage in emotion-laden argumentation, you poison your own cause, since the Courts do not permit the law to be decided on the basis of feelings or other unsubstatiatable quantities.
If you are pro-life, then your only hope to prevail in this argument is to provide objective, dispassionate PROOF that the core premise of your argument, i.e. that "human life AND personhood (including all of the rights so associated) begins at the moment of conception." And, you are going to have to accept that your religion will never be capable of meeting that standard in a country that specifically prohibits the law from allowing you to dictate the religious bliefs of others.
If you are pro-choice, you are in a somewhat stronger position of course, since the law currently supports your position. However, when you choose to engage the opponents of choice, you need to realize that you will never convince them by engaging an irrational argument with more of the same.
percivale
You anti-abortion people are fucked up. You protect a ball of a couple cells, but you dont care to help or advocate help for the starving people of Africa who already feel pain, the is genocide in Darfur, and there are wars you wage that kill people and you freak out because of a fucking ball of cells that may have reasons you could not possibly know for getting an abortion. You have no idea how hard it is to have an abortion. Its not like getting a 5 minute oil change you do as an afterthought.
Oh, and how would you know? Have you ever had one? Or did your girlfriend get one?
Explain to me how you figure that you're against people saying the woman is selfish above, but then argue against someone saying that an abortion is difficult here... it makes no sense.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!