RAPE PREGNANCIES 'SOMETHING THAT GOD INTENDED'

cincybearcat

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, pro-choice people are forgetting about the child. Not surprising though.

...
Tell you what... we'll make a deal.
When the Anti-Abortion crew starts caring and providing for the mother and her child that need financial assistance after the fetus is born into this world... then, I, as a Pro-Choice advocate, will support the rights of the unborn.
Deal?

Haha, the usual bs response. Deflect. And you are lumping a whole lot of people together there and making a huge assumption as well.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't consider it a child, so no, I'm not...

i agree.

a zygote is not a child. an embryo can not survive on it's own outside the mother's body, so it is not a child. it is not physiologially equipped to do so. if anything, it acts as a parasite since it is 100% dependent on the mom. if the mom dies, the fetus dies, unless it is far enough along to be kept alive by machines.

an embryo, a very young fetus, they are not people, and should not be given the rights of personhood until they reach a certain age in utero. especially at the expense of the rights of the mother, who is a real and mature person.

Again, your opinion. Without a specific act to stop that life it will be born a child. That's my opinion.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

comebackgirl wrote:

And in considering all this I think it's important to consider the impact of a rape on a survivor and the aftermath that she and a potential child will face. Victims are:
3 times more likely to suffer from depression
6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder
13 times more likely to abuse alcohol
26 times more likely to abuse drugs
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide

I don't know if its been studied, so I don't have information on how those rates are impacted should a survivor become pregnant as a result of rape and have the choice of how to proceed with the pregnancy taken away. We know that empowerment spurs healing while disempowerment stunts healing. It has to be a choice. All of the a above can impact the ability to bond with a child and parent. The environment the child is born into shouldnt be discounted. That's not to say that a survivor can't be a wonderful and loving mother. Many that make that choice are.

"Make that choice."

For those women that choose to assume the burden that was violently placed upon them and wish to have the child... good for them.

For those that did not wish for the burden and choose abortion so that they might be able to try and continue on the path they had selected for themselves before the violent intrusion... good for them.

I support either woman and truly regret that women have to deal with rape trauma inflicted upon them from one of my gender. I apologize for the conduct of these men and support any measures we can put in place to assist them with efforts to deal with healing.

There is a wide range of value systems on this planet. I find it troubling that some can so easily frown upon the values of some while righteously working to impose their values upon others.

comebackgirl

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

And in considering all this I think it's important to consider the impact of a rape on a survivor and the aftermath that she and a potential child will face. Victims are:
3 times more likely to suffer from depression
6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder
13 times more likely to abuse alcohol
26 times more likely to abuse drugs
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide

I don't know if its been studied, so I don't have information on how those rates are impacted should a survivor become pregnant as a result of rape and have the choice of how to proceed with the pregnancy taken away. We know that empowerment spurs healing while disempowerment stunts healing. It has to be a choice. All of the a above can impact the ability to bond with a child and parent. The environment the child is born into shouldnt be discounted. That's not to say that a survivor can't be a wonderful and loving mother. Many that make that choice are.

"Make that choice."

For those women that choose to assume the burden that was violently placed upon them and wish to have the child... good for them.

For those that did not wish for the burden and choose abortion so that they might be able to try and continue on the path they had selected for themselves before the violent intrusion... good for them.

I support either woman and truly regret that women have to deal with rape trauma inflicted upon them from one of my gender. I apologize for the conduct of these men and support any measures we can put in place to assist them with efforts to deal with healing.

There is a wide range of value systems on this planet. I find it troubling that some can so easily frown upon the values of some while righteously working to impose their values upon others.

The choice is so important. The survivor has had her body objectified once by the rape...it shouldn't be objectified again by having the choice taken away. Being re-victimized will add to the survivor's trauma and impact her ability to bond and attach with the baby...which dramatically impacts the development of the child. The life of the child after birth has to be considered too.

We all play a role in creating a culture that doesn't tolerate sexual violence...men and women. With the number of rapes so high and the numbers of abortions reportedly connected to rape so low...it seems like the political focus is shifted in the wrong direction.

Men (and women) like you and pretty much everyone on this thread who are supportive of survivors and their needs do so much to help survivors with their healing

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I am pro choice. But I keep hearing all this stuff about "it's not a child if it can't live on its own independent of its mother". My girls couldn't, and still can't live independent of us, and they are 6 and 3.

a newborn is a human, but if its mother dies, it's dead. unless someone else takes care of it.

grooveme

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I am pro choice. But I keep hearing all this stuff about "it's not a child if it can't live on its own independent of its mother". My girls couldn't, and still can't live independent of us, and they are 6 and 3.

a newborn is a human, but if its mother dies, it's dead. unless someone else takes care of it.

The difference is that only the mother's body can take care of a previable fetus. Someone else could take of your children.

smithnic

Tina Fey said it best:

"If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar hair cut explain to me what rape is, I'm gonna lose my mind."

No male ever should ever have an opinion on this other than holy shit, rape is horrible and should be punishable to the full extent of the law. Everything else just makes you look stupid.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't consider it a child, so no, I'm not...

i agree.

a zygote is not a child. an embryo can not survive on it's own outside the mother's body, so it is not a child. it is not physiologially equipped to do so. if anything, it acts as a parasite since it is 100% dependent on the mom. if the mom dies, the fetus dies, unless it is far enough along to be kept alive by machines.

an embryo, a very young fetus, they are not people, and should not be given the rights of personhood until they reach a certain age in utero. especially at the expense of the rights of the mother, who is a real and mature person.

Again, your opinion. Without a specific act to stop that life it will be born a child. That's my opinion.

Actually, a lot of them miscarry. Miscarriage rates are quite high during the early stages of pregnancy (75% in the first 2 weeks, 31% in weeks 3 - 4, 10% in weeks 5 - 6, and so on) because fetuses that age aren't really viable life, and it's a crap shoot as to whether or not it will manage to become viable.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, your opinion. Without a specific act to stop that life it will be born a child. That's my opinion.

my opinion is based on science and physiology.

a zygote will not develop into a human being if not for the mother's body allowing it to do so. it is not a person. it is a collection of cells. it is not a human being. the potential to become a human being is there, but it is not a human being yet.

by your rationale every woman who has had an abortion, even in the first trimester, is a murderer. every woman who has used plan b is a murderer, and every woman who took plan b as a precaution after sex and did not have a fertilized egg is an attempted murderer...

gimmesometruth27

these are zygotes. they are not human beings yet. they have the potential to become human beings, but they aren't yet. do you know how many of these are lost every day simply by natural causes?

gimmesometruth27

i just saw this and am not sure if anyone posted this already. if it has been posted, apologies for the double post...


God Distances Self From Christian Right

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-di ... ght,30087/




THE HEAVENS—Responding to inflammatory remarks made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock during a debate Tuesday night, Our Lord God the Almighty Father sought today to distance Himself from both Mourdock and the entire right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement, sources confirmed.

“I want to make one thing absolutely clear: Mr. Mourdock’s comments from last night in no way reflect my position on this or any other issue,” said the Divine Creator, speaking at a press conference this afternoon to address Mourdock’s remarks that rape-induced pregnancies were God’s intent. “And furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to say definitively that I, God, do not officially sanction or condone the words or actions of anyone involved in the fanatical, conservative Christian faction that Mr. Mourdock represents.”

“Many people hear my name in connection with the Christian Right and start to assume we are aligned in some capacity, and I’m here to say, for the record, that we are not,” God continued. “So let me just be clear: I don’t want women to get raped—not ever. I don’t think their resulting pregnancies are my divine will. And if a woman is raped, then she has the right to get an abortion, period. I do not agree with Mourdock. I do not agree with the Christian Right. End of story.”

Calling Mourdock’s comments “the last straw,” the Lord Our Maker explained that while in the past there have been a few areas where He and the religious Right have been in agreement, more often than not, in recent years, He and Christian conservatives have grown “actually quite far apart” on a wide range of issues.

God then went on to cite several incidents—ranging from the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God Hates Fags” campaign to Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s remark this year that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant—as examples of what He described as “an unmistakable and disturbing trend toward intolerance that I do not support.”

“What these people are saying betrays a worldview that is, frankly, completely different from my own, and it embarrases me to even hear my name mentioned alongside theirs,” God told reporters, emphatically. “For example, I’m not into capital punishment at all, or really killing in general, so I’m not sure where that whole talking point came from. On the same token, I don’t like guns very much, and I certainly wouldn’t say that everyone has a right to own guns—that’s absurd. Unlike Mr. Mourdock and many Christian Republicans, I agree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists that global warming poses a major threat to the planet and must be addressed. I also believe stem cell research is very useful, and I think that if you’re gay, that’s fine by me.”

“Even on some economic issues we don’t quite see eye-to-eye,” continued the Eternal One, a self-described Keynesian who said He has “serious doubts” about the merits of trickle-down economics. “And, you know, a lot of this stuff is in the Ten Commandments, too, so I’m already on record as being not in agreement with a good majority of the Christian Right’s views. In fact, in the future, if people could just refrain from grouping us together in any way, I think that would be ideal.”

“That includes members of the Christian Right themselves—if they could stop talking about me entirely, that would be preferable,” God added. “In the end, probably best if we just completely went our separate ways here.”

At press time, God’s son, Jesus Christ, offered a countering view and confirmed He strongly believes pregnancies resulting from rape are, in fact, God’s gift.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, pro-choice people are forgetting about the child. Not surprising though.

...
Tell you what... we'll make a deal.
When the Anti-Abortion crew starts caring and providing for the mother and her child that need financial assistance after the fetus is born into this world... then, I, as a Pro-Choice advocate, will support the rights of the unborn.
Deal?

Haha, the usual bs response. Deflect. And you are lumping a whole lot of people together there and making a huge assumption as well.

...
Glad you liked that... it was meant to be tongue in cheek because I know that is never going to happen... so, I don't have to worry about dragging my ass down to the free clinic to shout at a 16 year old through a bullhorn, "YOU'RE A MURDERER!!!".
The sad part about jokes... the truth within them. Many... not ALL... of the Anti-Abortion types are also the SAME people that rag on those kids families that are born into poverty and Welfare and are given the handle, 'free-loaders'. It's like they only care about the fetus.. not the child that develops from it.
And hey... if I'm wrong here, by all means, show me the light of truth and I'll change my opinions.

know1

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, pro-choice people are forgetting about the child. Not surprising though.

...
Tell you what... we'll make a deal.
When the Anti-Abortion crew starts caring and providing for the mother and her child that need financial assistance after the fetus is born into this world... then, I, as a Pro-Choice advocate, will support the rights of the unborn.
Deal?

So if I buy a fancy new car that I can't afford, should I expect the public to offer me financial assistance?

(Cue the comments about comparing a baby to a car)

BinFrog

know1 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, pro-choice people are forgetting about the child. Not surprising though.

...
Tell you what... we'll make a deal.
When the Anti-Abortion crew starts caring and providing for the mother and her child that need financial assistance after the fetus is born into this world... then, I, as a Pro-Choice advocate, will support the rights of the unborn.
Deal?

So if I buy a fancy new car that I can't afford, should I expect the public to offer me financial assistance?

(Cue the comments about comparing a baby to a car)

If you were told you had to buy a fancy new car, even though you knew you couldn't even afford the gas to keep it going, let alone the excise taxes and registration fees, then you're damn right you'd want assistance.

"You are not allowed to say no to owning this car, but once you own it you are on your own. We don't want to help any of you out at that point. You damn leeches"

I love the Republican view:

The life of the baby trumps the life of the mother. We don't want the mother to choose, but once her baby is born we don't want any entities in place to help her out. So she'll end up destitute and her child won't have a chance in life. But hey, that's her fault, right? She shouldn't have had sex. It's a sin outside of marriage.

(And then when my daughter gets pregnant, my political affiliations fall by the wayside: you're damn well right I'll find a way to secretly get her an abortion. I only stand behind my views as they pertain to the general public. I am immune from my political views affecting my private life.)

know1

BinFrog wrote:

know1 wrote:

So if I buy a fancy new car that I can't afford, should I expect the public to offer me financial assistance?

(Cue the comments about comparing a baby to a car)

If you were told you had to buy a fancy new car, even though you knew you couldn't even afford the gas to keep it going, let alone the excise taxes and registration fees, then you're damn right you'd want assistance.

"You are not allowed to say no to owning this car, but once you own it you are on your own. We don't want to help any of you out at that point. You damn leeches"

I love the Republican view:

The life of the baby trumps the life of the mother. We don't want the mother to choose, but once her baby is born we don't want any entities in place to help her out. So she'll end up destitute and her child won't have a chance in life. But hey, that's her fault, right? She shouldn't have had sex. It's a sin outside of marriage.

(And then when my daughter gets pregnant, my political affiliations fall by the wayside: you're damn well right I'll find a way to secretly get her an abortion. I only stand behind my views as they pertain to the general public. I am immune from my political views affecting my private life.)

Outside of rape, who is telling someone they have to procreate?

And personally I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but I'm not saying the government shouldn't help those who really need it.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree.

a zygote is not a child. an embryo can not survive on it's own outside the mother's body, so it is not a child. it is not physiologially equipped to do so. if anything, it acts as a parasite since it is 100% dependent on the mom. if the mom dies, the fetus dies, unless it is far enough along to be kept alive by machines.

an embryo, a very young fetus, they are not people, and should not be given the rights of personhood until they reach a certain age in utero. especially at the expense of the rights of the mother, who is a real and mature person.

Again, your opinion. Without a specific act to stop that life it will be born a child. That's my opinion.

Actually, a lot of them miscarry. Miscarriage rates are quite high during the early stages of pregnancy (75% in the first 2 weeks, 31% in weeks 3 - 4, 10% in weeks 5 - 6, and so on) because fetuses that age aren't really viable life, and it's a crap shoot as to whether or not it will manage to become viable.

Natural causes. Are you and gimmie telling me that you really don;t see a difference between natural causes ending a pregnancy and a specific act ending that pregnancy? Really?

BinFrog

know1 wrote:

Outside of rape, who is telling someone they have to procreate?

And personally I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but I'm not saying the government shouldn't help those who really need it.

Really? That's your argument? You've never had sex for, oh, I don't know...fun? Accidents happen. Someone gets pregnant by accident and your response is "tough shit"?

know1

BinFrog wrote:

know1 wrote:

Outside of rape, who is telling someone they have to procreate?

And personally I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but I'm not saying the government shouldn't help those who really need it.

Really? That's your argument? You've never had sex for, oh, I don't know...fun? Accidents happen. Someone gets pregnant by accident and your response is "tough shit"?

My response is don't murder.

But even if I bought the argument that the baby wasn't a life, I still think it's wrong to to be so irresponsible with sex that you risk a significant medical procedure to correct your "accident".

BinFrog

know1 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

know1 wrote:

Outside of rape, who is telling someone they have to procreate?

And personally I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but I'm not saying the government shouldn't help those who really need it.

Really? That's your argument? You've never had sex for, oh, I don't know...fun? Accidents happen. Someone gets pregnant by accident and your response is "tough shit"?

My response is don't murder.

But even if I bought the argument that the baby wasn't a life, I still think it's wrong to to be so irresponsible with sex that you risk a significant medical procedure to correct your "accident".

And my response is: I get your viewpoint. (I'm also guessing there is some sort of religious moral backbone to it, but I could be wrong)

If you find yourself in a situation where you have an oopsy after having sex, then it is your choice to not have an abortion. No-one is saying you have to. I don't want my president or state government telling me what my girlfriend/wife/etc can or cannot do to her body in these situations.

Any argument about abortion is strictly religious or moral/ethical at its core. That's the problem. Pro-choicers aren't going around bombing delivery wards and chastising women to go through with pregnancies. Pro-choicers think about the issue as a choice. Pro-lifers think about this issue as right vs wrong.