RAPE PREGNANCIES 'SOMETHING THAT GOD INTENDED'

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

is there specified law on when the unborn is actually considered human? what if a woman were to kill her unborn child at say 35 weeks? is it murder, or illegal late term abortion?

I think people use the wrong terminology in this debate. "Human" and "life" are not the issues. Lots of things are human and/or are alive. My big toe is human - I mean, what else would it be? It's not feline or alien or something. And my dinner salad is alive.

It's really a question of personhood. And we become people, with the legal rights of people, when we are born. Several states have recently tried to create laws re-defining personhood as beginning at some point before birth - most (or all?) of them saying it begins at conception. But they have all been struck down in the courts. So, no, ending the life of an unborn "child" is not legally considered murder anywhere in the United States; in the cases where it's illegal (and the legality of it varies by state), it would be considered illegal abortion.

Your toe is not a human, it is a human body part. And we aren't talking about killing lettuce here.

But, I know that people have be charged with murder or an additional count if they cause a woman to lose her child or if they killed a pregnant woman. I just don;t know if they ever held up. You are telling me that they have not? So, if someone punches a pregnant lady in the stomach resulting in the unborn child never being born...it;s not murder, it's just assault?

I believe so. If you find out something to the contrary, let me know. (And I didn't say my toe was "a" human; I just said it's human, which was the question.)

ETA: Why aren't we talking about killing lettuce if we're really so concerned about "life"? It's because we're not really concerned about life. People who claim to be are actually only concerned about a very specific, small segment of life. That's fine, but my point was/is that their terminology is inappropriate.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

So they need to just drop the bullshit act and admit that their positions are in no way based on concern for the well being of pregnant women, but that they in fact actually (nearly) completely disregard their well being.

Well, I think it isn't complete bullshit. I think there are those that are legitimately concerned about the mental tool and somewhat the physical tool that an abortion can take on a woman.

But in reality, I would say that most of it is about defending the life of what they believe to be a child.

which, approx. 50% are/will be women after all.

Those people who say they are trying to defend the mental and/or physical health of pregnant women are either lying or are willfully misinformed. It is a well-documented fact that abortion is considerably physically safer than childbirth. And there is consensus among the professional psychiatric & psychological communities that there is no evidence that abortion causes increased risk of harm to pregnant women's mental health and, further, that abortion as an option is in the best interest of women's mental health.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

[
I believe so. If you find out something to the contrary, let me know. (And I didn't say my toe was "a" human; I just said it's human, which was the question.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic ... olence_Act

The really stupid thing is that anyone would be against this. I would think that if the mother wants the child (made a choice) then it would be murder. But I guess they are afraid of legal interpretations, etc. BUt really, if it is "pro-choice", there is still a choice being made here.

pandora

When these representatives misspeak like this there is a positive effect,
we see it solidify the fact that choice must remain. This is most basic
and common sense. I find it odd that rape and incest abortions are being attacked,
that the goal for change is here when that is when abortion is most needed
undeniably.

One would think pro lifers would work harder on limits on abortions to save lives
like states opting out making them illegal within their borders, prohibiting
any federal funds at all and stricter length of gestation.
Abortion is here to stay.
It would be nice to see more education, public announcements, options,
opportunity, funding, towards carrying a new life
and giving that new life to people who want to be parents.
There are still people who want to be parents right? :?

I know it's a lot of work, challenging, frustrating, but it is a love like you'll never know.

Maybe love is going out of style and me me me is take take taking over.

Is that written somewhere?

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

ETA: Why aren't we talking about killing lettuce if we're really so concerned about "life"? It's because we're not really concerned about life. People who claim to be are actually only concerned about a very specific, small segment of life. That's fine, but my point was/is that their terminology is inappropriate.

Oh shit you got me. I don;t give a rats ass about a head of lettuce's life. Busted.


Really? A small, specific segment? Wow. This is the most bizarre statement I have ever seen regarding this issue, and coming from you it is really surprising to me as you are generally reasonable. But that is just batshit crazy talk.

polaris_x

this is why the debate is futile ...

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

Those people who say they are trying to defend the mental and/or physical health of pregnant women are either lying or are willfully misinformed. It is a well-documented fact that abortion is considerably physically safer than childbirth. And there is consensus among the professional psychiatric & psychological communities that there is no evidence that abortion causes increased risk of harm to pregnant women's mental health and, further, that abortion as an option is in the best interest of women's mental health.

Yeah, there is no way that a woman that has an abortion would ever regret it someday and struggle with the reality of what has occurred. Never.

And condoms/bc/etc are all physically safer and less mental stress than an abortion so exactly what is your point in continuing to compare birth to abortion?

Anyhow that is hardly the main purpose anyhow, as we have discussed many times it is whether or not the fetus/etc is a baby. Bottom line. Cause if it is, abortion is way more hazardous than any child birth.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

this is why the debate is futile ...

Go plant a tree.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

this is why the debate is futile ...

Go plant a tree.

the question is ... at what point will the seed i plant become a "living" organism that i can cry murder to those that want my tree gone? ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

this is why the debate is futile ...

Go plant a tree.

the question is ... at what point will the seed i plant become a "living" organism that i can cry murder to those that want my tree gone? ...

It's a tree, no one cares!

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

[
I believe so. If you find out something to the contrary, let me know. (And I didn't say my toe was "a" human; I just said it's human, which was the question.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic ... olence_Act

The really stupid thing is that anyone would be against this. I would think that if the mother wants the child (made a choice) then it would be murder. But I guess they are afraid of legal interpretations, etc. BUt really, if it is "pro-choice", there is still a choice being made here.

Thanks. I guess I forgot that got signed. I don't think it's at all stupid, though, for people to think this is an anti-choice move toward banning abortion - given that they have specifically said that's their strategy.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

ETA: Why aren't we talking about killing lettuce if we're really so concerned about "life"? It's because we're not really concerned about life. People who claim to be are actually only concerned about a very specific, small segment of life. That's fine, but my point was/is that their terminology is inappropriate.

Oh shit you got me. I don;t give a rats ass about a head of lettuce's life. Busted.


Really? A small, specific segment? Wow. This is the most bizarre statement I have ever seen regarding this issue, and coming from you it is really surprising to me as you are generally reasonable. But that is just batshit crazy talk.

My point has nothing to do with abortion. My point has to do with language. I hate it when language is used incorrectly, particularly when people do it to misrepresent their positions. I just don't think people should claim to support "life" in general when that's not true.

So are you actually arguing that the human fetus accounts for a large proportion of all living things in the universe? :? Clearly it doesn't.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

Those people who say they are trying to defend the mental and/or physical health of pregnant women are either lying or are willfully misinformed. It is a well-documented fact that abortion is considerably physically safer than childbirth. And there is consensus among the professional psychiatric & psychological communities that there is no evidence that abortion causes increased risk of harm to pregnant women's mental health and, further, that abortion as an option is in the best interest of women's mental health.

Yeah, there is no way that a woman that has an abortion would ever regret it someday and struggle with the reality of what has occurred. Never.

And condoms/bc/etc are all physically safer and less mental stress than an abortion so exactly what is your point in continuing to compare birth to abortion?

Anyhow that is hardly the main purpose anyhow, as we have discussed many times it is whether or not the fetus/etc is a baby. Bottom line. Cause if it is, abortion is way more hazardous than any child birth.

Sorry; I got busy at work yesterday & didn't have a chance to finish catching up on this thread.

Just because some woman somewhere might some day feel bad about her about, it does not in any way indicate an increased risk of poor mental health outcomes caused by abortion. I'm pretty sure you understand this. Women also regret their decisions to continue pregnancies but, once again, we don't see anyone trying to ban childbirth over it. So an uneducated belief that abortion causes emotional trauma is not a legitimate or sincere reason to want to ban abortion. (People who are actually sincere in their concern for the well being of pregnant women would actually choose to learn the facts about it.)

Are you serious in asking what my point is in continuing to compare birth to abortion? Because one of the major frustrations with conversations about abortion policy (and I mean at the legislative level, not at the online forum level) is that anti-abortion advocates make wildly inaccurate assertions about risk by making invalid comparisons. I'm pretty sure they're doing it just to trick people with their misrepresentations - but now you're doing the same thing. So are you just trying to be clever, like all the trolls in legislatures & online forums who don't actually care about the truth? Or are you, who I've always thought of as a pretty intelligent guy, sincere in not understanding why I keep comparing the risk of abortion to that of childbirth instead of to the risk of birth control? I'm being serious.

In case your question is serious, here's the answer: Abortion policy affects pregnant women. It answers the question, "Now that I'm pregnant, what choices do I have?" The answer is, "You can choose abortion or you can choose childbirth." Those are the only two options that are physically possible. Going back in time & never having gotten pregnant is not an option no matter how much everyone would like it to be. There are only two options. We were discussing the fact that there is a group of people who wold like to remove abortion as a legal choice & they say it's because abortion is physically & emotionally risky to the pregnant woman. But if a pregnant woman can't have an abortion, the only remaining possible option is childbirth. If one doesn't happen, the other necessarily will. So a true assessment of risk - as any doctor or scientist or statistician will tell you - must compare the risk of abortion to the risk of childbirth. Since birth control is not physically possible at this point, any comparison to its risk is invalid. That's why all of the so-called studies that use women who aren't pregnant as the control group are invalid. It's the same with ANY other assessment of medical risk.

Although, I'll give you credit by acknowledging that that people do have trouble understanding risk assessment in general. For instance, I had a friend who needed a hysterectomy, but of course she had to decide whether to do it. She came to me with all the stats about the risk of hysterectomy & they scared her. But she was failing to consider the risk of NOT getting a hysterectomy, which were much greater. By your logic with birth control, though, she should have instead been comparing the risk of hysterectomy with the risk of never having gotten endometriosis to begin with. Or, it's like if I have appendicitis and have to choose whether to have an appendectomy and they tell me my options are (1) to get an appendectomy, or (2) to not have gotten appendicitis to begin with. But I DO have appenditicit. So, really, my choices are (1) to get an appendectomy, or (2) to proceed with my appendicitis & its inevitable outcome.

Regarding your last sentence, this conversation is about anti-choice accusations of risk to the pregnant woman. No need to change the subject.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

This question I asked several pages ago was never answered. I thought it was a fair one. I am curious to know why? It's directly related to the topic:

Let's say my daughter is going to university to pursue a career. She has a serious boyfirend. Then... she is attacked and is brutally raped and impregnated.

Can people honestly tell me that if she wishes to abort the pregnancy because she wishes to continue on her career path, life path with her partner, and doesn't want the 'curse' forcefully thrust into her that she is wrong to think this way?

Further... if she then faces life as a single mother given that the boyfriend doesn't want to raise some criminal's child... tough shit? Is the boyfriend indebted to service the child as a father as well? Is he bound by ideology to be responsible for fathering the child given that it at least appears a union of the two was likely... or does he have an 'out' given his body isn't involved?

Can people honestly say that this scenario is a 'gift from God' and that my daughter should rejoice having been given it? If not 'rejoicing'... then what should the term be? Lamenting... but move forward and have the child regardless? That sounds promising.

gimmesometruth27

well it is pretty much a mathematical certainty that the guy who made these comments at the debate is going to lose the election. i saw yesterday that he was trailing by as much as 11% and by as little as 7%....

the libertarian candidate is going to syphon votes away from him...

comebackgirl

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

This question I asked several pages ago was never answered. I thought it was a fair one. I am curious to know why? It's directly related to the topic:

Let's say my daughter is going to university to pursue a career. She has a serious boyfirend. Then... she is attacked and is brutally raped and impregnated.

Can people honestly tell me that if she wishes to abort the pregnancy because she wishes to continue on her career path, life path with her partner, and doesn't want the 'curse' forcefully thrust into her that she is wrong to think this way?

Further... if she then faces life as a single mother given that the boyfriend doesn't want to raise some criminal's child... tough shit? Is the boyfriend indebted to service the child as a father as well? Is he bound by ideology to be responsible for fathering the child given that it at least appears a union of the two was likely... or does he have an 'out' given his body isn't involved?

Can people honestly say that this scenario is a 'gift from God' and that my daughter should rejoice having been given it? If not 'rejoicing'... then what should the term be? Lamenting... but move forward and have the child regardless? That sounds promising.

I wonder about this too...and asked similar questions on a different thread a while back. A lot of women put a lot of planning into deciding to become pregnant and raising a family..there is no question that pregnancy itslef is life altering. I've had several friends who had complicated pregnancies and had to be on bed rest...were out of work for months as a result. That was tough enough to do for children they planned to have and pregnancies they wanted. They had to take extended leaves from work, go out on short term disability, use up vacation and sick days etc. Fortunately they had access to those things as well as quality health insurance. Even with a healthy pregnancy and a normal maternity leave there is a lot of planning that goes into it, planning for loss of work, loss of wages, time off for doctor's visits, etc. For 9 months your life changes pretty dramatically. Some women's physical and mental health is permanently changed as a result of pregnancy and child birth. And this is just for the pregnancy itself...not even getting into raising a child or going through the adoption process. And what if she and her partner were planning to have a child of their own? Do they put that on hold for 9 months (plus recovery time)...or toss that out the window and decide to raise the rapist's child as their own...with his DNA and the potential that he could sue for parental rights? Is her partner willing to go to all of the doctor's visits with her, look at the utlrasounds of a growing fetus that is not his own? Is he willing to compensate for any financial losses that she incurs as a result of the pregnancy? And if she can't bond with the child because of PTSD or postpartum depression, is he willing to step in to become the primary caregiver, taking over feedings, etc for a child that is not his own? Can he love and raise a child without looking for the rapist within him/her? If the marriage fails will he pay support for a child that is not his own and continue in a parental role? I know a lot of men do this in stepparent situations, but it may be more complicated if the child is a product of rape. What if they can't afford a child or for various reasons had decided to not have children of their own...but now didn't have a choice in the conception of a child? I just don't think the choice should be taken away.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

comebackgirl wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

This question I asked several pages ago was never answered. I thought it was a fair one. I am curious to know why? It's directly related to the topic:

Let's say my daughter is going to university to pursue a career. She has a serious boyfirend. Then... she is attacked and is brutally raped and impregnated.

Can people honestly tell me that if she wishes to abort the pregnancy because she wishes to continue on her career path, life path with her partner, and doesn't want the 'curse' forcefully thrust into her that she is wrong to think this way?

Further... if she then faces life as a single mother given that the boyfriend doesn't want to raise some criminal's child... tough shit? Is the boyfriend indebted to service the child as a father as well? Is he bound by ideology to be responsible for fathering the child given that it at least appears a union of the two was likely... or does he have an 'out' given his body isn't involved?

Can people honestly say that this scenario is a 'gift from God' and that my daughter should rejoice having been given it? If not 'rejoicing'... then what should the term be? Lamenting... but move forward and have the child regardless? That sounds promising.

I wonder about this too...and asked similar questions on a different thread a while back. A lot of women put a lot of planning into deciding to become pregnant and raising a family..there is no question that pregnancy itslef is life altering. I've had several friends who had complicated pregnancies and had to be on bed rest...were out of work for months as a result. That was tough enough to do for children they planned to have and pregnancies they wanted. They had to take extended leaves from work, go out on short term disability, use up vacation and sick days etc. Fortunately they had access to those things as well as quality health insurance. Even with a healthy pregnancy and a normal maternity leave there is a lot of planning that goes into it, planning for loss of work, loss of wages, time off for doctor's visits, etc. For 9 months your life changes pretty dramatically. Some women's physical and mental health is permanently changed as a result of pregnancy and child birth. And this is just for the pregnancy itself...not even getting into raising a child or going through the adoption process. And what if she and her partner were planning to have a child of their own? Do they put that on hold for 9 months (plus recovery time)...or toss that out the window and decide to raise the rapist's child as their own...with his DNA and the potential that he could sue for parental rights? Is her partner willing to go to all of the doctor's visits with her, look at the utlrasounds of a growing fetus that is not his own? Is he willing to compensate for any financial losses that she incurs as a result of the pregnancy? And if she can't bond with the child because of PTSD or postpartum depression, is he willing to step in to become the primary caregiver, taking over feedings, etc for a child that is not his own? Can he love and raise a child without looking for the rapist within him/her? If the marriage fails will he pay support for a child that is not his own and continue in a parental role? I know a lot of men do this in stepparent situations, but it may be more complicated if the child is a product of rape. What if they can't afford a child or for various reasons had decided to not have children of their own...but now didn't have a choice in the conception of a child? I just don't think the choice should be taken away.

Many more legitimate questions and points presented here that make 'choice' reasonable and acceptable. I hear no arguments to the contrary... nor can think of any.