Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/31/2011 11:18:12 AM EDT
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:19:04 AM EDT
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:19:36 AM EDT
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.




Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:19:41 AM EDT
In..
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:20:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.


Make the mother suffer even more.

[unsubscribing. Nothing good will come of this thread, except the inevitable lock.]
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:31:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 11:33:10 AM EDT by FLAL1A]
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:35:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:36:17 AM EDT
ibtl and ss
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:36:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:37:58 AM EDT
Will this at least stop the baby Jesus from crying?
I don't see what the big deal is anyway, your body belongs to the state not yourself.
The state can pass any law it wants in regards to its own property anyway.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:38:59 AM EDT
Unless the woman was drugged and had no memory of the event, would a victim not use the morning after pill and things like that?
Granted, she would probably be in a bad way mentally and/or physically, but still, wouldn't that be the sound option?
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:39:35 AM EDT
Seven pages, three perma-bans, and a lock with a witty SYSTEM MESSAGE.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:40:15 AM EDT
not even the morning after pill???
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:41:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.

If you're ambivalent about this, then you don't see the real wrong in abortion.

If the fetus is a human being deserving of having his or her life protected, it doesn't matter how he or she came into being. Rape, consensual, incest, IVF, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the unborn is a part of the human community, and that killing innocent human beings is not OK.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:42:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ae1:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.

If you're ambivalent about this, then you don't see the real wrong in abortion.

If the fetus is a human being deserving of having his or her life protected, it doesn't matter how he or she came into being. Rape, consensual, incest, IVF, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the unborn is a part of the human community, and that killing innocent human beings is not OK.



In before self-righteous........................

Ah, shit.

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:43:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.

so much fucking fail I vomited blood
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:44:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NAM:
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.


Make the mother suffer even more.

[unsubscribing. Nothing good will come of this thread, except the inevitable lock.]
Hit the nail right on the head!

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:46:21 AM EDT
What about the coat hangar?
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:46:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.


That does not mean what you think it means. D&C is how you remove the body of the fetus from the mothers body well after implantation. To prevent implantation you would use a drug like Plan B.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:50:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:


Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.

A lot of people consider that an abortion.


Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:55:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.


That does not mean what you think it means. D&C is how you remove the body of the fetus from the mothers body well after implantation. To prevent implantation you would use a drug like Plan B.

Dilation means the cervix is opened. Curettage is removal of the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. Yes, a D&C can be a form of abortion but since implantation happens 24+ hours after conception, this is not technically an abortion.


Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:57:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Oh, this thread will go places.

Actually, I think the members of this forum will have a civil discussion without resorting to vicious or personal attacks.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 11:58:09 AM EDT
Good and it's not because I am against abortion, in fact I support it but not with my tax money in any circumstance. Life is harsh so pay for the unwanted baby your own dime or get private assistance to carry it to term.

I certainly don't expect nor want the gov to hand out tax money to victims of other crimes so why gov abortion money for rape? It smacks of the recent WTC 9-11 first responder money the tax payer will have to put out. To heck with that.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:03:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:04:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:08:37 PM EDT by TacticalMOLONLABE]
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:04:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:04:43 PM EDT by flyfishnepa]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Oh, this thread will go places.


well don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT! sheesh!


Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:08:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By randomhero97:
Originally Posted By ae1:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.

If you're ambivalent about this, then you don't see the real wrong in abortion.

If the fetus is a human being deserving of having his or her life protected, it doesn't matter how he or she came into being. Rape, consensual, incest, IVF, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the unborn is a part of the human community, and that killing innocent human beings is not OK.



In before self-righteous........................

Ah, shit.



If you shoot someone doing you harm, you don't have to prove their guilt or innocence... You only have to show that you were in immediate fear for your life. (Not exactly the same thing, but your statement is not always legally correct.)
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:09:07 PM EDT


And here we go.............
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:09:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.


I agree with the ambivalency thing - it's a tough moral question.

But the issue in the OP os, should the government, i.e. me, pay for it? I'm not ambivalent about that.

No.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:11:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:14:36 PM EDT by sharps54]
Originally Posted By ceverett:
Originally Posted By randomhero97:
Originally Posted By ae1:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.

If you're ambivalent about this, then you don't see the real wrong in abortion.

If the fetus is a human being deserving of having his or her life protected, it doesn't matter how he or she came into being. Rape, consensual, incest, IVF, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the unborn is a part of the human community, and that killing innocent human beings is not OK.



In before self-righteous........................

Ah, shit.



If you shoot someone doing you harm, you don't have to prove their guilt or innocence... You only have to show that you were in immediate fear for your life. (Not exactly the same thing, but your statement is not always legally correct.)



Apples and oranges. The person you shoot someone doing you harm you are doing so to protect life, that unborn baby isn't threatening the mother's life. There is a big difference between an attacker and an innocent child.

edited because I'm trying to do this at work and got distracted. Anyhow I meant the attacker is trying to hurt you and you are shooting an attacker to protect innocent life, not a fair comparision to an abortion.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:12:00 PM EDT
I'd better get in on one...
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:16:01 PM EDT
I think it's time for me to avoid abortion threads in the future. They send my blood pressure through the roof, especially when images like the one above are posted.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:19:11 PM EDT
day 1
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:21:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:22:40 PM EDT by ceverett]
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Originally Posted By ceverett:
Originally Posted By randomhero97:
Originally Posted By ae1:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
This is pretty much the only sub-issue on abortion as to which I am ambivalent. Anytime people have consensual sex, they sign on for the possibility of pregnancy; thus I am pro-choice but hold that the time for making your choice expires when you take your pants off.

A rape victim has never in any sense accepted the possibility of pregnancy. I do not think that a woman who has been forcibly recruited as custodian of a criminal's DNA should be compelled to incubate it and ensure its survival into the distant future.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I have no pity or sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex, anymore than I have pity or sympathy for people who die attempting solo circumnavigation of the Earth or climbing Everest. You pay your money and you take your chances. An impregnated rape victim cannot be said in any sense to have invited or created her situation, and in that situation I do value the woman's right to autonomy more highly than the child's right to life.

If you're ambivalent about this, then you don't see the real wrong in abortion.

If the fetus is a human being deserving of having his or her life protected, it doesn't matter how he or she came into being. Rape, consensual, incest, IVF, whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the unborn is a part of the human community, and that killing innocent human beings is not OK.



In before self-righteous........................

Ah, shit.



If you shoot someone doing you harm, you don't have to prove their guilt or innocence... You only have to show that you were in immediate fear for your life. (Not exactly the same thing, but your statement is not always legally correct.)



Apples and oranges. The person you shoot someone doing you harm you are doing so to protect life, that unborn baby isn't threatening the mother's life. There is a big difference between an attacker and an innocent child.

edited because I'm trying to do this at work and got distracted. Anyhow I meant the attacker is trying to hurt you and you are shooting an attacker to protect innocent life, not a fair comparision to an abortion.


Certainly impacting her pursuit of happiness, yes? sick for 9 months, there is risk to a mother in any pregnancy, social stigma, etc..... I would argue that the rape has simply continued via an innocent 3rd party, and the victim has the right to protect herself from that attack by any means, including lethal force.

ETA: Generally, I'm opposed to abortion... But early on in the case of rape? No objection.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:23:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:24:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.


That does not mean what you think it means. D&C is how you remove the body of the fetus from the mothers body well after implantation. To prevent implantation you would use a drug like Plan B.

Dilation means the cervix is opened. Curettage is removal of the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. Yes, a D&C can be a form of abortion but since implantation happens 24+ hours after conception, this is not technically an abortion.


A D&C would't be done...

If you're suggesting a new use for the procedure in some kind of post-abortion world, that's another thing.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:28:32 PM EDT
A woman has every right to get an abortion IF she has been rapped IMO. Having uncle sugar foot the bill just opens the door to abuse and is a horrible idea.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:31:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By callmestick:
A woman has every right to get an abortion IF she has been rapped IMO. Having uncle sugar foot the bill just opens the door to abuse and is a horrible idea.


Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:32:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:34:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:36:39 PM EDT by sharps54]
Originally Posted By ceverett:
SNIP
Certainly impacting her pursuit of happiness, yes? YES sick for 9 months, there is risk to a mother in any pregnancy, social stigma, etc..... I would argue that the rape has simply continued via an innocent 3rd party, and the victim has the right to protect herself from that attack by any means, including lethal force. We'll have to agree to disagree on this

ETA: Generally, I'm opposed to abortion... But early on in the case of rape? No objection.[/div]

Comments above in red are mine.

I don't think deadly force is justified to protect "pursuit of happiness" so while I agree that is impacted TO AN EXTENT I CAN'T IMAGINE I don't think it is a reason it kill the child.

Ultimately this debate comes down to one thing, when does a person believe life begins? I think it is at conception so I think all abortion is murder. The mother should be able to get support from family / friends / church. If her church doesn't support her she is going to the wrong one.

If you have a different belief in when life begins than the only way to talk about this is to start the dialog at the point you believe life begins. At the point that you believe that the child is a human being is it still OK to kill it for the mother's "pursuit of happiness?" If so I feel bad for you.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:42:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.


And it was the mothers choice to get raped?
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:44:55 PM EDT
Geez, ARFCOM really fucking fails when it comes to shit like this...........

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:45:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:45:32 PM EDT by sharps54]
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.


And it was the mothers choice to get raped?


No it wasn't. See the post above yours, it explains my position.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:45:14 PM EDT
Ya'll are debating something that essentially *never* happens. It's a pointless debate.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:47:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.
Rabid Pro-Lifers insist that is Abortion also...

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:47:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By joshki:
Ya'll are debating something that essentially *never* happens. It's a pointless debate.


Actually it's interesting that the majority of posters both pro and anti abortion agree that the .gov shouldn't bankroll them.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:47:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By joshki:
Ya'll are debating something that essentially *never* happens. It's a pointless debate.

You must be new here.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:48:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharps54:
Good, it isn't the child's fault the father is a criminal.

The derp is strong.

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:50:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharps54:
Originally Posted By ceverett:
SNIP
Certainly impacting her pursuit of happiness, yes? YES sick for 9 months, there is risk to a mother in any pregnancy, social stigma, etc..... I would argue that the rape has simply continued via an innocent 3rd party, and the victim has the right to protect herself from that attack by any means, including lethal force. We'll have to agree to disagree on this

ETA: Generally, I'm opposed to abortion... But early on in the case of rape? No objection.[/div]

Comments above in red are mine.

I don't think deadly force is justified to protect "pursuit of happiness" so while I agree that is impacted TO AN EXTENT I CAN'T IMAGINE I don't think it is a reason it kill the child.

Ultimately this debate comes down to one thing, when does a person believe life begins? I think it is at conception so I think all abortion is murder. The mother should be able to get support from family / friends / church. If her church doesn't support her she is going to the wrong one.

If you have a different belief in when life begins than the only way to talk about this is to start the dialog at the point you believe life begins. At the point that you believe that the child is a human being is it still OK to kill it for the mother's "pursuit of happiness?" If so I feel bad for you.
See?

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:51:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 12:54:38 PM EDT by kelone]
Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
The incidence of conception after rape is very very very very small.

Pro-abortion red herring/talking point.





Exactly. The chances of pregnancy after proper treatment are ZERO. A D&C is performed, preventing implantation.


Is proper treatment going to be covered? Some people consider conception to be the magical 'creation of a person', so any procedure that kills the zygote/blastula is considered abortion by those people I assume?
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 12:52:34 PM EDT
I would argue that it was never the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for abortions in the first place.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top