Log in or Sign up

Rape, Incest & Life of the Mother.

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Mr. Wonderful, Oct 30, 2003.

Page 2 of 5

JD Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 8, 2002

Messages:

509

Likes Received:

1

Re: Blanco's "position" flows easily into the empty minded

Originally posted by Mr. Wonderful

Originally posted by CottonBowl'66

As for Blanco's position, it seems clear as a bell to me.

Of course its clear as a bell to you, the Blanco's of politics prey upon the slow of wit such as yourself. Floundering around aimlessly on issues unil you are told how to think. Quite sad really when the position she tells you that she (and then you) have makes no sense in reality.

Would Kobe's "accuser" be eligible to get an abortion had she become pregnant in a Blanco-world?
Click to expand...

Actually, her positions are much more precisely stated on her website than Jindal's are on his.

Oh, yes, those clear positions - like the way to virtue and values is to carry a gun at all times. The government - not churches, not the individual - is where you should look for your spiritual guidance. So sayeth bobby jindal, right wing puppet extraordinaire.

As for your rape argument, like I said - women have ONE purpose in the far right view of the world - BREEDING (be it by the uncle, the stranger or whomever) - and you continue to prove my point. There is simply no other explanation when they don't eve allow an exception for the LIFE of a mother - the old sow is all used up, slab her.
Click to expand...

JD, Oct 30, 2003

#11
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

Re: Re: Rape, Incest & Life of the Mother.

Originally posted by CottonBowl'66
If some sicko uncle is raping a young niece and she becomes pregnant by him, Jindal will make the decision for the family and force her to have the child.
Click to expand...

That would be horrible. Can you imagine? CottonBowl2003 running around out there? I shudder to even think about it,

SabanFan, Oct 31, 2003

#12
Mr. Wonderful Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 11, 2002

Messages:

209

Likes Received:

1

Originally posted by JD
Actually, her positions are much more precisely stated on her website than Jindal's are on his.

As for your rape argument, like I said - women have ONE purpose in the far right view of the world - BREEDING (be it by the uncle, the stranger or whomever) - and you continue to prove my point. There is simply no other explanation when they don't eve allow an exception for the LIFE of a mother - the old sow is all used up, slab her.
Click to expand...

I thought you joined me in believing this procedure should be absolutely legal.
Are you joining Ms. Blanco and saying there must be an accusation of rape? Or a doctor's opinion that the life of the mother is in danger? The latter takes the decision out of the hands of the mother and the former means that a woman who just doesn't want to have the child can't have an abortion unless she claims rape. Some CHOICE that is.
Jindal's apparent position is at least intellectually honest, obviously he believes that this is a form of murder. I wholeheartedly disagree, but its a much better position than picking and choosing who gets to make a choice and forcing women to have to lie in cases just to be able to exercise their choice.
Finally, let's be clear: obviously both Ms. Blanco and Mr. Jindal believe "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned based on their stated positions on this issue.

Mr. Wonderful, Oct 31, 2003

#13
CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2003

Messages:

636

Likes Received:

1

Re: Re: Blanco's "position" flows easily into the empty minded

Originally posted by JD
Actually, her positions are much more precisely stated on her website than Jindal's are on his.

Oh, yes, those clear positions - like the way to virtue and values is to carry a gun at all times. The government - not churches, not the individual - is where you should look for your spiritual guidance. So sayeth bobby jindal, right wing puppet extraordinaire.

As for your rape argument, like I said - women have ONE purpose in the far right view of the world - BREEDING (be it by the uncle, the stranger or whomever) - and you continue to prove my point. There is simply no other explanation when they don't eve allow an exception for the LIFE of a mother - the old sow is all used up, slab her.
Click to expand...

I don't know how Blanco can make her position clearer on where she stands on abortion. Some have a reason for claiming she is not clear and Jindal is.

The better question is what happens when Roe v Wade is finally overturned and a Federal Law is passed making all abortions illegal.

I assume that since any fertilized egg will have all the legal rights of a functioning human being, any women who pays to have an abortion will be convicted of a contract murder of her child and be executed for it, along with the doctor.

The situation I have also wondered about concerns divorcing couples who agree to have the frozen fertilized egg flushed that they put in a laboratory for a future child during happier days.

According to wackos like Jindal, this is murder, so I assume when anti-abortion extremists get their way, a divorced couple will be forced to take the frozen egg out of storage and be forced to raise it and send it to college.

When the right wing gets total control, government will make all your decisions for you.

CottonBowl'66, Oct 31, 2003

#14
TigerEducated Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 18, 2003

Messages:

3,118

Likes Received:

4

Do you guys notice that he has NEVER actually addressed the question? He's like an Anti-Jindal carbon copy of JD...

JD twists everything into a left/right debate...
CB66 twists everything into a anti-Jindal debate...

He's been asked to clarify his REASONING for a nonsensical position, yet he responds by saying he, and she, can be no clearer. This is in the face of Mr. Wonderful's honest, CLEAR questions...

I wonder what it's like to be able to identify with the Scarecrow's character in the Wizard of Oz...I'd ask CB66, but he'd start off talking about the Yellow Brick Road and end up telling you that anyone from the Repubilcan party has the mark of the beast and has 666 tatooed on their forehead...

TigerEducated, Oct 31, 2003

#15
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

That's CB66's modus operandi. Just ask BengalB.

SabanFan, Oct 31, 2003

#16
CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2003

Messages:

636

Likes Received:

1

Originally posted by TigerEducated
Do you guys notice that he has NEVER actually addressed the question? He's like an Anti-Jindal carbon copy of JD...

JD twists everything into a left/right debate...
CB66 twists everything into a anti-Jindal debate...

He's been asked to clarify his REASONING for a nonsensical position, yet he responds by saying he, and she, can be no clearer. This is in the face of Mr. Wonderful's honest, CLEAR questions...

I wonder what it's like to be able to identify with the Scarecrow's character in the Wizard of Oz...I'd ask CB66, but he'd start off talking about the Yellow Brick Road and end up telling you that anyone from the Repubilcan party has the mark of the beast and has 666 tatooed on their forehead...
Click to expand...

Whining and crying still? What a pansy?

CottonBowl'66, Oct 31, 2003

#17
Bengal B Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 5, 2002

Messages:

47,986

Likes Received:

22,994

Originally posted by SabanFan
That's CB66's modus operandi. Just ask BengalB.
Click to expand...

I challenged him (or her or it) many times to show his proof that most Republicans voted for Duke but all he ever did was respond with his broken record rant.

Bengal B, Nov 1, 2003

#18
Bengal B Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 5, 2002

Messages:

47,986

Likes Received:

22,994

Originally posted by Jetstorm
I have never thought about the legal difficulties of a "rape/incest exemption" and I don't know if there is any legal precedent to draw on here, since, in the short history of legalized abortion in our nation, abortion has almost always been either been totally illegal for everyone, or totally legal for everyone. But I am quite sure that doctors have always had the discretion of determining when a pregnant woman's life is in danger and, when asked or legally required to do everything in their power to save both lives that are at stake, they know what to do and how to do it, and if they can't save both lives, then will try to save the mother's life, unless she is willing to sacrifice her life for the life of the child. But I don't think too many doctors will go for something like that. I don't know what medical ethics exist to govern conduct in such a situation.

I'll pitch my personal beliefs on the matter, at the risk of being branded a "religious fanatic."

I am not comfortable with abortion, period. To me, this entire debate revolves around one issue, whether or not the unborn child, developing in the womb, is considered a fully alive human being, with all the rights and priveliges that human beings are entitled to. A secondary question is, if an unborn human being is indeed a human being, and is entitled to the right to life, at what point in his/her gestation does s/he become "fully human" or human, and assume his/her "human rights?" At conception? First trimester? Second trimester? Birth? Where does life begin? Where does "personhood" begin? That was the question asked by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. They wanted laws to be set forth defining, once and for all, when life begins, and when a human being first assumes their human rights by being human. The reason the Court probably ruled the way they ruled in Roe vs. Wade is because, up until the late 19th/early 20th Century, when surgical abortion was perfected as a medical procedure and it was no longer the "hook at the end of a stick," law in most Christian nations stated that personhood/humanity began at birth. In the days when research into prenatal biology was spotty at best and humans really didn't have the power to impact what happened prior to birth (short of the hook-and-stick or throwing yourself down the stairs, which didn't always work), this was logical. Babies were babies when they came out of the womb and cried. Very few could really surmise what they looked like inside the mother and, on rare occassions when they found out, what came out certainly didn't look very human.

Unfortunately, groups like Planned Parenthood, and of course, Nazi Germany, moved forward with abortion in the mid-20th Century, and humanity was perfecting newer, more brutal, and more efficient ways to kill unborn children, much faster than the laws could keep up, much faster than the ob/gyns and prenatal specialists could find the answers they were looking for as to whether or not an un-born human is in fact "alive." Abortion was being legalized in the West by the late '60s and early 70s, way before tools like the ultrasound became widespread and showed how remarkable a baby's development in the womb really is. So today, we have our situation where a debate rages as to whether or not an unborn human is really alive, with ever newer technologies, like the new 4D color ultrasound, showing the ever-present humanity of the unborn child, that abortion advocates are attempting to either ignore, dismiss out of hand, or suppress.

My take: a human being is alive, from the moment of conception, till the moment of death, when the heart stops beating and the the last breath is taken. Life for a human begins at the moment of conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. From that point on, it is a living being, with a unique genetic code, a person entitled to his/her full human rights, and no one, not even the mother, should have the power of life or death over that person, any more than a mother should have the power of life or death over her child once it is born.

On rape and incest: A child should never be held accountable for the sins of his/her father or mother. As tragic as rape/incest is, that tragedy is only compounded when an innocent life is taken away in atonement, or to somehow lessen the mother's pain (which doesn't always happen). Catch the offenders and punish them to the fullest extent of the law, but don't kill the child because of it. Instead, devote the full resources of the state to supporting the mother and, should she not wish to keep the child, put him/her up for adoption.

On preserving the life of the mother: Doctors should always have full discretion to use the best, safest, least traumatic course of action to save both lives. If both lives cannot be saved, the mother's life takes precendence. This is a difficult call, like I said I am not certain what medical ethics has to say on this.

On women's rights concerning the matter: No one believes more in individual, God-given Constitutional rights than I. Women, like all American citizens, are fully entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are entitled to their full Constitutional rights. Yet, nowhere do I see dilineated in the United States Constitution the right of a mother to take the life of her own child, should that child prove to be an inconvenience (on the flip side, I also do not see anywhere that Congress is given the right to pass legislation addressing this matter. So how did this become the domain of the federal government anyway?)

The belief that women's rights and equality can be fully guaranteed only by stripping unborn children of their right to even live is ludicrous. Women who desire not to have children have options to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant. They may use birth control. They may refuse to have sex without condoms. They may use other barriers. They may have their tubes tied. They may abstain from having full out sexual intercourse. They have all kinds of choices to make before they even get pregnant to ensure that they don't. And if, by some miracle, nothing works, or if, by tragedy, they are raped without any form of protection in them or on their attacker, what then? They go through the inconvenience of carrying the child to term, and if they do not desire to have the child, it can be put up for adoption and placed with a family that wants a child but cannot have one of their own. For rape/incest victims, the state should support them through their troubles. For women who have "accidents," they may be put in touch with an adoption agency or their states social service agency to make arrangements for her and the child.

To minimize the "accidents," protection should be widely distributed and easily available and affordable, birth control should be covered under insurance and prescription drug plans if it is not already, and young girls ought to be instructed about the consequences of sex and pregnancy and their options for preventing pregnancy in schools as part of "abstinence first (notice I didn't say abstinence-only) education." There would be less "accidents" and less abortions if women knew there options and if these options were easily accessible.

Now I know Roman Catholics, orthodox Jews, and some other faiths object to birth control, but that is a matter of those groups and their believers. The job of federal and state governments should not be to endorse one particular religious group's vision of what life is and how it should be protected, but to instead, protect the right of all Americans to life. It is not my personal belief that birth control is "interfering with God's way" and the government can't get into the business of interpreting God's way (I do believe we are a Judeo-Christian nation that should acknowledge God, but that is another debate for another time). The government should, however, protect human life, by making it illegal to kill human beings at any stage of their humanity.

What really needs to happen is that there needs to be a grand conference of political leaders, religious leaders of all faiths, women's rights groups, human rights groups, children's advocacy groups, doctors and medical professionals, bio-ethicists, theologians, and scholars, who all need to sit down, and once and for all, define human life, when it begins, when it ends, and what laws ought to be in place to protect human life. That's what we really need to get at, to decide whether or not the being growing inside the womb is really human. Once they have arrived at their conclusions, they need to put them in writing and send them to Congress and every state legislature, so that we may define personhood and the beginning of human life in legal terms and settle this, once and for all.

That's what I think. But I'm just one person.
Click to expand...

JetStorm, I agree with you about most of what you say but in the case of rape or incest I can't go along. OK, the fetus may be a human being with the same divine rights to live as a fetus aborted simply for the convienience of the woman but in all concience I could never force a woman to give birth in those circumstances. For example say a teenage girl is raped by a total stranger or a close family member and gets pregnant. She is already going through incredible torment and to force her to give birth would basically amount to the murder of her soul and spirit in most cases.

I really don't understand why this has become such an issue in the governors race because whatever either candidate personally believes the governor has no power whatsoever to supercede the federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings.

Bengal B, Nov 1, 2003

#19
JD Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 8, 2002

Messages:

509

Likes Received:

1

"On preserving the life of the mother: Doctors should always have full discretion to use the best, safest, least traumatic course of action to save both lives. If both lives cannot be saved, the mother's life takes precendence. This is a difficult call, like I said I am not certain what medical ethics has to say on this."

It should be the woman's call - she may want the baby to live instead of her - her call.

I think a lot of what you say is true - but I also know this. Using jails and prison cells to stop abortion will not work. You need to change the mindset - that's the only way abortions decline and eventually end.

And while you don't hold the child liable for the sins of the parents (an obvious, but rather recent, development in the law, btw) do you also force a woman to bear the child? There is an aspect of compulsion involved. and if she refuses to, throw her in the slammer?

JD, Nov 1, 2003

#20

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 2 of 5

Share This Page