Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two Children Were Raped Several Times, Clinic Did Abortions But Never Reported Rapes
Life Dynamics, a Denton, Texas organization which has been exposing how child rapists use abortion to cover their crimes, summarized this case in a report they titled, The Cover-Up of Child Sexual Abuse.
You are contradicting yourself all over the place in this post.
Mothers have a right to life, but only if they were raped. If they had sex willingly, then they have given up that right to life.
This is absolutely punishing women who have sex willingly and then find themselves pregnant by accident. You don't care about the baby of the rape victim, but you absolutely care about the baby of that slutty woman who wanted the sex. She should not be allowed to be concerned about her own "right to life." Nope, having sex means she gave that up.
Of course, the man (hey, remember him? No pregnancy happens without him), it is assumed, gives up nothing. He is free to go on and get another woman pregnant with no consequences. His right to life is never in question.
Forced birthers are all about punishing those bad women who have sex. The proof is that they only concern themselves with those women's pregnancies. Only those children matter.
You fool no one.
I have no problem whatsoever with holding the man responsible for a pregnancy. The man should have at least joint custody and be responsible for the child. If a man doesn't want to do this, then he should not have sex.
And you can keep knocking down strawmen, but as I've stated, if there is good medical reason to believe that a mother's life is in danger is she carries a baby to term, I have ZERO issue with her getting an abortion. The mother indeed has a right to life, and I have no objection to that situation. I also do care about the rape victim's baby, but I recognize that the mother did NOT have a choice in that situation to not get pregnant. Therefore, I can live with her getting an abortion.
The problem is that there are at least three rights involved here that cannot all be accommodated in all situations.
1. The mother has the right to life.
2. The baby also has the right to life.
3. The mother has the right to choose whether or not to have sex and possibly become pregnant.
In the case of rape, the second and third of these are at odds. In the case of medical problems endangering the mother, the first and second are at odds. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to reconcile all of these in all situations.
And, in case you missed it, I am TRYING to discuss this issue rationally and without vilification or name calling. If you feel it necessary to do the opposite, fine. I can go that route too. The problem with you baby-killers is that you want to be able to do whatever feels good and not have to worry about taking any responsibility for your actions or deal with any negative consequences. All you want is to have sex and kill babies.
There, feel better now? I can do the same thing you've done to me, but I really don't see how it does anyone any good. In the future, please refrain from calling me names like "forced birther" and telling me I'm trying to punish women for having sex. I am trying to state my own principled objection to abortion. It has nothing to do with punishing anyone and everything to do with protecting vulnerable human beings. Please also refrain from the typical "you don't care about the children once they're born" crap. I have no object to programs that help mothers who are raising children. We can debate the merits of those programs individually; some may be valuable, some not so much. Don't tell me I don't want women having sex or I want to punish them for so doing. Have sex with anyone you want. Have sex with a thousand guys. I don't really care. Just don't kill a human being because of it.
I have no problem whatsoever with holding the man responsible for a pregnancy. The man should have at least joint custody and be responsible for the child. If a man doesn't want to do this, then he should not have sex.
And you can keep knocking down strawmen, but as I've stated, if there is good medical reason to believe that a mother's life is in danger is she carries a baby to term, I have ZERO issue with her getting an abortion. The mother indeed has a right to life, and I have no objection to that situation. I also do care about the rape victim's baby, but I recognize that the mother did NOT have a choice in that situation to not get pregnant. Therefore, I can live with her getting an abortion.
The problem is that there are at least three rights involved here that cannot all be accommodated in all situations.
1. The mother has the right to life.
2. The baby also has the right to life.
3. The mother has the right to choose whether or not to have sex and possibly become pregnant.
In the case of rape, the second and third of these are at odds. In the case of medical problems endangering the mother, the first and second are at odds. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to reconcile all of these in all situations.
And, in case you missed it, I am TRYING to discuss this issue rationally and without vilification or name calling. If you feel it necessary to do the opposite, fine. I can go that route too. The problem with you baby-killers is that you want to be able to do whatever feels good and not have to worry about taking any responsibility for your actions or deal with any negative consequences. All you want is to have sex and kill babies.
There, feel better now? I can do the same thing you've done to me, but I really don't see how it does anyone any good. In the future, please refrain from calling me names like "forced birther" and telling me I'm trying to punish women for having sex. I am trying to state my own principled objection to abortion. It has nothing to do with punishing anyone and everything to do with protecting vulnerable human beings. Please also refrain from the typical "you don't care about the children once they're born" crap. I have no object to programs that help mothers who are raising children. We can debate the merits of those programs individually; some may be valuable, some not so much. Don't tell me I don't want women having sex or I want to punish them for so doing. Have sex with anyone you want. Have sex with a thousand guys. I don't really care. Just don't kill a human being because of it.
Thanks for explaining the circumstances for your pro-choice stance - basically, potential human beings conceived from criminal intent as in rape or incest, aren't potential human beings at all, so they can be aborted. And for others, it could be the fifth potential human being in their family propelling them into financial distress, or an unintended pregnancy or a horrific disease that will render the family bankrupt due to lack of adequate health insurance. Your decision and their decisions to abort are all pro-choice.
(As an aside, someone conceived from rape or incest is probably the most vulnerable of all.)
Thanks for explaining the circumstances for your pro-choice stance - basically, potential human beings conceived from criminal intent as in rape or incest, aren't potential human beings at all, so they can be aborted. And for others, it could be the fifth potential human being in their family propelling them into financial distress, or an unintended pregnancy or a horrific disease that will render the family bankrupt due to lack of adequate health insurance. Your decision and their decisions to abort are all pro-choice.
(As an aside, someone conceived from rape or incest is probably the most vulnerable of all.)
No, again with the misunderstanding. Those conceived from rape are a quandary. On the one hand, they certainly deserve the chance to live. On the other hand, there is no way anyone can make the argument that the mother was NOT forced to become pregnant. It's a tough moral dilemma. I personally would side with allowing the woman to abort in that instance, but it's certainly not the case that I regard the life of the baby as having any less value in that instance.
I realize that most people want black and white answers rather than nuance, but that's the problem here. When we try to make everything black and white you get pro-choice people calling pro-life people "forced birthers" and saying that they have no regard for children. You get pro-life people calling the pro-choice ones "baby killers" and saying that they just want to have sex and not take any responsibility for their actions. I am trying to inject a bit of nuance here and present my own opinions on the matter. I am NOT an extremist. You won't see me protesting outside an abortion clinic, or promoting violence against those who perform or receive abortions. I am going to present my own opinions in a rational, logical manner and defend them against those who, like you did, try to misrepresent them. It's called rational debate; it's what we rational people do when we disagree with the current state of law. If we don't convince others of our stance, so be it; we will not change the law. I strongly suspect that is the case here. Abortion will remain legal for the foreseeable future. That does not mean I have to shut up and accept that fact without presenting counterarguments.
Just a reminder, any man who does not believe in abortion, who does not wear a condom, who then impregnates a woman, made a CHOICE. He could've kept his legs closed, but he CHOSE not to.
He now must live with the consequences whether being an accessory to a perceived murder (not really, but some people think like this), or be a daddy.
Fellas, keep your legs closed.
Obviously, from a legal point of view, there's no murder. However, it can be argued that abortion is ending the life of a human being, just one that is at an earlier developmental stage than we are. That would constitute murder from an ethical point of view.
Of course, so long as the choice of whether or not to have an abortion lies solely with the mother, (which so long as abortion is legal is the way it should be), then it's hard to criticize a man who impregnates a woman who subsequently chooses to have an abortion. The man, after all, did not make the final decision to have the abortion and could not have prevented it. He does bear responsibility for creating the pregnancy in the first place. He could have offered to raise the baby without any help from the mother if the mother would go through with the pregnancy (assuming the mother didn't want to raise the baby.) If he doesn't make such an offer, then I guess that he does share in the culpability, but not to the degree of the mother who actually made the decision to abort.
Men bear a ton of responsibility for abortions. This does not cover them all and there are women who are the same way but it's largely men who demean the poor. Work to cut assistance to the poor. That call the working poor, lazy. That refuses to raise the minimum wage.
I am a male and pro-life and I believe the best way to decrease abortions is to address these issues and others.
I support public assistance including housing and child care. Assistance for continuing education. Raising the minimum wage. Addressing the corporations sending decent jobs overseas.
I've long supported the idea of allowing gay couples to adopt.
Will this end all reasons people abort? Of course not as that is an impossible hurdle to cross but it would address many.
No, again with the misunderstanding. Those conceived from rape are a quandary. On the one hand, they certainly deserve the chance to live. On the other hand, there is no way anyone can make the argument that the mother was NOT forced to become pregnant. It's a tough moral dilemma. I personally would side with allowing the woman to abort in that instance, but it's certainly not the case that I regard the life of the baby as having any less value in that instance.
I realize that most people want black and white answers rather than nuance, but that's the problem here. When we try to make everything black and white you get pro-choice people calling pro-life people "forced birthers" and saying that they have no regard for children. You get pro-life people calling the pro-choice ones "baby killers" and saying that they just want to have sex and not take any responsibility for their actions. I am trying to inject a bit of nuance here and present my own opinions on the matter. I am NOT an extremist. You won't see me protesting outside an abortion clinic, or promoting violence against those who perform or receive abortions. I am going to present my own opinions in a rational, logical manner and defend them against those who, like you did, try to misrepresent them. It's called rational debate; it's what we rational people do when we disagree with the current state of law. If we don't convince others of our stance, so be it; we will not change the law. I strongly suspect that is the case here. Abortion will remain legal for the foreseeable future. That does not mean I have to shut up and accept that fact without presenting counterarguments.
A pro-life person would be insulted that someone says they're pro-life and then says oh, it's okay for certain circumstances, though. The reason is, it's a human life, full stop. That's why they use the term, baby killer for pro-choice people. Conversely, a pro-choice person makes absolute sense when identifying a pro-life person (nor worries here for you) as a pro-birther.
We could go around and round but hopefully it helps others understand.
A pro-life person would be insulted that someone says they're pro-life and then says oh, it's okay for certain circumstances, though. The reason is, it's a human life, full stop. That's why they use the term, baby killer for pro-choice people. Conversely, a pro-choice person makes absolute sense when identifying a pro-life person (nor worries here for you) as a pro-birther.
We could go around and round but hopefully it helps others understand.
If you believe there is a separate human life, then there is. Being that there are going to be situations that are NEVER going to be illegal, they become moot points as far as that goes.
I appreciated your earlier post 257. How I believe isn't really part of the dialogue. It was to clarify prochoice and prolife.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
