Abortion for rape/incest “adds one terrible thing to another”
But even as Democrats and abortion rights groups use the controversies to reinforce allegations of a Republican-led “war on women,” don’t expect the anti-abortion movement to back away from calls for all abortions to be illegal – even for women impregnated by rape or incest.
“Philosophically, the consensus is very clearly that life is life and that it should be [sic] not be taken and that abortion is not a compassionate response to something terrible, even like rape,” said Marvin Olasky, the editor in chief of World magazine, an influential evangelical publication.
“It’s adding one terrible thing onto another terrible thing.”…
“The most eloquent defenders of the value of every human life are people like my friends Ryan Bomberger and Rebecca Kiessling [pictured above], both of whom were conceived in rape,” Charmaine Yoest, president of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, wrote in a post for National Review Online this week.
“Today, Ryan and Rebecca are vibrant reminders of the truth that Life has value, no matter its beginnings,” she wrote.
~ Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor, “Anti-abortion movements stands by ‘no exceptions’ orthodoxy amid controversy,” August 22
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Four years ago when McCain was running I was one of the ‘anti baby killers’ who supported John McCain’s position that there needs to be a rape exception. The reason was my understanding that rape victims did not consent so they are being deprived of their fundamental right to self-determination. It still does not sit right with me that rape victims could be forced to carry a rapists child but it also doesn’t sit right with me that any child gets killed in the womb. Four years later I still can’t reconcile myself completely to either.
OK. I am ready to get beat up again like I did for saying that four years ago. And I thank you for it :)
Think about why the rapist is not killed for his crime but innocent baby does also last night on 20/20 extensive interview with Jacee Dugard who was kidnaped at age 11 and held hostage for 18 years and raped daily and gave birth to two girls fathered by rapist she said they are beautiful and she is raising them they are hers and cannot be held responsible for the crime of their father
Truthseeker, the woman has not lost her right to self-determination, she is pregnant. The rapist did not take away her self-determination – it is still intact – and the rape victim must now excercise that self-determination by refusing to do wrong by killing the preborn child. I think the concept of freedom/self-determination needs to be developed so that it is understood that a rape victim is not going to be liberated by killing the preborn child conceived during a rape? In short, we need to understand that we don’t have the freedom to do wrong. True freedom consists in doing what is good and right. The right to self-determination of the preborn child needs to be respected by Mom.
Pregnancy, typically, is not a death sentence. If the mohter’s life is ever at risk during a pregnancy, society would have a moral duty to ensure her right to life.
I feel so dirty when I try and support a ‘rape exception’. All the reasoning and logic I come to that supports my position makes me sound like such a pro-abort. I need a bath now.
“Think about why the rapist is not killed for his crime”
Susie Allen, Depending on the situation I have no problem with the rapist being killed so thinking about that doesn’t help.
Tyler,
The victim has not lost their right to self-determination going forward but without a rape exception she definitely has lost her right to self-determination about wether or not to go forward with a child. At least to term. Then the adoption option would be available.
ts:
Think about what the decision “not to go forward with a child” would do to the child. As someone who once supported a rape exception, I agree with you that it does not seem fair. It really isn’t. But the weighing of rights that we consider for every instance of abortion still applies here. Once there is another human being’s life to consider, their right to life becomes paramount before any secondary rights of their mother.
Look up the X case.
@truthseeker
Allow me to ask something,
let’s say a man’s wife died giving birth to their child, the child was brought into the world in a horrible way, the baby will be a financial burden, an emotional trauma, and a constant reminder of the worst thing that ever happened to him, is he justified in killing the baby?
@SHOES THROWER
So i could kill my wife if her affair made me suicidal? Good to know.
Hi Truthseeker,
So if I understand your concern correctly the loss of self-determination that you are referring to is the loss of the right to kill another human being – not a real loss as fara as I can discern because most people are not allowed to kill other human beings. I understand the disgust a mother and others feel toward the rapist and the fact that he is bio-dad, but the child is an unique person, so that child should not be mistreated due to the circumstances of its conception. Moreover, this revulsion depends on how we view pregnancy and pregnant women. If we have a positive view about pregnancy and pregnant women as being fully autonomous individuals, a pregnancy that is unplanned, whether from rape or “unsafe” sex, is not an impingement on a woman’s autonomy. Furthermore, once the exception for rape is allowed for this reason, the exception for any unplanned pregnancies is allowed based on the fact that an unplanned pregnancy can be said to impinge on women’s ability to determine whether she can terminate the pregnancy or not.
In short, ending a pregnancy does not increase a woman’s autonomy or her right to self-determination. The no exception clause protects the rights of the preborn child. No person is currently allowed to kill me, does this mean their self-determination has been restricted for any other reason than to protect my right to self-determination? Part of living in civil society is the limitation of certain individual rights so that more fundamental individual rights of other people are respected.
Truthseeker, how do you justify killing the preborn child when the child is conceived as result of a rape?
No, it is the right to defend your body against an intruder.
i.e., the right of the intruder to intrude.
The same way I can justify the killing of an intruder into a person’s home.
@SHOES THROWER
“The same way I can justify the killing of an intruder into a person’s home”
Exactly! Kill the rapist not the baby! See? You’re getting it.
No, it is the right to defend your body against an intruder.
Except that we’ve already debunked your whole “intruder” argument on another thread, since a child isn’t intruding on their parents who have default custody of them.
Most of you are aware, but the ones that don’t know my nephew was conceived in rape. His mother’s colleagues and friends were constantly badgering/pressuring her into getting an abortion. They thought she was unstable because she wanted to choose life for the baby. She would always tell them, “Why should I punish the baby, it’s not the baby’s fault.”
When I look at my nephew, I beam with joy, as I see his handsome face filled with all smiles; so well grounded–sooooooo down-to-earth. He’s extremely intelligent, as well as being successful in the workforce; attained a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering and now going for his Masters in Business.
His mom will receive a heavenly reward.
When people try to explain why there ought to be a rape / incest exception, they are obviously referring to the horror / yuck factor of how the conception took place. I think that being raped causes trauma to the woman, causes injury to the body and life long psychological damage. Sometimes it causes pregnancy to occur as well. Can you make the case that terminating the pregnancy is going to help her? Some say it will harm her further. Some who have been raped and chose to abort say that it did indeed heap more psychological trauma upon themselves. The effects of rape can’t be flushed away that easily. Giving a child life, then giving him or her to another set of parent, is Power! And it’s right. For if abortion is wrong at all, it’s wrong all the time. If it’s OK in some cases, then it’s not inherently evil at all.
truthseeker,
While taking your bath, remember that “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” used to be an apt companion to “two wrongs don’t make a right” because it was so obiously something that wouldn’t happen on purpose.
Not so much, anymore. :(
Allow me to ask something,
let’s say a man’s wife died giving birth to their child, the child was brought into the world in a horrible way, the baby will be a financial burden, an emotional trauma, and a constant reminder of the worst thing that ever happened to him, is he justified in killing the baby?
U-104. Without hesitation the answer is NO
“So if I understand your concern correctly the loss of self-determination that you are referring to is the loss of the right to kill another human being”
No Tyler. You don’t understand. But the fact that her right to self-determination collides with the baby’s right to life is the point of my ‘concern’.
”The same way I can justify the killing of an intruder into a person’s home.”
Shoes thrower. Speak for yourself cause that kind of reasoning is ludicrous to me. The baby is not an intruder. the sperm was. Big difference. If she could kill the sperm I would be all for it.
Carol, I agree a hundred percent and your sisters motherly love is also her reward here on earth. If only all women possessed such love then this would be a non-issue.
Jamie, I can’t make a good case that it is right for a rape victim to choose abortion but that doesn’t equal concession that no woman should ever have that right.
Hans,
I didn’t bring my baby into the bath with me today so luckily I won’t have to worry about that one ;)
Shoes Thrower,
You will have to explain how the preborn child is like a person who intrudes into another person’s home? As was explained previously to you by Paladian and Chris the child did not ask to be conceived; therefore, the child had no intention to intrude like an adult who breaks into a home. From this perspective of intentionallity, the only the person who could be considered an intruder, in the sense that you mean, is the rapist.
Finally, it is morally repulsive to reduce the mother to inanimate object such as a house or castle, as if a woman’s self-worth is limited to her functional abilities.
So please try again to justify the killing of an innocent preborn child because your ‘intruder’ analogy doesn’t work.
I understand what you are saying x and that is why I have so much difficulty reconciling this. And if I try to explain myself I find my reasoning starts sounding so much like a part of the ‘pro-choice to kill babies’ crowd that I can’t even type my reasons.
By the way, my sister-in-law told us that she actually had more trauma from the people who were constantly bullying, harassing and trying to intimidate her into forcing her to get an abortion. She said it made her life a living hell surrounded by those people. She found support AFTER she left that community.
Thanks, truthseeker!
Sadly, truthseeker, my nephew’s mother passed away just shy of his 8th birthday. But thank you again.
Truth,
Sorry if I sound like I am repeating myself, but what exactly has the expectant mother lost in terms of her self-determination? Not to be crude but all biological realities, from eating to giving birth, are all deterministic and intrude on a person’s self-determination to one extent or another in the sense that you seem to imply. Is it cruel that a person has to eat?
Perhaps, I am mischaracterizing your argument – please explain if I am.
TS,
That’s why I changed my opinion from exceptions to no exceptions. You might find a different outcome. I respect and understand both positions.
It’s so wrong, but every time SHOES THROWER says “intruder”, I can’t help but think of the Bedroom Intruder song. >_<
@truth
So why should no father have the right to end his suffering?
And if you can’t reconcile something without sounding exactly like the people you think are wrong, maybe it’s wrong.
What a way to de-humanize a human child, calling him or her an intruder. sad.
Ya know, x, I’m a peace-loving feller. I really am. My father was the most imperturbable person on the planet (I’m convinced), and I carry on his indiscriminate love of each person, regardless of their station in life.
But sometimes, don’t you just want to slap some of these folks silly? ;-)
Oh goodness yes. Sometimes I just sit longing for the days when gentlemanly disputes could be settled with a good round of fisticuffs! It’d be much better for my blood pressure, and I’d get far more exercise than I do now. :P
In your case, it’d be bloomin’ aerobic.
A brother of mine who opposes legal abortion supports the morning-after pill. There is worry that it MIGHT cause the uterine lining to change in a way that might make it more likely that a zygote will fall off rather than implant.
However, my understanding is that the way it is KNOWN to work is by PREVENTING fertilization. Should the use of this pill be encouraged for rape victims?
I’ve been pounded by some for saying I think virgins should be on the Pill (even though I was on it for 2 years while remaining a virgin). What I believe now is that when a girl starts puberty, someone should discuss with her the possibility that she might be forcibly raped. This would be a horribly painful, terrifying, and traumatizing event. Does the girl believe that if this horror happened to her, she would want to carry to term and give birth? If she is certain that she would have the baby that resulted from rape, then there may be no reason for her to use contraceptives. If she replies, “I think I would have to have an abortion in that case,” or even “I’m not sure if I would have it or abort,” then there must be a discussion about going on contraception to prevent the abortion.
Again, I’m not saying that pregnancy is the only problem with rape. Male-on-male rape is very traumatic and there’s no possibility of pregnancy. Elderly women and pre-pubescent girls are traumatized by rape and they can’t get pregnant either (usually).
Tyler, she never had the right to kill another human being; so your assertion that she could somehow lose that “right” is beyond me. The loss of self-determination in this particular instance is about bearing and raising a child cause a rapist forces himself upon her and determining for her that she would bear his child.
U-104,
I don’t get the analogy. Unless you are saying that the father is this analogy was forced to have sex with her.
Hi TS,
Perhaps, the stumbling-point is the perminancy/scaring effect of the ‘trauma’ of rape. No matter which way a lady pregnant by-rape chooses she will forever be locked/reminded of the trauma. This consequence is so over-powering that subsequent satisfaction from adopting-her-baby and/or pleasure-from-sex/intimacy MAY BE blunted.
Just for that very reason, I became interested in an article in The Toronto Star. It was about a psychiatrist who was making rapid progress in treating rape-trauma (other ‘trauma’ too). It was his novel, non-invasive approach that sold-me. Apparently he has his patient seated in front of a bar of green lights. These lights sequentially flash on-off. After about 1/2 hour the patient hardly needs any other treatment (for that session). The lights themselves, provide powerful effects!
Hope this helps!
“Sadly, truthseeker, my nephew’s mother passed away just shy of his 8th birthday. But thank you again.”
That is sad Carol. I am glad she had a chance to bring a son into the world and I would have pulverized anybody who treated her negatively about her decision to love her baby.
“It still does not sit right with me that rape victims could be forced to carry a rapists child but it also doesn’t sit right with me that any child gets killed in the womb. Four years later Istill can’t reconcile myself completely to either.”
Yeah… I have the same problem. I can rationally see why a rape exception doesnt make sense, but I still find the thought of a twelve-year-old incest victim having to carry her dad’s baby (or any other victim for that matter) just absolutely horrifying. :(
Hi Truth,
First, I respect your compassion for rape victims. Second, I appreciate you responding to our comments. I know what it is like to advocate for an unpopular position.
Truth, I am glad you cleared up that point that you don’t support the rape victims right to kill the preborn child conceived in rape. That sheds a lot of light on your moral sympathy for the rape victim.
Is it fair for me to assume also that your moral concern for the rape victim’s loss of self determination is confined to the time she is pregnant given that early you did acknowledge that adoption would relieve the rape victim of parental responsibility for the child?
If the above statement is true, your main concern is not unlike Denise Noe’s concern which is that rape is an avenue that allows men to pass on their seed through force, or, in your won words, the rapist determines ”for her [the rape victim] that she would bear his child.” The problem with this argument is that it attributes the child, and the pregnancy to the rapist. This is wrong. The child is unique, with its own DNA. For the religious among us the child is God’s. From a secular perspective, all human beings are autonomous individuals. The rape victim is not making “sacrificies” for the rapist, but for the child. I don’t want to use an analogy because I don’t think they help show/reveal all of the dimensions of the situation. The rape victim is assenting to the situation that has been thrust upon her, but that is not unlike all of us who live. Each of us is thrown into the world, and have to make sense of it, and do what is right. I do think is question, an existential decision, can expose the utter absurdity of freedom without truth (in this case natural law). If one is existentialist and has no faith, human life has no more value that you are willing to grant it and the competing interest of the baby and mother scenario arises.
To me your question doesn’t highlight the problem of the rape victim, it highlights the problem of society lacking a faith, and seeing human life simply as a means to an end. I don’t mean to be harsh hear. Perhaps, you can explain your concern a little more clearly.
Carol,
I would like to offer up some prayers for your sister and her son. Can you tell me their names?
truthseeker – I can sympathize. I felt that way too at one time, but I’m so over it. One thing among many that I realized is that it comes down to how we view children. If they are blessings, then they are blessings in all circumstances. True and simple.
I always find the pro-abort arguement that the fetus “invaded” the uterus and has no right to be there interesting. Just how did the fetus do that on its own volition, exactly? Crafty little buggers, aren’t they!
@truthseeker
“Unless you are saying that the father is this analogy was forced to have sex with her.”
Why is an abortion from consensual sex wrong?
This baby will cause him a lifetime of pain and torment every time he sees it, why should he lose his right of self determination for a baby he may not want anymore that you would force upon him?
@JackBorsch
The thought that someone would kill an innocent person over feelings is what horrifies me.
Truth here is slight revision of a paragraph in my earlier post:
I do think this question, an existential decision for the rape victim, can expose the utter absurdity of freedom without truth (in this case natural law). If one is an existentialist and has no faith, human life has no more value than what a person is willing to grant it. It is only if one is an existentialist that this moral predicament of the competing interests of the baby and mother arises.
If one has faith, there is no moral predicament.
I can only suggest they these people need to go on a quest for truth, and find out why this situation does not present any moral difficulties for people of faith. Obviously, it still can be emotionally painful for people of faith.
Wouldn’t this problem be addressed if those girls and women who believe they might not carry the result of a rape to term used contraception?
I’m not saying all fertile girls should be on contraception because some of them would be certain that they would carry and give birth. The ones who say, “I would abort” or “I might abort” would, IMO, be well-advised to be on contraception.
Truthseeker, this is why it is so important that prolifers remind pro-choice people that their position is inherently secular, and leads to the extreme thinking of such people as Peter Singer. This is is the difficult idea have tried to communicate elsewhere.
Thanks, truthseeker. So kind of you. We do have some honorable men in our family, who are quite stouthearted, and were ready to do the same as you said, but due to the difficulties throughout her pregnancy (she was bedridden for a few months; almost miscarried her son twice + he was a preemie) they made the decision–and it certainly wasn’t easy for the men–to give her lots of loving support instead.
At her funeral, everyone came up to us to share such wonderful stories about my sister-in-law and her son. The two of them would do everything together; riding bikes frequently all around the neighborhood; going to a farm to ride horses together, helping someone who was less fortunate and so much more. Financially, she didn’t have much, but she really showed & taught her son to embrace and respect all life coupled with the importance of education. That’s worth millions!
Sorry I went on & on.
Quote: “I had an abortion because I could not marry the father because he was my brother.”
Thought: Couldn’t she have married SOMEONE ELSE? The social father would not be the biological father but the child would have been born in a marriage.
U-104, consensual = self-determination.
Truthseeker, Barb & Chris.
“The thought that someone would kill an innocent person over feelings is what horrifies me.”
Yeah that’s horrifying too. There are zero reasons why both the scenario I was talking about and the one you were talking about can’t be horrifying. Aborting a baby no matter how it is conceived is terrible. A woman or girl having to carry her rapist’s baby against her will no matter how traumatized she is is terrible as well. I didn’t say that abortion for rape was okay. I do think though, that pro-lifers tend to shrug off the trauma that can happen in these situations, and I think it is wrong to do that.
Noe Denise it would not. Are you suggesting that all women of fertile age ingest large doses of hormones over extended periods of time because they “might” get raped at any time?
Thank you Carol for sharing your sister and nephew with us. I will include them in my prayers.
@truthseeker
You forcing him to raise a baby he doesn’t want takes away his right of self determination, and rape is consensual to the rapist so who are you to take away his right of self determination? The right of self determination ends when innocent people begin.
Jack: Yeah… I have the same problem. I can rationally see why a rape exception doesnt make sense, but I still find the thought of a twelve-year-old incest victim having to carry her dad’s baby (or any other victim for that matter) just absolutely horrifying.
To be a little clinical. The incest/rape is horrifying, The age of the expectant mother is troubling, whether the result of incest, rape or consentual(?) sex with a twelve or thirteen year-old boy.
Being pregnant is natural, even though it is shocking and morally revolting to us when we hear a twelve year-old girl is pregnant. The preborn child is innocent.
Everybody can agree that compassion is needed to be shown to the twelve year-old and the preborn child.
If abortion is illegal even in the case of rape, that is exactly what will happen.
As a matter of fact, these large doses of horomones are part and parcel for rape kits.
The same reason killing a houseguest is wrong.
Not all intruders had the intention to be intruders (such as the insane).
And the baby made from that sperm teleports out of the womb as a courtesy to the rape victim, right?
Correct.
Her body has more worth than an inanimate object than a house or castle, and she is entitled to defend it even more so that she would a house or a castle.
Her body has more worth than an inanimate object than a house or castle, and she is entitled to defend it even more so that she would a house or a castle.
—
She is definitely right to defend it from a rapist – yes indeed; but she has no right to kill an innocent child just like the rest of us don’t have a right to kill an innocent child.
Now go pick up your shoes, Shoes Thrower. They are disgusting and they smell bad and they are not worth my, or anybody else’s, attention.
Don’t forget to get new shoes, because the shoes you are throwing are old, and should be discarded.
@SHOES THROWER
So you would force a poor 13 year old girl who was being abused by her parents, failing school, and had a drug problem, to have a child against her will? If it’s not rape then who cares?
No, it is the right to defend your body against an intruder.
Except that we’ve already debunked your whole “intruder” argument on another thread, since a child isn’t intruding on their parents who have default custody of them.
(gonna keep posting this until Mr. THROWER acknowledges it.)
Her body has more worth than an inanimate object than a house or castle
And her child’s body doesn’t? Why not?
“And the baby made from that sperm teleports out of the womb as a courtesy to the rape victim, right?”
You need to take a biology course. The only part of the baby that “intrudes” is the sperm. The rest of the baby was already there in the woman. No teleportation necessary. Sheesh. Keep your shoes on at least until you no longer deny/miss such obvious things? Try to stay real.
What is this talk about “forcing a man to raise a baby he doesn’t want”?
My mother and father had consensual sex. My father didn’t want me from the minute he found out I was on the way. He walked away.
I was born, my mother raised me. Nobody FORCED my father to do anything.
Women are not “forced” to raise children they don’t want, either. That’s why there’s ADOPTION.
All this talk about “the rapist’s baby”…it’s HER baby, too…not just “the rapist’s”.
“and rape is consensual to the rapist so who are you to take away his right of self determination?”
U-104, You may want to take that comment back. At best you realize you were just wrong about rape being consensual in any way and take that comment back. At worst you are unintentionally dissing the rape victim. Consent does not mean willfully doing something yourself it mans willfully submitting to the actions of others.
TS….really?
The rape comment was meant to sound absurd BECAUSE IT IS!
If “the right of self determination” overrides an innocent person’s right to live WHERE DOES IT END?
@Pamela
“Women are not “forced” to raise children they don’t want, either. That’s why there’s ADOPTION.”
EXACTLY!
Really U-104. It is impossible to grant yourself consent to do anything.
So a woman could not grant herself consent to abort a baby conceived in rape?
The only part of the baby that “intrudes” is the sperm. The rest of the baby was already there in the woman. No teleportation necessary. Sheesh.
Actually, Mr. THROWER is more mistaken than you give him credit. There is NO part of a child which is an intruder. After amphimixis, sperm no longer exists, and the joined gametes become the child of the pregnant mother. There is no magic, no teleportation-only science.
U-104 I am not sure how did that, but poof, a rabbit out of the hat. A very good argument.
The “intruder” argument makes no sense.
Abortion is more comparable to withdrawing your consent for your toddler to live in your home (and you are withdrawing consent now, so you don’t want to take the time to give the child to anyone else), so you go to her bedroom where she is peacefully sleeping and start ripping her limbs off.
Uh thank you? Sorry, it’s late and i’m not sure i understand.
Abortion is not appropriate for the same reason rape is not appropriate – neither are consensual acts. They are non-consensual acts for different reasons, but nonetheless, both are non-consensual acts.
We need to respect relationships. That is what abortion does the most – it destroys the idea of what good human relationships are about – mutual consent, self-giving.
Ah i see.
Does everyone think it is fair to say that being pro-life is equivalent to being pro-positive consensual human relationships?
The child is in someone else’s womb.
Her child’s body is intruding into her body.
At what point in time did she grant consent to the rapist to use her womb for reproduction?
The only analogous principle that might grant a limited exception to the rape exception is the doctrine of adverse possession, found in real estate law. Even if adverse possession could apply, it would not apply if the rape victim disclaims the unborn baby’s use of the womb immediately upon discovery of the pregnancy.
More on adverse possession.
SHOES do you even know how insane you sound?
Her child’s body is intruding into her body.
No they aren’t. Her body acted in a manner to place the child’s body there. You wouldn’t be able to pick someone off the street, kidnap them, place them in your home, then kill them legally because you didn’t actually want them there. Not to mention, MINOR CHILDREN ARE NEVER INTRUDERS ON/IN THEIR PARENTS’ PROPERTY, AND YOU KEEP IGNORING THAT STATEMENT WHENEVER I MAKE IT.
Perhaps this question has been asked before, but I’m curious. To those who know the law, probably depending on the state, but are rape offenders who are tried and found guilty, ever required to pay damages/child support to the victim and the child conceived in the rape?
“So a woman could not grant herself consent to abort a baby conceived in rape”
That is correct U-104; a woman can grant consent to the abortionist to abort her baby. But you cannot grant yourself consent. By definition consent is given to others and not to yourself.
If “the right of self determination” overrides an innocent person’s right to live WHERE DOES IT END?
The same place rape does.
@TS So the father can let someone else kill the baby, and as long as he doesn’t do it himself it’s ok?
So the right of self determination ends in a crying woman?
Well, from what I understand, xalisae has debunked Shoes Thrower’s “intruder” language on another thread, and is now waiting for Shoes Thrower to acknowlege that.
How much must a person suffer before killing innocent people becomes morally ok?
truthseeker says:
August 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Noe Denise it would not. Are you suggesting that all women of fertile age ingest large doses of hormones over extended periods of time because they “might” get raped at any time?
(Denise) Do you REALLY oppose abortion? Then it would seem logical that you would want those who would abort pregnancies conceived in rape to be protected from such pregnancies. Otherwise, if she gets raped and pregnant, she will abort.
@Tyler: If the above statement is true, your main concern is not unlike Denise Noe’s concern which is that rape is an avenue that allows men to pass on their seed through force, or, in your won words, the rapist determines ”for her [the rape victim] that she would bear his child.” The problem with this argument is that it attributes the child, and the pregnancy to the rapist. This is wrong. The child is unique, with its own DNA.
(Denise) The child is the progeny of rapist. The unique DNA is half that of the rapist.
Most people want to pass on their genotype. They want to reproduce. As one man said, “I believe that children are the way you continue yourself because they came out of your body. You live on through your children.” It is partly for this reason that we have a flourishing industry catering to the infertile. People want to pass on their DNA.
I would prefer that rapists NOT be able to do this through their rapes.
Doe says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:22 am
Perhaps this question has been asked before, but I’m curious. To those who know the law, probably depending on the state, but are rape offenders who are tried and found guilty, ever required to pay damages/child support to the victim and the child conceived in the rape?
(Denise) YES. They can be ordered to pay child support and often are.
“People want to pass on their DNA. I would prefer that rapists NOT be able to do this through their rapes.”
Has someone established that the generalization (people wish to pass on their DNA) holds in the case of rapists? Actually, given the number of abortions out there, it seems to me that a lot of people want to avoid passing on their DNA.
Is your reason for wanting them not to pass on their DNA merely punitive? If so, be aware that for those who would prefer that their offspring be aborted instead, you’d be rewarding their wishes to NOT pass on their DNA.
Seriously. I think unless you can establish the prevalence of your generalization in the actual population of rapists, speaking punitively of this DNA-pass-along thing is just chatter.
Truthseeker,
I think your moral quandary *may* be coming because your starting premise is faulty. I don’t want to presume, but one of the main reasons I see people support a rape/incest exemption is because they think like this:
Abortion is wrong because it trades a child’s life for momentary pleasure. If someone doesn’t want a child, they shouldn’t do what causes a child.
With that line of thinking, rape and incest become problematic because the mother isn’t trading a child’s life for pleasure of any kind, but rather for something more valuable, such as her sanity.
But that’s not why abortion is wrong, not at the core of the argument. Abortion is wrong because human beings inherently have a right to live.
When viewed this way, rape/incest is no longer problematic. It’s not one partner’s consent to the act that determines whether a child should live, but the fact of the child’s existence.
That is not to denigrate the trauma to the mother in any way, but the blame and punishment lay with the abuser. When such acts result in pregnancy, there are two victims. Killing one of those victims will not bring anything the mother lost back, it just takes more away from her.
”@TS So the father can let someone else kill the baby, and as long as he doesn’t do it himself it’s ok?”
No U-104, that is not what I am syaing or even what I think so I am not sure how you got that from my posts.
Shoes Thrower, Mom is not a house, therefore the preborn child is not an intruder. It is silly to reduce biological realities down to a turf war or to a property law dispute. Regardless of the circumstances of conception pregnancy, in itself, can be very beneficial for women; however, we don’t go around ordering women to get pregnant. How does pregnancy harm a women? Or more importantly, when does pregnancy harm a woman? Can we not confine our discussion to those moments when a woman may be harmed by pregnancy? If we do, I am certain we can find areas of agreement.
Denise, ingesting high doses or hormones has a lot of dangerous and unwanted side-effects. You could prevent pregnancy from rape by sterilizing all fertile women too but I wouldn’t support that either.
“Abortion is wrong because it trades a child’s life for momentary pleasure. If someone doesn’t want a child, they shouldn’t do what causes a child.”
Thank you Heather but with rape that line of thinking doesn’t really apply because rape is not something that a woman does consensually or pleasurable.
Truthseeker,
I would encourage you to read my entire post, because you just made my point for me.
testing
I am always amazed on how people have opinions on issues they have not even LIVED THEM SELVES!
i am a RAPE VICTIM. I WAS RAPED AT THE AGE OF 14 AND became PREGNANT FROM THE RAPE. AS HAVING LIVED THIS EXPERIENCE MYSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THEN being forced to have an ABORTION BECAUSE THE STATE THOUGHT it was the best for me, i can say RAPE AND ABORTION DON’T GO TOGETHER. a Woman that becomes pregnant after being rape DOESN’T NEED AN ABORTION, ON THE CONTRARY the abortion is another form of rape and abuse!!!!!!!!!!! SO DON’T TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT THE BEST THING FOR ME IS…. BECAUSE I AM LIVING IT 30 YEARS LATER I STILL REGRET MY ABORTION EVEN IF THE CHILD WAS A PRODUCT OF THE RAPE!!!!!! don’t talk unles you have walked the walk…. live your life and if you don’t have the experience SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND KEEP YOU BOOK OPINION. I REGRET MY ABORTION I REGRET KILLING MY CHILD EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A PRODUCT OF A RAPE INTERACTION.
I did Heather and I see your point that the premise is different for consensual pleasurable sex and rape and that is a great distinction to point out with regards to self-determination.
Elsa, thank you having the strength to speak out and for sharing your story. I am sorry for what you have had to go through and wish you had been given the support you needed.
So it’s not that killing an innocent baby is wrong, it’s that slutty women need to be taught a lesson?
And just think TS people who think abortion for rape is acceptable are responsible.
U-104, are you for real? Cause your comments have devolved into jibberish.
Hey i’m just trying to decipher your bs though a process of elimination, so why do rape survivors have a right to kill innocent people?
And yes i’m very real just like those babies are real.
One thing that has become clear to me in this discussion is that no woman of any age should ever under any circumstances have abortion forced upon her.
U-104. If you had been reading this thread you would see that same point was previously addressed with Tyler. Frame your arguments in an honest way. Nobody is claiming that anybody has the “right” to take the life of an innocent person. People do have the “right” to self-determination.
Wow, U-104.
Truthseeker has been incredibly respectful throughout this whole thing. Much more respectful than I probably would have been with all the people attacking her. What is it about expressing any doubt about abortion that causes pro-lifers to just attack others and treat them as less than human? Before you jump on me, I’m 100% pro-life, but I don’t see how talking to anyone you disagree with like you are will win you any arguments.
It’s pretty clear that truthseeker has a heart for the unborn and for victims of rape. Having been in her position, I would bet that she very much would like to be certain about where she stands on circumstances of rape. Being rude doesn’t help her and it definitely doesn’t make your arguments any more convincing to her. Unless you’re just looking to pick a fight and don’t hav any intention on helping her understand why you are against the rape exception, then your comments are a total waste of time.
Including the unborn ones right?
And i’m a bit of an egalitarian, i don’t think abortion should be forced on boys either.
If we respected people’s right to self-determination then rape victim’s would not get abused a second time by having people harass them and try forcing abortion on them.
Elsa, I’m so very sorry for all the trauma you experienced and having an abortion.
As I explained earlier, my nephew was conceived in rape, and his mother went through many hardships.
As for myself, I, too, deeply regret my abortion. Initially, when I first met my sister-in-law it was very difficult for me knowing what my sister-in-law went through and her decision to give life, because I did the EXACT opposite. God heard my cries & saw my tears of my deep regret–42 years now. God’s always-perfect timing was set, as He placed me with this family, if I accepted His will, for the journey of hope & healing. Raising my nephew after his mother died, along with my son, was a beautiful experience and gave me the perseverance to continue not only for healing but a very strong formation in faith. Note; My oldest son & my nephew lost a parent at the exact same age of 8 years old.
You are in my prayers, and I will offer up my intentions for you today at Mass.
I did Heather and I see your point that the premise is different for consensual pleasurable sex and rape and that is a great distinction to point out with regards to self-determination.
You absolutely missed Heather’s point, and you’re unfairly attacking U-104 just because he’s presenting his point in an aggressive way, TS.
Think long and hard about why you oppose legal abortion in the first place. Is it really just because you think consensual sex should have repercussions? If so, you might oppose legal abortion for the absolutely wrong reasons. That would be the position of someone who thinks women should be “punished” for having sex, and as a Pro-Lifer who gets this argument from the other side all the time, I’d rather you weren’t even Pro-Life at all, let alone just allowing abortion in the cases of rape. If a woman gets “the right to self-determination” after rape, why shouldn’t she get it after consensual sex? Both considerations of such a “right” absolutely neglect weighing the right to live of her child. That is what we are saying.
Hi Truthseeker,
I think it was on Bobby Bambino’s facebook page that he and a friend were discussing that pro-lifers who have a rape exception play right into one of the pro-abort’s arguments. By saying that abortion should be allowed for women who didn’t choose to have sex (rape victims) but not for women who chose to have sex you are in essence saying women should be punished for their sexuality.
If you lay down and have sex then you MUST accept the consequences of that action (a baby) but if you didn’t lay down but were forced by a man then you don’t need to accept the consequences (a baby).
As Heather B already said if you start with the premise that the unborn child is a human being and as such has a right to his/her life then rape doesn’t really throw a wrench in the machinery at all. You would still arrive at the conclusion that though rape is HORRIBLE (I mean, as women don’t we all shudder at the thought?) and getting pregnant from rape is heartbreaking BUT that child still is an innocent human being and should not be killed.
Btw, HI JACK!!!!
I’ve been thinking of you a lot since you left facebook. I hope everything is working out for you these days and that things are not as stressful as they had been.
@TS
Ok question, Does the right to self-determination override the right to life? yes or no?
@Trisha
“Truthseeker has been incredibly respectful throughout this whole thing. Much more respectful than I probably would have been with all the people attacking her.”
Yeah, i don’t care.
“What is it about expressing any doubt about abortion that causes pro-lifers to just attack others and treat them as less than human?”
I’m not attacking, i wish TS no harm, and i certainly don’t consider anyone less than human.
“Before you jump on me, I’m 100% pro-life”
Guess what, i’m not.
“It’s pretty clear that truthseeker has a heart for the unborn and for victims of rape.”
As do i.
“Being rude doesn’t help her”
I prefer blunt.
“Unless you’re just looking to pick a fight and don’t hav any intention on helping her understand why you are against the rape exception, then your comments are a total waste of time.”
I hate arguing, it’s not fun, it i had my way i would never argue, but sadly sometimes it’s necessary.
@X
Right on.
Correct, which is why the preborn child might have even fewer rights than an intruder into a house, due to the greater burden of an intrusion into a womb.
Under what circumstances should a pregnant rape victim be considered to acquiesce to the pregnancy?
Is not the point of the pro-Life thesis to treat the preborn child exactly the same as an adult?
“the preborn child is not an intruder.”
“Correct”
“greater burden of an intrusion into a womb”
Does not compute.
“Under what circumstances should a pregnant rape victim be considered to acquiesce to the pregnancy?”
Nine month rental seems good to me.
“Is not the point of the pro-Life thesis to treat the preborn child exactly the same as an adult?”
Nope, it is not.
rasqual says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:44 am
“People want to pass on their DNA. I would prefer that rapists NOT be able to do this through their rapes.”
Has someone established that the generalization (people wish to pass on their DNA) holds in the case of rapists? Actually, given the number of abortions out there, it seems to me that a lot of people want to avoid passing on their DNA.
(Denise) The vast majority of people want to reproduce, to pass on their genetic line. Women get abortions but most of those women will (or have) had children, thus passing on their DNA. Because women bear the lion’s cost of reproduction, they often forgo it when the time isn’t right but few forgo it entirely (although I have).
There is not reason why it SHOULD NOT hold in the case of rapists as with other people. I’ve heard a hypothesis that for men who are unattractive to women — not necessarily physically but because of their character and personality traits or social status — it makes sense for them to use force to get their genetic material back into the system.
Who is usually sexually attacked? Females of any age but rapists concentrate their attentions on women of prime reproductive age. When a woman reaches 50, her chances of being raped fall dramatically — but her chances of being killed if she is raped go up dramatically. Since he can’t get her pregnant, he might as well kill her.
Which also means that there is a negative side to allowing rape victims to abort. If he KNOWS she won’t carry to term, he might be more likely to kill her since she won’t bring his DNA back into the system or create descendants for him.
x, I think I do see Heather’s perspective. If you are willing to disregard the rape victim’s right to self-determination and frame the debate around the baby’s rights/life instead then any talk about the rape victim’s right to self-determination is irrelevant. I understand that; I just don’t know that I am willing to accept that.
It was in reference that the mom is not a house.
What is wrong with treating the preborn child exactly as an adult?
What action by the pregnant rape victim indicates consent to the pregnancy?
Sydney,
It is not a matter of punishing anyone for anything. It is a matter of taking responsibility for your actions. Consensual ‘anything’ should come with acceptance of responsibility for your actions.
Trisha, thank you for your support. U-104’s comments were getting ridiculous. BTW and as an FYI I am a him. :)
For me, it is completely unacceptable. A rape victim certainly did not acquiesce to the resulting pregnancy at the time of the rape.
It is not punishment. The argument is that consenting to sex implies acquiescence to any resulting pregnancy.
The right to life is not absolute.
Footwear Chucker: “The right to life is not absolute.”
Right. Those who are deemed inconvenient may have ad hoc, special pleading arguments advanced in advocacy of their destruction.
TS,
I am wondering if more and more people are PROJECTING their thoughts and feelings onto those that have conceived in rape. ”I could NEVER do that. I would NEVER do that. I couldn’t carry a rapist’s child!”
Time for all of us to actually read and educate ourselves about those who have survived rape and bore the children conceived. Learn about those that have conceived in rape and aborted. Read about their regret!! THEY will be silent no more. THEY will have their say.
Abortion will NEVER heal rape. Ever.
Elsa,
I am so very sorry. My heart aches for what you have been through. I know so many other women that share your story. How they long for their innocent child.
Time for us to read about the X case.
The arguments I have made would also apply to post-born adults. I have stated that post-born adults do not have the right to intrude into another person’s home, and as such, a straightforward application of the pro-Life thesis means that preborn babies have no right to intrude into another person’s womb. Not even adverse possession would grant such a right, as adverse possession requires acquiescence on the part of the victim.Lack of acquiesence means that the preborn baby is there against the will of the womb’s owner.
Is not the point of the pro-Life thesis to treat the preborn child exactly the same as an adult?
This is just dumb. A preborn child is, as you stated yourself, a child. We do not let three-year-olds drive, vote, or sit on juries. We also don’t let other people come along and kill them because they are inconvenient. And we expect their parents to provide them with the basic necessities of life, even in cases where they have parents who don’t want to. The unborn child is, likewise, a child. Unlike an adult, they are not allowed to drive, vote, or sit on a jury. It is absolutely stupid to suggest that the pro-life position is that an unborn child has all the rights of an adult, then surrenders all those adult rights at birth, and then has to slowly gain them back over the course of the next 21 years. They have the same rights as any child to care and provision. But you wouldn’t let an unborn child fly a plane, no matter how much love and care that unborn child is entitled to.
Correct, which is why the preborn child might have even fewer rights than an intruder into a house, due to the greater burden of an intrusion into a womb.
EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE PARENT/MINOR CHILD RELATIONSHIP WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN A PREGNANT WOMAN AND HER GESTATING OFFSPRING. PLEASE REPLY.
Yes but truthseeker, in a way that is “slut shaming”. You had sex so now TAKE RESPONSIBILITY! That isn’t why we oppose abortion. We don’t oppose abortion because they must “take responsibility.” If so we would oppose adoption as well because letting someone else raise your child for 18 years isn’t “taking responsibility” if you think about it.
We must always frame the argument around the unborn child’s humanity and inherent right to life.
Shoes Thrower, no we do not want to treat the unborn as adults. I don’t think fetuses should drive, vote or pay taxes. We treat them as PEOPLE because they are human beings like you, like I and like my 5 month old baby and my 5 year old child.
Shoes Thrower, you make no logical sense. You have agreed that Mom is not a house, and that the preborn child is not an intruder but you still insist on using the analogy of the Castle doctrine and assert that a preborn child has fewer rights than an intruder!
Can you please take your time and explain clearly what your current argument is?
You have completely lost me.
What act by the rape victim established an implicit agreement to let the gestating offspring use her womb? Certainly not the act of rape itself, nor discovering the pregnancy.
I only agreed that Mom is not a house. Because an intrusion of the womb is greater than intrusion into a house, Castle Doctrine applies.
What act by the rape victim established an implicit agreement to let the gestating offspring use her womb?
None, but children don’t need consent from parents to have their basic needs which ensure their continued survival met. That’s what you’re refusing to acknowledge. Parents have special legal obligations to their children. Children have special rights to the property of their parents.
Shoes Thrower - the X case was decided incorrectly, suicide is not a justification for killing the preborn child. Basically, X was a terrorist. She basically said: “Either you allow me to kill my preborn child or I will kill myself and the preborn child.” It should have been thrown of the courts as a misuse of the legal system. Life of the mother exceptions are susceptible to misuse by those intent on killing others, as this x – case demonstrates. X should’ve been handed over psychiatric care.
Arftul Dodger said: “I only agreed that Mom is not a house. Because an intrusion of the womb is greater than intrusion into a house, Castle Doctrine applies.”
How so?
I am wondering if more and more people are PROJECTING their thoughts and feelings onto those that have conceived in rape. ”I could NEVER do that. I would NEVER do that. I couldn’t carry a rapist’s child!”
I agree Carla. That is why Carol and Elsa’s comments carried so much more weight to me then anybody elses on this blogline.
I appreciate that TS.
Truthseeker, I just re-read your post at August 25, 2012 at 11:58 am. I agree that a rape victim has lost (past tense) the right to having input into whether or not to get pregnant. However, I can make a few comments about your point. First, the ability to have some say over when one gets pregnant is not exactly the samething as “self-determination” because no person has total control over when they get pregnant. Second, the event (conception) has passed, so nothing she does now can restore that violation of her “ability to choose when to get pregnant.” Third, the violation of her “choice/self-determination” is the fault of the rapist, but the conception was not (this last point requires faith in non-material cause of events or rather that all material events include a non-material cause in addition to a material cause).
My ex-husband didn’t really go for the gusto in raping me until after our two children had already been born. Since I only found out he was a dyed-in-the-wool rapist after their births, should I have been able to kill them? Should that change my opinion of one or both of my children, knowing that they are a rapist’s children?
x, the simple answer is no. I am glad you were able to separate yourself and your children from your ex-husband. You all deserve the best.
“no person has total control over when they get pregnant.”
Tyler, they can however have total control over when they don’t get pregnant. It’s called abstinence. So self-determination of NOT conceiving children is possible for women.
And I really don’t understand what you are trying to say with that “faith in non-material causes” spiel. Thanks for all your thoughtful responses though. But due to the sensitivity of the subject and Elsa’s request we stfu cause we aren’t rape victims I would rather not get too much deeper into that at this time. Maybe we can get into it deeper at another time.
Sydney M says:
August 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Yes but truthseeker, in a way that is “slut shaming”. You had sex so now TAKE RESPONSIBILITY! That isn’t why we oppose abortion. We don’t oppose abortion because they must “take responsibility.” If so we would oppose adoption as well because letting someone else raise your child for 18 years isn’t “taking responsibility” if you think about it.
(Denise) The reason to be cautious about adoption isn’t because it allows the birth mother to get out of “responsibility” for the baby but because adoption is so strongly statistically linked to both serial murder and parricide.
Truthseeker, the fact that the rape victim has lost the ability to remain abstinent or chaste, goes to your original point which I granted is true. At the point before intercourse it doesn’t really matter if she was going to remain chaste (was a virgin), the point is the rape victim had the decision of when to engage in sexual activity taken away from her. I thought and still think this is what you originally meant when you said the rape victim lost her right to self-determination.
When I mentioned that no one has total control of when they get pregnant I was referring to the fact that after intercourse (including the disgusting act of rape) a person does not have control of when or if conception (not intercourse) takes place.
Truthseeker, I appreciated you sharing your viewpoint.
“I have stated that post-born adults do not have the right to intrude into another person’s home, and as such…”
Dude, screw your “as such.” The unborn child is A FREAKING MEMBER OF THE FAMILY.
Denise, that is just sick (saying that a 13 year old or whatever age a girl begins puberty) should be put on the POISON pill because she MIGHT be raped!
1) Its a LEVEL ONE CARCINOGEN….risks for several different CANCERS, including BREAST!
2) Horrible side effects (blood clots, etc)
3) It messes with the NATURAL CYCLE!
I wouldn’t take any form of contraceptive nor would I allow ANYONE to give my daughters any if I were married.
That’s as crazy as putting contraceptives in the water supply!
I have a brother who opposes legal abortion. He is for the morning after pill. Most evidence suggests this pill PREVENTS fertilization. Some people who oppose legal abortion fear it might also cause a zygote to be more likely to fall of the uterine wall instead of implanting.
What do you think of the morning after pill for rape victims?
THROWER: “Is not the point of the pro-Life thesis to treat the preborn child exactly the same as an adult?”
No, it isn’t. No one’s advocating the right to vote or drive a car for preborn children. What they should have is the same right to LIFE that human adults have…
(Thank you in to all who offered me words of support in my previous post. I am reposting this for the new people that have not read it )
……………..I am always amazed on how people have opinions on issues they have not even LIVED THEM SELVES!i am a RAPE VICTIM. I WAS RAPED AT THE AGE OF 14 AND became PREGNANT FROM THE RAPE. AS HAVING LIVED THIS EXPERIENCE MYSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can talk about it TRUTHFULLY. I WAS FORCED I SAY forced! to have an ABORTION BECAUSE OF people that think know better than GOD!!!!! THE STATE THOUGHT it was the best for me TO HAVE AN ABORTION!
i can say RAPE and ABORTION !!!!!!DON’T GO TOGETHER.
a Woman that becomes pregnant after being rape DOESN’T NEED AN ABORTION, ON THE CONTRARY the abortion is another form of rape and abuse!!!!!!!!!!!
Abortion after rape will damage even further the woman psychologically like it did to me at the age of 14, I lost myself because of the abortion! SO DON’T TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT THE BEST THING FOR ME IS….yes for me because I am a rape victim and all I say ALL ALL ALL RAPE VICTIMS THAT I’VE ME IN COUSELING REGRET THEIR ABORTION.
I AM STILL LIVING THIS PAIN 30 YEARS LATER….. I STILL REGRET MY ABORTION EVEN IF THE CHILD WAS A PRODUCT OF THE RAPE!!!!!! don’t talk unles you have walked the walk…. live your life and if you don’t have the experience SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND KEEP YOU BOOK OPINION. I have basis for what I say while people that are quick to say “oh I think rape victims should have abortion are MISTAKEN! and one day one day GOD WILL make you see this. I REGRET MY ABORTION I REGRET KILLING MY CHILD EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A PRODUCT OF A RAPE INTERACTION. I pray everyday that God forgives me for being a participant at killing this innocent child that God sent to me as a product of a rape!
Now that we’ve pointed out gestating CHILDREN are, in fact CHILDREN in this thread, I wonder which thread EXCREMENT THROWER is going to head off to next, so that he can pretend we never attempted to bring that point to his attention and continue going on about intruders and adult rights and castle laws and other irrelevant nonsense.
Elsa I am sorry for your loss and the pain that you went through. Thank-you for sharing your story. Your strong character comes through.
But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. James 4:6
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away. Rev 21:4
God bless you.
ShoesThrower – you’re positing an absurdity – your intrusion argument commits suicide via circular reasoning.
I’ll tell you the one abortion argument a pro-choicer made which I find the most troubling. It has to do with a female sex slave who is intentionally raped/impregnated. They prevent her from having an abortion. The slavers/human traffickers keep the child as a human ball and chain, so the mother won’t run away. Most mothers desperately would rather abort their child than to let them get into the hands of sex slavers. From a mercy standpoint this is understandable.
Even in such a case, though, I still opt for life, not death, because in such a terrible furnace, a heart for righteousness and a will to eliminate sex slavery might be born and grown.
You cannot right a wrong, by committing another wrong.
You must overcome evil with good.
BTW – in some countries, raped women keep their child, raise them in righteousness, and make them great and powerful people as revenge against the rapist.
Love wins.
And what right to life do adult intruders have?
The right to an attorney. If they cannot afford one, one will be appointed to them. If they attempt to harm the homeowner, they deserve a bullet between the eyes.
A relative of the homeowner with no ill will deserves neither of those things. Comparison fail.
And what right to life do adult intruders have?
AGE. OF. THE. CHILD! AND. FAMILIAL. RELATIONSHIP. TO. THE. MOTHER. MEANS. THROWER. IS. FULL. OF. B.S.
But hey, at least my “Which thread will he be off to with this bunk, next?” question was answered! :3
“And what right to life do adult intruders have? ”
You have utterly failed to show that an intruder in someone’s house is analogous to an unborn human person in a mother’s womb. The intruder belongs outside the house of the person they are intruding on. Where does an embryo belong? Are you really willing to say that an embryo belongs outside the womb of its own mother? It is a fact that the proper environment to encourage growth, health, and nourishment for the embryo is inside its mother’s womb. It is NOT a fact that the proper environment to encourage growth, health, and nourishment for someone who is an uninvited house guest is a place where they are not welcome.
Don’t mean to derail the thread but I just witnessed a legitimate rape in my front yard.
A male squirrel bit a female squirrel until she stopped fighting. That was that.
Now who should I call?
I mean are the animal rights activists concerned about this at all? Or are they for the RIGHTS of animals and silent on the killing of humans??
So confused.
Bobby I wished you said this ages ago. Good post. Very succinct.
Before asking about the circumstances of the impregnation event (rape and/or incest) the fundamental and necessary first question should be, ‘what is the proper time for the application of person status. All other questions about abortion are contingent upon the answer to that question.
If person status should be applied at conception, or at viability, or some other time prior to the natural birth event, then abortion would be murder because constitutional right to life protection is inextricably bound to person status.
And if all that is so, then, #1) the woman’s privacy and reproductive rights are subordinate to the fetus right to life, and #2) the circumstances surrounding the impregnation event are irrelevant.
But who should decide the proper timing for the application of person status?
Is there anyone with the scientific or technical expertise to say with 100% certitude when we become fully human, fully a person, and therefore entitled to equal protection under the constitution?
Not doctors, philosophers, preachers, or judges. In section IX of Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Blackman said, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
Not the President. On August 16, 2008 at the ‘Civil Forum on The Presidency’ at SaddlebackChurch in Lake Forest, California, Senior Pastor Rick Warren asked Senator Obama at what point a baby gets “human rights.” Senator Obama replied, “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question … is above my pay grade.”
On CNN’s Faith and Politics Compassion Forum held in Grantham, Pennsylvania Senator Obama was asked, “When do you believe life begins?” He said, “I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.”
Not the Vice President. On Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series April 29, 2007, Katie Couric asked Senator Joe Biden, “Do you believe that life begins at conception?” Senator Biden replied, “I am prepared to accept my church’s view…I have to accept that on faith.”
Is there anyone with the scientific or technical expertise to say with 100% certitude when we become fully human, fully a person, and therefore entitled to equal protection under the constitution?
But there is. It’s quite simple. We are persons when we are human beings, and we are human beings when we are living organisms of the species homo sapiens sapiens, and we are new living organisms of the species homo sapiens sapiens at the point of conception.
Are you beginning to understand the fatal flaw of Roe v Wade? If no one is really qualified to make a true empirical science-based decision that answers the question, “Is this fetus which is about to be aborted a person or not a person?” then why are we allowing abortion?
The truly honest must admit that out of our inability to present empirical, hard science, peer reviewed research that clearly demonstrates the exact moment for the application of ‘person status’, then all decisions to abort are based on pure subjectivity, pure opinion. Without empirical, hard science research that pins down the correct moment for the application of person status we arrive inexorably and unavoidably at the only possible conclusion; Abortion might be the termination of a ‘person’ entitled to constitutional right-to-life protection. In other words, it might be murder.
David, I think we have more certainity.
The term ‘person’ is legal term and when it is applied to human beings it only serves to separate humanity into those with personhood status and those without. In other words, yuu do not have to qualify your assertion that abortion is murder since you don’t have to accept someone else’s false definition of who is person. In short, the only reason people have stopped calling abortion murder is because legally speaking it is not murder due to the failure of the law to recognize a preborn child’s personhood status.
Furthermore, a woman’s ‘right to privacy’ is loaded and vague term. What is a right to privacy? Does a right to privacy allow someone to kill an adult person? I don’t think so. ’Reproductive rights’ is another loaded term and could cover a lot of things other than abortion. However, historically it has been used as an euphemism for abortion. If reproductive rights simply means that they believe a woman has a right to abortion most people would quickly realize that a right to an abortion simply means a right to a dead baby. Not much of right to most reasonable people.
Which is supposed to be irrelevant as far as the pro-Life thesis is concerned.
“Which is supposed to be irrelevant as far as the pro-Life thesis is concerned.”
What pro-life thesis are you talking about?
David,
That was quite a rollercoaster-ride trilogy of commments. Yeah, that’s obvious. No, that’s playing devil’s advocate way too far. Yeah, that’s obvious.
Thanks for keeping us on our toes. And a bit confused. :)
Which is supposed to be irrelevant as far as the pro-Life thesis is concerned.
If it was irrelevant, I wouldn’t have been chasing you around from thread to thread trying to get you to answer my point, you dolt. You can’t just claim it’s irrelevant, ignore it, and stick your fingers in your ears. The age of the child means they are a minor, and their parent(s) have default custody. Therefore no trespassing. You fail.
So the rapist gets to force his victim to have his baby?
Nobody here is pushing for rape to be legal. That would include rape with the intent of impregnation. It’s not like the rapist plays a role in the pregnancy or birthing process after conception.
The baby, however, has a right to grow in the mother’s womb.
So the rapist gets to force his victim to have his baby?
Yep. We’re working on passing a law that gives a rapist permission to hold a woman at gunpoint until she wills his sperm to fertilize her egg and then makes the zygote implant with the jedi mind powers all women obviously possess.