Abortion

[palerider]

It's not really so stupid.

You are giving one group of humans power over another groups personal bodies and lives.

No. If you allow abortion, you are giving one group absolute power over the other group. If you dissalow abortion, you are giving one group limited, temporary power over the other group.

The thing is, coyote, is that you have reached the conclusion that abortion should not be performed unless the mother's life is in danger or if she were raped because the unborn is a human being and does have the right to live.

If you accept that they are human beings and do have a right to live, then no one has the right to deny them that right unless they are threatening the life of their mother. The right to live outweighs the right to not be inconvenienced, or even the right to try and avoid emotional trauma. Mom doesn't have to keep a child of rape (as rare as they are) but she has no right to kill the child in order to avoid being reminded of the rape. Or do you favor allowing people to kill others who remind them of terrible times in their lives?

 

[top gun]

"Humanizing" Rape and Abortion

Title: "Humanizing" Rape and Abortion
Author: Bruce S. Ticker

She was raped by her father. She became pregnant. "She said there was no way she wanted the baby," recalled her mother.

The daughter, who was 15 at the time, had a miscarriage.

The legislature in this teenager's state, which is Pennsylvania, must have thought itself generous when it exempted her from seeking her father's consent for an abortion.

Pennsylvania's controversial Abortion Control Act, which lead to the Supreme Court's decision in Casey, when it finally goes into effect, allows a girl under 18 to obtain only the consent of her mother if her father impregnated her. How generous! This, in my mind, is a sample of just how callous politicians are when it comes to helping rape victims.

Rape and abortion are two of the most volatile issues confronting society at this time, and there are uncomfortable instances where rape and abortion come together.

Government is consistently insensitive to rape victims. The apathetic attitude of politicians is especially glaring when they deal with abortion. A prime example is the federal Hyde Amendment. Until this year, Congress used the Hyde Amendment to deny federal funding for abortion for most poor women. On top of that, are state laws aimed at restricting abortion by mandating parental consent or notification before a teen can get an abortion. Some states have even tried spousal consent laws.

Both these legislative efforts have not always accounted for rape victims, and even when the lawmakers did, they still betrayed their ignorance.

Abortion might be a debatable matter, but there is nothing to debate about what rape does to human beings. I have known too many women who were traumatized by sexual violence. It ruined their lives. It also affected people who were close to them. Some of them were my friends.

This past year's vote on the Hyde Amendment represents a significant, if far from complete, victory for women and men concerned about sexual violence. The federal government will now pay for abortion for poor women who were raped or victimized by incest. That is critically important. Poor women who never had a choice in any sense of the word can now obtain abortions.

Of course, anyone who believes in the right to choose between birth and abortion would want full coverage for poor women. What's shocking is the absence of any clause to take care of rape survivors for the previous 16 years of the Hyde Amendment's existence. Many members of Congress are against abortion and pressured by the anti-abortion lobbyists. Why now would they agree to cover rape victims?

The only explanation which makes sense to me is - what else - politics.

Congress has traditionally been lobbied to death by people on both sides of the issue. The past year saw key differences with a pro-choice president. Members of Congress now understand that abortion-rights activists have more clout than they did a year ago, and President Clinton might have pressured Congress to expand funding of abortion.

Paying for abortions of rape and incest victims was a natural compromise. The lawmakers could rationalize their votes by telling both side that this measure was enacted to help victims. Besides, if health-care reform which includes abortion coverage ever passes, lawmakers can have it both ways.

They can tell pro-choice supporters that health-care reform undoes the Hyde Amendment. Then they can remind the anti-abortion side they voted for the Hyde Amendment, but the pressure for health-care reform was so overwhelming they couldn't control the clause permitting abortion funding.

This still begs the question. The pro-choice camp says, if we fund abortions in some cases, why not all? The anti-abortion line is, a child is a child. Was it the child's fault that he or she was conceived by a rapist?

Of course, when it comes to rape, states can be just as callous as the federal government. Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act requires that a female under 18 seeking an abortion have the signed consent of at least one parent or that of a judge. The law originally required that a married woman seeking an abortion notify her husband.

What isn't commonly know is that a pregnant teen can forgo consent of her father if he impregnated her. (Wives were not required to notify husbands if they reported to police the pregnancy resulted from spousal sexual assault.) Who makes up these laws?

One of the original sponsors of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act was former state Representative, Stephen Freind. He felt that the issue of rape and abortion need not be mixed together. Rep. Freind went so far as to say in a radio interview that rape victims generally can't become pregnant because their bodies secret a substance to stop impregnation. This opinion was based on some obscure medical theory which the theory's creator said had been distorted by Rep. Freind.

Who thinks a woman should bear a rapist's child? A spokeswoman for Feminists for Life asserted in a documentary film that rape victims should follow through with their pregnancies.

Would both of these activists really stick to their ideals if a family member got pregnant from rape? Mr. Friend can't have a child. Would the woman from Feminists for Life really bear a child conceived in rape?

Some might think the state legislature was very considerate of extenuating circumstances. I don't. The Pennsylvania Abortion control Act is still tied up in court action, but when it goes into effect, pregnant teens unable to talk to their parents will have to get permission from a judge. Which one? The judge in a western Philadelphia suburb who declared his opposition to abortion then conducted himself in a questionable manner when presiding over two abortion-related cases?

Even when the judge strives to be fair, what qualifies him or her to rule on such a personal matter? I can see some form of adult guidance for teens facing abortion, but it would allow much more leeway than the Pennsylvania legislature had in mind. I imagine that a pregnant teen would probably appreciate all the intelligent guidance she could get. The information should show her all her options, but in the end, the law would allow the teen to make the final decision. Politics should not rule rape.

Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia writer who is researching a book on the impact of sexual violence on society.

ANOTHER MUST SEE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9cyd6Zl6tk

 

[palerider]

You have nothing top gun. Hang it up, admit that you have lost this discussion and if the anecdote helps you to sleep at night then use it as needed, but know that anecdote is in no way a substitute for actual debate. It is where those who are completely unable to defend their position go to die.

 

[top gun]

Everyone should support the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION for WOMEN.

NOW and Abortion Rights/Reproductive Issues

NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.

NOW and Violence Against Women

NOW is unique in its approach to the issue of violence against women, emphasizing that there are many interrelated aspects to the issue — domestic violence; sexual assault; sexual harassment; violence at abortion clinics; hate crimes across lines of gender, sexuality and race; the gender bias in our judicial system that further victimizes survivors of violence; and the violence of poverty emphasized by the radical right's attacks on poor women and children — all of which result from society's attitudes toward women and efforts to "keep women in their place."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPFCoeemKs

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Top Gun, you're really making yourself look pathetic here. May I kindly suggest you find some better way to spend your evenings.

 

[top gun]

Then I hold your instructor in political science personally responsible for your ignorance.

Try digesting john locke's 2nd treatise of civil government before you start using the words 'choice' and 'force'.

Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice... LoL!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmAh3hozyg0

 

[top gun]

Top Gun, you're really making yourself look pathetic here. May I kindly suggest you find some better way to spend your evenings.

No...

This thread is 54 pages long. Everybody already knows where everybody else stands.

I'm just submitting various published articles and various national groups public stances that are on one side of the debate. Same with the YouTube... except some of those are comedian takes on the situation.

Hey at least I'm not just typing personal insults to people.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

TG, you're better than this. Just repeating the same unsubstantiated claims and appealing to emotion about the extremely rare instances of rape and abortion.

Try taking on what palerider is arguing instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, whether or not it has anything to do with the current discussion.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

About the rape and incest issue - the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has always indicated those account for 1% of abortions. One wonders if we can get any of the pro-abortionists to prohibit abortion at least for the other 99%.

 

[top gun]

TG, you're better than this. Just repeating the same unsubstantiated claims and appealing to emotion about the extremely rare instances of rape and abortion.

Try taking on what palerider is arguing instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, whether or not it has anything to do with the current discussion.

You know you kill me. How unfair and one sided can someone be? I specifically told you I would just avoid direct conversations with palerider because of all of his repeated personal attacks & name calling that you refused do anything about by the way.

I post information that is in-line with my position.

It's 54 pages of the exact same stuff by everybody. You're concerned about repetitiveness... same thing over and over again... all the exact same stuff... Come on I mean I know your on the other side of this particular issue but you're a mod for Christ sake. Let me post my own way.

palerider:
In matters of killing, the law is all we have. As things stand today, abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery was. Blacks were enslaved because a court said that they were not human beings and unborns may be killed for the very same reason.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

No. The supreme court has proven nothing. Did the supreme court "prove" that blacks were not human beings when they ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not, in fact, human beings but were property? Did they prove anything or simply make a terrrible mistake?

By the way, roe still isn't as old as the ruling that declared that blacks weren't human beings that kept them enslaved and the property of whoever had enough money to buy them. The supreme court has reversed itself no less than 200 times. Suggesting that they have "proved" anything is clear evidence that you don't know much about the role of the supreme court.

And stating that abortion is presently legal is no better an argument than stating that slavery was legal in 1863. The present state of things is no indicator of how things will be; especially since legal precedent has been established for the unborn.

Bottom line. I don't go directly back and forth with individual posters if they can't keep it civil and I know the mods won't step in.

If you're not catching flack you're not over the target. I must be right on top of it!

 

[Libsmasher]

.

It's not really so stupid.

You are giving one group of humans power over another groups personal bodies and lives.

It's the same argument that the opposing side uses: giving women choice gives them power over the bodies of their fetus'.

You're massively equivocating - prolife people don't advocate killing women.

Women and unborn are in a unique situation that men will never be in.

Yaaaaaaa so what? All kinds of people are in situations that nobody else will ever be in.

Which rights are more important: a woman's right to make choices on her own body or an fetus' right to a life? It's a unique situation not found in any other groups of humans.

Claiming that a woman is making a decision only about her own body is the eternal pro-abortion distortion of the facts. Nobody cares what she does with her own body.

 

[palerider]

About the rape and incest issue - the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has always indicated those account for 1% of abortions. One wonders if we can get any of the pro-abortionists to prohibit abortion at least for the other 99%.

Coyote has come around. Review her position at the beginning of this thread comared to now. Minds can be changed but one must be a thinking person, willing to modify one's position based on fact. Top gun isn't a thinking person. Top gun is operating on faith, and no amount of credible evidence is going to shake his faith. As such, his argument is about as credible as a red faced bible thumper's..

 

[palerider]

TG, you're better than this.

No he isn't. This is classic top gun. When he finally understands that he has lost, he switches gear and posts the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated bilge upon which is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated postion is founded. He probably has a million of them taped to the walls around his computer lending him "moral" support.

Try taking on what palerider is arguing instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, whether or not it has anything to do with the current discussion.

He already tried that and failed miserably. That is why he is presently posting anecdote instead of argument.

 

[palerider]

TG, you're better than this. Just repeating the same unsubstantiated claims and appealing to emotion about the extremely rare instances of rape and abortion.

It's 54 pages of the exact same stuff by everybody. You're concerned about repetitiveness... same thing over and over again... all the exact same stuff... Come on I mean I know your on the other side of this particular issue but you're a mod for Christ sake. Let me post my own way.


Once again, top gun, (you pitiful creature) you miss the point entirely. I realize that it has been a very long time since reading for comprehension has been taught in school so I have helped you out by highlighting the main point in USMC's comment to you. I am repeating and have no problem at all with that. My argument has not been torn down. My argument has not been effectively rebutted by anyone. My argument is substantiated by medical science and by the law. I have credible documentation to support every part of my argument.

Yours has been nothing more than an unsubstantiated statement of your faith from the very beginning and no matter how many times you repeat it, it is still an unsubstatiated statement of your faith. You have nothing. You have lost, and it has become painfully obvious to all here except, of course, you and your faith is standing in the way of rational thought in your case.

 

[top gun]

As much as some here would like to see a name calling debate (i.e. pitiful creature) the facts remain.
There is nothing unsubstantiated about the fact abortion is legal in the United States of America... because it is.

Many of the statements made by the other side if recognized by the high court as valid would have never have allowed Roe to come into effect in the first place or immediately completely overturn it... this also has not been the case.

I am posting documented research from the other side. There's nothing wrong with doing that. I don't do it to please or promote the other side.

Women's Reproductive Self-Determination
Pro Choice Right to Abortion
by T.F. Barans
Copyright (c) 1998-2007 T.F. Barans / Word Wizards communications -- all rights reserved

This web page provides a discussion of issues regarding reproductive self-determination from a variety of different perspectives, and covering many of the different issues (legal, moral, religious) embodied by the issues of abortion and reproductive self-determination.

Legality and Morality Differentiated
The issue of a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by making to CHOICE to have an abortion can be considered from various perspectives: legal distinguished from moral, religion distinguished from science. Whether or not abortion is a good choice or a moral/ethical choice is different than whether or not it should be a LEGAL choice. For many people, this difference is difficult to understand. If something is bad (and we have not yet considered whether or not abortion is even a bad thing yet), then they believe it should be forbidden by law.

This, of course, is flawed thinking. We make distinctions all the time between what we ourselves believe should or should not be legal, entirely apart from whether or not we believe it to be moral.

For example, I believe it is morally and ethically wrong for a woman or man who is married to commit adultery by having sex with someone other than their spouse. I do NOT believe that those who do commit adultery should be prosecuted through the criminal justice system.

I further believe that smoking is wrong, but as long as smokers do not infringe my right to breathe clean air, I do not believe that the private act of smoking should be forbidden by law.

I am a vegetarian. The killing of sentient, biologically autonomous birds or mammals who have done nothing to me, solely to satisfy a completely unnecessary (and unhealthy) lust for artery-clogging animal fat, is something that I personally consider to be immoral and unethical. However, I do not equate the value of animals to that of sentient, autonomous humans, so I do not favor imposing my beliefs on others by force of law. I am "pro-choice" on the subject of eating meat.

I also oppose the use of drugs and of drinking to the point of intoxication, yet I believe that I can oppose these vices more effectively by supporting adequate treatment programs than by putting alcoholics or addicts in jails.

Would anyone accuse me of being pro-adultery, pro-smoking, pro-eating meat, or pro-drugs/alcohol, merely because I believe that they are either matters left to individuals that are none of my business or that they can be opposed more effectively using strategies OTHER THAN the criminal justice system?

Similarly, there are many individuals who strongly oppose abortion on moral grounds, and could never conclude that it was the right choice to make, but feel that it is not a choice than can be compelled by force of law. Some examples of such persons include Baptist Rev. Jesse Jackson and former California Governor Jerry Brown, who at one time studied for the Catholic priesthood. Both oppose abortion and believe it to be immoral, but have taken positions that they do not believe it should be outlawed.

They are clearly pro-CHOICE, in that they leave the decision to the woman, but they are NOT pro-abortion. They oppose abortion on religious grounds, but would no more support legislating this religious belief onto others than passing laws to require anyone else to take up membership in their churches.

Those who wish to keep the government out of other people's personal decisions, whatever they may believe for themselves, see themselves in the moderate middle -- planted firmly between two extremes.

The extreme left (as in Communist China) supports abortion and believes that the government can and should require as a matter of law that a woman have an abortion under certain conditions.

The extreme right (as in the Christian Coalition) opposes abortion and believes that the government can and should require as a matter of law that a woman use the most private part of her reproductive anatomy to carry an unwanted pregnancy even if she doesn't want to.

The moderate middle believes that whatever their own opinion about abortion may be, that they do not have the right to have their hired POLITICIANS pass MORE LAWS to FORCE their OPINIONS onto anyone else who might want to make a different choice with her own body. The decision about what is right and what should be legislated are separate and distinct issues.

Accordingly, we will consider the issues of LEGALITY (whether or not abortion should be outlawed, even if one considers it to be morally wrong) APART FROM the issue of MORALITY/ETHICS (whether abortion is even wrong at all).

to be continued...