Republicans push for an amendment that would ban abortion; even if the woman is raped

[Candy Kappa]

This is as stupid as the law that states a rapist can marry his victim to avoid persecution, heck they could go hand in hand. Let the rapist marry the victim if she gets pregnant from the rape, so the child won't be born out of wedlock.

this article and view points makes me sick to my stomach of this, let's give a f*ck about women's rights and care more about someone that is unborn then the living. had this been just another anti-abortion viewpoint it would be an eye roller, but it's about rape. Shall we blame the victim as well, was she showing her knees. she practically asked to be raped no abortion for you. F*ck this sh*t

[Master Splinter]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

This is as stupid as the law that states a rapist can marry his victim to avoid persecution, heck they could go hand in hand. Let the rapist marry the victim if she gets pregnant from the rape, so the child won't be born out of wedlock.

This brings up an interesting thought... What kind of rights does the rapist have now that he is a father? Sure he committed a crime by raping the woman but he should still have rights as a new father correct? Could he legally keep the woman he raped from having an abortion because he is the father and wants to raise the child? What if he is very christian and believes every word out of Leviticus. Should the woman be forced to marry the man who raped her just so everything is peachy in the eyes of the lord.

I don't agree with this but it seems like many here would with the backwards thinking I am seeing in this thread. You can believe whatever you want, but if you are trying to make a law based on your religious belief then it seems as though you are crossing a line, because there is a big chance that I don't believe what you believe. So don't force your beliefs on me. If you have a problem with it, pray for me, and in the end I will deal with God on my own. I don't need your laws, guidance, or approval for that.

-ms

[ComicBookBoy]

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

This brings up an interesting thought... What kind of rights does the rapist have now that he is a father? Sure he committed a crime by raping the woman but he should still have rights as a new father correct? Could he legally keep the woman he raped from having an abortion because he is the father and wants to raise the child? What if he is very christian and believes every word out of Leviticus. Should the woman be forced to marry the man who raped her just so everything is peachy in the eyes of the lord.

I don't agree with this but it seems like many here would with the backwards thinking I am seeing in this thread. You can believe whatever you want, but if you are trying to make a law based on your religious belief then it seems as though you are crossing a line, because there is a big chance that I don't believe what you believe. So don't force your beliefs on me. If you have a problem with it, pray for me, and in the end I will deal with God on my own. I don't need your laws, guidance, or approval for that.

-ms

It's not that the guy who raped the woman should have a choice in whether the baby is aborted or not, it's that no one should have a choice of whether or not to kill their baby. The baby should be allowed to live without any consent from the mother or the father.

You tell me not to press my beliefs on others, and not to fuse my beliefs with the laws, but aren't you trying to do the same thing? Except you're belief is that abortion should be legal and that it's not murder.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by ComicBookBoy

You tell me not to press my beliefs on others, and not to fuse my beliefs with the laws, but aren't you trying to do the same thing? Except you're belief is that abortion should be legal and that it's not murder.

But would people that share the same view get an abortion, people have a free will. Or do you think that people are so stupid that they loose their own way of thinking just because something is legal.

Pretty sure woman did abortion when it was illegal, people was drinking alcohol during prohibition times, and some people don't drink today even thought it is legal to have a beer.

this is very akin the the anti-marijuana vs legalizing marijuana, some people think it'll be Ragnarok if it gets legal cause everyone will get high and go on a murder rampage.

[ComicBookBoy]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

But would people that share the same view get an abortion, people have a free will. Or do you think that people are so stupid that they loose their own way of thinking just because something is legal.

Pretty sure woman did abortion when it was illegal, people was drinking alcohol during prohibition times, and some people don't drink today even thought it is legal to have a beer.

this is very akin the the anti-marijuana vs legalizing marijuana, some people think it'll be Ragnarok if it gets legal cause everyone will get high and go on a murder rampage.

So, what about just plain murder? People do it all of the time, why restrict it?
THE REASON: because if you restrict something and make punishments for them then far fewer people will murder. The same can be said for abortion.

[Andrew NDB]

I've always had a pretty tough time buying the "It's murder!" thing.

I mean, every month that a woman menstrates out an unfertilized ovum into the toilet... is she guilty of murder, because she refused to have the egg fertilized and that ovum could have been a life, even the next Albert Einstein? Of course not, that's crazy.

It seems like a slippery slope when people try to define the moment when "legitimate" life begins. If we're talking about a human zygote, then... you know... even a mosquito is more self-aware and intelligent than that at this point, so it can't be a question of quantifiable sentience.

"But it COULD become a life!" is the rallying cry I hear. But then I find myself arriving right back at the beginning of my argument in this post.

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I've always had a pretty tough time buying the "It's murder!" thing.

I mean, every month that a woman menstrates out an unfertilized ovum into the toilet... is she guilty of murder, because she refused to have the egg fertilized and that ovum could have been a life, even the next Albert Einstein? Of course not, that's crazy.

It seems like a slippery slope when people try to define the moment when "legitimate" life begins. If we're talking about a human zygote, then... you know... even a mosquito is more self-aware and intelligent than that at this point, so it can't be a question of quantifiable sentience.

"But it COULD become a life!" is the rallying cry I hear. But then I find myself arriving right back at the beginning of my argument in this post.

I guess I would say when there is brain activity, when it can think and feel.

Originally Posted by mysterycolor

And there is the rub- people want to use religious definitions and beliefs about life to dictate the rights that women have over their own bodies... In the United States the scientific explanation that brings us to life beginning at birth is what we have come to accept as truth- what someone believes is right or wrong within their personal life is moot because we have the privilege of separation of church and state. It is why we dont issue social security numbers for each pregnancy and issue death certificates in the case of a miscarriage- the government simply doesnt recognize it as a human life until it is born.

I't's not about dictating the rights that women have over their own bodies it's about giving rights to the unborn, and what does the separation of church and state have anything to do with supporting abortion or not?

[Master Splinter]

Originally Posted by Xav

Yeah, I'm against abortion not because of my religion but because of my morals.

And that is perfectly fine, but to make that decision for others is in my mind wrong.

Originally Posted by ComicBookBoy

So, what about just plain murder? People do it all of the time, why restrict it?
THE REASON: because if you restrict something and make punishments for them then far fewer people will murder. The same can be said for abortion.

No matter what counterpoint any of us have for or against the issue it is going to be hard to persuade the other. It's probably best that a mod close this thread asap before feelings get hurt because I would love to respond to some of this but I think I've already crossed a line replying in this thread.

-ms

[Candy Kappa]

one thing is important to say is, it's not about having an abortion whenever you want. it's no longer an option after the fetus develop consciousness and pain receptors. (It's pro-choice not pro-abortion)

The law is simple here in Norway, you can't take an abortion after week 12. after that you need a special permission due to medical reasons. The second trimester don't start until week 14 after the last menstrual period.

[Master Splinter]

Originally Posted by ComicBookBoy

It's not that the guy who raped the woman should have a choice in whether the baby is aborted or not, it's that no one should have a choice of whether or not to kill their baby. The baby should be allowed to live without any consent from the mother or the father.

You tell me not to press my beliefs on others, and not to fuse my beliefs with the laws, but aren't you trying to do the same thing? Except you're belief is that abortion should be legal and that it's not murder.

No I am not pressing my beliefs onto you. My belief allows free-will (something God gave to us all if you believe in that sort of thing), aka a choice, a choice to believe whatever you want to believe, you can believe abortion is wrong, you can believe abortion is okay. What you decide on your own is not my decision to make. You on the other hand do not offer any sort of choice. It's either your way or the highway to hell or jail. I can understand that you feel you have a moral obligation to protect an unborn child but I feel it is my moral obligation to keep you the f.u.c.k out of my business. Your religion is not the same as mine so how can you prove that you are right and I am wrong?

-ms

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

No I am not pressing my beliefs onto you. My belief allows free-will (something God gave to us all if you believe in that sort of thing), aka a choice, a choice to believe whatever you want to believe, you can believe abortion is wrong, you can believe abortion is okay. What you decide on your own is not my decision to make. You on the other hand do not offer any sort of choice. It's either your way or the highway to hell or jail. I can understand that you feel you have a moral obligation to protect an unborn child but I feel it is my moral obligation to keep you the f.u.c.k out of my business. Your religion is not the same as mine so how can you prove that you are right and I am wrong?

-ms

Religion has nothing to do with this. Pressing beliefs upon people is done in every society. In the USA, people cannot legally drink until age 21; public accomodations (restaurants, hotels, etc.) cannot refuse service to people on the basis of race, religion, etc.; you cannot use asbestos in construction or manufacturing; you cannot have a radar detector in your vehicle in West Virginia; you cannot walk around naked in public. Society can restrict abortion if it wants to; it is not a "constitutional right".

[Xav]

Yeah, I'm against abortion not because of my religion but because of my morals.

[Katie]

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

This brings up an interesting thought... What kind of rights does the rapist have now that he is a father? Sure he committed a crime by raping the woman but he should still have rights as a new father correct? Could he legally keep the woman he raped from having an abortion because he is the father and wants to raise the child? What if he is very christian and believes every word out of Leviticus. Should the woman be forced to marry the man who raped her just so everything is peachy in the eyes of the lord.

I don't agree with this but it seems like many here would with the backwards thinking I am seeing in this thread. You can believe whatever you want, but if you are trying to make a law based on your religious belief then it seems as though you are crossing a line, because there is a big chance that I don't believe what you believe. So don't force your beliefs on me. If you have a problem with it, pray for me, and in the end I will deal with God on my own. I don't need your laws, guidance, or approval for that.

-ms

In 31 states the rapist does actually have parental rights. So, as a woman, you would then have to go to court again to fight for the termination of the rapists parental rights should he demand custody or visitation.

Also, in my understanding of God, God is all knowing.....your whole life is known to Him before you are even known. So, this being the case, God already knows the fate of every fetus. Why would he put a soul in something he knows isn't going to be in the world.

[Master Splinter]

Originally Posted by Katie

In 31 states the rapist does actually have parental rights. So, as a woman, you would then have to go to court again to fight for the termination of the rapists parental rights should he demand custody or visitation.

Also, in my understanding of God, God is all knowing.....your whole life is known to Him before you are even known. So, this being the case, God already knows the fate of every fetus. Why would he put a soul in something he knows isn't going to be in the world.

So in theory a man can rape a woman, get her pregnant, have the law keep her from having an abortion, take her to court for custody, and possibly have her pay child support as well.

Wow.

-ms

[ComicBookBoy]

Originally Posted by Katie

In 31 states the rapist does actually have parental rights. So, as a woman, you would then have to go to court again to fight for the termination of the rapists parental rights should he demand custody or visitation.

Also, in my understanding of God, God is all knowing.....your whole life is known to Him before you are even known. So, this being the case, God already knows the fate of every fetus. Why would he put a soul in something he knows isn't going to be in the world.

Each of those children who were aborted still had a soul, and God still loved them. That is why God said,
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.."
Just because God knows that those children are going to be murdered doesn't mean He is going to intervene. If God stopped every person from doing something evil then the world would be perfect.

[Katie]

Murder shouldn't be used to describe an abortion.

Murder is a legal term whereby a human knowingly and with malice ends the life of another human. For it to be murder, the fetus would have to be considered legally alive. In the legal definition of life....life begins at birth not conception.

Exceptions are sometimes made when the fetus would be viable outside the womb as in the Lacy Peterson case.

[Jester]

What abouts cases where the mother and baby are killed and the killer is charged for BOTH deaths? If a fetus isn't a life, then there shouldn't be mutiple counts of murder in those cases. You can't have it both ways.

[Katie]

See that exception thing I wrote?

Some states allow a second murder charge if the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Doubt any state would bring double murder charges if the woman was only a few weeks preggers

[mysterycolor]

Originally Posted by Katie

In the legal definition of life....life begins at birth not conception.

And there is the rub- people want to use religious definitions and beliefs about life to dictate the rights that women have over their own bodies... In the United States the scientific explanation that brings us to life beginning at birth is what we have come to accept as truth- what someone believes is right or wrong within their personal life is moot because we have the privilege of separation of church and state. It is why we dont issue social security numbers for each pregnancy and issue death certificates in the case of a miscarriage- the government simply doesnt recognize it as a human life until it is born.

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Katie

Murder shouldn't be used to describe an abortion.

Murder is a legal term whereby a human knowingly and with malice ends the life of another human. For it to be murder, the fetus would have to be considered legally alive. In the legal definition of life....life begins at birth not conception.

Exceptions are sometimes made when the fetus would be viable outside the womb as in the Lacy Peterson case.

And at one point blacks were legally 3/5 of a person.

Originally Posted by Leo656

You know when you're officially "a living person"? When you pop out. That's it. Not before. Anything prior to that is "A work in progress" and anything can happen. If I am on the road, just around the corner from work, but I'm not there yet, almost, but pretty close... I'm still not "at work", and I'm not given credit towards being so. Likewise, I don't count anyone as a member of the human race until they are present and accounted for... and usually, not even then. It's a rather broad, silly, and extreme way to make a point, I grant you, but all the intelligent arguements were taken already.

But people keep growing until their 20's aren't they too "A work in progress"?

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Yeah because a rapist is going to take the time to put on a condom and choose a victim that has been on the pill. Get real!

You know damn well I am not talking about rape. Don't be a ****ing asshole.