Posted on 12/28/2011 3:50:05 PM PST by wagglebee
Nope.
If we have to get in to name calling, YOURS are the liberal arguments.
First, we’re not talking about abortion in general. We’re talking about a specific circumstance.
Like some sort of commie-pinko, you are proposing to ENSLAVE the mother - seizing a large part of her life - exposing her to mental anguish, physical discomfort, medical risk, and personal expense. The victim suffers, the rapist benefits. And talk about emotion: you do this simply out of a sense of your own self-righteousness.
My arguments still stand.
Pro-life is not a liberal tenet. Ever.
First, we’re not talking about abortion in general. We’re talking about a specific circumstance.
Yup. The liberals pushed abortion using emotional arguments while crying foul that conservatives said it would be used as birth control. Conservatives were told they were cruel to try to block abortion for rape and incest victims. Oh and the life of the mother. Those were the "foot in the door" issues. And it worked.
Like some sort of commie-pinko, you are proposing to ENSLAVE the mother
Another liberal talking point, motherhood and pregnancy is enslavement.
The victim suffers, the rapist benefits.
How does the rapist benefit? Hm? You think they go around trying to get women pregnant? Rape is not about sex. It's about power.
And talk about emotion: you do this simply out of a sense of your own self-righteousness.
Yup. When I was raped I was fortunate not to be pregnant. That sure makes me self-righteous. Yup.
My arguments still stand.
Your arguments are straight from the left and fail.
That would stop well over 99.9% of the abortions in this country over night. Is that your stance?
These days, a rape victim has the option of taking a drug like “Plan B” to further decrease the small chance of getting pregnant. While I’m firmly against the use of such “morning-after” pills as routine birth control, they do have valid purposes.
My uncle is a rapist and murderer. Before he embarked on his life of crime, he had two children. Should my cousins be executed so as to avoid passing on potential "crime genes"? How about the babies of one cousin, who are around age 10 now? Should they also be executed for their grandfather's crimes? How far should one go to rid humanity of "crime genes"?
Recently, as Jamie Dugard has opened up about her horrifying ordeal - she has put this “rape” argument to shame.
I know of a married couple that had several children. One of the children was the father’s idea, not the mother’s (so the mother told me). That unwanted (by the mother) child suffered horribly at the hands of the mother: physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and deprivation. The father received severe retaliation and rebuke from the mother (and her other children) if he showed this child any affection or favor.
The family was Roman Catholic, so I suppose abortion was out of the question, but there were some occasions when the neglect by the mother could have resulted in the physical death of the child.
No reason at all. The mother can always carry the baby and then offer the baby for adoption.
Bless the mothers who make that choice.
Nothing like a straw man argument to brighten one’s day.
If you willingly want to carry the child of a criminal, that should be your right, but to answer your question of how far should one go to rid humanity of “crime genes,” the answer is those babies conceived by criminal act and carried unwillingly - neither of which appears to be true for your uncle’s children and granchildren. (Right?)
Consider a worker who turns to theft. That which he earned legitimately is his, but that which he gained by criminal act may be forfeit. The woman, by having no choice to be impregnated, earns standing to adjudicate this forfeiture. The alternative is to not only compel the woman to carry to term (for what compensation?) but further subjects her to prosecution for harming her unborn child should she drink, take any number of prescription drugs, or engage in other “risky” behavior whose definition is potentially unlimited and subject only to the local legislature - all also against her will, and as a result of something she didn’t want to happen. “If a criminal violates your rights and gets lucky, we will too.” I can offer no perfect outcome to the situation; I don’t think there is any. But I don’t think compelling her to carry (often at her own expense) is just. To say nothing of forcing the bloodline of the criminal a chance to propagate.
It’s not a “straw man” argument, since you specifically set up the possibility of the child conceived through rape carrying its father’s “crime genes” as a reason to justify killing that child. If that is sufficient justification for killing that child, then it is sufficient justification for killing all of the rapist’s children, even if they were conceived willingly. If there are, in fact, “crime genes,” they have an equal probability of being transmitted to all of the criminal’s children, regardless of circumstance of conception.
If you want to argue the morality of killing a child conceived by rape on the basis of the circumstance of its conception, fine. Stick with that argument, and don’t introduce factors which, in fact, lead to the “scientific” justification for killing kids that were not involved in the crime in any role.
I have never argued that those rape victims who wish to keep their babies should be forced to abort, let alone that society should go around killing all children of criminals, including subsequent generations, pre- and post-birth. That's the straw man, and it's a big one. The question was whether those rape victims who become unwilling mothers should be allowed to abort or prevented from aborting. The "crime gene" aspect was placed on the table only for the purpose of deciding that particular question, and none other.
Indeed, hand in hand with you on this.
Human life, regardless of beginning circumstance, is a gift of God. It is His to give, His to take.
Certainly not. I am pointing out that once one accepts the life and personhood begin at fertilization, one must accept that some instances of what then must be understood as homicide committed against an unborn child are, in fact, justifiable homicide. The ectopic pregnancy is simply the case I think all will agree is justifiable homicide. The nuances within pro-life positions come down to which other instances beyond abortions necessary prevent the death of the mother before the child could survive a caesarian delivery are justifiable homicide.
All of us on this thread (unless some pro-abortion trolls have turned up) agree that abortion at the mother's whim is murder. I'd begun by trying to explain why some opponents of abortion on demand are willing to allow an exception in the case where the child was engendered by rape or incest, an exception I am willing to tolerate in the law (though I don't advocate strongly for it) until such time as our society will support and honor a woman for carrying a rapist's child to term, because in present circumstances, where such a woman will be reviled, it seems too heavy a burden for the state to lay upon her.
Then leave it out. The idea that killing a child conceived by rape is okay because of the highly speculative possibility that the child carries some "crime gene" really does open up other doors, whether you want to accept that or not. It also sounds like a crutch. If you are arguing that, morally, it is acceptable for a woman to kill her child who was conceived by rape, just leave it at that. Bringing in the hypothetical of ridding the population of a child carrying a "crime gene" suggests that you are not completely comfortable with the morality of allowing a woman to abort her rape-conceived child, and you are looking for other ways to rationalize it. You should be able to argue your position on the facts and morality of the rape itself.
Although I have an opinion about abortion when the woman is raped, I am not expressing it at this time. That statement above is a liberal argument. Of course rape is about sex. After all, didn't Kissinger say that power was the best aphrodisiac of all? The two are not mutually exclusive.
And before you give me the hoary argument about the 98-year old woman in a wheel chair who was raped, men have been known to rape geese, goats, and walruses. Some are quite undiscriminating.
Nothing personal against you, and nothing against you other arguments. I just violently disagree with that feminist bit of mythology.
If it was about sex, there are $10 prostitutes. And as you yourself pointed out, there are other ways to get gratification other than forcing a woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.