Should the fetus have to pay for the crime of rape?

Rape is about 1 % of all abortions - how about the other 99%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I think I disagree. If I were raped and got pregnant because of it and carried the child to term, every second of every day of every month for nine months I would relive that rape. I'm guessing it would not go well for me emotionally and spiritually, even as pragmatically German as I am. If raped and pregnant and if I chose to abort during the first trimester, I would feel guilt about the potential human I would cause to not exist, but that guilt would dissipate with the knowledge that God saw what had happened to me and knows my heart.

But then, I've never been raped and gotten pregnant from it and have never had to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.

---

See, arguing from hypothetical situations is pointless. Even you stumbled when you realized if you ACTUALLY lived the situation, you might not react the way you predict.

Sure, God knows our heart. So do we, right now. The rape hypothetical feels extreme enough to support the idea that it would be OK to end the life of the unwanted baby, I just know that it doesn't.

Unlike you, our family has faced this situation. So we know. The baby still has every right to exist and we realized that.

I think maybe you understand when I say, "My mental stress/comfort/convenience/LIFE is not more important than the baby's life, so I have no right to end it out of hand."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Should the fetus have to pay for the crime of rape?

Rape is about 1 % of all abortions - how about the other 99%?

---

It's actually less than that. The 1% covers abortions attributed to rape and incest, and incest is the more common occurrence resulting in pregnancy than rape due to repetition. So statistically, rape abortions are less than .5%.

So, 99.5% of abortions are defended by a situation that doesn't apply to them. I agree, the other 99.5% are making the lifestyle choice and pushing the second button.

Quote:

---

"My mental stress/comfort/comfort is NOT more important than the baby's life, so I have NO right to end it out of hand."

---

Obama does not believe this. Palin does and lives it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Obama does not believe this. Palin does and lives it.

---

Irrelevant. Obama and Palin are individuals. WE decide these things, that's why I'm here talking to YOU guys about it instead of them.

Obama will not govern in a bubble, any more than Bush did. We can't attribute our worldview right/wrong based on someone else's. Even someone who agrees with you. People are often elected on single-issue debates like this only to discover there's an entirely different job waiting for them. That's our fault for putting the debate on the political platform as if that's where it's going to get solved. It's not.

You have to figure this stuff out outside of hypotheticals and political debates, then live those choices, the hard ones. Ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

No, sacrificing one person to save another should always be with intention and permission. When no permission is available (rare, but occurs), the most authoritative and connected person on site must choose. Harsh, and the choice should not be ridiculed afterward. It is what it is.

...Is the baby ALWAYS more important? How about we settle on equality?

---

I was asking if you can legitimately/morally make a law that always favors one over the other and I think you agreed that you cannot.

But I didn't understand your argument about permission.

If you can only save one life and you take their moral equivalency as a given, if the baby is actually a baby--i.e. third trimester*--how does permission enter into it? Is your argument about permission that you can ask the mother's permission to kill her so the baby can live, and that she can and should say yes? Whereas the baby cannot give permission and therefore must be saved? I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying. How is permission relevant?

So, let's simplify and say the mother is unconscious. Then you say it is the most "authoritative and connected person on site." But that sounds like the head of the hospital. Why would that person have any special insights and why would you choose that person, who is probably primarily concerned with budget and personnel, most of the time?

Seriously, I am not clear why you are choosing one outsider to decide something like this. If it was your wife and your baby, wouldn't you want to make the decision with your wife and her doctor? For example, maybe the baby has some defects that will make it suffer terribly and die soon, and you and your wife have 5 other kids who need their mother. Or, on the other hand, you have no other children, and the mother has cancer which will kill her in three months anyway. Do you really want a stranger making those decisions for you?

Those are the particulars that, I think, make banning late term abortion decisions intrusive. Clearly, we want to limit and avoid late abortions, and Roe v Wade enables states to do that. But only the most extreme ideologue would argue with that the person saved always has to be the mother or, likewise, always the baby.

*I'd like to discuss early embryos separately, because that raises different issues. Only about 1% of abortions occur after 19 weeks.

After reading this entire thread I can't believe that abortions are being agrue. This agruement has already been done in many threads throughout the Family&Friends board.

I think it is the female right to choose whether to aboard or not. Maybe there would be fewer abortions if people were more educated about sex and it start from the teens. Parents should take the time out and explained to their kids the myths about sex instead of pretending like their child isn't doing it. They should be more active in their child life. I worked at an abortion clinics years ago and many of the patients were under 18, don't know the statics now, but it was due to their lack of knowledge about sex. If you read the teen board you would see things like "me and my boyfriend had unprotected sex last night but he did pull out, can I get pregnan?" Now my question is where is the parent while her daughter is out having sex?

Parents need to step up and be open with their kids and while you can't stop them they can at least educate them. If they feel uncomfortable then they can take them to a gyn doctor to explain things and getting their child birth control isn't a bad idea. It got so bad a sex education sticky was form so people can ask their questions about sex and hopefully that would help some people but more needs to be done and maybe then the number of abortions will drop. That's all I am saying about the matter because this isn't the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

See, arguing from hypothetical situations is pointless. Even you stumbled when you realized if you ACTUALLY lived the situation, you might not react the way you predict.

Sure, God knows our heart. So do we, right now. The rape hypothetical feels extreme enough to support the idea that it would be OK to end the life of the unwanted baby, I just know that it doesn't.

Unlike you, our family has faced this situation. So we know. The baby still has every right to exist and we realized that.

I think maybe you understand when I say, "My mental stress/comfort/convenience/LIFE is not more important than the baby's life, so I have no right to end it out of hand."

---

I put in the "stumble" as you so lovingly called it (but I did it deliberately, so it was NOT a stumble).

I want to be able to make the choice. I don't want you to make the choice for me.

I still think you understand my point, though. (wink)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

I still think you understand my point, though. (wink)

---

I totally understand your point, but you cannot decide for the rest of the world. You don't get that privilege. You can decide only for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

I won't hug a tree I'll Hug my Chevy Volt and my Solar panels.

---

This is more hype. The Dems have stood in the way of more generating capicity for a long time now. They say we need solar and wind. Good, but you have to have reserve capicity for those times when the wind stills and the clouds are heavy.

Our power grid is nearly at capicity now and has been for some time, resulting in rolling black outs or brown outs.

Now, what do you think is going to happen when several million people buy those Chevy Volts? Unless we get more generation plants at the same time, there will not be enough electriticy to go around. Right now, we are being encouraged to cut back on air conditioning usage.

So unless the Dems now do what they have so far been unwilling to do, lots of luck with that Volt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

So unless the Dems now do what they have so far been unwilling to do0

---

Don't you know how solar works?

As for doing anything, like Cass Elliott sang --

There's a new world comin'
And it's just around the bend
There's a brand new mornin'
That belongs to you and me
A new world comin'
The one we've had vision of
Comin' in peace
Comin' in joy
Comin' in love.

Quote:

---

Galveston1 disagrees: You like the Clinton retreads?

---

Yo, Mr. Gal Sourpuss, did you notice who's driving now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yo, Mr. Gal Sourpuss, did you notice who's driving now?

---

Hes' abusing the reddies tonight - what an angry little man.

President elect Obama had better change his mind (or at least convince investors that he has) on the subject of highert taxes on the wealthier people. He had BETTER do that BEFORE the end of the year, or we may all be sorry!

What do you think investors are going to do with their portfolios if they know they will pay substantially higher taxes in the coming year than they would now?

They will do what ANY sensible person would do. They will sell NOW. That should cause a really sharp drop in the stock market, and the domino effect will hit everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Hes' abusing the reddies tonight - what an angry little man.

---

It's okay. Obama's election's got me feelin' real real good. Even Gal can't mess my 'do. Thanks, NK, for watchin' my back.

I see who is driving. My feet are pushing the floor board!

Let's see if your euphoria lasts past the first 6 months of his administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

They will do what ANY sensible person would do. They will sell NOW.

---

Sell their investments and keep the cash in a 2% account? I don't think so. You seem to love selling doom and gloom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sell their investments and keep the cash in a 2% account? I don't think so. You seem to love selling doom and gloom.

---

Selling doom and gloom?

I think not. The doom and gloom is a reality if Obama gets his way.

If I had anything in this market, I'd sure be selling NOW before
The cap gains tax MORE THAN DOUBLES! Perhaps as high as 20%
That has been predicted.

You really wouldn't have to be very intelligent to sell NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

You really wouldn't have to be very intelligent to sell NOW.

---

You're missing the point - sell now and do what with your money?