|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:54 pm
La Veuve Zin Scribblemouse I don't think rape victims shouldn't have to carry the baby to term. They were first forced to have sex, then forced to have their attacker's baby? This--and all opposition to abortion, really--isn't about being forced to have a baby, but more like not being allowed to kill that fetus. Same thing, essentially, but the pro-life viewpoint is not about women having children, but rather about not killing those children, even when they're fetuses. Forcing a woman to have a baby is--in our opinion--no worse than forcing you to pay for your food when you go to a restaurant. Not a great example, but you catch my drift, I hope. I can understand why a woman would see a desperate psychological need to abort a pregnancy caused by rape. Rape is beyond traumatic, it's hell and asking that someone make another sacrifice and think of someone else--few people are that strong. But to spend time and money keeping abortion legal for rape victims--that's like buying a bigger bucket when the leak in your roof gets bigger. It's not actually helping the root of the problem. Stopping rape is not an unrealistic goal, and it's worth fighting tooth and nail for. If there is no option for the rape victim to end her pregnancy, it is the same as forcing her to remain pregnant. She has no choice but to remain pregnant. No, that's a terrible example, since you've compared being raped to eating at a restaurant. A better example might be forcing food into someone's mouth and then charging them for it. I don't see your point with the last statement. I don't see how time and money could be put into stopping rape. Awareness classes and lessons on how to get away from/avoid attacks? Rape is something that comes from the perpetrator. I don't see how time and money could be diverted from abortions for victims and put into stopping people from committing rape. I can see what you mean - that we should be concentrating on a solution - but we should concentrate on the victims just as much.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:45 pm
Scribblemouse La Veuve Zin Scribblemouse I don't think rape victims shouldn't have to carry the baby to term. They were first forced to have sex, then forced to have their attacker's baby? This--and all opposition to abortion, really--isn't about being forced to have a baby, but more like not being allowed to kill that fetus. Same thing, essentially, but the pro-life viewpoint is not about women having children, but rather about not killing those children, even when they're fetuses. Forcing a woman to have a baby is--in our opinion--no worse than forcing you to pay for your food when you go to a restaurant. Not a great example, but you catch my drift, I hope. I can understand why a woman would see a desperate psychological need to abort a pregnancy caused by rape. Rape is beyond traumatic, it's hell and asking that someone make another sacrifice and think of someone else--few people are that strong. But to spend time and money keeping abortion legal for rape victims--that's like buying a bigger bucket when the leak in your roof gets bigger. It's not actually helping the root of the problem. Stopping rape is not an unrealistic goal, and it's worth fighting tooth and nail for. If there is no option for the rape victim to end her pregnancy, it is the same as forcing her to remain pregnant. She has no choice but to remain pregnant. No, that's a terrible example, since you've compared being raped to eating at a restaurant. A better example might be forcing food into someone's mouth and then charging them for it. I don't see your point with the last statement. I don't see how time and money could be put into stopping rape. Awareness classes and lessons on how to get away from/avoid attacks? Rape is something that comes from the perpetrator. I don't see how time and money could be diverted from abortions for victims and put into stopping people from committing rape. I can see what you mean - that we should be concentrating on a solution - but we should concentrate on the victims just as much. The idea behind this is that all unborn (and born) humans should have the right to continue living, no matter what crimes their biological parents might have committed. If an unborn human is to be seen as a human being and a legal person, why should it matter if it was created by rape or by consensual sex? A born person doesn't become less of a person if they were conceived by rape. From my point of view, saying that unborn humans are innocent, precious, and deserving of life, unless they were conceived though rape; is about the same thing as saying that children are a punishment for having sex. If unborn humans should not be killed through abortion, then they should not be aborted. Allowing for a rape exception makes it sound like all one cares about is punishing women for daring to have sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:10 pm
WatersMoon110 Scribblemouse La Veuve Zin Scribblemouse I don't think rape victims shouldn't have to carry the baby to term. They were first forced to have sex, then forced to have their attacker's baby? This--and all opposition to abortion, really--isn't about being forced to have a baby, but more like not being allowed to kill that fetus. Same thing, essentially, but the pro-life viewpoint is not about women having children, but rather about not killing those children, even when they're fetuses. Forcing a woman to have a baby is--in our opinion--no worse than forcing you to pay for your food when you go to a restaurant. Not a great example, but you catch my drift, I hope. I can understand why a woman would see a desperate psychological need to abort a pregnancy caused by rape. Rape is beyond traumatic, it's hell and asking that someone make another sacrifice and think of someone else--few people are that strong. But to spend time and money keeping abortion legal for rape victims--that's like buying a bigger bucket when the leak in your roof gets bigger. It's not actually helping the root of the problem. Stopping rape is not an unrealistic goal, and it's worth fighting tooth and nail for. If there is no option for the rape victim to end her pregnancy, it is the same as forcing her to remain pregnant. She has no choice but to remain pregnant. No, that's a terrible example, since you've compared being raped to eating at a restaurant. A better example might be forcing food into someone's mouth and then charging them for it. I don't see your point with the last statement. I don't see how time and money could be put into stopping rape. Awareness classes and lessons on how to get away from/avoid attacks? Rape is something that comes from the perpetrator. I don't see how time and money could be diverted from abortions for victims and put into stopping people from committing rape. I can see what you mean - that we should be concentrating on a solution - but we should concentrate on the victims just as much. The idea behind this is that all unborn (and born) humans should have the right to continue living, no matter what crimes their biological parents might have committed. If an unborn human is to be seen as a human being and a legal person, why should it matter if it was created by rape or by consensual sex? A born person doesn't become less of a person if they were conceived by rape. From my point of view, saying that unborn humans are innocent, precious, and deserving of life, unless they were conceived though rape; is about the same thing as saying that children are a punishment for having sex. If unborn humans should not be killed through abortion, then they should not be aborted. Allowing for a rape exception makes it sound like all one cares about is punishing women for daring to have sex. Wow...never thought I'd hear something liek that from you. And you're exactly right. If the unborn are the be recognized as humans and persons (I have grown to hate the word person...), and to be protected from abortion, then a rape exception does indeed make it sound like pregnancy is a punishment for willingly having sex, and that not what we support. I don't support rape clauses because of exactly what you said. If we are to regognize that all unborn children are humans and persons ujnder the law, then a rape esception would make those few seem less humans and persons, and would thus mess with equality. COnsistency. If a woman's child, through the creation of consentual sex, is to be protected as a human with person rights, then a child concieved through rape must be treated the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:18 pm
Scribblemouse I don't see your point with the last statement. I don't see how time and money could be put into stopping rape. Awareness classes and lessons on how to get away from/avoid attacks? Rape is something that comes from the perpetrator. I don't see how time and money could be diverted from abortions for victims and put into stopping people from committing rape. No matter how many abortions you provide, women are still being raped. I'd rather stop rape, period, than provide a way out of pregnancy for the few who get pregnant that way. WatersMoon110 From my point of view, saying that unborn humans are innocent, precious, and deserving of life, unless they were conceived though rape; is about the same thing as saying that children are a punishment for having sex. If unborn humans should not be killed through abortion, then they should not be aborted. Allowing for a rape exception makes it sound like all one cares about is punishing women for daring to have sex. True, to an extent. Women have the choice to avoid unprotected vaginal sex, unless they're raped. Different circumstances, I suppose similar to pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. (Another bad example, I know, forgive me.) I wouldn't want to allow abortion in rape cases, but I wouldn't fault a woman for feeling she needed one as much if she didn't make the choice to "have sex," simply because of the huge difference, mentally speaking. Rape is traumatic, and if a woman was traumatized enough to kill her fetus, I wouldn't necessarily consider that done in cold blood. Ultimately, though, someone who kills in self-defence has created the same effect as someone who kills in cold blood--someone dies. Similarly, I wouldn't want abortion in cases of rape to be legal, but I'd support a reduced sentence for a woman who has one in that situation. I think most people support a rape exception because so many insist on it--more people support a ban on abortion with an exception for rape than without, and if abortions can be limited to the scant few women who get pregnant from rape, then that's an improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:59 am
La Veuve Zin I think most people support a rape exception because so many insist on it--more people support a ban on abortion with an exception for rape than without, and if abortions can be limited to the scant few women who get pregnant from rape, then that's an improvement. The main problem with a rape exception isn't consistency (though I do still stand behind this being a problem if one is Pro-Life), but enforcing it. Either it would be limited to cases where there is a rape conviction (which can take so long in the courts that the child is probably born in the mean time), or it would be on the honor system and tons of women would lie about being raped in order to get abortions. I very much agree that the solution is to stop rape, not to try to allow women to only kill unborn humans conceived through rape. The point of self defense is usually to injure one's attacker enough to get away, not to kill them. Especially in the case of an attempted rape. I think that self defense courses would greatly help women to protect themselves from attempted rapists. I also think that letting me prowl the streets carrying a baseball bat would help also. *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:05 am
Tiger of the Fire Wow...never thought I'd hear something liek that from you. And you're exactly right. If the unborn are the be recognized as humans and persons (I have grown to hate the word person...), and to be protected from abortion, then a rape exception does indeed make it sound like pregnancy is a punishment for willingly having sex, and that not what we support. *grin* Just because I believe differently doesn't mean that I don't see the logic behind Pro-Life beliefs. Tiger of the Fire I don't support rape clauses because of exactly what you said. If we are to regognize that all unborn children are humans and persons ujnder the law, then a rape esception would make those few seem less humans and persons, and would thus mess with equality. COnsistency. If a woman's child, through the creation of consentual sex, is to be protected as a human with person rights, then a child concieved through rape must be treated the same. Rape exceptions scare me a little. If suddenly an unborn human conceived through rape is valued less, is it that big a step to say that a born human conceived through rape isn't valuable either? I have a very good friend who was conceived through rape (I don't believe she knows this, her sister who is also a close friend told me). I would really, really hate to see born humans discriminated against because of how they happened to be conceived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:30 pm
it is not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence which should not end with death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:02 pm
divineseraph it is not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence which should not end with death. It? What? Incest clauses? This is a thread to discuss rape and incest clauses. You didn't quote anyone, so one would assume you are replying to the first post, and frankly, your post makes no sense in that light. If you want to talk about "is making abortion illegal making pregnancy into a punishment" please start your own thread to talk about it. If you actually want to discuss the topic at hand, please edit your post so it makes sense in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:45 pm
i am very sorry that context is such a hard concept for you. seeing as the subject was currently about pregnancy=/=punishment, my post was therefore, in context, about pregnancy =/= punishment.
oh, i apologize. allow me to now state that this post in in reference to watersmoon110's post (about context), and in fact directed at watersmoon110.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:32 am
divineseraph i am very sorry that context is such a hard concept for you. seeing as the subject was currently about pregnancy=/=punishment, my post was therefore, in context, about pregnancy =/= punishment. oh, i apologize. allow me to now state that this post in in reference to watersmoon110's post (about context), and in fact directed at watersmoon110. 1. The subject of that post was tentatively "doesn't allowing a rape clause but outlawing abortion make it seem like people are being punished for having sex?" It had very little to do with "is pregnancy a punishment?" and was more an explanation of why I feel that Pro-Lifers supporting rape clauses is a tad bit hypocritical. 2. I don't like your tone. Consider this a warning. You didn't read this thread, you were in no way on topic, and now you are trying to tell me about context. 3. If you want to talk about pregnancy being/not being a punishment, go here. This thread is talking about Incest/Rape Clauses and is not the proper place to hold such a discussion on another topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:44 am
The only thing I can see that your post could have been responding to is this: Quote: From my point of view, saying that unborn humans are innocent, precious, and deserving of life, unless they were conceived though rape; is about the same thing as saying that children are a punishment for having sex. Which, if one bothers to read it, says simply that I feel that saying: "Unborn humans should always be allowed to live, except when they were conceived through rape." is very close to saying: "Women should be punished with a pregnancy for choosing to have sex, but allowed to opt out of pregnancy if sex was forced on them." I did not say that pregnancy was a punishment, which anyone who had read the entire post, or even the entire sentence instead of just the words Quote: children are a punishment for having sex could clearly see. Can you see why your post: Quote: it is not so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence which should not end with death. doesn't make sense in that context?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:55 am
I agree with Waters.
No matter how a child is conceived, nothing can change the nature of that human. To make a legal distinction between those created by consentual sex and those created by rape is discriminitory, and not just against the unborn.
I mean, for some women, getting pregnant and then having the child's father die and having to carry to term would be more traumatizing than carrying the child of a rapist. Why is rape so special? The only reason that trauma sticks out is because it's the only one where the child's there because the mother didn't make a choice to have sex, and therefore didn't even remotely consent to pregnancy. The mother's sexual habits don't determine the nature of the child though.
The trauma from a rape pregnancy fits under health and life of the mother if it damages someone that much, doesn't it? So why make it a separate issue?
As for incest, making an exception for that doesn't make much sense. There's already a clause for fetal abnormalities, if an incest baby has one, it falls under there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:05 am
lymelady The trauma from a rape pregnancy fits under health and life of the mother if it damages someone that much, doesn't it? So why make it a separate issue? That is such a very good point. I never thought of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
