|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:45 pm
I was sitting here watching the partial birth abortion ban on Fox and several thoughts occurred to me. 1. There is no good reason for late-term abortions. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.htmlhttp://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/whypbaperformed.html2. Pro-choice people are shooting themselves in the foot by indiscriminately supporting all abortions. People in America are basically tolerant of abortions for valid reasons but are getting tired of abortion used as birth control. http://www.angelfire.com/co/hellfiredb/abort.reasons.html3. It's time pro-choice people started picking their battles with more care. If Roe vs. Wade had been more limited instead of all encompassing, there may never have been such a bitter battle over abortion at all. As it stands, people who would have been supportive if legal abortions had been for medical reasons have become more and more disillusioned about the sheer overwhelming numbers that are being committed. http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000703.htmlThese are just my thoughts. Others here may feel differently.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:12 pm
I gree entierly. We don't ask to ban abortion entirely either. We do, however, wish to restrict it until it is neccesary- as in, life of the mother, the fetus is already dead, rape, things like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:26 pm
divineseraph I gree entierly. We don't ask to ban abortion entirely either. We do, however, wish to restrict it until it is neccesary- as in, life of the mother, the fetus is already dead, rape, things like that. Agreed! I would not stand in the way of women who have good, valid reasons for the abortion. Inconvenience is NOT a good reason. There is a big difference between freedom and license. I am especially disgusted by women who go out, get drunk or high, and then turn to abortion because of their stupidity and quite frankly sluttish behavior. It's even worse when people all around her say "Oh, everyone makes mistakes. It's okay, honey." That wasn't a mistake, it was very nearly criminally stupid behavior. If it had been an STD instead of a pregnancy, people would be singing a different tune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:45 pm
I have to agree also. "She's young and inschool" isnt a valid reason. She's young and can find care if she just gets up and looks. The school cant throw her out becase she's pregant, and she can still get her diploma if she knows who to talk to, is willing to push harder, and just sticks to it.
How ever "The mother will die", "The baby is already dead", "Its an ectopic(SP) pregnancy and you'll both be killed" Are valid reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:59 pm
The biggest crutch for abortions for convenience is in the rape and life-or-death situations. Basically, it's "Well, rape is a good cause, so why not make all of them legal?" I've heard them dodge around that same logical fallacy so many times, wording it differently but meaning the same thing. Rape=/= getting crunk and sleeping with 14 different guys. Life or death =/= 5 months of discomfort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:35 pm
But then I have to think... what if I'd been the product of a rape? It would be acceptable for me to be cancelled?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:33 pm
Of course not, because you're so wonderful!
But point taken... but the same is true with risk of the mother's life, or any abortion for any reason. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and if rape is that point, I will accept that to save the other 1.3 million each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:46 pm
I don't think the line can logically be drawn at rape.
Otherwise, you're saying that it's not what is in the woman, it's how it got there.
Is that a person, or isn't it?
If it is, why does it matter how it got there? If someone shoved me into someone else's house without the owner's permission, does that mean I'm not a person anymore because the owner didn't let me in or do anything at all to provoke me being there?
If it is not a person inside a woman, why ban it at all?
It seems like punishing the choice to have sex to make a rape exception.
There are plenty of situations that are hard on women when they're pregnant, emotionally, physically, etc. that we aren't making exceptions for. So rape is different because a woman didn't choose to have sex? Does the fetus suddenly turn into something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:06 pm
There is a difference in the fact that a woman consents, implied consent, to pregnancy when she has sex. She does not when she is raped. The fetus is still a person, yes. And i would much rather see it born. however, this I can understand, since it's not like she went around asking for pregnancy, it's not like the pregnancy was her fault.
And again, I'm not suggesting we stop at exceptions for rape. It is a perfect place to start, however. Think of the lives saved- what is it, 5% for both rape and health o the mother? If we ban everything but rape, we still save 95%, 1.3 million or so lives, every single year!
Tell a choicer that you want to ban abortion in the case of rape as well, and they will hate you forever. However, many of them are primarily pro-choice BECAUSE of rape and dangerous pregnancies. appeal to them first, to save the initial million. Try and save the other hundred thousand after. We have to work in smal steps, going from the least neccesary (and therefore easiest for the choicers to give up) to the "more neccesary" like rape.
A clause to help mothers with rape-induced pregnancies pay for medical bills and child support would help a lot with that on, actually...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
