Taking Well-Meaning Pro Life Efforts Too Far

[musicman]

Mr. P,

The problem with your last assessment that it "can't be done," is that it must be done. We live in a society kept in check by laws and regulations, we keep people in our society safe with these laws and regulations.

Therefore we must determine whether or not we consider unborn children worthy of protections and therefore, we must determine at what time an unborn child becomes viable for protections.

You might feel that a "fetus" is not worthy of protections until it is capable of living outisde the womb, thats fine, its a reasonable opinion, and one that you could defend in debate.

However, others will argue against that. Since we have been consistently pushing the viability time of a fetus back as medical science has improved they might argue that we should err on the side of caution...listing instead the date when a seperate heartbeate begins beating, or when brainactivity starts...or they might state that when the egg is fertizilzed by the sperm that zygote possesses everything it will need to create a viable human being and therefore should be protected....just like your opinion, they are reasonable and defendable.

The difficult, yet neccessary, part...is finding out where the law should lie in these matters.

Beautifully put, Gem!

And just as important is determining who has the ultimate say-so in a matter like this. I've always found the U.S. Constitution a handy little guide; I hope that, someday, the federal judiciary finds it so as well.

 

[dmp]

You might feel that a "fetus" is not worthy of protections until it is capable of living outisde the womb, thats fine, its a reasonable opinion, and one that you could defend in debate.

By allowing this argument, one could contend people in comas should be allowed to be killed because they require machines to live. That is to say, anyone's mother, at Any time, should be able to kill or let their offspring die, because they are no longer to live w/o assistance.

 

[Mr. P]

Mr. P,

The problem with your last assessment that it "can't be done," is that it must be done. We live in a society kept in check by laws and regulations, we keep people in our society safe with these laws and regulations.

Therefore we must determine whether or not we consider unborn children worthy of protections and therefore, we must determine at what time an unborn child becomes viable for protections.

You might feel that a "fetus" is not worthy of protections until it is capable of living outisde the womb, thats fine, its a reasonable opinion, and one that you could defend in debate.

.....

See what I mean...IMO a fertilized egg is NOT a fetus..there is no end to this...

I agree it must be done...I just don't see it happening...Sad but true.

 

[Gem]

A fertilized egg isn't a fetus, Mr. P, and no one who is arguing with facts could say that it is. I believe the appropriate term is a zygote...although I know the term changes depending upon whether or not it is attached to the uterine wall.

 

[Shattered]

Truthfully, would any of you force your wives, or daughters to carry to term a child conceived in rape?

 

[Mr. P]

A fertilized egg isn't a fetus, Mr. P, and no one who is arguing with facts could say that it is. I believe the appropriate term is a zygote...although I know the term changes depending upon whether or not it is attached to the uterine wall.

True..you used the term "fetus"...Not I..Is that for shock effect? I thought we were talking the morning after pill...guess not.

 

[Mr. P]

Truthfully, would any of you force your wives, or daughters to carry to term a child conceived in rape?

HELL no!!! How could you impose your "wants or will" on another person?

Wait, I got it, by making it illegal for them to decide...yep that's it...

 

[Shattered]

HELL no!!! How could you impose your "wants or will" on another person?

Wait, I got it, by making it illegal for them to decide...yep that's it...

You, I didn't think would.. I'm more asking the people that are insisting the child should be carried to term.. I'd like to know if they'd force the issue if it struck so close to home. Wife... 14-15 year old daughter...

Anyone got the guts to speak up and say "Yes, I would force my wife/daughter to carry to full term, regardless of the fact that they were raped."

 

[dilloduck]

You, I didn't think would.. I'm more asking the people that are insisting the child should be carried to term.. I'd like to know if they'd force the issue if it struck so close to home. Wife... 14-15 year old daughter...

Anyone got the guts to speak up and say "Yes, I would force my wife/daughter to carry to full term, regardless of the fact that they were raped."

:funnyface

 

[Shattered]

:funnyface

 

[Bonnie]

HELL no!!! How could you impose your "wants or will" on another person?

Wait, I got it, by making it illegal for them to decide...yep that's it...

Im not sure making it illegal is the answer either, I would hope and pray that women at least give consideration to all possibilities before ending a life. We impose laws everyday in this country which supercede wants or will, bottom line is it's illegal to take a life unless in self defense. A fetus most definately comes under the categorie of helpless, unless it threatens the life of the mother somehow. The normal reaction to rape is get rid of the baby, but that doesn't make the rape go away and studies show that abortion brings guilt with it. Do two wrongs make a right?

 

[Mr. P]

Anyone got the guts to speak up and say "Yes, I would force my wife/daughter to carry to full term, regardless of the fact that they were raped."

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: None of em would, but they'll make YOU do it.

 

[Mr. P]

Im not sure making it illegal is the answer either, I would hope and pray that women at least give consideration to all possibilities before ending a life. ....

Well Bonnie, welcome to the "CHOICE" side.

 

[Bonnie]

Well Bonnie, welcome to the "CHOICE" side.

The reason I say that is because I am convinced that laws won't stop the killing because it's a convenience that has been established as a right. What making it illegal would do is remove governments blessing and permission to commit murder.

I understand your position but it seems as though often when you argue your point on this topic there is such hatred or anger towards those who simply want to save babies lives not make other people do as they do. I will never understand that. Were not talking about making everyone wear suits and dresses and pray a certain way, were talking about expecting government to have a little bit to say in standing up for what's right, not condoning murder for babies because a few justices made this bogus law based on nothing but pressure from women's lib groups and a case that was based on a complete lie. Do you ever even consider why prolife people do what they do? Maybe there is substance to why many feel so strongly about this?

 

[Shattered]

I think the problem, Bonnie (or at least a major part of it), is those that are insisting these raped women and CHILDREN carry to full term are unwilling to adopt those children themselves.. Everyone says "ADOPTION!", yet there are soooooooooo many kids out there still waiting for families...

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Once again it becomes simply a matter of semantics. If a zygote is created and then, by human interaction, it is not allowed to attach to the uterine wall it is an abortion.

Let's take your exact same argument a little further. My wife and I KNOW that by using birth control pills, we are unnaturally and purposefully preventing a zygote from being created. A zygote that does not exist cannot attach itself to my wife's uterine wall so are we performing an abortion every month?

Even worse, sometimes a woman on the pill will develop a zygote that, because of the pill (a direct human interaction), is not allowed to attach to the uterine wall.

Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

So, do we ban the pill too? Then the condom? Then the rhythm method? Then abstinence? After all, a fertile woman who is not having sex is purposefully preventing a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall!

I'm being facetious and I apologise for that but all I'm really doing is taking your argument to the next logical step. It really isn't a giant leap to go from "aborting after 2 months is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from being created is wrong". I can't speak for anyone but myself but it is that natural progression of logic that scares me. And no one can even say it hasn't happened yet because one of the largest religions in the world took that logical step 2 thousand years ago.

 

[Nienna]

I think the problem, Bonnie (or at least a major part of it), is those that are insisting these raped women and CHILDREN carry to full term are unwilling to adopt those children themselves.. Everyone says "ADOPTION!", yet there are soooooooooo many kids out there still waiting for families...

This is true. But there are also soooo many people out there who want to adopt. I have read that US adoption laws make the process very difficult, and that is why so many choose to adopt from foreign countries. I am not well versed in law, however. Maybe someone else has more info on this? Is US adoption law too stringent?

As for your earlier question, I will stick my neck out. If I was raped, I would carry the baby to term. If one of my (minor) daughters was raped, I would not give permission for an abortion. If it was an adult woman, I would not have the power to "force" her decision, however, if I was in a close relationship with her, I would strongly advise her to carry to term. Like Bonnie said, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Shattered]

This is true. But there are also soooo many people out there who want to adopt. I have read that US adoption laws make the process very difficult, and that is why so many choose to adopt from foreign countries. I am not well versed in law, however. Maybe someone else has more info on this? Is US adoption law too stringent?

As for your earlier question, I will stick my neck out. If I was raped, I would carry the baby to term. If one of my (minor) daughters was raped, I would not give permission for an abortion. If it was an adult woman, I would not have the power to "force" her decision, however, if I was in a close relationship with her, I would strongly advise her to carry to term. Like Bonnie said, two wrongs don't make a right.

What if your daughter didn't *want* to have a baby at the age of 15? If she carried it, who would raise it? You? Her? Would you give it up for adoption? To who? Would you tell him/her they were conceived via force? What if, against your will, she had an abortion anyway? In some back alley? I'm also curious to know how you can say with any certainty that if you were raped you would carry the baby to term...

We're not talking about an abortion a month down the road here - we're talking about stopping a possible pregnancy from becoming a reality as a result of an bad, uncontrollable situation.

 

[Nienna]

Let's take your exact same argument a little further. My wife and I KNOW that by using birth control pills, we are unnaturally and purposefully preventing a zygote from being created. A zygote that does not exist cannot attach itself to my wife's uterine wall so are we performing an abortion every month?

Even worse, sometimes a woman on the pill will develop a zygote that, because of the pill (a direct human interaction), is not allowed to attach to the uterine wall.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

So, do we ban the pill too? Then the condom? Then the rhythm method? Then abstinence? After all, a fertile woman who is not having sex is purposefully preventing a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall!

I'm being facetious and I apologise for that but all I'm really doing is taking your argument to the next logical step. It really isn't a giant leap to go from "aborting after 2 months is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from being created is wrong". I can't speak for anyone but myself but it is that natural progression of logic that scares me. And no one can even say it hasn't happened yet because one of the largest religions in the world took that logical step 2 thousand years ago.

I see where you are going with this. It was a consideration for me and my husband, since we were raised Catholic.

To me, it seems the most logical place to draw the line is at fertilization. A sperm cell or an ovum are not human beings, genetically speaking. They have only half the chromosomes. They are not "programmed" to grow arms, legs, organs, etc. At fertilization, the sperm joins its genetic information with that of the ovum. Thus the fertilized egg has the genetic information to develop into a heart-beating, breathing, drooling, crawling, walking, reading, menstruating/ejaculating, gray-haired, memory receding person. At any other point, before birth or after, it seems difficult to draw the line. The genetic information is already in play.

So, for us, we decided against the pill, because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. However (contrary to the Catholic Church), we see nothing wrong with condoms or withdrawl or abstinence. In these cases, one is not destroying a genetically intact human. Just my opinion.

 

[Yurt]

This is a great thread. For the ideas being talked about here are very difficult to define and understand.

After reading the above posts, I have these questions:

Who do you say is the father when the raped victim child asks, "who is my daddy?"

Since I know that you will not lie:

What effect does this have on the, unfortunate product of rape, child have?

Adopted kids have tough, at least when I was in elementary school (80's). "So johnny, who's your dad?" "So johnny, where's your dad?"

One can answer truthfully to all these questions. One can only let another's insults hurt them if they let them. However, I would beg to differ on how a child, a young teenager would answer, let alone, deal with these issues.

I understand the importance of the right to life. However, whose right is this? The unborn child? Do his/her peers say the same? Is a there a consensus from his/her peers? I know, peers are not the test; however, our law is founded on common law, that is, law from our "peers," or Judges, which are believed to at a minimum be our peers (would you want a judge from Russia, China, forbid Iran/Saudi) to decide your fate?

Answer me this: we are all products of our genetics, therefore is it not true that an offspring of a rape victim will also not be the offspring a raper (is raper a word?). I will refrain at this point from discussing biblical stuff, for there is a time and place for that in government. In the instant case, even evolution will assert that an offspring brought to life from rape will undoubtedly carry the male's (rapist) sperm, thus his genetic tendencies and/or characteristics.

Let's take it a step further:

If a woman was raped by Hitler, Saddam, whomever of like ilk, would you still argue against ending that future life before it began? Considering the propensities that the supposed child would carry?

Take note: this subject pertains to rape and like pregnancies, not promiscuity.