Taking Well-Meaning Pro Life Efforts Too Far

[Shattered]

And you don't think many end up being saddled with the guilt of knowing they aborted a baby inside them plus having to live with the hurt and fears that acoompany being raped? For many, it ends up being a double wammy for them later in life. I feel for them period!

I agree.. But I think when faced with that situation, it's a choice they alone should make... I can't even tell you with any certainty what *I* would do, much less what someone else *should* do.

 

[Yurt]

As I understand it, this thread deals with the "day" after pill. As such it may not be necessary to delve further into when a child is "born."

If this is the next day pill, then one can surely not argue that this child has been born. If someone here can tell me that a child is formed after a mere 24 hours, then I might acquiesce. However, I do not believe there is any conclusive evidence for this.

Abortion is a terrible thing. So is Rape. Many conquering invaders raped the women so as to dilute the native population. Quite effective.

The child's fault? Let's really (only for the sake of the first say, 48 hours, for most tests, if at all, do not even recognize pregnancy for much later) take this logic all the way. Those that wear/take any form of birth control are guilty of "abortion." For that life exists in the semen as soon as it exits from the male. Ah, but only one/two will reach the egg, and then it is life. Is it? If so, what of those who cannot conceive? What of those whom experience miscarriages?

I honestly believe that life does not truly begin until your first breath. Yes it is biblical for me, as Adam received life after his first breath. Another example, if a newborn does not take the first breath, they die or are simply never given the opportunity to live/breathe. This is just my opinion, not dogma.

However, I do feel that a rape victim, of any sort, should be allowed the choice as to whether or not to bring this child, conceived in such a vile manner, into this world. Is that fair to the child to just assume the child would want to be born because this "child" has rights? What rights?

When one discusses the rights of an unborn or even a new born infant, I fear that the road leads to what rights we as adults whom have lived upon this earth long enough to become accustom to its standards, would deem what that child to deserve. In times of old birth meant everything. Today, most can achieve by simply achieving. I know I am being verbose, perhaps because the subject hits close to home, however, I believe the child has not rights, until that child breathes air.

Sorry, I hope I did not offend anyone.

 

[Bonnie]

Unless you know both sides of the coin, you're unable to assume which is more unfair... At that point, and only at that point I think it fair to give the woman the choice. The only other time I believe an abortion may be a necessary evil is if the mothers life is in serious danger (and no, I don't consider "I can't afford it" to be "serious danger" - I mean life-threatening).

I agree with the life threatening part.
I have two friends, one an acquantance, both who were raped as teens, one had an abortion, the other didn't. the one who had the abortion has been in therapy not for the rape but over the guilt of killing her baby, she says she wished she would have had her daughter. The other friend who had the baby is happier now because she has a beautiful daughter that came from a horrible situtation. I know not every woman has this same reaction, rape is a horrible thing but I tought it might be worth posting this to give at least some insight.

 

[dmp]

I agree with the life threatening part.
I have two friends, one an acquantance, both who were raped as teens, one had an abortion, the other didn't. the one who had the abortion has been in therapy not for the rape but over the guilt of killing her baby, she says she wished she would have had her daughter. The other friend who had the baby is happier now because she has a beautiful daughter that came from a horrible situtation. I know not every woman has this same reaction, rape is a horrible thing but I tought it might be worth posting this to give at least some insight.

Good for the Mother, Bonnie...that's the kind of story a lot of Abortion Rights folks simply dismiss or don't want told.

:-/

 

[Bonnie]

Good for the Mother, Bonnie...that's the kind of story a lot of Abortion Rights folks simply dismiss or don't want told.

:-/

My only real point with that was not everything you assume about people is necessarily true...Sometimes doing the right thing works out for everyone.

 

[dmp]

My only real point with that was not everything you assume about people is necessarily true...Sometimes doing the right thing works out for everyone.

I think I understood that - it's nice to read 'good, true' stories of women who survive (emotionally) what nay-sayers claim 'never happens' or refuse to allow for the possibility of happening.

 

[no1tovote4]

so she is supposed to be saddled with the pregnancy through no fault of her own other than being a female in the wrong place at the wrong time?

So instead innocent human life is ended because they too were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Once again, it is the value of the life we are speaking of. The right of the human organism to live.

Instead we make two victims, one of rape and another of society. That the one that is victimized directly by society cannot speak yet or their development is deemed as not far enough along doesn't change the fact that we are deeming their life worthless because of the action of the father.

 

[no1tovote4]

As I understand it, this thread deals with the "day" after pill. As such it may not be necessary to delve further into when a child is "born."

Born is not what we are arguing. I personally believe that every human organism deserves the best chance possible at survival. The day after pill is designed to make it so the developed zygote cannot attach to the uterine wall and thus is aborted. Taking from that human life any semblance of value and removing the idea that they are human offspring doesn't make it valueless, it just makes you feel better about it.

If this is the next day pill, then one can surely not argue that this child has been born. If someone here can tell me that a child is formed after a mere 24 hours, then I might acquiesce. However, I do not believe there is any conclusive evidence for this.

Nobody is arguing the child has been born, but they are arguing that a human life is ended because others are deeming it valueless.

Abortion is a terrible thing. So is Rape. Many conquering invaders raped the women so as to dilute the native population. Quite effective.

The child's fault? Let's really (only for the sake of the first say, 48 hours, for most tests, if at all, do not even recognize pregnancy for much later) take this logic all the way. Those that wear/take any form of birth control are guilty of "abortion." For that life exists in the semen as soon as it exits from the male. Ah, but only one/two will reach the egg, and then it is life. Is it? If so, what of those who cannot conceive? What of those whom experience miscarriages?

Birth control denies the development of a zygote, this is not abortion. Abortion occurs when a human organism is killed by direct action. Sperm is not a human organism and neither are ovum, it is when a zygote is developed that human life has its beginning. A miscarriage is not directed action where one human is taking the life of another.

I honestly believe that life does not truly begin until your first breath. Yes it is biblical for me, as Adam received life after his first breath. Another example, if a newborn does not take the first breath, they die or are simply never given the opportunity to live/breathe. This is just my opinion, not dogma.

Then you are of an extreme. Most persons believe that one becomes a human being at the time when thought processes begin, which is about at 20 weeks. However it is undeniable that before that it is a living human organism if not yet developed enough for thought. It is the way people deem this life worthless so that they can end it for their convenience that worries many people who are against abortion.

However, I do feel that a rape victim, of any sort, should be allowed the choice as to whether or not to bring this child, conceived in such a vile manner, into this world. Is that fair to the child to just assume the child would want to be born because this "child" has rights? What rights?

The same right of any human organism to have the best chance of survival without hindrance by direct action to end a life for the convenience of another.

When one discusses the rights of an unborn or even a new born infant, I fear that the road leads to what rights we as adults whom have lived upon this earth long enough to become accustom to its standards, would deem what that child to deserve. In times of old birth meant everything. Today, most can achieve by simply achieving. I know I am being verbose, perhaps because the subject hits close to home, however, I believe the child has not rights, until that child breathes air.

Sorry, I hope I did not offend anyone.

And I believe that life itself has rights, and more especially human life, and that to end a life for convenience is simply one of the worst and most heinous crimes because of the way it specifically devalues the existence of that human life.

 

[Gem]

so she is supposed to be saddled with the pregnancy through no fault of her own other than being a female in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I agree with others here, what you are missing in this statement is that people who are strongly pro-life do not see only 2 people in this situation, but 3.

The fact that the woman was raped is a tragedy, no one is denying that. No one is saying that she was not horribly abused, a victim, deserving all of our sympathy, respect, and any help we can give her.

What they are saying is that the baby that was created out of this tragic circumstance is not the rapist, is not a criminal...and therefore does not deserve death for his/her father's crimes.

 

[Mr. P]

I agree with others here, what you are missing in this statement is that people who are strongly pro-life do not see only 2 people in this situation, but 3.

The fact that the woman was raped is a tragedy, no one is denying that. No one is saying that she was not horribly abused, a victim, deserving all of our sympathy, respect, and any help we can give her.

What they are saying is that the baby that was created out of this tragic circumstance is not the rapist, is not a criminal...and therefore does not deserve death for his/her father's crimes.

But others are saying that with the use of this "morning after pill" there wouldn't be a life to abort..at least that's the way I see it.

 

[no1tovote4]

But others are saying that with the use of this "morning after pill" there wouldn't be a life to abort..at least that's the way I see it.

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. Through direct human action a devalued life has ended, and their only crime is to have a criminal father.

 

[Mr. P]

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. Through direct human action a devalued life has ended, and their only crime is to have a criminal father.

Not really a matter of semantics, it happens Naturally all the time.

 

[no1tovote4]

Not really a matter of semantics, it happens Naturally all the time.

But when it happens naturally it is not a matter of purposeful ending of life by another human. They had their best chance that they were due, by removing the chance you have then created the difference.

Each human organism deserves that chance, to devalue one because of who their father is flies in the face that all are created equal.

 

[Mr. P]

But when it happens naturally it is not a matter of purposeful ending of life by another human. They had their best chance that they were due, by removing the chance you have then created the difference.

Each human organism deserves that chance, to devalue one because of who their father is flies in the face that all are created equal.

And so, this has moved into the "when does life begin" realm...
That's a no win situation..neither side can ever win, nor convince the other they are wrong.

 

[no1tovote4]

And so, this has moved into the "when does life begin" realm...
That's a no win situation..neither side can ever win, nor convince the other they are wrong.

As I said, semantics.

 

[Mr. P]

As I said, semantics.

Not really..we could go on an on, what's the point? Life begins...hummm pick a time..it can be argued..

I don't want to do that..go there etc.

 

[no1tovote4]

Not really..we could go on an on, what's the point? Life begins...hummm pick a time..it can be argued..

I don't want to do that..go there etc.

I think the actual argument would be when they become a "person", not when life begins. It would be difficult to argue that something that is scientifically considered alive is not alive.

To me it doesn't matter when they become a "person" at every moment of life they are a developing human offspring and deserve to be valued as such.

 

[Bonnie]

I think the actual argument would be when they become a "person", not when life begins. It would be difficult to argue that something that is scientifically considered alive is not alive.

To me it doesn't matter when they become a "person" at every moment of life they are a developing human offspring and deserve to be valued as such.

And we could also say that even in rape the baby is still half the mother's child as well.

 

[Mr. P]

Ya see how ridiculous this is? We go from abortion to natural abortion to
preventing a pregnancy to when does life beginning to when is "it" a person to "it's"
part of the mother...

This is the problem with any discussion of this type. It just can't be done, IMO.

 

[Gem]

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.