Rape and pregnancy: the ignorance of the GOP

Foxi4 · Aug 27, 2012

Yes, and what you said is full of contradictions.
Is there an exception for ra.pe victims to obtain abortion? Yes or No?
Is there a period in which ra.pe victims can have abortion, where others can't? Yes or no?
Is the "cut-off" time for a ra.pe victim to get an abortion *before* "it becomes a human life"? Yes or no?
*Before* "it becomes a human life", can other women get an abortion? Yes or no?
Can women get abortions during the FIRST-trimester? Yes or no?
Can ra.pe victims get abortions in the FIRST-trimester? Yes or no?
Can women get abortions during the SECOND-trimester? Yes or no?
Can ra.pe victims get abortions in the SECOND-trimester? Yes or no?
About the connection between involuntary organ donation and involuntary pregnancy, I think all those analogies might be distracting you, or something. Just forget about pregnancy, the unborn child, conjoined twins, and all the rest. Just focus on involuntary organ donation alone. Can you tell us why involuntary organ donation is not okay? Again,focus. Why isn't it okay?

By now you stopped reading what I'm writing or you refuse to. Focus, because that's probably my last reply to you.

Organ donation has nothing to do with pregnancy - lending or leasing would be a better word since the womb never leaves the woman's body - your analogy is incorrect, false, null and void.

I'm only allowing [censored] victims to have an abortion before organs are developed because it practically guarantees that the developing child does not suffer in the process. If the nervous system is not developed yet and a brain is not in place, it is not a conscious life - it only has the potential to become one and I still leave the decision to the woman as she's the one who was assaulted - yes, it's an exception simply because she never asked to be pregnant and although I don't condone abortion, I give her the right to choose because the pregnancy was not a direct result of her negligence or bad choices - I said it numerous times that a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late, for example when the victim was imprisoned.

The "cut-off" time is not specified - doctors should examine the fetus and decide whether it will suffer or not. It's not a cut-off time between being human and not being human - there's no such thing. The moment the fertilized egg nests and starts recombining D.N.A into a new strain, it becomes a new human strain. It is not a conscious life though - consciousness is gained via creating a centralized nervous system with a brain as its center.

My opinion is based on human biology and the natural, logical chain of Action and Consequence - your opinion is based on an idea you think is "freedom over all else" and I call "convenience".

Your entire argument runs down to the woman being in full right to protect her bodily integrity - fiar play, she has, however at the same time she has no right to be involved in the integrity of the unborn child's bodily integrity and once you realize that the child is a separate entity from herself, it's all pretty clear. It has separate organs, a separate nervous system and a separate mind - it's a different person that is unfortunately temporarily occupying the space in her womb. The woman's bodily integrity is not infringed upon - every organ is there, she hasn't donated anything whatsoever. You simply choose to believe that she has because that's the easy way out. It's simply more convenient to get rid of the unwanted child - you give the woman the right to dispose of it, yet you wouldn't give her the same right when the child is already born - why so?

I say that it should be up to the doctor to decide whether the child is developed enough to have a conscience of its own and I refuse to give the right for abortion to women who became pregnant out of their own negligence. Women who did not have a say in the matter - [censored] victims, are a different case. It is not their own negligence that caused the pregnancy but an outside, hostile force which took away their right to be safe during intercourse, but even in this case, I respect the conscious life, if it is already developed.

I hope that this is clear enough for you.

Aeter · Aug 27, 2012

Foxi4 said:
It is not a conscious life though - consciousness is gained via creating a centralized nervous system with a brain as its center.

Recent studies contradict this though: http://www.livescience.com/22614-self-awareness-brain.html

kupo3000 · Aug 27, 2012

Foxi4 said:
I said it numerous times that a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late, for example when the victim was imprisoned.

There's a few problems though. Certain pro-life groups are trying to limit access on contraceptions or ban it outright.
Heck, some pharmacies won't even sell you the morning-after (plan-b) pill.

Foxi4 · Aug 27, 2012

kupo3000 said:
Foxi4 said:

I said it numerous times that a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late, for example when the victim was imprisoned.

Click to expand...

There's a few problems though. Certain pro-life groups are trying to limit access on contraceptions or ban it outright.
Heck, even some pharmacies won't sell you the morning-after (plan-b) pill.

Which is why I'm not a Pro-Life person - I'm a Pro-Reason person. The fertilized egg has not yet begun to recompile itself.

To me, the definition of "Life" is "a self-multiplying machine that creates more of itself via means of ingesting sustinance of some sort" - the fertilized egg is not performing those functions until it properly nests, thus I cannot call it "Life" yet - it's only a lump of cells that has the potential to become Life.

People involved in distribution of contraception and Morning-After should be properly trained and educated in that sector of human biology, and if they refuse to sell them, the state should step in. I have little patience for the ignorant, everybody has the choice whether or not their intercourse is going to be safe. It's not a matter of their morality, it should be regulated by law and it should be their duty.

As for Aeter's comment, I believe that only creatures with a brain are capable to be self-aware, thus conscious and I'm pretty sure that I have plenty of scientists on my side.

Aeter said:
Recent studies contradict this though: http://www.livescien...ness-brain.html

I only skim-read, but from what I can see, the experiment revolves around a person suffering from memory loss and brain damage, not a complete lack of a brain.

kupo3000 · Aug 27, 2012

Foxi4 said:
kupo3000 said:

Foxi4 said:

I said it numerous times that a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late, for example when the victim was imprisoned.

Click to expand...

There's a few problems though. Certain pro-life groups are trying to limit access on contraceptions or ban it outright.
Heck, even some pharmacies won't sell you the morning-after (plan-b) pill.

Click to expand...

Which is why I'm not a Pro-Life person - I'm a Pro-Reason person. The fertilized egg has not yet begun to recompile itself.

To me, the definition of "Life" is a self-multiplying machine that creates more of itself via means of ingesting sustinance of some sort - the fertilized egg is not performing those functions until it properly nests, thus I cannot call it "Life" yet - it's only a lump of cells that has the potential to become Life.

People involved in distribution of contraception and Morning-After should be properly trained and educated in that sector, and if they refuse to sell them, the state should step in. I have little patience for the ignorant, everybody has the choice whether or not their intercourse is going to be safe.

As for Aeter's comment, I believe that only creatures with a brain are capable to be self-aware, thus conscious and I'm pretty sure that I have plenty of scientists on my side.

If the majority of pro-lifers actually thought like that there probably wouldn't be so many issues, but sadly in some of their minds the moment a sperm and egg join it's a fully formed fetus.

DiscostewSM · Aug 27, 2012

leic7 said:
@[member='DiscostewSM']

I'm curious in which category you would put surrogate moms, who help other couples to carry their biological offspring. What happens if they change their mind during pregnancy?

They all consented to do this in the first place, right?

Foxi4 · Aug 27, 2012

DiscostewSM said:
leic7 said:

@[member='DiscostewSM']

I'm curious in which category you would put surrogate moms, who help other couples to carry their biological offspring. What happens if they change their mind during pregnancy?

Click to expand...

They all consented to do this in the first place, right?

It's regulated by means of a contract. The surrogate agreed to do something for a given fee and if she refuses to do so mid-way through, it's the equivalent of a building contractor refusing to work - the contract binds him to. In a situation where a contract is breached by one party while the other party kept their word and paid for the job, it's pretty easy to determine the party at fault.

Castiel · Aug 27, 2012

leic7 said:
If you were a parent, and if there were a "room" that you could send your child to, in which your child would have a chance to live a happy life, and also a chance to suffer a miserable existence; would you send your child into that "room", not certain what the outcome would be?

I wouldn't. I would love and cherish my child too much to GAMBLE on their future and happiness. If you win, that's wonderful. But what if you lose? Of course, the "room" is a metaphor for the world.

Foxi4 said:
[Y]our analogy is incorrect, false, null and void.

@leic7 - Read what you wrote again. Going by what you said, you would like to have every child killed. Every child is born into this world. Every child has the chance to be either happy or miserable. By those two reasons alone you would rather have every child killed because nobody knows or will ever know whether a child will be happy or miserable, regardless of who the parents are. Someone can love their child and care for it all they want but that still doesn't guarantee it will be happy. There is media, there are friends, there are numerous things that will influence the child, not just the parent. And with how the world is today, there is no way of stopping that. These things will also influence the child, and how the child interprets them is what will determine how the child lives their life.

I have lived in depression myself. I lived in it for quite a few years and only just recently broke out of it. It's a terrible thing but it most certainly can be beaten. Aborting a child because you don't think they will have a happy life is bullshit. Like I said before, there is no way we can know how the child's life will turn out, and we most certainly don't have the right to assume that we do know. So to answer your question, yes. I would give my child that chance.

kupo3000 · Aug 27, 2012

Castiel said:
leic7 said:

If you were a parent, and if there were a "room" that you could send your child to, in which your child would have a chance to live a happy life, and also a chance to suffer a miserable existence; would you send your child into that "room", not certain what the outcome would be?

I wouldn't. I would love and cherish my child too much to GAMBLE on their future and happiness. If you win, that's wonderful. But what if you lose? Of course, the "room" is a metaphor for the world.

Click to expand...

Foxi4 said:

[Y]our analogy is incorrect, false, null and void.

Click to expand...

@leic7 - Read what you wrote again. Going by what you said, you would like to have every child killed. Every child is born into this world. Every child has the chance to be either happy or miserable. By those two reasons alone you would rather have every child killed because nobody knows or will ever know whether a child will be happy or miserable, regardless of who the parents are. Someone can love their child and care for it all they want but that still doesn't guarantee it will be happy. There is media, there are friends, there are numerous things that will influence the child, not just the parent. And with how the world is today, there is no way of stopping that. These things will also influence the child, and how the child interprets them is what will determine how the child lives their life.

I have lived in depression myself. I lived in it for quite a few years and only just recently broke out of it. It's a terrible thing but it most certainly can be beaten. Aborting a child because you don't think they will have a happy life is bullshit. Like I said before, there is no way we can know how the child's life will turn out, and we most certainly don't have the right to assume that we do know. So to answer your question, yes. I would give my child that chance.

There's a big difference between a bunch of cells (blastocyst) and a fully grown 8-9 month old fetus.

Castiel · Aug 28, 2012

kupo3000 said:
There's a big difference between a bunch of cells (blastocyst) and a fully grown 8-9 month old fetus.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, "Now, you may believe that the fertilized egg doesn't become human until a certain stage in development so this wouldn't actually be murder, and that is fine. You have your belief, I have mine."

I also fail to see how this post relates to what I was telling Leic... :/

leic7 · Aug 28, 2012

@DiscostewSM Yep.

@[member='Foxi4']

Yeah you're so right in that organ donation has nothing to do with pregnancy, so just ignore pregnancy. Can you finally tell us a reason why involuntary organ donation isn't okay now? Just this issue alone. straight forward question. Dunno why you avoided answering it.

So, ra.pe victims can have abortions all the way until it becomes a "conscious life", but other women can't have abortions at all even when it's *not* a "conscious life"? Then you can't use the violation of another person's rights as an argument against early abortions, because there's no "another person" yet at this point as it's *not* yet a "conscious life" at the time abortions are already banned for these women. That means you really have no valid argument against these early abortions at all. It's simply a matter of a person's rights vs. a non-person's non-rights.

@[member='Castiel']

My apologies for making it sound like I was talking in absolute terms. What I meant was actually subjective certainty, the kind where you feel "I am sure I can definitely do this!" certainty. If I wasn't even sure myself if I could handle it, if I wasn't certain that I could be a good parent to the child... that's way too big of a gamble on something far too valuable, I wouldn't let a child into the world like this. Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time.

Castiel · Aug 28, 2012

leic7 said:
@[member='Castiel']

My apologies for making it sound like I was talking in absolute terms. What I meant was actually subjective certainty, the kind where you feel "I am sure I can definitely do this!" certainty. If I wasn't even sure myself if I could handle it, if I wasn't certain that I could be a good parent to the child... that's way too big of a gamble on something far too valuable, I wouldn't let a child into the world like this. Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time.

(The bolded part is where I'm basing my answer. If I'm still not understanding something, sorry :/ )
I would still have to say yes because like I said before there is still the putting it up for adoption option, and if a parents is scared that the family that adopts the child won't be a good family for the child, they can choose to do an Independent Adoption. This ensures that the parent can choose the family which they think will be suited for their child.

MEGAMANTROTSKY · Aug 28, 2012

Castiel said:
leic7 said:

@[member='Castiel']

My apologies for making it sound like I was talking in absolute terms. What I meant was actually subjective certainty, the kind where you feel "I am sure I can definitely do this!" certainty. If I wasn't even sure myself if I could handle it, if I wasn't certain that I could be a good parent to the child... that's way too big of a gamble on something far too valuable, I wouldn't let a child into the world like this. Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time.

Click to expand...

(The bolded part is where I'm basing my answer. If I'm still not understanding something, sorry :/ )
I would still have to say yes because like I said before there is still the putting it up for adoption option, and if a parents is scared that the family that adopts the child won't be a good family for the child, they can choose to do an Independent Adoption. This ensures that the parent can choose the family which they think will be suited for their child.

Adoption isn't really safe. The foster care system is notorious for being overcrowded and miserable. The homes are usually underfunded, and such poverty creates a breeding ground for abuse, sexual abuse, and mental illness. Even in the best of circumstances gives no guarantee that they'll be adopted, safe, or be able to live out happy lives; for example, Britain recently released a report detailing how 10,000 out of 65,000 children in care ran away or went missing. The foster system in general is under significant strain and its bureaucracy completely corrupt. The fact that the programs keep getting cut every year ensure that the facilities and the means to care for the children will worsen. And what do the politicians of big business usually have to say about it? Nothing. Instead, they point out the faults of select individuals to cover up that the problem is actually societal, not simply personal.

Independent adoption could be an option, but it heavily depends on the circumstances of the family since an agency is not involved. It can also become a very expensive process, in the preventative sense. Finally, legal problems are possible with domestic adoptions, since there's a risk of the birth-parents suing to regain custody of the child, like in the "Baby Richard" case. This could partially explain why certain celebrities have adopted children from other countries.

You're taking a very light-minded approach here. I suggest you try to research the financial and social state of these options more before presenting them as some sort of panacea to abortion. They don't really hold up under serious scrutiny.

tatripp · Aug 28, 2012

DSGamer64 said:
Typical of right wingers. I like how conservatives try to blame women for getting raped and use shit ass excuses like this for keeping abortion illegal. Someone should throw these pricks in a prison cell with someone serving a life sentence in solitary confinement and see what their opinions on [censored] are like after their experience.

Typical of 16 year old liberal socialists. I find it ironic that many liberals preach open mindedness but refuse to consider something from a different point of view and criticize others for having a different view. Do you really think "right wingers" actually blame women for getting raped? Your understanding of the conservative view point is narrow at best. In general, conservatives are against abortion because they believe that an abortion is murder. Conservatives see the unborn baby as a completely innocent and defenseless child. An innocent child should not be killed under any circumstances even in [censored] and life threatening cases. I think liberals tend to value a mother more than an unborn baby because the unborn baby to them is more of a blank slate than an innocent child.

Another reason why conservatives dislike abortion is because of the horrible origins. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of Eugenics until it became unpopular. Eugenics was a movement that encouraged Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. She considered the fit to be the white middle class and wealthy and the unfit to be black, poor, immigrants, and the disabled. Hitler was inspired by books and articles from people in her foundation and even referred to one of the books as "my bible." Even today there is blatant racism by planned parenthood clinics located in many minority neighborhoods.

Anyways these politicians are politicians. The rarity of the case has nothing to do with the law and avoids the real issue. As far as I know, their body will not automatically get rid of unwanted babies. These comments do not represent conservatism.

tatripp · Aug 28, 2012

Hells Malice said:
Yumi said:

Wow, what an idiot.

Abortion should be legal (since the beginning of time). But many will think it's wrong. Why? Could be morals, religion views, etc.
But what gives them the right to subjugate my body by telling me not to abort?..especially if it was an involuntary pregnancy.

Click to expand...

This.

Some girls (sluts) are going to (or do, location pending) abuse the abortion system, yeah. Fact.
But many, many girls are going to use it for valid reasons as well.
This oppressive bullshit has never made sense. It's another thing that hinders way more than it helps. There are pretty strict rules in place to ensure a cognitive lifeform is not aborted.
It should be a personal choice, not a political choice.

There are plenty of stupid girls who are going to do stupid things but I cannot think of a valid reason for an abortion. Even if it isn't a cognitive life form, it is still a life form. I consider the unborn child's soul more important than its cognition. Cognition does not make a human. If parts of your cognition are damaged or lost, you are still valuable. You can still choose not to have a child by choosing not to have intercourse.
I know you probably won't agree with me but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

BlueStar · Aug 28, 2012

These guys just can't stop, can they

http://www.dailykos....ock-similar-to-rape

EDIT : Oh for fuck's sake, right, you'll have to fix the url yourself. I can't believe we're having to have a discussion about rape without even being able to use the word.

Anyway, as to where the general abortion debate has gotten to, I don't think the government should be legislating based on ideas like 'souls'.

cobleman · Aug 28, 2012

I am against abortion only for the fact that an old girlfriend of mine instead of discussing the pregnancy she chose to hide it we had been together for 8 1/2 years and she aborted without telling me.
With that said though how could any human expect a girl or woman that was raped to carry a child to term, knowing that the child would be despised when born and all the mother can see is the eyes of her attacker what sort of life would it be for that child if the mother could never ever love it and thats all it would be to them just an "IT" not a child that should be cared for and loved but a constant reminder of the terrible attack that stripped them of there dignity and there trust of society. Put aside your beliefs and consider the well being of the "Person"

Foxi4 · Aug 28, 2012

leic7 said:
So, ra.pe victims can have abortions all the way until it becomes a "conscious life", but other women can't have abortions at all even when it's *not* a "conscious life"? Then you can't use the violation of another person's rights as an argument against early abortions, because there's no "another person" yet at this point as it's *not* yet a "conscious life" at the time abortions are already banned for these women. That means you really have no valid argument against these early abortions at all. It's simply a matter of a person's rights vs. a non-person's non-rights.

That's not exactly true - I'm making an *exception* in the case of [censored] victims by weighing pro's and con's - a [censored] victim had nothing to do with her predicament and should have the option to bail out of it if possible without causing suffering to the unborn child. A woman who got pregnant after normal intercourse has no such right - she knew what she was doing and what were the possible consequences.

You live in a bubble - you think that a person is first and foremost free and you value it highly, but you fail to understand that your freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins.

I'll explain it to you again because you seem to have issues with reading, and I'll add bullet points for your convenience.

A consenting couple could've easily used any type of physical contraceptive (such as a condom), a [censored] victim is stripped of this right.
A consenting couple could've bought and taken a Morning-After once they realized that the woman is in serious danger of becoming pregnant and didn't do so, instead relying on dumb luck. [censored] victims held prisoner againts their will are stripped of this right.
A consenting couple could've planned their intercourse earlier and choose to use hormonal contraception or other long-term methods. [censored] cannot be planned by the victim by definition.

You still don't understand my point though, so I'll do my best to help you out with this one.

A consenting couple had 72 hours to go to the doctor, ask for a prescription and receive a Morning-After pill to prevent the pregnancy. They had all the power in their hands and could prevent it within three working days. What this means is that they chose to wait those three days and see if the woman will become pregnant or not rather than waste their time sitting in a GP's office. In other words, apparently the pregnancy wasn't that threatening throughout those three days.

I much prefere if [censored] victims are given Morning-After, instances of [censored] victims being held prisoner after the ordeal for a time period exceeding three days are extremely rare, thus even the abortion I find incredibly sad but acceptable would simply be the final way out rather than a permanently used solution.

You accuse me of being unfair - giving people rights and non-rights wheras you yourself violate the rights of the unborn child, be it concious or unconcious. Remember what I said about zygotes, embryos and fetuses. Zygotes have the potential to become life, embryos are life and fetuses (late stage) are concious life. Can you see the gradation here?

A zygote only has the potential to become new life, but potential alone is not life yet - a Morning-After is acceptable by all means. An embryo is life at its earliest stage - it should have the chance to develop, we shouldn't put wrenches into the clockwork of life, however in extreme cases it should be up to the mother - cases such as [censored]. Fetuses are the most "advanced" stage before the child is fully formed - the later in pregnancy the more complete they are, and if they are found concious by a party of doctors, they're human beings with their own rights that we need to respect.

Moreover, I am not giving more rights to [censored] victims than to consenting women, I am merely returning the rights they were stripped off to them. A consenting couple had both the right to be safe during intercourse and the right to prevent pregnancy after the intercourse - a [censored] victim hadn't and it is only fair and just that she gets to choose in the end.

As for your question about involountary organ donation, I'm not answering your question because it has no relevance to the thread. It's not a quiz bowl - I'm not here to answer your questions. Excuse me, but I won't amuse you - I'm not a clown, so if you're looking for that, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. This is no debate, but it's a serious discussion none the less, and if you don't feel like making a point and prepared an entire comedy routine especially for me that requires me to answer your questions first then I'm afraid you'll have to dumb it down to something short that makes sense.

EDIT: I'm not one to correct the Staff, but I said it in the past and I'll say it now. "Ra-pe" is not a swearword, it's not offensive in any way and it should not be censored. I realize that it is often used by people far too immature to understand the weight of it, but the fact that this word is quite "heavy" doesn't mean that is shouldn't be used. By censoring it, instead of punishing the immature party, the Staff is punishing the entire community. It's a little bit upsetting that we're being treated like children here.

Aeter · Aug 28, 2012

Foxi4 said:
As for Aeter's comment, I believe that only creatures with a brain are capable to be self-aware, thus conscious and I'm pretty sure that I have plenty of scientists on my side.

Aeter said:

Recent studies contradict this though: http://www.livescien...ness-brain.html

Click to expand...

I only skim-read, but from what I can see, the experiment revolves around a person suffering from memory loss and brain damage, not a complete lack of a brain.

I know, but the guy's self-awareness is still largely in tact, while the parts of his brain thought to be critical for self-awareness were destroyed.
Actually, they're just saying that self-awareness can't be pin-pointed in the brain, but is a complex of interactions between multiple brain regions.
So yeah, I'm still wrong...

kupo3000 · Aug 28, 2012

tatripp said:
Another reason why conservatives dislike abortion is because of the horrible origins. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of Eugenics until it became unpopular. Eugenics was a movement that encouraged Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. She considered the fit to be the white middle class and wealthy and the unfit to be black, poor, immigrants, and the disabled. Hitler was inspired by books and articles from people in her foundation and even referred to one of the books as "my bible." Even today there is blatant racism by planned parenthood clinics located in many minority neighborhoods.

No, just no, I don't even. :wtf:

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics (another method of artificial selection).
Natural Selection ≠ Artificial Selection.
Heck, humans have been practicing artificial selection ever since they started learning how to breed different plants and livestock.
As for "Survival of the fittest", Darwin only meant it as a metaphor for life forms suited better (adapted) for immediate and local environment, not the common misnomer of in the best physical shape or a specific race.

Rape and pregnancy: the ignorance of the GOP

Endless Trash

A walking contradiction

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

A walking contradiction

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum