I am a Suction Machine in an Abortion Clinic

[CoffeeSaint]

The child did not rape her. The presence of the child is not the continuation of the rape it is a wound. I worded it poorly when I said it before in this way: "1. She could view such a pregnancy as a continuation of the assault to which the fetus is a co-victim..." I did not mean that the baby was violating her--I meant that the consequences of the assault continued throughout the pregnancy caused by the assault. I apologize for being unclear and confusing on that.

Sometimes that is the wise choice lest you bleed to death by removing it. Same goes with bullets left in place since removal would cause more trauma. I get your point though...A knife, however, is not a human with inalienable rights himself.

The presence of the child is a wound. It is a stigma placed on the woman by the action of the rapist, and through no fault of her own. You cannot see this as her responsibility. She should be able to remove the invader. Yes, I am using loaded language to describe the child, because the counterargument rests on the concept of the child's innocence. It is not the child who is at fault, it is the rapist, but the child is still associated with that assault. It is not only a human with rights, it is a knife, and if the woman wants to remove it and bleed to death, let her.

Shouldn't she know EXACTLY what she's doing? Shouldn't she be in a healthy mental state when she considers the options? And lastly--shouldn't the other human who's very LIFE is hanging in the balance be given consideration and have his inalienable rights respected? I cannot justify taking a life--even for the possible emotional ease of a victim of a horrible crime. It is immoral--and most definitely illogical.


Yes. I can agree with what you say above. It still does not justify taking the child's life.

You don't think it's moral. You don't think it's logical. But when it isn't your body, why should you get to choose? Yes, the child should be given consideration, but the woman should be given just as much, and you refuse to do that. The child's life does not justify enslaving the mother.

ewww...don't like that...makes it sound like you're mad at me....whadIdo??? (When I called you Madame)

Nothing particular intended by this; a personal habit of mine is to call my opponents "sir" during a debate, and that term doesn't fit you. And by the way, of course I'm mad at you. You are arguing a position I personally find abhorrent. Does that matter? Many of your confederates find my position equally abhorrent, and have gone so far as to call me a monster. I wasn't trying to insult you in any way; I have great respect for your intelligence and your ability to debate rationally. Do we have to be friends, too?

And will you answer the obvious question? What about the unwanted child's inalienable right to life? You do not argue the "personhood" of the unborn human. You do not argue that there exists a right to life. You simply state the mother has the right to her body and somehow that trumps the rights of the unborn human. Would you explain your logical reasoning of that point?

Have I not done this? The mother has the right to control her own body. The child's continued existence forces her to give her body's resources to the child; if she chooses to sacrifice herself for the child, all well and good. But if the sacrifice of her body for the child is against her will, it is enslavement, the control of the mother's body and life without compensation and without the consent of the controlled. If she chooses the sacrifice, the child's rights are paramount, even though she still loses her freedom to control her own body, as she must now live for the child, as well as herself; if she chooses not to live for the child, the child must be removed from her. If this can be done without the child losing its life, she would not have the right to terminate its life; but the child does not have the right to squat in her womb, so to speak.
The child does have the right to life. You use that fact to force the mother to sacrifice her body for that child. I use the mother's right ton control her body to sacrifice the child's right to live. Are we that different, in the end? I, the murderer of innocents, and you, the enslaver of mothers?

I agree that it is difficult to generalize "feelings" and that is why I think the issue should be looked at with compassion, but objectively as possible so that changeable and unreliable feelings are not the basis of a "choice" but rather rational thought.

Well and good; please stop arguing how a woman could or should feel after a rape, then.

That is true that the culpability would be shared--but ultimately she would be the one making the final "choice" in an abortion. He would be responsible for the situation of her pregnancy, but she would be responsible along with him for the termination of the pregnancy.

That's not so as pointed out above.

His violation of other's rights negates any right he may have had.

Ah, so his responsibility, and thus his right to control, is voided by his violation of the rights of others; this is why we can put him in jail, despite his inalienable right to liberty, correct? What, then, of the fetus's violation of the mother's rights?
If her responsibility starts and stops at the decision to terminate a pregnancy, because the conception of the child was only the rapist's choice, then she should be able to make a choice; otherwise, she has no responsibility. You cannot be held responsible for an action you did not choose.

I think it should be pretty clear I can't justify depriving a human being of his rights without compromising the certainty of all our rights. If a basic human right can be taken away from an individual without reasonable justification that is applicable in every situation, there is no meaning in the claim that mankind has any "rights" at all. Besides my not having any authority over inalienable rights--to "compromise" suggests that even "inalienable" rights can be "alienated" from an individual if enough people "compromise" on the issue. It's just contradictory to the very concept of inalienable rights.

I would "prefer" that incremental step toward fewer deaths--but I am afraid that the cost of the compromise would undermine all peoples so-called "inalienable" rights.

All right, then. You have no ability to compromise, and you cannot convince me to abandon everything that I believe and change wholeheartedly to your side. This discussion has just become pointless. I'm honestly very sorry to hear that, and I hope that you can find more fertile debate elsewhere.

 

[Felicity]

Notice how you slip in here that the right to life is the "right that must be protected if any other right is to be relevant at all?" Have you proved that? Because I don't remember agreeing to it.

We began talking about it in posts 55 and 59 in the Founding Fathers thread. I did not continue there since it was off topic of where most posters were taking that discussion. you don’t have to agree—disagree and support your position—isn’t that what debate is? You are correct that we did not come to an agreement but both our positions were clear.

I must interject here that your tone is beginning to get “confrontational” such that you characterize my position concerning the foundational right of life as something I “slip in here” as if I’m trying to be sneaky and twist the discussion to suit my needs. My position has not wavered and I have not been evasive or deceptive in any way. You requested a forthright discussion—and you’ve got one, but I won’t allow it to turn into the petty twisting that eventually degenerates into nonsense as so many discussions do. I thought we were off to a grand start—why the change in tone as indicated here and with the “madame” quip? We don’t need to be “chummy”—but you don’t have to be antagonistic either. You were the one who asked for a little respect in a debate and it is you who seem to be the one sliding into disparaging comments.

Anyway—to the point of your statement...Why is your agreeing to my position relevant to my argument at all? I certainly was not convinced by your “foundation is just stones without a pinnacle” argument on the Founding Fathers thread. But if you’d like a succinct response—a foundation can still exist without the rooftop—but no rooftop can exist without a foundation. Likewise life can exist without freedom—but freedom cannot exist without life. That is why “ --the right[to life]... must be protected if any other right is to be relevant at all.”

I have agreed that the ZEF is a slave to the mother's choices, but I put a necessary condition on that, which you have not addressed. If the mother gains profit in some way from the child, it is a slave; if she does not, it is a parasite. And if we were to remove the mother's ability to opt out of the pregnancy, we are forcing her to live as the support of the child; that is slavery, by any definition. Slavery is the control of another against their will and without compensation; what would be the compensation given to a woman if she does not want the child?

Again—from the Founding Fathers thread...that is why it wasn’t answered. But I guess I don’t understand the slave/profit/parasite thing. The mother does receive some health benefit from pregnancy such as some protection from particular cancers and lowered risk for suicide etc...it’s not a parasitic relationship...Could you explain further if you think it is relevant to this discussion?

Are you arguing that the rapist takes away her rights, but you don't? As it stands now, the choice exists; right or wrong, women can choose to terminate a pregnancy. If you would create a law that bans that practice, aren't you taking away a choice?

And wasn’t it appropriate to abolish the “choice” of slavery? An immoral choice that causes harm to other individuals without their explicit consent is not deserving of legal protection.

You see that there is a choice there, but your entire argument is based on removing that choice. I was arguing that if you do that, if you succeed in your goals, you will make women into slaves.

“Freedoms” are curtailed by every law and many circumstances. I’ve expressed this repeatedly and you have not contradicted those assertions. I am not free to drive any speed I wish without accepting the consequences of my actions and paying the price MYSELF. That does not make me a slave to the Department of Motor Vehicles, my insurance company (although sometimes it feels that way!) or the legislators of my state. The “women are slaves to unwanted pregnancies” claim is so inaccurate to what pregnancy is in reality as to be nearly beneath debate—but I can see how someone who doesn’t want to be in a situation they are in would claim it’s slavery. I suppose it like students who hate American Lit. may feel like Mr. CoffeeSaint is the warden of the jail in which they are prisoners.

If you refuse to allow exceptions in cases of rape, you make the women the slaves of the rapists, and that is truly unspeakable.

I don’t do nuthin’. Rape IS an unspeakable injustice, but I am no rapist. If you allow exceptions in cases of rape, you allow the unjustified execution of a third party who has NOTHING to do with the crime done to the woman.

The first two are not choices, and I don't understand the third.

This was your question: “You mention other situations in which we become responsible through no choice of our own; can you name another where we cannot legally refuse that responsibility? Where we are allowed no choice?”

I answered the draft. Men of 18 are responsible to our country by the requirement that they register for the draft and submit to the draft should they receive the notice. Conscientious objection would be analogous to abstinence and if a person abstains from sex there is no abortion issue for them. However—if one does not abstain, then the person has no choice but to follow through on the requirement. You cannot legally refuse that responsibility.

I answered taxes. You are responsible to pay taxes through no choice of your own. By your citizenship or your involvement in commerce—you must submit to the responsibility of paying taxes. You cannot legally refuse that responsibility.

If you want to legally drive, you must submit to licensing—if you want to be a medical doctor, you must submit to licensing—if you want to be a teacher, you must submit to licensing—you do not have a choice and you cannot legally refuse that responsibility.

If I want to be a two parent household with children, but my husband dies—I have no choice—I cannot “have” what I “choose.”

I answered your question with three clearly legal responsibilities that do not allow "choice."

You are suggesting that once a woman makes a choice, her decision making abilities are then revoked for the next nine months; nine months of her life are determined by her choice to have sex

She made her choice. If I chose to engage in any contract, I cannot just “change my mind” without legal repercussions—I am responsible to the choice I made.

or apparently, her choice to be raped.

You are now twisting what I am saying and I think you are doing it consciously. I never said such a thing—in fact I said rape was a crime against “choice.” This is a BLATANT attempt to misrepresent what I said and a vulgar manipulation. What you have done here, sir, is IMMORAL.

I am asking if there is another choice I could make, that I could not legally change immediately after making it. A contract can be broken, a marriage can be annulled; we are allowed to choose, and then choose again.

Not without you –the individual making the choice-suffering some sort of consequence. And if your actions cause harm to a third party—you are acting immorally in your attempt to nullify the consequences. You cannot make others suffer for your own circumstances that you find untenable. That is immoral.

The child's right to live ends where the mother's right to freedom begins.

I believe we are at an impasse on the issue of hierarchy of rights. I understand that you think “freedom” is at least equally important as “life”—but you have not explained your rationale for that—you have just cited subjective criteria such as “a life worth living” which really offers no rational logic but only “feelings” and “value judgments.” If you don’t agree with objective rational criteria—and admitted to that—that would be something else. But if you want to claim rational objective reasoning, you ought to explain the basis for your claim of “worth.”

 

[Felicity]

If the child can live without the mother, excellent; she has no right to kill it. But it has no right to control its mother's body.

I don’t understand where anyone has the “right” to kill another individual who is not posing a mortal threat. How do you arrive at that conclusion. It’s not as if the child in the womb is trespassing. In the case of consensual sex—a person has no reasonable expectation that she will be infertile in an absolute sense, and in the case of rape—it is the rapist that trespassed not the individual that was created by the commingling of her ova and his uninvited sperm.

But that ZEF's right to live does not override the mother's right to control her body.

You keep saying that as if there has been some “proof”—did I miss it? If so—please explain it again.

And again, you could give up your child; you can walk away. A mother needs to be able to walk away.

She can—it’s called adoption. you can walk away from the child without harming him or her. Killing the child is harming the child.

You're back to arguing her possible mindset.

Objectively—another destructive act does not negate the first destructive act. Why do you think the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” is a cliché? Because it is an absolute truism.

It isn't up to you. The best case scenario doesn't mean the worst case will never happen; ideally, all women will be able to forget about the rape and be happy afterwards, and not act in a self-destructive way. But you can't tell them not to act that way, and you also have no logical way to show that killing the child is self-destructive to the mother, except you think it is.

I meant it was destructive to the child. Abortion destroys a life. It ALWAYS and IRREVOCABLY destroys a life—the aborted human’s life. And quite often it is destructive to the woman as well.

The presence of the child is a wound. It is a stigma placed on the woman by the action of the rapist, and through no fault of her own. You cannot see this as her responsibility. She should be able to remove the invader.

I do not see her pregnancy as her fault at all—nor do I see it as her responsibility. But if she chooses to abort—the choice to kill a third party for the crime of her rapist IS her responsibility. The killing of the life in her womb would be HER responsibility though the situation that made that particular choice a possibility is not at all her responsibility. It is a horrible injustice that she is put in that position—but it does not change the FACT that she would be responsible for a horrible injustice done to the child in her womb if she chooses abortion. She does not get a free execution of her choosing because she has been violated.

It is not only a human with rights, it is a knife, and if the woman wants to remove it and bleed to death, let her.

And this is preserving and protecting her dignity and showing her compassion? You have an odd concept of justice and mercy.:roll:

You don't think it's moral. You don't think it's logical. But when it isn't your body, why should you get to choose? Yes, the child should be given consideration, but the woman should be given just as much, and you refuse to do that. The child's life does not justify enslaving the mother.

Does it justify the slavery of the child? Your argument cuts both ways.

Nothing particular intended by this; a personal habit of mine is to call my opponents "sir" during a debate, and that term doesn't fit you. And by the way, of course I'm mad at you. You are arguing a position I personally find abhorrent. Does that matter? Many of your confederates find my position equally abhorrent, and have gone so far as to call me a monster. I wasn't trying to insult you in any way; I have great respect for your intelligence and your ability to debate rationally. Do we have to be friends, too?

Emotion in a debate is a weakness. We don’t have to be “friends”—but being considerate would be nice. Do not malign me for things you find inconsiderate in others’ posts. It is unjustified.

Well and good; please stop arguing how a woman could or should feel after a rape, then.

You asked: “don't you think these would worsen an already horrible situation?”

I thought I was answering your question.

If her responsibility starts and stops at the decision to terminate a pregnancy, because the conception of the child was only the rapist's choice, then she should be able to make a choice; otherwise, she has no responsibility. You cannot be held responsible for an action you did not choose.

She is choosing to take the life of a third party uninvolved with the crime done to her. Our society ALWAYS moves in the direction that aims to protect the most compromised and vulnerable among us—EXCEPT in the case of the unborn—why?

All right, then. You have no ability to compromise, and you cannot convince me to abandon everything that I believe and change wholeheartedly to your side. This discussion has just become pointless. I'm honestly very sorry to hear that, and I hope that you can find more fertile debate elsewhere.

Yeah—that’s too bad, since I think there are still things that could be debated even though I cannot conceive of a situation where you could convince me to change my overall view and you cannot conceive of a situation where I might make some valid points that would sway your opinion. Seems like I’m not the only one unwilling to “compromise.”

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Yeah—that’s too bad, since I think there are still things that could be debated even though I cannot conceive of a situation where you could convince me to change my overall view and you cannot conceive of a situation where I might make some valid points that would sway your opinion. Seems like I’m not the only one unwilling to “compromise.”

Felicity,
I would like to apologize for the insulting tone I have taken on; I admit to feeling some frustration with this argument, as you took a position that I could not be objective about. I should not have let this detract from my ability to argue cooly and rationally, but as I have said, I am still fairly new to the debate world; you have been nothing but polite to me, and I am sorry I have not been the same.
You have already made several valid points, and you have swayed my opinion; I have not even tried to argue the personhood of a fetus with you, because there is nothing I could say. As I said, I took that as proven. I personally don't agree, but that is my emotional response, not the logical one. You will note that I also stopped trying to argue the question of personal responsibility, and moved specifically to the question of rape; this was because I found myself unable to respond to your last post about responsibility. Not that you have convinced me, but I could not think of a reasonable refutation. I should have conceded these points, but I find that very hard to do, emotionally.
I can no longer argue this topic with you, because your position is not one I can look at rationally. It is not one I can be dispassionate about. You're right; I am absolutely unwilling to compromise on the question of victims of rape. You are, as you said, equally unwilling to compromise on the question of the right to life; tell me, is there any argument I could possibly make that would show freedom to be as important to you as life? How long have you been thinking on this issue, and debating on this issue? Have I said anything you haven't heard a dozen times before? Probably not.
Clearly, when I asked for rational debate, I didn't know what I was getting myself into. I hereby withdraw, and concede defeat. You have unquestionably beaten me in this particular debate; the only reason I still sound so pissy about it (and I'm sorry about that, but man, this is hard) is that I still disagree with everything you have said; I just can't argue as well as you can. I will try to find the arguments to make to bring this deabte back to the level it should be; until then, you win.

 

[vergiss]

Genuine love--authentic love--does not seek to please for the sake of peace. Genuine love is willing to be honest while still offering care and concern. Making someone "feel bad" or "guilty" is wrong. However, if my daughter felt guilty because it was wrong to abort, I would not deny that her guilt was valid and that it all was okay....Our feelings are meant to tell us something about ourselves and the world. Pain aids us in avoiding harm, likewise--appropriate guilt is an aid to us in that it helps us avoid harm. I would not revel in the pain my daughter felt--I would help her through it. And if she felt no pain, I would wonder at her emotional state, but I would not brow beat pain into her--that would be meaningless and an abuse. Authentic love is unconditional and given freely even if the recipient does not react as you would expect or possibly desire them to. But I would not lie about my point of view if asked--love is honest.


If she were a child and the risk to her physical health was minimal I would seek extreme counselling for her and deal with the circumstances.

Vergiss--you could come up with innumerable horrific circumstances--but the simple basic logic that life is an inalienable right upon which all other human rights depend does not change no matter the repulsive and heinous circumstances of the beginning of that life.

So you can honestly say that if your 12-year-old daughter was raped and fell pregnant as a result, you would not prefer that she aborted?

 

[Felicity]

Felicity,
I would like to apologize for the insulting tone I have taken on; I admit to feeling some frustration with this argument, as you took a position that I could not be objective about. .

Wow...I must say, John, that is certainly not a response I hear much on these forums and it is very humbling to me. You must know the manifestation of that frustration you feel is far less than much that I have encountered here and I am not wounded. I appreciate your apology. This is also an emotional topic for me and that is why I debate--for me it is not about "winning an argument"--it is a matter of justice. Thank you for a spirited debate and I look forward to future discussions with you.

 

[Felicity]

So you can honestly say that if your 12-year-old daughter was raped and fell pregnant as a result, you would not prefer that she aborted?

Yes vergiss. I would wish it never happened--I would be devastated (this is not to even begin to discuss the how my daughter might feel)--but if my daughter could physically carry the pregnancy without harm to her body, I would not add the conflicting emotions that taking the life of the fetus in her womb through abortion to her already heavy burden. We would likely stay very close to our Church and arrange for an adoption upon delivery. It would absolutely be an incredibly emotional journey, but I believe that in the long run--a delivery of the child of rape would preserve the dignity of the daughter I am responsible for far more completely than involving her in participating in the killing of a third party. If her dignity is maintained and she bears the burden with the support and love of her family who help her integrate into her psyche the harm done to her and her courageous response to the crime rather than miring in victimhood--I absolutely believe that the 9 months of struggle would be better for her than mopping up the mess that abortion would wreck on an already wounded spirit. You don't have to agree or understand. This is what I believe and I would work very hard to help my daughter be proud of her sacrifice and courage.

At any age—I would lovingly support my daughter’s dignity and courage.

 

[vergiss]

Yes vergiss. I would wish it never happened--I would be devastated (this is not to even begin to discuss the how my daughter might feel)--but if my daughter could physically carry the pregnancy without harm to her body, I would not add the conflicting emotions that taking the life of the fetus in her womb through abortion to her already heavy burden. We would likely stay very close to our Church and arrange for an adoption upon delivery. It would absolutely be an incredibly emotional journey, but I believe that in the long run--a delivery of the child of rape would preserve the dignity of the daughter I am responsible for far more completely than involving her in participating in the killing of a third party. If her dignity is maintained and she bears the burden with the support and love of her family who help her integrate into her psyche the harm done to her and her courageous response to the crime rather than miring in victimhood--I absolutely believe that the 9 months of struggle would be better for her than mopping up the mess that abortion would wreck on an already wounded spirit. You don't have to agree or understand. This is what I believe and I would work very hard to help my daughter be proud of her sacrifice and courage.

At any age—I would lovingly support my daughter’s dignity and courage.

But if she requested an abortion and was certain it was what she wanted, would you refuse to let her have one?

 

[Felicity]

But if she requested an abortion and was certain it was what she wanted, would you refuse to let her have one?

In your scenario, she's twelve....she'd like to drive a car, too--should I permit that because she thinks that's what's good for her? As a parent it would be my responsibility to protect my daughter in the best way I know how. I do not think participating in an abortion would be doing my job as a parent. I have that right. If I have been doing my job correctly up to that point--my daughter will look to me for guidance in this issue and would not be "forced" in any way she would be guided and cared for and she would see it that way.

Is it so hard to imagine that I might have a really good relationship with my family? That my children consider me loving and wise and supportive? You know--some families are healthy--we really do exist--not EVERYONE is incredibly dysfunctional...

 

[tecoyah]

In your scenario, she's twelve....she'd like to drive a car, too--should I permit that because she thinks that's what's good for her? As a parent it would be my responsibility to protect my daughter in the best way I know how. I do not think participating in an abortion would be doing my job as a parent. I have that right. If I have been doing my job correctly up to that point--my daughter will look to me for guidance in this issue and would not be "forced" in any way she would be guided and cared for and she would see it that way.

Is it so hard to imagine that I might have a really good relationship with my family? That my children consider me loving and wise and supportive? You know--some families are healthy--we really do exist--not EVERYONE is incredibly dysfunctional...

In other words.....Yes....you would refuse to let her have one.

 

[Felicity]

In other words.....Yes....you would refuse to let her have one.

Correct. But I do believe that in my family's particular situation--it wouldn't be at issue and so the question is a double-super-big "if"--IF my daughter was raped--IF my daughter was before age of consent--IF my daughter expressed a desire to get an abortion--IF she didn't look to me for guidance....which goes against the actual experience I have with my family.


BTW....I already answered it "yes" twice....how many "afirmatives" are required?

 

[tecoyah]

...Uh....Lemme check....thumbs through the DP guidebook.......Seven....yup, seven times.....its on page 114, paragraph 4, subsection B.

Heh.....sorry

 

[Felicity]

...Uh....Lemme check....thumbs through the DP guidebook.......Seven....yup, seven times.....its on page 114, paragraph 4, subsection B.

Heh.....sorry

Ok, then...let's see...I've said it three times...I have four more to go...yes, yes, yes, yes....There--done. whew!:mrgreen:

 

[vergiss]

In your scenario, she's twelve....she'd like to drive a car, too--should I permit that because she thinks that's what's good for her? As a parent it would be my responsibility to protect my daughter in the best way I know how. I do not think participating in an abortion would be doing my job as a parent. I have that right. If I have been doing my job correctly up to that point--my daughter will look to me for guidance in this issue and would not be "forced" in any way she would be guided and cared for and she would see it that way.

Is it so hard to imagine that I might have a really good relationship with my family? That my children consider me loving and wise and supportive? You know--some families are healthy--we really do exist--not EVERYONE is incredibly dysfunctional...

What does driving a car have to do with you controlling your daughter's body against her wishes? How can you say you'd be "protecting" her if you're so willing to put her through further physical and emotional turmoil? She's already been violated against her will once.

If you were so assured in your opinions, you'd feel no need to insinuate things against my family.

 

[Felicity]

What does driving a car have to do with you controlling your daughter's body against her wishes? How can you say you'd be "protecting" her if you're so willing to put her through further physical and emotional turmoil? She's already been violated against her will once.

If you were so assured in your opinions, you'd feel no need to insinuate things against my family.

There's no insinuation there vergiss.

YOU think it would be additional trauma--I think it would be protecting my daughter from additional trauma. That probably is a result of our differing views on the reality of the the thing in a pregnant woman's womb. I believe it is fully an individual human person from conception and I do not think conspiring with my daughter to kill another human being is in HER best interest. A second act of violence does not "fix" the first.

 

[jfuh]

There's no insinuation there vergiss.

YOU think it would be additional trauma--I think it would be protecting my daughter from additional trauma. That probably is a result of our differing views on the reality of the the thing in a pregnant woman's womb. I believe it is fully an individual human person from conception and I do not think conspiring with my daughter to kill another human being is in HER best interest. A second act of violence does not "fix" the first.

All peer reviewed pshycological studies show that the birth from rape is an intense pshycological trauma against the victim. Especially if she was young when the expereince occured. It's really irrelevant what you think or believe. It's pure and simple fact.

 

[Felicity]

All peer reviewed pshycological studies show that the birth from rape is an intense pshycological trauma against the victim. Especially if she was young when the expereince occured. It's really irrelevant what you think or believe. It's pure and simple fact.

No kidding.:doh Rape and its aftermath is incredibly traumatic. But abortion doesn't FIX the situation.

Here's a few things to consider--(remember: the rape victim in question is supposedly a member of MY family):

*If abortion is considered an immoral act of violence against a third party uninvolved in the crime by myself and my family--how would choosing to go against the deeply held convictions which she has been raised under since birth "help" my daughter get through this trauma and feel connected to those that love her?

*I have been raising my daughter to be strong, and to not "react" in kind when she is done wrong. It would go against the values she has been raised with for her to choose to make a victim of her fetus because she was made a victim by her rapist. Would it be prudent of a mother to give credence to a notion expressed by a wounded daughter that is contrary to all of her experience rather than strive for consistency and stability? How is that, as you say, "irrelevant?"

*If you accept that pregnancy and birth have an impact on a woman's psyche--you cannot deny that abortion does as well. It is not a time machine masquerading as a medical procedure--an abortion does not "un-do" the damage. An abortion could (and likely is for many women) more akin to medical rape than giving birth. How 'bout stacking up the numbers of women who regret giving birth against the number of women who regret having an abortion...if you could find that statistic, I lay my money that the abortion regretters DWARF those who regret giving birth.

NOTHING comes out of abortion except death. Even in an unwanted pregnancy--at least birth gives life.


The question was--what would "I" do....that is what I would do. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have the right to CHOOSE how I would guide my minor daughter through such a trauma? Hmmmm.....that suggestion is what leads people to conclude the pro-choice side isn't really pro-choice, but rather pro-*abortion* choice. The fact that you say what I think and believe is irrelevant to my own daughter's care shows me that you are not pro-choice, but rather pro-abortion choice. You think you know what is better for my twelve year old daughter than I do because you think abortion is a reasonable choice in every situation. You are mistaken.


Hey...How about linking to some of these "peer reviewed studies..."?

 

[Felicity]

Wow...I'm surprised no one has jumped down my throat for using the [*foul*] language "pro-abortion."

 

[jfuh]

No kidding.:doh Rape and its aftermath is incredibly traumatic. But abortion doesn't FIX the situation.

No offense, but sticking your head in the dirt and hoping that support alone and assisting an adolescent through the tough time is not helpful to the least bit. The incredible amount of peer pressure the girl would face during those teenage years. ie: girl friends go out, talk about dating so and so, or just trying on clothes that "look good" (what ever it is they like these days). What will the trauma be for the raped girl? THat is going to be forever soldered in her mind. Her youth will be forever altered and disallow her of any normal life even later on in life. Boy's would not want to be with her, nor would girls that she may want to be with. You can not deny that her options will be severly limited. Even in the midst of friends within the religious community, or her church, there is still going to be a gap that would form that is completely unpreventable regardless of how you look at it or how you try to comfort yourself into thinking "I'm doing the right thing". Sometimes you may be right, but you may also be dead right. Next, the adoption of a child from a rape victim...... enough said, not some one that all longing parents normally want to have to live with, sadly, the amount of rape related pregnancies far out numbers the amount of parents that would be willing to adopt such a child.

Here's a few things to consider--(remember: the rape victim in question is supposedly a member of MY family):

Actually I wasn't referring to your family, but ok.

 

[jfuh]

*If abortion is considered an immoral act of violence against a third party uninvolved in the crime by myself and my family--how would choosing to go against the deeply held convictions which she has been raised under since birth "help" my daughter get through this trauma and feel connected to those that love her?

That is "IF" abortion were considered such. However fact of the matter is. In Roe vs. Wade abortion is a constitutionally gaurenteed right to women. As for the deeply held convictions. As with most cases, when it's happening on some one else, that's one thing. When it happens to you yourself; well, that's a whole different ball game.

*I have been raising my daughter to be strong, and to not "react" in kind when she is done wrong. It would go against the values she has been raised with for her to choose to make a victim of her fetus because she was made a victim by her rapist. Would it be prudent of a mother to give credence to a notion expressed by a wounded daughter that is contrary to all of her experience rather than strive for consistency and stability? How is that, as you say, "irrelevant?"

The fallacy here is you are again making this personal, and explaining from passion, as opposed to from facts and reality. In this case, should your daughter choose an abortion, would you deny her this free will that she has expressed? Especially given the upbringing that she has had, would you deny her the choice?

*If you accept that pregnancy and birth have an impact on a woman's psyche--you cannot deny that abortion does as well. It is not a time machine masquerading as a medical procedure--an abortion does not "un-do" the damage. An abortion could (and likely is for many women) more akin to medical rape than giving birth. How 'bout stacking up the numbers of women who regret giving birth against the number of women who regret having an abortion...if you could find that statistic, I lay my money that the abortion regretters DWARF those who regret giving birth.

I never deny that abortion has an impact. It's an incredibly difficult undertaking that in itself has many mental impacts to the woman as well. My argument remains on the side of facts however, that being as given also by some of the examples I gave earlier, abortion is an alternative to the further stresses and impacts on the adolescent than would be upholding any religious ideology.

NOTHING comes out of abortion except death. Even in an unwanted pregnancy--at least birth gives life.

Life and death are the opposite ends of the spectrum. Since no facts can be shown for life nor death, only spirituality I shall meditate on this from just such. An unwanted pregnancy, or the knowledge of being the result of a violent act, growing up an orphan, growing up and wandering from foster parent to foster parent, or to have the fortunate opportunity to be in a loving family. The facts are again not enough qualified parents for adoption of acts of rape or incest. The child, the innocent thus starts life off knowing nothing but hardship and suffarage. Particularliy in the case of being born to the adolescent mother who decided then to care for the child, the child h/erself is really raised by the grandparents, growing up in an incomplete family with a mother than can hardly stand up on her own. For any mother to have to give up such an intimate part of her body is difficult, but to condone then the child to a not so wanted life would be punishing the innocent. Scientifically however, prior to the first trimester, the "fetus" is little more than a clump of cells that have no more resemblence to a living entity then a carcinogenic tumor.
In fact if you were to claim that abortion prior to the first trimester were murder, then by default you would then have to proclaim manicures and haircuts as murder as well.

The question was--what would "I" do....that is what I would do. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have the right to CHOOSE how I would guide my minor daughter through such a trauma?

No, that's not what I'm saying, the question is would you deny her god given right of freedom of will. Do you not then at this point trust that she would have been brought up well enough by you to make a good decision?

Hmmmm.....that suggestion is what leads people to conclude the pro-choice side isn't really pro-choice, but rather pro-*abortion* choice.

This is nothing more than radicalist mentality. I would expect you to know better than to link the two.

The fact that you say what I think and believe is irrelevant to my own daughter's care shows me that you are not pro-choice, but rather pro-abortion choice. You think you know what is better for my twelve year old daughter than I do because you think abortion is a reasonable choice in every situation. You are mistaken.

No, I'm advocating for her choice, not your choice. Sure she's a minor, sure you have the right to look after her to the best of your ability. But that's not what any of this is about. This is simply about the constitutional right of choice, this is about the god given right of free will and self determination. If you deny her choice, then you are going against both of these principles both state and church. But then again it is indeed also your right to look after her health.
You also mention that you would want to give away the child for adoption, well, if there were not parents to adopt, would you then adopt the child yourself and raise h/er as your own?

Hey...How about linking to some of these "peer reviewed studies..."?

Here you go:
http://www.ipas.org/publications/en/violence_against_women/violence_womens_rights_en.pdf
If this 82 page report is insufficient, the various citations, particularily in the sociological portion should be more than ample to answer your questions with regards to post-trauma.

 

[jfuh]

Wow...I'm surprised no one has jumped down my throat for using the [*foul*] language "pro-abortion."

Is this something you are proud of? Such sarcasm is hardly amuzing nor constructive to any extent. You really should be above such.

 

[Felicity]

jfuh--The question was posed to me as "what would ~I~ do?" If you don't want to read the back posts that deal with the discussion you are inserting yourself into...please refrain from correcting those who have been involved from the beginning on the parameters of the discussion. In my family that is what ~I~ would do. And I stand by my statement that your response to *MY* choice about *MY* family shows you are pro-abortion choice--rather than pro-choice.

Furthermore--your statements about a girl missing out on her "teenage years" and boys and clothes and all that is so piteously vacuous as to be beneath retort.

 

[jfuh]

jfuh--The question was posed to me as "what would ~I~ do?" If you don't want to read the back posts that deal with the discussion you are inserting yourself into...please refrain from correcting those who have been involved from the beginning on the parameters of the discussion. In my family that is what ~I~ would do. And I stand by my statement that your response to *MY* choice about *MY* family shows you are pro-abortion choice--rather than pro-choice.

Furthermore--your statements about a girl missing out on her "teenage years" and boys and clothes and all that is so piteously vacuous as to be beneath retort.

I don't know what you have to gain from this "pro-abortion" non-sense, but if you insist on such than that is merely sprouting from nothing but intolerance of a variance from your own ideologue and ignorance of the facts.

You asked, I responded. Your claims thus far signify that you feel abortion is more tragic to an adolescent then would be giving birth to a child as a result of rape. I've showed you otherwise also both in literature as well.
What I'm merely asking is that would you deny both the constitutional right and god given right of choice to your own child?
Also responsibly, if there were no parents to adopt, would you then adopt your "grandchild" so as the child can grow up in a wholesome environment?