Posted on 10/18/2005 9:49:08 AM PDT by holeinchilada
I figure I'm about 25 degrees to the right of political center in America. Nonetheless, there's one rightwing issue which I wish I'd never heard of, which is the idea of "Right to Life". That, as far as I can tell, is the one basic issue which has kept the criminal democrat party alive over the last 35 years, and it's the one major issue which democrats come anywhere close to being on the right side of.
Not that most abortions should be happening. They shouldn't be. If the people who care about this issue were to put half the time, money, and energy into convincing people not to have abortions which they put into trying to pass draconian laws, the democrat party would die and 90% of the abortion business would probably evaporate.
90 Percent of abortions are basically unnecessary; nonetheless, the ones which are necessary tend to be REAL necessary.
The problem is that the whole idea of there being any such thing as a right to life involves a fundamental logical contradiction and the question of rape brings the contradiction into sharp focus.
What you're really talking about is the question of there being such a thing as a right to life which is sufficient to compell hardship and suffering on another person. In the case of rape, there's no justifying it.
Nonetheless, the law makes no distinction between born persons on the basis of how they were conceived and logically it's hard to picture there being such a distinction amongst the unform. In other words, if ANY unforn could be construed as having a right to life sufficient to compell the mother to carry it to term despite any claims she might have to the use of her own body, then you'd figure the unforn child of the rapist would have the same right.
That's the basic problem.
An article linked from Drudge recently noted that there were something like 94,635 rapes in America in 2004. In other words, the situation which highlights the problem isn't just hypothetical.
Moreover, there have been recent studies which indicate that rape itself is basically a biologically ingrained genetic survival mechanism, and not just some sort of a psychotic crime:
Answers in Genesis Interview with Craig Palmer
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New Mexico biology professor.Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a form of male reproductive behavior."
That study and others like it raise the startling possibility that by bearing a child for the benefit of a rapist, a woman encourages rapists generally and helps cause other girls and women to get raped.
The only logical conclusion I can come to from all this is that the drive for draconian abortion laws needs to be abandoned, and the effort put into peacefully convincing people not to have abortions. It's one of those areas in life in which the unintended consequences outweight anything positive you might hope to accomplish.
Excellent point. There are no abortion laws at all. The democrats will always have a group of people that support them as long as they give away freebies to 43% of the population, it has nothing to do with abortion.
However, you should be against abortion and the right to life of the child if you were the only one left standing against millions.
Why? Isn't it quite logical?
No, it isn't. It's quite disturbing, as others have testified to.
For some reason you wish to minimize rape by saying it is not an act of violence. I can't help you figure out why, but you really should examine why you are doing this. It sure isn't "logical."
There's a difference between "battery" and "rape" - 1 is violent (in the pure English sense), the other is sexual.
The categories are not mutually exclusive. Rape is both violent and sexual.
Some1 at some point in history knew there was a difference to come up w/different terms. Why don't all men who beat the !%@#! out of some woman or murder her have sex w/her?
More illogic from you: "All violence does not end in rape, therefore rape is not violent."
Yes I'm a woman, and I think there is a VIOLATION OF MY NATURAL RIGHTS if a man forces himself IN ANY WAY upon me - sticking his thing in me, hitting me, stabbing me to kill. Yet they are all distinguished crimes - rape, battery, murder. Why does it have to be "violent" in the sense of English, meaning more like "battery"?
From dictionary.com:
vi·o·lence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lns) n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
The primary definition works fine here. What is rape if not physical force for the purpose of violating? Is it not "abusive or unjust use of power?"
The most violent the required definition of rape (using the male member) might be is holding a woman captive in place to penetrate her.
Another stunner from you. I ask the audience, isn't this enough? How much more unjust use of force is necessary?
If you go by the "inherently violent" idea as posited w/the mere "holding", then my mother is guilty of "violence" when she had to "hold" boys and girls who were out of control in her special-ed schools.
Only if she is using her power unjustly.
SD
... and all I am trying to say is that the difference between your position and "I want an abortion because it'd be inconvenient for me to have a baby" is a matter of degree. Both cases require sacrifice on the part of the mother (granted one a immeasurably more than the other) but I thought the whole gist of the pro-life movement was that the sacrifice or inconvenience is irrelevant; the child has a right to life, period.
Pro-lifers and pacifists are really arguing for the same thing. (Or at least they should be, to be morally consistant)
No inherent "right to life." I think some of the founders of this country would disagree.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
No.
What position is that? That it is permissable to perform a procedure to remove the danger to the mother, even if there is a risk that the child could die, as long as the intent is not to kill? Such an act would be covered under double effect and self defense, and would not in any way be elective. But under Texas law, it would be an abortion.
Each person has the right to self defense, using the least force possible.
You are equating self defense and intentional murder with no threat to the one killing. There went the homicide laws.
~95,000 rapes do not result in ~95,000 conceptions, but ~1,300,000 abortions result in ~1,300,000 abortions.
Another statistic ----
The preliminary number of deaths in the United States for 2003 was 2,443,908, representing an increase of 521 from the 2002 total.
I don't believe that counts the little ones mentioned above.
Personally, I don't think that there should be explicit exceptions, but a general one -- that is, _every_ death in a hospital already has to have an M&M conference. I think the death of an unborn child should be simply treated likewise. There are always cases (though thankfully rare) in a hospital where the doctor _has_ to decide between two lives. Who gets the O-negative? Which patient gets treated first? Etc. If a decision by a doctor causes, or might cause, the death of a patient, that case must be reviewed for a number of things, including medical error. If a patient dies unnecessarily, that could bring specific reprocussions against the doctor (both legal and professional).
I think an unborn baby should be treated just like any other patient in a doctor's care -- the mother and the child treated more-or-less like a case of conjoined twins. We don't need idiotic exceptions like "in the case of medical health to the mother", nor do we need to impose specific penalties relating to an unborn baby. To honor a child with the rights due it is to remove such exceptions and treat it as a human. In the medical field, mistakes happen, and choices have to be made. But in every case where a death is involved, those choices must be defended to a review board to make sure that EVERY patient's rights were honored. All we need to do is make sure that the baby qualifies as EVERY PATIENT, and then we don't need to bother with explicit penalties or exceptions.
It's JMO. Why disturbing? You'll find no bigger moral "prude" than I (except when it comes to cussing; I'm not so good about that). Rape is wrong no matter what the reason for it or how non-violent - it's a violation of personal-property rights.
Frankly, I see the "it's about power" as a way of justifying the general loosey-goosey sexual climate of our society since the '60s (not knowing when the idea came to full force). IOW, if 1 is morally loose w/1s member - and it's plain many are - 1 makes it seem OK to have sex w/any1 and anytime you want by saying that men who screw by force (even MINIMAL) are doing it for "power" and "control" rather than "sex" - which would make all those who are immoral seem somewhat equivalent to the rapist. Because if you admitted it was about sex primarily, then that might make all the extramarital sex going on seem worse than loose society currently makes it out to be.
And why not rape be just about sex (in the RAPIST'S mind - not necessarily the victim's or yours, the by-stander)? Could be that these people are a bit over-obsessed and go over the edge - it's called MENTAL PROBLEMS. Wherein 1 can hardly control 1self. It does happen. Hell, what's "kleptomania"? No1's yet accused kleptomaniacs of stealing to wreak havoc in the victim's life or "stick it to him" or some such. Having a mental imbalance doesn't justify or rationalize the stealing and make it OK, so we have to tell the victim he can't have his things back; it is only an explanation of the behavior.
I'm often not good at expressing my thoughts, but I'm just hoping you can get the picture.
I don't like the implication that any1 positing this position that rape MIGHT actually be about sex and not really "power" and "control" is "pro-rape" or something. That's TOTAL BS. Stop trying to paint it that way. You may think it's stupid to think this way, but I'm trying to have a rational discussion and I think I've mostly been successful, avoiding personal insults as some are wont to do (I'm just automatically "illogical" for starters). Give it a good thought. And don't just knee-jerk react that thinking this way is "BLASPHEMY!!!"
Unless you have proof that the U.S. targeted these innocent children for death, you are trying to compare applies and oranges.
It is so wrong to take any action that will result in the death of an innocent.
Is that your view? My view is that it is wrong to deliberately cause the death of an innocent. Two different things.
Pro-lifers and pacifists are really arguing for the same thing. (Or at least they should be, to be morally consistant)
As has been shown, you haven't got the slightest handle on what pro-lifers believe, so you are hardly in a position to make a determination on 'moral consistency.'
No abortions,as abortions, are "necessary." SVery rarely the child dies in the process of saving the life of the mother.
Abortions in the case of rape are not "necessary." Why would it be "necessary" to punish the child with death for the acts of another? The prospect of physical deformity does not "necessitate" any abortion. The cold cruel world does not "necessitate" or justify abortion.
Because laws against abortion are about the definition of murder which is crime properly defined by the state legislatures and by Congress for areas under federal jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.