It's hard to argue against such 'facts'
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.
Going, Going, Going.......
Nice vanity. I hope it doesn't get you zotted.
How about some examples?
There is no such thing as a necessary abortion. Morons who attack the sanctity of human life rarely possess the mind or heart adequate to understand this fact.
No right to life? So why is it wrong to murder someone?
Huh?
Pregnancies from rape are actually quite rare. BTW if you ever met a person who was conceived through rape, as I have, you would realize that they are regular people just like us. Why should they die for the crimes of their father?
Impending death of the mother is one instance
I also cannot support making women carry a baby created by a rape or a teenager from an incest situation.
A "biologically ingrained genetic survival mechanism", that only occurs in a very small portion of the male population. I guess that would also explain away pedophiles. Their "genes" make them do it.
It's hard to argue against such 'facts'
Spot On !!!
By this brilliant reasoning, anyone alive today who is a child of rape has no rights and can be killed on sight without any moral qualms.
Thanks.
The other thought I have along such lines is that social issues generally would be better off being settled by plebescite votes than by judges who are not answerable to any political process. That would get rid of these insane wars over judicial appointments.
The basic problem is that pols no longer want to deal with social issues at all and actually prefer shunting them off to judges. In colonial times that wasn't the case since being a politician was not a profession but a short-term civic duty. A professional politician on the other hand figures that ANY vote he ever casts on such an issue is going to offend 45% of his electorate, and that any clumsy thing after that might have him out looking for another job.
Non consensual sex and incest are situations where irresponsibility, inconvenience or financial hardship excuses don't apply.
Oh yes, THAT will solve it. Turn a blind eye to it and abandon the unborn child instead of the laws. I still fail to see how any of this is the unborn child's fault. Rape or no rape, does the child have any rights here at all? We so conveniently overlook the rights of the unborn child in lieu of the rights of those who can assert them. The only TRULY justifiable reason for abortion is if the birth has a good chance of killing the mother.
If having offspring is a benefit (especially offspring that you don't have to provide care for), then a rapist who impregnates a women gets a benefit, even if he is caught and executed. If there is any hereditary component of liklihood to rape, then the rapist's proclivities get further spread. The rapist's child is innocent, but, if it lives, the rapist "gets away with it". From a sort of big picture perspective, it makes sense for the woman (and for society) to prevent the rapist benefitting. But from a ground level, individual case perspective, it seems monstrous to kill a rapist's child (supposing it has already been born). Why does pre-birth make a difference?
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.