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.
WTF?
yeah...those babies NEEDED killin'! Idiot.
Babies concieved through rape are not killed for the crimnes of the father, they are killed to keep "alive" the death industry of the left. That movement is more impoortant to them than any human life.
What does the term Z-O-T mean?
I do not support abortion in the case of rape, or incest. The only time I have even tepid support for it is if it is a medical certainty that both the mother and child will not survive child birth.
Incidentally, there are significant numbers of pro-lifers who support an exception for rape or incest, so your premise is false.
Did you stop to think that this issue has also been responsible for the growth of the GOP in recent years? Have you seen what has happened in the South? In the Congress? Maybe you should pay attention before sitting down to write expansive political essays.
"I also cannot support making women carry a baby created by a rape or a teenager from an incest situation"
So the worth of the baby depends on whether the mother wants it or not?
That seems to be the whole crux of the pro abortion crowd...that the baby is worth everything if the mother wants it and deserves all the rights we have....or is worth nothing if the mother does not want it...as if it was an appendage of the mother like a liver or kidney.
draconian abortion laws needs to be abandoned
Yeah, great idea Slick! Eight year olds should be able to abort their fetus'.......Lord knows it is important to save their mother's boyfriend. I agree their should be no parental notification laws or age limits imposed on abortion. What a foolish statement!
The real issue is whether the fetus is cogniscent. Personally I do not recognize the right to life of an embryo. A fertilized egg isn't thinking or feeling any sort of pain that we would identify with. The vast majority of them don't implant in the uterus anyway and no one is the wiser. On the other hand an unborn child of 7 or more months definately does have a right to life and it doesn't matter whether it was the product of rape or not it still deserves to live.
Some little girl gets to carry her father's daughter/granddaughter or her big brother's little bother/nephew to term?
Sorry, not buying that one.
Why not one for you, nunc pro tunc, since you have no right to life?
Better dead than poor?
Huh?
No. In states where abortion was illegal, people would think twice before hopping in the sack, or the ones who choose to go that route would make darn sure they had contraception around.
The vast majority of abortions are a means of birth control for irresponsible, immoral people.
That doesn't make it necessary. Some kind of decision is necessary in this situation - but an abortion is not necessary.
I also cannot support making women carry a baby created by a rape or a teenager from an incest situation.
The whole incest exception is ridiculous.
Either the incest was consensual or it wasn't.
If it wasn't then it was rape.
I agree that carrying a rape to term would be extremely hard (although I have met women who have done so, and they are glad that they did - that they brought good out of evil), but murdering a kid because his father is evil is morally indefensible.
By that logic you could be called pro rape or pro incest. The fetus was not conceived by any choice of the mother, not in some drunken one night stand or with some short term guy but by violence and abomination.
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.