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.
Here's the bottom line. You do not have the right to kill any human being on earth ever, except for yourself. Even if you don't like the circumstances of their birth, you do not have the right to kill them. Period. If you or anyone has that right, then I have a right to kill people based on what I don't like. I think you see where we go from there.
This writer doesn't pay taxes????
I didn't quote religion, I mentioned God and Faith. What religion was that? I already said it, I believe it, I'll say it again if I want, so "you don't get" to tell me what I get to do or not. Unless you fly around the earth backwards, go back in time and remove those words from this thread.
"The only TRULY justifiable reason for abortion is if the birth has a good chance of killing the mother."
That makes no sense. How can one argue that an unborn child should not be aborted to pay for the mistakes of the parents (whether through rape, incest, regular 'old fashioned' sex, etc) but then suggest that it might be ok to kill the child in this ONE instance? Is there anyone out there who can explain this contradiction to me?
They do, and more besides.
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.
That is the biggest bunch of malarkey I ever read in my life.
There is a difference between killing someone to cover up a mistake and killing someone in self-defense. Do you need the difference explained to you, or do you get it now?
Who decides what is an 'abomination' and what is not?
Debating incest is a losing proposition...
Debating incest is a losing proposition...
You cannot undo the rape by murdering the innocent. There have been many thousands of women who have born a child of rape and have found room in their heart to love it. If they cannot, there are many people who would adopt it.
Anyway, I've added your thread to the CrevoSci Archive, which means if you are zotted, your name will go up on the wall. Good luck.
If the fetus is not a human life than there is no justification necessary ... go ahead and have as many abortions as you want.
However if the fetus is a human life ... then there is no justification possible.
You wish you'd never heard of "right to life"? And you call yourself a conservative???
The MOST BASIC rights we have are LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why not just say you wish you had never heard of the Constitution?
"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."
So, you agree that most abortions shouldn't be happening? Well, that's a start; however, you are very contradictory. Over 90% of abortions are done for "convenience" sake, not because of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life. Many abortion laws have been proposed that would outlaw abortion except in those cases. Of course, even the democrats oppose such laws, so how can you say the democrats are on the right side of the issue?
Which is it? "Convenience" abortions should be legal or illegal? If you say illegal, then you are for more in agreement with Pro-Lifers than Pro-Aborters. If you say legal, then you have exposed your true colors, and your rape excuse is meaningless. In that case, you just want abortion on demand, any time, any reason.
"The problem is that the whole idea of there being any such thing as a right to life involves a fundamental logical contradiction"
Only if your moral compass needs adjusting.
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.
Yes, sometimes you DO have to suffer hardship and suffering. Are all pregnancies without suffering and hardship? Or just the ones conceived via rape? What if a woman just doesn't a baby that conceived through consensual sex? We can't make her suffer the "hardship" of carrying a child around for 9 months, can we? If that's what you believe, then again, your rape argument is moot and you are PRO ABORTION, plain and simple.
We can even take your argument beyond pregnancy. What if a mother of a month-old baby says "well, I thought I wanted this child, but it's a real 'hardship' to be responsible for the kid 24/7. It's infringing on MY RIGHTS. I DO have rights, don't I? I carried this kid, it's flesh of my flesh, and nobody can tell me what to do with it. If I'm tired of my rights being infringed upon by this kid, I have the 'right' to do what I want with it. Right to privacy!"
Is that really where you wan to go?
"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"
Ahhhh, still more contradictions from your confused mind. You do realize that by spouting this nonsense that you are attacking your own pro-abortion argument, right? By adding this little tidbit, you actually WEAKEN your point, as if it wasn't weak enough to begin with.
IS rape a crime or not? According to your "sources", it can't be helped. It's male genetics. Males don't know any better. We are just products of evolution.
Do you really believe such garbage? If you do, it's no wonder you are so messed up. But, let's entertain this idiocy long enough to take it to its "logical" ultimate conclusion. If you believe in evolution, and if you believe that rape is its by-product, then rape is nothing more than nature taking its course. If you believe in evolution, then you must believe it's a wonderful thing, since evolution is responsible for the universe, making something out of nothing. If this is the case and rape is one method by which evolution has advanced its creation, then rape should be glorified and honored. It most certainly should not be considered a crime. This is what your "experts" are telling us. Evolution is "survival of the fittest", right? Well, the "fittest" must be those who are willing to rape others to advance evolution. To oppose rape would be to oppose evolution and advancement of the human race. To oppose or kill the offspring of rape would be counter-evolutionary. It would be counter to nature. Now, who do you think you are to oppose the advancement of evolution?
If you really believe this swill, then you should be fighting like there's no tomorrow for those conceived through rape.
This is what happens when you combine abortion and evolution and try to make sense out of it. You can get REALLY messed up.
Cicero has answered most of you.
What gives any of you the idea that protests, or "draconian" laws are the only way that abortion has been countered?
Care for pregnant women has always been a concern for those of us who oppose abortion
We have attempted to reason on the basis that whatever the embryo is -- it is the same entity that we were at that stage of life and, using scientific proof, have shown that there is no logical dividing line between the individual and "personhood" after fertilization.
Further, holeinch mentions "plebecite" votes. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution which set out the representative democracy form of government, with direct votes and votes by our representatives intended to be the mechanism by which laws are made. Unfortunately, a group of elitists have decided that the important issues must be decided by judges and only the unimportant, unsubstantial issues decided by the People.
The idea that men and women can not decide to act correctly - in the case of sex or otherwise or that rape is a "survival" technique reduces human beings to the basest instinctual animals. We learn, we pass on that knowledge, but beyond instruction, most of know that it is wrong to hurt someone else. People who are not sociopaths notice before kindergarten that what hurts self hurts the other.
holeinchilada, you strike me as very immature and not very knowledgeable about the history of the subject you chose for your vanity.
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.