** Action Alert ** Petition to Reverse Roe v. Wade !!

PetitionOnline ^ | 15 July 2002 | David C. Osborne

[carenot]

We would like links, please.

[carenot]

No, you don't need to do that.

Just show them the pictures of the murdered babies.

Even here, on FR we have people saying not to show the pictures.

If the public could see the pictures of scalded and/or dismembered babies.

Grusome pictures.

Let's stop people showing the pictures of cut apart babies. Don't let the public see the little arms and hands, or the little cut off heads.

It is just a tadpole anyway, it is not a frog.

[Jennifer in Florida]

Signed, #90.

[brat]

Baby Bump!

[ForGod'sSake]

Done! The Dims are forever playing the "for the children" card. Where are they on this issue. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

FGS

[mvpel]

I hate to break this to everybody, but we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Consider this: say you were clubbed over the head, and found when you woke up that you had been kidnapped and were connected via tubes and wires to a desparately ill person, serving as his surrogate liver and kidneys while his own body healed over several months.

Would you have the right to disconnect yourself, even if it meant that this other sick, innocent person would die? How would such a right, if it exists, be altered if you had put bars on your windows and doors in an effort to keep yourself safe from kidnappers?

[BringingUpPatriots]

Signed it and will pass it on to friends and family. God Bless!

[exDemMom]

Excuse me, the situation you describe is completely ludicrous and has never happened. I utterly fail to see what this has to do with abortion.

If you are trying by this silly analogy to advance the idea that women are total incompetent idiots incapable of using contraceptives, and are thus somehow forced against their will to get pregnant, I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd. That kind of misogynist thinking is only welcome by the "pro-choicers" and is insulting to intelligent women.

[mvpel]

Discounting this analogy because it "has never happened" merely charts the limits of your intellect.

Are you saying that no woman has ever been impregnated by a rapist? Are you saying that all contraception is 100% effective?

In your rush to ascribe sinister motives and mysogynist attitudes to me, you apparently forgot to reflect on what you were writing.

I'm not "preaching," I just asked a couple of simple questions.

[exDemMom]

Are you saying that no woman has ever been impregnated by a rapist?

No, and that is not the issue here. First of all, pregnancy rarely results from rape (I seem to remember a figure, about 1 in 200 rapes), and I don't see that abortion is necessarily the best "solution" for that rare case. Also, contraceptive failure is rare. Pre-Roe vs. Wade, figures given for contraceptive failure were very low; the Pill, for instance, had a 1 in 10,000 failure rate, and the condom, a 1 in 100 rate, if memory serves me correctly. Post-Roe vs. Wade, contraceptive failure rates have skyrocketed, to somewhere around 18%--not, I think, because contraceptives have become unreliable, but because a high proportion of women/girls having abortions lie about using them, not wanting to admit that they didn't bother.

In your rush to ascribe sinister motives and mysogynist attitudes to me, you apparently forgot to reflect on what you were writing.

I'm not "preaching," I just asked a couple of simple questions.

I knew exactly what I was writing. If you can conceive of a scenario better suited to a horror story than to honest discussion and use it as an analogy to rationalize abortion, then the obvious assumption is that you believe that women have absolutely no control over their bodies. Such a condescending attitude towards women can only stem from, in my view, a deep seated mysogeny.

[E.G.C.]

Let's bump this again and see if we can't get more signatures.

[davidosborne]

With all due respect mt FRiend,your agument is one that is often used by "fence-liners" on this very important issue.. It appeals to "conservatives" in the sense that it would seem to favor a small federal government and stronger "state" rights... an argument that I have heard over and over again... I hope the American people will see through this "middle of the road" tactic, as insist that candidates answer the simple question.....

When is a PERSON entitled to life... or should I say Constitutional protections? How many days? weeks? months? years? after conception? We can not continue to go on without answering this question....

FReegards,

David

[davidosborne]

The "rape" question is one that is often propogated by fence-liners as well...

The simple fact of the matter is the LIFE that was created, albeit under horrible conditions is still a LIFE!!

and therefore entitled to constitutional protections IMHO..

Not to mention the fact that if a woman has an abortion following the rape there is a HIGH likelihood that she will suffer GREATER mental trauma over the years.. One only needs to stop into any PRO-life crisis pregnancy center to see the statistics in YOUR hometown.

Abortion does not "fix" the rape.. it only creates a 2nd victim... Adoption would be the best solution in this case in that the rape victim will not have to take on the personal responsibility of raising the child "she did not want" however at least she will save herself the future problems of seeing other kids and wondering what HER child might look like if she didn't kill him/her in the womb.

Respectfully,

David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

I would not have a problem including such a provision... however we would lose a great deal of support from those who would otherwise support the "life at conception resolution" so long as it does not "undermine" the authority of the Supreme Court.. a provision of this nature as you suggest, would actully create more questions than simply answering the REAL question at hand..

Respectfully,
David

[mvpel]

So you're saying that if you find yourself hooked up against your will as human life-support to an innocent person who will die without your help, you are essentially enslaved to that person for the duration of their dependance upon you, because of their right to live?

[mvpel]

You're evading the questions with red herrings, Mom. According to the 2000 NCVS as cited by RAINN, there were 92,000 victims of completed rape that year. If your 1 in 200 figure holds, that's nearly 500 women a year impregnated by a rapist. And even with as small as a 1% failure rate of condoms, you can wind up with a very large number of failures when you consider how many people are having sex right this instant across the country. And I really don't understand how you figure I'm being condescending when you seem to think that these 500 women per year somehow have sufficient "control over their bodies" to be able to prevent forcible impregnation by a rapist, particularly with the gun laws and attitudes the way they are in so many states. A Bene Gesserit, perhaps? The question is, once again, does a woman lose absolutely all control over her body the moment that she unwillingly becomes the life support system for another innocent person? What do you think rape is if not a horror story? You can call me names all you want, but you still haven't answered this central question.

[Smile-n-Win]

Thanks for the petition and for the ping. Signed as #124.

[Smile-n-Win]

I hate to break this to everybody, but we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

...therefore, everyone has a right to life, even if a majority thinks otherwise.

Consider this: say you were clubbed over the head, and found when you woke up that you had been kidnapped and were connected via tubes and wires to a desparately ill person, serving as his surrogate liver and kidneys while his own body healed over several months.

Would you have the right to disconnect yourself, even if it meant that this other sick, innocent person would die?

Sure. The other person, however innocent, is sick, and everyone is responsible for his or her own health. If you get sick, you must find a way to get yourself healed without using force or fraud--otherwise, well, you're a goner and it's your own fault.

This is quite different from abortion. Abortion victims don't die because they are sick; they die because a doctor uses force against them.

You are responsible for your actions, and even for your "luck." If you get raped, either because you were negligent in defending yourself or just had bad luck, any wounds, diseases, negative emotions, or babies are your responsibility.

You may not kill your baby, who obviously didn't perform or commission the rape. You may use necessary and appropriate force to defend yourself from the rapist, however.

If you are kidnapped in order to be made a life support for someone else, you may use necessary and appopriate force to defend yourself from the kidnappers, where "the kidnappers" means those who perform or benefit from the kidnapping. Which includes the sick guy, of course.

[mvpel]

The laws are such in many parts of the country, in particular the most crime-ridden parts of the country, that effective self-defense is all but prohibited. Considering that there are 95,000 completed rapes every year...

And your post does seem to be skirting the much-maligned "blame-the-victim" attitude when it comes to rape, perhaps Mom will rip you a new one for that, too. It doesn't hurt too much, don't worry.

Couldn't the act of disconnecting the tubes and wires connecting you to the other innocent person be considered as initiating force against that person? That person didn't perform or commission the kidnapping, after all.

And even if your use of force in defense against the kidnappers fails, does that mean you are now out of luck and indentured to the life-support functions for the individual to whom you are connected for as long as he needs them?