If a person is TRULY pro-life it shouldn't matter if a babies dad was a rapist

[ag_dude]

If a person is really and truly pro-life for the sake of the baby...

It doesn’t matter whether a child’s father was a rapist or closely related to his/her mother. Both a ****’d up situations but if a person is really pro-life for the sake of the child, arguing that abortion is okay in the case of rape and incest is giving a child a death sentence for the sins of his/her father and/or mother (in the case of consensual incest).

Just sayin.

[Zalatix]

1. If they were REALLY pro-life they'd care about the baby after s/he is born.

[LadyHawkAZ]

3. +1

[RC]

83. If they were really Pro-life,

They would care about the woman at the center in all this. They do not.

[gollygee]

2. Oh, well I must be anti-life

[get the red out]

4. If they were pro-life

They would give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born, and care if its mother gets pre-natal care, and be all for Government assistance for people who need it.

But they decidedly aren't. They're hypocrites already.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

100. Don't forget about health care for all too!

n/t

[Th1onein]

117. I'm pro-life and I care about ALL of the parties involved, both pre and post birth.

Just sayin'.

[kiranon]

121. Have you adopted any children that a woman who was raped did not want?

One of our adopted children was the product of a rape. The birthmom did not want to have anything to do with this child. The rapist is in jail. She will never know the circumstances of her coming to be. She is severely developmentally delayed and has numerous medical issues many coming from the birthmom's attempts to harm herself and the baby while the birthmom was pregnant with a child she did not want. Unless those who are against abortion come forward and adopt children born in these difficult situations then I do not put much faith in a pro life position. I know of no Congressperson who adopted such a child. Chief Justice Roberts and his wife went outside of the country looking for "perfect" children. How much more it would have meant with their resources and anti abortion belief if they adopted at least one special needs child/child of a rape. It is just the way I see things and I encourage all conservatives and others with anti abortion beliefs to adopt or support moms so they can raise these children.

[Maine-ah]

123. I waited on that douche bag Roberts

a few weeks ago at the restaurant I work at. It was so hard to keep my mouth shut.

[Th1onein]

125. I haven't, and I doubt I would be allowed to.

But that is completely beside the point, I believe. These children deserve a life; they deserve to live, no matter how they were conceived. Ask a child who has NOT been adopted if they would rather have not lived. I think the answer to that question would be a resounding "no." They are glad to be alive. And it is not up to us to say that, without having been adopted, they would be better off dead.

It's just a really, really bad argument.

And, by the way, I do support single mothers. And not with lip service, but with money.

[get the red out]

122. Do you vote for anti-choice candidates?

Republican candidates who are anti-choice are always attempting to decimate any programs that help mothers and children. THEY are not pro-life, they are pro-fetus.

[Th1onein]

131. Pro life and pro fetus are the same thing to me, but NO, I don't vote for them.

There is too much other crap that they are for (like war and the death penalty) that I am also against, because I am pro life. And, there are too many things that they are against, which impact the lives of both Americans and others around the world, such as regulation of the financial markets and pollution. No, balancing everything, the Republicans' views are absolutely anti-life, and anti-human, and anti-earth, even if they are pro life on the issue of abortion.

[get the red out]

132. I'm glad

IMO, if we can make sure young people receive accurate sex education and that people have easy access to birth control we can help a lot of people. Family planning services are essential. I doubt abortion is an easy decision for anyone, but legislating it as a criminal act while opposing birth control access helps no one.

My greatest fear is the right's push against birth control. This is simply wanting to control people's lives, it is not about saving anyone's life.

[Th1onein]

136. Sex education and birth control should be taught from kindergarten on up....

Birth control should be free of charge, and private at any age. It should be looked at as a personal responsiblity on both partners' sides.

And abortion should be criminalized, in my view.

Instead, they want to hammer religion into our kids' heads. Religion doesn't cut it. Education and birth control DO. Hammer THAT into our kids' heads; have it be a subject as common and natural as brushing one's teeth--fit for dinner table conversation with the kids.

But, for God's sake, don't take away birth control. You just can't have it both ways.

[cyberswede]

5. Unrec...

[ag_dude]

6. I'd repsectfully ask why

[Ineeda]

15. ag_DUDE

DUDE_DUDE_DUDE is why. Until you're physically able to be impregnated by a rapist -----STFU.

[ag_dude]

21. How on earth do you think I was arguing for pro-life positions?

It's like this site doesn't understand context.

[cyberswede]

22. Because laws restricting abortion don't affect your mythical "truly pro life" person...

If the person you describe as "truly pro-life" would never get an abortion, they wouldn't get one on any case, including rape and incest.
The law is unnecessary for the person you describe - it's moot.

The laws restrict the access to abortion for people who do not share that absolute opinion on abortion.

...and calling abortion a death sentence for the child is ugly, even if it's hypothetical.

edit: typo

[ag_dude]

25. Do I have to make the point that I'm not...

...arguing a pro-life position clear?

It's like some of you just sit and wait for anything that appears the slightest bit anti-abortion (which my post was not) to pounce on.

[cyberswede]

34. ...and I'm just saying

that laws restricting abortion are not in place for "truly pro-life" people. They are completely unnecessary. So, your question is fairly ridiculous.

Anti-choice laws exist to limit access for OTHER people.

I didn't say you were arguing a pro-life position, but your OP does sort of come off that way. And I don't wait to pounce on threads on ANY topic. If I run across one that has a flawed premise, I might reply.

[ag_dude]

40. Using your logic

since there is no need for laws for 'truly pro-life people', there is no reason for an abortion debate.

The fact remains that it's still an issue in this nation.

When I say 'truly pro-life' I mean people that really do care about the well being of the fetus (child in their opinion), not those that are trying to control others for other reasons.

You read something into my post that was not there or you didn't read was actually was there. I'm not making the arguments you are countering.

[OilemFirchen]

63. It's settled law.

There is no "reason" for an abortion debate. That the debate continues is entirely due to the efforts of some to reverse codified legislation.

[ag_dude]

73. What part of that do you think disagrees with what I said?

It is still an issue whether it should be or not.

[OilemFirchen]

84. Not disagreeing per se.

Just making an observation.

[cyberswede]

93. No, there is a reason for an abortion debate...

because some people obviously feel the need to legislate a woman's right to choose - to make them conform to their own ideas of what is acceptable.

Again...the laws aren't for the "truly pro life people" - they are intended to control the options of everyone else.

In your original example, the exception for rape and incest isn't designed to give an out to the "truly pro-life" people who would never have an abortion under any circumstances, and removing it is just another way to limit the rights of the people who MIGHT choose to have an abortion under those circumstances.

I'd love it if there were no abortion debate. It's the "pro-life" people that keep trying to change the laws to make abortion more difficult or impossible - if they didn't keep doing that (to control OTHER people), the debate would become unnecessary.

[obamanut2012]

107. yup

[spanone]

7. consensual incest? really? wtf.

just sayin.

[ag_dude]

9. It does happen.

Heck, just read Dan Savage's archived columns for quite a few examples.

Why even differentiate incest from rape if it doesn't?

[4th law of robotics]

33. Used to be quite common

Marrying your cousin wasn't anything to bat an eye at.

And admittedly it gives me a visceral reaction but I really can't think of any reason to outlaw incest between two consenting adults.

[Mariana]

49. Marrying your first cousin is still perfectly legal in many states.

It isn't prohibited in the Bible, either.

[trof]

101. Miz t.'s grandparents were first cousins.

It's weird to look at the marriage license and see they had the same last names.
They lived in a small crossroads settlement in southern Louisiana.
Hell, everybody in the community was kin to each other some way or another.
And Cajun through and through.

When ever Miz t. does something a little ditzy, I always bring up her grandparents kinship.

[Tikki]

57. Just curious...who is Dan Savage and will...

reading his blog help me understand things I need to know?


Tikki

[ag_dude]

61. He's writes a sex advice column

He's also a fiercely liberal gay rights advocate that was responsible for the spreading Santorum thing.

[Tikki]

62. Thanks, I am always interested advocating for liberal causes...

I'll check his blog out.


Thanks
Tikki

[ag_dude]

65. He's about 80/20 sex advice/politics

but his political stunts get more broad based attention because of his wit.

The context I brought him up in was the fact that he's had numerous letters in the past from men, women, boys, and girls that had gotten involved in purely consensual incestuous relationships.

[Major Nikon]

58. The most common form of incest is brother-sister

As far as incest within the nuclear family goes.

[geardaddy]

91. +1000

[LynneSin]

8. Well that's a good belief for you should YOU be raped

But that's a personal decision and one that should be made between a woman and her doctor.

The easiest solution is just to give the woman EC when she arrives in the emergency room but there are Catholic run hospitals that won't even do that.

[ag_dude]

12. I'm not sure your argument is in the context of what I'm talking about

I'm not making a pro-life argument but rather pointing out the fallacy of pro-lifers debating 'cases of rape or incest'.

[LynneSin]

20. You should reread what you wrote

It sounds completely out of a GOP textbook about rape and pregnancy.

[ag_dude]

23. How so?

[LynneSin]

29. It's rape

we need to stop defining what's right and what's wrong in regards to the woman who has been raped.

I have never been raped but I've had very close friends been thru that - it's a trauma. The last thing a raped woman wants to read is the bullshit of some politician or political armchair quarterback posters putting in their 2 cents as to what we should do with these women. What we should do with these women is mind our own business and make sure they have access to the healthcare, therapy and police force that can help her deal with her trauma.

Pregnancy in regards to someone being raped or incest is not about pro-life, pro-choice or anything else. It's about a woman dealing with one of the worst things that could ever happen to her and finding the strength to move on from a horrible trauma. Should she happen to get pregnant because of rape/incest it's her choice as to what she does and we should stop defining what it is. This should NEVER EVER be a political agenda.

If anything this whole rape/incest pregnancy talk is extremely distasteful and in the long run will hurt the GOP in November.

[ag_dude]

32. I don't think you understood my original post.

...if you think what you just posted is disagreeing with me.

[LynneSin]

37. I think you don't understand your original post

I think in your heart you meant well but if you noticed about 99% of the posters here are disagreeing with you.

We've read your post, it is offensive even if you didn't mean for it to be offensive.

Rape is not a political agenda and we need to stop justifying what it is other than a crime. How a person raped deals with it afterwards is her choice and those that she asks to help her with those choices.

[ag_dude]

43. The fact that "99%" of people didn't get it

...is a sign I'm posting something about abortion that's not straight forward over the head with a hammer obvious on a political form.

[enlightenment]

55. Actually, it's a sign that

your post was not as clear as you seem to think it is. When you are trying to make a point, the burden is on you to make that point clearly. If the majority of people don't 'get it', it's not because they are incapable of doing so, but because your point is poorly presented.

There's an old saying that suggests that when the same thing keeps happening to someone, they should stop looking for reasons outside themselves and examine their behavior for the cause. If it were only one or two people missing your point, you might have a case, but if 99% of people don't 'get' your point, it follows that the problem isn't with their understanding, but with your presentation.

Do you really think you're so word wise that you can't err in your presentation? That's hubris - and it will end up biting you in the bum.

[SfromCanada]

118. Well said.

[dmallind]

39. Not to me. I got it.

If Biblical literalists truly believed every word in the Bible they would want to send their disobedient children to church to be stoned, because Deuteronomy tells them to do so.

If pure libertarians truly believed they would be better off without government entirely they would support paying a fee to use every single road they drive upon, because they believe private ownership and discrete costs are always superior.

I don't support either, or the exactly analogous statement in the OP, but they are all true. All 3 of them simply extrapolate a political/social viewpoint to its logical conclusion and do not imply in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, support for that position.

The OP is exactly correct. If (notice the if - this makes it a conditional statement) you are pro-life because you believe killing a fetus is murder, then how could it possibly not be murder regardless of the fetus' origin? Pointing this out does not mean you agree - it just means you recognize anyone claiming that abortion is fetal murder but that it's ok in the case of rape or incest is an inconsistent hypocrite at absdolute best.

[jorno67]

10. Most People who call themselves "pro-life" are really "pro-birth"

They don't give a shit about the baby's life...

[RC]

86. Or the mother's life, for that matter.

[jorno67]

94. Very True!!

[TwilightGardener]

11. A woman should not ever feel that she has to carry and give birth to the baby

of her rapist. Only a fucking sicko would think she's obligated to stretch her trauma to nine months and beyond.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Amen!

[lastlib]

119. It really amounts to a lifetime sentence for the victim.

How can she ever look at the child, and not be reminded of the trauma?

[lonestarnot]

120. How do you think the poor kid would feel if he/she ever found out about creepDaddy?

[Marrah_G]

133. It depends on the kid

Some handle it fine and others not so fine.

[Marrah_G]

134. My birth mother looks at me with love

I look at her with love.

I am not a painful reminder.

I am pro-choice.

She is pro-choice.

I am also glad she chose life in my case.

[newfie11]

13. They can be pro life but don't dictate what I should be

Stop trying to change laws that the majority of women agree with. Yes I guess I am also anti life but what about no abortion even if the moms life is in danger. I understand this is what the prolife folks want......HELLO!!!!!!

[sibelian]

14. Yes, if people have TRULY fucked up opinions

they think fucked up things.

I'm not sure what you are adding to our understanding of being "pro-life".

[gollygee]

17. Yep

[GoneOffShore]

16. Unrec for stupid premise and general misanthropy

[likesmountains 52]

18. Well, I'm pro-pet but that doesn't mean I should have to raise a litter of pit bulls just b/c

someone dumps them off at my house....just sayin

[cthulu2016]

19. Your post is correct, though the phrasing has produced some hostile replies

I had no trouble understanding that you are stating what is the only morally consistant position for Republicans, not your personal view.

But people like jumpin' on folks.

[ag_dude]

28. While it's the internet

and not expecting knee jerk reactions is naieve, I am actually surprised at the people making arguments as if they think I disagree with what they're saying.

[7wo7rees]

114. I'm glad you posted.

It showed what can happen when messages get misconstrued. I will strive to speak plainly and say what I mean.
It reminded me that writing online comes at a great cost of intonation and nuance. And texting just sucks.
It clarified the non-debate/ political football that rape is in America today.
It underlined the need for listening to elders, who post eloquently in this forum sometimes.









Welcome ag_dude. Watch your head.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. always been ironic. most of us are pro-choice but anti-death penalty. the others are pro-life

and pro-death penalty

[ljm2002]

27. Yes, what you describe is the forced-birth position...

...you state it well. Giving a "child" a "death sentence" -- rather than ending a POTENTIAL human life before it is fully formed. These are loaded words and you are using them in just the way your mast... er, the forced-birth contingent likes them to be used.

For the record: a fetus is not a baby. It becomes a baby, but it is not one from the beginning.

Anyway, your argument, like that of the forced-birth movement in general, cospicuously leaves one person out of the equation. The one person, in fact, who one would think has obvious standing in the case, and whose views should carry the most weight (all the weight, actually) -- that one person is left out of consideration. You're talking about who the father is, and how the child / fetus cannot be given a death sentence. But what about the mother-to-be? Is she not a human being, with human rights? Does she not have some standing in this situation?

I guess not, not if one is of the forced-birth persuasion.

[ag_dude]

30. My gosh.

I'm not pro-life.

[ljm2002]

41. Sorry I'm a bit touchy today on this issue...

...however, calling a fetus a "child" or a "baby", and calling an abortion a "death sentence" is really framing the issue just the way the forced-birthers like to frame it.

Please forgive me for seeming to lash out at you. I am really lashing out at the current state of affairs w.r.t. women's rights including abortion rights, and the full-on frontal attack by the Republican Party, who want to make it so that the ONE person who should have the MOST to say about a decision to abort (or not), is the ONE person who is absolutely, completely excluded from their thinking on the matter and if they have their way, from participating in any decision on the matter.

[ag_dude]

44. That was the point.

calling a fetus a "child" or a "baby", and calling an abortion a "death sentence" is really framing the issue just the way the forced-birthers like to frame it.

That's what I was doing, pointing out how their framing of the situation doesn't make sense and any discussion of 'rape and incest' is a sign that somebody hasn't actually thought their position on the issue through.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Why don't you either edit your OP to clarify your postion or lock it?

Or do you enjoy trying to dig yourself out of this?

[SalviaBlue]

31. If a person was pro-life they would not support the death penalty.

But ALL republiCONS are hypocrites.

[gollygee]

35. death penalty, war, plus they'd be behind national health care and food stamps like crazy

They are only anti-abortion, not pro-life.

[SalviaBlue]

130. Exactly.

[gkhouston]

36. How about doing something for the sake of the woman?

It's pretty fucked up that women become invisible the moment they conceive. A fully realized person is reduced to an abstraction while something that is only a potential person is elevated to center stage.

[RC]

89. BINGO!

A fully realized person is reduced to an abstraction while something that is only a potential person is elevated to center stage.

That even seems to be true even here on DU. How many post in this thread have the welfare of the woman, potential mother to be, in mind? What the woman at the center wants and/or needs?
Not a whole lot.

[4th law of robotics]

38. I'm not sure why you're getting hostile replies

your post makes a lot of sense and it's clear *you* aren't arguing this position, merely arguing from the point of view of someone who does hold this position.


Like I can conceive of how a creationist thinks (and find holes in their logic besides the obvious ones) without supporting what they stand for.

[JaneQPublic]

42. Not Pro-Life, but Pro-Rapist

People who support that are in essence supporting the full and unimpeded rights of rapists everywhere to procreate with any woman of their choosing: anybody's wife, anybody's 12-year-old daughter, any woman with a medical condition rendering her incapable of surviving childbirth.

Truly, regardless of whether the rapist is imprisoned for the crime of rape, he still has total liberty to have a child with whomever he wants, while the woman has zero say in the matter.

[Major Nikon]

60. Pro-forced-birth

[nolabear]

45. Yes, if a live potential human is the most important thing in the equation it wouldn't matter.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you know that at some time in the future a person who doesn't yet exist will come into your life and ruin it, that they will cause you to have nightmares, flashbacks to the most humiliating and physically painful injury you have ever experienced, one that destroyed your ability to feel like you have a place among your family, friends, human beings as a whole. You will not be able to get away from this person. You must welcome him in, take care of his every need, and keep him close to you while your world comes apart. In fact, he is so disabled that he requires all your time and attention in order to survive. He may be suffering himself because of his disabilities, he may never be toilet trained but he will sexually mature. All of his bodily functions are yours to take care of. You don't get to be who you thought you could be. In fact you don't get to be much of anything except his caregiver, the one that everyone looks at with one primary thing in mind--you belong, in all ways, to him.

Now mind you, this person only exists as a bit of protoplasm, smaller and less functional than a snail, less aware than the fly circling your head. Left alone, and through no faultof its own, it will someday become your prison, forever.

Now, this may or may not happen. But the odds are not too bad that some form of it will. And they're not impossible that they will in all this manifestation. You have absolutely no way of knowing. All you do know is that once he's here, he's here for good.

If "life", the eventual breathing and biologically functioning of a human is the most important thing to you, open up your door and your heart and your life, and welcome him in. And come talk to me in a few years.

[gollygee]

47. This is such a strong post

it deserves its own thread.

You definitely get it.

[coalition_unwilling]

72. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed saying.

I hereby salute you!

[av8rdave]

113. Wow!

What you said. If this message were disseminated far and wide, there might even be a "pro life" male or two that could come to understand the real essence of this issue.

I wish YOU could be the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention!

[gollygee]

46. You did SUCH a good job framing it their way

that you got a reaction like they'd get. But yeah you definitely are following their logic.

[Quantess]

48. You mean, it is consistent.

I agree that if someone truly has such a fixation on "saving unborn babies" (a clump of fetal calls) and the woman is seen as irrelevant, then yes, it is consistent to say that no exceptions to abortion should be allowed.

Which is why abortions should be legal and accessible, no questions asked. It is nobody's business whether it was rape or whether the parents were careless with birth control. It's not growing in your womb so it's none of your business.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

50. I get your point....

....but you sound like you are advocating and there are actually a lot of anti-choice people who feel this way but won't say it because they think it would make them "unreasonable".

[ag_dude]

54. I kind of am advocating

and going straight after those anti-choice people you speak of.

The argument I made has always been a quick and easy way to make those arguing for the outlaw of abortion face just how unreasonable or poorly thought out their position is.

[LanternWaste]

51. Pointing out academic inconsistencies in an individual's belief system is as effective and efficient

People believe what people wish to believe. Pointing out academic inconsistencies in an individual's belief system is as effective and efficient as tilting at windmills.

One may as well engage in the mythical, objective and unbiased discussion about who was the better composer-- Tchaikovsky or Mussorgsky.

[4th law of robotics]

53. It may not help them

but it could help those who are on the fence about the issue.

If someone hasn't made up their mind then pointing out the logical inconsistencies of the other side could help influence their opinion.

[LanternWaste]

66. Yeah... that'll happen.

Yeah... that'll certainly happen-- rather soon too, I'd hazard.

[4th law of robotics]

69. Or you could just give up on trying to persuade anyone to your side

hope the other side does the same and then assume everything will work out.

Arguments never change anyone's minds. That's why the way we think about the world today is no different than it was 50 years ago, or 100, or 1000.

[HockeyMom]

52. They don't care if a woman will die because of a pregnancy

even when the fetus has no chance of living (tubal pregnancy). Been there, done that. NO EXCEPTIONS to abortion. They don't care about the LIVING; babies, children, poor, middle class, disabled, women, Seniors, minorities, Non-Christians.

They are the Party of rich, young, white, Christian males. Everyone is else are chattels or serfs, and disposable.

[kestrel91316]

56. Thank you for expressing more concern for fetuses than women.

Enjoy your stay.

[ag_dude]

59. Read the thread.

I didn't make any such argument at all.

[October]

64. Yes, you did.

Your idea of "pro-life" is all about the unborn.

[ag_dude]

68. Where did I call it my idea of 'pro-life'?

You, like a few of the posters above, do not see the difference in holding an opinion and critiquing an opinion as it exists in this post.

[LynneSin]

78. Look, I don't think you meant bad

But the wording just sounds awful and as a woman I'm offended that we are trying to somehow justify it even if we're justifying it for so-called pro-lifers and trying to point out their illogic.

Most of the people who posted in this thread are offended by your post because there is no justification for ANYONE who thinks there is some good in a pregnancy from rape/incest. We as progressives should not be trying to justify what anyone is saying but reminding voters that this is what our government will be like if we allow the republicans to win the white house and control congress.

The problem is this:

If a person is TRULY pro-life it shouldn't matter if a babies dad was a rapist

That's all we see on the subject title and honestly it is OFFENSIVE. For all we could care your message text could say that all people who reply to this post get $1000 and we wouldn't care. Your subject line is poorly worded and you're at a web forum that feels that we shouldn't be politicizing rape or trying to justify it in any way.

And just as an FYI there are women who have chosen to keep the child after rape/incest. There is nothing wrong with them - like anyone else it was their choice and we should support them by again ensuring that they have all the healthcare & therapy they need to go thru this pregnancy.

[ag_dude]

80. Oh, so it's not 99% now?

I'm not justifying it and if you read that into it, you are bringing something to the post that simply is not there.

I don't know what else to say. I was under the false assumption that the bulk of this site was intelligent enough to understand the point of the thread and for people like you to continue to blatantly misconstrue the point of the thread is just plain of sad.

Time to take a breath of fresh air.

[LynneSin]

82. Read your title

That's your introduction to your post.

It's offensive, it's very offensive. The title is the introduction to what you are about to type about and unless you have some giant sarcasm or just kidding or something else your thread offends.

[obamanut2012]

109. ynnesin is right -- it's offensive

The wording, the framing, the rationalizing.

[October]

85. People "get" it, even if misspelled and poorly punctuated.

(I just said that to knock you off of your high and mighty pedestal.)

You posted as if it were your opinion. (You know, the "Just sayin" and all.) Why post it the way you did except to try to incite an argument. (Rhetorical.)

You could've attributed the post/idea to another, but you didn't. Therefore, it will be assumed that this is YOUR belief.

You could easily put an end to this, but you don't. Instead, you seem to be enjoying yourself taking shots at everyone else.

Boiled down, you're saying that if people think abortion is wrong (murder), then it should be wrong in every case. No exceptions.

Yeah, we "get" that. It's not that complicated. Very black and white, the way the "Right-wingers" tend to think.

The problem is, in real life, it is very complicated. Plenty of people here believe there is more than one "life" involved, so you can't be pro-life in our eyes if you only consider the child's life.

To make a statement/post as you did, will certainly bring about discussion and arguments.

It was naive to think otherwise.

[Skidmore]

67. I'm making the assumption that you are a man and have no clue

what it is like to be forced into having your body penetrated, let alone having a pregnancy result from that act of assault. Furthermore for a young girl to be violated before reaching anything near the age of consent skews that child's development into an adult. I am trying to be civil right now and it is difficult. The first time I was raped by a close family member, I had to be lifted onto a bed I was too short to climb on otherwise. I endured years of continued assaults by this person until I finally learned how to stand up to him and successfully put an end to this on my own. There was a brief period of time in my early teen years that I worried incessantly about the fear that would come in the dark and if I were to become pregnant, what it would to my family. Fortunately, I did not become pregnant. I also put up with the assaults to protect my little sister, from whom I learned years later was subjected to the same assaults. I shouldered a tremendous amount of responsibility to preserve the family I knew without realizing at the time that the family dynamics were dysfunctional. I also lived in constant fear and self-loathing. It took me years to learn how to relate to a man in a healthy relationship and it took just as long to loose the fear. Back then, there were no child protection services and society made little effort to establish safe areas in chaotic family circumstances. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, if I had become pregnant, I would have had an abortion if given a choice then. I would never expect any other woman or woman child be forced to endure a pregnancy forced on her violently or through the intimidation that comes within a family dynamic.

I went on to marry and have children of my own. They never met my relative.

As for the sins of the mother, I don't understand where the hell you get there. And I'm not just sayin'. I'm telling you that neither you nor any one else has the right to force a woman into reproductive decisions. Chances are that you have no clue as to what is going on with that person. Furthermore, this is not a philosophical debate. It is human tragedy fraught with much pain--physical and psychological.

As I said, I'm really trying to be civil and it is very difficult to talk about this with someone who clearly sees it as an exercise in semantics. If someone wants to be pro-life within their own life, that is their business. I will not remove choice for a woman who does not want to carry a child created in such circumstances or birth it.

[ag_dude]

70. What do you think you disagree with me on?

Do you understand that I was critiquing and pointing out the flaw in a point of view rather than defending it?

It was obvious to some, others not.

[Skidmore]

74. You are not critiquing anything there but putting forth

a rationale. I read a statement that validates the pro-life position.

[ag_dude]

77. Then you missed the point of the entire post.

Because that was not what I was saying AT ALL.

[Skidmore]

79. You are saying that it shouldn't matter

how the child was conceived if a person is pro-life. I see no alternate point of view presented in your post and I reread it several times before I responded because it difficult for me to explain my point without relating my own story a bit.

Editing to add that there is little difference between you post and the one on Limbaugh's statement that the only innocent is the "baby."

[handmade34]

105. hey ag-dude

I understand what your post is saying... but you misunderstand what happens on DU... I agree entirely with your post but most here don't take the time to critical think about what is being said... I have argued your point many times myself... if one really maintains they believe in personhood... they should never accept abortion at anytime (it would be hypocritical to say abortion only in the case of rape or incest)

I personally believe women should ALWAYS have control over their own body and the personhood meme is dangerous and wrongheaded!!

[julian09]

90. I wonder how many woman brought the child into the world and how they feel about doing so.

I would like to hear from those and some who chose differently. Those who punish the innocent for sins of father.
The mother who loved the child enough to not have it split in two. Was the rapist also a sperm donor to a sperm bank and that child more deserving of life?

[Skidmore]

96. As I said, I ultimately did not have to make that choice but I

certain that there are women who have made other choices. That is the whole point -- that you have a choice to begin with and are not forced to relive the circumstances leading to the pregnancy.

[just1voice]

71. NT Times quote "defacto mouthpiece for conservative agitprop"

What a great quote from the NT Times writer, nails it.

[Major Nikon]

75. Despite all the disengenuous replies you are getting, this is absolutely correct

Furthermore I think people who are pro-choice should be hammering this point.

Why?

Simple. Most people who are anti-choice are not so extreme as to believe that abortions should never be allowed under any circumstances. You have to be an extreme idealog to believe that if your daughter is raped, or your wife requires an abortion to stay alive, or in the case of women you might find yourself in either of those situations that one should be forced to give birth. These people are actually less consistent than those who believe abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances because those who think exceptions should be allowed are saying that abortion is murder, unless the state says it ain't. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Abortion is either murder or it ain't. If it ain't, it should be available to anyone who wants it for any reason. If it is, it should be forbidden for any reason.

Forcing this issue would have the effect of making those who believe they can have it both ways to make a decision. I believe that most who are forced to make a decision are not going to say abortion should be illegal. This would drive the extremists to irrelevancy.

[ismnotwasm]

76. If a person is truly pro-life

They would value the lives of women.

Pregnancy is always a risk. Always.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. Please explain consensual incest?

[OilemFirchen]

87. Two related consenting adults.

It actually is silly to differentiate between rape and incest, if one is going to argue that consent is the distinction.

[Agnosticsherbet]

98. Except in Rhode Island (in accordance with Wikipedia)

all states have some ordinance against incest. Though the laws differ, from what I read, they all include a parent and child. By law, they can't consent. It is simply verboten. If one of them is not an adult, it can never be consenting and is considered abuse. In the case of adults, I suspect that some form of emotional abuse has been used.

But we are splitting hairs, I suppose. To me, consensual incest and legitimate rape are about equal in validity, being they have none.

[OilemFirchen]

99. That's silly.

If it weren't for consensual incest, there would be no British Royal Family.

[Major Nikon]

104. To you perhaps, but not so much to people who study such things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Between_consenting_adults

If two competent adults decide between both of them to have sex, the state or anyone else should not be involved. To me, there's already too many people trying to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do, often by force of law.

[On the Road]

88. I Agree,

and the reason there this distinction exists is that abortion is being argued separately from the question of when the developing fetus becomes a human being and should have legal standing. The current standard
(end of the second trimester) was chosen based on a different criterion -- survivability outside the womb (at least according to 1970s medicine).

Whether a one-day-old infant is the product of rape or incest has no bearing on whether that infant should survive. Nor should it be a factor in the ninth month, where abortion should be undertaken only in order to save the mother. Or the eight month. For that matter, should a premature baby born in the 32nd week be treated differently from a fetus of the same age if it's still in the womb? They both have developed equally.

The anti-abortion people are giving the wrong answer to the question "when does a human life begin?" Saying it is at conception, or before the brain is developed enough for basic electrical activity, is absurd. The way to counter it and maintain a consistent position is by giving a substantive answer to that question.

[Oilwellian]

106. I believe it's the end of the first trimester

A woman can't legally have an abortion after the first trimester, unless her health is at risk or the fetus is severely deformed and cannot survive outside of the womb.

[intaglio]

92. So you are a Forced Birther

In this vein how old should a girl be before she is forced to give birth?

9? 10? 12?

What if she is 16 and has leukemia? should she be forced to carry the child until she hemorrhages and both she and the child die on the operating table because the law outlaws abortion?

Fake concern like this is one reason I loathe Forced Birthers

[4th law of robotics]

95. Not to speak for someone else but,

I think it's clear that this person is not advocating this stance but is merely taking a stance advocated by others and applying their own logic to the situation.

Trying to understand and/or point out logical inconsistencies in another persons beliefs is not the same as accepting that belief as your own.

[hedgehog]

97. I believe what the OP meant to say is

"If a person is really and truly anti-abortion because the fetus has the same status as a baby

It shouldn't matter whether a child’s father was a rapist or closely related to his/her mother. Therefore someone who would outlaw except for cases of rape and incest is giving a child a death sentence for the sins of his/her father and/or mother (in the case of consensual incest).

Just sayin.

[Ilsa]

102. And just the other day Pat Robertson was claiming

That the three children adopted from overseas might be damaged goods and therefore the adoptive mother's revolving door of boyfriends have a good reason for not getting involved with her.

Geez, and what about the potential for the child of a rapist to be psychiatrically messed up? what if the child is a psychopath like the father? But I guess this is somehow different to GOPers.

[treestar]

103. They've discovered that and decided to be consistent

That way, as opposed to recognizing it should be up to the women. And right wing women can choose to bear rapist's babies should they so choose.

[HopeHoops]

110. TAX DEDUCTION! An average woman is impregnated at least 6 times per year - $22,200!

If they're going to use the zygote is a person thing, then the tax code should accommodate it!

[DirkGently]

112. BINGO. That's why they need this mythology.

Very few people can agree with forcing a woman (or child) to bear a rapist's or child abuser's spawn. It's immediately clear that it's morally correct to end the pregnancy. It's not a hard call for any but the wingiest of wingnuts.

... which reveals the fact that ending a pregnancy is NOT "murder." It would indeed be some kind of moral quandary if a fertilized egg was actually the same as a human being.

Which leads to the conclusion that abortion is not immoral in other cases either.

They can't have that.

[Retrograde]

115. It's all about punishing "promiscuous" women

I agree with your basic premise: if one believes that personhood starts at conception and that abortion is murder, why are is it then OK to kill some pre-born people because of the circumstances of their conception? And if it's OK to abort a fetus conceived via rape before it's born, is it OK to kill it when it's a year old? 10? 21?

I think the arguments that abortion be allowed only in cases of rape or incest goes back to the concept that women are property: if a woman is carrying a child that was not sired by her owner that child is going to use resources that would more appropriately by the owner's other children, or, especially if it turns out to be male may complicate inheritance. If the woman is not married, the child can harm her potential value when her family wants to marry her off. That's why, I think, religious conservatives leave the OK if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest loophole.

I've never been in a position where I had to make the hard decision about abortion, but I'm glad and thankful that if I had been I had the option to choose.

[avebury]

116. People who claim to be truly pro-life are hypcrites because

1) They don't care about a child once it is born
2) Too many are death penalty advocates
3) They think the concept of universal health care is socialism
4) They are more interested in funding the military and 1% then helping the poor

You can go on and on.

[Eddie Haskell]

124. you are right

it shouldn't matter

[liberal N proud]

126. Pro-life results in the destruction of two or more lives to bring one fetus into the world

When you force someone to have a child they don't want or can't afford, or can't raise, you destroy the life of the mother, the child born from that fetus you are protecting and if he is involved, the father of the unborn child.

[mmonk]

127. If pro lifers were really pro life,

they wouldn't vote pro-polution, pro war, pro torture, against a safety net, against contraception, against a mother's life in the case of a pregnancy gone bad, or realize that making abortion illegal means losing control to reduce abortions or make any that happen safe because as we have seen in the past, they will still get them and many times it will cost another life.

[YoungDemCA]

128. Well said.

I couldn't agree more.

[mzmolly]

129. I believe what you suggest, is the position of some who identify with the so called "pro-life"

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

position. One could take that further and say, if one was TRULY pro-life arguing that poverty, the death penalty, a lack of health care etc. is okay, is also inconsistent with supporting "life".

However, there is no rationale for using the term "legitimate" rape or suggesting women's or children's bodies will reject a pregnancy born of so called legitimate rape.

[Quantess]

135. Consistency.

Look, it is either a legal choice, or it is not.

We as a society can agree that before X number of weeks, the pregnancy can be terminated with abortion, no questions asked.
After X number of weeks, exceptions for rape and health of the mother can be made. Or maybe for just health of the mother, if you really want to be a stickler about the rules. Decide early if you don't want the rapist's baby!

But there are unforeseen tragedies where an otherwise wanted pregnancy has to be terminated for the mother's sake.

The heart of the matter is: mind your own business and let the pregnant person make their own choices. It is nobody else's decision to make, especially before a given number of weeks of gestation.

[Caretha]

137. Your just adorable

<rolls eyes>

Just sayin.

[progree]

138. +1000 Good point, thank you for your post, I've long been thinking the same thing

I've read a lot of the discussion about your post ... If you had left off the &quot in the case of consensual incest)" it seems to me its a perfectly valid and non-controversial post. But "consensual incest", even when between fully mature adult first cousins or siblings opens up a can of worms and I'm not going to go there, I'm too busy fighting the righties to get into a circular firing squad with my fellow Democrats.

Another example of Republican inconsistency is, for political / electoral reasons, they are trying to criminalize the abortion doctor, but they NEVER advocate criminalizing the woman who seeks out and gets the abortion. Never (I read an article in The Nation about this). That infantilizes the woman -- isn't a, for example, 30 year old woman who decides to have an abortion and then goes to an abortion clinic and has the abortion just as gulity as the doctor? (Assuming one accepts the "pro-life" premise that a human life is being ended, i.e. murder). The righties try to argue that the woman is a victim of the doctor, that a woman is too stupid to think straight, but come on.

If she was a 13 year old and shot her sister, the righties would be screaming to try her as an adult and lock her away for life (or execute her). But if she's 30 years old and gets an abortion, somehow she is blameless while the doctor is a murderer? No inconsistency there?

[progree]

139. Perfect post illustrating your point (the pro-life inconsistency - its a human life except when not)

Title: My conversation with a pro-life friend today... by Big Orange Jeff
His conversation with a pro-life (or pro-birth) friend

...

Me: So, do you agree with Ryan's belief that the fetus should still be protected if the pregnancy resulted from rape?

Friend: That's a tough one but, no, I don't feel that the government should force a woman to have her rapist's baby.

Me: Why not?

Friend: It's difficult for me, but that child would be a daily reminder - even during gestation - of a horrific attack that the victim would have to relive over and over again.

Me: Okay, I'm glad to hear that. What about after the baby is born? Would you support euthanasia of a living child that resulted from rape?

Friend: NO!! Of course not!

Me: So, what's the difference?

Friend: Because it's a human being! The baby has been born. You can't kill a living, breathing child, no matter what the reason!! Why are you even--

...

more at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021196067