pro-life or pro-choice?
Joe Crump
14:30
El Whappo
Do you believe that abortion is Legal or Illegal in ST:TNG Earth?
C.S.Strowbridge
> Do you believe that abortion is Legal or Illegal in ST:TNG Earth?
They probably have very good birth control so you can't get pregnant
unless you want to. Of course, we know that's not true for Enterprise.
C.S.Strowbridge
Louis Boyd
WHat I don't understand is why abortion is only legal before a child is
born. It's usually not till they become teenagers that parents discover
how truly useless some of them are.
Lou Boyd
Dan McGarvey
news:bd5chs$86$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
Teenagers don't become useless on their own. That takes years of bad
parenting.
Jamal Crump
God would never let that come to pass, and God is in Star Trek. Leave
this newsgroup, pedo-trekkie scum.
--
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:29:43 -0500, in Message-ID <3e455c25$0$325$892e...@authen.puce.readfreenews.net>, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" wrote:
> I protest. Many years ago I huffed organic solvents. This is so far
> superior to anticholinergic abuse comparing the 2 is wrong.
Dan McGarvey
Gunner
Or years of MTV, lousy education, a liberal mindset and victimology.
Gunner
"...and biotechnology is a worry. What if they take genetic material from wet noodles and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton administration?" -- P.J. Rourke, All the trouble in the world. The lighter side of famine, pestilence, destruction and death.
Harold Burton
"Louis Boyd" <bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bd5chs$86$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
>
You are absolutely correct. As a Junior high teacher I often
expressed the opinion that abortion should be a legal option up to the 192nd
month.
erniegalts
In many cases they even progress to adulthood before this becomes
evident. Think how much better off the world would be if not for
Hitler and Stalin. Who may have been OK as teenagers.
Think you would have to agree that it is a pity that they both weren't
miscarriages.
Considering the high number of natural miscarriages, don't see why all
the fuss about abortion anyway. Following from article in Weekend
Australian Health Section. ##### My comments set off by hash signs,
as usual #####
"Miscarriage trauma
By Teresa Ooi
June 21, 2003
Heartbreaking journey to joy
IT is a conspiracy of silence, a subject that is least discussed among
women even though they share a common grief – losing a baby.
And with more women putting off having babies until their late 30s,
the number of miscarriages is expected to rise and become a growing
problem." . . .
. . . "There is a 12 per cent risk of a miscarriage for women in their
early 20s, a 20- 25 per cent higher risk for those in their late 30s
and an alarming 50 per cent risk for those aged 42 and older.
It used to be thought that an ageing uterus caused miscarriages, but
this has been proved incorrect, as many women in their 40s, 50s and
even 60s have successfully conceived and borne children with eggs
donated by younger women.
"The ageing process affects the quality of the eggs, leading to
chromosomal defects – in other words, eggs have a use-by date," the
head of Sydney IVF and the recently opened Miscarriage Management
Clinic Professor Robert Jansen says.
He believes almost half of all conceptions end in a miscarriage,
sometimes so early that the woman doesn't realize what has happened.
Other experts estimate one in four pregnancies are miscarried. In
1997, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that there were
500,000 pregnancies that resulted in 251,800 births, 150,000
miscarriages, 95,000 abortions and 2000 stillbirths.
##### So it seems that there are a lot more spontaneous abortions than
induced abortions. As has been pointed out before, there would be a
lot of legal & theological problems if defined an blastocyst, embryo,
or fetus as a "human being".
A embryo technically becomes a fetus at about 8 weeks, but this is
still long before it is fully developed and can exist independently of
the mother at around 40 weeks, no matter what external technical
support is given.
Even at 40 weeks there are often severe disabilities so it can be
questionable whether society is really doing the kid a favor by trying
to save it.
There have been claims of survival earlier than 40 weeks, but most of
these are questionable as the date of conception cannot be verified.
Since the great majority of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks,
it is difficult for many people to see why they should be of any
interest to either church or state. #####
. . . "But experts say that it is often difficult to estimate the
number of miscarriages, because most go unreported.
Many miscarriages occur so early in the pregnancy that a visit to the
doctor is often not necessary.
Most miscarriages are spontaneous, caused by an abnormality in the
genes or chromosomes. It is nature's way of dealing with an abnormal
foetus."
##### Now if we accept that between 25% and 50% of pregnancies end in
"spontaneous abortion" [or "miscarriage"] then I would think that it
would become increasingly difficult to logically insist that human
life begins at conception rather than birth.
Some people would obviously like to see all abortion banned, yet if we
do this then there are going to be a lot more people born with birth
defects, which are more common than most people think.
I would suggest that those who are pregnant stop reading at this
point, and go on to another thread. Perhaps those optimists who are
even thinking of getting pregnant, for that matter.
Realists might like to read the full article at:
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6626389%255E23289,00.html>
PS: If RCs or others want to debate the theological problems involved
perhaps we should try to do it by email as not to upset other readers
in these groups, although I tend to spend more time on group mails
rather than e-mail.
"_Magna est veritas et praevalebit"_
(Truth is mighty and will prevail).
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
Mark Rosendorf
Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:19:11 -0600, "Dan McGarvey"
> <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>Teenagers don't become useless on their own. That takes years of bad
>>parenting.
>>
>>
>
> Or years of MTV, lousy education, a liberal mindset and victimology.
>
Good idea, blame everyone and everything EXCEPT the parents' upbringing
and the teenagers themselves for being the way they are.
Blame MTV, afterall, if MTV is what's bringing up our children and
teaching them their values, no reason to blame that on the parents, right?
Mark
Jargle Homeslice
You have 3 months to decide whether or not you want the damn thing.
Once that blob turns into anything remotely human, you're stuck with it.
erniegalts
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:19:11 -0600, "Dan McGarvey"
><Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Louis Boyd" <bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bd5chs$86$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
>>>
>>> "Joe Crump" <fuck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:k79cfvkk6k80nl6b7...@4ax.com..
>>>
>>> WHat I don't understand is why abortion is only legal before a child is
>>> born. It's usually not till they become teenagers that parents discover
>>> how truly useless some of them are.
>>
>>Teenagers don't become useless on their own. That takes years of bad
>>parenting.
>>
>>
>Or years of MTV, lousy education, a liberal mindset and victimology.
Or a rejection of Biblical religious values and a consequent disregard
for human values or even human life.
Were not you a teenager before MTV? Don't know about your education,
but apparently enough to get you into the military.
Did you ever have a "liberal mindset"? [Please define the term in
your answer.]
How do you define "victimology", for that matter? Don't you believe
that there any "victims" in the world? Or in US society?
Up until Y2K or so, you seemed to be a pretty decent human, even an
admirable one. What happened to you in the last 2 or 3 years to lead
you into your apparent decline?
>Gunner
>
>
>"...and biotechnology is a worry. What if they take genetic material from wet noodles
> and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton
> administration?" -- P.J. Rourke, All the trouble in the world. The lighter side
>of famine, pestilence, destruction and death.
On the other hand, Gunner, eventually some country might mix human and
animal genes to produce a soldier with the power of a gorilla, the
swift reactions of a jungle cat, and the ethics of a snake.
Now, sure, could develop robots to fight wars, but genetic
manipulation might be a much better solution. Someone might manage
to create an ideal military class which will do anything if ordered to
do so.
Humans, or "humanoids" are capable of much more complex functions than
robots and can be cheaply produced by untrained personnel.
Actually, could possibly be done just through selective breeding,
given enough time. All dogs belong to the same genus and species,
but selective breeding can produce killers such as pit bulls.
Hitler wanted to breed the "perfect soldier" but he lacked the science
and technology we have now.
ScarsRUs
"Harold Burton" <hwbu...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:vfchouh...@corp.supernews.com...
gives teachers the option to euthanize the burdens, and parents the right to
abort thru the 75th trimester.
still working on a poster.
erniegalts
wrote:
Is it actually that bad in whatever part of the world you are writing
from? If so, perhaps you should either agitate for a change in your
laws or attempt to migrate to a freer country.
Amniocentesis isn't usually done before 15th to 17th week and can
reveal lots of potential problems. However, other techniques are
less invasive and can provide an earlier diagnosis.
Pregnancy involves enough risk as it is. Very few people demand
"perfect" babies, but I don't see any advantage in forcing people to
have a child they don't want or cannot, or will not "accept."
Worse yet, the children aren't either.
Humans are all different, and they are not "infinitely adaptable".
I suppose we are all cheered by reading inspiring stories such as that
of Hellen Keller or other kids who have more or less overcome severe
handicaps.
However, what is the percentage of those that do so?
Sure, there are always the unrealistic hyperoptimists who collect
questionable stories about hypothetical " one legged cats who still
manage to catch and kill mice."
In one sense, we should try to maintain a degree of hope in any
situation.
However, the darker side of extreme optimism is that when a severely
disabled child is born into some families, they simply disintegrate.
Neither the parents or the existing children manage to cope.
One wonders how many of the extreme optimists have had to cope with
any hardship whatsoever. Have met a few such people who claim that
no one has to be poor, that they live on the streets by "choice".
That no one in their society ever goes hungry, and if they do it is
their own damn fault. Am sure that we all know of such people.
Unfortunately, some people take them seriously. And they get
extremely upset when their one-legged cat fails to catch mice, or at
their apparent "inability" to teach such a cat to catch mice.
No doubt it is pretty frustrating for the cat as well.
So, in many cases, what the hyper-optimists seem to be demanding is
that others be required by law to meet standards that they may not be
able to meet.
Suppose, for instance, that hypothetical family "X" is a happy family
with two or three children?
Wife gets pregnant again. Unfortunately, amniocentesis or some other
diagnostic procedure reveals that the potential child is going to
suffer some extremely disabling defects if it manages to survive
birth, and will probably die before it even reaches its teenage years.
If take the extremes on this case, perhaps the mother decides to have
an abortion, maybe decides that she is extremely lucky to have two or
three essentially "normal" kids. She may or may not be willing to
try again later, but that is her business, isn't it?
Not the business of her church or the government, is it? [Unless one
or both want to deny "free will".]
Suppose that God disagrees with her decision? ....Then he can punish
her later, can He not? Why should _any_ Church or Government want to
be arrogant enough to try to punish her [and/or her child] now?
[Ah well, doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to work this one out, does
it?]
At the other extreme, she [and/or her husband, and/or her other kids]
tries to cope, and none of them can. Perhaps the family merely breaks
up, the forth child dies a natural death, and she is left alone
feeling guilty and inadequate.
There are, incidentally, a lot worse possible outcomes, even if all
children are "normal" and she doesn't really want children.
However, the hyperoptimists will probably never be able to understand
reality, and they probably shouldn't read any of my posts on any
subject. :-)
El Whappo
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:1ihcfvc0203mb117a...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:19:11 -0600, "Dan McGarvey"
> <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> >"Louis Boyd" <bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bd5chs$86$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> >>
> >> "Joe Crump" <fuck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:k79cfvkk6k80nl6b7...@4ax.com..
> >>
> >> WHat I don't understand is why abortion is only legal before a child is
> >> born. It's usually not till they become teenagers that parents
discover
> >> how truly useless some of them are.
> >
> >Teenagers don't become useless on their own. That takes years of bad
> >parenting.
> >
> >
> Or years of MTV, lousy education, a liberal mindset and victimology.
OH now you are blaming "Victimology"!!!!! THat offends me so much!!! For my
suffering I should sue you!
Gunner
Gunner
Actually Mark..the parents have the kids only a limited time each day.
The rest of the time they are held hostage by the educational system,
peer pressure and the fact that they know their parents are powerless
to do much to them to make them toe the line.
Gunner
You sue me and it will hurt my self esteem, and that tops being a
professional victim any day.
Id like a check with many zeros after the 1, each month,
thankyouverymuch. Need my bank for direct deposit, you simply need to
ask.
Falconnier
> -><-
Who really cares? It doesn't matter anyway. The whole issue is a dog
and pony show perpetuated by the Powers That Be to distract us from
what they're doing in D.C., and the REAL problems this country faces.
How about Pro-I-Don't-Give-A-Rat's-Round-Ass?
Falconnier
El Whappo
"StampOutDumbPosters" <StampOutD...@SpeakEnglishFool.org> wrote in
message news:StampOutDumbPosters-...@news.west.cox.net...
> You mean "pro-life or "pro-death". If someone were deciding if you were
> to live or die, would you call them "pro-choice"?
>
> I doubt it.
Well yes. If someone were suffering from cancer and didn't want to continue
living in pain and being a burden, they would have the free choice to doctor
assisted suicide. That would be a choice, Pro Choice to live or die.
I personally think abortion would be legal in the Star Trek world.
p o t@beer.com TDKozan
"ScarsRUs" <dbl...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rxtJa.14995$TJ.8...@twister.austin.rr.com...
|
| i've been trying to start my "Uth for America" campaign for years.
| gives teachers the option to euthanize the burdens, and parents the right
to
| abort thru the 75th trimester.
|
| still working on a poster.
|
|
Save the effort and just refer them to Sweetwater.
<http://www.research.umbc.edu/~melissa3/portfolio/digitalart/intarwebart/pos
tnatal/postnatal.htm>
TK
--
Cogito ergo bibo
DanielSBen
Depends on the circumstances.
And i'm pro-life in most circumstances.
-DanielSBen
Kathryn
I assume reading isn't your forte
Enigma
news:saecfv0jule2j1ftg...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:54:47 GMT, in alt.startrek.vs.starwars,
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>El Whappo wrote:
>
>> Do you believe that abortion is Legal or Illegal in ST:TNG Earth?
>
>They probably have very good birth control so you can't get pregnant
>unless you want to. Of course, we know that's not true for Enterprise.
God would never let that come to pass, and God is in Star Trek. Leave
this newsgroup, pedo-trekkie scum.
Why should he? He has more of a right to be here than you. You on the other
hand, are a crap stain from the soles of other trolls that have entered our
NG. Leave, idiot.
RJDiogenes
>living in pain and being a burden, they would have the free choice to doctor
>assisted suicide. That would be a choice, Pro Choice to live or die.
>
Of course, because they would be making the choice about their own life, which
they have a right to do.
>I personally think abortion would be legal in the Star Trek world.
>
You're right, because Star Trek generally reflects the fashions of the time,
and the left wing is pro-abortion. However, in a truly liberal society,
everybody would have equal rights.
El Whappo
"RJDiogenes" <rjdio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030623162823...@mb-m16.aol.com...
I consider myself right wing, yet because I don't believe in god I find
anti-abortion to be just silly. Bringing someone into the world who isn't
wanted by anyone and given the low rates of adoption, will probably hate
life and wind up commiting crimes on others. not to mention the burden if
he is born with problems.
Ray Keller
"erniegalts" <ernie...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:5mlcfvolugbocdsie...@4ax.com...
I know it's been said before by plenty of other people, but it's
clearly worth saying again: you're a hypocrite, Earnietroll.
What's even worse is he's a hypocrite with delusions of grandeur.
Apparently, now he's stroking his ego with fantasies that SOMEBODY out
here regrets calling him a name and would like to apologize. I haven't
seen any indications of anything like that, and the only person I've
seen mention apologies is earnietroll ranting about his fantasies.
Of course what can you expect from a paedophile
Ghanni
"Joe Crump" <fuck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k79cfvkk6k80nl6b7...@4ax.com...
-><-
Ford Prefect
Bingo, you hit it right on the head with that statement. If you try to
discipline your kid with anything other than going to their room, you know
the same room, where the Playstation and TV is located, the kid can tell the
cops that mommy and daddy abuse them and the parents get in trouble for
trying to keep the kid in line.
The day is coming where the children rule the world, and everything will go
to hell.
OH and Pro Choice, its a womans body, she can make her own decision if she
wants to burden the world with another body.
--
----------
| Don't |
| Panic |
----------
--
I fart in OPEC's general direction! I would like to wave my private parts
at their aunties,
those cheesy load of secondhand electric camel-bottom fuckers!
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>El Whappo wrote:
>>>Do you believe that abortion is Legal or Illegal in ST:TNG Earth?
>>
>>They probably have very good birth control so you can't get pregnant
>>unless you want to. Of course, we know that's not true for Enterprise.
>
> God would never let that come to pass, and God is in Star Trek. Leave
> this newsgroup, pedo-trekkie scum.
I thought TNG and onwards, Star Trek was very atheistic. And I'm not a
paedophile, I like Geriatric Porn.
Baron, where's that lemon party link?
C.S.Strowbridge
Grainne Gillespie
> paedophile, I like Geriatric Porn.
That's almost as bad!
Shudders
JerryMouse
If a woman exercises her freedom to choose by having unprotected sex, she
may very well have impressed upon her that choices have consequences.
The consequence in this case may be motherhood.
Myal
"JerryMouse" <nos...@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:Gq6dneZFs_w...@giganews.com...
What of rape ?
Myal
Batman
>born. It's usually not till they become teenagers that parents discover
>how truly useless some of them are.
I've always said abortions should be legal between the ages of 5 and 18, for
exactly those reasons. You gotta give em a chance. And dont give me that bad
parenting crap either, parenting is only a small part of the equation. Some
of us turned out all right despite our bad parents, and some of yall turned
out bad despite your good parenting.
-jeff
jesus X
> The consequence in this case may be motherhood.
Two statements: One, if a person is too dumb to grasp that unprotected sex can
create children, do we REALLY want them breeding?
And two, can we abort you? I mean, I'm sure I can find a way to fit you into a
ShopVac...
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesus_x @ mozillanews.org ]
web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
insult [ As usual, you've been a real pantload. ]
warning [ Don't touch that! You might mutate your fingers. ]
fozzi bear
Maybe, but given their ability to transport a fetus from one host to another it
would also be unnecessary.
Cheers
Fozzi
Myal
"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9ghffv4chkdh44kht...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:14:02 -0500, Max Tindell
> <ma...@kingwoodcable.net> wrote:
>
> |On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:10:28 +1000, "Myal" <dum...@hotmail.com>
> |wrote:
>
> non sequitur
>
> non se·qui·tur [non sékwit?r]
> n
> 1. incongruous statement: a statement that appears unrelated to a
> statement that it follows
> 2. unwarranted conclusion: a conclusion that does not follow from its
> premises
>
>
> [From Latin , literally "it does not follow"]
> Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft
> Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
Thank LG
I was wondering what the opinion might be if the baby was concieved as a
result of rape ?
It isnt a womans choice to be raped , and therefore not usualy a thing
prepared for .
Should she have to bear the consequences of something forced onto her ?
It is understood that if a woman doesnot use contraceptives mother hood is a
consequence ( not my view I figure condoms are easily bought by both sexes
put a dollar in the machine , twist the handle....)
MostlyH2O
kids - they're at least somewhat sentient :-)
Grainne Gillespie
> may very well have impressed upon her that choices have consequences.
>
> The consequence in this case may be motherhood.
What about a woman became pregnant as the result of rape?
That Guy
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:19:08 GMT, Mark Rosendorf
> <mrose...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Gunner wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:19:11 -0600, "Dan McGarvey"
> >> <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote:
> >>>Teenagers don't become useless on their own. That takes years of bad
> >>>parenting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Or years of MTV, lousy education, a liberal mindset and victimology.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Good idea, blame everyone and everything EXCEPT the parents' upbringing
> >and the teenagers themselves for being the way they are.
> >
> >Blame MTV, afterall, if MTV is what's bringing up our children and
> >teaching them their values, no reason to blame that on the parents,
right?
> >
> >Mark
>
> Actually Mark..the parents have the kids only a limited time each day.
> The rest of the time they are held hostage by the educational system,
> peer pressure and the fact that they know their parents are powerless
> to do much to them to make them toe the line.
That's baloney. Parents are far and away the biggest influence on a child's
life, unless they choose not to be. You are a perfect example of
"victimology". You blame everyone but the ones responsible: the parents.
That Guy
Abortion is an alternative consequence.
Paolo Pizzi
news:rqZJa.19808$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
Tough. That's what the right-wingers say.
Compassionate conservativism, the ultimate oxymoron...
JerryMouse
Good point. What if, today, your mother admitted your conception was the
result of rape?
erniegalts
wrote:
Of course not. Do you think that any woman could ever love a child of
her rapist?
Should she even be forced to bring it into the world even if plans to
give it up. Why should the community have to support the child of a
rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?
How do we know that there isn't a genetic propensity towards rape and
violence? We have enough violent criminals in the community, why
breed more?
>It is understood that if a woman doesnot use contraceptives mother hood is a
>consequence ( not my view I figure condoms are easily bought by both sexes
>put a dollar in the machine , twist the handle....)
Firstly, are condoms readily available for both sexes at all ages in
the USA? [They are here, incidentally, are sold off supermarket
shelves.]
Secondly, condoms aren't very good protection against pregnancy,
although better than nothing. The pill, taken as prescribed, is a
lot better, and an implantable hormone implant is better yet.
erniegalts
<lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:52:55 +1000, "Myal" <dum...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>|> |>What of rape ?
>|> |>
>|> |>Myal
>|> |
>|> |Non-sequitur
>|>
>|> non sequitur
>|>
>|> non se·qui·tur [non sékwit?r]
>|> n
>|> 1. incongruous statement: a statement that appears unrelated to a
>|> statement that it follows
>|> 2. unwarranted conclusion: a conclusion that does not follow from its
>|> premises
>|>
>|>
>|> [From Latin , literally "it does not follow"]
>|> Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft
>|> Corporation. All rights reserved.
>|>
>|
>|Thank LG
>|
>|I was wondering what the opinion might be if the baby was concieved as a
>|result of rape ?
>|It isnt a womans choice to be raped , and therefore not usualy a thing
>|prepared for .
>
>AFAIK, Rape Counseling/Intervention Medical Services, or somesuch,
>will most likely use Spermicide on a Rape Victim.
Spermicide would be no help if conception has taken place. :-)
>
>In other words, in Amerikkka, I *think* that if a victim of rape
>reports to a Medical Center, or hospital, then there will most likely
>NOT be an unwanted pregnancy as a result of the rape.
"mifepristone" AKA the "morning after" pill; RU-486, will prevent
implantation of a fertilized ovum, but apparently isn't always
available everywhere.
=============================
Article Last Updated: Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:38:09 AM EST
Bill would force hospitals to dispense 'morning-after' pill to rape
victims
By JULIE MEHEGAN
Sun Statehouse Bureau
BOSTON Catholic hospitals, including Saints Memorial Medical Center in
Lowell, could be forced to dispense pregnancy prevention pills to
women who have been raped under a bill being considered by the
Legislature.
The so-called "morning after" pill to prevent pregnancy is essentially
birth control pills given in a higher dosage. The treatment has been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by
prescription.
A bill filed at the Statehouse would require hospitals to dispense the
drug to rape victims. Presently, advocates say, 25 percent of
hospitals do not routinely dispense the pills to women who have been
raped.
"We've had problems with Catholic hospitals not offering it," said
Meredith Trueblood, director of education at Rape Crisis Services of
Greater Lowell.
<http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105~4746~1451543,00.html>
=====================================
>
>If in fact there is a viable fetus as a result of a forcible rape,
>then I believe it is WELL WITHIN the victim's rights to have that
>unwanted pregnancy aborted.
>
>|Should she have to bear the consequences of something forced onto her ?
>
>IMO? Absolutely _not_
Totally agree
>
>|It is understood that if a woman doesnot use contraceptives mother hood is a
>|consequence ( not my view I figure condoms are easily bought by both sexes
>|put a dollar in the machine , twist the handle....)
>
>Condoms combined WITH spermicide is best. It is too easy to have a
>condom fail ( come off, break, etc. ).
>
>OTOH, in the heat of passion, people will do what they will. Under
>such circumstances of unprotected sex, I -still- think that an
>unwanted child is not going to be good for anybody.
>
>I know it is a tough call. I sometimes vacillate back and forth on
>this issue, but at the present time, think that *Mother's Rights*
>supersede all others. After all, it -is- her body and progeny at
>stake.
>
Again agree, although would rather see contraception widely available
and used where possible.
>Then again, once the umbilical cord is cut, and the child doesn't need
>the mother anymore technically, to live, then it is protected by Law,
>and its destruction is -murder-.
>
>This means, even if the baby is born prematurely. If it can live on
>its own, killing it then is -murder-.
Not likely before 20 weeks, though, and most abortions done well
before then.
>
>This is the custom in the U.S.A. at the present time. In other
>countries, such as China, having more than 1 child per family requires
>State approval ( not given lightly ). More than 1 child will be cause
>for imprisonment, or worse. In any case, without China's special
>permission, the child is unwanted by the State, and will be terminated
>by the State.
Not sure that they actually terminate it once born, but they may
insist on a late abortion.
>
>Lg
erniegalts
wrote:
Am afraid this is one of those very hypothetical questions that few if
any could really answer unless actually faced with the problem. Can
think of several possible responses, including matricide/suicide.
Myal
Yes I do , I know so , I have a friend from my schooldays who is the product
of a rather brutal rape , and his mother is one of the most loving mothers I
have met .
His Mum reasoned it wasnt the kids fault he was concieved , it was his
fathers fault for raping her , the kid shouldnt be punished for it .
Granted , she went through a lot of emotional trauma before coming to this
conclusion .
This is only one case though , I dont know of or if any large scale studies
have been done to find this out .
>
> Should she even be forced to bring it into the world even if plans to
> give it up. Why should the community have to support the child of a
> rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?
This is the question , should she be forced to bring it into the world or
not ?
Should she have the choice to terminate the baby ?
>
> How do we know that there isn't a genetic propensity towards rape and
> violence? We have enough violent criminals in the community, why
> breed more?
>
How do we know there is a genetic trend toward violence ? If there is , do
we know for sure the baby is carrying this trend before we terminate it ?
>
> >It is understood that if a woman doesnot use contraceptives mother hood
is a
> >consequence ( not my view I figure condoms are easily bought by both
sexes
> >put a dollar in the machine , twist the handle....)
>
> Firstly, are condoms readily available for both sexes at all ages in
> the USA? [They are here, incidentally, are sold off supermarket
> shelves.]
This is true , I used to fix the condom machines in several night clubs
where I used to live , funny thing was , the one in the ladies room was
continualy wearing out from over use , the one in the gents was often
vandalised , but never used that much .
Myal
Ernie , I would like to pose Jerry Mouse's question to you :
>Good point. What if, today, your mother admitted your conception was the
>result of rape?
Myal
Gerald Meazell
> Bingo, you hit it right on the head with that statement. If you try to
>discipline your kid with anything other than going to their room, you know
>the same room, where the Playstation and TV is located, the kid can tell the
>cops that mommy and daddy abuse them and the parents get in trouble for
>trying to keep the kid in line.
>
>OH and Pro Choice, its a womans body, she can make her own decision if she
>wants to burden the world with another body.
>
>
What a contradiction. You preach about responsibility yet with you it's
OK for a woman to "burden the world with another body." What about the
woman's responsibility? If it is, as you say, going to be the world's
burden, don't you think the world should have a say in it? I do.
Before you say it, I don't believe that killing the fetus after the
fact is responsible behavior; keeping your pants on in the first place is.
--
Gerald
erniegalts
wrote:
Have already answered this one, as well as I can answer it anyway.
See:
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice (was "OR")
Message-ID: <v9shfvo6t7jkg5f90...@4ax.com>
Lines: 29
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:49:45 +1000
Myal
Don
Why should the child bear the responsibility of the rapist?
Jedispy
RE: the rape/abortion topic:
First off, I want to say that I am a staunch believer in pro-life. Don't
get me wrong, I truly support human equality, and all people's right to make
choices in life. I am in fact SUCH a STRONG supporter of HUMAN EQUALITY,
that I believe we need to extend that equality to our unborn children. For
us to preach about women's rights to choose, and to then deny that right
from our children is sheer HYPOCRACY.
Secondly, the information that I am posting is entirely true. I promise
that I really did do this research. Unfortunately I have lost my notes
which contained the sources. If I find them, mark my words, I promise that
I will post the sources. Anything that I don't cite, you will just have to
take my word on. I apologize for this inconvenience.
*********
About Rape and abortions.
I was able to look up the statistics of reported abortions of pregnancies
via rape for 2002 in the United States. My father is a physician, so he has
access to such information as reported to the AMA. Doctors that perform
abortions must be licenced by the AMA. To be licenced, doctors and health
institutions (hospitals, clinics, etc...) MUST report all medical procedures
in that given year. Guess how many cases were found of abortions that
resulted from rape pregnancies? There were 0 abortions reported! That
means that in all of 2002 there were zero abortions in that specific
category. I looked up the stats for 2001. Guess how many I found. Again
the answer was an entire zero cases found.
Honestly, as conservative as I am, even I was shocked. I am a strong
believer in pro-life, but I never guessed this was the case.
So my curiosity expanded even further. I looked up cases of abortions of
incest related pregnancies. Again I was suprised with the results. There
were zero cases of abortions in this category too. So finally I looked up
cases where a mother's life was on the line if she proceeded with labor. In
this category, the mothers' lives are at stake due to complications in the
labor process, and it is a matter of choosig to abort the baby or not. This
used to be the number one cause of death of pregnant women in the United
States. I was suprised by my discovery. There were some cases found,
however they were less that 5 per year (approx 1-3). While it DOES still
happen, the probability of such complications has dropped drastically due to
modern medical advances. Coincidently, now the number one cause of death in
pregnant women is homicide (Fox News: Studio B with Shepard Smith.)
So when there are so few cases, why are the liberals using this LOWEST
common denominator to argue their case? Simple. It is that they desire
AMORALITY in our culture. It's not that liberals want to be immoral. I
think it is that they want to give people the freedom to be moral or immoral
as they see fit. However, there's a problem with that. When an action that
is OBVIOUSLY immoral is suddenly considered amoral, what is to stop people
from performing said action? Nothing. For example, adultery was once
considered in ancient cultures a crime that was punishable by death. Now it
is not only amoral, but its even encouraged. At least that's what the media
likes to tell us. What does adultery do? Well it breaks down family bonds.
It causes bitterness and hatred among people that should be loving. It
becomes a cancer that is contageous. Amorality breeds immorality. Morality
sets standards on how one ought to live. Morality does not seek to control
for the purpose of being a killjoy. Morality seeks to give us what is best
for us.
As for abortions, my view is that they are one of the worst immoral
abominations ever to infest humanity. The "medical" procedure of partial
birth abortions is just as evil and gruesome as the "medical" experiments of
the Nazis on the Jews in WW2. Go to the holocaust museum in Washington DC
sometime if you want to see examples and photos of what those procedures
were like. If you look up the procedure for partial birth abortions, you
will see some similarity between the modern practice, and the practice of
the Nazi "doctors." Consider this, Adolf Hitler was pro-choice in his
decision to slaughter MILLIONS of helpless Jews. This was not an agressive
and hostile army that was sent to the concentration camps. These were
people, fully human, who were not considered anything. The Nazis
"pro-chose" to murder innocent lives. Boy I'm glad we don't have anyone in
the medical community today that thinks like this. (note the sarcastic
tone.)
To all who disagree with me on this subject, please understand that my goal
was not to convert you. My goal was to simply show you THE truth. You may
take it as you wish. Go in peace, and may your conscience one day wake you
from your coma, just as it did to "Roe" from the Roe vs. Wade trial.
To all who agree with me, take this information that I have shared, and use
it to raise a banner of liberation to the oppressed unborn children, whose
lives are not considered at all when they are marched to the concentration
camps that we call "abortion clinics."
Sincerely,
Jedispy the apologist.
Jedispy
give it up. Why should the community have to support the child of a
rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?"
That's too bad. Would such a child be any less human? It's too bad that
you have such a small world view on what makes a human a human.
Jedispy
Tyralak
@shaw.ca:
By the ghost of Timothy Jones! Do not speak of the evil "lemonparty"!
--
Tyralak,
Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax
Official ASVS Token Trekkie
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paolo Pizzi
news:vfig9oc...@corp.supernews.com...
> First off, I want to say that I am a staunch believer in pro-life.
...as long as they are white and christian...
> Don't
> get me wrong, I truly support human equality, and all people's right to
make
> choices in life.
Really? Aren't you the fascist who wants me out of my country
just because I don't have an anglo name and I don't vote for Bush?
> I am in fact SUCH a STRONG supporter of HUMAN EQUALITY,
> that I believe we need to extend that equality to our unborn children.
For
> us to preach about women's rights to choose, and to then deny that right
> from our children is sheer HYPOCRACY.
Learn how to spell, redneck.
Gerald Meazell
>
>I was wondering what the opinion might be if the baby was concieved as a
>result of rape ?
>
I think most pro-lifers would allow for abortion in the following three
cases: 1) rape 2) incest 3) the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.
Why? Because those are reasonable reasons to terminate the pregnancy.
Now, how often does one of these cases occur in the U.S. each year?
Maybe 100 or 200. Last time I checked, we were averaging 1.5 MILLION
abortions every year. That's what pro-lifers object to: all those
children's lives terminated just so the mother doesn't have to worry
about contraception. That's the tragedy and shame of abortion.
--
Gerald
That Guy
"Gerald Meazell" <gmea...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EF90003...@swbell.net...
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
> > Bingo, you hit it right on the head with that statement. If you try to
> >discipline your kid with anything other than going to their room, you
know
> >the same room, where the Playstation and TV is located, the kid can tell
the
> >cops that mommy and daddy abuse them and the parents get in trouble for
> >trying to keep the kid in line.
> >
> >OH and Pro Choice, its a womans body, she can make her own decision if
she
> >wants to burden the world with another body.
> >
> >
> What a contradiction. You preach about responsibility yet with you it's
> OK for a woman to "burden the world with another body." What about the
> woman's responsibility? If it is, as you say, going to be the world's
> burden, don't you think the world should have a say in it?
No. Not unless you can carry the baby to term and give birth to it for her.
Dalton
> "C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in news:3EF7917E.8010500
> @shaw.ca:
>
>
>>Jamal Crump wrote:
>>
>>>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>>
>>>>El Whappo wrote:
>>
>>>>>Do you believe that abortion is Legal or Illegal in ST:TNG Earth?
>>>>
>>>>They probably have very good birth control so you can't get pregnant
>>>>unless you want to. Of course, we know that's not true for Enterprise.
>>>
>>>God would never let that come to pass, and God is in Star Trek. Leave
>>>this newsgroup, pedo-trekkie scum.
>>
>>I thought TNG and onwards, Star Trek was very atheistic. And I'm not a
>>paedophile, I like Geriatric Porn.
>>
>>Baron, where's that lemon party link?
>>
>>C.S.Strowbridge
>>
>
>
> By the ghost of Timothy Jones! Do not speak of the evil "lemonparty"!
>
That's just funny man :D
--
Rob "Uncle Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap
out of this man." - Jack O'Neill - Stargate SG-1
Grainne Gillespie
> >countries, such as China, having more than 1 child per family requires
> >State approval ( not given lightly ). More than 1 child will be cause
> >for imprisonment, or worse. In any case, without China's special
> >permission, the child is unwanted by the State, and will be terminated
> >by the State.
>
> Not sure that they actually terminate it once born, but they may
> insist on a late abortion.
In China women have been forced to have abortions against their will and in
some cases women are sterilised against their will.
You may this this is awful and horrific, but it's nothing compared to
China's "Dying Rooms", rooms in orphanages where unwanted children (usually
girls) are left to die. They are ignored until they eventually starve to
death.
Grainne Gillespie
> her rapist?
Oh, definately. There are loads of women out there who have borne children
as the result of rape and they still love their children as much as if the
child have been conveived in a loving relationship.
It's not the child's fault that it's mother was raped.
One woman who was raped said in an interview that her child was "the one
good thing to come out of this"
> Should she even be forced to bring it into the world even if plans to
> give it up. Why should the community have to support the child of a
> rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?
Jeez, what's your problem? Of course someone would want to adopt it, it's
NOT the child's fault!
Grainne Gillespie
illegal, it will still continue.
It will retreat to unlicensed backstreet clinics where unsanitary conditions
are rife and abortions are carelessly performed resulting in complications
that will result in the deaths of the mother of the aborted child.
Basically if abortion is made illegal, abortions will be carried out by Dr.
Nick from The Simpsons
RJDiogenes
>illegal, it will still continue.
Everything that is made illegal, rightly or wrongly, continues.
Using the fact that people break the law as an excuse to withhold law
repudiates the very legitimacy of law. I don't think anybody this side of the
Unabomber would go along with that.
Gerald Meazell
>>>OH and Pro Choice, its a womans body, she can make her own decision if
>>>
>>>
>she
>
>
>>>wants to burden the world with another body.
>>>
>>>
>>woman's responsibility? If it is, as you say, going to be the world's
>>burden, don't you think the world should have a say in it?
>>
>>
>
>No. Not unless you can carry the baby to term and give birth to it for her.
>
You're missing the point. Ford says it's OK for a woman to burden the
world with another body. I think that if the burden is really going to
be on "the world," the world should have a say in it. Imagine if the
government decided to end the orphan problem by randomly selecting
people to care for orphans. You're minding your own business one day
when a bureaucrat walks up to you with a baby and says "Here, take good
care of it, we'll be watching." Don't you think you'd feel put upon?
Wouldn't you prefer a system like the foster care system we have today
wherein people volunteer to take care of orphans? This system works
because the people in it had a say.
Regardless, my main point was that you cannot preach responsibility in
one breath and then in the next give someone a pass on responsible
behavior. Everyone who wants to have sex but doesn't want to conceive
has a responsibility to use contraception. The fact that we're
performing a million and a half abortions a year means that a shitload
of people are dropping the responsibility ball.
--
Gerald
erniegalts
The original parents are _always_ responsible. They were the ones
that generated it and failed to control it. People have children by
choice, just as they choose to have vicious pets.
If they make a choice to inflict their offspring on others, then they
should be fully responsible for them, at least until they are adults.
erniegalts
wrote:
I don't know of any. Can anyone refer us to any?
>
>>
>> Should she even be forced to bring it into the world even if plans to
>> give it up. Why should the community have to support the child of a
>> rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?
>
>This is the question , should she be forced to bring it into the world or
>not ?
>Should she have the choice to terminate the baby ?
Obviously.
>
>>
>> How do we know that there isn't a genetic propensity towards rape and
>> violence? We have enough violent criminals in the community, why
>> breed more?
>>
>
>How do we know there is a genetic trend toward violence ? If there is , do
>we know for sure the baby is carrying this trend before we terminate it ?
Does it even matter?
>
>>
>> >It is understood that if a woman doesnot use contraceptives mother hood
>is a
>> >consequence ( not my view I figure condoms are easily bought by both
>sexes
>> >put a dollar in the machine , twist the handle....)
>>
>> Firstly, are condoms readily available for both sexes at all ages in
>> the USA? [They are here, incidentally, are sold off supermarket
>> shelves.]
>
>This is true , I used to fix the condom machines in several night clubs
>where I used to live , funny thing was , the one in the ladies room was
>continualy wearing out from over use , the one in the gents was often
>vandalised , but never used that much .
Interesting!
Omphalos
<ernie...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in
news:k1rhfvomiv9ht2c2o...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:52:55 +1000, "Myal" <dum...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> news:9ghffv4chkdh44kht...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:14:02 -0500, Max Tindell
>>> <ma...@kingwoodcable.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>| On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:10:28 +1000, "Myal" <dum...@hotmail.com>
>>>| wrote:
>>>|
>>>|> "JerryMouse" <nos...@bisusa.com> wrote in message
>>>|> news:Gq6dneZFs_w...@giganews.com...
>>>|>>
>>>|>> "Joe Crump" <fuck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>|>> news:k79cfvkk6k80nl6b7...@4ax.com...
>>>|>>
>>>|>> -><-
>>>|>>
>>>|>> If a woman exercises her freedom to choose by having
>>>|>> unprotected sex, she may very well have impressed upon her
>>>|>> that choices have consequences.
>>>|>>
>>>|>> The consequence in this case may be motherhood.
>>>|>
>>>|> What of rape ?
>>>|>
>>>|> Myal
>>>|
>>>| Non-sequitur
>>>
>>> non sequitur
>>>
>>> non seúquiútur [non s‚kwit?r]
>>> n
>>> 1. incongruous statement: a statement that appears unrelated to a
>>> statement that it follows
>>> 2. unwarranted conclusion: a conclusion that does not follow from
>>> its premises
>>>
>>>
>>> [From Latin , literally "it does not follow"]
>>> Microsoft© Encarta© Reference Library 2003. ¸ 1993-2002 Microsoft
>>> Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>
>> Thank LG
>>
>> I was wondering what the opinion might be if the baby was concieved
>> as a result of rape ?
>> It isnt a womans choice to be raped , and therefore not usualy a
>> thing prepared for .
>> Should she have to bear the consequences of something forced onto
>> her ?
>
> Of course not. Do you think that any woman could ever love a child
> of her rapist?
>
> Should she even be forced to bring it into the world even if plans
> to give it up. Why should the community have to support the child
> of a rapist, and why would anyone want to adopt it?
Allowing preborn capital punishment for cases of rape punishes the
innocent child more severely than the guilty rapist. An "innocent
bystander" (at the time of assault not yet conceived!) is given a
greater sentence than the perpetrator of the crime.
Allowing abortion for cases of rape or incest effectively blames the
preborn for another's (i.e. the father) crime. Killing a preborn
because his or her father is a rapist is no more justifiable than
killing the rapist's mother or father (perhaps even less so, in that,
plausibly, a parent could have in some way influenced, caused or
contributed to the son's actions. The preborn child has not yet been
created; no causal influence, and therefore culpability, is possible).
The perpetrator alone should be punished; punishing the preborn makes
him or her a scapegoat and the second victim.
The circumstances of a preborn child's conception should not modify,
let alone negate, his or her right to life. In other words, the
preborn baby has a right to life regardless of the circumstances under
which he or she was conceived.
If we were to consider two infants, one conceived through marital
intercourse, the other through forcible rape, would we say that one
person was "more human" than the other?
Two wrongs do not make a right. A second wrong makes a bad situation
worse.
Regardless of the father's identity, the woman is still the mother.
The baby is still her child.
The "hard cases" represent perhaps only 1 percent of all abortions.
Yet we hear about them all the time. To be equitable, there are no
doubt "easy cases" which can be brought up against the
pro-abortionist. What about abortion performed for sex selection, or
under duress, or without full disclosure of fact, or without parental
consent or notification? Or abortion for birth control? Or abortion in
the last month of pregnancy? Or how about abortions performed on the
basis of coin flips, tea leaves, horoscopes, etc.? As upsetting or
outlandish as some of these scenarios sound, all are possible. All are
legally permissible. And such "easy cases" are no doubt much more
prevalent than the oft cited "hard cases."
If a rape/incest exception were allowed: How would we differentiate
between the rape victim and an abortion-minded liar? Making a woman
"prove" she was raped, not to convict her attacker, but to get an
abortion, would be disastrous. Surely some women desiring an abortion
would feign rape (the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey,
recently admitted to lying about being raped). This would cause great
damage to the true victims of rape who already risk character
assassination by the judicial system.
Rape or incest engenders sympathy, and rightly so, for the victim.
However, sympathy and concern should be confined to helping and
healing the victim; caring for her and the innocent life within her.
Caring for the victim cannot justify killing innocent life whether or
not the woman, now a mother, desires an abortion. Murder is not a
solution, even if the mother at such a distraught time believes it is.
While abortion may seem to some like the best course of action for a
mother after being assaulted, there is growing evidence that abortion
harms the victim physically, psychologically and spiritually in the
long term.
In rape or incest, promotion of "therapeutic abortion" is derived from
an assumption one could refer to as "murder-as-therapy." However, even
if an abortion could provide the assault victim temporary relief there
is no evidence to support the tenet that abortion provides long term
benefits. The unfortunate woman and her sexuality is instead
victimized twice. Any negative effects- physical, psychological or
spiritual-arising from the abortion can only compound pre-existing
problems. Also, destroyed are the potentially positive benefits for
the mother which may arise from unselfishly preserving the life of her
child. And, of course, one cannot forget the tragedy and injustice of
abortion in regard to the preborn child.
Our abhorrence towards incest (or rape) engenders sympathy for the
victim, and rightly so. However, our sympathy and concern for the
victim should not cloud our judgment on what is right or wrong. Also,
the preborn baby equally deserves our sympathy and concern, especially
under such unfortunate circumstances.
We must deal with a tragedy in an appropriate manner. A negative event
should be handled with a positive response. Killing a preborn baby is
not, and never can be, a positive response to any situation. Also, we
must be clear as to what is negative in the case of an incest victim
becoming pregnant; obviously, the act (or acts) of incest is what is
to be deplored. In contrast, conception, regardless of the precursory
circumstances, is not negative: it is the creation of a new, unique
and precious human being.
--
__________
=\ /================================
==\ /==You know how dumb the average==
===\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
=====\/====================================
Grainne Gillespie
news:BJVMa.192567$cm4.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Tuesday June 24, 2003 @ 8:33 PM EST, erniegalts
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Omphalos
<demo...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:GT5Na.21309$pK2....@news.indigo.ie:
Yes, yes! Great debate tactic! I am sure you will win them over in
droves. Keep denying the truth! That's the spirit! Keep going!
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
erniegalts
wrote:
>
Then I would sincerely hope I would be terminated and would never
forgive her if I wasn't.
erniegalts
erniegalts
No, it probably isn't the "fault" of the potential child, but he/she
is _still_ he product of a criminal rape.
I suppose it depends on how much you believe in "nature" vs "nuture".
Rapists aren't normal humans. If the kid is a male, how do you know
it won't turn out to be just as criminally abnormal as he father? Why
take _any_ chance??
Of course, most of us cannot really imagine such a situation, and
cannot really "predict" what we would actually do in such a situation.
However, if you want a "guess" would say that the embryo of a rapist
would never be acceptable to me. Automatic termination in first three
months. Wouldn't never have accepted any other choice from
girlfriend or even wife.
Abortion, separation, or divorce seem the logical possible choices to
me.
Any other choices? Maybe. Wait until the criminal kid broke the law
and put him out for adoption.
Any chance that a "rapists child" might turn out OK? Perhaps, but why
take the chance?
erniegalts
wrote:
>Myal wrote:
>
>>
>>I was wondering what the opinion might be if the baby was concieved as a
>>result of rape ?
>>
>I think most pro-lifers would allow for abortion in the following three
>cases: 1) rape 2) incest 3) the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.
> Why? Because those are reasonable reasons to terminate the pregnancy.
> Now, how often does one of these cases occur in the U.S. each year?
> Maybe 100 or 200.
Want to try to prove this "guess"??
>Last time I checked, we were averaging 1.5 MILLION
>abortions every year. That's what pro-lifers object to: all those
>children's lives terminated just so the mother doesn't have to worry
>about contraception. That's the tragedy and shame of abortion.
Will provisionally agree that contraception is a much better
alternative than abortion.
However, try to face the fact that almost all abortions are in the
first trimester [first three months] where there is _no_ possible
chance of the conceptus surviving apart from the mother.
Do you want to try to argue this issue from a medical and/or
scientific point of view?
erniegalts
Unfortunately, that was the "way of it" and some of us are even old
enough to remember those dim dark days of backyard abortionists with
twisted coathangers, and of girls and women who died in agony from a
perforated uterus and peritonitis? [Or worse...]
Um, would hope that most of you wouldn't be stupid enough to think
that any qualified doctors or even qualified nurses would risk their
license on such an attempt for any likely amount of money?
A few medical people on misc.survivalism. Not sure about other
groups. Comments from Dr. Krin and others, perhaps....if they are old
enough to remember. :-)
The Baron
The child doesn't necessarily follow in the father's footsteps.
Take Vader and Luke, for example.
erniegalts
Totally fictional characters, absolutely no possible relationship to
reality.
Gunner Asch
<lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:32:22 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
><lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>|On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:13:32 GMT, "MostlyH2O"
>|<jackc...@TAKEOUTTHECAPITALSbaylife2000.com> wrote:
>|
>||I'm Pro-Sentient Life. A Fetus doesn't quite meet the criteria. But I love
>||kids - they're at least somewhat sentient :-)
>|
>|So is a bug
>
>sentient
>
>sen·tient [sénsh?nt, sénshee ?nt]
>adj
>1. conscious: capable of feeling and perception
>a sentient being
>
>2. responding with feeling: capable of responding emotionally rather
>than intellectually
>
>
>[Mid-17th century. From Latin sentient- , present participle stem of
>sentire “to feel.”]
>
>
>-sen·tient·ly, adv
>Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
in fear..that indicates it, like Leftwingers..is Sentient?
Of course it does. And on the same mental level as well