Democrats & Abortion

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

Is it or isn't it a baby? Thats the question. It has little to do with being a woman, or "how the woman feels". Many women have Post depresstion and have murderous feelings about their babies. Doesn't mean that it should be allowed because she just "felt" that way.

Again Rob cops out.

The irony of you saying I copped out. Read your post again there.

No need to read it again. Your answer to anyone who you disagree with is "you never personally experienced it, so you don't know"

I never personally participated in genocide, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to denounce it. Nor any other subject you choose.

[SMR 368]

I've been pro-choice ever since someone very close to me was brutally raped and that rape resulted in a pregnancy. I also had those views reaffirmed when I saw a premature baby in the hospital NICU where my son was, she was the result of a drug addict's bad decisions. She didn't survive, she was born 3 months premature and severely addicted to heroin.

I love babies. Hey I'm having another one. I just think that there are circumstances in which women should have the right to choose.

You can't justify restricting abortion without arguing that the fetus is alive and you can justify abortion without arguing that the fetus isn't alive. The only exception is if you are choosing between the mother and the child.

Rape wouldn't justify murder in any case, so it's really irrelevant. The fact that someone was likely to die in a couple months also couldn't justify murder, so again it's irrelevant.

[chri'stina 190]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

That kind of thing is such a hard subject. I am very pro-life, but at the same time I can understand why someone would want an abortion in a case like that. But still that doesn't mean I don't think a life is being taken away(the developing baby).

If people want to admit that they are killing one life for the sake of a peaceful future for the mother, or for the sake of the child who would know they were produced from rape, that's one thing. It's a decision that ending a life is a better option for certain very hard situations, even if I don't agree with it. But many people don't want to admit they are actually taking a life. They may act like they aren't getting rid of anything of importance with abortion. Yet when a woman really wants to get pregnant and then miscarries, suddenly it's of extreme importance in the same stages of development. Either the developing life is really important or it's not, and it shouldn't depend on whether someone wants it or not. Abortions out of convenience that have nothing to do with a bad situation I can't see any justifying for. That's how I feel.

Edited November 16, 2009 by chri'stina

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

That kind of thing is such a hard subject. I am very pro-life, but at the same time I can understand why someone would want an abortion in a case like that. But still that doesn't mean I don't think a life is being taken away(the developing baby).

If people want to admit that they are killing one life for the sake of a peaceful future for the mother, or for the sake of the child who would know they were produced from rape, that's one thing. It's a decision that ending a life is a better option for certain very hard situations, even if I don't agree with it. But many people don't want to admit they are actually taking a life. They may act like they aren't getting rid of anything of importance with abortion. Yet when a woman really wants to get pregnant and then miscarries, suddenly it's of extreme importance in the same stages of development. Either the developing life is really important or it's not, and it shouldn't depend on whether someone wants it or not. Abortions out of convenience that have nothing to do with a bad situation I can't see any justifying for. That's how I feel.

And you're spot on.

[Susita 175]

I understand everyone in this thread's views on the subject. I personally don't believe that I could bring myself to have an abortion. I've had 2 miscarriages and they were extremely hard to deal with. However, I've never been in a position where I would have had to think about having an abortion, ever. I was only trying to show a side of the argument that is often ignored by most that are pro-life.

I see all sides of the argument that's all.

Like Charles, I don't feel abortion should be abused as some sort of birth control. That's horrible. You make a mistake, oh well. Live with it. If you can't, put the baby up for adoption and give a parent who hasn't had the opportunity to have a baby that opportunity.

But bringing a baby into the world as a result of rape, when the mother isn't mentally stable to carry it, never-mind raise it... or bringing a baby into this world severely addicted to drugs to the point where it has no chance of survival.... I don't know. I'm glad I'm not the one to make that decision. That's all.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I understand everyone in this thread's views on the subject. I personally don't believe that I could bring myself to have an abortion. I've had 2 miscarriages and they were extremely hard to deal with. However, I've never been in a position where I would have had to think about having an abortion, ever. I was only trying to show a side of the argument that is often ignored by most that are pro-life.

I see all sides of the argument that's all.

Like Charles, I don't feel abortion should be abused as some sort of birth control. That's horrible. You make a mistake, oh well. Live with it. If you can't, put the baby up for adoption and give a parent who hasn't had the opportunity to have a baby that opportunity.

But bringing a baby into the world as a result of rape, when the mother isn't mentally stable to carry it, never-mind raise it... or bringing a baby into this world severely addicted to drugs to the point where it has no chance of survival.... I don't know. I'm glad I'm not the one to make that decision. That's all.

My adopted brother Steve was born a crack-baby. Yes he had multiple seizures per day, but after a while they did go away. He has some problems with anger nowadays, but he is a proud member of the Army and doing really well in taking care of his girlfriend's children as if they were his own. There can be success stories, but there are no guarantees ever even if everything is done right with the baby.

[DEDixon 39]

I don't really care much one way or the other. If we're being honest here, the tax exemption enjoyed by employer sponsored health care coverage could be viewed as public funding of these plans. And many of them do cover elective abortion - including plans offered by the RNC, for example, until now that this became an issue. Should - for reasons of consistency - the policy of not providing any federal funding for abortion not extend to those health plans as well - i.e. end the tax exemptions for plans that cover the elective procedure? Isn't there a disconnect currently?

Abortion is one of those issues that I am not sure where to stand. Generally speaking, I believe the practice is bad unless there are very good reasons for it in any particular case (you know, the rape, health, incest type deals). On the other hand, who am I to tell any woman what decision she can and cannot make? She's gotta live with whatever she decides, not me. And so, this is where I tend to fall on the pro-choice side of the issue despite having very strong personal reservations against ending a perfectly good pregnancy.

what if it is your baby she is aborting? it should be "half" her right, but that isn't the case. do abortion clinics ask for the father's signature? yeah, some women won't know who the father is, but the majority do know who that guy is.

[Danno 1,228]

I don't really care much one way or the other. If we're being honest here, the tax exemption enjoyed by employer sponsored health care coverage could be viewed as public funding of these plans. And many of them do cover elective abortion - including plans offered by the RNC, for example, until now that this became an issue. Should - for reasons of consistency - the policy of not providing any federal funding for abortion not extend to those health plans as well - i.e. end the tax exemptions for plans that cover the elective procedure? Isn't there a disconnect currently?

Abortion is one of those issues that I am not sure where to stand. Generally speaking, I believe the practice is bad unless there are very good reasons for it in any particular case (you know, the rape, health, incest type deals). On the other hand, who am I to tell any woman what decision she can and cannot make? She's gotta live with whatever she decides, not me. And so, this is where I tend to fall on the pro-choice side of the issue despite having very strong personal reservations against ending a perfectly good pregnancy.

what if it is your baby she is aborting? it should be "half" her right, but that isn't the case. do abortion clinics ask for the father's signature? yeah, some women won't know who the father is, but the majority do know who that guy is.

But then they will argue... "If the car is parked in her garage.. she alone must be the owner."

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I don't really care much one way or the other. If we're being honest here, the tax exemption enjoyed by employer sponsored health care coverage could be viewed as public funding of these plans. And many of them do cover elective abortion - including plans offered by the RNC, for example, until now that this became an issue. Should - for reasons of consistency - the policy of not providing any federal funding for abortion not extend to those health plans as well - i.e. end the tax exemptions for plans that cover the elective procedure? Isn't there a disconnect currently?

Abortion is one of those issues that I am not sure where to stand. Generally speaking, I believe the practice is bad unless there are very good reasons for it in any particular case (you know, the rape, health, incest type deals). On the other hand, who am I to tell any woman what decision she can and cannot make? She's gotta live with whatever she decides, not me. And so, this is where I tend to fall on the pro-choice side of the issue despite having very strong personal reservations against ending a perfectly good pregnancy.

what if it is your baby she is aborting? it should be "half" her right, but that isn't the case. do abortion clinics ask for the father's signature? yeah, some women won't know who the father is, but the majority do know who that guy is.

You're just asking to go round and round and round with these people. After all, its "her body, and hands off!"... Yet in the same breath they would have the government tell us whether we can eat meat and tell us what else we can and can't do with our bodies that is deemed "unhealthy".

[Susita 175]

My adopted brother Steve was born a crack-baby. Yes he had multiple seizures per day, but after a while they did go away. He has some problems with anger nowadays, but he is a proud member of the Army and doing really well in taking care of his girlfriend's children as if they were his own. There can be success stories, but there are no guarantees ever even if everything is done right with the baby.

He's very lucky and blessed to have a good family that loves him.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

Is it or isn't it a baby? Thats the question. It has little to do with being a woman, or "how the woman feels". Many women have Post depresstion and have murderous feelings about their babies. Doesn't mean that it should be allowed because she just "felt" that way.

Again Rob cops out.

The irony of you saying I copped out. Read your post again there.

No need to read it again. Your answer to anyone who you disagree with is "you never personally experienced it, so you don't know"

I never personally participated in genocide, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to denounce it. Nor any other subject you choose.

Joe, you seem to be under some delusions here. I said that about a specific historical event in another thread that you were flat out wrong. This was an underreported event where your reading up on wikipedia gives you virtually NO good information. Now in this situation, your post was plain ignorant. If your conclusion that aborting a rape induced pregnancy is "kill the rapist not the baby", you further illustrate your ignorance.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

Is it or isn't it a baby? Thats the question. It has little to do with being a woman, or "how the woman feels". Many women have Post depresstion and have murderous feelings about their babies. Doesn't mean that it should be allowed because she just "felt" that way.

Again Rob cops out.

The irony of you saying I copped out. Read your post again there.

No need to read it again. Your answer to anyone who you disagree with is "you never personally experienced it, so you don't know"

I never personally participated in genocide, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to denounce it. Nor any other subject you choose.

Joe, you seem to be under some delusions here. I said that about a specific historical event in another thread that you were flat out wrong. This was an underreported event where your reading up on wikipedia gives you virtually NO good information. Now in this situation, your post was plain ignorant. If your conclusion that aborting a rape induced pregnancy is "kill the rapist not the baby", you further illustrate your ignorance.

That wasn't in another thread

Seriously? Don't pretend that you know anything about anything on this topic because that ignorant statement precludes you from making any intelligent contribution.

And No it doesn't. Because you really can't justify killing the innocent, while the guilty either walks, or at minimum still gets to live.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[Peikko 1,575]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

[The_Dude 1,142]

OK Joe, slow down, read the statement again. You seem to be lacking in comprehension. I said in another thread that you werent' there, you don't know. In this thread, I stated, quite clearly that you made a statement so stupid that you couldn't possibly offer anything to this discussion. There is a difference. In your mind, they might be the same, but to those more fluent in the english language, there is a distinction.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its dishonest to say that the dem party is big tent because a lot of dems voted for the amendment that would be included in the HCR Bill. They had to do that or it never would have passed. It doesn't mean those dems were pro-life.

There are many Democrats opposed to abortion as there are many Republicans who have been in support of Roe v. Wade. Just like there are many Christians who are Democrat as there are who are Republican. I can imagine it's hard to see a world that isn't black and white, but shades of gray, if one grew up thinking in black and white.