Abortion revisited

[betsy]

Considering that at some point the fetus does experience pain.....wouldn't you guys want to err on the side of caution? To feel compassion and be humane about this?

[waldo]

Read again. There is something else before I said "unless you can't defend it." Don't take my statement out of context! Here is the exchange why I said what I did.

the context you're presuming upon... is none/irrelevant - adds nothing. Again, as you were advised, the offered Planned Parenthood document, the counter to your referenced film - defends itself with cited medical opinion/fact to counter your referenced film's fact-lacking claims. Now, I will most certainly start quoting each and every one of those claim/counter-facts if you insist on continuing to play out your pedantic nonsense.

if, as you say, "It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate." What else then? What other than the science might "pro-lifers" presume to use/leverage. You can say it... sure you can - what else then? What else do you have?

That science or tech of ultrasound. Since it's been around for quite a while!

you're speaking to, 'more than just the science', being in the pro-lifers resource bag. I'm asking you to state, what other than the science, will pro-lifers resort to/rely upon?

and here I was thinking you'd play the "morality card". Since I'm late to this thread party... have you already played the "morality card"? If so, was it well received? Do you think Canadians, overall, will warm to you/pro-lifers playing out the "morality card"?

[waldo]

Considering that at some point the fetus does experience pain.....wouldn't you guys want to err on the side of caution? To feel compassion and be humane about this?

without accepting to your premise, are you stating that you unreservedly would accept a law that timed "lawful abortion" to a point said pain could be (presumably) scientifically determined? Notwithstanding provision for protection of the mother's safety in regards so-called late-term abortion. Yes or No?

[BubberMiley]

Yes or No?

Rather than answer that, can she lie and say she answered it and tell you to scroll back?

[betsy]

without accepting to your premise, are you stating that you unreservedly would accept a law that timed "lawful abortion" to a point said pain could be (presumably) scientifically determined? Notwithstanding provision for protection of the mother's safety in regards so-called late-term abortion. Yes or No?

Let me be clear, once and for all. We got focused on fetal pain there, that's why that article was given. It was an indirect reply to your Planned Parenthood article. We got side-tracked from the real issue which is: When the fetus is deemed human.

So the answer to your question above is a big resounding, NO!

I've explained this before a couple of times, but for your benefit I'll repeat it.

I am fighting for the rights - the human rights - of the baby whom I believe is human.

But pro-choicers are fighting that.

I also believe that murder - the deliberate killing of a human - is a sin.

But that belief is based on faith.....which non-believers would scoff at. The law will not listen to anything based on faith. It wants actual fact.

So we have to re-open this debate! With science involved. We don't know if it will ever happen....or when.

That's why I said, let's set religion aside. This is about human rights.

My religious faith shouldn't matter to you guys, but it's always being brought in by some which only lend credence - and everytime my religious faith is being insistedly brought in actually only serves to underline that credence - to my assertion that for some, the reason for radically supporting abortion is due to being anti-religion.

The militant secularists had even made it their agenda in their manifesto to stop the influence of religion at any cost. Abortion is one of the major battleground. They are not fighting for the rights of anyone. In their warped minds, they are fighting religion.

Why militant secularism is for believers, too

Posted: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:03 by Terry Sanderson

But being a 'militant secularist' – that is wanting to halt the stride of reactionary religion into public affairs – is not a negative thing. The fact that it is portrayed as such by the religious leaders who so desire the power to control everything simply reinforces its legitimacy. By opposing religious privilege and excess we are defending the rights of those who do not share the views of those religions. For every privilege granted to a particular religion, other religions, and people without religion, suffer discrimination.

So, militant secularism is not something to be booed, but to be cheered. It defends the rights of all, not just the rights of some.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/03/why-militant-secularism-is-for-believers-too1

Strange that in that small segment, the writer contradicts himself.

And there's a blatant delusional statement in it which is out of topic (but of course we know who exactly is a militant secularist - rebranding it won't do. Just tick-off the checklist on the topic "What Is A New Atheist)

About that delusional statement, just feel free to read further below and see if you can spot it. Now, back to what I was saying about that fetal pain article....

But in the meantime, it is a step forward....a big step forward if society can at least - at least try to - be humane enough in stopping the infliction of pain to the babies they are killing.

Waldo, why exactly are you supporting abortion? For the record, explain your position.

Edited June 2, 2012 by betsy

[waldo]

Considering that at some point the fetus does experience pain.....wouldn't you guys want to err on the side of caution? To feel compassion and be humane about this? (waldo: emphasis added)

without accepting to your premise, are you stating that you unreservedly would accept a law that timed "lawful abortion" to a point said pain could be (presumably) scientifically determined? Notwithstanding provision for protection of the mother's safety in regards so-called late-term abortion. Yes or No?

Let me be clear, once and for all. We got focused on fetal pain there, that's why that article was given. It was an indirect reply to your Planned Parenthood article. We got side-tracked from the real issue which is: When the fetus is deemed human.

So the answer to your question above is a big resounding, NO!

no - you were the first to speak of (presumed) 'fetal pain'... the Planned Parenthood article, the article medically fact countering the claims of your favoured/referenced film, 'Silent Scream', was presented only after you stated the following:

The invention of ultrasound - which was quite a while ago - had actually got one of the founding fathers of abortion to reject abortion and become an activist for pro-life. He went further to produce a documentary called The Silent Scream.

Ultrasound showed the fetus feeling pain, and trying to evade the instrument that was tearing it up into pieces.

your above quoted statement speaks to a presumption of 'fetal pain'... at some point in the development. If true, it would seem plausible that you would be accepting to a law that might (equally presume) upon tying regulation/law to a point when said pain might be recognized as being likely to occur/exist within fetal development. Of course, this plays on the overlaying premise that pain implies reaching a state of conscious recognition, of being 'human'. If you're not prepared to acknowledge your own, "at some point" timing reference in relation to applying coincidental human association, to coincidental law/regulation... in the first place, why did you bother bringing up the point, your concern, over (presumed) 'fetal pain'? Why?

[waldo]

I am fighting for the rights - the human rights - of the baby whom I believe is human. But pro-choicers are fighting that.

I also believe that murder - the deliberate killing of a human - is a sin. But that belief is based on faith.....which non-believers would scoff at. The law will not listen to anything based on faith. It wants actual fact.

So we have to re-open this debate! With science involved. We don't know if it will ever happen....or when.

That's why I said, let's set religion aside. This is about human rights.

with science involved? To you, at what point does a fetus developing become, as you say, "the baby"?... become human? Surely, if you want to "reopen the debate", you must have some point of fetus development in mind... to presume upon recognizing "the baby", "the human"... and "its rights". At what point?

[betsy]

And how do you propose that be determined? Because that's a legal and ethical issue, not a scientific one.

So, what was that about the Planned Parenthood article again? On what basis did they come up with their refutation?

Hitler's diary? Experimental notes from Mengele?

[betsy]

with science involved? To you, at what point does a fetus developing become, as you say, "the baby"?... become human? Surely, if you want to "reopen the debate", you must have some point of fetus development in mind... to presume upon recognizing "the baby", "the human"... and "its rights". At what point?

You're being obtuse, rehashing and just going about in circles which is leading to nowhere. Or you simply didn't understand what I was saying above.

Also you have not answered my question either. Why do you support abortion. What's your story.

Get back to me when you've got something worth replying to.

[waldo]

My religious faith shouldn't matter to you guys

I don't believe I've said a word about your religious belief; however, I somewhat question your naivety if you don't think your expressed religious belief isn't being associated with your views/position on abortion. You so readily pepper your posts with religious undertone... and overtone - how could (most) people not make the association and relate your anti-abortion zeal for anything other than an extension of your religious belief?

[waldo]

with science involved? To you, at what point does a fetus developing become, as you say, "the baby"?... become human? Surely, if you want to "reopen the debate", you must have some point of fetus development in mind... to presume upon recognizing "the baby", "the human"... and "its rights". At what point?

You're being obtuse, rehashing and just going about in circles which is leading to nowhere. Or you simply didn't understand what I was saying above.

I acknowledged being late to this thread... I've most certainly not read it... I only read a few pages back from when I jumped in. If you've already spoken to this point, to these questions, I can only ask that you once again offer me a personal summation. The questions are quite straight-forward and shouldn't take you a long time to answer - yes?

Also you have not answered my question either. Why do you support abortion. What's your story.

Get back to me when you've got something worth replying to.

as for your questions... I might get to finishing your post and might be inclined to respond... at the moment I'm balancing breakfast, laundry and MLW - but don't let any of that stop you from answering my questions, hey?

[waldo]

Waldo, why exactly are you supporting abortion? For the record, explain your position.

I advocate for a woman's right to choose, to control her own body. I accept medically supervised extension of/over that control; timeline medical supervision that factors a woman's choice in balance with safety.

[Wilber]

This topic should be under Moral and Ethical Issues, not Religion an Politics.

[Guest American Woman]

Who raped her? The baby did not rape her. It was the rapist who stepped on her right when he committed this criminal act against her. The child is just an innocent result of this violation of her rights - which was committed by her rapist.

It's a violation of her rights - again - to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term if she does not want to. How is that not a violation of her rights?

If the raped woman kills this human being - the baby - then she' violating this baby's right just the same way the rapist violated her right!

And what is society doing to her if it forces her to carry the pregnancy to terms? Violating her rights.

Anyway, you keep bringing up unwanted pregnancy by rape which actually is practically nil.

I "keep bringing it up" because how "practically nil" it is isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not you think abortion should be allowed in instances of rape.

As I've given you the medical advise/procedures for raped victims - I would imagine any unwanted pregnancy as the result of rape is rare.

Since I gave you the statistics for unreported rape, which is hardly rare at all, I have to wonder why you choose to ignore reality. Actually, I don't really wonder - I'm sure reality doesn't fit in as neatly to your argument as you would like it to.

For the simple reason that any woman raped in this modern age of HIV, AIDS, and who knows what else....it will truly be a dim-witted woman who will refuse to run to the nearest clinic after getting raped!

Yeah, take that nine year old girl, for instance. She was sooo dimwitted not to get herself to a doctor every time her step-dad raped her.

Women who are far from "dim witted" don't report rapes. First of all, there is still often a stigma attached to women who report rapes, and often a less than pleasant interrogation. Furthermore, sometimes alcohol is involved, so there's sometimes a guilt attached - like it was somehow their fault. Date rapes are also a form of rape, and since the girl/woman knows the male involved, they aren't as likely to run to the nearest clinic out of fear of HIV.

Taking that pill before 72 hours surely sounds more convenient than having to go through all the pains of abortion!

There's nothing "easy" about rape at all, and according to president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, any pill that works after 24 ours is really a form of abortion since fertilization of egg and sperm can only be prevented within 24 hours of intercourse if the woman has just ovulated. So you are endorsing a form of abortion.

At any rate, since rape is an emotional trauma, many women just hope for the best as they aren't immediately emotionally equipped to deal with the rape.

You didn't answer my question. If you were raped, wouldn't you go see the doctor?

What difference does what I would do make? What I would do has nothing to do with the reality of every rape victim on the planet. The statistics speak for the reality of the situation.

Now, show me the statistics of unwanted pregnancies caused by rape. You have to back up your claim. Otherwise you're just spitting out a useless opinion.

Are you saying that you don't realize that sometimes unwanted pregnancies occur as a result of rape? Of course you're not that ignorant, so how many is not at issue - whether abortion should be allowed in instances of rape is the issue I'm raising with you. But for the record, the nine year old pregnant with twins backs up my claim that unwanted pregnancies are sometimes the result of rape - just in case you truly needed to have that "claim" "backed up."

Try engaging in an honest discussion.

[kimmy]

-k

[betsy]

It's a violation of her rights - again - to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term if she does not want to. How is that not a violation of her rights?

And what is society doing to her if it forces her to carry the pregnancy to terms? Violating her rights.

What right? Sovereignty of her body? There is no such right.

With pregnancy it is not that simple since it involves terminating another life. That's why we need to re-open the debate. To determine once and for all when the fetus is deemed human - deserving of same human rights.

I "keep bringing it up" because how "practically nil" it is isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not you think abortion should be allowed in instances of rape.

Oh yes it is the issue! Show me the stats on pregnancy-by-rape!

Since I gave you the statistics for unreported rape, which is hardly rare at all, I have to wonder why you choose to ignore reality. Actually, I don't really wonder - I'm sure reality doesn't fit in as neatly to your argument as you would like it to.

Unreported rapes does not mean they did not go seek medical help. Like I said, with all the kinds of diseases that could mean you're dead, chances are most raped victims sought medical help whether they reported the crimes or not!

Yeah, take that nine year old girl, for instance. She was sooo dimwitted not to get herself to a doctor every time her step-dad raped her.

I said dim-witted WOMAN. The scenario you mentioned is most likely to happen in other countries. We're talking CANADA! The MP who wants to re-open the debate is Canadian.

What pregnant nine year old would likely seek abortion in Canada without spilling the beans how she got pregnant?

Chances are the truth comes out after the fact - when she'd already given birth, or if she loses the baby.

Cases of incest are more likely to be hidden. It's still a big problem.

You think there wouldn't be any questions asked by health authorities if a nine year old comes to the clinic pregnant, who the dad is?

You think her molesting dad wouldn't ensure not to get her pregnant since that will surely land him in hot water?

Women who are far from "dim witted" don't report rapes. First of all, there is still often a stigma attached to women who report rapes, and often a less than pleasant interrogation. Furthermore, sometimes alcohol is involved, so there's sometimes a guilt attached - like it was somehow their fault. Date rapes are also a form of rape, and since the girl/woman knows the male involved, they aren't as likely to run to the nearest clinic out of fear of HIV.

Baloney! Doesn't make sense!

What's the worst stigma? Getting medical attention after the rape (whether date rape or not)....or having an outright abortion later on?

You're saying getting an abortion is more common - and is the most preferred method - than taking the preventive precaution?

See what abortion had become? How so frivolously abused it is? No wonder we have growing numbers of repeat-abortions!

Your statement actually supports the pro-lifers by saying abortion is nothing more than just another contraceptive! From your own words! Hah!

according to president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, any pill that works after 24 ours is really a form of abortion since fertilization of egg and sperm can only be prevented within 24 hours of intercourse if the woman has just ovulated. So you are endorsing a form of abortion.

So what's the problem then?

It doesn't matter what I endorse or not. The morning-after pill (just like abortion) is available, isn't it?

The law already gave you sex education to let you understand that having unsafe sex can give you unwanted pregnancy, among other things, the law also gave you condoms, iud, the pill......and on top of that, gave you the morning-after pill just in case uncontrollable libido triumphs over common sense!

And inspite all that....the woman still wouldn't do her responsibility to preserve her own body!

And you scream about her so-called rights?

At any rate, since rape is an emotional trauma, many women just hope for the best as they aren't immediately emotionally equipped to deal with the rape.

True it is traumatic and emotional, no denying that. Whether they like it or not, they'll have to make the most important decision after getting raped. She has to exercise her freedom to choose.

Here are the choices now: Seek medical attention or not.

Wouldn't it be more devastating a year or so down the road when one finds out she's got HIV.

What difference does what I would do make? What I would do has nothing to do with the reality of every rape victim on the planet. The statistics speak for the reality of the situation.

What stat? Where's the stat?

You're claiming unreported cases as your stat???

Are you saying that you don't realize that sometimes unwanted pregnancies occur as a result of rape? Of course you're not that ignorant, so how many is not at issue - whether abortion should be allowed in instances of rape is the issue I'm raising with you. But for the record, the nine year old pregnant with twins backs up my claim that unwanted pregnancies are sometimes the result of rape - just in case you truly needed to have that "claim" "backed up."

Although the numbers in Canada wouldn't be high enough to be significant, don't go assuming that all raped victims who got pregnant wanted to terminate the child.

It's not a matter of being honest - for I'm sure you truly believe what you say. It's more a matter of sensible discussion, not based on personal assumptions.

And speaking of honesty - Bernard Nathanson revealed how he and fellow co-founders of abortion have fudged the numbers. Then there's that so-called "right" pro-choicers claim, that actually is non-existent. And then, there's the founder of Planned Parenthood who spouted the same Nazi mantra.

Pray tell, on what foundation does your cause stands?

Dis-honesty and Bigotry.

You were just plain lucky having had a powerful lobby group.

Edited June 2, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

What right? Sovereignty of her body? There is no such right.

Do you hear that? It's the sound of your credibility, if you ever had any, being flushed down the toilet with that comment.

[Guest American Woman]

What right? Sovereignty of her body? There is no such right.

The right not to be pregnant if a woman/girl chooses not to be. The right to have an abortion if there is a medical reason. The right of a nine year old to have an abortion when she is pregnant with twins because she was raped by her step father.

With pregnancy it is not that simple since it involves terminating another life. That's why we need to re-open the debate. To determine once and for all when the fetus is deemed human - deserving of same human rights.

No, it's not that simple. I've already acknowledged that. But the "lives" it involves are not "equal" as one is a developing human being. Of course the fetus is human. Why to you keep repeating that as if anyone is claiming that it's an alien or a kitten or something other than a human embryo/fetus? And it's already been established that a 'human being' and a "developing human" are viewed differently. Examples have been given. That you choose to ignore that fact and keep repeating your stance as if it hasn't already been addressed changes nothing; and quite frankly, it's why people don't want to waste their time on such a 'debate.'

When it comes to a conflict of rights, the independent human being's rights supersede a developing human's rights. The rights of both cannot be equally protected, so it's the choice of the person who is affected by the pregnancy.

Oh yes it is the issue! Show me the stats on pregnancy-by-rape!

Are you really unable to comprehend that the stats don't matter? The fact that it happens matters. If ten people or a million people are affected doesn't matter - it's the ISSUE that matters, not the numbers. Or would you be supportive of abortion if it only happened x number of times?

Unreported rapes does not mean they did not go seek medical help. Like I said, with all the kinds of diseases that could mean you're dead, chances are most raped victims sought medical help whether they reported the crimes or not!

You think hospitals and/or clinics don't keep track of such things? I don't care what you think "chances are," I'll go by the reality. Furthermore, "most" isn't "all," is it? Meaning there are some pregnancies due to rape, even by your admission - even as you are so desperate to side-step the whole issue and pretend it doesn't exist. Like I said, try engaging in an honest debate.

[Guest American Woman]

I said dim-witted WOMAN. The scenario you mentioned is most likely to happen in other countries. We're talking CANADA! The MP who wants to re-open the debate is Canadian.

WOMEN aren't the only ones affected. Again with the dishonesty. And as much as this might come as a shock to you, girls are sexually abused in CANADA too. SHOCKING, eh?

What pregnant nine year old would likely seek abortion in Canada without spilling the beans how she got pregnant?

Chances are the truth comes out after the fact - when she'd already given birth, or if she loses the baby.

Cases of incest are more likely to be hidden. It's still a big problem.

I have no idea what you are on about. The girl in Brazil "spilled the beans" about how she got pregnant. That didn't change the situation any, did it??

You think there wouldn't be any questions asked by health authorities if a nine year old comes to the clinic pregnant, who the dad is?

You think her molesting dad wouldn't ensure not to get her pregnant since that will surely land him in hot water?

Good Lord. Where to even begin. A man who is sexually abusing a nine year old isn't exactly someone that we'd expect to be responsible; to think logicially. Perhaps he didn't think a nine year old could even get pregnant. Perhaps birth control isn't 100% effective. Or perhaps there's something wrong with such a man. Ya think?

At any rate, such situations can, and do sometimes, result in pregnancies, and it's mind boggling to think that there are people in this world who believe the molested child should be forced to carry such a pregnancy to term - even as her life is at risk. As I said previously, that doesn't support the "sanctity of life" mindset.

[Guest American Woman]

You're saying getting an abortion is more common - and is the most preferred method - than taking the preventive precaution?

I said nothing of the sort.

See what abortion had become? How so frivolously abused it is? No wonder we have growing numbers of repeat-abortions!

Having an abortion because of RAPE is FRIVOLOUS??

I can see that rather than address the "abortion for rape victims" issue, you are going to keep going off on tangents (some rather bizarre) that have nothing to do with the issue - so I've spent enough time on this. Good luck with your desire to "reopen the debate," but if your responses here are any indication of what the level of such a "debate" would be, I don't see any (sane) person willingly subjecting themselves to it (unless they have a whole helluva lot of time to waste).

Have a good day; and while you're at it, thank God the government of Canada that you have the choice not to have an abortion. No one will force you to do anything you personally are not morally comfortable with. Gotta love it, eh?

[cybercoma]

It's pretty safe to say everyone that gets an abortion does so because they ended up pregnant when they didn't want. Personally, it's none of my damn business whether they were raped, other contraceptives failed, or they're ignorant about ways of keeping from getting pregnant. I just can't understand why people seem to think they can require someone to remain pregnant against their wishes. I also don't see how it's a religious issue. Abortions only became a religious issue in the last 100 years. In the 18th and 19th centuries, abortions were not even considered immoral. Physician/surgeons would prescribe abortifacients to women to return their menses after they had stopped "unexpectedly." It's not like this is something new. Moreover, making abortion illegal doesn't stop them from happening. It simply forces it underground where it's not regulated and women get hurt. Thankfully, people like betsy don't get to make the decisions.

[waldo]

That's why we need to re-open the debate. To determine once and for all when the fetus is deemed human - deserving of same human rights.

still waiting on you to answer:

To you, at what point does a fetus developing become, as you say, "the baby"?... become human? Surely, if you want to "reopen the debate", you must have some point of fetus development in mind... to presume upon recognizing "the baby", "the human"... and "its rights". At what point?

You're being obtuse, rehashing and just going about in circles which is leading to nowhere. Or you simply didn't understand what I was saying above.

I acknowledged being late to this thread... I've most certainly not read it... I only read a few pages back from when I jumped in. If you've already spoken to this point, to these questions, I can only ask that you once again offer me a personal summation. The questions are quite straight-forward and shouldn't take you a long time to answer - yes?

[betsy]

The right not to be pregnant if a woman/girl chooses not to be. The right to have an abortion if there is a medical reason. The right of a nine year old to have an abortion when she is pregnant with twins because she was raped by her step father.

Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists. No such right. Otherwise they'd be allowed to shoot up ....or commit suicide if they choose to do so.

That's the thing these days, everything seems to easily be seen as a "right." The right not to sniff bad odor. The right to a high standard of living.

Probably a culture of entitlement is to blame for this.

Call it their law-granted special "privilege."

No, it's not that simple. I've already acknowledged that. But the "lives" it involves are not "equal" as one is a developing human being.

"Lives it involves are not equal as one is a developing dependent, "unproductive" being."

See, I've got a very big issue with that statement.

That "developing being" can just as easily be said about dependent or unproductive beings - young children, handicapped people, senile people, mentally-challenged people, etc..,

Hitler did not stop with the Jews.

So who decides? Planned Parenthood and its avid followers?

Of course the fetus is human.

Listen to what you're saying. I'm not attacking you personally since I know that there are so many who think and rationalize like you. It's this collective mentality that makes it so scary.

Your reasons are all anchored on purely one basis: NARCISSISM, self-centeredness.

Why to you keep repeating that as if anyone is claiming that it's an alien or a kitten or something other than a human embryo/fetus? And it's already been established that a 'human being' and a "developing human" are viewed differently.

Scary rationalization. Neat re-packaging cannot hide the obvious though.

We're thrown back farther than the 60's or the 50's!

We're really back to Nazi Germany!

Examples have been given. That you choose to ignore that fact and keep repeating your stance as if it hasn't already been addressed changes nothing; and quite frankly, it's why people don't want to waste their time on such a 'debate.'

It's not that they don't want to waste their time on a debate. With science as we know it now being asked to get involved, surely It's more like they don't want to lose this entitlement. Because it's quite posible, you know.

When it comes to a conflict of rights, the independent human being's rights supersede a developing human's rights. The rights of both cannot be equally protected, so it's the choice of the person who is affected by the pregnancy.

Is that the propaganda Planned Parenthood's been feeding you?

Are you really unable to comprehend that the stats don't matter? The fact that it happens matters. If ten people or a million people are affected doesn't matter - it's the ISSUE that matters, not the numbers. Or would you be supportive of abortion if it only happened x number of times?

Never mind your assumptive stats! When Hitler was gassing millions of people that included Jews, and other "imperfect" and "undesirables" and "unproductives," would you have argued about the stat of how the world would've benefitted more with these people gone?

You think hospitals and/or clinics don't keep track of such things? I don't care what you think "chances are," I'll go by the reality. Furthermore, "most" isn't "all," is it? Meaning there are some pregnancies due to rape, even by your admission - even as you are so desperate to side-step the whole issue and pretend it doesn't exist. Like I said, try engaging in an honest debate.

No, you're not going by so-called "reality." You're going by the same path of Hitler's delusional "reality."

You're just looking at the tip of your nose and repeating the same hateful and bigotted propaganda - only worded differently - and you refuse to look any farther to see the whole big picture.

Edited June 3, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I said nothing of the sort.

Having an abortion because of RAPE is FRIVOLOUS??

Since you abhor dishonest discourse, I can only assume that you've made a typo error which resulted with my statement being taken out of context....or that the heat in this debate has gotten you a bit light-headed.....so let me just clear up this misunderstanding on your part.

American Woman:

Women who are far from "dim witted" don't report rapes. First of all, there is still often a stigma attached to women who report rapes, and often a less than pleasant interrogation. Furthermore, sometimes alcohol is involved, so there's sometimes a guilt attached - like it was somehow their fault. Date rapes are also a form of rape, and since the girl/woman knows the male involved, they aren't as likely to run to the nearest clinic out of fear of HIV.

Betsy:

Baloney! Doesn't make sense!

What's the worst stigma? Getting medical attention after the rape (whether date rape or not)....or having an outright abortion later on?

You're saying getting an abortion is more common - and is the most preferred method - than taking the preventive precaution?

See what abortion had become? How so frivolously abused it is? No wonder we have growing numbers of repeat-abortions!

Your statement actually supports the pro-lifers by saying abortion is nothing more than just another contraceptive! From your own words! Hah!

Check out the lameness of your rationale. Your argument on this particular segment centers on only one thing:

Wiith AIDS, HIV and other STD - which should be enough to strike fear into her little heart - not to mention pregnancy....the "sensible" woman would rather choose not to go see the doctor because of the "STIGMA"?

C'mon! Baloney!

What about the stigma later on when she is forced to seek medical help? And then she is diagnosed with STD. So she's back facing the very same "stigma" she was so worried about in the first place.

Not only that! She'll be dealing with an added stigma -whether real or imagined - when the health authorities or anyone who knew about it for that matter, shake their heads and say, "what a dim-wit!"

In Hitler's delusional reality, she'll be gassed along with all the rest!

Edited June 3, 2012 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Well, I've never heard that... human and person mean pretty much the same thing don't they ?

No, a person and a human technically are two different things. A corporation can get the person classification. Does that make the corporation human? Of course not.

All humans are indeed persons, but not all persons are human. Technically they are different and do mean different things.

The legal definitions may be something else, though, if that's what you're saying. But do you believe that someone has no right to life until the moment the umbilical chord is cut ?

That's a pretty narrowed point of attack. There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to abortion and at that point the choice should be made by the woman with the consultation of her doctor. Every situation is different and should be treated as such. Forcing others to do what you think is right is not the solution to this problem. Having them make up their own minds on it with education should be the only way to go.

And I give the award for 'Best Troll' back to Betsy.