Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Beauty queen reveals she was 'product of rape'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    It wasn't, but I distinguish between the attitudes about the pregnancy and the status of the fetus. Bill, LittleJoe, and Rogue have all been discussing the former, and that's what my responses were geared to.
    My intent was to discuss how better, from a pro-life standpoint, to make the argument against aborting the "rape baby", as it seems the "rape and incest" argument is the main thrust of the other side these days. How can we effectively communicate the fact that pregnancies as products of rape are really no different than pregnancies as products of failed birth control methods? That the child produced by a rape is not responsible for the actions of the biological father, and that it is worth protecting just as much as any other unborn child...
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      My intent was to discuss how better, from a pro-life standpoint, to make the argument against aborting the "rape baby", as it seems the "rape and incest" argument is the main thrust of the other side these days. How can we effectively communicate the fact that pregnancies as products of rape are really no different than pregnancies as products of failed birth control methods? That the child produced by a rape is not responsible for the actions of the biological father, and that it is worth protecting just as much as any other unborn child...
      The emotive aspect of a rape pregnancy seems to be pretty clearly different from an 'oops' pregnancy, even if we were to agree that the pregnancies are essentially the same. We both agree that the child produced by either situation is not responsible for the actions of his/her parents. In my opinion, any line of reasoning needs to take that emotive aspect into play. To ignore it, or to downplay it, risks the same alienation that occurs anytime a person thinks someone else "just doesn't understand what it's like".

      From where I sit, it's far better to start with the stance that it's a horrible circumstance that no one should have to go through, and that any decision is going to be a difficult one. Getting across the fact that, "We get it, this is hard" will be a minor win regardless of the outcome, and it puts you in a much better position from which to help weigh the alternatives. Once that's accepted, you can move past the emotive aspect and into what the baby does or doesn't deserve. Quite frankly, I don't think you (general) will meet much success with most people until you can handle and address their emotional responses. That's a general rule regardless of situation, but it's even more important in situations like this.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        The emotive aspect of a rape pregnancy seems to be pretty clearly different from an 'oops' pregnancy, even if we were to agree that the pregnancies are essentially the same. We both agree that the child produced by either situation is not responsible for the actions of his/her parents. In my opinion, any line of reasoning needs to take that emotive aspect into play. To ignore it, or to downplay it, risks the same alienation that occurs anytime a person thinks someone else "just doesn't understand what it's like".
        I don't think any allowances for emotional responses should come into play when it comes to ending the life of the unborn. I don't mind being despised for wanting to protect innocent human life. It comes with the territory.

        From where I sit, it's far better to start with the stance that it's a horrible circumstance that no one should have to go through, and that any decision is going to be a difficult one. Getting across the fact that, "We get it, this is hard" will be a minor win regardless of the outcome, and it puts you in a much better position from which to help weigh the alternatives. Once that's accepted, you can move past the emotive aspect and into what the baby does or doesn't deserve. Quite frankly, I don't think you (general) will meet much success with most people until you can handle and address their emotional responses. That's a general rule regardless of situation, but it's even more important in situations like this.
        What I am saying needs to be dealt with IS the emotional response. We do not allow the rape victim to seek out and kill the rapist, nor someone who reminds them of the rape because they may bear a resemblance to the rapist (for instance). The allowances for the emotional response to the product of the rape should not be any different.

        Oh, and I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent here as arguing for aborting "rape babies".
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          I don't think any allowances for emotional responses should come into play when it comes to ending the life of the unborn. I don't mind being despised for wanting to protect innocent human life. It comes with the territory.

          What I am saying needs to be dealt with IS the emotional response. We do not allow the rape victim to seek out and kill the rapist, nor someone who reminds them of the rape because they may bear a resemblance to the rapist (for instance). The allowances for the emotional response to the product of the rape should not be any different.
          It's not a question of being despised. It's a question of being effective. However misguided and repulsive the emotional response may be, it's there. Dismissing it out of hand won't get the outcome you desire, and I think we've seen that played out in society writ large. The people picketing and hurling insults/accusations/whatever aren't achieving their goal. If anything, they're pushing away people that would otherwise be sympathetic to their beliefs.

          The sad fact of humanity is that our brains aren't engaged when we're running on high emotion. If you reject the emotion out of hand, you only push it higher. How many people do you know that hear "you're wrong" or "you shouldn't feel that way" and simply submit? There may be some, but they're the exception (and even then it depends on who is saying it and how). Most people get more stubborn and less likely to listen.

          It's important to distinguish between "you feel that way so it's ok to act on it" and "you feel that way but consider these other things". Neither of us think the former is the right approach. The latter is what I'm suggesting. Handled appropriately, the emotions can be drawn down so that the rational part of the brain can be engaged. I just don't think the argument that the baby would be an additional victim can be fully appreciated until some measure of ratonality can be achieved. I think this is what we both want, anyway: for them to think it through and come to the right decision.



          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Oh, and I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent here as arguing for aborting "rape babies".
          Thanks for the apology. I know I'm outside the norm as a non-theist pro-lifer. That's further exacerbated by my position on the razor edge of the fence where I'm definitely against making abortion illegal in rape/mother's health situations but equally against aborting rape babies. It's a fine line, and it's not one I think most people understand. I'm not sure that I've ever laid out my complete thoughts on the subject, either, so misunderstandings are perfectly understandable.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            I've no doubt it's true that there's no way to be reminded less. I would actually disagree with Rogue here that it's about the constant reminder. Instead, I'd say that pregnancy through rape is an additional violation.
            This forum is only for discussion of pro life. It is not acceptable to debate here. Please take it elsewhere.

            It appears this is not an appropriate response. I still do not see in your posts any clear rejection of abortion in any case.
            Last edited by Jedidiah; 06-10-2014, 03:43 PM.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #21
              I love the fact that this woman reveals her origins simply as a reminder to all. Our culture is one of selfishness. I think the pro-choice agenda is very guilty of giving the mentality of react to your emotions as opposed to react out of logic. And we see it everywhere. Abortion is a product of selfishness and fast acting emotional response. (I am not including the population who may be forced/feel forced or have ptsd type reactions as these are a different population all together) Incest arguments may also be found as a potential "genetic engineering" (again forced actions and trauma are excluded as now the argument would take on a new level) Incestuous abortions escpecially among young girls do seem to be "forced" or carried out by the family member especially if the girl is under 16 as opposed to elective. Again another argument all together.
              I think one thing that can be done is extending pro-life groups to include a more caring supportive service role. Counseling ought to be provided and the gentle voice of "here's a logical peaceful way" should be louder than the voice of hate and convenience.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                Our culture is one of selfishness. I think the pro-choice agenda is very guilty of giving the mentality of react to your emotions as opposed to react out of logic. And we see it everywhere. Abortion is a product of selfishness and fast acting emotional response.

                I think one thing that can be done is extending pro-life groups to include a more caring supportive service role. Counseling ought to be provided and the gentle voice of "here's a logical peaceful way" should be louder than the voice of hate and convenience.
                Pardon my snipping for clarity. The first part I wholly agree with. The second part is exactly what I've been advocating, with the possible quibble that 'extending' might not be the right terminology. Many pro-life groups seem to be the voice of hate, and I don't think a caring and supportive service role can be effective until that changes.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  Pardon my snipping for clarity. The first part I wholly agree with. The second part is exactly what I've been advocating, with the possible quibble that 'extending' might not be the right terminology. Many pro-life groups seem to be the voice of hate, and I don't think a caring and supportive service role can be effective until that changes.
                  I've never understood this.

                  Then again, it is abortion we're talking about. I'm regularly shocked that it's even a topic of discussion.
                  I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Why are people okay with abortion and not infanticide? Isn't Peter Singer the guy that took prochoice to its logical conclusion by advocating infanticide of newborns? Off topic?
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                      Why are people okay with abortion and not infanticide? Isn't Peter Singer the guy that took prochoice to its logical conclusion by advocating infanticide of newborns? Off topic?
                      Inconsistency? That'd be a great question to ask a pro-choicer.
                      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        Inconsistency? That'd be a great question to ask a pro-choicer.
                        Though some would say it's okay to kill the newborn also...
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          Why are people okay with abortion and not infanticide? Isn't Peter Singer the guy that took prochoice to its logical conclusion by advocating infanticide of newborns? Off topic?
                          I cannot speak for prochoice advocates but I've heard some make a distinction between a baby that is able to be taken care of by others after birth, but dependent upon and part of the biological mother's body prior to birth. The further along in a pregnancy, the less relevant this distinction is from a medical perspective, but from a legal perspective prochoice advocates would not recognize the right of the government to intervene in the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own body. It is a glaring weakness of those who maintain all individual rights, eg, the right to private property, as absolute. Every child has rights, which can conflict with the rights of biological and legal parents.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                            I've never understood this.

                            Then again, it is abortion we're talking about. I'm regularly shocked that it's even a topic of discussion.
                            Just to clarify:

                            You've never understood why they're the voice of hate? Or you've never understood why people think they're the voice of hate?
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              It is a glaring weakness of those who maintain all individual rights, eg, the right to private property, as absolute. Every child has rights, which can conflict with the rights of biological and legal parents.
                              I agree.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                Just to clarify:

                                You've never understood why they're the voice of hate? Or you've never understood why people think they're the voice of hate?
                                Is it those wackos that think bombing an abortion clinic would do any good? Those who treat women who have had abortions as irredeemable murderers even though they probably didn't even realize the magnitude of their choice?
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X