Beauty queen reveals she was 'product of rape'

[Christianbookworm]

Yeah. How could you rip apart a child so young that a full term infant is a big kid in comparison? Or suck the brains out of a baby that could be saved in a NICU or even just a nice loving home.

[Jedidiah]

I support harsh language toward abortionists and sympathy for women who have had abortion. If we picture abortion as murder - which it is except for the misguided legal situation - it may dissuade potential seekers for abortion. So I demonize abortionists not women being deceived by them.

[Carrikature]

Oh I get what's being said here.....there are folks whose voice is extremely loud on the pro-life side that are not just "violent" but tend to use abusive abrupt and less than appealing language toward those who've either had an abortion or those who are tempted by it thus leaving a dangling problem here and it can make the "pro-choice" side more appealing. Yes I've seen this too. And it is quite devastating e.g someone whose been raped, now has what's deemed a crisis pregnancy rather than offered services, clothing, counseling, shelter, adoption choices, baby support, prenatal care etc, may instead be told not by all but by some if the thought of ending the pregnancy crosses her mind she is only a selfish murderous person, when this is not actually the case, where as by the other side....the "choice" may become more appealing if the voice is quieter and more accepting. This may actually reveal a fundamental problem and a complete priority screw up in our healthcare and social service system all together. Rather than be equipped to handle crisis cases, the social system is more equipped to "terminate" "lose" or "get rid of" crisis cases, and its not much better on the far right, as finger pointing and judgement can look pretty nasty.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it.

[Catholicity]

Oh I get what's being said here.....there are folks whose voice is extremely loud on the pro-life side that are not just "violent" but tend to use abusive abrupt and less than appealing language toward those who've either had an abortion or those who are tempted by it thus leaving a dangling problem here and it can make the "pro-choice" side more appealing. Yes I've seen this too. And it is quite devastating e.g someone whose been raped, now has what's deemed a crisis pregnancy rather than offered services, clothing, counseling, shelter, adoption choices, baby support, prenatal care etc, may instead be told not by all but by some if the thought of ending the pregnancy crosses her mind she is only a selfish murderous person, when this is not actually the case, where as by the other side....the "choice" may become more appealing if the voice is quieter and more accepting. This may actually reveal a fundamental problem and a complete priority screw up in our healthcare and social service system all together. Rather than be equipped to handle crisis cases, the social system is more equipped to "terminate" "lose" or "get rid of" crisis cases, and its not much better on the far right, as finger pointing and judgement can look pretty nasty.

[Carrikature]

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...

BTW, I'm still interested in discussing this. I seem to have derailed discussion a bit. That wasn't my intent, and I apologize. I look forward to your responses.

[Carrikature]

I gather that you were talking about the latter, so that one.

There are very tight limits to how far we can take this kind of discussion in this thread. Even if there weren't, I don't want to derail Bill's thread anymore than it already has been. As a quick answer, I think a couple of Wikipedia links will suffice. Check out the parts on Types of Advocacy and Anti-Abortion Violence.

It is not my claim that these behaviors reflect anything like a significant percentage of pro-life advocates. Even so, vocal minorities will tend to represent the whole unless and until the majority becomes sufficiently vocal in its response to the minority. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to continue in a different thread (though I'd suggest we strictly regulate who can participate, depending on its location).

[Zymologist]

I hope you realize that I was not giving my view. But note also that I said (when expressing the view of others), "... dependent upon and part of ... "

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[robrecht]

This is repeated with an almost unbelievable frequency, and I must take issue with it. The unborn baby is not a part of the mother's body before birth; they are biologically (genetically, etc.) distinct.

I hope you realize that I was not giving my view. But note also that I said (when expressing the view of others), "... dependent upon and part of ... "

[Zymologist]

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.

This is repeated with an almost unbelievable frequency, and I must take issue with it. The unborn baby is not a part of the mother's body before birth; they are biologically (genetically, etc.) distinct.

[Zymologist]

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 gather that you were talking about the latter, so that one.

[Christianbookworm]

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?

[Carrikature]

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.

[Carrikature]

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?

[robrecht]

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.

[Christianbookworm]

Inconsistency? That'd be a great question to ask a pro-choicer.

Though some would say it's okay to kill the newborn also...