National Right to Life’s Federal Legislative Director, Douglas Johnson, warns of the stealth abortion agenda in the pending sweeping health care restructuring legislation through which the Obama Administration is attempting to smuggle into law “the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade,"
It would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment of abortionists by local health networks, nullification of many state abortion laws and in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale.
“The pro-life movement needs to go to Condition Red on these bills”, Johnson says “because they pose a mortal threat to the unborn and they are on a fast track to enactment."
Take action today and tell your representatives that you want abortion explicitly excluded from healthcare reform proposals.
Things may change rapidly. As Congressman Chris Smith has said regarding the stealth abortion agenda, “This is the big one!"
The July 20, 2009 edition of the New York Times contained a very important article titled "Health Bill Might Direct Tax Money to Abortion," by Robert Pear and Adam Liptak. The story reports on the July 19 statement by White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag that he was "not prepared to say" that the pending health care bills will not pay for abortion.
For further questions or comments on this project, feel free to email us at mrlclife@worldnet.att.net
To contact by phone:
(212) 947-2692
To donate:
http://manhattanrighttolife.org/cbs.htm
For Legislative Questions:
(202) 626-8820 To contact us by mail:
Manhattan Right to Life Commitee
211 east 43rd Street
New York, NY 10017
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 237
If a woman wants an abortion, that's her choice - otherwise, if she has no choice then she has been reduced legally to "property". Women are not mere property.
David Marcucci Aug 17, 2009, 9:37pm EDT
If not giving the mother a "choice" makes her "property" what does giving her the "choice" make the child? So when do children become "children" and no longer "property" in your scenario?
More women died in the early 1800s due to the doctors lack of hand washing themn they ever did from abortions legal or no.
It is not my place to judge or force my beliefs on any one.
Oh and there are too many of us now as it is. Sad but true.
Jane, please extract yourself from my and my daughter's wombs.
Thanks.
I have already posted on why allowing abortion creates a legal contradiction. I was told that The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".
That law had to contain an exception to not allow prosecution of a mother having an abortion or anyone performing the abortion on her order or with her permission. That, in my opinion creates an unacceptible contradiction, but I'm not going to try to convince anyone to accept my opinion.
I think reform can come with just a little common sense and a few new laws.
It would be so nice if all our laws and government regulations could be based on common sense. Life would be much simpler.
It has been made repeatedly and unequivocally clear that no federal funds will go toward providing anyone, anywhere with an abortion. This has been soundly debunked by Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle.
You're a liar, and you had to make stuff up, or regurgitate what other liars told you to say, in order to post this misinformation. Because you're so self-righteously bent out of shape about abortion, I assume you're some sort of evangelical Christian, so why don't you tell us: what does God think of liars all the way through the Bible?
Somehow, I believe you.
NY Times says, "An Obama administration official refused Sunday to rule out the possibility that federal tax money might be used to pay for abortions under proposed health care legislation."
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20abortion.html
Dennis, I'd abide by the law and yes Roe v. Wade made them legal, but I don't want my money paying for this abortions that are being used as a form of birth control.
Yeah she'll remove it LOL
We can dream Sandy
It will be paid with our tax money and our premium and not one will make a profit or rescind it when we get sick. Some Americans are not appreciative of what the president is doing.
It is time to speak up for those that can't, namely the unborn. I don't know how we as a country have morally digressed to the point where we can discard human life without guilt and berate those who are trying to save it.
Don't be fooled by the christian taliban that would make women property, again. Jane, if you want to be that, that's your choice. But most women want freedom.
Abortion has become no more than a convenience for women who would in some way be "burdened" by a child. That is not freedom. That is no better than Nazism if you like comparing this to foreign regimes. Dr. Mengele is smiling from his grave at the depravity abortion has unleashed on our society.
what does a fetus 2 months after fertilization have in common with you, other than a named protein strand, that makes it any more like you, than say.... a dog?
What do you have in common with yourself 25 years ago? You are the same person, just at a different stage of life. An "embryo" and a "fetus" are just names used to hide the truth that they are us. They can't do what a 1 year old can do but a 1 year old can't do what a 2 year old can do, etc.
the difference between who I was 2 years after birth, and 6 months before birth is this:
2 years after birth, I posessed self awareness, independent will(even if little power to apply that will) and was an organically contained organism.
6 months before birth, I had no self awareness, no will of my own, and was organically parasitic.
huge difference.
but the traits that make humans "superior" to animals, he does not have. and neither does a first-trimester fetus.
the Acquisition/posession/past-posession of those traits changes everything.
Well, not everyone. I was around then, read the opinion as reported in the papers, and didn't see the restricted meaning. Come to think of it, people I knew at the time who had read the decision didn't see the restricted meaning either.
I have been reading an essay by Michael Tooley called "Personhood". In it, he gave a number of possible positions one was: An entity "cannot have a right to continued existence unless he possesses the concept of a subject of experiences, the concept of a temporal order, and the concept of identity of things over time" but stated that such an opinion could lead to the logical conclusion that newborns are not human. Also other definitions, such as those that give an importance to having a conscious mind, in his opinion would imply that some animals are persons and some humans are not persons.
Very difficult to define. I'm still working on a definition. Any suggestions?
Are you going to lie to them like you've lied exuberantly with this ridiculous post?
I also very much like what you said about Roe vs. Wade.
For instance River Walker (don't get angry River) has opined that a 2 month old fetus is not a person. If that is so, then they should repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212). Also, all those convicted of murder under that law should be set free.
My opinion is that It should not be permitted that the determination of whether a developing offspring is human or not depends on convenience, exigencies or the situation under which the decision is to be determined. The determination is absolute, not subjective.
But This might take us off topic.
I am so sorry for all these lost souls who are mouthing devil's words to you. Just like their boss, the best best VENTRILOQUIST (on a teleprompter too) there is! The devil will say anything even if the truth is right in front of them.
They talk as if never in their life have they been fetuses once...if they could only imagine themselved complete w/ hearing, taste, feeling, smell, pain, seeing, and suddenly your head gets "vacuumed out"?
Your site needs an exorcism!
Seriously, talk to a psychiatrist about these delusional thoughts.
You never have to admit to yourself or anyone that you did something because you are a horrible person on the contrary the DEVIL did it.
You can live your life escaping any and all personal responsibility.
I will waste no more time on your comments, though others may choose to engage you in conversation.
Personhood does NOT begin at conception. period.
Abortion MUST be legal, and provisions must be made to allow even those... especially those, who cannot afford it, to be able to get it if they need to.
By the way Pro-life is not code for anything nor trying to hide anything whereas pro-choice is code for pro-abortion!
did you know that many eggs that are fertilized(conception) do not result in a recognized pregnancy?
there is no such thing as pro-abortion. nobody is "pro" abortion. the "pro-choice vs pro-life" debate is not ABOUT abortion, for the choice side. everyone agrees Abortion is a bad thing. its only about wether you recognize that it must be legal or if you put non-sentient "life" above that of sentient people.
answer my question. what, aside from a named chain of protiens, does a fetus 2 months after fertilization, have that makes them as much of a person as you are?
nothing. they do not yet posess the traits that make a person different from/above animals.
you put far too much value on our identity as "humans".
humans as a species are not inherently superior to other animals. what makes humans "above" other animals is that we posess certain traits. traits that are not posessed, nor have ever been posessed, by the fetuses in most abortions.
You are naive to think that nobody is pro-abortion. It is a multi billion dollar industry and they are using people like yourselves as a pawn to propagate their coffers. Nobody is looking to put the rights of the unborn above anyone else. They should just be the same.
Yes, many fertilized eggs do not properly attach to the uterus for many reasons and result in miscarriages. Science is doing their best to correct this, and nobody is making a conscious decision for this to happen.
I am not. though there are circumstances where it would be right to kill someone with certain disabilities.
the difference with Alzeimers is that the person HAD those traits, even if they no longer posessed them. the fact that the same entity once had them puts them above those who never did.
if you were in a survival situation and to save 50 lives, you had to chose to kill either:
1) a fully functional, healthy young man
2) an alzeimers-ridden old man that could do nothing whatsoever on their own.
then you would pick the latter. and you would be a disgusting person not to, if you truly had no other way out of the situation.
but I have seen my own children at that age and I can say unequivocably that they were my children and I marveled at the sight of them.
I have no doubt of that. but to be scientifically objective, that is pretty much purely your own emotional bias.
You are naive to think that nobody is pro-abortion. It is a multi billion dollar industry and they are using people like yourselves as a pawn to propagate their coffers.
you are paranoid. while I could conceive there are such people in existence, its irrelevant to the topic.
Nobody is looking to put the rights of the unborn above anyone else. They should just be the same.
when we have the technology to allow a fertilized egg to mature without causing physical and emotional harm to the mother, or forcibly imprisoning the mother in her own body, then you can argue this.
until then, if the mother is not a willing host, then the fetus is a violent aggressor seeking to harm an innocent person.
if (bear with me) a violent criminal were to do to a woman the harm a pregnancy could do, and you had the chance to stop him, you would do so. if the only way you could stop him was with lethal force, would you stand by and watch him assault her, damaging her physically and mentally, just because you cherished his life too much to prevent the harm he was doing? if so, you are a coward. and thats IGNORING the difference between a sentient aware being and not. if you saw a DOG that would do that harm, and the only way to stop it was to kill it, I bet you'd do it in a heartbeat.
and if it were a virus, you would give an inoculation(if it were in your power/ability) without a second thought.
your position, at the current level of technological development IS inherently, looking to put the rights of the "unborn" ahead of the already living. there is no way around it. you are arguing that the mother does not have the right not to be violated in such a way.
do you think women who wear "alluring" clothing and get raped, are asking for it too?
I find that you feel that way, to be rather scary.
I would think that you would at least TRY to claim that there is a difference between a rape victim and an unwilling mother... ugh.
'The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." '
Because of the problems that this could create, the following exception was added: 'the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." '
Don't be discouraged by the few who denigrate you and say you are a liar for speaking the truth on behalf of all babies. The majority of people feel as we do, but are afraid to speak out.
On several news outlets this point has been made. Abortion on demand and paid for by those who pay any kind of taxes, whether we agree that abortion is a choice or murder of the unborn. And little girls are murdered...where is their choice as 'women'?
Keep up the good fight. There are many here who agree with you.
Abortion is legal, AND a Constitutionally protected right of ALL women!
*throws hands up in disgust and leaves*
*hands folded and not going anywhere*
There are those who would welcome slavery back if they could and for some of the people of this country it already and has been a reality of life.
I am not going to try to convince someone who has a closed mind that what she has written is nothing more than another scare tactic of the right.
:O\
I cannot imagine what has infested the brains of our elected officials to think that they can force medical professionals to work against their beliefs. I realize that politicians have few scruples, but many of us do.
http://www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=15352
another source:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/news/regionalnews/nurse_forced_to_help_abort_181426.htm
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID%3A12
The countries that have universal health care in the world that are often used to "scare" Americans, such as Canada (15.2), the UK (17.2), Germany (7.8) or Denmake (14.2) all have lower abortion rates than the U.S. (20.8). According to these statistics, it looks like adopting a government-run health care system would lower abortions.
I have to admit, though, I thought this post was a joke at first. "The stealth abortion agenda": that's great. Completely foolhardy, but very creative.
there is no acceptable argument for making the killing...'murder' ...of the unborn legal because people who are 'active' don't want to be responsible for their actions. Those of us who place a value on the life of the baby will never accept their baseless arguments, so they keep trying to come up with some we might accept and in the meantime, will keep on calling names and hurling insults.
This is like saying: Look at the houses on this street, all the red houses have more cats then the non-red houses. If I paint my house red, cats that live here will have a higher rate of reproduction.
but what WOULD change is:
deaths from suicide, because they got pregnant and can't deal with it
deaths from back alley abortions
severe injury from back alley abortions
accidental suicide from people self-medicating to try to abort the pregnancy
but no, you don't care about the women who are already living that would be SEVERELY HARMED by what you want, you don't care about their life or their rights, the poor innocent little undeveloped, identity-less, expeirence-less, personality-less parasitic clot of blood that HAPPENS to have a unique variety of labeled protien chain, comes before people who are already alive!
how can you even think that you are not putting the fetus's life above already living peoples's lives with this attitude? its disgusting. you are basically saying that if a woman takes a gamble and loses, she no longer has a right to her own body. thats the same as saying that if a woman leaves her drink at a party and gets drugged and raped, its her own fault. (as opposed to the person who committed the crime against her)
not to mention a massive amount of those numbers, even ones recorded as voluntary, are in reality the result of rape and incest. but you apparently have no respect for a person's(or is it just women you regard to have so little worth?) right to their body.
this is a tactic to try to change the focus from the fact that the baby is a baby from day one and that fact is generally well-known by anyone who can read.
the thing is its not a fact. a baby is not a baby. a rabid, abused pit bull is not the same as a healthy, cuddly, well trained and socialized cocker spaniel. A baby is not a "baby" until its born. Do you count your age from your date of conception? no. (and if you do, you are certifiable) is a 6 month old that has a deformation that makes it so they only have a brain stem, and will never be a functional person, equal to a college professor? no.
because people who are 'active' don't want to be responsible for their actions.
what about people who didn't have a choice? rape or abuse victims? people who were acting as responsibly as possible and had a freak occurance?
Those of us who place a value on the life of the baby will never accept their baseless arguments, so they keep trying to come up with some we might accept and in the meantime, will keep on calling names and hurling insults.
its not that YOU value the life and others do not.
its a question of whether the fetus's life comes before the life and rights of the unwilling mother.
Many cultures do count their age from conception which is much more accurate as when people are born is completely arbitrary and can actually be planned by c-section.
You use the word "choice" very loosely. To we have the "choice" to kill a man because we don't like him, or he is "bad"? Of course not! There is no such thing as choice when it comes to taking another person's life, no matter how painful that may be. If a man comes and kills your whole family, you can not just turn around and kill him. We are not a society of vigilantes and this applies to abortion as well.
How about the unwilling mother who doesn't want to take care of her 2 year old. Can she throw him in the trash, or just if he's rabid and abused?
River, you are completely brainwashed by the politicians and special interest groups and most importantly the businesses that thrive on people like you supporting their murderous efforts.
I find it hard to believe your claim about many cultures counting their age from conception, when I have found that many cultures do not bother to even NAME their offspring til a year or more after birth, which makes more sense and I have actually heard of.
There is no such thing as choice when it comes to taking another person's life,
I agree. If the only way to defend yourself is to kill an agressor then you have no choice, they have forced your hand to do so. You see, heres the thing, in MOST circumstances, theres a grey area where lethal defensive force is only needed in the case of lethal threat. but if that were NOT the case, then in essence the agressor forfeits their right.
as they say, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
the fetus's right to be there ends when the mother doesn't want them there.
If a man comes and kills your whole family, you can not just turn around and kill him.
are you insane? if a man is trying to kill my family and I have the opportunity I certainly can, will, and have the right, no, OBLIGATION to kill him.
if someone were to try to kill my fiancee and there was no way to stop them besides killing them, I would do so without hesitation. and that is my right. that is my OBLIGATION. do you seriously think this is wrong? if so that is revolting, and you have no respect for life whatsoever.
why do you refuse to get it? there is a difference between an entity that has, or has had, traits that make humans distinct from animals, and entities that have never had them. it doesn't matter if they are likely to obtain them in the future.
if you look at a fetus with an unwilling host as an equal human, they are a violent offender, taking an innocent person hostile, effectively raping them, and doing permanent emotional and bodily harm to them. this is sufficient to merit killing them as a means to defend the innocent person if necessary. (in a situation where 1 living person was doing that to another, if there was no way but killing them to protect the innocent, it would be entirely acceptable)
if you look at them as less than human because they do not yet posses distinctively human traits(protein chains don't count) then would not a dog, that was going to do those things to a person, be put down? yes they would. without a second thought. (where there would be a second thought with a person, but still have the same result)
your profound disrespect for life is saddening.
You are also made up of protein chains. You are also 60% water. Does that somehow diminish your rights? You were an embryo and you were a fetus. Do you deny this? Did you skip those steps and go right to birth? It doesn't bother you that your life could have been snuffed out because your mother had a bad day at the office!
You, my pseudo friend, are the one disrespects life.
and the "protien chain" thing is that I do not consider simply having human genetics to make us better. its traits we have that make the difference.
who I am, was never a fetus. the body I have, once was. but it wasn't me, and it/I was not a person until birth.
The fact is that conception is the only clear line in the sand. Everything else is based on conjecture and theory and balderdash!
So it is with the BIG INSURANCE and BIG PHARMA COMPANIES. There profit based companies have never been about our freedom of choice. It's always been about THEIR unimpeded freedom to fleece the pockets of the American People, of their hard earned wages.
""""We all want freedom, Peter, but not at the expense of others lives. Nobody has the right to destroy someone else's life so that that they can live more comfortably, less stressfully or any reason other than saving their own life"""".
So, what are you saying here, Jane? That you do not appreciate, nor believe in the fight for freedom that our forefathers and mothers died to gain for themselves, and the posterity of the future generations (US)?
Are you saying also that our culture, of which the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, which for many includes much of that confort, and a life lived less stressfully.
And what does that, "for any reason other than saving ones own life", exactly mean, anyway? And who is to decide what is included, and excluded in that?
Saving ones own life"? Saving one owns WAY OF LIFE? Which, to me includes my own individual freedom of choice.
You say killing for freedom, I say fighting to gain, and to maintain our freedom.
Now, being suckered over and over and over, again, to fight and kill for BIG OIL, may be another matter.
Do you all know about the importance of mammograms, pap tests? When our representative talked about breastfeeding education as part of the bill, an angry man shouted her down with "We don't need the government to teach mothers how to breastfeed. And what good is it anyway? Can't they (babies) drink from a bottle?" The Congresswoman proceeded to educate the audience on the merits of breastfeeding as a way to start children out on a path to good health.
When we think of life, we must think of ALL life.
To be sure I'm understanding correctly, are you saying that you believe medical classification precedents are the same as laws?
Only in Nebraska.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/14/2008-11-14_34_children_abandoned_under_nebraskas_sa.html
Jane L, to claim that abortion services is primarily about money is ridiculous. The only ones who are benefiting from the controversy are the anti-abortion groups. The real goal should be to prevent the need for abortions in the first place.
The same thing happens when we try to regulate smoking. The tobacco companies have all of the money and the lobbyists. Same with abortion.
I have come to terms with the fact you have no respect for women or life. but hopefully you can at least have SOME shred of sanity here...
you are saying that if a woman for some circumstance, her wrong-choice or not, were to get pregnant, that she then no longer has a right to her body, but that for the duration of the pregnancy is the property of the fetus.
that IS what you are saying! whether you intend it or not, that is the message you are giving.
would you agree that an unanted pregnancy, even if through consentual sex, can cause wide-ranging harm to the mother, both physically, emotionally, financially?
if a dog were imminently going to cause equal harm to an innocent woman, and you had the opportunity to kill the dog to stop it from harming her like that, WOULD YOU DO IT? be honest. please answer this hypothetical. yes you would stop the dog by killing it, or no, you would watch the dog cause that harm to her? pick one. which would you feel is the right choice?
Let's put rape and incest aside for a moment. In order for a woman to get pregnant she needs to have sexual intercourse. Part of the responsibility of a woman having sexual intercourse is the maturity to understand that this may lead to pregnancy and a child. If this is not desired than she should not be having sexual intercourse.
Having a child is a gift. It is also a giant responsibilty that can bring emotional, financial and physical stress. Deal with it! You "chose" to have sex with the risk of getting pregnant. There are tons of resources to help mothers who need the help.
As far as your dog example goes you are once again making my argument for me. The dog is the woman and the innocent woman is the unborn child. You better believe I would stop the dog!
if you don't allow a provision for it to be allowed in the case of rape and incest, you don't get to set them aside, IMO.
to say that the woman chosing to have sexual intercourse and then being obligated to be enslaved to a possible fetus, is the same as saying that a woman who wears risque clothes and is raped, is responsible for being raped because she chose to wear that. it doesn't work that way.
you are being asinine about my example, the dog is the agressor, the unwanted child that would cause harm to the mother. you know it, and you know that your position on abortion is immoral, or you would not feel the need to warp the hypothetical to be the reverse of its obvious meaning.
I am just putting rape and incest aside so we can isolate woman who are choosing to take the risk of getting pregnant. Wearing risque clothing has nothing to do with anything. You once again are trying to divert attention from your losing arguments. No woman has to get pregnant if they don't want to. Period.
I am afraid I am not being asinine. The woman is the agressor, and the unborn child is the innocent victim. Abortion is immoral and you know it, or you would have some RU-486 pills in your pocket right now.
but what about those who don't? you don't care about them.
you don't understand the analogy.
if a woman choses to have sex, they are taking a gamble. if a woman choses to go out alone wearing risque clothing, they are taking a gamble,
losing one gamble results in rape.
losing the other gamble results in a pregnancy.
you are saying that taking that gamble and losing, means its their fault and they are responsible for it.
it sounds like you really want to make an exception for rape and incest, but you know that doing so compromises your fanatical position. if it didn't you wouldn't have to separate them off to make your point.
if the woman does not want to be host to that fetus, then the fetus is the agressor, forcibly taking occupancy in the woman's body against her will.
late term abortion certainly is immoral. but theres nothing immoral about abortion in the first term, and if theres a reason, its ok in the second.
a woman has a right to her body, even if she makes a mistake, or loses a gamble, her body is hers. and you have no right to tell a woman that because she made a mistake, for the next few months her body belongs to someone else, and too bad for the emotional and physical damage it does.
and thats not even to get into the issue of being able to provide for the offspring if they are born.
The rape is the result of an action by another person, that may or may not have anything to do with wearing risque clothing.
Pregancy is the result of an action by the woman that 100% would not occur if the woman did not take that action.
When a woman is pregnant she shares her body with another person and they both should have equal rights over that body. That is just part of being a woman.
if she is not, her body is being invaded.
nobody has the right to take the rights of a woman over her body away from her. not her husband, not a fetus. she can CHOSE to share her body if she wishes. but if she does not, then it being violently taken from her is a crime.
Wake up to the basics of human reproduction and understand that we would not have survived as a species without these so called invasions.
Next you wil be espousing alien abductions as a women's rights issue!
a woman choses to share her body with a male/boyfriend/fiance/husband/ect. this is voluntary sharing and the act is not a violation or invasion of her body.
a woman has the SAME physical interaction forcibly inflicted on her when she is NOT willing, is very obviously a violation/invasion of her body.
its the same thing. if she is willing, then its sharing her body.
if she is not willing, it is a violation of her body.
Thank you for admitting it!
I will give you a legal position, recognized in U.S. law: A right imposes a duty; a duty supercedes a right. How come the rights of her child not impose a duty on the mother, should not that duty supercede her rights?
Are you saying that a child has no rights? You would be wrong. For instance, the child has the right to inherit the father's estate if he should die before birth. Why does that right does not impose a duty on the mother? Why do pregnant women risk being punished under U.S laws if the drugs that they take during pregnancy harm their unborn child?
Your laws recognize that the unborn have a right to life; but paradoxically allows the mother to disregard it. She may abort it, but is not allowed to take certain drugs because it may harm her child or make it stillborn (kill it).
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes the unborn's right to life. Unfortunately that same law grants the mother the permision to deny her child the very right it recognizes.
Thank you for admitting it!
thats like saying that if a man and a woman are having consentual sex, and another man breaks in and joins the party that she consented to have sex with him too!
you are so warped you can't even see how you are distorting things.
Dennis,
How come the rights of her child not impose a duty on the mother, should not that duty supercede her rights?
unless she is willingly sharing her body with that "child" then no, they should not.
Why does that right does not impose a duty on the mother?
if she was a willing participant, it does.
if she was raped to be in that situation, it does not.
its all about the mother being a willing participant.
But I believe it opens the door to incest/rape issue: does this mean that a child born of rape or incest has the same rights [and imposes the same duties] as any other child? And if not, why?
In the event of such a crime, is it fair to take away the rights of the result of a crime, rather than the person that committed it? Just food for thought!
Jane-- you've "set these aside." I'd love to hear your viewpoint.
The best rebuttal is from Michael the #2 Ninja Kitteh. Yes Michael it does indeed open that door. Those conceived as a result of incest or rape actually, in my opinion, do indeed have a right to life. However, I would never attempt to convince the mother to let the pregnancy go to term; I would leave that decision entirely to her. This is because I will never accept the role of being somebody's conscience.
The problem with aborting the pregnancy that results from rape or incest is that the innocent child is being killed for the sin of the parent(s).
I am not ignorant of such situations. Children born of incest are in my neighbourhood. (Surprisingly, most are normal!!)
I have a very close friend whose first child was the result of a rape. He is a constant reminder of the rape. It ocurred when she was a teenager and it interrupted her schooling, forced her to face a lot of prejudice ("Careless gal") and still has bad financial ans social consequences. She used to constantly take out her frustration on him. It took a lot of effort to get his self esteem up.
the problem is when she is unwilling to share her body with the fetus. then it is an invader. it is a rapist, of sorts.
Michael, don't bother. the reason she sets them aside is because allowing an exception for them shatters her whole argument, but morally there MUST be an allowance for them. its a paradox of her immoral perspective on the topic.
That reasoning is disturbing to me. The fetus is innocent. The punishment for rape is not death. Yet you are using that argument as approval of killing him/her.
The situation as I have commented before is that there is no way to respond to the injustice without doing an injustice to an innocent human. You are advocating that it is O.K. for the innocent child so suffer the punishment of death for his/her parent's crime. (A crime that does not carry the death penalty!!!)