Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They can overturn it by amending the constitution to ensure the rights of a fertilized egg are legally fully equal to the rights of the woman whose uterus it needs to use to develop. In Roe vs. Wade the court decided a woman's right to privacy is violated by abortion restrictions. A constitutional amendment would attempt to place the right to life of a blastocyst on a higher level than the mother's right to privacy, and the court would have to interpret future cases in this light, effectively overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Something just occurred to me: I don't know all the details of Roe v. Wade, but striking down the idea that the right to privacy trumps the right to life. I can think of many "national security" scenarios where it could be lives are being saved. Does that mean that the government should be free to wiretap you, for instance?

 

[Father Heathen]

Paul Ryan helped write some of those new laws that redefined rape as "forcible" rape, which means that if you don't have cuts, bruises, broken bones and a police report to show for it, you must not have been raped. These laws basically make people with severe disabilities fair game, and this definition has already resulted in the acquittal of a man who raped a non-communicative woman with the mind of a four year old. The judge argued that she could have grunted, screamed or struggled more, so her lack of consent was unclear.

Tea Party Senate candidate says pregnancy from rape is God's will.

Once again, we see the male pathology about female control over procreation.A rape victim is supposed to carry and give birth to the child of a rapist just to satisfy someone else's piety?

Utterly repulsive. Those who are the loudest about morality tend to be the worst examples of it. It's also depressing that any imbecile can get into office by merely appealing to religious sentiment.

 

[beenie]

It seems these morons are competing to see who can say the most idiotic, insensitive, repulsive comments possible. What God would will a life to be started from rape?

 

[Alceste]

It seems these morons are competing to see who can say the most idiotic, insensitive, repulsive comments possible. What God would will a life to be started from rape?

The God of rapists, perhaps?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

What God would will a life to be started from rape?

Job's God.

 

[gnomon]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

I have a problem with your question.

Romney, if elected, will not overturn Roe v. Wade. It cannot happen that way.

This is an important point to understand about our political system.

Moving on. As whether or not our Congressman, important point, would attempt to write laws doing away with Roe and enforcing a law that would require rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.......I say such people are fools and fail to understand the rights of citizens.

 

[Mister Emu]

Another question is what punishment would you inflict on a woman who had an illegal abortion?

Treat as any other homicide.

[Why would those who wear the title Pro-life] even make an exception for a pregnancy that's the result of rape.

I agree.

The judge argued that she could have grunted, screamed or struggled more, so her lack of consent was unclear.

Loathsome.

A rape victim is supposed to carry and give birth to the child of a rapist just to satisfy someone else's piety?

No, to satisfy the demands of justice and morality.

 

[Alceste]

Treat as any other homicide.


I agree.


Loathsome.

No, to satisfy the demands of justice and morality.

I don't see how it's moral to force a woman to become a mother to her rapist's child, when safe effective, early, painless and completely guaranteed methods of terminating or preventing an unwanted pregnancy exist.

Seriously. What's wrong with the morning after pill? It does exactly the same thing the birth control pill does, but it does it the morning after. Folks like Romney call it an "abortion pill" because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. It's immoral and unjust to give a rape victim an immediate guarantee that she will not be forced to bear a child as a result of the attack? Are you crazy?

This is why I don't think men should be invited to weigh in on this issue, generally speaking.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

I don't see why rape babies can't be allowed, just remove "and rape" and keep "If it threatens the life of the mother"

Not all of the time to rape babies threaten the mother's life, and if there's a problem with just not having it, why not in general just have "not wanting the child."

 

[averageJOE]

No president can't overturn it; however, they could very well present legislation that rendered it toothless.

Can you please elaborate on this a little more?

 

[averageJOE]

I have a problem with your question.

Romney, if elected, will not overturn Roe v. Wade. It cannot happen that way.

This is an important point to understand about our political system
Moving on. As whether or not our Congressman, important point, would attempt to write laws doing away with Roe and enforcing a law that would require rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.......I say such people are fools and fail to understand the rights of citizens.

Do they really need to over turn Roe v. Wade in order to outlaw abortion, instead of cases of rape, insist, or to save the life of the mother?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Treat as any other homicide.

Let's assume for argument's sake that a fetus is a person; how would abortion be a homicide?

In any other situation, a person is not obliged to violate their own bodily security in any way... not even to save a life.

If a person would certainly die without one of your kidneys, some of your bone marrow, or even something as minor as a pint of your blood or a hair off your head, you would not be compelled to give it. In fact, not even your corpse would be compelled to give it; you keep this right even when you're no longer a person yourself.

With bodily security being weighted that highly, why would you consider it "homicide" for a woman to decide to no longer provide the use of her organs to her fetus... even if it is a person?

If an adult - someone unquestionably a person, self-aware, and completely capable of expressing the will to live -- discovers that the only match for a life-saving bone marrow donation is one of their parents, and that parent refuses to donate, should that parent be treated as a murderer as well?

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't see how it's moral to force a woman to become a mother to her rapist's child, when safe effective, early, painless and completely guaranteed methods of terminating or preventing an unwanted pregnancy exist.

All those nice adjectives say nothing about the morality of the abortion. Until those methods no longer involve the cessation of the life they are immoral.

It's immoral and unjust to give a rape victim an immediate guarantee that she will not be forced to bear a child as a result of the attack?

It is immoral and unjust to snuff out the budding life en route to that end. So, at risk of repeating myself, until such time as that guarantee is no longer purchased with death, yes.

 

[Mister Emu]

If an adult - someone unquestionably a person, self-aware, and completely capable of expressing the will to live -- discovers that the only match for a life-saving bone marrow donation is one of their parents, and that parent refuses to donate, should that parent be treated as a murderer as well?

If someone needed a kidney to live and you were a donor match, and a third party without the knowledge of either party rendered you unconscious and transferred your kidney, would you have a moral right to cut the kidney back out and kill the person? Should you have a legal right?

 

[crossfire]

All those nice adjectives say nothing about the morality of the abortion. Until those methods no longer involve the cessation of the life they are immoral.

Do you consider slavery immoral?

It is immoral and unjust to snuff out the budding life en route to that end. So, at risk of repeating myself, until such time as that guarantee is no longer purchased with death, yes.

One is entitled to decide whom is a guest in your dwelling, and whom is an unwanted intruder, no?

 

[crossfire]

All those nice adjectives say nothing about the morality of the abortion. Until those methods no longer involve the cessation of the life they are immoral.


It is immoral and unjust to snuff out the budding life en route to that end. So, at risk of repeating myself, until such time as that guarantee is no longer purchased with death, yes.

Do you consider slavery immoral?



One is entitled to decide whom is a guest in your dwelling, and whom is an unwanted intruder, no?

So life is sacred from conception until birth, and then you can impose slavery on it, and force it into torture and risking its own life? {Enforced continuation of pregnancy without an option to quit a labor is slavery; childbirth is torture at the best and life threatening at the worst.}

 

[crossfire]

So life is sacred from conception until birth, and then you can impose slavery on it, and force it into torture and risking its own life? {Enforced continuation of pregnancy without an option to quit a labor is slavery; childbirth is torture at the best and life threatening at the worst.}

Axlotl Tank, from Frank Herbert's Dune series

An axlotl tank is essentially a brain-dead woman whose womb is used as a tank to create gholas. The Bene Tleilax's use of their women in this capacity explains why no one has ever seen a Tleilaxu female.
In Heretics of Dune, it is revealed that the Tleilaxu have developed the ability to grow the spice melange in axlotl tanks, breaking the monopoly on spice that Arrakis held for thousands of years which strongly controlled the economics and the politics of the Imperium.
In Chapterhouse Dune, the Bene Gesserit have acquired axlotl tank technology and are able to use it to make gholas for their own purposes, but not spice. They are revealed not to be tanks at all, but dramatically altered women.
The axlotl tank is similar to the reproductive "stumps" in Herbert's Hellstrom's Hive.​

 

[Me Myself]

Do you consider slavery immoral?

Come on, not killing your child and being a slave is not the frigging same

 

[Me Myself]

If someone needed a kidney to live and you were a donor match, and a third party without the knowledge of either party rendered you unconscious and transferred your kidney, would you have a moral right to cut the kidney back out and kill the person? Should you have a legal right?

Fitting analogy

 

[Alceste]

All those nice adjectives say nothing about the morality of the abortion. Until those methods no longer involve the cessation of the life they are immoral.

It is immoral and unjust to snuff out the budding life en route to that end. So, at risk of repeating myself, until such time as that guarantee is no longer purchased with death, yes.

A rape victim who chooses takes emergency contraception doesn't know if there is a fertilized egg in the picture or not. There may not be, and even if there is, what's the difference between a sperm and an egg that have made contact and a sperm and an egg that have not? If there is a blastocyst to get rid of, it is just a little blob of cells, with no capacity to suffer (unlike the mother). Many fertilized eggs do not implant successfully and "die" without anyone ever knowing it happened. Even when we know we are pregnant, close to half of pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester naturally. It seems what you object to is not the fact that fertilized eggs are being "murdered" all the time, whether by chance or by your God, but the fact that a woman can choose whether or not to miscarry. Becoming a parent is a hell of a thing to think we (women) should just leave to chance, all the time! Our own lives are at stake.

I think any moral ideology is completely insane if it dictates that a sperm with an outside chance at becoming a person one day is more important than a living, breathing woman's physical, economic and emotional right to autonomy, security and self-determination. Seriously. It's crazy. Off the charts. It absolutely astounds me that any country that allows women the right to vote is even having this conversation.