Actually RickyP, my opposition to abortion is not an emotional one. It is because I consider a fetus to be a life.

I listed why the term "partial birth abortion" is accurate. What part are you disagreeing with? The partial, the birth, or the abortion? Perhaps you don't use the term Lou Gehrig's disease either because that is a made up term also.. After all, the real name is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Do I have to post a link to the NRLC to refute Guttmacher? They are diametrically opposed and biased equally. Your statement from Guttmacher says "most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal viability". That can be stated that some abortions do take place after fetus viability.

Is that what you support? You support a right to kill a "fetus" after viability? This is where we differ. Just because a pregnancy is unwanted (again from your post), that is not a reason to terminate a fetal life.

This entire forum came from the issue of rape vs abortion.

If we would only have abortions that are the result of reported rape and life of the mother, I would sign onto that law in a heartbeat.

For someone who defends the right of a convicted murderer to stay alive based upon the possibility of judicial error, your view of a fetus not being a life (even as you doubt the exact time it becomes a life), and subject to death by lethal injection into the womb is, IMHO, in opposition your position on the death penalty.

It must be acceptable to kill a fetus that has done nothing.
It is not acceptable to kill a convicted murderer.

To me that is a dichotomy.

danivon wrote:Well, it would go some way to demonstrating the need for a solution. If the problem does not exist, it does raise the question of the need for a solution or for prevention.

We disagree again.

You see, I believe people see loopholes and take advantage of them. You believe there is no loophole until someone takes advantage of it.

Searching for stats on google, it seems that about 1% of abortions in the USA are for rape or incest. I can't see figures on how many turn out not be be rape . . .

Right. Think about it. After an abortion, do you suppose they conduct an investigation to determine if the rape occurred or not? I don't.

We disagree.

Indeed. But let's discuss based on evidence rather than simply having differing opinions, yes?

I already know what your opinion is.

Ditto.

If it offends you to be asked for numbers as I did, what can we do instead?

The core of the argument is one we cannot agree on: a baby, regardless of its origins, does not deserve death. Secondarily, it is a matter of what entity should pay, if the State is obligated to pay. Primarily, it is a matter of whether it is an individual human being or not.

I cannot fathom the logic of those who deny that. They claim it is logical, but I cannot see it. If the abortion did not take place, a tumor would not be birthed; excess tissue would not be shed; a baby would be born. How is an abortion not the taking of a human life? I don't know.

bbauska wrote:This entire forum came from the issue of rape vs abortion.

No it didn't. The first post was about a politician who was denying rape in order to justify his position on something related to it, but consequent. However, it was not about abortion. As far as I'm aware, neither of the women who have made allegations against Julian Assange became pregnant.

The thread is primarily supposed to be about rape, not abortion.

Doctor Fate wrote:You see, I believe people see loopholes and take advantage of them. You believe there is no loophole until someone takes advantage of it.

would you mind not presuming to tell me what I believe?

I am quite ready to accept that a loophole exists. My question is why spend much time thinking about it compared to the many loopholes that we know exist because there is evidence they are actually used?

And, should we not be careful when closing loopholes not to penalise the honest? In this case we are talking about rape victims.

Right. Think about it. After an abortion, do you suppose they conduct an investigation to determine if the rape occurred or not? I don't.

If a rape is given as the reason, whyever not? There may at the very least be encouragement for an unreported rape to be notified.

I cannot fathom the logic of those who deny that. They claim it is logical, but I cannot see it. If the abortion did not take place, a tumor would not be birthed; excess tissue would not be shed; a baby would be born. How is an abortion not the taking of a human life? I don't know.

So are you saying that we should not even countenance abortion in cases of rape, if it is clearly the taking of human life?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You see, I believe people see loopholes and take advantage of them. You believe there is no loophole until someone takes advantage of it.

would you mind not presuming to tell me what I believe?

It's not so big a leap from this:

danivon wrote:Well, it would go some way to demonstrating the need for a solution. If the problem does not exist, it does raise the question of the need for a solution or for prevention.

I am quite ready to accept that a loophole exists. My question is why spend much time thinking about it compared to the many loopholes that we know exist because there is evidence they are actually used?

Fine, I'm all for closing all loopholes that permit Federal funding of abortion. You've convinced me.

And, should we not be careful when closing loopholes not to penalise the honest? In this case we are talking about rape victims.

If a rape case were prosecuted under Federal law, then I think you'd have a stronger case.

Right. Think about it. After an abortion, do you suppose they conduct an investigation to determine if the rape occurred or not? I don't.

If a rape is given as the reason, whyever not? There may at the very least be encouragement for an unreported rape to be notified.

I cannot fathom the logic of those who deny that. They claim it is logical, but I cannot see it. If the abortion did not take place, a tumor would not be birthed; excess tissue would not be shed; a baby would be born. How is an abortion not the taking of a human life? I don't know.

So are you saying that we should not even countenance abortion in cases of rape, if it is clearly the taking of human life?

Asked and answered. Morally, it could not be more clear.

That said, I'm not in favor of changing the law and am fine with Romney's position on the matter.

I'm very suspicious to the degree to which we as men are discussing this and so sure of what's right in the matter.

What I know is that the vast majority of women like getting pregnant and having children with men that express interest and or support in the matter. For those type of men there's virtually no problem with women trying to murder your offspring.

So do we really have much basis to turn rape baby blessings into our issue to solve?

Neal,
Are you saying that only military men can discuss going to war, and only college kids can discuss drinking age?

Danivon,
Correct. This did start about a politician making an ass of himself.

(at no one in particular) I'm suspicious of those claiming legal jurisdiction over a woman's uterus. That's a strange claim to suggest you can extend your police powers there. On what basis do you have an interest in extending your jurisdiction there against a woman's will?

Neal Anderth wrote:On what basis do you have an interest in extending your jurisdiction there against a woman's will?

I'm not pro-life but this one is a no-brainer. The interest is that of the unborn child. That life-interest (as they see it) is the basis for pro-lifers feeling that the state should have some "uterine jurisdiction". Now you may certainly argue that such an interest does not exist, or should not take precedence over the mother's rights to control of her reproductive capacities, but you're not ignorant - you know very well "on what basis...".

Doctor Fate wrote:

And, should we not be careful when closing loopholes not to penalise the honest? In this case we are talking about rape victims.

If a rape case were prosecuted under Federal law, then I think you'd have a stronger case.

Ummm. no. If this was about how we deal with the perpetrator of rape in criminal terms, you'd be correct. However, it's not. It's how we deal with the victim in terms of healthcare - an abortion is medical. The Federal government can and does fund healthcare. It does not have to do so universally - and so far it has always used criteria for when people can get access to such funded healthcare. Here is another.

So, other than 'rape isn't a Federal crime', do you have another reason for insisting that funding of post-rape abortion should be reserved to the States, based on Constitutional precedent?

And still, you avoid the point about the problem of closing loopholes but penalising the honest. It's a real issue. I know that it's a common and easy concept to see loopholes (those used, and those not, and those for which there's little evidence), and close them. What is not so easy to do is to consider the unforseen (or perhaps not so unforseen) consequences of closing them using a simple method.

So are you saying that we should not even countenance abortion in cases of rape, if it is clearly the taking of human life?

Asked and answered. Morally, it could not be more clear.

That said, I'm not in favor of changing the law and am fine with Romney's position on the matter.

So... 'we should not even countenance' abortion in cases of rape, on moral grounds, but that doesn't mean you support a change to the law? Or you'd accept a candidate who won't change the law because other considerations are more important?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

And, should we not be careful when closing loopholes not to penalise the honest? In this case we are talking about rape victims.

If a rape case were prosecuted under Federal law, then I think you'd have a stronger case.

Ummm. no. If this was about how we deal with the perpetrator of rape in criminal terms, you'd be correct. However, it's not. It's how we deal with the victim in terms of healthcare - an abortion is medical. The Federal government can and does fund healthcare. It does not have to do so universally - and so far it has always used criteria for when people can get access to such funded healthcare. Here is another.

She is not a victim of a Federal crime. And, if she has Federal health insurance, there is a long-standing practice of not directly funding abortion with Federal money.

And still, you avoid the point about the problem of closing loopholes but penalising the honest.

It's not penalizing anyone.

I think having an innocent life terminated by extraordinary means is a penalty.

It's a real issue. I know that it's a common and easy concept to see loopholes (those used, and those not, and those for which there's little evidence), and close them. What is not so easy to do is to consider the unforseen (or perhaps not so unforseen) consequences of closing them using a simple method.

And, if there are unforeseen consequences, the law can be changed.

So are you saying that we should not even countenance abortion in cases of rape, if it is clearly the taking of human life?

Asked and answered. Morally, it could not be more clear.

That said, I'm not in favor of changing the law and am fine with Romney's position on the matter.

So... 'we should not even countenance' abortion in cases of rape, on moral grounds, but that doesn't mean you support a change to the law? Or you'd accept a candidate who won't change the law because other considerations are more important?

I recognize that people are going to kill babies. They always have and they always will.

I can at least respect the concept of "safe, legal and rare." I cannot respect the concept of President Obama, NARAL and Planned Parenthood: as far as I have seen, they support no restrictions, period.

Neal Anderth wrote:I'm very suspicious to the degree to which we as men are discussing this and so sure of what's right in the matter.

I take your point (however bluntly put). It's hard for us men (not all Redscape members are male, by the way, and certainly as it's readable by anyone, women might chance by) to put ourselves in the position of a woman who is pregnant by rape. Men can be raped (but it's usually something we assume is not a threat to us an individuals, whereas for women it's often an ever present threat in their lives, unfortunately), but we'd never have to face the prospect of having the rapist's child.

So do we really have much basis to turn rape baby blessings into our issue to solve?

Well, we are not restricted to only considering our own personal problems, are we? Seems just a little solipsist to me. Besides, it may not be an issue for us as men, but that doesn't mean it can't be an issue for our wives, sister, daughters, female friends, etc. You never know, someone you know may well have been raped, but not made it known (for all kinds of reasons), and the prospect of a resulting pregnancy may well have been a real concern for them.

If 1% of abortions are requested due to rape, we are talking about about 10-15 thousand cases a year in the USA.

Doctor Fate wrote:She is not a victim of a Federal crime. And, if she has Federal health insurance, there is a long-standing practice of not directly funding abortion with Federal money.

I will take the answer to my question on Constitutionality as a 'no' then.

And still, you avoid the point about the problem of closing loopholes but penalising the honest.

It's not penalizing anyone.

I think having an innocent life terminated by extraordinary means is a penalty.

Indeed. You are quite clear that you think that rape victims should carry any resulting pregnancy to term, and should not receive Federal assistance. I assume that this means you would also not want your own State to provide assistance either.

I understand that you and Ryan have a very similar position on policy. I know that what Akin said about rape is as reprehensible to you as to anyone else, but when it comes to the basic policy - we should not fund abortion for rape victims, and ideally it would not happen at all - all three of you are close.

And, if there are unforeseen consequences, the law can be changed.

Sure. I mean, it's only victims of rape we are talking about. They'll understand that they lose out in order that the case can be made to change the law in the future.

I recognize that people are going to kill babies. They always have and they always will.

I can at least respect the concept of "safe, legal and rare." I cannot respect the concept of President Obama, NARAL and Planned Parenthood: as far as I have seen, they support no restrictions, period.

That is not really an answer, other than it looks like a 'lessor of two evils' argument.

Still waiting on RickyP's response to the partial birth abortion question and what part he disagrees with...

danivon wrote:Sure. I mean, it's only victims of rape we are talking about. They'll understand that they lose out in order that the case can be made to change the law in the future.

Cheap shot, but not unexpected.

I recognize that people are going to kill babies. They always have and they always will.

I can at least respect the concept of "safe, legal and rare." I cannot respect the concept of President Obama, NARAL and Planned Parenthood: as far as I have seen, they support no restrictions, period.

That is not really an answer, other than it looks like a 'lessor of two evils' argument.

Not at all.

Your man, and he is your man, has never supported any restriction whatsoever on abortion.

Romney has a more pragmatic view.

My view is idealistic, but I would not make it the law of the land. So, I'm not picking between the lesser of two evils; I am choosing the one I think is closer to what I think government should be permit.