To 'Shaun" most people agree that in cases of rape, incest, physical
danger to the mother, or severe deformities on the baby, abortion should be
allowed. However, that is not the situation where a woman has been engaged in
premarital sex and ends up pregnant. She made her choice when she decided to
I think abortion in the case of race and incest needs to be on the table. I
know all the ultra-conservatives have their positions and all, but there are
inherent health risks in pregnancy. Plus, there is the trauma of the being a
victim of rape and incest in the first place. At this point, I support the
pro-choice position, especially if the pregnancy is terminated in the first few
weeks. I think any law that would prevent that is heartless. And if the woman
chooses to keep her baby, I would also support this. But not all pregnancies
are chosen and those that aren't it should be obvious that the woman should
have the right to terminate the pregnancy.
@Shackleford Rusty - St George, UTMay 18, 2019 12:36 p.m.,You've taken the argument that there are only two people involved, the
rapist and the mother. What about the 3rd person, the unborn child? Who speaks
for the child? You and I and everyone who has ever lived was once that
"child", helpless to act and easy prey for those who might have acted
upon us. Were we just "lucky" that our mothers decided that our lives
were important enough to allow us to live? Every criminal who has
been found guilty of a crime that deserves death is given many opportunies to
appeal. Who hears the unborn child cry out for life? Who is the child's
advocate? Who acknowledges that there are three people involved; a rapist, a
woman who was the victim of a rape, and an innocent child who did no harm to
anyone, whose heart is beating.If that rapist had killed a pregnant
woman, he would be charged with two murders. He would be charged with killing
an unborn child. That law shows that the child has great worth in our society.
That child is not a "by product" of a rape. It is a living unborn child
who has committed no crime. Would you destroy that unborn living child?
@jthompsonIt is coercion to force a women who has been raped to
carry on pregnancy she did not want. The child isn’t hers because she had
no choice in the matter.Also your argument about my mom giving me
life is totally different because she made that choice. Compelling women to
carry a child because she is raped is a punishment beyond the punishment rapist
would receive.Do you also propose she pays for all the healthcare
around the pregnancy?
@Shaun - Sandy, UTMay 18, 2019 9:50 a.m.I fail to see how
destroying a third person solves the problem of rape. What did that unborn baby
do to merit death? What crime did it commit? How is it moral to destroy its
life? It's heart is beating. It has its own DNA. It is a separate person
from the mother.I also disagree that giving life to a child is
punishment. It is the greatest gift that a mother can give. Each of our
mothers suffered more than we can imagine to give us life. My mother did not
think that giving me life was a punishment. I doubt that your mother thought
that she was being punished when she gave you life. Next you reverse
yourself by saying that children have worth, enough worth that they deserve to
be fed and clothed by the government. Is the government their mother? Is the
government their father? The government is their protector, just as it is your
protector, but nothing in the Consitution requires or even allows the government
to feed us or to clothe us. The 10th Amendment clearly passes that
responsibility to the State or to the People. In this case, that responsibility
goes directly to the people, as per YOUR Constitution.
@mike richardsI disagree with you. Making a women carrry a child she
had no decision in is coercion. Further more it punishes her more than the
person that raped her.Also if the child is just a innocent bystander
then that means all children are innocent bystanders and therefore it blows the
whole conservative argument against programs like chip, snap and school lunch
programs. After all the children are just innocent bystanders and are not
responsible for the action of their parents.
@Frozen Fractals - Salt Lake City, UTMay 17, 2019 7:13 p.m.Sorry, but the law disagrees with you:"The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and
a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs
during the commission of a federal violent crime." In the U.S., 38 states
have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant.
Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of
criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2008). Laci Peterson, murdered in 2002, is one of the more
high-profile homicides." (Wikipedia)Simply put, if you kill a
pregnant woman, you will be charged with two homicides, one for the woman and
one for the unborn child inside her. You have twisted the 14th
Amendment to say something that it does not say. It gives citizenship to anyone
born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the mother. It does
NOT define life nor does it define the moment when life starts.
@Mike RichardsThe 14th Amendment defines citizenship as all persons born
or naturalized. 5th and 6th amendment protections do not apply to those in the
womb. @RedShirtUofU"the business owner didn't choose
to do business with you. "They chose to open the doors, let
people in, and had an unplanned result.
To "Ranch" the business owner didn't choose to do business with
you. You choose where you will go to make a transaction. When you think about
it, forcing a business person to do something they don't want to do could
be comparable to rape.Yes, business owners more or less know what to
expect. However, you can't go into a business and expect them to go against
their own policies. For instance you wouldn't go to a photographer that has
a policy of no nude photos and demand that they take nude photos of you.Don't you have to know what policies a business has before you
enter the door? Do you demand that Smiths accept Visa Credit cards, despite
their policy of not accepting them any more?You are right, having
sex does not mean you must carry a baby to term. As long as a woman's egg
is not fertilized she can have sex as often as she wants. However, once an egg
is fertilized and begins to develop normally and is able to do all of the things
required to grow, then a woman lost her gamble with her body, and should carry
the baby to term.
@RedShirtUofU;"...when she is pregnant? Didn't she CHOOSE
to engage in sexual relations? Don't women know what causes
pregnancy?"--- Likewise, didn't the Business Owner CHOOSE
to engage in commerce? Don't (religious) Business Owners know what laws
apply when they open their doors?-- Choosing to have sex
doesn't require you to carry a fetus to term if you don't want to.
Opening a business does, in fact, require you to follow the laws pertaining to
To "Ranch" when does a "blob of cells" become a baby? Are you
just a blob of cells that your mother can abort at any time? If survival outside
of the womb is the defining condition, is that when a baby can feed itself and
take care of its own needs?Other than rape and incest, how is a
woman "enslaved" when she is pregnant? Didn't she CHOOSE to engage
in sexual relations? Don't women know what causes pregnancy? Aren't
women taught math in school, which would include statistics that would explain
the pregnancy risks even when using contraceptive means?You make it
sound like women have no choice when becoming pregnant, almost as if they can
become pregnant by standing outside on a windy day.
@Shaun - Sandy, UTMay 17, 2019 9:14 a.m.Do you stand for the
Constitution? The 5th Amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury," The 6th Amendment states: "In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed,"That unborn baby, with a beating heart and DNA unique
to itself has committed no crime, therefore it cannot be executed (aborted) for
any crime. At the very least, a Grand Jury must indict that unborn child before
any legal action can be taken to deprieve him or her of life.In
cases of rape or incest, it is the rapist who has committed the crime, not the
unborn baby. Let the innocent baby live and then be adopted by a loving and
kind family that yearns for a child. If the choice is between the mother's
life and the baby's life, then let the mother decide. The two lives are
intertwined. She and only she can decide whether she or the baby lives.
You conservatives think that asking a baker to spend a few hours making a cake
for a gay couple is "slavery" but you have no problem at all enslaving a
woman to a blob of cells for 9 months. Talk about hypocrisy.FYI. A
blob of cells isn't a baby; if it can't survive on it's own,
outside a womb then it doesn't have the "right" to utilize the
woman's body unless she wants it there.
@no namesI don’t know the statistics on abortion and like most
things any facts can be skewed towards ones point of view.To answer
your main question. I don’t believe abortion should be a form of birth
control. However I think this whole debate would change if men were held
responsible for their part in it.
@Shaun: "So you do not feel that rape, incest or the health of the mother
should be an exception?"Lets be honest in our communication.
Before asking others about exceptions, you should state your position.Do you think purely elective abortions should be limited or banned?If yes, then asking about exceptions in the fewer than 5% of cases involving
rape, incest, the life of the mother, or fatal fetal deformity is fair and
honest.However, to use the 5% case to drive a wedge to justify the
95% that are simply convenience isn't honest dialogue.Where do
you stand on the 45% of abortions that are repeat abortions and indicative of a
woman using abortion as after-the-fact birth control?What about the
95% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape or life of the mother or
other such exceptional circumstances? Do you support legal limits on
late term or partial birth abortions? What about denying medical care to a baby
that survive abortion attempts and is born alive? Are any legal
limits acceptable to you? Which ones?
All unborn babies deserve the right to be born.
@mike richardsSo you do not feel that rape, incest or the health of
the mother should be an exception?
Abortions for rape and incest and when the mothers life is at risk is a yes.
All other reasons are a no. That is what they make the pill for.
Tomi Lahren reminds me of Serena Joy from The Handmaid's Tale. Is helping to create a monster that eventually eats you too worthy of pity,
scorn, or both?
I agree with Alabama. The unborn children have a right to live. The Declaration
of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."A terrible war was fought so that
those unalienable Rights could continue to flow from our Creator to a people who
were willing to self-govern themselves with a very limited Federal Government.
Since Roe v Wade, some people seem to think that the Court has given
them a license to destroy an unborn baby at any time for any reason. That is
morally reprehensible.The editorial stated that one member of
Congress stated, in part: "finding the law to be consistent with past
legislation". We must expect the Court to rule on the Law as allowed by the
Constitution, not as ruled on by other judges. Just because otherjudges ruled
that the life of an unborn child has no value does not mean that the Consitution
allows that person to be deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
@ We the people, I think you hit the nail on the head, this is all about
punishing people you disagree with.
The Alabama Law is the Right Decision, and it is what our Nation has been Wating
For for a Long Time!We need to punish the promiscuous libertines who
have no respect for the Consequences of their Actions. We need to draw a moral
line in the sand! It stops here! No further!
The Alabama law is too restrictive to be good public policy.However,
it may well be perfect to challenge Roe.The very folks who defend
unlimited access to elective abortion at any stage often attack laws protecting
unborn babies by pointing out that children conceived via rape are no less
persons than any other baby and should not be punished for the crimes of their
fathers. So this bill presents a clean challenge to Roe. No doubt the
pro-abortion folks will attack it as not taking into account the extreme
emotional difficulty of carrying a baby conceived via rape. And they are not
wrong there. But at least we then talk about 5% of abortions as an exception,
rather than using it as a wedge to justify 90% of other abortions.It
is time to return this issue to the peoples of the several States as the 10th
amd clearly mandates.Want a nationwide right to elective abortion?
Get a ConAmd. Otherwise, the matter is best left to the States like gambling,
prostitution, speed limits, alcohol, zoning, age limits for ear piercings and
tats, and most other matters.