Church condemns abortion performed on raped girl, 11

[Immanuel]

this is the law of the land in South Dakota: no abortions, no exceptions.

That is the standard that the religious right will fight tooth and nail, to bring to every state in the union.

While at the same time, NOW and PP will fight tooth and nail for no restrictions on abortion at all in every state in the union.

There is little room for compromise on either side of the extremes here and there will be no compromise ever. One side or the other will win and who knows the tide may someday turn.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

In a religin where absolutes reign supreem, Catholism, why is justice different in Columbia than Florida?

People are more supersticious and still see jesus and mary in their beans and such. thus they are easier to manipulate. If you check mostly immigrant types are mainly the ones in this country that also see mary and such in various objects and worship the object.

 

[Immanuel]

I agree with this also Klaatu. It is a fine line and I hate that it has come to situations like this. I have couseled with 2 women who had been raped and gotten pregnant. Both decided to have thier babies. One raised her daughter and the other gave her son up for adoption. But I'll be the first to admit that this isn't the best thing to do in all cases. Eleven years old.....that's extremely bad. Personally, since I view abortion as murder I would definitely say no to abortion, even in this case, but I don't think that view ought to be forced upon all people.

Agree 100%

And to confess my own sins, I was once asked, before I became Pro-life, by a young woman who was my wife's best friend, if she should have an abortion. I told her that she should make up her own mind on that. I told her it was her decision and no one else's. She had her abortion. From that point on she would have nothing to do with us. Guilt sucks don't it?

Immie

 

[Cypress]

While at the same time, NOW and PP will fight tooth and nail for no restrictions on abortion at all in every state in the union.

There is little room for compromise on either side of the extremes here and there will be no compromise ever. One side or the other will win and who knows the tide may someday turn.

Immie

I think there's room for comprimise, outside the ideologies of the two extremes.

As long as republicans get serious about sex education, access to quality healthcare for all, and stop blocking contraception, I can see allowing the states to impose reasonable restrictions on abortions after the first trimester.

 

[Immanuel]

I think there's room for comprimise, outside the ideologies of the two extremes.

As long as republicans get serious about sex education, access to quality healthcare for all, and stop blocking contraception, I can see allowing the states to impose reasonable restrictions on abortions after the first trimester.

The problem is, Cypress, that only those on the extremes have a voice that plays to the powers that be, because this issue is a dividing issue. The powers that be ignore the middle and play to one extreme or the other. No one who runs for an elective position has the balls to run from the middle on this issue and if they did, they'd get creamed in the election.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I think there's room for comprimise, outside the ideologies of the two extremes.

As long as republicans get serious about sex education, access to quality healthcare for all, and stop blocking contraception, I can see allowing the states to impose reasonable restrictions on abortions after the first trimester.

So can I. The one caveat I would make is that the states are already able to impose reasonable restriction on abortions after the first trimester. The fact is that many states try to impose unreasonable restrictions simply in order to force the issue.

The only real bone of contention is first trimester abortions. The overwhelming majority of all abortions in this country are in the first trimester. If the fanatics of the far right would simply accept that such abortions are constitutionally protected then the issue would die away.

 

[Immanuel]

So can I. The one caveat I would make is that the states are already able to impose reasonable restriction on abortions after the first trimester. The fact is that many states try to impose unreasonable restrictions simply in order to force the issue.

The only real bone of contention is first trimester abortions. The overwhelming majority of all abortions in this country are in the first trimester. If the fanatics of the far right would simply accept that such abortions are constitutionally protected then the issue would die away.

In other words, "bow down to us, admit defeat and the issue is solved".

I wonder how gracious of winners you guys would be. I highly doubt graciousness would be found anywhere in your victory dances.

Added afterwards

You do realize, don't you, that according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 95% of all abortions are done for selfish reasons having nothing to do with the mother's health or well being. What if we insisted that in order to "compromise" you agreed to only allow abortions in the 5% of cases where there is an actual necessity? What if that were the adopted law of this land after 2010? Would you think this was a compromise? Do you think the victory that the right wing would feel would be gracious?

Immie

 

[Cypress]

So can I. The one caveat I would make is that the states are already able to impose reasonable restriction on abortions after the first trimester. The fact is that many states try to impose unreasonable restrictions simply in order to force the issue.

The only real bone of contention is first trimester abortions. The overwhelming majority of all abortions in this country are in the first trimester. If the fanatics of the far right would simply accept that such abortions are constitutionally protected then the issue would die away.

I think there would have to be some exceptions made, for legal abortions after the first trimester. And as you state, I think that IS the perogative of the States, consistent with Roe.

 

[Cypress]

The problem is, Cypress, that only those on the extremes have a voice that plays to the powers that be, because this issue is a dividing issue. The powers that be ignore the middle and play to one extreme or the other. No one who runs for an elective position has the balls to run from the middle on this issue and if they did, they'd get creamed in the election.

Immie

I agree. Its a political football, used to distract the voters.

I think the vast majority of people agree with the concept of a middle ground.

 

[Immanuel]

I agree. Its a political football, used to distract the voters.

I think the vast majority of people agree with the concept of a middle ground.

But, how do we get those people into power and even then how do we get to that middle ground? As I indicated in my last post my idea of a middle ground is going to be different than your idea of a middle ground. Your idea of a "compromise" i.e. Roe V. Wade, is my idea of a complete and utter Abortion Rights victory where as my idea of a compromise would be in the realm of eliminating abortion as a birth control method.

Immie

 

[Cypress]

But, how do we get those people into power and even then how do we get to that middle ground? As I indicated in my last post my idea of a middle ground is going to be different than your idea of a middle ground. Your idea of a "compromise" i.e. Roe V. Wade, is my idea of a complete and utter Abortion Rights victory where as my idea of a compromise would be in the realm of eliminating abortion as a birth control method.

Immie

Lets use an example, to see how "far" apart we are on a middle ground.

Lets say, in the second trimester of a pregnacy, the fetus is found to not have a brain or a spinal cord. And that giving birth, might ruin the woman's chance to have another baby.

Would you be in favor of an exception for this second-trimester abortion?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

In other words, "bow down to us, admit defeat and the issue is solved".

I wonder how gracious of winners you guys would be. I highly doubt graciousness would be found anywhere in your victory dances.

Added afterwards

You do realize, don't you, that according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 95% of all abortions are done for selfish reasons having nothing to do with the mother's health or well being. What if we insisted that in order to "compromise" you agreed to only allow abortions in the 5% of cases where there is an actual necessity? What if that were the adopted law of this land after 2010? Would you think this was a compromise? Do you think the victory that the right wing would feel would be gracious?

Immie

What you think are "selfish" reasons. What you think are inappropriate reasons. Personally, I find any attempt to generalize what constitute "selfish" reasons for such a difficult decision to be ruthlessly, violently authoritarian and patronizing.

 

[Immanuel]

Lets use an example, to see how "far" apart we are on a middle ground.

Lets say, in the second trimester of a pregnacy, the fetus is found to not have a brain or a spinal cord. And that giving birth, might ruin the woman's chance to have another baby.

Would you be in favor of an exception for this second-trimester abortion?

Until such a time as science can produce an artificial spinal cord. In this case the baby would not survive anyway. Also, not on a single doctor's prognosis. I would be in favor of a medical review board to review these kinds of cases.

One thing that is a problem with your hypothetical is the statement that it could affect her chance of having another baby. My initial reply is based more on if it risks her life. There is always the risk with delivery. To simply say it "might" affect her future chances is too vague; .05% (.0005) would not be a realistic chance of injury and of and by itself would not justify an abortion.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

What you think are "selfish" reasons. What you think are inappropriate reasons. Personally, I find any attempt to generalize what constitute "selfish" reasons for such a difficult decision to be ruthlessly, violently authoritarian and patronizing.

Why don't you just go read The Alan Guttmacher Institutes report on abortions. There is a slide presentation that clearly shows the reasons for abortions. 1% for health reasons. I think it was 1.5% was for rape. The rest were nothing more than "mommy doesn't want the baby for one reason or another". I would say that is selfishness. Wouldn't you?

Immie

 

[Cypress]

Until such a time as science can produce an artificial spinal cord. In this case the baby would not survive anyway. Also, not on a single doctor's prognosis. I would be in favor of a medical review board to review these kinds of cases.

One thing that is a problem with your hypothetical is the statement that it could affect her chance of having another baby. My initial reply is based more on if it risks her life. There is always the risk with delivery. To simply say it "might" affect her future chances is too vague; .05% (.0005) would not be a realistic chance of injury and of and by itself would not justify an abortion.

Immie

I agree that in the case I cited, a second trimester abotion should be permissible.

Which implies that there should be some exceptions for second and third term abortions. It shouldn't be an abosolute ban.

Now, I don't think second and third term abortions of health and viable fetuses is a good thing. I think its bad. But, I trust doctors more than legislators to make that determinations.

If reasonalbe restrictions were imposed, I think 95% of doctors would use sound medical judgement.

Your concern may be about the 5% who don't, and perform abotions that clearly affect a viable, healthy fetus. I don't know what to do about that. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Immanuel]

If reasonalbe restrictions were imposed, I think 95% of doctors would use sound medical judgement.

Your concern may be about the 5% who don't, and perform abotions that clearly affect a viable, healthy fetus. I don't know what to do about that. I'm open to suggestions.

I disagree. We are not talking about "doctors" we are talking about abortionists (most of whom are also OB/GYNs) but they also are abortionists and are paid by abortion mills. They make good money for each abortion. It IS big business.

As stated above 95% of all abortions are on healthy fetus' and not performed for health risks of the mother. That puts you in the 5% and me in the 95% group. That means 95% of all abortions (+/- 1,330,000/year) could be restricted and not significantly risk the mother's health. That is a lot of human lives saved.

I could be comfortable with exceptions for the life of the mother or serious issues with the chances of survival of the fetus. There should never be any hard and fast rules, but when you talk about 1.3 million human lives that is nothing to sneeze at.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

Why don't you just go read The Alan Guttmacher Institutes report on abortions. There is a slide presentation that clearly shows the reasons for abortions. 1% for health reasons. I think it was 1.5% was for rape. The rest were nothing more than "mommy doesn't want the baby for one reason or another". I would say that is selfishness. Wouldn't you?

Immie

One thought is it selfishness to bring a child into poverty, abusive parents, drunk/druggie parents, mentally ill parents, etc ?
but I want a baby!

 

[Immanuel]

I can also be comfortable with exceptions for rape. No woman who is raped should be FORCED to carry that child although if I were the counsellor, I would encourage it.

Immie

 

[IHateGovernment]

Outside of consideration for her age which Damo is correct is a life threatening issue I have a problem with those who address the abortion question with the issue of rape.

I am pro-life (special kind most know my position here). I don't dislike pro-choice automatically. Most are good people who have a different assessment of what constitutes a human or what is a reasonable burden the state can put upon you.

The people I do not like though are those who are pro-life supposedly but support abortion if the woman is raped. This stance totally negates the idea the human life should be protected and that is why abortion must be prohibited.

Instead such a stance shows another darker motive that pro-lifers are often accused of. Pro-lifers who make exception for abortion are saying it is permissable because it is not the fault of the woman who became impregnated. Thus these people deny abortion to women who were not raped because they are making a judgement about their lifestyle and are seeking to punish the woman for her behavior. The life of the unborn is not their concern for if it was they would see aborting a child conceived through rape is just as egregious as any other circumstance because it is the taking of an innocent life.

 

[Immanuel]

One thought is it selfishness to bring a child into poverty, abusive parents, drunk/druggie parents, mentally ill parents, etc ?
but I want a baby!

As compared to snuffing out its life?

Immie