Attack at Planned Parenthood Clinic

[Joods]

I have some questions for you on this point then. Please take all the time you need to marinate on the value of the human life that is capable of thought. 

I hope you don't mind if I answer a few of these:

Where do you stand on the issue of pregnancy resulting in a rape? Sexual intercourse in this case is NOT wanted. It is a violation of another's personal space. Not to mention, it's illegal. 

As with all these issues, the fact that you will always run into is that there are two people involved in any of these situations, two humans, and both have rights. The rights of one of the humans might conflict with the rights of the other. For instance, the right to life of the fetus might conflict with the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body, if she wants to abort it. In these conflicts, I side with the right which is more important, and in this case, the right to life pretty much trumps all other rights, because without it, all other rights are easily taken away.

So, you actually expect a rape victim to carry a product of rape to full term, to give birth to it and then what? Larger issues could result. Let's say she knew her attacker, pressed charges and he was found guilty. HIS parents now decide that because THEY have a grandchild, they want some sort of rights. They sue the mother. Remember she's been the victim in all of this because her attacker forced himself on her. You have a woman who has a rape child, a child who will forever serve as a reminder of what happened to her. Could she give the baby up for adoption? Sure she could, but that baby is half of herself. To go that route could just be as easily as painful because she's giving up a part of herself. However, in the extreme early stages of such a pregnancy, where she hasn't heard a heart beat or felt movement, knowing such a thing was a product of rape, would be easier to let go of so as not to serve as a reminder or cause resentment or more pain. 

Where do you stand on a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body? 

 I'm for it, of course, however if you think these rights don't have limits, you are mistaken. I, for instance, do not have a right to use my fist to punch someone. Neither, I believe, does a mother have the right to terminate her own child's life.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Punching someone isn't a lifetime commitment. If I had cancer and found out that I was pregnant and the only way to save myself would be to go through chemo and/or radiation, but in the process, I would have to terminate my pregnancy, you're damn right I would choose to terminate. Especially if I have other children, who are already living, that need their mother (me). This goes back to that line of thinking about the lives that are already living vs a zygote who can't talk or process any sort of rational thought because it hasn't the mouth or the brains yet to do so. 

How comfortable would you be with having your government tell you what you can and cannot do with your private parts?

Very comfortable, if done for the right reasons. In fact, the government already does tell me what I cannot do with my private parts: it's illegal to piss in public. I'm fine with that; I understand why it's illegal.

Again, this is like comparing an apple to an orange. I realize that you are not of the female variety so I can sort of understand why you would think this, however, you choosing to piss in public is a far stretch from a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy. For one, I wouldn't want my small children seeing your wanker being displayed in public for all to see. Second, from a common sense standpoint, they do make toilets to pee in. If there isn't one around, hold it in or pee before you leave the house. If you're camping - trees! : Of course the government has laws set in place for certain things that people can and can't do with their body parts. Those are common sense laws because apparently, somewhere down the line someone forgot to use their common sense. But said government does not have the right to force a woman to enter into an 18 year commitment. Especially if the government is not willing to step up and put in the financial responsibility to raise said commitment. Nor should my taxes go to raise that commitment, one that I did not ask for. In addition, the government isn't going to have to deal with stretch marks, labor pains, nausea or any of the other things that come with being pregnant. 

What if it was a 13 year old female who got impregnated by a relative via sexual abuse?

Again, as unfortunate as that scenario is, if the fetus is viable and wouldn't harm the mother, it still has a right to life.

Not in this case it doesn't. If a father rapes his daughter and the end result is pregnancy, that baby is a result of inbreeding, which raises all sorts of health issues right there. The abuse is traumatic enough. Putting a young teenager through a pregnancy which not only serves as a reminder of the abuse but forcing that child to undergo all of the stresses a pregnancy carries is just wrong. The day I gave birth to my oldest, who is now 20, I found out there was a TEN year old in the next room also giving birth. Ten. She was still a baby herself. Ten. My heart broke for her. If her parents didn't have her adopt the baby out, guess who gets stuck raising that baby? HER parents do. How is that fair to anyone, including the baby? 

What if you were on birth control and it failed? Would you still demand that the woman have the baby? A baby that wasn't planned or that she couldn't financially afford to care for, hence the reason for the birth control.

Yes, because couples should be aware that birth control is not 100% effective. If you absolutely don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. There will always be a risk otherwise. I'm supportive of adoption, of state support for poor families.

While I agree that birth control is not 100% effective and the best alternative is not to have sex in the first place, this all comes down to the fact that there are so many factors that are not being taken into consideration in each of these scenarios. We can argue all day until the sun comes up about this issue, but at the end of the day, the woman still has the right to choose. Since a man is not capable of carrying a baby let alone going through and giving birth, I can clearly see how there would be a strong differing of opinion in each of these situations. However, forcing women who are victims of abuse, to have to go through 9 months of carrying a child, giving birth to it is traumatic enough without the risk of having further trauma placed on them once the child is born. They now have to choose between raising the unwanted result or adoption and those two things aren't as easy to decide on as one might think. It's not a fair situation to either mother or child. It's not fair to ask the mother to live with guilt and shame for the rest of her life either, or to ask her to die (if that's the situation) so that her unborn child can live.  


I put my responses in red because my tablet was acting a fool and I was too tired to try and fix it all.