The proposal, which is known as the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act,†would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Or the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of nearly every conceivable risk associated with abortion.
I can't imagine telling a raped woman she had to carry the rapists child or telling a young girl she had to have her father's child, her half-sister/daughter or half-brother/son.
Article: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/383142.html
In the abortion debate, a dichotomy has been carefully designed as "Abortion is a woman's right" vs "Abortion is murder". When the dichotomy is phrased in that way, the phrase "Abortion is a woman's right" loses the battle against the higher moral sounding ground of the phrase, "Abortion is murder". Words like "Pro-Life" are inherently vilifying in that the OPPOSITE must then be "Anti-Life."
The science of social propaganda is cleverly employed by groups against a woman's right of control over her body. In this battle of social propaganda, it is effective to reconfigure issues in ways that may alter fixed dichotomies. What I have found to be effective is to refocus the debate as a different dichotomy, one which places Pro-Choice on the higher moral ground.
The so-called "Pro-Life" movement is clearly a lie. It's followers are not motivated nearly as much by the preciousness of life as they are by a vicious determination to shove their pet vision, their self-serving agenda, down the throats of everyone else. They are the very same voting blocks that recently supported the immoral and despicable failure of the recent children's health care measure, which might be partly why the U.S. has an infant mortality rate higher than many third world nations and certainly lower than all other developed nations. They do not care about children other than their own or have compassion for them, that's for SURE. Been there, saw that during my long life of advocating for children. Any agenda that results in such an astronomically high infant mortality rate and such abominable neglect of children is clearly an invalid agenda, top to bottom.
Their voting blocks support capital punishment, war, the NRA and the 40,000 gun slaughter deaths every year in the U.S. and every single reduction in food programs for children in the last 25 years. And, they have fought tooth and nail against every single noble effort to reduce the incidence of abortion by addressing roots of the problem, from condom distribution programs, allowing pregnant girls to remain in school, equal pay for women so that they can support their children, quality childcare, domestic violence laws and sex education. And, their organizations and voting blocks have been directly behind every measure that has slashed funding for prenatal care which reduces spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) by 50%. They care NOTHING about life. They are blood-thirsty mealy-mouthed lunatics. They care not whatsoever about the lives of women or the nightmare of pregnancy secondary to rape or incest. In the social science of propaganda, it is appropriate to never mince your words when addressing your enemies. An excellent rule in any honor code would be to show your enemy no more respect or mercy than he would show a raped girl or a hungry sick child in the richest nation of the world.
Settlers came to the New World to escape the tyranny and persecutions of state religions and oppression in the lands from which the fled. Traditionally, since the beginning of civilization, everyone had to follow the will of whomever was in power at the time, that or be killed. The American Dream and the U.S. Constitution, on the otherhand, is an enlightened vision in which people of all sorts and all beliefs can live together in peace, that our laws, our government exist to protect a COMMON GROUND on which we can fairly share in opportunities to survive and prosper without fear of having the paradigms and beliefs and subjective agendas of lunatics shoved down our throats.
So-called "Pro-Lifers" morbidly crave to take our liberty away and design us in their own image. They have an agenda. They cannot bear tolerance or pluralism because their feeble-minded paradigms cannot hold-up in a world of free thought so they must have authoritarian control over the minds and wills of others in order to survive. They are a clear and vicious danger to the American Dream. They are the enemy of freedom. The TRUE dichotomy in the abortion debate is "Freedom" vs "Facism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Thanks, waswis. It is good to see you.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/USA_declaration_of_independence.jpg http://answers.yahoo.com/question/accuse_write?qid=20071208120732AAhWATp&kid=RpIvXTLqBGSa4KV3ocjp45wRUFrl.O6fH7szc8YRLrFOzDJumSWA&s=comm&date=2007-12-14+21%3A34%3A10&.crumb=
If we had allowed each state to have it's own abortion policies like the constitution declares, we would not have this fighting going on everyday. The Supreme Court over imposed it's rights by creating a law.
Disgusting. Luckily, the fed court will strike it down.
there was a case in central america this year (recent ban on abortion) where the woman died - and the husband was terribly distraught - b/c the doctor was afraid to certify that the abortion was necessary. it was....and she died. they had about 3 cases (deaths) since the ban went into effect.
these people are simply anti-woman. like the ohter poster said, they don't promote family planning (in fact, they're against it). they want to see women controlled by multiple births (and they don't care about maternal death either- b/c they are not doing a thing about that)
Why would you expect "compassion" from a group/government that thinks women's bodies should be owned by the state, and that young girls should be forced to stay pregnant against their will?
Since rape is likewise using another's body as if you own it, I doubt that they even object to rape.
The wording of the proposal sounds a bit like I think English abortion laws. I ran across this in a couple of novels I read, and apparently it's true that abortion has been legal in England since 1929 if the woman's life was at stake. In 1938 the law was expanded to cover psychological grounds (the girl had been raped). The 1969 law in England allowed abortion to preserve the woman's life, physical or mental health, physical or mental health of the woman's other children, or if the fetus was likely to be severely handicapped.
Although I'm pro-choice myself, I've never really understood why the far right allowed exceptions for rape or incest. Were they just trying to look compassionate? Were the pro-lifers saying that there were some men who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? If you had to prove you were raped or the baby was your uncle's, wasn't it just the government nosing into your business? It always seemed to me that if you thought abortion was murder, then it was murder all the time. It's a chink in their armor, so to speak; if there are sometimes cases that abortion is okay, then the whole pro-life argument falls apart.
I think it would be in society's best interests to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. But then, I think it's in society's best interest to let women be in control of their own bodies.
I had not heard of Spring Adams before. What a terrible story that is. Why wasn't someone trying to get her out of that house?
we live in a world with no compassion, unless driven by idealistic religious or "moral" virtues. i am so sick and tired of being controlled, how about you? i've never had an abortion and doubt i ever will, but who are we to tell some woman she has to carry a baby to term that she does not want? that was forced on her? are these high and mighty pro-lifers going to adopt that kid, pay for it, feed it? LOVE IT? please, these are the same people who are against any kind of public assistance and the same kind of "people" that call unwed mothers whores. these are the people who make young women even consider abortion!
sorry to go off on a rant, but those "people" piss me off more than pretty much anything!
Although they like to claim differently, people who are anti-choice are really anti-women.
The mental pain and invasion of having to be pregnant by a rapist means nothing to them.
To them, a woman is merely a vessel for a child.
In every country were birth control is readily available and women are permitted an education and means of being financially independent, the need for abortion decreases drastically. Keeping women pregnant and dependent is a mechanism to prevent progress.
Against abortion? Promote family planning.
Of course -- if the wife/daughter/niece of a rich anti-choice politician was raped and came up pregnant, they'd be sent to a jurisdiction were abortion is still legal. Only poor women are impacted by abortion restrictions.
You already know the answer.
Because people who have this mindset are far more interested fetuses than in the well-being of the children already walking around the planet.
And yes, children of the wealthy and well-connected will always have acces to these services.
People who are rabidly against abortion often change their tune when they find themselves in that situation:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
"The only moral abortion is my abortion!"
It's very hard to word a law to cover every circumstance..especially the ones that have tried to force the abortionist to tell the authorities when an abortion is sought for a 13 year old child with her 50 yr old lover standing next to her with his wallet open.
wow, that is horrible. if i had to carry my rapist's baby, i'd go to another state to do it if i had to. i'd say that should be under the "irreversible disability" category, becuz if it were me, i know i'd be in a questionable mental state....
maybe you should petition?
It's just typical pro life tactics. Prevent abortion by any means. Create liability for those who perform them. Prevent those who seek them whatever cause they may have. No middle ground. No scope for compromise. No exceptions.
Same old same old.
This organization ought to do some research on Spring Adams before they make any more efforts.
Because a bunch of sexist religious wackos are behind it.
Less than 1% of abortions are caused b/c of rape or incest. Also, Why condemn the child for the sins of his father? When a man kills another man we don't kill the child.
You can't imagine or is it that you don't want to imagine it due to beliefs? I do understand where you are likely coming from and how it would feel to you. On the other hand, I also understand how this might all change if somehow you did entertain the possibility for some time. Suppose that universal comprehensive DNA testing became required and it was discovered that you actually were the product of such an incestuous pregnancy, would your attitude remain the same?
I am not joking. IMO these births are far from being rare, maybe even frequent. IMO also, for what it is worth, maybe as some sort of cosmic joke, those who scream the loudest about these types of supposed abhorent subjects either as regards the past, present or future, actually have the most to hide. The law of attraction always wins and always is often.
Cheers!
The reason is that for them a baby is a baby and can not be killed no matter what the circumstances surronding it are.
If you found out that a 7 year old kid was the product of incest, do you think it would be justified to murder the kid? Pro life people believe that a fetus is just as alive as a 7 year old kid, so if you can't murder the 7 year old because of incest, then you can't abort the fetus because of incest. Seems logical to me.
And women who have been raped can always take the morning after birth control pill. There's no need for them to get pregnant in the first place.
yay about time justice is being served
The rationale behind that is you don't have the right to teminate a life no matter how it was concieved. they believe in life from inception so it is murder of an innocent person.
No comments:
Post a Comment