« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What’s Next for the Pro-Life Movement

By: Marjorie Dannenfelser (Diary)  |  November 9th, 2010 at 04:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From the diaries. Marjorie Dannenfelser is the President of the Susan B. Anthony List, one of the most effective pro-life activist groups in the country.

I’d be preaching to the choir if I told Redstate readers that victories at the ballot box don’t mean a thing until they produce legislative victories.

So, with major electoral gains for the pro-life movement at the ballot box this November, what’s next?

It’s time to end all federal funding of abortion.

It’s a no-brainer. The majority of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life. And an even larger majority believes that tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund abortion.

Two bills would get the job done:

• The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bipartisan bill sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), would create a government-wide statutory ban on abortion funding including those funding provisions contained in Obamacare.

• The “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), would ensure that abortion providers, including organizations like Planned Parenthood, do not receive federal dollars under the Title X federal family planning assistance program.

The pro-life movement really flexed its muscles in the 2010 election. Many representatives learned the consequences of their vote for a health care bill that included taxpayer funding of abortion when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed. Those Members have been replaced by authentic pro-life voices that are supported by a strongly pro-life GOP leadership.

With its promise to defund abortion in its Pledge to America, that leadership team has shown it understands the urgency of addressing the tragedy of nearly 4,000 abortions a day. Now it’s time for the pro-life Republican majority in the House to make good on that Pledge. It should start by ending all taxpayer funding of abortion.

We showed our strength in key Congressional races across the country; now it’s time to do so on Capitol Hill.

You can help by taking two minutes to sign the SBA List’s Stop Abortion Funding petition today. It’s a call on the 112th Congress to pass the lifesaving legislation mentioned above to prevent our hard-earned tax dollars from paying for abortion.

Congratulations to everyone at Redstate who made last Tuesday’s wins at the ballot box possible. Now, let’s redouble our efforts. Let’s start laying the groundwork for legislation that will restore America’s conscience and ensure that no one is forced to be complicit in the destruction of human life when they send their tax dollars to Washington.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Common_Cents

    Or define at what point life can be defended under the constitution.

    The default choice to err on the side of caution HAS to be the earliest point possible. The unborn must get the benefit of the doubt. We give the same courtesy to those in the criminal justice system and on death row: multiple chances, stays, checks balances to preserve a right to life at the cost of letting a criminal off. Why wouldn’t an innocent unborn child get the same treatment?

    The burden of proof should be squarely on the abortionist side to provide irrefutable evidence that a fetus is scrapable at a particular point.

    To let them frame the debate with “choice” nonsense is to lose the war before the first battle begins.

    How does a liberal who supports abortion, explain how double homicide charges can be made on a perp who kills a pregnant woman? When that very same woman could have chosen to abort the same unborn child with no repercussions under a different scenario?

    Nobody has ever been able to explain that one to me. Nobody.

    Every abortion believer has to be challenged and forced to provide some real reason beyond stupid political euphemistic terms regurgitated in the left circles with zero thought.

  • zip27

    Pro-choice women feel like they got thrown under the bus in order to get health reform passed, and pro-life organizations still view the legislation as providing funding for abortion. There’s a serious disconnect there.

  • aesthete

    This is a sound, incremental way forward for the pro-life movement. Though we certainly shouldn’t settle when we attain these goals, they are perfectly reasonable in the short- and medium-term.

  • mikejmoe

    It wasn’t pro-choice women that felt like they got thrown under the bus; it was pro-abortion women. Big difference. Pro-Abortion women want abortion to be free for all, funded by the taxpayers, government-run slaughter houses on every corner in the city. They won’t settle for anything less. These people are passionate about abortion and it’s disgusting.

  • mikejmoe

    It is a timely post. This is piece of pro-life legislation we can actually pass. It would be hard for most moderate Dems to vote against it. 3 out of 4 taxpayers are opposed to their dollars going toward abortion. Would hurt Dems to vote against it and would expose those that would as pro-abortion extremists. Works politically is my point

  • DRayRaven

    Can we please NOT throw this great victory away on another anti-abortion crusade? Talk about politically tone deaf!

    The American people did NOT turn against Obama and the Democrats for any kind of abortion agenda, pro-life, pro-choice, or otherwise. This was about federal spending, government over-reach, and the reclamation of personal freedom. So let’s not flush this victory DOWN THE TOILET by bringing the abortion issue to the forefront.

    I swear – I wish the GOP could just be the party of fiscal responsibility without pandering to Bible-thumping wingnuts who send independents and most female voters running the other way.

    Cut federal funding to abortion? Fine…I agree. Appoint strict constructionists to the court who would be willing to reconsider Roe v. Wade? I’m good with that, too. Turn it into a major issue AS IF it’s something the majority of Americans think is a major, important problem facing the nation? Hell, no.

  • JadedByPolitics

    …

  • Mark Malcolm

    put forth including this one. Lets get everyone freshly on the record for what they will and will not support. Oh, and yes, I do thump my Bible when I open it to read how valuable every life God created is, and yes, I do vote with that in mind, and no this will not flush the victory down the toilet. Rather, it will allow us to document clearly which of the three stances each politician is adopting right now i.e. For, Against, Waffle.

  • mikejmoe

    While it is true that abortion wasn’t the number one issue, it most certainly played a role, especially in the districts where self-described pro-life Democrats voted for Obamacare. They were thrown out of office largely because Obamacare provided for taxpayer funded abortion. Do you not remember that entire debate earlier this spring?

    Secondly, Kellyanne Conway, a respected pollster, said that one-third of the electorate said abortion played a role in the way they voted and of that one third, 75% voted pro-life.

    Finally, like Marjorie said, poll after poll shows a supermajority of Americans don’t want their tax dollars to be used to pay for abortion, even some people who are self-described pro-choicers.

  • Mark Malcolm

    and I think the house should send it up even if the senate says they won’t pass/discuss/look at it. The house should make it their job for the next two years to send conservative bill after conservative bill up to the senate so there is a clear record of where everyone stands by 2012.

  • DRayRaven

    Excuse me for not getting all worked up over the “rights of the unborn” when we have ACTUAL CHILDREN in this country attending crappy schools in neighborhoods infested by drugs and gangs. Kids in single-parent homes dependent on government hand-outs who live in poverty you have probably never experienced.

    If these anti-abortion Bible-thumpers spent even HALF of their energy toward fighting for education reform that breaks the union/Democrat stranghold or toward reforming entitlements to stop rewarding/encouraging generations of dependency on government cheese, there might not be so many abortions in America.

    But, no…when it comes to entitlement reform, education reform, or anthing else that is TRULY important to make sure our kids aren’t buried under a mountain of debt, dependent on a socio-fascist beauracracy, these “pro-life” people are nowhere to be found. They’re out there waving their offensive signs at women who are making a horrible choice and don’t NEED the harrassment.

    Hell, come to think of it, where were the pro-life fanatics in this whole election cycle? As far as I can tell, abortion was NOT an issue…but they sure crawl out the woodwork once the election is won, don’t they?

    I’m in the right place…but I’m consistent – fiscally libertarian, socially libertarian. When it comes to sex, abortion, homosexuality, what-have-you, it’s none of the government’s business…and it’s none of yours, either.

  • Bill S

    That term is offensive and no one gets away with using it. If you’d like to apologize and plead for your site life, send a note to the Contact link. Otherwise, g’bye and good riddance.

  • penguin2

    God given life. Creator. Willfully killing the unborn is a refection of a society without conscience.

    Bible thumping? No, but a believer that life is sacred.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “fanatics” as you call them were running ads in I believe 20 different districts of pro life Democrats of which there are none for voting for abortion in Obamacare and I believe they are all going home. You see that which you want not that which is a FACT!

  • bassethound

    Those “Bible thumping wingnuts” have been in the forefront of education reform. They are the ones who are promoting vouchers which would allow poor and minority families to choose the schools their children attend. Several of these programs that have already been implemented have been successful in raising academic standards and graduation rates in inner city neighborhoods.

    Those same “wingnuts” also advocate PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY through abstinence programs. One of the things they point out that the most effective way to avoid poverty is for a woman to choose her partner wisely, GET MARRIED FIRST, THEN have children. That way she doesn’t need Uncle Sam to be a sugar daddy.

  • JSobieski

    Your “logic” denies the possibility that an unborn child is a person entitled to their own life and liberty.

    In terms of practical politics, pro-lifers do the vast majority of volunteering, door knocking, pamphlet handing out, and other work needed for the GOP to win.

    So your attempt to impugn the folks who keep dems at bay is not particularly smart.

  • trutexan

    I

  • mikefrey

    Maybe few used this as the SOLE reason for their vote, but I think many used it as a component of their vote.

    The provision for ObamaCare to fund abortions was definitely on my radar screen, and contributed significantly to my anger over the whole debacle. I used it as part of my argument as I worked to educate people about the wrong that was perpetrated on the people.

    I, mikefrey, voted to end federal funding of abortion (among other goals).

  • audax

    Come on people, the author wants to ban Federal FUNDING of abortion! Why should federal taxpayers have to pay for an abortion for someone who made a choice to spread her legs? Lets face it, that is 99.9% of abortions, they are for woman who made poor choices. Now how is that the responsibility of the Federal Government?

    Also agreed, Micheal Williams for US Senate! but why even have a Dept of Energy? Don’t see that in the Constitution either.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    You’ve fallen for the most common ‘pro choice’ trap: that it is about women doing what they want with their bodies. That isn’t the issue. The issue is whether you believe human life begins at conception or at some point thereafter.

    If you get someone to agree with you that human life begins at conception (the only logical and rational belief) then the pro abortion / pro choice / whatever argument just completely falls apart. Also: if you believe that a fetus is a human being, then it isn’t about the woman doing whatever she wants with her body, it is a matter of protecting a human being from the purposeful termination of its life by another.

    But then you get to the next question: what is the role of the federal government in all of this? I am still not totally convinced of my position stated in a comment higher on this page (states, the governments with the general police power, must be the ones who decide about abortion). But I am leaning in that direction. Federal government should withhold all support for abortion, but the states are the ones that need to decide if it is legal in their jurisdiction or not.

  • A_Texan

    On the contrary, the national GOP pledged, in the run-up to the election–to ban all federal funding of abortion.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/21/nat-6720/

    Plus the abortion issue figured prominently in districts whose nominally pro-life representatives voted for Obamacare.

  • jerry39

    but would anyone seriously argue it wasnt a major factor in this election?

    I dont know about other jurisdictions, but I know in Cincinnati, the “pro-life” democrat Driehaus lost to Steve Chabot the day he switched his vote with all the other “pro-life” democrats in the Stupak clan, and pro-life groups let the whole city know it.

    As an aside, it is not consistent to say you are pro-life and you alos believe a woman has a right to do what they want with their body. Pro-life has a specific meaning in this context which is that you support the right to life of the unborn more than you support the womans right to take that life. To claim to be both pro-life and pro-choice is like saying you support an end to slavery but you also support the slaveowners property rights in slaves. It might make you feel good to pretend you can segment the issues, but the reality is you support legalized abortion and you are not pro-life.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Okay this is actually a question on this topic that I’ve been personally trying to answer for myself. If possible I’d like to see if anyone would care to comment or give input.

    I am strongly anti-abortion and pro-life. I believe that human life begins at conception and all decisions thereafter must be made in that context. However, I am also a limited government true believer in our federal system of government.

    It goes without saying that all federal support, aid, or comfort to abortion should be ended as quickly as possible. Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous and laughable court decision.

    However, that said, the police power rests with the states. If we are going to be consistent with our arguments about limited, constitutional government and federal powers, shouldn’t we admit that as the U.S. Constitution is currently written, it is up to the individual state legislatures to regulate abortion? If the powers of Congress are enumerated in the Constitution, then Congress lacks the power to outlaw abortion nationwide.

    That being said, I strongly support a national constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception. But I don’t think that Congress has the power to do it.

    This is a question really, because I haven’t really decided if I completely agree with the argument I’ve just set out above. But I’d like to hear what others have to say about it.

    Any takers?

  • jdw4america

    The preamble clearly states that among the expressly intended purposes of our Constitution is the establishment of justice. If an entire population of human beings can be DECLARED not alive or not human or simply disposable, then justice does not exist. Anyone at anytime can, with such a cultural mindset, be judicially declared not human.

    It is irrelevant whether or not one believes that the unborn are alive, or whether one believes they are human. Science shows us absolutely that the unborn are both, whether we “believe” it or not. One might as well argue that because he does not choose to believe that gravity exists, it does not objectively exist, and therefore he need not accept its limitations. How moronic. Truth does not require your assent to be objectively true.

    The discipline of Biology clearly tells us that what is conceived in the body of a woman is alive. It demonstrates all the vital signs of every other living thing on the planet – growth, reproduction, ingestion, excretion, transportation, respiration, adaptation and locomotion – first only on a cellular level, but if left alive, on both a cellular and systemic level. Only living organisms can do any of these things. The subdivision of Genetics reveals that a pregnant woman has conceived a human being in her womb. The DNA is that of a new human, and of no other type of creature ever in existence on earth. This is not opinion, it is scientific fact.

    If we are to decide as a nation, that a living, human being can be eliminated because his mother decides that she has the right to have him executed at the hands of a physician, then we need to stop prosecuting child abusers. If a child can be murdered at the behest of his mother prior to birth, why not after? Because he has been permitted to travel 4 inches from intra-uterine to extra-uterine existence? In fact, why prosecute murder at all? If one person is entitled to decide that your life is not valuable, and can be destroyed, isn’t it absurd to prosecute other people who feel exactly the same way about your existence?

    Those who would further suggest that somehow desiring limited government are being hypocritical or contradictory, please. Both the state governments and the federal government prosecute murder, because they were both established to protect and defend our liberties – especially our right to live. Our laws cannot defend our rights if we are dead. The dead have no rights.

    You cannot kill your spouse in the privacy of your own home, and anyone suggesting that you should be able to do so would immediately be recognized as deranged. Either the destruction of a human life is important, or it isn’t. It is insufficient an argument to state that the right to privacy trumps someone else’s right to exist.

    As Malcolm Muggeridge wrote, ” There is no sicker phrase than “unwanted child.” It tells us nothing of the child in question, and everything about the society into which that child has been conceived.”

  • jackhammer

    which means it is not.

    Just as America used to be under the false belief that black people were less than human, and did not deserve the rights and protections that the constitution affords all people, so too is now among many int he country a false belief that an unborn child is something less than human.

    When this convenient misrepresentation is no longer accepted, then it is clear as day that abortion=murder.

  • jerry39

    One need look no further than Roe itself which was based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment which restricts states from depriving persons of life liberty or property without due process of law.

    “Privacy” was the right the Supreme Court essentially invented from wholecloth as an aspect of “liberty” and so was more removed from the language of the constitution than the direct prohibition against depriving persons of “life.”

    While a valid point has been made that state action was implicated Roe because a state statute was issued, state in-action can itself be action.

    The result of states licensing Dr.’s to take the life of a whole class of persons (the unborn) is a deprivation of life wihtout due process of law. But even without the state action of licensing, a state cannot avoid constitutional implications simply by refusing to take any action. A state could not for instance fail to prosecute any crime commited against black people and claim that the feds have no jurisdiction. A state cannot fail to implement a system of foreclosure on property and simply allow banks to hire thugs ot throw people out of their homes, etc. An open, obvious, and widespread deprivation of life cannot merely be tolerated by willful ignorance and hope to avoid constitutional scrutiny.

    The simple fact is that the Supreme Court got in wrong, not only in thier creation of a “privacy” right that inlcluded abortion, but first and foremost they got it wrong on the science. If advanced ultra sound had existed in 1972 we would not have had Roe v. Wade, because the judges could not have weigted the “possibility” of life against the privacy of the mother.

    A simple legislative clarification that the word “life” and the word “person” in the due process clause do in fact include the unborn is all that is really needed to overturn Roe v. Wade, if the constitution is properly interpreted.

    That has been and will remain the simplist method of ending legal abortion in the United States and it in no way should confront the sensibilities of those who value life, but value the 10th amendment just a little more.

  • kstone

    that the conservative principle of limited government would give jurisdiction to the states to decide issues such as abortion in pursuant to the 10th amendment (Reserve clause) of the U.S. Constitution; however, that will never happen until supreme court justices are appointed that will over rule the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision.

    I would like to think that Kennedy would make the right ruling, but am not wholly convinced.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I agree with 99% of what you said. However, the federal government does NOT prosecute murder in the same way that the states do. States prosecute murder in 99 out of 100 cases, because the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction.

    The feds prosecute murder (or any other crime) when, for example, the perpetrator crosses state lines (thereby making it a federal crime) or when it involves some other issue that places it within federal jurisdiction.

    The federal government does not have jurisdiction to prosecute a ‘simple’ murder, or any other crime that doesn’t in some way place it within federal jurisdiction.

    You have to justify the constitutional basis for making it a federal issue. Otherwise, you need a constitutional amendment.

  • runner12

    I too have wondered about the role of government in this issue, as scorpio did, despite being pro-life. You, my friend, just gave a great argument for eliminating all abortion on a Federal level and a scientfic one to boot (which I appreciate). You did a magnificent job of exposing the hypocrisy in our country regarding this topic. I would only add that what many people are not aware of is that many organizations are militantly “pro-choice” because abortion is a huge industry. It is sick and sad, but many people have become quite wealthy off of killing human beings.
    We must be strategic in this. The lies of the pro-choice movement have been entrenched in our society. We must first ban all federal money to abortions. Then we must seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return the power to the states. Then we launch an all out campaign on the ground, re-educating people and exposing the lies of the pro-choice movement. The first one being that abortion is about a “woman’s right to choose.” We can begin to do that by exposing it for the money-making scheme that it is.

  • warkarma

    In the interest of self-disclosure:

    I’m a moderate conservative, devout Christian (Episcopal) who helped build our church, who can’t stand Obama. I want fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, a pro-economy government and believe that taxing our nation into oblivion is the wrong approach to doing things. I’m also a fervent environmentalist (I live in Washington State, and most conservatives here are passionate about the environment as well, including Dino Rossi). I’m campaigning for a Mitt Romney ticket in 2012.

    I’m also a proud father who went through 7 years of painstaking trials and tribulations (not to mention expenses) to have our first child. I’m opposed to abortion in all forms if the pregnancy was intended or due to irresponsible sexual behavior. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose in the instance of incest and/or rape. How do we protect the rights of the women who did not act irresponsibly, who are victims of crimes and circumstance?

    I actually think a lot about this, so I’d like to have an intelligent debate. The abortion issue is something I struggle with more and more, especially after having our child. I should mention that my wife, who is ultra-conservative in all respects, shares the same view.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “That “thumping” you hear is the heartbeat of life”…..that pretty much answers that!

  • kstone

    that you can’t expect a woman to carry a baby to term when they were forced against their will or otherwise manipulated into getting pregnant.

    However, only 1% to 2% of all abortions are due to rape or incest, while over 90% of the 40 million plus babies aborted since 1973 have been killed because they were “inconvenient.”

    It’s very tragic considering that contraceptives such as condoms and the birth control pill are 98% effective. If everybody who had sex, but didn’t want children, would only use proper protection, there would simply be no need for abortion.

  • powertothepeople

    but let me ask you a question,

    Man goes out and kills a father and a mother. He beats the son almost to a pulp and leaves him seriously brain damaged. Town has three families who take in the children of the victims of crimes. Town decides to kill brain injured child so that family who takes in kids is not “punished” by having to take in such a responsibility considering they did not do anything wrong.

    Apples and Oranges I know, but same applies. You either support abortion because you do not see the child as human or you stand against it because it is human. If you stand against it you have to understand the fetus is a child deserving of the same rights as you and me. While what happened to the mother is awful, it still does not justify the murder of the unborn. Put the child up for adoption, but killing it because you had an awful thing happen to you is not a justifiable reason.

    Side note, Romney really? Conservative you may be, conservative he is not. There are a ton of better choices who are true conservatives if you want to help in 2012. Not too mention, Romney could not win dog catcher much less president.

  • kstone

    overturned and the issue sent back to the individual states where it always belonged, you could always provide for exceptions in these cases.

    Most people don’t realize that even before abortion was made legal, every state (or virtually every state) allowed for abortions if the mother’s life was at risk. I would hate to have to make that choice, but if it’s between the mother or the baby surviving, I would have to choose the mother. State legislators could always include similar protections for rape and incest victims.

  • powertothepeople

    life of mother and killing because something bad happened. No one has a right to demand another give up their life for a person, but we can demand that a person not be able to kill another human just because something bad happened to them.

  • bassethound

    I agree with your post, but your terminology is not totally accurate. It is not the case of having to choose either the mother or baby. The situation is that if no intervention occurs then both lives are lost. In that case the life that can be saved should be saved. Sometimes a woman’s pregnancy goes so awry that carrying to term will literally kill her. Such a situation would be eclampsia. Once seizures and coma occur, the only way to rectify the situation is to end the pregnancy, regardless of the developmental status of the child.

    In other cases, a woman in her last trimester is gravely injured and cannot survive. Then the only humane choice is to deliver the baby and care for it in the NICU.

    And yes, abortion under these conditions was legal before Roe, although the situation had to be VERY carefully documented. It will be legal when (God willing) Roe is overturned.

  • kstone

    your position against abortion in all cases, and recognize that it is a legitimate viewpoint, but I disagree in some cases.

    Incest can be difficult to discover until it’s too late, and I would be willing to concede that adoption would be the more humane solution. However, rape is a different story altogether.

    I’m male btw, but I cannot imagine the trauma of having to carry the product of rape for nine months, and then have to go through the painful ordeal of labor when the conception was wholly against my will. The long term emotional scarring would be devastating. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.

    Yet this could be easily avoided if the victim goes to the doctor as soon as possible after the crime is committed to receive the morning after pill to prevent the zygote from ever attaching to the uterine wall. Yes, a fetus is a human being, but a zygote is just a small lump of tissue, not unlike tissue that is regularly expelled during menses.

  • Mark Malcolm
  • Mark Malcolm

    which means on this subject we have to accept some states will act like California, Oregon, etc and allow abortion. To which we must continue to work and affect change within the system just as progressives have worked and changed the systems of the various states to suit their ideology.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    It is a matter of national, no, international human rights. But that still doesn’t give the federal government jurisdiction. Remember: it took a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, an act of Congress wasn’t sufficient.

    So the answer is a constitutional amendment that defines human life as beginning at conception.

    I would still like to hear someone make a legal argument for the constitutionality of an act of Congress abolishing abortion, though. Bear in mind that in crimes like murder, arson, etc. it is not a federal crime until something puts it within federal jurisdiction (such as crossing state lines, using banks to further the crime, using ‘wires’ i.e., telephones during the commission of the crime, etc. Someone who breaks into a home and kills someone can’t be prosecuted under federal law without some additional fact that puts it in federal jurisdiction).

    In that sense, crossing state border to obtain an abortion could be a federal crime. However, obtaining an abortion in a state that allows it wouldn’t be.

  • mikejmoe

    The House can and should pass this and then let’s see how the Senate feels about using tax dollars to fund abortion during a recession. Need to push it. Not only is it the right thing to do its the smart thing to do politically

  • warkarma

    “I

  • powertothepeople

    start an issue between the two of us, but you comment makes no sense.

    You state that you agree with me and that adoption would be a more humane option in the case of incest, yet it is different with rape? How is it different? Same life inside the womb, in both cases women were forced to give of themselves when they did not want to, yet killing a baby is OK with rape but not with incest?

    Are you saying that having your own grandpa or dad sweating over you without your consent is somehow better than having a stranger do so?

    Abortion is abortion is abortion. Killing a baby because you do not want it or killing it because something bad happened to you, it is all the same. Life of mother is the only excusable reason as no one can ask another human to die for another unless they want too. But lets get real, less than 1% of all abortions are done for rape, incest, life of mother so it is sort of a mute point. I would concede the three listed above to see the other 99% ended. Maybe we can agree on that and part as friends fighting one thing, dems!

  • jerry39

    the trauma of killing your own son or daughter? I would argue it is much simpler to get over the harm others cause us than it is to get over the harm we cause others.

    Rape is assuredly traumatic. I cant imagine the scars either, but I will bet my life that adding the trauma of an aboriton on top of the trauma of the rape leaves no woman better off.

    Another thing that is never considered in these arguments is that fact that in cases of continued sexual abuse usually of a minor (more common than the average street rape) abortion is merely the friend of the rapist. He gets his victim pregnent, gets her an abortion and goes right back to raping. We know nothing about planned parenthood’s records, but there have been multiple lawsuits about abuse that went on for years where PP was allowing the abuser to bring in his victim for 2,3,4,5 abortions before being caught.

    Your mercy and empathy is misplaced.

  • jerry39

    In media and politics it is practically impossible for anyone to go out on a limb and make that very clear logical point, The media is great at demonizing anyone who doesnt support abortion in the case of rape or incest, but the logic of allowing such abortions is absurd.

    The idea that you can punish the innoncent life for the crime of the father in order to make the victim feel better? Weren’t we supposed to learn in kindergarten that 2 wrongs dont make a right?

  • powertothepeople

    and I agree with you.

  • kstone

    than it is to get over harm we cause to others. I have no problem with this statement, except you seem to forget that the pregnancy is part of the harm inflicted upon the victim by the rapist. This is not some blessed conception to be rejoiced by the woman. On the contrary, this is more akin to being exposed to and infected with some deviant’s DNA.

    You say:

    “Another thing that is never considered in these arguments is that fact that in cases of continued sexual abuse usually of a minor (more common than the average street rape) abortion is merely the friend of the rapist. He gets his victim pregnent, gets her an abortion and goes right back to raping. We know nothing about planned parenthood

  • trutexan

    I never said I was pro-choice and to equate that to supporting slavery is absurd. Now you’re getting into the abortion debate and that is not what this string is about. That’s why we can’t get anywhere on this issue – people refuse to consider the science in the debate.

    There is gray in this issue and it’s mentioned above. There are about 72 hours between an egg being fertilized and when it attaches itself to the uterine wall. It is the attachment that gives life. Like water gives life to a planted seed. The seed may be viable but until it is planted and provided water it will not grow. If a woman chooses to prevent that attachment, that is her decision. As I said, “She can do with her body what she chooses”. Should she be become pregnant, I believe she should carry the child to term. So yes, I can have it both ways.

  • kstone

    then why provoke me? I was respectful of your viewpoint, and conceded it was a legitimate opinion. However, since you insist on picking a fight with me, I will respond. But I will do so without the lurid imagery of incestuous acts that you would choose to illustrate.

    Incest is problematic because the criminal act may not be discovered by anybody other than the victim and perpetrator until late in the pregnancy, or even after the baby’s born. Victims of incest often don’t realize that the sexual act is abuse because they are young and more easily manipulated by their attackers, and therefore less likely to come forward about the abuse. This is why I changed my position and conceded that adoption would be the appropriate course of action in cases of incest.

    In cases of rape; however, the victim would most likely take action immediately. As I said before, if the victim went to the hospital as soon as possible after the attack and received a “morning after” pill, they could end the pregnancy before it develops into a fetus. However, if the victim decides not to go to the hospital for several weeks, then I would strongly urge for adoption. The believe that there is no difference between jettisoning an undeveloped zygote, and ripping a fetus from a womb is simply unfathomable!

    You say:

    “…less than 1% of all abortions are done for rape, incest, life of mother so it is sort of a mute (sic) point. I would concede the three listed above to see the other 99% ended. Maybe we can agree on that and part as friends fighting one thing, dems!”

    Fair enough, but you’re the one who picked a fight with me over a minor disagreement in the first place, so why the change of heart now?

  • JSobieski

    The law is filled with mitigating factors when one commits a crime or harms others. Shooting someone in cold blood has always been treated differently than shooting someone while in a state of extreme distress.

    There can be little doubt that pregnancy as a result of rape is a constant reminder of the rape and that a pregnant woman in that situation is struggling with a lot of things.

    Life of the mother is just another way of saying self defense.

    Rape is another way of saying mitigating factors.

    Incest, if rape is not involved, is just a messed up situation.

    The law very logically would treat these situations differently. To say its killing someone “because something bad happened to you” is to give short shrift to the undeniable psychological impact of carrying your rapist’s baby.

  • samuelaxel33

    I just wanted anyone