Memo to Pro-Life Republicans

If you believe there should not be a  rape exception for abortion and you get asked the question, “do you believe there should be a rape exception for abortion?” then your answer is as follows:

I believe all of us desire that we should be just and merciful in our actions and I just can’t see how justice or mercy are served by executing a child because her father is a rapist.

Thank you for your time and attention to this message.

The Audacity of Harry Reid is now available for a mere $0.99 through election day.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Memo to Pro-Life Republicans

  1. bozo October 25, 2012 / 7:10 am

    Not a popular subject so I’ll try to get it rolling.

    The Bible commands that an adulterously-conceived fetus be aborted by a priest in Numbers 5:27, simply at the request of a jealous, suspicious husband. Furthermore, after being given an abortifacient of giardia spores and amoeba cysts, the guilty (or innocent) mother is banned from civilization and left to die.

    If it’s God’s will that a violently, incestuously raped 14 year old gets pregnant, then ebola is God’s will. Cancer is God’s will. Death by tonsillitis is God’s will. The Bengazi attacks and even 9-11 are God’s will. ObamaCare…wait, that’s going too far.

    Fascinating read, the Bible. Full of great things to know and believe. I recommend it highly. Of course, some things you can ignore.

    • GMB October 25, 2012 / 7:43 am

      Are you sure about that? Looks like you have rewrote a few things here.

      Numbers 5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

      We will not mention the fact that this is the Old Testament and that this is overruled by Christ’s commandment about love. That would just knock bozo’s self esteem back down the toilet drain.

      Understand what you read? Apparently not but that’s what we expect from the bozos of this world.

      • bozo October 25, 2012 / 9:22 am

        Sorry. “Her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrink, and her name will become a curse among her people. But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, then she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children” means she is guilty if the baby is aborted by the infection, which in the days before metronidazole was often fatal to the mother as well.

        And not to mention, but Jesus did not undo the Old Testament, he fulfilled it. Otherwise, we could still kill our children for being disobedient.

        What you wish it meant and what it means are not always the same thing.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 9:44 am

        It is not hard to understand freakzo’s antipathy toward religion. After all, he must reflect, could a just God allow someone like the freaky clown to procreate?

        And I have to admit, the same thought has crossed my mind as well.

        But God does work in mysterious ways, so there must be a reason to infest the Earth with spawn of bozo, just as there is reason completely beyond our ability to understand for making him such a sour, surly, hate-driven resentful sack of ugly. (And when I say “sack of ugly” it is not a reference to how he sees himself and wants others to see him, as shown by his avatar, but to his persona, which is routinely displayed and defined here as the very epitome of ugly.)

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 10:19 am

        “And not to mention, but Jesus did not undo the Old Testament, he fulfilled it. Otherwise, we could still kill our children for being disobedient”

        Now we can just kill them for being inconvenient.

      • GMB October 25, 2012 / 11:09 am

        It is clear that your understanding of Christ’s reason is lacking. If you do not understand love me as you would love yourself or love thy neighbor as you would love yourself, you are hopeless.

        Amazona is right. You have turned your back on all that is righteous for some vague, ever changing definition of fairness. The reason why you support the murder of unborn children is that you do not have to do it yourself.

        I challenge you to drop everything, get yourself through med school and become an abortionist.

        I challenge you to rip a life out of another life. I challenge you to look at the life that is ended and explain to Christ how that meets his standards.

        Ugly and gutless.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 5:16 pm

        Maybe freakzo and Velma could sit down with some of the people who managed to survive abortion attempts and look them in the eye and explain why they are so loyal to the man who voted to deny even basic care and food to babies who, like them, did not die during the attempt to kill them.

        I’d love to see either one of them sit across from a young man or woman and tell him or her “If I’d had my way, you’d be dead.” Or at the very least, to say “I ardently support and vote for a man who, if he had his way, you would be dead.” To say “When the female who conceived you decided to kill you, I fought for her right to do that.”

        I’d like to see either one of them talk to a child who was conceived due to rape, but was fortunate enough to have been conceived by a strong woman and not a weak or pathologically selfish female looking for a quick and permanent “solution” to a temporary problem, and explain how in their minds this child should have been denied the right to live because of the crime of its father.

        Sadly, these women are not given loving support and encouraged to allow their feelings to settle down after the initial trauma, but are pushed into accepting that somehow, magically, the trauma of the rape will be diminished if she can just get rid of the child.

        So what if many of these women end up adding guilt to their burden of trauma? No matter. The babies are dead, and that’s what matters. They’ll just have to get over it.

      • The Return of Rathaven October 25, 2012 / 5:47 pm

        Let’s ask Velma,

        Say “Iris” did your parents have any children that survived?

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 6:30 pm

        AMA, Velma and the creepy assclown are both cowards who would never do such a thing.

        They both avoid challenges and run away when they can’t get away with the crap they spew.

        BTW, Jane Roe is in an ad against abortion and obAMATEUR.

    • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 6:52 pm

      ” COMMANDS ”

      Really? Does the Bible say the husband MUST request that a child he believes was conceived in adultery be killed?

      The husband is COMMANDED to do this?

      I can understand how someone as sour and hateful as you would have trouble believing in God, and how you might doubt His wisdom when after all he let YOU procreate, but get over it.

      Every religion that I know of, though I have not bothered to see if Islam agrees with this, has a component of hardship being something of a test of character and faith. I am summarizing centuries of complex philosophical thought and debate into a few short words, so I know I am oversimplifying this concept, but on a very basic level this is true.

      No religion I know of guarantees an uneventful, happy, life. Every religion I know of bases at least some of its judgment on how we handle adversity, tragedy and hardship, whether the result be karma or heaven or hell or purgatory or nirvana or whatever. It is a blissfully uncomplicated belief system which has in it no judgment for any actions, other than what might be meted out by our fellow man, but what I find so funny is the conviction that this is, somehow, a proof of higher intellect and sophistication.

      Personally, I think it is just cowardice—it takes courage to accept a belief system which demands discipline and fidelity and which punishes sin. It is so much easier to just be evasive and whistle past the graveyard—-as if ignoring God means He is ignoring you.

  2. irisspirit October 25, 2012 / 9:16 am

    Mr. Noonan, I am not surprised at your belief that a woman/girl who is raped and becomes pregnant should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. It is easy for men, who are the rapists, to believe this is not a problem for a female. Did you know in about 31 states when a child conceived from rape the rapists father gets parental rights? You and your male anti-abortion supporters have no idea what it is like to be violated in such a terrible way. At conception you have an embryo, not a human being. Apparently the life of the woman is unimportant and the traumatic months she will suffer through. Men need to stay out of women’s personal lives, especially under such circumstances. Who out there who has a daughter, granddaughter, wife, sister or other female family member would demand that if she was raped and became pregnant that she must give birth to a child that was the product of such a violent act? Women are intelligent enough to make these decisions as to what they need to do and do not need you or any other man telling them what the must do. Your party is turning millions of women against the Republican Party due to its draconian policies regarding a woman’s body and personal decisions. Rape is a crime. And you and your male cohorts need to mind your own business. Women do not need you to legislate what the can and cannot do when it comes to something so personal.

    • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 10:01 am

      Yes, Velma, you are right. No human being has the right to live, if its father has violated a woman before it was even conceived. God Himself has turned his back on these children and their very existence is proof that He has no power, because if God were all-powerful and all-knowing He would never have allowed such a thing to happen. As it is, once a power higher than God has allowed such a thing to take place, allowed a woman to be violated and allowed conception to take place, a God both helpless and vengeful has to abandon these innocents to certain death.

      But, to take Velma’s perception of God a step farther, God didn’t do a very good job when He created females so weak, so lacking in backbone, so pathologically selfish, so lacking in basic human decency and generosity, that they simply lack the ability to see a new human life as a gift from a loving God and a way to find something beautiful in an otherwise despicable and ugly act. Velma’s God isn’t really much in the way of love, or wisdom, and He needs creatures like Velma to set Him straight and correct His mistakes.

      Yes, Velma proves my theory that man creates God in his own image, and in this case the God Velma claims to worship, being such a good Christian and all, is a God of stupidity and weakness and spite. Stupidity in creating females so incapable of seeing beyond their own fleeting comfort to the big picture of a fresh new human life, weakness in not being able to prevent conception and needing humans to fix his mistakes, and vengeance in being complicit in sentencing a totally innocent human being to death for a crime committed by its father before it was even conceived.

      And of course Velma’s God needs creatures like her to identify and correct His mistakes, in this case by advocating the destruction of the life He so foolishly created.

      What a fascinating picture of God Velma gives us. We have already gotten quite a vivid portrait of Velma over the years, nasty and distasteful and downright ugly as it is, but it is interesting to see her step forward with her declarations that the mistake of conception MUST be corrected.

      I’m sure God is pleased to have a little army of self-righteous humans, armed with poisons and scalpels, down here ready to fix what He broke.

      Or……and this is just a thought, you understand….what if the creation of these new lives is a test, with judgment later for those who fail?

      Hmmmmmmmmm

      • irisspirit October 25, 2012 / 1:04 pm

        you are just a ray of sunshine amazona woman. Do not speak for me or use language that I have not used. You presume to know my heart and my perception of God. You are wrong. You only know hate and ugliness and espouse it every time you post here. Get a life woman. I never put the blame on God for what man has done – which is evil – to force himself on a woman. Get over yourself you self-righteous fool. You speak for very few women in your rambling about God and what others feel and think. Speak only for yourself and do not be so presumptuous to think you know what others believe. All of us will be judged when our time on this earth is completed – and you are not the one who will be judging, but you too will also be judged by your words and actions.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 1:23 pm

        Velma, life begins somewhere doesn’t it?

        We have federal laws that protect nesting grounds and unhatched eggs of endangered species. Those aren’t endangered animals. Those are just eggs that can be eaten for breakfast!

        At what point does an embryo become a human? At the first heartbeat? At first cry? Because you feminazis want abortion at any stage…..

        Remember, states have laws that charge others with murder of TWO individuals if the female pregnant victim dies along with her unborn child! How could this be if that is not life?

        Please show us where in the Constitution the government cannot interfere the RIGHT of women to abortion? The article, clause or amendment will do fine.

        Ok, now it is time for you to run from a challenge again.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        Waaaaa waaaaa waaaaa—Velma’s having another snit fit.

        But in fact Velma does take the stand that if a woman becomes pregnant by rape, which would after all be considered an act of God if you believe that God is active in the lives of humans, then this should be considered a mistake by God to be corrected by someone whose job it is to kill innocent helpless babies.

        I could not care less if these are the words she uses. She is so incoherent, except in her loathing of me, that she would not be capable of phrasing it so clearly anyway. But when she says no woman should be expected to carry a child conceived in rape, she IS saying this is a mistake and that it is fine for humans to step in and correct it.

        She is so profoundly stupid she thinks I am saying that rape is an act of God. No, but the creation of human life is, and the destruction of that life based on the conviction that it is a mistake is second-guessing God.

        I have known women who were raped. I was raped when I was 17. I know that while it is a very traumatic experience it is not the end of the world. I also know that it is not the sexual aspect that is the most traumatic, but the assault, so I think any woman attacked, beaten, stabbed, etc. has the same problems in dealing with the resulting fears and memories.

        What Velma is steadfastly refusing to address, being so wrapped up in her hatred of me personally, and so needing to distract from the real issues, is that abortion, the act of ending human life, is an affront to the creator of human life, and the excuse that it is necessary to make a raped woman feel better is merely a different way of saying “God, you screwed up by allowing conception to take place, but I am going to step in and correct Your mistake.”

        Velma bleats: “You presume to know my heart and my perception of God. ”

        I presume that what you say is a reflection of what is in your heart. And I presume to think that if you take it upon yourself to declare that a human life can be ended because you do not agree with God that it should have been created, your perception of God appears to be of a deity rather weak and prone to error. I merely say that it is the height of arrogance to assume the right to change what God has created, to end a human life because you think it should not have been started in the first place. I could not care less what Velma does or does not believe. Her words have shown her to be a vicious hypocrite, posturing as a Christian while routinely uttering the most hateful, unforgiving, nasty lies imaginable, about people who merely represent a different political view—but that’s between her and God. I notice, I comment, but I do not judge. That is not my job.

        I personally believe we are given obstacles in our lives to see how we use our free will to deal with them, and I believe it is my moral obligation to find ways to deal with my own obstacles in a manner as close to the teachings of Christ as I can. Included in my own concept of things I, personally, would not consider as acceptable actions on my own part are lying about other people and ending innocent human life, much less trying to justify the lies or the killing.

        But that’s just me. Velma’s brand of Christianity evidently, based upon what she herself has shown us, is quite the opposite, based as it is on lying about other people, spreading vicious gossip, and trying to excuse the ending of human life.

        As I said, “….what if the creation of these new lives is a test, with judgment later for those who fail?

        Hmmmmmmmmm”

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 1:57 pm

        Rape is the act of a malignant human being exercising his free will to commit a heinous act upon another human being, who is not given a choice in the matter.

        Abortion is the act of a selfish and/or weak human being exercising her free will to commit a heinous act upon another human being, who is not given a choice in the matter.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 4:39 pm

        One heinous act of barbarity against an unwilling victim results in pain, fear, trauma and emotional damage, all of which can be dealt with and all of which almost always heal.

        The other heinous act of barbarity against an unwilling victim results in the death of the victim, an irreversible outcome.

        In law, there is a lesser penalty for damaging a person than for killing him.

        In the minds of the pro-abortion people, this is not the case.

      • irisspirit October 25, 2012 / 5:11 pm

        ” I notice, I comment, but I do not judge. That is not my job.” You apparently have no idea how judgmental you are to everyone who posts here and especially if you do not like their opinions. You are without a doubt the most judgmental poster here as well as one of the nastiest posters. You are no friend to women – in fact to appear to be no friend to anyone. Easy to see why you lack in that department. I don’t hold a candle to you in truly ugly, snarky and downright ugly remarks to other posters. You notice and comment but do not judge???? Go back and read some of the posts you have written for the past five or so years.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 6:38 pm

        Waaaa waaaaa waaaaa.

        I comment on what I perceive. When I perceive nastiness, viciousness, pettiness, etc. I comment on it. It’s not my fault that you, and your vile, hostile, posts full of lies and libels fall into those categories.

        Immortal judgement is above my pay grade. I just note what people like you put in front of me, and in your case it is inevitably sour, nasty, petty and hateful.

        I am a great “friend to women”. To pathologically shallow and selfish females who want to play but not to take responsibility for their actions, not so much. To silly females who posture as political commentators just so they can spout lies and prejudices and personal hatreds and grievances, not so much.

        I am not the only one here who has taken note of the dependence on vicious gossip, irrelevant slurs, outright lies, and other standbys of the lemmings of the Left, that mark your participation here.

        I am sorry for you, that your life is so empty that you feel compelled to seek out a conservative blog so you can vent your considerable spleen, but I have no obligation to ignore it or tolerate it.

        I have studied Leftist ideology. I understand it, and I know much of its history. I find it profoundly wrong on every level, and antithetical to my personal political philosophy, which is that of belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is not only the best but the only legal form of governance for this nation. I am pretty firm in that belief. I write about a political system I understand and agree with, and about one I understand and don’t agree with. You do neither, but just carry on about silly superficial Leftist talking points based on personality and identity, without any actual political content.

        I don’t need to prowl around Leftist web sites to attack people who believe in big government and massive government intervention and control. I look at them every now and then but I don’t barge in—they have a right to talk among themselves about what they believe in—-and I certainly am not so rude and overbearing that I charge in and attack and insult the people who post there.

        You, on the other hand, ARE that rude and overbearing, and furthermore what you have to say is deficient in fact and decency. So if you stomp in here spewing lies and toxic nonsense, you are hardly in a position to snivel when you get called on it.

        Except you like to snivel, and this gives you another excuse to try to savage me instead of dealing with real issues and real facts. But you need to know that your ignorance of real politics is quite evident. Your absolute lack of understanding of basic political agendas, and your focus on your fan-club-like adoration of Obama and the silly, petty nature of your bleating about the personalities of the Romneys all contribute to the overall contempt for you shared by most of the posters here.

        You have had plenty of chances to change this, but you have chosen to remain nothing but a toxic tool, spewing Leftist talking points, and in general being quite distasteful.

    • M. Noonan October 25, 2012 / 10:26 pm

      Iris,

      I guess you and I just have a different view – you prefer a final solution to a temporary problem.

  3. js03 October 25, 2012 / 9:52 pm

    The right to life is indisputable and unalienable. This is a right and a gift that nobody should be allowed to take away. If this were a perfect world, not one argument could be made against it. This is my belief, but I must recognize that God also gave us free will, which means that I don’t have the right to tell someone else that they have to follow the concepts that I cleave to with all of my mind, my heart, and my soul.

    The best I can do is try and understand how this happens, and why. The real victim is the woman however, being a victim of rape, when such hatred wells up inside of her that she is driven to act on that hatred, and undergo an abortion. The 9 months of pure hell she must go through when she is carrying “his” child. The torment of child birth and looking into an infant’s eyes, knowing that his/her fathers genetics are half of everything that the child is. It takes a strong person to go through that, and perhaps the only way for most is to cleave also to Christ, because human frailty refuses to forgive others who have violated us so deeply, that only in Christ can we ever get through it all without killing our own child.

    That’s real. Without help, it is too much for us. I cannot expect that someone who makes this choice to kill a child would be in any relationship with God. The pain and anguish of it all is greater than most people could ever expect to experience in one lifetime, to spend your life with the child of the man who violently raped you. But those who do, who chose to love that child, are rewarded far more than any of us could ever expect either. The strength that this kind of faith and obedience to God’s Word instills in us, when we trust him without question, is the greatest treasure that any person could ever find.

    The off side is becoming more and more apparent. When a woman kills her own child, she holds that memory for life. The guilt that she eventually carries with her will take its toll on her, normally she can hold it in, and hide it for decades. But that guild keeps growing, and it eventually takes it toll on the mind, the heart and the soul of the victim. This is Satan’s greatest joy, because he rejoices in making victims suffer. This suffering lasts your whole life, and if you don’t face it, and deal with it, and find forgiveness, that darkness that it becomes will go with you when you die.

    They say that hell is living for eternity without God in your life. I don’t want to find out the hard way, and for the record, i would be remiss not to honestly tell you that there is nothing you have done that can keep him out except free will.

    • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 11:31 pm

      js, women who have gone through pregnancy caused by rape have reported that they have undergone a transformation, from focusing on the rapist to focusing on the innocent child. Not all, but many.

      Yes, some women would remain fixated on the source of the pregnancy, but I believe many more would not only move beyond it but find the beauty of a new, innocent life a balance for the ugliness of the rape itself.

      I simply do not accept the assertion that pregnancy resulting from rape automatically means “9 months of pure hell” and I am appalled that this is now accepted as a simple fact. This is what women are told and this is what women are instructed to expect, when in fact it is not a guarantee.

      We need to get over the common “knowledge” that rape is so overwhelmingly horrible, so totally and uncontrollably ruinous of a woman’s life, that it will define her forever. I am not sure just why or how this has come to be accepted as a truth of life, but it is simply false.

      Rape is ugly, violent, brutal, scarring to some extent—-but so are many other experiences. I have mentioned here the time my niece fell asleep at the wheel and wrecked her car, killing two of her school friends, including her best friend. The first people on the scene found her cradling her dead friend’s body. No one told her that she would have to consider this the defining moment of her life, and that it would be impossible to recover from it. But if she had been raped, this is the message she would have been given.

      The entire narrative is false, which makes me wonder why it was created in the first place. What could possibly be gained by distorting a truly vicious act into one from which one could never recover, which would brand one for life, which would justify the killing of an innocent person who did not even exist when the act took place?

    • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 11:42 pm

      “The pain and anguish of it all is greater than most people could ever expect to experience in one lifetime, to spend your life with the child of the man who violently raped you.”

      With all due respect—Bulls**t.

      For one thing, there is no expectation that a woman who has the dignity and character to carry a child to term, no matter what the circumstances of its conception, would also be expected to “spend the rest of her life” with that child. That is simply not even related to reality, but it is a talking point of the Left.

      All that is asked is that the child be allowed to live, be allowed to be born, and then placed with a family which is not going to hold the act of its biological father against it, if the mother can’t overcome her own emotional distress.

      Look at all the women who have come to loathe the men with whom they had children, often for very good reasons. They do not turn on their children.

      Most of this whole discussion centers on perception. One highly promoted perception is the one you explain—-anguish and seeing only the face of the rapist in the child, etc., seeing the pregnancy as a sentence of misery and pain. One is the opportunity to bring beauty out of ugliness by focusing on an innocent new life. One is the pride gained by dealing with this kind of situation with dignity and love and courage. There is a wide range of possible perceptions, and for some weird reason we tend to focus on only one.

      And let’s get real—-the number of pregnancies resulting from rape is very small.

  4. js03 October 26, 2012 / 5:08 am

    Sorry for jilting your fantasy Amazona.

    I wont bother you anymore.

    • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 10:37 am

      “jilting” my “fantasy” ?????

      You don’t bother me. It’s just that I consider this place as a forum for DISCUSSION, which to me means presenting of various points of view. You gave yours, I explained why I disagree.

      I didn’t realize that hearing a different perspective on this whole rape/pregnancy thing would make you all snarky and victim-y.

      I have no idea what you mean by “jilting” anything, since the word means abruptly backing out of a commitment, usually a commitment to marry, or what you think is a “fantasy” of mine. Your comment makes no sense, but it does sound pouty.

      I don’t have a “fantasy” about the impact of rape. What I have is personal experience, plus the experience of being a woman who has had to deal with the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy since I entered puberty and have had a long time to think about it, plus the experience of talking to so many other women who HAVE experienced unwanted pregnancies and often been freaked out by them until they had a chance to get used to the idea, plus reading accounts from rape victims, plus seeing interviews with some women who did get pregnant due to rape, plus awareness of traumas far worse than that of sexual violation in the course of a violent attack.

      What’s your foundation for your overwrought accounts of “…..pain and anguish ……greater than most people could ever expect to experience in one lifetime…” and “…9 months of pure hell…” and “..torment…” and so on?

      If anything, I thought it might be comforting to be told that your doom and gloom projections of relentless misery and hatred of the unwanted child were not only not necessarily accurate, they were highly unlikely.

      It appears that you are quite attached to YOUR fantasy.

    • ricorun October 27, 2012 / 12:27 am

      For the record, js03, I found your post very passionate and heartfelt. And I think you said it better than I can: “This is my belief, but I must recognize that God also gave us free will, which means that I don’t have the right to tell someone else that they have to follow the concepts that I cleave to with all of my mind, my heart, and my soul.”

      I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but my interpretation of your statement is that one’s faith is personal, but policy is public. And the best way to change the former is one soul at a time, by example rather than words. Only then will the latter follow. Trying to legislate morality from the top down is doomed to failure (that’s the fantasy). One can only really change it from the ground up.

      • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 10:42 am

        Well, you can either try to convince a white supremacist that black people are really human, and no, you can’t just kill them, or you can make it illegal to kill them and not give a flip if they have evolved to a moral and spiritual understanding of the beauty of human life in every form.

      • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 10:44 am

        No one denies that js03’s posts were, in fact, quite passionate and heartfelt.

        I merely pointed out that they are based on a perception that is not true.

        I have complete respect for his passion and concerns. But as a woman who has known many many women of all ages who have had to deal with the shock and trauma of unwanted pregnancies, and who has been raped, herself, and who has known women who have been raped, I thought it appropriate to provide a different perspective.

  5. ricorun October 26, 2012 / 11:43 pm

    So let me get this straight… Any pregnancy, no matter how conceived, even if it is conceived via an act of rape, is a gift from God, but not the act of rape itself. Do I have that right?

    If so, the first question is: if one is a gift from God but not the other, how do you rationalize the distinction? I suspect the answer could be very informative.

    The second question is: should the victim of the rape (the woman attacked) be required to subscribe to your moral doctrine — i.e., the idea that human life begins at conception? There are, after all, many other different points of view, both within given religions over history, and between religions in the here-and-now. Given those facts, why do you think your conception of morality should be the law of the land in this case?

    The third question is: if you believe life begins at conception, why is so little mentioned about invitro fertilization? The technique has resulted in untold millions of early-stage fetuses simply being discarded, millions more discarded after being frozen but who have sucombed to freezer burn over the years, and many hundreds of thousands more awaiting that fate in freezers right now — less than 0.1% of them will ever get a chance at being brought to term. In short, we are talking about MILLIONS of fetuses. They are NOT a distraction, not blip on the radar screen. And yet even the adamantly pro-life people are curiously silent about it. I don’t get it.

    The fourth question is: assuming you think society should require the victim of rape to bring her child to term, what do you think society’s obligations should be to that child? Or do you think it is just a life-forming challenge for the mother? And what about the father? Apparently it’s perfectly fine to constrain the mother to a lifetime of responsibilities and obligations (for better or worse), but no one has yet made a peep about the responsibilities of the father. I find that rather curious. Maybe that’s an avenue we need to explore more.

    The fifth, and perhaps the most important question with respect to how the whole issue fits into the “Constitutional constructionist”, and/or a literal translation of the 10th amendment is: Why should we care? Said in another way, in what way does an ideology favoring a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution make any sense when combined with an ideology favoring the concept of human life beginning at conception, especially when no regard is given to the circumstances of that conception? There are many other examples of how a single, unified notion of “ideology” doesn’t necessarily make sense to me, but this is a biggie. So please instruct me.

    • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 10:36 am

      1. The act of rape is the act of a human being, using his free will to commit an act of violence. Conception is not an act of free will. If it were, infertility would not be a problem.

      2. Our laws require people to subscribe to many moral doctrines they may not agree with. In the past many people believed certain groups of people were “not really human beings” and did not, therefore, deserve the same treatment as those who did, according to the standards of those making the determination. The groups denied humanity included, over the years, black people, women, Native Americans, and Jews. Yet an overriding moral authority declared these groups to be human and to have the same legal rights as all others.

      3. In vitro fertilization IS a problem for people who believe that the right to life must not depend on age. But trying to use it in a discussion about abortion, or more particularly abortion of children conceived in rape, is merely an effort to distract. It is a separate problem and must be addressed separately. Nice, try, though, although far from original.

      4. When you say “society” do you mean “government”? Government has no responsibility now for taking care of people who have not been killed because of laws against killing. Society always has the responsibility for caring for its helpless. If a man is found guilty of rape and he has the financial ability to provide for a child conceived due to that rape, of course he should be required to do so. I find this effort to make an argument quite silly and strained.

      5. Your fifth question is also quite silly, and illustrative of a very odd perception of the Constitution. “Why should we CARE??” Why not apply that to any law? Why should we care if people are discriminated against because of gender, or skin color? Why should we care if people have the freedom to worship as they please, or own firearms?

      But back to discrimination: Why shouldn’t we care that an entire group of human beings is considered to be ineligible for Constitutional protections just because of their age? We now know that the tiniest of embryos contains all the DNA that human being will ever have, which brings the entire argument down to one of age. The issue of humanity is settled. Now it is just whether or not Constitutional rights should be applied to all humans, or if some people can claim the authority to determine which qualify and which do not.

      And why are you so determined to expand this so far beyond the scope of rape?

    • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 10:40 am

      ” Apparently it’s perfectly fine to constrain the mother to a lifetime of responsibilities and obligations”

      Apparently it’s perfectly fine for you to simply invent scenarios so you can argue against them.

      However, no one, not one single person, ever, EVER, has argued that a woman who is raped and who becomes pregnant as the result of the rape should be required to assume the slightest responsibility, in any way shape or form, for the child once it has been born.

      The fact that you have to invent a silly straw man like this is proof that you know you are just quibbling because you love to quibble.

    • ricorun October 28, 2012 / 8:22 pm

      Amazona: Conception is not an act of free will.

      What? Are you saying conception just happens?? Doesn’t conception at the very least presuppose someone engages in sex? If you refrain from sex you certainly can’t conceive (except the Virgin Mary, of course). And in the case of rape, the victim does not engage in sex of their own free will. That’s pretty much the definition of “rape”. So again… what???

      On the other hand, engaging in invitro fertilization is very much and act of free will. It is most definitely “the act of a human being” — much in the same way as you described the act of rape. Amazona goes on to suggest that infertility is “a problem”. Perhaps so, but if you subscribe to the notion of “God’s will”, then how does modifying “God’s will” through human intervention make any sense? Yet despite that obvious absurdity Amazona goes on to say that “trying to use it [invitro fertilization] in a discussion about abortion, or more particularly abortion of children conceived in rape, is merely an effort to distract. That makes no sense either. Even Amazona acknowledged that We now know that the tiniest of embryos contains all the DNA that human being will ever have. In reality, the only way to make her entire argument logically consistent is to define “human life” as beginning at implantation at the earliest, rather than conception. If one really believes that human life begins at conception, then her argument falls apart completely. If one truly believes that life begins at conception, then the invitro fertilization issue really is very relevant, and not a distraction at all.

      Amazona: In vitro fertilization IS a problem for people who believe that the right to life must not depend on age.

      It’s pretty clear from all the clues in her posts that she’s talking about the age of the fetus since its conception. If so, O.M.G., that’s a really big deal, because although she can’t seem to bring herself to say it outright, there is no other way to spin it but to say it in so many words, Amazona believes human life begins sometime after conception. Like I said, and as Amazona agreed, invitro fertilization IS a problem for people who believe that human life begins at conception. There’s no other logical way to think that invitro fertilization is, in her words, “just a distraction” unless you also believe that human life does not begin at conception.

      But then she reversed herself later in her post. She said, “Why shouldn’t we care that an entire group of human beings is considered to be ineligible for Constitutional protections just because of their age?” It’s as if Amazona thinks that by separating her contradictory statements by a paragraph or two they cease to be contradictory. Normally she separates them by a topic or two, so to capture them in a single topic is rare. But to recap what she said just here, in this one topic, she said first that “In vitro fertilization IS a problem for people who believe that the right to life must not depend on age.” Then she said that “to use it [invitro fertilization] in a discussion about abortion, or more particularly abortion of children conceived in rape, is merely an effort to distract.” Then she came full circle by saying, Why shouldn’t we care that an entire group of human beings is considered to be ineligible for Constitutional protections just because of their age?” It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

      Amazona: Our laws require people to subscribe to many moral doctrines they may not agree with.

      I presume Amazona is including in that requirement Rowe v Wade. But that wouldn’t fit her purpose, so maybe not. We all know how that goes — she fits the facts and logic to her beliefs, not the other way around. But the fact is that Rowe v Wade does not force anyone to get an abortion if they don’t want one. The ruling only deters abortions at later stages of pregnancy — regardless of whether anyone’s moral doctrine allows even more flexibility. If one were inclined to read the text of the ruling one would see that the basic issue it grappled with is trying to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus — very much a 10th amendment issue. Specifically, the issue was when does a fetus stop being under the control of his or her mother exclusively, and start being a separate human entity unto his or herself? Apparently even Amazona is still grappling with the concept. And to be fair to her, she is by no means alone — there’s a rich history of the best minds in civilization grappling with the same concept. Frankly, there is no truly objective way to answer the question as to when human life begins. I have my own beliefs, but I am loathe to try to impose them on others. More importantly, I am of the opinion that to the extent society criminalizes aspects of morality, all it does is generate more criminals. And that, I think, very much applies to the 10th Amendment.

      In response to my question: assuming you think society should require the victim of rape to bring her child to term, what do you think society’s obligations should be to that child?, Amazona asked her own question: When you say “society” do you mean “government”? She also added, “Society always has the responsibility for caring for its helpless.” If Amazona really feels that way, then I ask her this: if not government, what other alternative is there to ensure that responsibility is fulfilled? The question before us is whether a victim of rape should be required by law to bring to term a child so conceived. As I see it, the part of society that legislates and enforces laws is the government. So yes, I’m talking about government. What are YOU talking about, Amazona?

      Amazona: … no one, not one single person, ever, EVER, has argued that a woman who is raped and who becomes pregnant as the result of the rape should be required to assume the slightest responsibility, in any way shape or form, for the child once it has been born.

      Are you freakin’ KIDDING??!! What are you implying here? Are you suggesting that IF the mother is required to bring the child to term, she should likewise be required to give the kid up for adoption? If not that, then what? Seriously, what are you saying??

      Amazona: And why are you so determined to expand this so far beyond the scope of rape?

      Because rape is arguably the crime which touches on more issues than any other. It is not only tremendously personal for the victim, it almost always dramatically affects many of the victim’s interpersonal relationships, and it can also have significant repercussions for society at large. Those things are indisputable. So I think the better question is, why are you so determined to constrain the scope of the issue to the act of rape itself?

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 9:03 pm

        rico, you really need to lay of the mind-altering substances, or at least stop proving to us that it is too late for you to worry about that.

        “Are you saying conception just happens?? Doesn’t conception at the very least presuppose someone engages in sex? ”

        Are you saying that every sex act results in conception? I pointed out that the decision of a man to rape a woman is a DECISION he makes, as an exercise of his free will, whereas the fertilization of the egg is not related to any decision made by the man or the woman. Sometimes it happens. Usually it does not. Sometimes it never happens.

        It would be funny to watch you turn yourself inside out trying to prove that I am inconsistent, if it were not so pathetic. Really, man, if you’re not going to get a grip you should at least work on developing a sense of shame. Your efforts are ridiculous.

        “… if you subscribe to the notion of “God’s will”, then how does modifying “God’s will” through human intervention make any sense?”

        Well, we were not born with wheels or wings—are you claiming that travel by auto or airplane is spitting in God’s eye? As I said, you are ridiculous.

        Your obtuseness is a source of constant amazement. No, you silly twit, the subject of bioethics and in vitro fertlization and the creation of embryos which are not implanted is not a distraction. You trying to shift the discussion away from the one about pregnancy resulting from rape IS. Your inability to track even the simplest sentence is quite odd. Sometimes I think there is a short in your mental wiring, and sometimes I think you just lie to try to make a point. Either way, trying to have a rational discussion with you is impossible, because you are all over the place, with your bizarre interpretations of what was said and your obsession with getting, or inventing, gotchas.

        You know what I said. You quoted it twice. “In vitro fertilization IS a problem for people who believe that the right to life must not depend on age.”

        Usually when something is too complicated to understand, it helps to reverse it—–“In vitro fertilization is NOT a problem for people who believe that the right to life DOES depend on the age of the life.” Did that help?

        But even if you are truly bumfuddled by this simple statement please do not lie and claim that when I wrote it I was stating that I do not believe that life begins at conception. That is not just a misunderstanding, a simple bit of confusion. It is an invention—-a lie.

        ” But the fact is that Rowe (sic) v Wade does not force anyone to get an abortion if they don’t want one.”

        Well, you prove here the adage that even a blind pig can find an acorn, sometimes.

        But then you go off the rails with this: “The ruling only deters abortions at later stages of pregnancy — ”

        Really? That is all it does? It does not invent a Constitutional “right” to abort a child? It does not establish a Constitutional basis for abortion that takes the right to vote on its legality away from the states? Wow—thanks so much for this interpretation. If nothing else, it proves that it is not just my words that get caught in the mixmaster of the rico brain and come out totally unrecognizable.

        BTW, I’d love to see the wording on that ‘deterring abortion at later stages of pregnancy’ thing……

        “…specifically, the issue was when does a fetus stop being under the control of his or her mother exclusively, and start being a separate human entity unto his or herself? Apparently even Amazona is still grappling with the concept.”

        No, apparently you can’t read.

        But you go right ahead and quote for us the SCOTUS ruling where the age of the child is the real, SPECIFIC, question.

        “I am of the opinion that to the extent society criminalizes aspects of morality, all it does is generate more criminals.”

        You are soooo right. Gee, if we would just stop criminalizing the aspect of morality that addresses murder, we would have fewer murderers in prisons, wouldn’t we?

        What a simple minded and moronic concept—-to get rid of criminals, you just get rid of laws that “criminalize” certain actions. I thought it was just those far right radical conservatives who wanted to deregulate everything—now we learn that Lefty rico is all about not criminalizing “moral issues”.

        “And that, I think, very much applies to the 10th Amendment.”

        Well, maybe on Planet Rico this makes sense. In the real world, not so much.

        “…. if not government, what other alternative is there …? ”

        Spoken like a true Lefty.

        “Are you freakin’ KIDDING??!! What are you implying here? Are you suggesting that IF the mother is required to bring the child to term, she should likewise be required to give the kid up for adoption? If not that, then what? Seriously, what are you saying??”

        Oh, dear. Now I feel bad, for pushing you so far over the edge of sanity—not that it was a long trip, but still.

        Only you could possibly make the wild, insane, leap from me saying a woman would not be forced to keep a child she does not want to a wild-eyed shriek of outrage that I supposedly said she would be forced to give it up. Again, I apologize. I knew your mental state was shaky, but had no idea it was this easily blown to bits.

        “So I think the better question is, why are you so determined to constrain the scope of the issue to the act of rape itself?”

        I am so sorry you are unable to correctly read what I wrote, or ate least to process it in a way that even remotely relates to what I said.

        The topic is pregnancy resulting from rape. It is not a free-form ramble on in vitro fertilization or any of the other things you have tried to drag in.

        I have written clearly and concisely on my idea regarding rape, the impact of rape on a woman, and the impact of pregnancy resulting from rape. NOT, as you falsely claim, just “…the act of rape itself”.

        I suggest that you work on clearing your mind and developing a more linear way of thinking, and spending a little (lot) more time discerning what someone is actually saying instead of going off the rails according to what you hear from those voices in your head.

        You are usually just tiresome and pedantic, but in this post you are downright freaky.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 9:20 pm

        “…Amazona acknowledged that We now know that the tiniest of embryos contains all the DNA that human being will ever have. In reality, the only way to make her entire argument logically consistent is to define “human life” as beginning at implantation at the earliest, rather than conception.”

        It sounds as if you are confused about the definition of “conception”.

        You do understand, don’t you, that DNA comes from the male and the female? Both? So there is no new human life conceived until the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm. This joining of the male and female DNA through the fertilization of the egg is called conception.

        Before this happens, there can be no “implantation” because there is nothing to “implant”.

        After conception—-that is, after the fertilization of the egg by the sperm—-there IS a human being, in that the all the DNA the human will ever have is contained in those tiny cells. Scientifically, at this point—-conception—this is a human being.

        If it successfully implants in the uterus, it can develop into a self-sufficient person, but at no time is it less than a human being.

        It is utterly ridiculous to claim that this merging of the DNA of the male and the female does not take place until implantation. As I said, until this union happens, there is nothing to implant. Over here there is an egg, over there are some sperm cells, but no union, no conception, no merging of DNA, no new life.

        Poor silly rico, expounding at length on his wackadoo “scientific” theories. It is actually kind of funny to watch him use terms like “logically consistent”.

Comments are closed.