Abortion, He Said She Said, come on you know you wanna

Ok the way this goes is GM wrote her abortion stance and sent it to Sage and then he wrote his stance. Granted we are not that far apart on this issue but a few things are up for debate. Feel free to opine with whatever YOUR stance is. I would suggest following the comments if you are up for a good debate, a spanking, or would like to learn something.

Gucci Mama Said.....

I don't like to call myself "pro-life". I think most people are pro-life. Pro-life is a misnomer. Even people who have convinced themselves that abortion on demand is some kind of "right" are probably, for the most part, "pro-life". Instead I am a fierce, passionate advocate of the right to life. I believe that everyone has the basic right to life regardless of age, size, place of residence, future potential, socioeconomic status, or existence of handicap.

I could spend all day enumerating the thousands of reasons abortion is legally, ethically, and morally bankrupt, but you've heard those before. You either recognize them or you choose to turn a blind eye to them. We don't need to talk about how the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't include a broad and interpretive right to privacy as it has been manipulated in order to justify this horrifying practice. We don't need to talk about medical realities like how the heart of a fetus begins to beat at 18 days gestation and it has a distinctive and quantifiable genetic map from the moment of conception. And if we don't need to talk about that, we certainly don't need to mention the mainstream medical consensus that life begins at conception. We certainly don't need to discuss how abortion isn't really some kind of pillar of the feminist movement, because everyone knows that the first feminists like Mary Wollstonecroft, Susan B. Anthony, and Eliza Bisbee Duffey (just to name a few) were diametrically opposed to abortion not only because of the undeniable harm it does to women, but because of the power it gives men over a woman's sexuality.

Since we don't need to talk about those things because they're just basic, common knowledge, let's talk about the tough stuff. Whenever this issue is debated, it is inevitable that someone will bring two things to the table as if the minute possibility of these circumstances somehow justifies virtually unrestricted access to abortion at virtually any time during pregnancy for virtually any reason.

These two things are, of course, rape/incest and the vague, largely undefined "life of the mother" hysteria.

You mean you would force a woman to carry her rapist's baby? What we first need to do is hear the words behind the question which are, Don't you care about this woman? Don't you want to take away her pain, fix her problem? Have you no compassion? For me, advocating the right to life is not about the baby, at least not exclusively. It is about supporting and empowering women. And so looking at it from a compassionate angle, the question we have to ask is Would an abortion help a rape victim or harm her? What many people, pro-life and pro-abortion alike, don't realize is that abortion is not a solution or a treatment for the trauma of rape. Since when is replacing one trauma with another sound medical or psychological advice? Studies have absolutely shown that many women relive their rape experiences during their abortions. Many pregnant rape victims decide to terminate not based on anything other than the thoughts, opinions, sometimes even the coercion of others which seem to collectively say, You are pregnant by rape and this is not acceptable; you have no choice but to abort. It only makes sense.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The thing that gets me about this challenge is that it is implied that I as a pro-life activist am somehow forcing a pregnant rape victim to carry her rapist's child. That blame does not belong at my door. It does not belong at the victim's door and it does not belong at the baby's door (or the "fetus" if you prefer, though "fetus" is merely Latin for "baby"). The only one who forced a pregnancy on a woman who experienced unimaginable horror is the rapist himself. He is the one who should be crucified, not the right-to-lifer, not the mother, and not the fetus. The reality is that there is so much pressure to abort after a rape that many women feel they have no choice. Women are notorious for doing what people expect of them; we are people pleasers by nature. Furthermore, the immediate aftermath of being brutalized is not the time to be making life altering decisions, especially when the consequences are unknown or even concealed as is sometimes the case.

So what I propose responding when someone poses this question is, if their concern is truly compassion (and in the case of the powerful abortion business machine, it most certainly is not) why can't we love them both? Why can't we extend the same compassion to the baby that everyone agrees should go to the mother? You cannot help the mother without helping the child and you cannot hurt the child without hurting the mother.

But what if the mother's life is in danger? Are you okay with abortion then? This one is a favorite of people trying desperately to find justification for killing an unborn baby. It certainly provides a really cute knee jerk reaction, but unfortunately, it just doesn't hold any water. There is not a single documented case in recorded history of a medical condition that occurs in a mother past the stage of fetal viability that can only be cured by an abortion. There are excessively rare issues that occur in early pregnancy that are truly life threatening in some cases - these are ectopic pregnancy and molar pregnancy - and in these cases abortion is sometimes or even often medically indicated. While there have been several cases of successful full term ectopic pregnancies, I will certainly concede that in these cases, there is a careful decision to be made between woman and doctor regarding whether to terminate.

But this "life of the mother" talking point is almost always introduced when referring to late term abortions and with fetal viability beginning as early as between 22 and 24 weeks, there is simply no justification to terminate the life of a child who could be delivered prematurely in order to ease a high risk maternal health issue. Further, with the amazing medical advances that are made every day, doctors are able to keep high risk women pregnant longer, and they are also able to keep earlier and tinier preemies healthier than ever before.

It really is that simple.

Sage said.......

Well GM and I were asked if there was a political issue we did not agree on because we regularly and easily eviscerate the sissified loser class that has come to be known as liberals or Democrats. There are two issues; abortion is one of them.

While nobody can give any moral reason for this "Man Law" that makes any sense there are a couple of situations, as seldom as they occur, I can't find any reason for ANYONE to be against abortion. Let me also clarify my stance on abortion.

It is common knowledge that abortion benefits men far more than women, everyone with a brain knows this. It is also common knowledge that the roots of abortion are fed by racism, which of course is the lifeblood of liberalism, Marxism, Nazism and the modern Democratic party. Yet and still I could not care less if someone has an abortion, provided it doesn't cost me money, though of course it does today in America. That being said, abortion is undoubtedly the greatest human rights violation in the history of mankind. What human right could be greater than life itself. Abortion makes slavery look like an afternoon at Chucky Cheese. Of course no America loving American can be for it because our very founding document railed against the barbarism that would be snuffing out innocent human life on a whim, y'all remember "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness right? Only one of these affects the other two absolutely.

All that being said I do not have an "absolute" moral stance against abortion. There are a few situations that I would be for it.

If for any reason the life of the mother is at great risk due to pregnancy or the birthing process then I would find that not only acceptable but even recommended in certain situations. It would wrong IMO morally for a bred woman with say 3 small kids that had 2-3 doctors tell her she could not birth that child without a huge risk that she would die. She would be dong a DISSERVICE to the kids she has. I realize and understand that this is a minute percentage of pregnancies, but those 4 every year I will march in the street for.

Next I would allow a woman who was raped to have an abortion. This would only really come into effect if she was enslaved while she was bred though so again minute. If she is not kept captive then she probably can go to the police and get the morning after pill, which I am also in favor of. Lastly if a child was bred by incestuous relations forced upon her then I would be okay with her aborting.

There ya go. My inner libertarian doesn't care if you pull the cute lil' baby out and play fetus football with him for whatever reason, you have to live with that not me (provided it doesn't cost me anything), but those 3 issues I listed I can't imagine someone being against aborting those lil' crumb crunchers.

Feel free to take to task any of the brilliance that has been bestowed upon you today. How do YOU, dear reader, see this issue? Follow the comments, this should be fun!
Atrocity?
Party time?
Somewhere in between?
Do tell.