Tuesday, January 24, 2006

I Triple Dog Dare You

With the 33rd "anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade a couple of days ago I want to issue a challenge. I challenge anyone to give me a rational reason abortion should be legal other than the three I've listed below.

1) The safety of the mother's life. If giving birth to the child could kill her then she should be able to abort the pregnancy.
2) Rape. A woman shouldn't be forced to give birth to a child that will remind her of that day.
3) The is no chance that the baby will be born alive. A woman shouldn't have to give birth to a stillborn child.

I'm just interesting in knowing why people feel people should be allowed to do this.
Filed under Miscellaneous

37 comments:

William Teach said...

The dems will say that "it isn't a human, nor alive, till it is born," so it has no Right to interfere with the mothers Right to happiness.

Of course, how can one be a "Mother" unless the fetus is a living being?

Za said...

Child disability or mutation?
Overpopulation?

Jake said...

Willy, it's a WOMAN's right to decide what she does with her body. I've negated your point. :)

I've also answered Chris' challenge.

Go me.

Indian Chris said...

"My baby won't be born perfect. I'm going to get rid of it and try again. If it doesn't work then, well, I'll just keep on trying". Sorry, doesn't fly.

And overpopulation is a myth. There's plenty of room on the planet for us.
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdint21.html

Indian Chris said...

Yes. HER body. But that body growing inside her is not her body.

Za said...

Thank you Chris for being so obnoxious on that first point. Disabilities or genetic mutations can cause the child to live a miserable existance. Such children used to be used as circus side-shows because that's about all they could be employed as.

As for your link, it comes from one of the many "conservative think tanks", which do very little in the way of real facts. In fact, the NCPA is funded by at least three very corrupt organisations:

1) John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
2) Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
3) Scaife Foundations

Want to know why I call them corrupt? Because without them, we would not have had such gems of utter balderdash as Charles Murray's Losing Ground - which is the book that first promoted false idea that welfare was causing more poverty (because it was supposedly "smarter" to stay on welfare than get a minimum wage job, despite the fact that in reality a minimum wage job got you more), which they then followed up with Charles Murray's The Bell Curve which promoted the idea that whites are genetically superior when it comes to intellect - one of the arguments contained in the book is actually that anyone on welfare must be of inferior intellect, which runs contrary to his first book!

They don't give a crap about facts, they purely exist to pump out as much "conservative" literature as possible.

There are three simple answers to your link however. Firstly, not all cities have enough room, so it doesn't matter on the global scale - merely on the local scale there is often overpopulation. Secondly, your site imagines that we are capable of living with all 6.5 billion of us in the state of Texas, and forgets that you would not be able to have roads, utilities, or anything except floor. It also forgets that much of the planet's surface is simply not inhabitable by large numbers of people.
In other words, it's an idiot's take on the world.

BaKTHAFKUP said...

It's simple concepts called "Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness". The right to do with your body what you will.

40 said...

I take issue with your post. The current administration has not protected abortion in even the 3 points you make. Bush would rather a woman NEVER have the option even in case of rape or jeopardy of a mother's death.

Indian Chris said...

bakthafkup - Pursuit of Happiness? Hell, punching people in the mouth makes me happy. Doing 90 on the wrong side of the road makes me happy. Does that mean I should be able to do it any time I want?

40 - Who's talking about Bush here?

Indian Chris said...

And Za, there you go showing your hypocrisy. You go on and on about how it use personal attacks on people I disagree with and you use two of your own. Obnoxious and idiot.

And are events that took place at least 40 years ago your best argument. The sideshow? Please.

Silke said...

It is a woman's body. She should have the right to chose. However, with that right comes an obligation to avoid a pregnancy if you are not prepared to care for a child. If you are pregnant, adoption is the best solution.

Indian Chris said...

Well, I've already explained my feelings on the "my body my choice" thing, but the rest of what you said, I agree 100%. If you're not ready for a baby, you know, maybe sex isn't right for you. And I just can't agree with abortion when adoption is right there for you.

Silke said...

While I am not a fan of Bill Clinton I agree with his position on abortion...it should be safe, legal and rare. Again, I admit I have no moral standing when I say the woman should have the right to choose, because I believe abortion is the killing of a child. But why is it that the men who argue against abortion don't make a better case against not getting a woman pregnant in the first place? Men need to take responsibility too. For those women who don't think they have any other option than an abortion it's often because the man will not support the woman after the child is born.

Indian Chris said...

Other than the Clinton part, once again I agree with you 100%. If that sack of monkey crap is too big of an ass to help out should he get a woman pregnant he should be given a year in jail.

scott said...

People in this day in age dont understand CHOICES! First of all i agree that a woman has the right to CHOOSE BUT, that choice was to have sex in the first place. Now she no longer has a choice (other than the list presented). For lack of better word it is now a concequence. The next choice a mother or self centered woman has is either to raise it for herself or put up for adoption. Choices and consequences thats what were are talking about, in these types of debates. People can not go through life doing whatever they please. There are reactions and consequences to everything we do. And we dont get to pick those!!

Za said...

And Za, there you go showing your hypocrisy. You go on and on about how it use personal attacks on people I disagree with and you use two of your own. Obnoxious and idiot.
That's not a counter-argument. You WERE being obnoxious. "Oh, it might not be the perfect baby!" has absolutely nothing to do with what I was arguing. I was arguing that under those circumstances, the baby's life might be a living nightmare. Can you imagine being blind from birth? Having a genetic condition that makes even speaking difficult? Can you imagine having malformed legs?

And yes, it was an idiot's view of overpopulation. Get in contact with someone in the field of ecology. Yes, you could fit 6.5 billion humans into Texas - we'd just all die from living that close, because we'd destroy the local environment. We are predators. Can you imagine 6.5 billion predators of our calibre in one state? Only an idiot would suggest that.

And I notice that you ignored the whole fact that those organisations have no decency or honesty.

Indian Chris said...

OH MY GOD, I'M BLIND. KILL ME.

You know, maybe Stephen Hawking should have been put down when he developed ALS. He shouldn't have been made to live with that.

Za said...

Stephen Hawking wasn't born mentally retarded. Stop being obnoxious.

Indian Chris said...

That's why I said "when he developed ALS". But can you image what it's like for him. He should have been put out of his misery years ago.

Jake said...

Chris' argument about Mr. Hawking is horribly irrelevant. Hawking had (and still has) the mental capacity to decide how he should live or die.

Indian Chris said...

Jake, do you think that a baby who's born blind should be put to death? Za seems to think so. I mean, you can't tell when it's an embryo if they're going to be blind, so it would have to be killed after it's born. I'm just going by Za's guidelines.

Jake said...

I didn't think it was possible to tell if a baby was born blind. Even so, no, I don't it would be right to kill something AFTER it's been born. Besides, with technology coming along nicely, in a few decades, blindness will be a thing of the past.

Za said...

Hurray for censorship. Chris can't even handle the suggestion that people might have to spend their entire life completely unable to do anything for themselves.

Indian Chris said...

No, I censored it because you had to stoop to calling me a prick. If I don't want to publish that, I'm not.

Za said...

Come off it - you picked the least of the points I made and acted as if it were the worst I had. That's being a prick.

So tell me - if you knew that your child was going to be so grossly deformed that they couldn't move or feed themselves and they would spend their entire life being moved from a bed to a chair, spending the whole day in the chair and then being moved back to a bed, would you still be against aborting it?

Indian Chris said...

Yes I would.

Za said...

And let me guess - you're not offering to help foot the bill for those people are you?

Anonymous said...

I triple dog dare you to tell me why someone who is pro-life thinks it's okay to kill the innocent life of a baby conceived in rape? I suspect it's because some of the pro-life base is more interested in making women suffer the consequences (babies) of their behavior (sex), than they are saving babies.

Making an exception in rape cases distinguishes based on the behavior of the MOTHER, but the baby's innocence and life would be the same regardless of conception.

Are you really concerned only about the baby, or is part of you concerned about which women "deserve" to suffer the consequences and which do not?

Indian Chris said...

If you choose to have sex, you know what could come of it. I don't think you should be able to kill a child just because it's going to be an inconvenience to your lifestyle. As for rape, I don't think a woman should have to suffer the indignity of the worst day of her life for 9 months. And I love the way you were too scared to leave a name and address. Shows true Liberal courage.

Za said...

Hate to say it but anonymous guy's got a point.

The baby is an "inconvenience", whether or not it was caused by rape or not. And what you are suggesting is that the woman take the route where they may never have to deal with that day and get past it.

Plus you didn't answer my question.

Indian Chris said...

So... what you're telling me is that you think she should be forced to keep the baby.

Margaret Strickland said...

Sorry about not leaving my name. You can feel free to e-mail me or whatever.

It's nice of you to think that the woman shouldn't have to suffer. I don't think she should have to either. But, do you feel a little weird about making this all about the woman and not about the baby? Do your pro-life views come from your compassion for innocent life or your views on women?

p.s.
Where's my triple-dog-darer response?

Margaret Strickland said...

On your last point, I'm saying that if your pro-life views come from concern for the child YOU should say she has to keep it. If your pro-life views come from your ideas on women then I think you can make the rape distinction.

But, if your views don’t come from concern about life, I think the term pro-life should be changed to something like anti-choice-for-pregnant-women.

Mommy said...

Some of these comments are just plain stupid. First thing I have to say is that I recently lost my child. He was stillborn. My baby was a human being the moment he was concieved and I would give my own life to have him back.

No one understands unless they have been put in a situation where they have to make a decision as awful as ending a life for whatever reason. I do know one thing. Most women regret having a abortion later on in life. I've been going to support groups for the lost of my son and I've met women who cry for the child they aborted. They all wish they could have their babies back. How could any women live with themselves and think they did the right thing. I'll never understand.
I say this...You don't want your child, that's fine. Atleast have your child and give it someone who would. Lord knows there are plenty out there that want a child who are unable to conceive.

Indian Chris said...

Well, first I need to clear something up. I'm not pro-life. I'm pro-chance-at-life. But that's neither here nor there.

If the woman is victimized in a horrible way then I tend to side with her. But saying that she has to keep it is just a bad. No child should have to grow up in a home where they're not wanted.

However, if it's some 16-year-old who doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions, this goes for the guy she slept with as well, then I feel no sorrow for her. It was her choice to have unprotected sex. If she doesn't want the baby, there's always adoption. Like Mommy said, there's plenty of families out there who're unable to have a child of their own who would love to adopt one.

Margaret Strickland (Meg) said...

Okay, so then it really is all about the woman. If she got pregnant though her own actions she must have the child, if she was raped abortion is okay.

Do you think that people might be disturbed by the idea that some people in the pro-life movment seem to be more concerned with what the mother did or didn't do than they are with the life of the baby?

Is the pro-life (or pro-chance-at-life) movement concerned that babies are being killed or that women are making poor sexual choices?

Indian Chris said...

You're asking me questions as though I were the spokesman for the anti-abortion movement. I speak for no one but myself. I don't care what other pro-lifers think or feel.