If I found out that my son of 4 was not mine but a product of incest...

[mikelewis]

could I kill him? Would that be morally justified?

Okay, maybe 4 is too old...

Maybe 1, if I found out my 1 year old was a product of incest or rape, could I, in good conscience both morally and spiritually, end his life?

My guess would be that the answer would be a resounding "No" from all sides of the political spectrum no matter what the age. Murdering a child is simply not justified under any circumstances.

And yet, in South Dakota, they obviously feel that I should have the right to kill a child spawned of incest or rape. They have stated that since the natural outcome of the pregnancy results in a child, barring any unnatural and now illegal intervention, that aborting a fetus constitutes an act of murder. In their new law, they have also incorporated a few clauses that do allow for justifiable infanticide; rape, incest and in the case where a mother's life is threatened.

By adding these clauses, when is the cut off age that I am legally allowed to murder a child born of incest or rape? Since we all agree it is never legal to kill a child under these circumstances, if North Dakota is to be consistent and legal, they must eventually either remove those clauses from the law or they must admit that a fetus is not a child. They must admit that it is a grouping of cells that if allowed to mature, may one day result in a child; if the mother decides to continue her pregnancy.

Now should they decide to remove the clauses, I pray their children are never raped by one of the millions of poor criminals their scorched earth politics are creating. If that should happen, they will be forced to consecrate that illegal and immoral union and give their blessing to the adulterous affair that spawned that child through incest or viscous rape. That would be a very difficult position to be in, I imagine. I also imagine that would be a very personal position to be in as well. Yet, to be true to this law, the pregnancy is not a personal matter, it's a public matter. The State of South Dakota must protect the unholy union of a rapist and his victim if it is to remain true to the spirit of the law they enacted.

In the case of abortion, it's as black and white as you can get. There can be no grey areas. Either it's legal or it's murder. If it's murder then you must suffer the offspring of a rapist or an incestuous relationship. However, if it's legal to abort fetus's that are the product of incest or rape, then it should also be legal to abort fetus's that would send the family into crushing poverty or force a woman into a form of slavery. If it is legal then it should be left up to the woman to make such a personal and life altering decision.

Personally, I believe abortion is a private affair that a woman will do legally or illegally; regardless of what I think or the law says. What someone else does or what sins they bring on themselves is none of my concern. As a Christian, I am duty bound to tell them the right and just course to take but have no authority to force them to make a decision I believe God prefers. I would rather help create a world that removes the causes that brought a woman to the abortion clinic but until that happens, I think we would be well served to let well enough alone. I believe the people calling for this law had their hearts in the right place but I think they are wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong.

That's about all I have to say about that.

[uppityperson]

1. what North Dakota law are you talking about?

[MissMarple]

2. I think you have them coming and going. The government is a wise master..

in their alternate reality.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Spoken like a man who

will never have to worry about being raped or diddled constantly by his father/brother/uncle/grandfather, and who will never have to deal with the experience of becoming pregnant in that way.

Forgive me if I'm a bit cranky tonight, but after days of reading stridently anti-abortion letters all from MEN in the Rapid City Journal, and suffering through the self-serving pontifications of MALE state legislators in SD, I'm a little tired of patronizing pro-life men who will never have to experience what women do, including the fact that nearly all of the blame, guilt and responsibility still fall on women even though they did have a little help in getting pregnant, after all. I found out just what a man's world it still was during my own crisis pregnancy experience, and no man will ever experience that. :eyes:

Frankly, right now I'm a little tired of hearing from men on the subject, period.

[mikelewis]

5. Spoken like a woman who didn't read the post.

[LostinVA]

12. Well, I'm a woman who read the post three times

And I still read it like liberalhistorian did.

[stepnw1f]

50. And I'm a Man Who Read Your Post

and agree with both ladies.

[dogday]

47. Nothing says birth defects like getting raped

and inpregnated by a family member....

[DesEtoiles]

4. delete

[Beaverhausen]

6. Gee- thanks for sharing

:eyes:

[MichiganVote]

7. Getting pregnant anytime soon? No? The issue is female reproduction

And no many how many times the so called "pro-life" attempt to call it otherwise, that's what it will always be, an issue for women, about women and only women.

[Horse with no Name]

18. As a woman, I am GLAD that there are men sympathetic to this cause

and I don't think alienating them is going to serve any good purpose.
Many of these men have wives and daughters whom they love and want to protect and are willing to fight to keep their choices intact.
There is strength in numbers--even if they don't have uteruses.
It isn't entirely a women's issue.

[MichiganVote]

32. Men can be sympathetic to a cause without assuming ownership

of the female's uterus. The fact that some men don't do that does not negate the very real fact that the fight women are in is for reproductive independence. When women declare that reproductive rights are their rights, the result is empowerment among women to make good choices. Men can support that and women can gain strength from their support but the issue is still one that belongs to women. To say that men love their wives and daughters etc. is fine, but its still not an issue of reproduction for men.

Women need to quit shakin'and quakin' while the religious right calls them names. Reproductive choice is a viable reality so long as women don't allow themselves to get boxed in. I fail to see how declaring that female reproduction is the right and responsibility of women is alienating men.

[mondo joe]

38. No ownership of the uterus is needed - just citizenship and the

right to participate in the legislative process.

You may not know it, but men and women are nearly statistically identical on support for choice, and more women than men vote.

This isn't a men vs women issue.

[MichiganVote]

40. So long as its even under consideration, pedogogy is alive and well

[mondo joe]

42. Assuming you mean "pedagogy", the art/science of educating children

seems rather disconnected to this topic. Unless you mean teaching about the statistics of the electorate.

[mondo joe]

26. To the contrary, the issue is privacy and autonomy which are not

gender specific principles.

And while you may not have noticed, laws are not passed by one gender.

[MichiganVote]

34. Laws are not passed by one gender? What planet are you on?

Have you checked out the male majority in Congress, Supreme Court, State and Local gov't?

If the issue of reproduction is not gender specific, why then are not sperm considered viable outside the womb and therefore make it illegal to masturbate?

[mondo joe]

37. There is not a gender restriction on the legislature or courts.

And who votes so many men into those?

Here's a clue: women make up a greater percentage of voters than men.

To answer your question: if you have a law like that in mind, you can try to pass it.

It's not comperable, and it's stupid. But you can try to pass it.

[MichiganVote]

39. And who prepares and promotes women for office? Not men that's for sure

[mondo joe]

41. Who cares? If women, as a monolith, wanted to flip the entire

system upside down they could do it easily.

But women are not a monolith. Neither are men.

[stepnw1f]

51. Exactly

What's so hard to grasp?

[blogslut]

8. abortion isn't retroactive

n/t

[ContraBass Black]

9. People won't read it without sarcasm tags.

As the responses show.

[LostinVA]

13. I did read it, THREE TIMES, and see by his responses

He was trying to make some kind of point... but what? It still reads to me pretty nasty against choice.

[mondo joe]

24. I think the point was if you make exceptions for incest the law

is inconsistent. If abortion is murder, it's murder whether the fetus is the product of incest or not.

So if your laws say abortion is okay in incest incidents, it should be okay in all instances.

[LostinVA]

27. No, I get that part, but as I mention down thread

The ending of the post really bothers me... because I still read it as being judgemnetal...

[mondo joe]

29. Yeah - it is. But personally, I don't care about that sort of thing as

long as my rights are intact.

I'd file it under "disagrees but respects the right to choose".

[liberalhistorian]

43. That's the way I read it, too,

glad to see I'm not alone in that.

[baby_mouse]

45. It's relatively straightforward.

He's accusing them of gross and disgusting inconsistency. HE believes not a WORD of what he posted.

[CAcyclist]

48. He is trying to push the Republican POV to its natural conclusion

That IF the fetus is deemed a child then you can't even make the exceptions that are allowed, but since most people want to make an exception in case of rape or incest, then that means that people don't REALLY believe that the fetus is a child, therefore it is NOT a child.

However, I don't believe the argument will ever work precisely because it makes people think too hard and the only ones who can figure it out, are probably already pro-choice. And, truly, the Republicans don't really care - they are trying to control women's reproduction by whatever arguments necessary - they don't care about children. Remember that when abortion was illegal, the state was involuntarily sterilizing and aborting pregnant mentally handicapped , native American, and poor black women in institutions.

edited for grammar

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. A couple of questions in regards to your argument

Do you mean South Dakota or North Dakota? At first, I took it you were describing the laws in ND, where abortion is still legal, but then when you talked of newly passed legislation, I suspected you meant SD.

Second point is found in this sentence, quoted from OP:

In their new law, they have also incorporated a few clauses that do allow for justifiable infanticide; rape, incest and in the case where a mother's life is threatened.

The problem here, I believe, is the term "infanticide". As I understand it, this means the murder of an infant. By my definition, a fetus is not an infant, especially during the first trimester. I have heard right to lifers say things like "It's not a choice, its a child", but I've never heard or read that they call a fetus an infant. Does the SD statute define the fetus as an infant? If so, how can they even have a clause for abortion to save a mother's life?

Thank you for clearing up these points for me. It is a very interesting argument, one that I hope more people read and discuss.

[file83]

11. I got your point of turning the "anti-abortion" argument around against

the bastards that used in promoting the law. But I think you mean to be talking about South Dakota, not North Dakota.

Never-the-less, you are right, if the backwards reasoning behind South Dakota's Anti-Abortion law is to remain consistent (the argument that "abortion is murder") then how can they go on to have a clause in their law that says that abortion for pregnancies from incest/rape are not murder?

It's a dangerous line though, because it could go either way. I agree that those rape/incest clauses prove that their underlying argument that "abortion is murder" is fundamentally flawed, and that, hence, the law is completely in-the-wrong. But the proponents of the Anti-Abortion movement would be more than happy to go the other way and remove those incest/rape clauses to make the Anti-Abortion law self-consistent, comprehensive and draconion by banning ALL abortion, regardless of circumstance.

Fighting fire with fire might get everyone burned. But I get your point.

(On Edit: Or am I totally not getting your point?)

[peacebird]

14. ok - let's try another angle. You get a woman pregnant then you must

pay to support her and the child until the child is through college. Can you agree with THAT?

My ex-hubby didn't pay child support, I managed to get by as a single mom from the time my son was 6 weeks old until he was almost 14 years old when I married again. Then my hubby finally agreed to pay the $200 a month child support (from 13 YEARS earlier - and no - NOT retroactively.....)

Couldn't have another man pay for his child when he wouldn't. Some male pride issue - never understood it but my second husband and I still paid the vast majority of the childs expenses. $200 a month in 1994? Yeah - THAT covered a lot.... NOT.

So I say - DNA tests are required and men are on the line to pay REAL MONEY to let mommies stay home and raise their babies. YOU PLAY, YOU PAY.

Frankly most of the work of raising kids comes down on mom anyhow - even in married couples I know. Even when mom works full time and brings home as much money as dad.

So see - I don't give a flying FUCK what you think about abortion - I think it is beyond arrogance for men to say abortion is wrong.

IF MEN GOT PREGNANT THEN ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT.

[mikelewis]

33. In which line did I say abortion was wrong?

Also, in which line did I advocate or even mention anything referring to child support? South Dakota has ruled that Abortion is murder, not I. As I stated in my OP, I believe they were terribly terribly wrong.

And whether you like it or not, men ARE deciding on issues that have nothing to do with them. These men do not care what women think or what they have to go through. And yet you wish to attack other men who are defending the right to an abortion.

Abortion is a personal issue that should remain a personal decision. My views on the moral justification should be irrelevant because it is an issue that is none of my business. South Dakota has made and soon my state will be making it my business. Once the issue becomes a matter of legal questioning, it is my business just as much as it is yours. That gives me just as much right to voice an opinion on the topic as you have. The fact that I am a man has nothing to do with my right to voice an opinion.

Do I think abortion is wrong? No. Is it tragic? Yes. Should government be allowed to legislate the morality of a personal decision? No. Which one of these views do you take offence to? Or is your problem simply that I am a man who mentioned abortion?

[MichiganVote]

36. Well here's my question:

If, as you say, "abortion is a personal issue that should remain a personal decision", and your "views on the moral justification should be irrelevant", what is it about this being signed into law (by people you think are wrong to have done so) that has permitted you to comment or question it now?

Did you not have opinions prior to this law? Did you not express them? Or did you say to women or to men, 'my opinion is that abortion is a personal decision and therefore my moral views are irrelevant unless or until they change the laws?

No. You had and have an opinion. You describe abortion as "tragic". That's an opinion and for women, it's a value laden opinion.

What many men, many good men, cannot get through their heads is that laws that prohibit abortion DO legislate morality, not so called "personal decisions".

[peacebird]

44. You come across as extremely judgemental, that I object to.

"What someone else does or what sins they bring on themselves is none of my concern. As a Christian, I am duty bound to tell them the right and just course to take but have no authority to force them to make a decision I believe God prefers."

:puke:

[Horse with no Name]

15. I understood your point

If abortion = murder (as they would like for it to be), it would always be wrong. Always. No exceptions.
However, if you make an exception that it is OKAY to abort (murder) a child that is the product of incest...then the precedent is set to murder a child that is a product of incest (many in certain states should be fearful of this--half of their population could be wiped out).
They can't have it both ways.
Either abortion is murder or it is not and just as there are no exceptions to murder, there wouldn't be any exceptions to abortion, otherwise...you prove that the entire issue is exactly what it is...a paper tiger intended only to control women.

I think that is the message you were trying to convey.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Is abortion murder if the pregnant woman would die without one?

[rucky]

19. She could always plead self-defense?

:shrug:

All these paradoxes remind me of the time-travel discussions I'd have in college - except we're really going to see these scenarios unfold.

[Horse with no Name]

23. Hey now

I am as Pro-Choice as pro-choice comes.
Was just attempting to interpret the misunderstanding here and play the Devil's advocate.

In my eyes--abortion isn't murder any more than eating an egg yolk is murdering chickens.

However...forcing the points that the OP has brought out might be beneficial.
If, as they say, abortion is murder...then how can they justify it under ANY circumstance?
If these zealots truly believed what they claim, then death would have to be part of the collateral damage of pregnancy just as death is sometimes the result of cancer or other illnesses.

[LostinVA]

17. I got that, too, however

the end of the post really turned me off: "as a Christian.... the right and just course." Sorry, to me, it's still a post judging women who get abortions, and that really colored the whole post for me.

[cali]

20. Yikes, Am I ever confused after reading your post

but it seems you're even more confused.

To clarify, the anti-abortion law in South Dakota bans ALL abortions except to save the life of the woman. No exception for rape, incest or health.

I think I got what you were trying to say, which is that in order to be consistent anti choice people should consider all fetuses of equal birth. Many do; from the second the sperm fertilizes the egg.
Where they're really inconsistent is in their confusion about what the legal punishment should be. If they believe all abortion is murdet than women and abortion practitioners should be tried for murder under state laws. Of course, only a handful advocate this.

In any case, and I don't mean to be harsh here, you really didn't write up your thoughts well enough to make a coherent argument about, well, whatever it was you were trying to say.

[LisaL]

21. No, in their new law, they didn't incorporate anything of the sort.

Woman does not have a right to abortion even if the fetus is the result of incest or rape under this new South Dakota law. So, I guess they used your logic.

[beyurslf]

22. I think I sort of understand the logic you are trying to apply here

but you get all moralistic and religious. This throws off the whole argument. And trying to say that "if abortiong is murder then all abortions should be illegal" is a dangerous argument. It is like saying we should "protect marriage by banning divorce." Many crazy fundies would like this idea and we could end up with the opposite outcome that we desire.

[file83]

25. Fighting fire with fire get's everyone burned. Good point.

[LostinVA]

28. Exactly what I said up thread

[Marie26]

30. What on earth are you talking about? nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

31. The only exception in the S Dakota law is the life of the mother

Other than that to participate in an abortion for any reason is a class 5 felony.

Their argument against abortions reads:


1) That the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm

2) Abortion procedures impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother

3) A pregnant mother, together with the unborn human child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life under the South Dakota Bill of Rights

So, in essence they agree with you.

[WillyT]

35. Jesus... "Abortion Is Black And White... Legal Or Murder... But...

I believe it's a private affair."

:wtf:

"...in Inherit the Wind, the 1955 play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee, the character Matthew Harrison Brady, prosecuting a high school teacher for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, says "I do not think about things I do not think about," and the defense attorney, Henry Drummond, asks him, "Do you ever think about the things you DO think about?"

Rarely a better question asked.

:shrug:

[Neil Lisst]

46. I think some misconstrued your comments

A lot of people don't really read posts. They read until they see something they don't like, or maybe perceive that they don't like, and launch their critique.

Your detractors either didn't read your entire post, or jumped to an early conclusion about where your post was going, or simply didn't do a good job of reading what you wrote. In their defense, the OP was poorly constructed, and I can see how some initially thought you were going a different direction overall.

Could you have said more clearly that you leave the choice to the woman? No. Could you have expressed more empathy? No.

What? Is that some MAN talking about abortion?! How dare he?!

Sometimes there is a tendency of posters to shoot first and ask follow up questions later.

[DrunkenMaster]

49. what a stupid post

The difference between aborting an embryo and murdering a 4 year old child is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Are you actually telling everyone here that you support forcing raped women to carry the genetic imprint of their attackers?

Nice. I hope the women of DU rip you a new one -- you should be ashamed.

[stepnw1f]

52. Well Said