Alabama's Restrictive Abortion Law: Rape and Incest Discussion

RaymondG said:

Drinking and smoking are legal. Do you believe that anyone thinking that these are completely harmless actions?

We warn against it.....tell you of the dangers and death and could result.....and leave you free to make your own choice..... I like the ability to choose....therefore I do not try and force others not to smoke just because I am against it and know they are killing someone.... albeit legally.

Click to expand...

An excellent post. And lest anyone say that smokers are only killing themselves, my Aunt Phyllis never smoked in her life but worked in an office with several smokers. She died from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke.

Archivist said:

But that is what you want to do the the rape victim--treat her like property (slavery). What about her rights?

Click to expand...

I guess then that is something that you

Archivist said:

But that is what you want to do the the rape victim--treat her like property (slavery). What about her rights?

Click to expand...

I certainly can see why a rape victim would feel that way. It is a horrible thing that I think about every day that I wish I could be free from experiencing. Some women have said that having the baby was the only thing out of it that made any sense because nothing else good comes from it.

But to the person that does not believe that God is the author of life, I would simply say that living in a society whose goal with laws is to protect, there are many things that we are not legally free to choose to do to our bodies because it is either harmful to ourselves or to others. I do appreciate this discussion though. I really wonder though why someone who would have been wanting abortion as a choice and was raped would not have gotten the morning after pill as soon as they reported the rape. She should not want to wait until finding out she has a heartbeat. That seems to be the logical first step.

ChristianForCats said:

It does not make sense because when I look at each poster's marital status, most of them are married. If they do not understand my post your quoted it is because they know nothing about epilepsy and diabetes in pregnant women.



The mother's health is never "an excuse." Would you want to die as a result of a state law forcing you to carry a baby you tried to avoid having?

Click to expand...

If you read all my posts, you would see that I believe that all should be allowed to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences thereof.

But the reasons used to exclude rape as acceptable reasons can easily be used to exclude the health of the mother. The arguments that hold for rape, still hold for health......e.g. the fetus did nothing to deserve termination.

This was the point.....better to be hot or cold.

Servant of Yeshua said:

I guess then that is something that you

Click to expand...

Something that I what?

I certainly can see why a rape victim would feel that way. It is a horrible thing that I think about every day that I wish I could be free from experiencing. Some women have said that having the baby was the only thing out of it that made any sense because nothing else good comes from it. But to the person that does not believe that God is the author of life, I would simply say that living in a society whose goal with laws is to protect, there are many things that we are not legally free to choose to do to our bodies because it is either harmful to ourselves or to others. I do appreciate this discussion though.

Click to expand...

And, again, I am not suggesting that every rape victim should have an abortion. I just think that it needs to be an option. The choice needs to remain with the pregnant woman, not with the Alabama legislature and governor.

I really wonder though why someone who would have been wanting abortion as a choice and was raped would not have gotten the morning after pill as soon as they reported the rape. She should not want to wait until finding out she has a heartbeat. That seems to be the logical first step.

Click to expand...

I would agree, but remember that sometimes a rape victim is recovering from the physical trauma. Getting a morning after pill might not be priority.

Archivist said:

I didn't say that it had anything to do with rape. I said that "not allowing rape victims to have abortions was put in this law only to ensure that it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court."

Click to expand...

It may be one of the reasons.

It will be interesting to see if this Alabama law is challenged.

redleghunter said:

It may be one of the reasons.

It will be interesting to see if this Alabama law is challenged.

Click to expand...

The ACLU has already announced that it will be suing.

Alabama's Near-Total Ban On Abortion Could Be Headed To Court As ACLU Gears Up For Fight

Archivist said:

The ACLU has already announced that it will be suing.

Alabama's Near-Total Ban On Abortion Could Be Headed To Court As ACLU Gears Up For Fight

Click to expand...

Of course. However when some of the larger blue states Attorneys General weigh in, the passion may subside.

Then again, with the early record of Kavanaugh in the mix they might want to strike the anvil quickly.

chilehed said:

There has never been, and can never be, a right to murder an innocent baby.

Click to expand...

Danielwright2311 said:

I told you, i will never agree or support killing unborn baby's.

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, God prophecies or orders it.
Then we have no right NOT to agree and support it.
(2 Kings 8:12, 2 Kings 15:16, Jeremiah 44:7-8, Hosea 9:10-16, Hosea 13:16, Matthew 24:19)

Archivist said:

Something that I what?



And, again, I am not suggesting that every rape victim should have an abortion. I just think that it needs to be an option. The choice needs to remain with the pregnant woman, not with the Alabama legislature and governor.



I would agree, but remember that sometimes a rape victim is recovering from the physical trauma. Getting a morning after pill might not be priority.

Click to expand...

True. Believe me. I wish not one person would be raped. I do honestly question why God would allow her to be pregnant. Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate it.

SPF, I say what the law is because some members insist unborn babies do have rights, which is false. We know they should have rights. I am just telling people the reality that has been in place since the 1700s.

To be clear, I do believe unborn babies should have the right to live when mothers and doctors know they exist. However, there is no way for a female to know she is pregnant before she misses a period and gets an ultrasound several weeks after having sex. Some women learn they were pregnant when they have an early miscarriage. Therefore Georgia's heartbeat law is better because it gives pregnant females a chance to find out they are carrying embryos.

Kenny'sID said:

From the link:

(CNN)Alabama sent the most restrictive abortion bill in the country to the governor's desk Tuesday night, with the state's Senate passing legislation that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.

Now your talkin'.

Click to expand...

Yeah your talking alright and If I was a woman who was raped and found myself pregnant I would tell the governor and every Christian who thinks they have the right to enforce there religious moral beliefs onto me to stick it and go to a state were its legal. You see restrictive abortion laws do not stop abortions, one of two things happens, the woman goes to a different state or country, or if she can not afford it she goes to a back alley butcher

redleghunter said:

Yes, no one has argued against the moral value of the pregnant woman. In fact the physical violation against her is punishable by law.

What some seem not to accept is the conceived child did nothing to warrant their life terminated. There’s absolutely no moral or legal justification to terminate the life of one who has committed no crime or transgression.

The transgressor in the case of rape is the rapist. The rapist gets incarceration if found and convicted. Probably out in 3-5 years for “good behavior.” Then back out to potentially transgress again.

Yet the child, who did nothing but come into existence, gets the death penalty.

Click to expand...

It is not a "death penalty" for an unborn child. You made that up.

People who say the rest of a rape victim's life (no, it is not just nine months) does not matter are against her møral value. See the post about an 11-year old girl attempting suicide twice because she had to keep a baby in her body after being raped.

redleghunter said:

The child is in the womb because of a rapist. That should be an obvious fact all should recognize.

How does that violation of the rapist extend to the child?

Click to expand...

I am sure the point was the state forces the mother to keep a child in her uterus for nine months. Rapists don't make their victims go to term.

ms.smith said:

Gestational diabetes =/= T2 diabetes. It is a temporary condition caused by the placenta. You need to understand how that works before you go throwing it around. No placenta = no gestational diabetes.

I have had both severe pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes (don't have diabetes now, btw). I'm a woman. I am completely pro-life.

Click to expand...

Read my post again about the coworker whose gestational diabetes became Type 2 diabetes. She is Type 2 diabetic for life because she got pregnant.

ChristianForCats said:

Read my post again about the coworker whose gestational diabetes became Type 2 diabetes. She is Type 2 diabetic for life because she got pregnant.

Click to expand...

Gestational Diabetes is a sign that someone is predisposed to type II. And although the risk for developing it is greater after Gestational Diabetes (which is only a sign of the disposition in the first place), it can also be an early warning sign and steps taken to help lower the odds of developing type II. There are currently trials to use the warning sign of gestational diabetes to help lower the risk of type II to a greater level.

But it does not cause type II, it is a warning sign or predisposition. So stats that say women who get it in pregnancy are more disposed to permanent do not take into account if they would get it anyway. There is no way to be sure on that. So you can not say the pregnancy was the cause. It is an if then with an unknown factor.

What we can say is it is a sign of predisposition and lifestyle changes after gestational diabetes reduces the risk compared to those who did not make those changes.

Women's Health Matters - Gestational diabetes is an early sign of Type 2 diabetes risk

From the link:

"It’s important to note that gestational diabetes is not actually the cause of that long-term increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. In fact, it’s the other way around: the increased risk of Type 2 diabetes was there all along, even before pregnancy, and is the cause of the gestational diabetes.

“Gestational diabetes appears to be an early symptom of an abnormal ability to secrete insulin,” explains Dr. Lorraine Lipscombe, director of the Centre for Integrated Diabetes Care at Women’s College Hospital (WCH). “It’s an early sign of a disorder that can eventually lead to Type 2 diabetes."

So no she is not Type 2 diabetic for life because she got pregnant. As stated it is not the cause it is the other way around. It actually pointed to the early sign that could have helped avoidance.

redleghunter said:

Roe v Wade had nothing to do with rape. It was to establish on demand abortion for any reason.

Click to expand...

Actuially the right to have an abortion because of rape is in the Supreme Court's majority opinion.

The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child."

This is obviously a reference to rape.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court also once ruled that slavery was constitutional.

We don't judge what's morally right or wrong by positive (man made) law.

The humanity and rights of a human cannot be determined by whether that human is wanted or not, inconvenient or not. Aside from just being arbitrary, it's even a poor arbitrary line.

---SE---

Click to expand...

Actually in American jurisprudence descended from British common law the fetus had the rights of a person since 1751.

Even up to 1967 the American bar association agreed that jurisprudence showed the right to property, inheritance and the right-to-life to the fetus.

Roe versus Wade actually went against all of the American legal precedent before it. Including some international law out of Geneva.

That's just American history.

So the supreme Court can make a bad law that can last for 25, 50, 100 years. They can also make a new bad law that goes against previous good law. Campaign contribution laws come to mind. As well as Roe.

But it would be incorrect to state plainly that American history supports no fetal rights. In fact for the majority of our history that would be incorrect.

Robert6671 said:

Yeah your talking alright and If I was a woman who was raped and found myself pregnant I would tell the governor and every Christian who thinks they have the right to enforce there religious moral beliefs onto me to stick it and go to a state were its legal.

Click to expand...

You do realize "Thou shalt not kill" is a world wide concept that both Atheists, Christians, and every thing in between shares, right?

Robert6671 said:

You see restrictive abortion laws do not stop abortions,

Click to expand...

It will stop some so you are wrong there, but either way, it will still make it illegal, and that's a great step in the right direction.

Robert6671 said:

, one of two things happens, the woman goes to a different state or country, or if she can not afford it she goes to a back alley butcher

Click to expand...

Then there is the 3rd way you forgot to mention, obey the law and give it up for adoption if you must, but I know, too much trouble to save the life of a child..

There aren't too many people out there that can't get to another state. So between that, and your choice to dwell only on the worse part of this (even then, there's still a way out) while you mention not a word about all the lives saved by from Convenience Abortions, that, BTW, cover the vast majority of them, seems to me you are not only twisting the truth, but are being way way over dramatic.

The Supreme Court can't "make a law." Only Congress can do that. The ruling was a Texas abortion law - one that did not make an exception for rape victims - was unconstitutional. This is throwing out a law.