Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"With abortion you punishing an innocent life whereas the death penalty that's not always the case." I love the way that second part is phrased ... ;-)< Yeah, I caught that too. Another reason why I'm against the death penalty. Every now and then an innocent person is put to death for a crime they didn't do, but some look at the as acceptable collateral damage. Amazing.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP For me, I'm anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, I'm also generally anti-war. For me, I have a stong belief in an afterlife so I'm only mildly concerned about the people who die. (That sounds a little calous, I don't mean it like that.) I'm much more concerned about the people who do the killing. Especially in the cases of soldiers and prison guards, there has to be some pyschic damage. More for soldiers who often have PTSD than prison guards who deal with the situation much less often. In the case of abortion I have heard some conflicting evidence, it seems to affect some women more than others, but that's the primary reason I'm against it. So, there you go.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I hear ya. I was just hoping that the focus was less on debating the issues and more on how one reconciles seemingly conflicted positions. >>> And we hear you! I have a question along just those lines that I've been meaning to ask for awhile, and this thread seems the perfect place and it's in keeping with what you were getting at. And, as Kar2oonMan said, I ask this not in the sense to argue what's right and wrong, but to find out how someone with a seemingly inconsistent position reconciles that within themselves. <<< I am anti-abortion with the exception of rape, incest, or if the mother would die as a result of having the baby. >>> ElderP, I notice that you choose your words very carefully! You don't say WHY you hold the above beliefs - just that you do. As such, I can't really ask my question of you directly, since I don't know the basis of your beliefs. But let me add one piece of information to what you say above (which may or may not apply to you, but does apply to a great many people) and then ask a question. Many Christians in this nation believe that life begins at conception, and as such are totally against abortion. I also think that most having this belief are willing to make an exception when the life of the mother is at risk: that situation is very much like one of conjoined twins where if nothing is done, both will die. Both situations present potentially very difficult moral issues for the medical profession and the patients, but sometimes difficult things need to be done, and I think that most people realize that. My question regards those that view life as beginning at conception and are against abortion, but nonetheless support an exception in the case of rape or incest. This position seems totally in conflict with the notion of "life begins at conception." I certainly see the terrible circumstances of forcing a mother to carry and bear a baby that came from rape or incest, but certainly that doesn't rise to the level of permitting a state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person, does it? (again, I'm not saying that abortion = murder, only that that is the viewpoint of a significant segment of society) I can't think of any other situation where we allow the victim of a crime to kill an innocent third party just because it will help them emotionally cope with their situation. Yet, I would guess that there are quite a few people that hold the above set of beliefs. To re-ask Kar2oonMan's question about this specific situation: how to people with these beliefs reconcile the seemingly conflicted positions?
Originally Posted By Elderp "ElderP, I notice that you choose your words very carefully! You don't say WHY you hold the above beliefs. " I try to, but I don't always suceed. The original question was asking what I believed. I sense a air of debate in your statement, I have to warn you I am not debating this issue with anyone. If by chance you want to really know my beliefs I am ok with sharing them. However, I need to preference my answer in saying two things. First, I don't know exactly when life begins. To me life is when the spirit is joined with a physical body. When that happens exactly I don't know. I am fairly certain that it happens sometime before birth, and therefore I am against abortion in general. The other thing is that I am a man and while I can have compasion for women I don't believe I can truly comprehend everything that a woman goes through when it comes to reproduction. As a man it is virtually impossible to get raped (I guess there is sodomy but I don't consider that rape). I have heard of men being sexually abused, but a man can't get pregnant. This as you can see strongly influences my opinion on abortion for rape and incest. It is a very delicate situation. First of all, I admit I gave a blanket belief, which is vague. I don't think abortion in rape and incest should ever be automatic, I don't think any abortion should be automatic, but there are circumstances in which I believe it needs to be acceptable. The basic thought is rape and incest is in my opinion a sin and therefore is wrong and any product of a sin cannot be good, BUT sex outside of marriage is wrong too and I don't think abortions in that case is ok. What it comes down to me is the more fundamental right of choice. Women and men to me have an inate right to choose what happens to them. They do not have the right to choose the consequences however. So in rape and incest cases I believe the woman's right to choose to get pregnant or not was violated. Now, she has the right in my opinion to continue the pregnancy if she wants to but if she does she needs to realize the consequences for that decision. I know what everyone is thinking (including myself) at this point. If it is a right of choice for those who were raped/incest then what about those having consensual relationships. My arguement is if they were adults they already made their decision. Despite contraception, if you have sex you have to realize you COULD have a baby and that is a choice. By the way, I read a study that 95% of abortions in this country are due to consensual relationships. Of the remaining 5%, 3% are because of rape/incest and 2% were due to birth defects or the woman possibly dying due to continuing the pregnancy. Not that that means anything really to me. One life is no greater or less than another in my opinion, but I say that to point out how little of an exception I think this should be.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< First, I don't know exactly when life begins. To me life is when the spirit is joined with a physical body. When that happens exactly I don't know. I am fairly certain that it happens sometime before birth, and therefore I am against abortion in general. The other thing is that I am a man and while I can have compasion for women I don't believe I can truly comprehend everything that a woman goes through when it comes to reproduction. As a man it is virtually impossible to get raped (I guess there is sodomy but I don't consider that rape). I have heard of men being sexually abused, but a man can't get pregnant. This as you can see strongly influences my opinion on abortion for rape and incest. >>> That's a fine set of beliefs (without regard to whether they're the same or different than mine), although that's not really relevant to this thread. What is relevant is that what you say is consistent within itself, so there's no issue in terms of what Kar2oonMan was talking about in this thread. The situation I was talking about was someone who had the same views on abortion as you do, but who also claims to believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that it's that point that the spirit or soul is joined with the physical. That set of beliefs has a built-in conflict like Kar2oonMan was wanting to talk about - so the question is, for those people that have that set of beliefs, how do they reconcile the discrepancy?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As a man it is virtually impossible to get raped (I guess there is sodomy but I don't consider that rape).*** This seems a little strange to me, I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. I mean, you could (I suppose) define rape as just something that involves penetration, and all other acts of such violence to be "sexual assault", but I don't see any difference from a legal or emotional standpoint other than (and perhaps this is your point) the potential for pregnancy. I wouldn't think that a man (or woman) who was forcibly sodomized would be any less affected or victimized by such a criminal act (or any other form of sexual assault for that matter). But I do agree with you that women have issues such as pregnancy that men will never "truly" understand since we can't go there. One comment someone above made which I was glad to read was that these issues are strictly between a woman a doc and her mate...I do have a problem with the father in these situations being considered legally a "non-entity" as far as the decision making process goes. Granted, the baby is in the woman's womb, but it takes two to tango and I feel the man should have an equal voice, or at least a VALID voice, in terms of deciding on such weighty issues as abortion. In other words, while I don't believe a woman should ever be FORCED to take a baby to term if she is against it, a man SHOULD be entitled to some form of arbitration if he is against it...arbitration designed to flesh out what EXACTLY the woman might have a problem with, and whether she might be willing to take the baby to term if the father should agree to accept full custodial responsibilities and that sort of thing...it's all rather complex of course, but I do find the whole issue of "father = no opinion" to be wrong.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Great comments, Mr. X, but they belong in a topic about abortion. This topic is about inconsistencies within a set of beliefs and how people that have inconsistent or conflicting beliefs reconcile them.
Originally Posted By Elderp "I guess I don't understand where you're coming from." It's merely symantics. Sexual Assault can't cause a pregnancy, rape can. Although from a legal viewpoint I think the penalty should be no different.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's merely symantics. Sexual Assault can't cause a pregnancy, rape can. Although from a legal viewpoint I think the penalty should be no different.*** Makes sense. ***Great comments, Mr. X, but they belong in a topic about abortion. This topic is about inconsistencies within a set of beliefs and how people that have inconsistent or conflicting beliefs reconcile them.*** Sorry. My bad.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out: "against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." where the victim is unable to resist because of an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic substance that the accused has responsibility for administering. where the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act and the perpetrator knows it. where the victim believes, due to the perpetrator's intentional deceptive acts, that the perpetrator is her spouse. where the perpetrator threatens to retaliate against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility the perpetrator will execute the threat -- "threatens to retaliate" means threatens to kidnap, imprison, inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death. where the victim is incapable of giving consent, and the perpetrator reasonably should know this. where the perpetrator threatens to use public authority to imprison, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator is a public official.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 ^^^^ I'm not seeing anything about pregnancy. For all the young boys out there who've suffered sexual abuse out there I find that definition of rape a bit disturbing.
Originally Posted By mawnck Good post, Elderp. I don't entirely agree with it either, but it is well thought-out, reasonable, and well-stated. Semantics don't bother me if you clarify what you mean by them.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Good post, Elderp. I don't entirely agree with it either, but it is well thought-out, reasonable, and well-stated.<< Ditto that. If everyone were as reasonable as Elderp's post, acknowledging the complexities and difficulties, even if we disagree, we ought to be able to find common ground and solutions.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey I've considered myself pro-life in the past, but I'm not sure where I stand on the issue at the moment because it is such a complex issue when rape, incest, etc. is involved. However, I am definitely pro-death penalty, mainly because I believe there are some crimes on this earth that warrant it, regardless of whether or not its a deterrent. For instance, the scumbag that abducted the brother and sister from Idaho and proceeded to rape and torture those kids, all of which he videotaped, until he shot the boy in the head in front of his sister, deserves to die. I cannot fathom letting someone so evil and sick sit in jail on my tax dollars for the rest of his natural life. There is concrete proof that he did it, and such a heinous and horrible crime deserves death as far as I am concerned. I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes as long as the criminal has not been convicted using circumstantial evidence. DNA, videotapes, and similar evidence are more than sufficient to warrant the death penalty, when applicable, in my book.
