• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
What about when the condomn breaks?

What if a woman who takes her BC pills and forgets and during the first month of pregnancy she has been drinking/smoking/ect.?
It's called "assumption of risk." People should know where babies come from. Of course, I believe that a good education in Sex Ed should be given to all of our youth in order to lower the occurences of unwanted pregnancies.

I also don't think there should be an exception for rape/incest, as then you are simply punishing the child for the "sins" of the father. The only time I think abortion should be legal is when the life of the mother is at risk.
 
Upvote 0
I also don't think there should be an exception for rape/incest, as then you are simply punishing the child for the "sins" of the father. The only time I think abortion should be legal is when the life of the mother is at risk.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
It's not as simple as that though. Forcing a woman to bear and give birth to a child that she did not consent to conceiving is punishment to the woman. It can be financially, socially, and psychologically devastating to the mother.

Babies cost money, and if a woman is delaying starting a family until they are financially ready, only to have those plans destroy by some sick freak, that can be devastating.

Also, some women just aren't ready socailly to make the adjustment to having a kid, yet rape drops this immense responsibility right in their lap. It puts a tremendous strain on the mother and her family, it guarantees at least a somewhat broken home (try telling that kid about their daddy), which is not fair for the child.

Finally, and most importantly, rape is a traumatic experience. It is baggage that the woman will carry with her the rest of her life. There is no need for a woman to have to keep a "souvenir" of this experience. If you were a mother, how would you even be able to look in the eyes of your child without being reminded of being violated?

From a moral standpoint, I am against most abortions. I think more people need to step up to their reproductive responsibilities. My hat's off to any rape victim that chooses to keep and responsibly raise their child. It takes a strong person to do that. From a moral standpoint, I just don't see how anybody can ask a rape victim to keep a child that they do not want.
 
Upvote 0
Babies cost money, and if a woman is delaying starting a family until they are financially ready, only to have those plans destroy by some sick freak, that can be devastating.

Also, some women just aren't ready socailly to make the adjustment to having a kid, yet rape drops this immense responsibility right in their lap. It puts a tremendous strain on the mother and her family, it guarantees at least a somewhat broken home (try telling that kid about their daddy), which is not fair for the child.
Which is why women are free to give their children up for adoption. There are many couples who are not able to have children, and who would love to have a child that might otherwise be aborted. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with rape and incest victims, but just because someone is a victim, it doesn't give them the right to victimize someone else...
 
Upvote 0
An unborn child is a human being. If a mother does not wish to care for her baby she can put it up for adoption. I have never understood the logic behind someone deciding that since they didn't want to care for their baby, they would have it slaughtered in one of the most vile manners possible. My God, why would you do that? What is so bad about aboption that you would have your child murdered rather than put him or her up for it. Loving, well off couples are having to resort to going oversees to get children. Wouldn't you rather see your child raised in a good home than have it murdered? But thats just me.
 
Upvote 0
I agree with jlb- there are certian situations where abortions should be allowed, and rape (and the others he mentions) definately qualifies. I can't imagine carrying and caring for a baby that will remind you every second of one of the most horrible things that has happened to you. Sure, the baby could be given up for adoption, but why should a woman have to endure 9 months of pregnancy, with all of it's inconvieniences, when she was forced to reproduce?

I don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but I'm not convinced that it should be illegal, either. I'm probably looking at this from a different perspective than a lot of you- I have very little experience with kids, and I don't have any of my own yet.

I"m not sure where I stand on the fetus-life issue, but I guess I'm not convinced that there exists a life at the moment of conception.
 
Upvote 0
ashlandbuck said:
Uh, buckeyebri, the only part GW has in this bill is the signing of it.
Once authored, he supported it and agreed to sign it if it came before him.

I don't think any of us are that naive to not know what they have made relatively clear. This is a part of the administrations agenda to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Rape and incest victims had no choice in what happened to them and these are tremendously heinous crimes. Let me make it clear, that this is the only place that I am in favor of this choice being available. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned what we will do is force these women back to the butchers performing these operations outside of the law.

One of the things that has always intrigued me is the extremist people who are against abortion and accuse the doctors who perform them of murder. They then feel it is okay for them to kill that doctor. How do these people reconcile this? Do they not see this as murder and against man and God's law? Just throwing it out there for discussion and to be enlightened....
 
Upvote 0
"Uh, buckeyebri, the only part GW has in this bill is the signing of it.
Once authored, he supported it and agreed to sign it if it came before him."

This bill passed the Senate by a wide margin - 61-38. I think that most people understand that when someone is committing a crime against a pregnant mother, and her fetus is injured or killed by the criminal, the mother is not making a choice. There is a distinct difference here and this is by no means an end run on Roe v. Wade which is about the mother's privacy, not abortion (an individual right to privacy, by the way, is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution).
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch: I see your point, but choose to disagree. You quote history and point out societies in which newborns are killed at birth. I believe you, that stuff did, and does, happen. My question, though, is this: Why does that make it right? You name animals that eat their young, or kick them out to starve. Again, why does that make it right? Cannibalism is proven to have existed in some human societies, does that mean it is ok to eat babies? Murder has been a problem in our species since we have existed. So, using your logic, it is ok to kill someone simply because people have always killed? Animals fight for the "right" to procreate as well, sometimes to the death. Should we then initiate some arena death-matches for the right to bed Selma Hayek?

I understand that people are going to disagree on this subject, and I'm not trying to force your opinion to become the same as mine. I will, however, question your logic. I firmly believe in the sanctity of life, and I also firmly believe that abortion is murder. You make a good argument when you paint the picture of the poor 15 year old girl whose life would definitely change should she become pregnant. But the fact remains, if you look at history, that society is always going to have a percentage that is poverty-stricken, and nobody can say that young 15 year old wouldn't be inspired by having a child. Maybe the kid will give her the motivation to finish high school and attend college. Maybe not. My point is, regardless of how many heart strings you tug, abortion is still killing. People make mistakes. But, as the cliche goes, "two wrongs do not make a right". If some girl murders her unborn child because she "made a mistake while her judgment was impaired", to me it is the same as if a motorist killed a cop to get out of a speeding ticket.
 
Upvote 0
Here is a list of the 38 U.S. Senators who sided with criminals who commit crimes against pregnant mothers and their fetuses:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (aka KKK Byrd) (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (D-RI)
clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-tsun)
Liberman (D-CT)
Lincold (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D- tsun)
Wyden (D-OR)
 
Upvote 0
The poverty stricken 15 year old argument doesnt hold any water with me because how in the hell is this young girl going to get the money together to get an abortion in the first place?
The only time that I consider abortion to be an option is if the mother's life is in serious question. And for those saying that abortion happens reguraly with people who are not financially stable, have you ever checked to see how much an abortion costs?

EDIT: On the original, political question. I cannot see how, in our country's current political view on this subject, it can be considered murder for someone else to kill an unborn child.
 
Upvote 0
Another interesting point to this is that the bill has often been refered to as the "Lacy Peterson bill." More political crap. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with that particular case. A Federal Bill only has jurisdiction over Federal crimes. So the only scenario that I can come up with where this bill would even matter is if someone was robbing a bank and killed a pregnant mother thus killing the unborn child for a double murder.

So yes, there is no question this is a direct attack a Roe vs Wade.
 
Upvote 0
I don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but I'm not convinced that it should be illegal, either. I'm probably looking at this from a different perspective than a lot of you- I have very little experience with kids, and I don't have any of my own yet.
Excellent passage DEBuckeye!! I agree that it shouldn't be a form of birth control and I believe that people on both sides of the abortion issue would agree with that. As for the perspective that you talk about, all males have a different perspective since they do not bear children.

As for the typical conservative spin and labeling people as criminals (see buckeye69 post), the 61-38 vote to approve the bill came AFTER a 50-49 vote to reject an alternative bill that would have imposed THE SAME penalties without reference to the legal status of a fetus. Now, conclude why those 38 voted no.

I have read some posts mentioning this bill as an attempt at an end around on Roe v Wade. It appears that the bill's mostly Republican backers deny this wheras the other side of the aisle states that this is exactly what the end result will be. I am not saying that that is the case, but it would APPEAR that this bill would make it easier to attack the legality of abortion.
 
Upvote 0
"Another interesting point to this is that the bill has often been refered to as the 'Lacy Peterson bill.'"

This bill is modeled after the California law, which makes the acts criminal at the state level in California. Again, although some of you are being led to believe that this is about abortion, it is not and neither is Roe v. Wade. This new law is about criminals comitting criminal acts. Roe v. Wade is about privacy. When you confuse the right of privacy found in Roe v. Wade with a new law makiing it a crime to injure or harm the fetus of a pregnant mother, you simply do not know what you are talking about. A crime against the fetus of a pregnant mother has nothing to do with the mother's privacy rights found in Roe v. Wade nor does it have anything to do with the off-topic issue of abortion that you are illogically trying to insert into the argument. There simply is no logical or legal relation between the three.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top