You WILL Have Your Rapists Baby

found online by Raymond

 
From tengrain at Mock Paper Scissors:

Janet (née Folger) Porter is much enthused that maybe this time he’ll stay maybe this time, the heartbeat bill (for which she takes credit, though it has never passed anywhere) will pass the House and the Senate.

The look of a fanatic is rather chilling: you will have your rapists’ baby.

– More –
 

10 thoughts on “You WILL Have Your Rapists Baby”

  1. Sigh…

    I am certain I will take crap for my stance on this, as I always do on this issue, but if a person is truly pro-life, then there is nothing inconsistent with this policy.

    Of course, I cannot imagine the emotional trauma that a woman most certainly would go through in carrying the child of a rapist. This is all the more reason why rape is such a heinous crime of which the criminal should be more severely punished than most state laws currently allow. Life in prison seems like an appropriate sentence for the guilty to me.

    That said, if one believes that life starts at the point of conception ( a fact that is inarguably supported by science) then it only make sense and is consistent with wanting to afford rights and protections to that nascent life, even when conceived in such a horrific manner. Killing such a child will not undo the evil act perpetrated upon her. It will simply add one more traumatic and painful event to an already overwhelming act of evil against her.

    I truly feel such sincere and deep sorrow for any woman that has so suffered, but adding to that pain by destroying an innocent life will not lessen that pain.

    This is such an amazingly difficult subject and I pray for all of those woman that have been forced to deal with this. My heart truly goes out to all of them.

    1. You have reviewed the post in more detail than have I. Did the criticism involve some lack of consistency?

      I don’t believe there is a consensus at all on this matter of definition. It is not and cannot be “a fact that is inarguably supported by science”.

      Such factual things as the speed of light, human activity as a cause of climate change, and the basics of evolution are all matters of settled science.

      The moment when a potential human being has a superior legal standing to that of a potential mother is not a matter of science. It is a reflection of values.

  2. I don’t believe I stated that “the moment when a potential human being has a superior legal standing to that of a potential mother is a matter of science.” Rather I stated that life starts at the point of conception as an inarguable scientific fact, which I might add that the “pro-choice” side seemingly wishes to ignore, my friend.

    That is a scientific fact that is as inarguable as the speed of light.

    As for anthropogenic climate change, with Dave Dubya’s , Al Gore’s, and Burr Deming’s excellent arguments notwithstanding, I will defer to the myriad of scientists (more than two) that still do not find this to be a settled scientific fact.

    Perhaps I have found your problem, Mr. Deming. If you use anthropogenic climate change as you benchmark for what is a proven scientific fact, no wonder you are sometimes confused as to what truly is and what is not. 🙂

    1. Well legal standing is the controversy, isn’t it?

      Science does not tell me whether, when I have an egg at lunchtime, I have just eaten a chicken dinner. Nor does science tell me when a zygote becomes a human or a citizen.

      However, science has pretty much confirmed human activity as the cause of climate change.

  3. “Well legal standing is the controversy, isn’t it?”

    Hmmm, spoken just like a lawyer for Planned Parenthood. Since it is a legally “gray area”, we can simply ignore the moral component, correct? Or even better yet, we can pretend there isn’t a moral component at all! It’s just an egg sandwich!

    So let me see if I can get this right according to the Left.

    1.) The unborn never have human rights that trump those of the Democrat mother.
    2.) The mainstream media is not objective, but not because they are leftist, but because they are corporatist.
    3.) Obama was a brilliant foreign policy strategist for drawing a red line in the sand for Syria and then not enforcing it, but Trump is a dangerous war-monger for enforcing it when Syria used chemical weapons that supposedly no longer existed in that state due to Kerry and Obama.
    4.) Love trumps hate always, even when the left shouts down GOP town hall meetings, and college campuses allow violent protests and riots when conservatives are invited to speak there.

    And lastly,

    5.) Man-caused climate change is as assured as a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016.

    Got it!

    Cheers! 🙂

    1. We can argue private morality for as long as you wish. When the strong arm of the government gets involved, it can become a matter of political controversy.

      If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, most folks will regard it as quaint and a little quirky. If you demand that belief be taught as science in school, it becomes a matter of controversy.

      If you believe smoking marijuana is wrong, we’ll have a pleasant conversation sometime. If you want it outlawed, it will be controversial.

      If I think a firearm in my house will make life a little more dangerous, you might think it naive. When I want to regulate gun safety, it becomes a controversy.

      We can talk about the moment human life begins with all the passion of whether Pluto has ever been a planet. Once it becomes a matter of T. Paine or his representatives threatening my wife or daughter or any other woman with criminal prosecution, you can bet it will be controversial.

  4. We must thank Mr. Paine once again for telling us what we think. 😉

    And yes, we have shown his “myriad of scientists” are all paid Big Oil/Koch money, as if THEY had no political and economic agenda. Right. Now that is settled. Mr. Paine has ignored evidence I presented that oil company scientists warned of climate change before their studies were suppressed. (How will he justify his belief in corporate PR over science to his grandkids?)

    But I totally get the argument against abortion. I wouldn’t have one. TP wouldn’t either. This is our luxury.

    It is encouraging that he sees this as a deeply personal and painful issue for a rape victim. But the other side of the coin has its pain too.

    Killing such a child will not undo the evil act perpetrated upon her. It will simply add one more traumatic and painful event to an already overwhelming act of evil against her.

    I truly feel such sincere and deep sorrow for any woman that has so suffered, but adding to that pain by destroying an innocent life will not lessen that pain.

    This is hypothetical and relative. Here’s that certain condition again. No man can possibly relate to a woman’s pain in such circumstances. And no man can subjectively or objectively declare an abortion would add or lessen the trauma and pain The case can be reasonably made that not bearing the child of your rapist would be LESS painful and traumatic than bringing a child into the world as a constant reminder of the rape, and as a genetic offspring of a violent person. Only a minority of conservatives are the ones appeased here.

    Childbirth can kill the mother too. The mortality rate for American mothers is rising. This risk of death may be irrelevant to conservative men, but then again, they are not women.

    Conservative men may believe what they wish, but allowing conservative men to dictate, by force of government, a woman’s major life issue, one they will never experience, to conform to their beliefs is wrong. Period. Granting a zygote superior rights to those of a woman is blatant inequality. And yes that is how it works when a woman is forced to comply with conservative men dictating how she will live and who she lives for. Her choice must take priority or she becomes less a person and citizen.

    Abortion can be seen as wrong. I don’t like it and do not encourage it. But so can forcing a woman to suffer bearing a rapist offspring be wrong. Choice is always better than no choice in deciding such matters. Ask any rape victim, that is if their opinion still matters.

    One fact remains. More women will die if the Right tells them they must reproduce. Back alley abortions will occur. Maternity deaths will occur.

    Who is “pro-life” for them? Or does “pro-life” end at birth? This is such an amazingly difficult subject indeed.

    1. “One fact remains. More women will die if the Right tells them they must reproduce. Back alley abortions will occur. Maternity deaths will occur.”

      Source to support this “fact”, please.

  5. “Only a minority of conservatives are the ones appeased here.”

    Yeah… and that child that is allowed to live. She is appeased also by being permitted to be born.

We have a comment policy (sort of)

We often encounter extreme amounts of spam targeting more controversial posts. This tends to annoy and confuse Aunt Tildy. If your comment is accidentally omitted, please help her out by resubmitting, perhaps including a note telling us what happened. If you find comments closed, we can still put yours in its proper place. Just attach to another post with an explanation.

Aunt Tildy appreciates most every comment. Truly. But she has what could be an unrealistic view of the innocence of younger readers. She may hesitate when profanity becomes extreme.

In some cases, you might follow our lead. When we ruffle her delicate sensibilities, a soft apology has usually helped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *