Comments:Nevada Republican opposes Angle for US Senate over 'extreme' anti-abortion position

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Should abortions be allowed in cases of rape and incest?1619:17, 17 October 2010

Should abortions be allowed in cases of rape and incest?


-- Cirt (talk)21:54, 15 October 2010

In any civilized, first world country, this would not be a debate. The United States, "god bless them", is a unique case. Perhaps we should be debating universal suffrage? Maybe stoning of women should be adopted? (talk)22:52, 15 October 2010

Very interesting points, thank you.

-- Cirt (talk)23:21, 15 October 2010

Self-righteous ass. (talk)00:39, 16 October 2010

Thus proving that those who are extreme pro-life are only capable of making ad hominem attacks in response to a blunt criticism. (talk)10:17, 16 October 2010

The world isn't divided between conservative fundies and enlightened utopians; just because a significant portion of America society doesn't want to allow abortions doesn't imply they're all buddy-buddy with the Saudi Arabian government. Polarizing comments aren't conductive to discussion or mutual understanding. Nor, for that matter, are ad hominem comments.

That said, my opinion is that, yes, unconditionally, abortions should be allowed in cases of rape or incest (though obviously not in the third trimester). I don't believe an unborn, unconscious fetus has ethical priority over a woman's quality of life, especially not when she did not even have a choice about the sexual act to begin with, let alone the conception. I can understand the position that abortions should not be handed out unconditionally to anyone (though I disagree with it, at least within the first trimester), but I can't think of any reason to bar coerced conceptions from candidacy for an abortion - besides religious justifications, which ought to inform a person's, family's or spiritual community's own norms, not those of individuals outside the community. (talk)10:24, 16 October 2010

Ah, but I think it's fair to say that the US has an above-average level of people with... strange opinions. Therefore, a comment that only in Amerika is such a debate possible in Western civilisation may hold true, even if we assume the the majority of US citizens are sensible people.

I'm willing to make similar comments about the UK, of which my country is a member, so I don't read the comment as such that all Amerikans are stupid or crazy, which seems to be how others are reading it.

Now I'm here... From an impact perspective (as it should be from a sentencing perspective) rape isn't even physical. It's psychological. If rape victims had forgotten about it by next week it would be a summary offence punishable on first conviction by a fine; though of course, many perpetrators would be locked up in mental institutions anyway.

Rape is a life-changing, usually life-ending event. I take the view that if a person is substantially changed from who they used to be, in a short time, then the previous personality can be said to have 'died' after a fashion. In any event, something that ruins a life can easily be compared to life-ending events, and I have argued previously that rape and murder should be roughly equal in terms of average sentence.

From this impact-based perspective, I think it is key that we allow maximum support and choice to victims. Abortions where required is a non-negotiable part of this, to me. If a woman does choose to carry a pregnancy through, then that also should be supported - full-time if needed. I dread to think of trying to convince people to fund that in the current economic conditions. However, I can't imagine most women would want to carry around their attacker's baby, nor give life to it. Viewing rape as a psychological thing, dragging it out from one single attack to a constant and daily reminder via pregnancy must be unendurable torture to many.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)12:12, 16 October 2010

I think more steps to make it viable to carry the child to term and to support adoption can be taken, but the ability to choose is important - especially when the situation has been forced upon a victim. Of course every alternative should be looked at. Sadly, many women lack a strong support structure of family and friends capable of helping them through pregnancy and child care. I know this isn't the only reason they might choose abortion but I think it's the most influential factor.

Fishy c (talk)01:48, 16 October 2010

I think that Fishy c (talk · contribs) has some good ideas, in that - regardless of whatever the laws on abortion state - better support structures and education are a good thing.

-- Cirt (talk)02:32, 16 October 2010

This is not an argument. If you don't allow it legally then it will happen illegally. Personally I don't like abortion at all. But I don't have the means to understand the circumstances connected to such situations. THere's alot more to a rape victim than just being rape, the shame for a start, the emotional torture, inflicting such a person with a child born from their attacker. I would say no still, but the world is not filled with people who have my mind. It is something people in this debate have a problem with: The minds of those affected don't matter, only some divine principle (usually a fake one). One would think that the US public would be a bit more adult. (talk)10:26, 16 October 2010

First of all Abortion should not be a legal issue. God created humans to be reproductive and therefore it is a matter of religion. Liberals say they want separation of church and state, yet they have created an amalgam between church and state. God calls Murder a sin. no matter what the condition. and because the majority of people choose to live in sin. Humans are forced to live in an imperfect society. The women may not have a choice if she is raped or adult member of her family forces themselves on her. in both rape and incest is a ineffable crime committed against another human. However two wrongs have never made a right.To murder an Innocent Human to try to make it right is very wrong.I know people say that it is unverifiable tissue, and can't live outside the womb,Most babies can not survive with out some kind of care til the age of 4 years.Do we extend abortion to the age of 4 years old? God forbid! As for Sue Wagner. I think her views on abortion are very very extreme, any politician that believes in murder has very extreme views. America was founded on christian value, just because people say there is no God does not make it so. and why is it that nobody stands up for the unborn child in the case of rape and incest? they didn't have a say in this ineffable crime. (talk)15:53, 16 October 2010

Thank you for your religious extremism. Religion, thankfully, cannot be forced upon others.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)15:55, 16 October 2010

You may not believe in God! however according the word of God someday every person will kneel and bow to Jesus. and confess that he is Lord. if I am wrong I lose nothing. If you are wrong eternity is a long time. (talk)22:24, 16 October 2010

A God that punishes people for daring not to follow xyr and solve xyr insecurities is not a God I would worship in any event.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)22:29, 16 October 2010

Blood Red Sandman: God does give you a choice. to serve him or to refuse to serve him. God does not force himself on anyone I don't force my opinions on anyone. The last time I checked we still have freedom of speech. God's justice is fair and justice is not.thank you for this dialog, and your opinions. (talk)18:35, 17 October 2010

Personally, I am horrified by abortion. I do see it as the killing of an unborn child, and I think that attempts to exactly define when a fetus becomes a human being and is capable of experiencing suffering is a cold and dangerous mental exercise fraught with slippery slopes.

But I still support choice regarding abortion. I think it's a decision that requires tons of responsible introspection, and I wish that anyone who used it casually as a means of birth control would suffer some consequence (and they are out there, I have met them).

I support it on the same grounds of principle as self-defense. To have a child when unprepared is a devastating blow to one's livelihood. It can completely destroy an unprepared person's opportunities to build a future or indulge in whatever gives them joy in life.

If a person encounters this fate through carelessness, then they really shouldn't end the life that they've created. However, this is a matter of purely subjective judgement that a person can only make for themselves.

If a person encounters this fate by no fault of their own, then I have no expectation of them to simply resign to it if it's not what they want, just as I don't expect a kidnapped person to resign willingly to their captor's basement. (talk)18:45, 16 October 2010