If...

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I know the old saying...if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a great Christmas. But...

If abortion is somehow restricted to rape and incest cases only would that mean that the victim would have to file a report and the perpetrator convicted in order for the abortion to be granted?

This discussion is not about whether or not you are pro choice or pro life, but rather, the ramifications of restrictiing the availability and if there will have to be "proof", and what degree of proof.

Could this also lead to harsher punishments for sexual crimes such as rape and incest?

Would it lead to more or less reporting since it would force the victim to face the criminal again?

Would it just make criminals just more conscious of the evidence they leave behind? Would they wear condoms?

Would there be more rape victims that end up murdered as well, to insure no wittness?

Would abortion options be black market, especially for victims if forced to have the child of their rapist, if they are are never caught?

Again this isn't about abortion directly, but more about ideas about what this would mean for the victims the rapest, and society in general.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


I think it is a shame that any life has to be terminated, but then again, I don't like people telling me what to do and I sure as hell am not going to be one of "those" who like to tell other people how to live and what they should or shouldn't do.

Something I really find frightening about "some" of those who believe abortion is wrong, is the fact that they also are against birth control???? Is it just me, or does anyone else see a big problem with this kind of thinking?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'm adamantly pro-life, and even I find the rape/incest argument to be unfeasible. The ultimate result would be a return to back alley abortions AND a dramatic increase in false accusations of rape. You'd have a lot of young men who enjoyed consentual one night stands suddenly getting slapped with a rape charge a month or two down the road when the pregnancy test turns up positive and the woman doesn't want the child.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I agree with the possibility of false accusations. But do you think they will have to be proof given or a conviction. Or is the word of the woman enough in the eyes of the medical and political world. I wish you wouldn't have shared your stand on abortion though. I was kind of hoping to get rational arguments for the results of such an outcome without the actual taking of sides. So to speak. But thank you for the input .



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


Not at all. I believe it is perfectly possible to have a constructive, rational discussion on any topic only after a person's cards have been laid on the table, so to speak. I view the abortion/pro-life argument a bit differently than most do. The argument itself is an exercise in futility at this time. Even on a political level, it is pointless. We has a supposedly pro-life president and pro-life majority in both chambers... was anything tested? Did the verbal diarhea between the two sides continue? This argument is one of convenience, manufactured to misdirect outrage away from real issues which the government does have control over and towards distraction issues. As a result of my understanding, I tend to not become embroiled in the argument for or against outside of pointing out someone whose overall views strike me as assinine.

Considering the snail's pace of our legal system, combined with the scientific arguments surrounding the veracity of pre-natal DNA testing and the (very valid) argument that a woman may be in a relationship and get raped, not knowing for sure whether an ensuing pregnancy is the result of her relationship or having been raped, I don't think there's any way to make the argument that the law would clearly side with either party. Of course, in some cases there would be iron clad evidence one way or the other... my concern would be that false claims would lead to a more apathetic public view of all claims, legitimate or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 

I guess we could look to history before roe v wade and see what life was like for rape victims before then. Well since you would like the cards on the table...and this is not up for arguement sake ...just for your amusement, I think it is mute at this point as well. So here goes.

I am a lesbian.
Even if I were raped I think I would keep the child. I love children and hold all life as valuable.
But I do not expect to be the moral authority for an entire country. Every circumstance and person is different.

I wish it was not even an issue, but sadly it is for some. Just sad all around, you know.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


You got the wrong idea. It would just go to back alley clinics and that's the problem. People calling themselves Dr's would start doing it for big money. It would become a problem. Not that I agree with it. I'm undecided on abortion. I think it's awful for sure. But it's something I don't like to think about much.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I don't know if I have the right idea or the wrong idea. I do however realize that throwing out this possibility of restricting abortions seems like an over simplification. I no one ever seems to elaborate on the facts and reprocutions this will have on society as we know it. I was hoping to at least start a conversation that takes that popular sound byte to a next level of thought. Things will change, I just wanted to think about those changes, and here what anyone else may have to offer.





top topics
 
2

log in

join