7 votes

Abortion issue taken to extremes in New Mexico

EDIT: This post is to ask one specific question:
"Could you agree that the government is not fit to make this decision?"
Please feel free to express your opinion ONCE, then let it go. Please. This is an attempt to find common ground, if you cannot meet me here that is OK, but this is not really the place for arguing. It is "given" that we do not all agree on this.

Since everybody has a deeply held conviction regarding abortion, myself included, I have spent years seeking the "common ground" on this issue. I think I found it, but most with "deeply help convictions" feel that a step toward my proposed common ground is compromising on their convictions. Please understand, I see a possible future where abortions are routine, used for birth control, get them done "while you wait" and it fills me with dread. I do NOT want to see that. But, I LIVED in a world where abortions were illegal, and I had friends who as teenagers got butchered by coat-hanger abortions, and I don't want to go back to that, either. The only real answer - in my opinion - is to leave this between each woman and her creator. Fathers need to select their mates carefully, do not have casual sex with women who feel abortions are OK. But don't ask the government to give you a right that biology simply denies you. A woman can abort a fetus, and never tell anyone. Laws will not change that, so why are we trying to make laws to do God's job? The only REAL solution is to get the government OUT of this discussion. Why is this imperative? Because if you leave the government in charge of matters this important, they will do ignorant things like this:

So, express your convictions if you feel the need, but tell me, please... Could you agree that the government is not fit to make this decision?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

I hear you. I'm somewhere in the middle

I hear you. I'm somewhere in the middle between fishyculture's post and other pro-life commenters, here, I suppose.

I am neither pro-life or pro-choice. I consider there shouldn't even need to be any "camps". That there is anything to even discuss. The right to life is so SELF-EVIDENT to me, that we ought to do everything we can, as individuals and families, to protect it (new, unborn life). There is no "pro-choice" dimension relevant to me. A woman should never have any practical concern about having a baby. It should always be great news.

"Pro-choice"? Why just the unborn, then? Shouldn't some have the "pro-choice right" to kill their teenager brat if they are too disappointed or tired with them? Or because of too expensive education? Or leisures/troubles fixing costs? How would that sound?

But, on fishyculture's side I agree with her: it's not by making laws to punish the women who aborts that this country and others will save more babies.

The wounds in mentalities are much deeper. It's the entire human enslavement and conditioning setup that is to blame.

Most abortions are not about rapes. Nor fetus defects.

It's about comfort and saving a buck or avoiding the inconvenience of some gossip.

Which is, in my book, absolutely INSANE. HUMANELY speaking.

At this pace, in 20 years, we'll debate whether we have to kill some elders because they cost too much for the gov't-provided "healthcare" system.

We ought to strike the evil at the root, instead of the branches.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You apparently have not come to terms with the fact

that babies are live human beings, with beating hearts, and their separate DNA structure before exiting their mother's womb. I feel for women that have died from self-inflicted abortions. But, let me ask you this fishyculture, do you feel for the babies they bludgeoned to death?

I do think this law is a little harsh on the mothers, however, I feel it is too lenient on the doctors who are the ones actually committing the crime. But, this up to prople in New Mexico. I don't live in New Mexico, so, it's none of my business.
Let me ask you this. Should burglary, petty theft, mugging, and manslaughter be left between the perpetrator and his God? Should government get out of the business of punishing all other acts of violence as well?

And as far as rape goes, my mother was conceived out of rape. Thank God that was before Roe v. Wade.

The logic of this argument doesn't work

If we leave every women to her conscience and leave the issue between her and God when someone's life is at risk, then this logic will apply to all murders and homicides. Then by this logic, the government cannot make a decision to punish criminals who takes another person's life!

The government has a basic and fundamental duty in carrying out justice and maintain order and peace. Evil doers need to be punished by the government. That is that absolutely lowest common denominator for law and morality, government punishes the evil doers after the fact of the crime.

So if we leave a woman or any body for that fact, to her or his own conscience when someone else's life is involved, then all governance and justice will break down. Then there can be no possible way to prosecute any murderers at all!

Abortions need to be outlawed, when we recognized that it is an innocent live at stake. What the government and the local churches and community can do is to set up a well organized system for adoption. It can take away the burden of raising an unwanted child, and take away the need for abortion. Also, the system need to hold men accountable for their actions. Abortion actually gave men a free pass in taking advantage of women free of any consequence. So, men need to be held responsible for their actions. Taking away abortion is a first step. This is the only way to go about the issue of abortion, without compromise on the lives of innocent children.

They WERE outlawed

Like alcohol and drugs, it only created a dangerous black market.
The question is "Do you think the government has the power to enforce this law?"
Women can and do perform self-induced abortions. No one ever knows they were pregnant.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

people can and do rape their children and no one ever knows

Some even perform sacrifices on infant children that noone else knows were born. Just because the government will not be able to enforce the law perfectly is not a reason to have no law (nor is it a reason to have a police state to attempt perfect enforcement). There will be women who murder their unborn babies and get away with it, which you euphemistically refer to as "self-induced abortion", but IMHO it ought to be illegal just like rape, other types of murder, theft etc. The point is that the logic of "people are just going to do it anyway" isn't sound because it would imply that there should be no law at all about anything. The reason I believe drugs and alchohol should be legal is because I believe people have rights under natural law to choose what to put in their body so long as they do not harm others; that a dangerous black market is created by prohibition of certain substances is beside the point. There is a dangerous black market in the murder for hire business for example, but that does not imply that hitmen should be regulated and taxed.

The government is NOT fit to make these decisions

but to say it is in the hands soley of the woman is to say that we are a society devoid of morals and that our only answer it to a non- proven entity.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly too well with me. The abortion issue to me, like so many others these days, has become far too polarizing - people either think life starts at conception - of life doesn't start until the woman says so.
Sorry, but both those are insane
My stance is simple - If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck - and if it can breath on its own and cry on its own for even a second - it is a human - and killing another human is just wrong. I have no issue with someone getting and abortion at 4 weeks or 8 weeks or even 12 - but at some point - it is not between you and God - it is between you and a moral society.

The amount of Misunderstanding here is HUGE

The bill states that coercing someone to have an abortion with the intent to destroy evidence is a crime. This is aimed at the creepy uncle who rapes his neice and then makes her have an abortion so there will be no evidence of the crime. See if the victim doesn;t get a rape kit right away there is no evidence of the rape if no baby exists. If there is a baby (or at least some remains) you can do the blood test and prove ol uncle Lester the Molester was the daddy, and since the mother is 14 it is at least statutory rape. This does not preclude the mother from seeking an abortion for her own purposes. Some people need to learn reading comprehension before they fly off the handle about something like this, it is clearly (via the story) being spun as a smear on the Pro-Life community.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

I agree

And I would add that education would be beneficial to this issue...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Cyril's picture

I am another voice in the wilderness for these babies

I have given a lot of thinking for myself about abortion.

I have even tried to imagine how I'd feel about it if I had to think of it, if I were a woman.

Which denotes the weirdo I am also at times, since I'm just a man.

But more seriously.

I don't claim to be the only one to try think out of the box, but I haven't seen anybody making the point I'm about to make. On either continents, in 42 years.

Of course abortion is a morality issue. Big news.

But aren't we STILL failing to connect the dots? In 2013. In "the age of the iPhone". Of heart surgery. Of brain surgery, even. Of 70+ years of life expectancy. Etc.

I'm no woman, but I don't think any sane of them ever "enjoyed" abortion. Especially years after the event, recollecting. So back to what it is, exactly:

aren't we, all here, in this thread, happy to have tasted LIFE? Aren't we happy to have been a little drunk sometimes in a party with friends? Aren't we happy to have seen beautiful landscapes? Aren't we happy to have been amazed by new knowledge we got in one of our "Haha! moments"? Aren't we happy to have made love many times, and more to come? Aren't we happy to have tasted meals "better than sex"?

Indeed, aren't we happy about how LIFE, itself, feels, if we ignore for a second pain, sadness, anger, etc, otherwise?

And we're talking about whether abortion should be made illegal or legal and by whom, and for how long, and under which circumstances?

Again. Of course the idea of killing a baby, not even born, is not appealing. Big news.

But... wait. 2013. We've sent stuff in outer space and saved people with medicine/surgery in cases that where hopeless only 50 years ago.

What the hell is going on, really? Isn't the abortion debate in some kind of fog?

Unless I don't have my facts straight, the fetus malformations which are so serious that everybody is hopeless... aren't they very rare, after all?

Also, how come so many rapes make people worry so much about the woman still having an unwanted baby, after all?

Don't we have parents? Don't we have siblings? Don't we have best friends? How come we are so tempted to expect the laws to help the unfortunate woman (either way) instead of the people around her, voluntarily, compassionately, with love?

How come defending life "at all cost" isn't more SELF-EVIDENT?

Why do we have instead avoid more inconvenience for society "at all cost"?

So, the right to life of the LIVING, UNBORN BABY who hasn't even got a chance TO TASTE LIFE comes AFTER society's convenience? The unfortunate woman's? Her family's? Her other relatives?

Aren't we walking on our heads? Shouldn't everybody around DO EVERYTHING, financially, psychologically, practically, they can to help KEEP the baby, instead, WITHOUT EVEN ANYONE HAVING to ask them do so?


Yes. How come, really?

Here is why. Here is my thinking out the box.

As of today, we can't do anything about this morality issue. Not by law. EITHER way. Certainly not by the government.

Further: NOT EVEN by lobbying groups or churches or what else.

We can't do anything "to solve the abortion society issue"... I mean, not until...

NOT UNTIL... we connect the dots.

We are messed up with. By big pharma. By big agra. By big THIEF - Taxation. Plunder - large scale.

This is a rat race. Everybody either struggle or use and abuse.

The moral hazard is about money. In the making it or stealing from others.

Everybody is scared. Either to lose their job or their entitlements.


We can't give much of ourselves in natural compassion when, ourselves, WE ARE RAPED, in many ways - in our property, our freedoms, our rights. Not just the U.S. Everywhere.

I repeat:

WE ARE RATS. In a race. And from time to time a woman is unfortunate enough to stumble upon a rapist or a scumbag who didn't leave his phone number and would never want to hear about a child and "the burden of providing" anyway.

Abortion is killing. The unborn. It's awful. For many different "reasons". Such a joke. "Reason"?

Now, that's big news.

A "reason"??? For the KILLING of an INNOCENT LIVING BEING WHO HARMED NO-ONE ... but whose future presence would be, somehow, deemed "undesirable"?

If that's the new trend for "reason", after the rational philosophers of 200+ years, I prefer to be qualified as an INSANE person, not a "rational/reasonable" one - that'd be less insulting.

Indeed, in my view, a modern, FREE, 21st century society worth of the name should enable the people TO DO EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN to have the baby be born, instead.

But no. We expect "The Law" to decide for us in time, space, and level of power, because WE HAVE LOST FAITH IN PEOPLE, FAMILIES, helping themselves.

Just because we, are, ourselves, ABUSED, EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DAY - seeing always more taxes withheld, seeing always more idiotic regulations making our daily lives a pain in the butt for moving, driving, buying, eating - we are OVERWHELMED so much by our UNNATURAL environmental constraints - decided by PSYCHOS - that WE LOSE our natural compassion for others BY THE MINUTE. While our robotic indifference soars.

What COULD we do about it?

How could we BECOME thinking and loving humans again - instead of THE PAVLOV-CONDITIONED RATS that TPTB want us to be reengineered into?

That's the good news and the bad news.

The good news is the answer, for me, IS SO SIMPLE.

The bad news is the performing of it isn't going to be easy. That will require lots of efforts.

But it's SO VERY SIMPLE to explain - here it is:

FIX ALL THESE MORAL HAZARDS AND DECEPTIONS, FIRST, precisely, that make EVERYBODY LIVE in a rat race that only the crooks and parasites are making profit of...

DENOUNCE the enslavement of the productive people. DENOUNCE the giving excuses to others for their being envious, to rely on entitlements, to be dependents on the state.

... and then, abortion WILL EXTINGUISH BY ITSELF, or quasi.

There will still be some, IN EXTREMELY RARE cases only, IN REALLY EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES only.

Till then people are STILL losing their humanity. Conditioned. Thinking shallow.

No wonder some, if not most, either want to decide about the morality bounds for everybody else or are just completely indifferent. When one is a rent-seeking politician only concerned by his/her next bribe, it's SO VERY easy to vote FOR or AGAINST abortion, in the gov't Houses of "Representatives" ... it's not/can't be about their kids anyway.

Yes. It's so very easy to say yes or no or maybe.

When they don't give a dime to these BABIES lives, in fact. Only is the TIME TO PRETEND. The time to buy themselves a little more time in the race, as the rats they are, too.

Or, what did I miss?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Why should...

...the baby be executed? He/she didn't commit the crime. How do you make up for the horror of a rape by adding the murder of another innocent?

If the mother gave birth to the unwanted baby and then killed him/her, would that be ok? No the personhood of the baby would outweigh the mother not wanting it to live. Now, of course you pro-choice folks have no qualms about this occurring before birth, rape or no rape, since you think the baby is just a parasite at that point and not a person. But what kind of a monster would you/I be if we did think the unborn was a person with the right to Life but still advocated for its murder in this situation? If someone is going to be consistently pro-Life, it shouldn't matter whether there was a rape or not: a person is a person, either way.

Please note: I'm not trying to convince pro-choicers to be pro-Life in this comment -- just pointing out what seems to me to be a truly consistent pro-Life position.

The question here

was do you think the government should even be involved in this?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


...but that fits in with what I'm saying about being consistent. It's 'easy' for a pro-choice person to say the government shouldn't prevent an abortion, since they do not see the baby as a person with the right to Life. To them that's the same thing as saying the government shouldn't prevent you from brushing your teeth, since it's just unwanted 'tissue'.

But wouldn't everyone be angry if the government did nothing to prevent a mother from murdering a newborn if it could? Doesn't everyone view that newborn as a person with the right to Life, and that for the government to look the other way would be wrong?

So my point is that for someone who sees the unborn as just as much a person with that right to Life, how could they think it's ok for society to not prevent its murder, when it would be expected with the newborn, rape or no rape?

Again, it's not really a big deal for pro-choice folks, since they don't see the unborn as a person. To them, it's just like saying the government shouldn't interfere with drug use or marriage, etc. I hold the same stance as them on these other issues, but once you believe the unborn is truly a person, the life issue stands apart from these other issues, just as would if it involved a newborn, a five year old, a fifty year old, etc.

In the absence of laws, and a society that shames unwed mothers

a girl or woman would be more likely to seek counsel from friends and family, where perhaps a happy outcome could be worked out lovingly. As it is, they trot down to Planned Parenthood and friends and family are carefully kept out of the loop.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Just to make sure...

...I understand your position, are you saying there should be no murder laws, regardless of the age of the victim? It sounds like you're saying that if a violation of the right of Life could be committed in secret that there's no point in having a law against it. More of an anarchist view on it?

IMO, if it's not your womb

IMO, if it's not your womb it's none of your business (nor is it mine!).

Substitute 'home'

for 'womb' and 'newborn' for 'unborn', and is it still no one's business?

Correct. It's still none of

Correct. It's still none of your, or my, business.


...is now no-one's business either? God help us.

So if your neighbor drowning their newborn in a bathtub would not be your business or the business of society to punish by law, at what age would the death of the victim get your attention? 3 months? 2 years? 12?

Is the Government involved

Is the Government involved when a murder occurs?

Is there evidence of a murder?

If no one ever knows she was pregnant, who will notify the authorities?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

More often

than we may want to know!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

jrd3820's picture


The baby did not commit any crimes. The man that raped the woman committed the crime. Jackass. (not you, the man who raped the woman).

I could never have an abortion. If I was raped and wanted to have one, you better believe I would have one whether the state says it is legal or not. So, the state is saying the are going to imprison these woman for "tampering with evidence." Evidence=fetus. They do not look at the child as anything more than evidence so they do not really need to be claiming the moral high ground of defending life, what they are defending is evidence in a legal procedure and let's be honest.... one more reason to imprison someone is a hard on for these people.

I do not consider myself a "pro choice" or "pro lifer" here. I think it is too muddy to be exactly on one side. But when you say that pro choice people have no qualms rape or no rape... well... I think that add the word rape into the equation and I do not have as many qualms as I do without that word.

At the end of the day, God will decide.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss


...but would you have fewer qualms if the mother killed a newborn after rape than if she did so without a rape having occurred? I imagine not, and probably because of the baby being a person with rights?

So, assuming someone really believes the unborn baby is just as much a person with the same right to Life, how is it any less of an atrocity because it happens in the womb?

At least a pro-choicer who advocates for the right to kill the unborn because they aren't a person is consistent, but how could someone who really does think the unborn is a person look the other way when they could not with the newborn?

jrd3820's picture

lack of consistency

is definitely a problem here. I am part of that problem, I can admit that, it's one of the few (perhaps only) issue I cannot take a firm stand on. I know this much though; forcing a woman to do something she does not want to do after she has already been forced to do something she does not want to do seems odd to me.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss

It's sad...

...no matter how you look at it. I guess I just pray some of those poor women can somehow see through their pain and give the babies up for adoption and at least have the comfort of knowing that despite the ugliness of what happened, somewhere out there is a new life that, thanks to them, will have the chance to bring more beauty into this dark world.

And I'm probably inconsistent in plenty of areas of opinion -- thanks for having a gracious discussion.

you left out

"risk their life."
People often hedge their pro-life stance with "except when the mother's life is at risk" and EVERY pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I agree Fishy.

I am totally against abortion however I think that there should not be laws against it either. Hopefully we can educate people enough that this option is not seen as acceptable my the vast majority. We have a long way to go.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I don't .. abortion is murder

I don't .. abortion is murder period. Judge Napolitano has said the same. Whats right is right and what is wrong is wrong. There have to be absolutes.

And you think the government needs involved?

That was the question here.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Why should there not be laws against death by torture

of the unborn? Why is it that the unborn are any less than human than the born? We are talking DEATH BY TORTURE of an innocent baby. Look at the link on the Silent Scream comment below. An ultra sound documented abortion where the child tries to get away from the vacuum but cannot and screams as it is dismembered.

Who is making millions on the death industry?