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:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/24/1490691/new-mexic...

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?

Comment viewing options

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

I am pro-choice but

your post is a very strong argument for putting a time limit on when an abortion can be performed. Clearly the longer the pregnancy goes on, the more the unborn baby feels, so I do think it is a fair argument to state that if a woman is raped, she has an obligation to take action quickly; e.g., pondering for 3 months to make a decision seems totally inexcusable.

I personally would allow exceptions for delayed abortions if complications with the pregnancy arise, such as the mother's life is in danger, or severe birth defects which would not necessarily show up in the first 4 weeks.

I am never going to agree with the "life begins at conception" crowd, who would go as far to ban morning after pills; because a woman DOES own her body.

I would rather

go with Ron Paul's a shot of hormones after a rape, than what we have now.

However, as far as whose body is whose, I think we must keep in mind the baby has a body also and this open door of a “Woman’s Body” has led to the destruction of 1.3 million baby bodies a year.

Since when is one person more important than another person in this country? Since when do we choose who is viable enough to have life should a defect exist? Those are all slopes that lead to human valuation of human life and when that is done, both your life and mine are at risk of evaluation. After all, the president has declared he has the right to assassinate American Citizens…if he and his “panel” determine them to be terrorists.

It is a catch 22. I side with life.

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

...

great post.

great post.

First of all

this bill just shows me again that a lot of the "pro life" crowed is for abortion on demand. Specifically those that are in office that want to show that they are anti abortion. If someone was really pro life or anti abortion (note I refer to myself as anti abortion) theyre argument would always be that the baby has a heartbeat 18 days after conception, that it is a life, and that the innocent child should not be killed but that the rapist should be killed, particularly since rappest tend to do their crime again as soon as they get out of prison. Basically the bill that was introduced did not refer to the baby as a child but an object, but the "pro life" lobby will still funnel money toward this person who is doing their darnedest to discredit them.

Second, I am against abortion for any reason except for in the case of when the life of the mother AND child are in clear danger of death. I think that states should make clear laws about what this entails. I feel again in the case of incest or rape execution should be the punishment. Furthermore there are more people than you think who are children of a rape victim and their rapest, it is not kind to always go around and say that they should have been snuffed out. Also considering the brutality of the human race if we go back far enough it is almost certain we all have a lineage that resulted from at least one rape, thats not to say it is right, but the fact is that if everyone aborted then you nor I would be here today.

Frankly abortion smacks of utopia thinking to me. It is always sold as if we can just abort enough babies, or control the population, everything will be wonderful. Unwanted baby just abort wouldnt want it destroying your life, utopia is just one abortion away. Fact is 64% of abortions are from women who WANT to have their baby but are pressured into the abortion by a third party. So the whole pro choice thing is a lie.

prenancy always risks the mother's life

and if she did not consent to carry a baby, forcing her to carry it to term risks her life for the sake of making some rapist a father.
Who will raise that child? You say give it up for adoption, but what if that child comes back as an adult and wants you to tell them about their daddy? I do not feel comfortable putting a woman through that, and certainly not a teenage girl.
I do not approve of abortion, so I did not get one. It is not my place to try to make that decision for any other woman.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

whats your point?

as I have already said I think that abortion should only be ligal when both the mother AND childs life is in danger.

Furthermore there have been a lot of women who had their baby after being raped, so dont act like you are showing compassion by telling these women to get an abortion.Rape is horrible, but so is aboriton, talking women into getting an abortion is does not make you compassionate.

That said any woman that really wants an abortion will get one, same way as anybody that really wants to break any law will break it. Fact of the matter is that 64% of women who get abortions were "persuaded" to abort the baby the WANTED by a third party. Out lawing abortion will protect more women than it will hurt.

bad reason for a law

Basically you are stating: passing this law will screw over some people and help others, since it helps more than it will screw over, we should pass it.

I really disagree with passing laws that screw people over. This is the logic for drug laws, prohibition, etc. I don't think that women who know what they want, should be screwed over because there are a lot of women who are gullible (if that's in fact the case.) Just in general, it is really tiring to see laws that screw over competent people to help the incompetent.

The argument for abortion

is literally that its womens choice, but time has shown that it is not womens choice, therefore the reason for the law is invalid and the law should be changed. Furthermore the law is being used to deny the right for women to have a baby that they wanted therefore it should be changed so that they can have freedom to do what they wanted in the first place. The women who do not want the child can decide to give theirs up for adoption and they will only be inconvienced for a few months. what I am suggesting does not make anybody happy (especially those who think the world is over populated) but at least it protects women, which appears to be what you are arguing for. It would so happen that this also protects the babies, you know the next generation.

Do you think the government can fix it?

For the umpteenth time, I do not like abortions. But I know that you cannot stop a woman who chooses to have one. Having a law against them only makes a black market, having a law for them turns them into a method of birth control. I say we need the government OUT of it.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

laws do not fix problems

they only allow the government to convict law breakers. Right now if someone (a parent a boyfriend, a pimp) picks up a girl and takes her to an abortion mill and tells her to get an abortion and she calls the police the only thing they can say is if they are not hurting her or threatening to kill her they can do nothing, but a change in the law would mean that they can protect her from those who would make her do something she did not want to do, and if they did make her get the abortion there would be legal ramifications for such an act.

Abortion and Gay Marriage

are the ruin of the Republican Party. Completely eliminate all non-voluntary funding for abortions - and let God judge their souls.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

I agree

That is an understatement. I found that when trying to sell Ron Paul to people who lean liberal, the Achilles Heel's of Ron Paul's voting record were 1.) DOMA, and 2.) A Life Begins at Conception Amendment to the Constitution. If not for those two items, I would have been able to argue with Democratic voters that Ron Paul is actually SUPERIOR in anti-discrimination than most Democrat politicians, e.g., his vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, decriminalizing drug laws (which Dr. Paul argues hurts the black community disproportionately), etc. his vote against the Patriot Act.

I think

it is because the Republican party uses the abortion issue as a political football to garner conservative vote but never resolving the issue, well, because, of course, they will need that vote again in 4 years...and who knows whose pockets are lined with the blood of the unborn.

Anyways, I like Ron Paul:
"Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

IMO What Ron Paul is saying is that any life not worth protecting will soon be yours. The abortion issue is an issue because it is meant to be an issue because it is another slippery slope whereby life and individualism is snuffed out, thus the snuffing of Liberty

...

Let me get this straight-

First our tax dollars go to fund abortions on demand at non-profits like Planned Parent Hoods, and now we have to pay for the incarceration of those who have abortions?

Brother, I hope Rick Perry doesn't get wind of this. He finally did something half moral by defunding Planned Parenthood. They're suing.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Its all about the money

coming or going.

I was just having a conversation with my husband about public defender flunkies...my comment: Their on the public dole to send the poor victim to jail funded by the public dole. It is a closed loop...paid for by the public.

This person here says we need to figure out how to quit using fed dollars:

http://www.dailypaul.com/259985/liberty-day-challenge-july-4...

...

No one

could make me have that child, especially if I was a victim of incest. NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Covering up Crime

Your right most likely, you'ld be taken to get the abortion to cover up the incest.

jrd3820's picture

Right?

Seriously.

Expressing convictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVK4H5_dkbs

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

jrd3820's picture

nevermind I just read your reply to fishy

.

jrd3820's picture

Like Fishy

I am not quite sure what the video has to do with the link. Care to elaborate? As far as I understand the song is about Sinead's three miscarriages. This link is discussing imprisoning rape victims for "tampering with evidence" in the case of abortion.

Not sure...

are you equating 3 miscarriages with forcing rape victims to carry pregnancies to term or face prison? Do you understand that all that will do is end the crime of "rape." No woman will ever report it again. And then they will to get a back alley abortion. What you and I feel about that decision will not affect her decision at all.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

fishy

I do not condone 'pro-choice', as the unborn has no voice in these situations. I do not condone governments, local, state or otherwise, or outside interference in these matters.

I do not know others circumstances, nor do I presume to know, whether due to carelessness, medical, or otherwise. Therefore, judge not, lest ye be judged.

I pray that God does exist, but being human, and though sinful, I sometimes have my doubts. Nonetheless, I weep :-(

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Why do we have any laws at all?

You said: "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?"

A woman can have a child in secret. Keep the child a secret in a closet and abuse the child in secret in the closet. Laws will not change that, so why are we trying to make laws to do God's job?

A man can steal a woman in secret. Keep the woman in secret. Abuse the woman in secret. Laws will not change that, so why are we trying to make laws to do God's job?

Drs. in the UK can put people on the Pathway to Death in Public and prematurely end a person's life in Public. Why are there laws that allow Drs to determine the premature death of an individual?

Why should any person murder another person? Because they are an inconvenience to society as a whole, a drain on the budger, or because they are an inconvenience to an individual, a drain on life? What makes murder OK? Laws that allow it? Why can't people do whatever they want...as long as it is secret...Laws or no laws?

My reply has nothing to do with your link. It has to do with your words.

...

You should have checked the link.

It was related to the words. 'What you and I believe will not ever change what any other woman chooses to do. The scenarios you describe all risk discovery, no one will ever know if a woman aborts a child. You cannot enforce the law, even if passed.
It will be like alcohol and drugs, all you will do is create a dangerous black market.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

The Silent Scream

You said: "no one will ever know if a woman aborts a child."

I ask:

Is she going to abort the child by herself, or is someone going to help her? Will the child know it is being aborted? Will the child know it has been aborted?

You think that is a foolish question? I take it as a very serious question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

I did look at the link...rape victims forced to carry babies to term...my reply had nothing to do with the link. My reply has to do with your words.

A "fake" rape victim was the source of Roe v. Wade. And please, do not accuse me of being heartless towards a person who has been raped. That is a horrible, horrible, horrible crime against a person. The unwillful penetration. An unwillful penetration is then to be performed on the result of the unwillful penetration. Is that the answer to the problem? The execution of the child? And about the mother? She is then left to mourn the loss of her innocence as well as the loss of the innocent while someone makes a buck off of her misfortune.

There is a multi-million dollar industry build around the misfortune of women and the demise of the unborn.

Maybe we should begin to look behind the curtain to see who reaps the benefit of the money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZrXIttkdoQ

...

Do you think the government is fit to answer your questions?

That was the gist of this post.
And yes, a woman can brew tea that induces abortion. To everyone who knows her, all they would see is a woman having a cup of tea, and later going to the bathroom.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

The murder of 1.3 Million Preborn Children

The declaration of independance states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

No one has the right to end innocent life. That life has an unalienable right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government was created to secure those rights by the concent of the governed.

Psalms 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Dr. Ron Paul, an Obstetrician, said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

Why do you feel the need to advocate for the death of the preborn? Is a womans's life and her health and happiness worth more than the unborn. The reason Ron Paul said those words is because when we as a society begin to determine which humans have more value, that logic begins to be used across the board. If you do not secure the preborn, you cannot secure the born. That is exactly why there are Death Pathways in the UK. They are abit ahead of us in the social arena.

Having said these words I do not take the plight of the woman lightly and without compassion, but what about the 1.3 million preborn children per year that are murdered? What rights are afforded them?

...

Can the government legislate it away?

They have been outlawed before, it did not stop them. It only created a dangerous black market for them.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Dangerous

Now we have a Dangerous White Market to the tune of 1.3 Million a year...Dangerous for who?

What is 1.3M x $500?

Maybe the white market is more lucrative? Criminals make their crime legal so they can rake in the bucks...all above the table...and under too.

I am not speaking of the woman involved. She is but a pawn...Both she and the baby are a means to the end. A very unfortunate situation.

When Roe v Wade came up Abortion for Rape was legal in Texas. Something I never knew. I think both sides keep facts hidden. And I think women need to get smart about it. Look what women did to this woman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

It is not about women or their rights, it is about death for profit.

...

...