I examined the positions on issues held by other candidates for the GOP nomination for the United States House of Representatives for the 5th Congressional District of Indiana. I will address these issues and candidates in no particular order. Today I focus on one candidate and one issue, or set of issues.
My view is that if you are a woman and you are raped, you should not be forced to take to term a fetus to that results from that involuntary union.
Usually people say “let’s not dwell on that unpleasant part” - i.e., a woman being held down or shoved against a wall and battered, and - I won’t go on. The woman is brutalized. The LAST person she ever wants to encounter - I write that for some males who read this - is the rapist.
Danny Niederberger is a candidate for the GOP nomination in the 5th. On his website he listed his “five pillars.” I thought that, maybe, an adherent of the Islamic faith was in the race. That notion soon was dispelled.
On his website, Danny states: “Rape and incest account for 0.1% of all abortions in the United States. I do not believe it is proper to base legislation off 0.1 %. I also believe the nature of conception should not dictate the life of the child.”
Of course, if you are a woman in that “lucky” 0.1% and cannot afford medical care, you are twice ... well, you know. You will be on the hook for however many thousands of dollars are charged.
But wait! There’s more! Under Indiana Law - and other states have similar provisions - a biological father, i.e., sperm donor, has rights of visitation and parenting, etc. The person who held that woman down or kicked her in the head, has a say in how a child is raisedand now is a weekly - if now a daily - part of her life. If you think it can get worse, it does.
If that woman does anything to call into question her ability to parent - she is at a party that gets busted (frequenting a common nuisance), is in a vehicle that gets pulled over and she has alcohol on her breath (public intoxication), etc. - “dad” gets to challenge her for custody. i.e. If he wins - and it can happen, and NOT in your wildest dreams - then she can be ordered to pay child support to the rapist, perhaps until the child is 22 years of age.
The matters I cited are under Indiana law. Some states’ laws are less draconian, some not.
My view is shaped by moral standards set forth in a SCOTUS case the decision of whiich was written by a Justice who was nominated by a GOP President - Richard Nixon. Roe v. Wade was a product of the Nixon Court.
I cannot get pregnant. I shall not tell a woman how she makes decision with her life.
Oggie - how did you go so far afield from the topic I addressed? Global climate change is a bit different from women's reproductive rights. That said, I discussed this gentleman's views on abortion where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. In that situation the woman has not chosen what to do with her body. The issue becomes whether a woman is compelled by law to carry to term the fetus that resulted from a criminal act. Not only is that nine months on top of the trauma of the rape she experienced, but there are appreciable mortality rates related to pregnancy and child birth. The poorer the woman, statistically, the greater the mortality rates. Once she would give birth the person who raped her can claim parental rights. There are no asterisks in the Indiana statutes regarding parents' visitation rights or overall parental rights that stand for "Not applicable where child conceived as result of rape." Then, of course, the woman might lose custody to the rapist and be subject to his control over the child and over parts of her life. Finally, if you want to go to the old law - as in what the law was regarding abortion, in general, during the time of the Constitutional Convention, I'll quote from an opinion written by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court who was nominated by a Republican President: "It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy." That was Justice Blackmun (who also was an ardent baseball fan) in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 140-41 (1973). You might want to read that decision. Justice Blackmun took great care in his research of the history of abortion and its existence under the law. Interesting that you point out the "issue is, and always has been, at what stage does that developing human life deserve protection." The Court in Roe viewed the first trimester as a period in which a woman's right to make the decision is unfettered. That kind of fits with your 2-3 months and when the heart and brain develop.
I'll leave for another time discussion of the teen years.
Mark, Mark, Mark...I thought you were a man of science? At least that's what you claim when you are advocating for your your man is causing dangerous global warming that is going to destroy the Earth position. ( Sorry, you alarmists don't just get to relabel it as 'climate change" - the climate is always changing - when the numbers don't add up.) So it's surprising when it comes to the issue of abortion, you want to completely ignore the science of prenatal development.
If abortion just involved what a woman does with her body, then I'd be 100% supportive of your position. But medical science has proved that assumption underlying your position to be completely incorrect. What makes abortion such a thorny issue is that it involves what to do about a developing human life growing inside another human life.
The issue is, and has always been, at what stage does that developing human life deserve protection. You ignore that difficult question by simply repeating a slogan as your working assumption (that the issue just involves a woman doing whatever she wants with her body), a slogan that is factually incorrect.
One can argue that life should be protected at conception, at implantation, when the heart develops and brain wave activities start (2-3 months), viability (about 5 months) or birth (9 months...usually). Or one can take the position the option for an abortion should stop at birth. but should be revived during the child's rebellious teen years.
Regardless, the issue isn't what a woman can do with her body, but whether (and when) the human life growing inside her should be protected.
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now