Green Room

Rebecca Kiessling Can Better Explain Mourdock’s Distorted Comments on Rape

posted at 6:32 am on October 25, 2012 by

Yes, I still think that Richard Mourdock could have used a better anecdote to convey his pro-life stance, but the fact remains that most people would agree with him.  I probably should backtrack a bit.  I admit my passion sometimes gets the better of me, and I’m trying to keep my hopes up that Republicans can retake the U.S. Senate.  However, to label this as Akin-esque may have been overblown and a bit sensationalized.  ”A tempest in a teapot,” according to Ed Morrissey, who commented on this development on his show yesterday afternoon.

However, perusing through some blogs, I came across a story, which strikes at the heart of this issue.  It involves a woman named Rebecca Kiessling, who was the product of a rape – and would have been aborted if it had been legal.  She was put up for adoption, and eventually found out the circumstances surrounding her conception.

On her website, she wrote that:

although my birthmother was thrilled to meet me, she did tell me that she actually went to two back-alley abortionists and I was almost aborted.  After the rape, the police referred her to a counselor who basically told her that abortion was the thing to do.  She said there were no crisis pregnancy centers back then, but my birthmother assured me that if there had been, she would have gone if at least for a little more guidance.  The rape counselor is the one who set her up with the back-alley abortionists.  For the first, she said it was the typical back-alley conditions that you hear about as to why “she should have been able to safely and legally abort” me — blood and dirt all over the table and floor.  Those back-alley conditions and the fact that it was illegal caused her to back out, as with most women.

 Then she got hooked up with a more expensive abortionist.  This time she was to meet someone at night by the Detroit Institute of Arts.  Someone would approach her, say her name, blindfold her, put her in the backseat of a car, take her and then abort me . . . , then blindfold her again and drop her back off.  And do you know what I think is so pathetic?  It’s that I know there are an awful lot of people out there who would hear me describe those conditions and their response would just be a pitiful shake of the head in disgust:  “It’s just so awful that your birthmother should have had to have gone through that in order to have been able to abort you!”  Like that’s compassionate?!!  I fully realize that they think they are being compassionate, but that’s pretty cold-hearted from where I stand, don’t you think?  That is my life that they are so callously talking about and there is nothing compassionate about that position.  My birthmother is okay — her life went on and in fact, she’s doing great, but I would have been killed, my life would have been ended.  I may not look the same as I did when I was four years old or four days old yet unborn in my mother’s womb, but that was still undeniably me and I would have been killed through a brutal abortion.

According to the research of Dr. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, co-editor of the book Victims and Victors:  Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault, and author of the article “Rape, Incest and Abortion:  Searching Beyond the Myths,” most women who become pregnant out of sexual assault do not want an abortion and are in fact worse-off after an abortion.  See http://www.afterabortion.org .

So most people’s position on abortion in cases of rape is based upon faulty premises:  1) the rape victim would want an abortion, 2) she’d be better off with an abortion, and 3) that child’s life just isn’t worth having to put her through the pregnancy.  I hope that my story, and the other stories posted on this site, will be able to help dispel that last myth.

Her story and her activism has influenced some prominent members of politics, like Mike Huckabee and Gov. Rick Perry, and it does ask a great question to those who believe in the rape and incest exception – which is why is her life, or any life conceived through rape, valued less in the political discourse of this issue?  It’s a macabre question, but it does, or at least should, point out that life shouldn’t be put on a graduated scale.

Rebecca is now a pro-life activist, lawyer, happily married, and is a mother to five children.

I admit that I was pro-choice in college, but it wasn’t due to any liberal sensibilities.  I don’t like government killing enterprise with regulations and I don’t like government interfering with people’s personal lives.  I took the regrettably nonchalant position that it was a procedure between a doctor and a patient and that government shouldn’t interfere.  In short, I just wanted government to stay away from Americans’ personal lives and the means in which they earn a living.  However, this story, and many like them, changed my opinion.  As an adoptee myself, although I don’t know the circumstances of why my birthmother gave me up, I empathize with the pro-life argument completely.  In this case, why was Ms. Kiessling the first to be eliminated for something she wasn’t responsible for?

Furthermore, seeing the antics at the Democratic National Convention, and the obsession that Democrats and liberals have when it comes to abortion – I simply disgusted.  It begs the question, when did abortion become the only legitimate issue concerning women’s rights?  Furthermore, when did abortion become a woman’s only acceptable form of choice?  The debate continues.

It’s a question liberals either ignore, prevaricate, or scoff at – which is unconscionable.  How is Kiessling’s message of everyone deserving a right to life controversial?

While I still maintain that Mourdock could have framed his position better, due to the political minefield that exists when you bring up these issues; he’s not wrong at heart.  However, such issues become trivialized, distorted, and diminished in importance when conservatives fall into the whirlpool liberals have set up for them on these wedge issues.  As Obama lags behind the polls, he wants to make 2012 an election solely about ‘war on women’ nonsense.

Nevertheless, while some in the media obsess about whether Mourdock implied that rape is morally permissible, they should probably read Kiessling’s story first before reporting on anything.  I sure wish I had.

These issues aren’t front and center during this election cycle, but they still need to be addressed.  I just want to repeal Obamacare first before we tackle them – that’s all.

 

 

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sad to say but this might just tip the scales against Mourdock, who is in a tight race as it is. But, yes, the Akin comparisons are overblown. As far as I could tell, Mourdock didn’t justify his position using pseudoscience about a woman’s body supposedly shutting down to prevent conception in the event of a “legitimate rape”.

JimLennon on October 25, 2012 at 7:47 AM

By your reasoning, and hers, Rebecca Kiessling was very lucky her father raped her mother. It was a good thing, on balance.

The uncomfortable result of your logic is wrong because your philosophical assumptions are flawed, not because your logic is flawed or because the result makes you feel bad.

A person is not their DNA. “You” did not magically poof into existence upon conception. You have no right to exist just because the roll of the dice turned up the DNA that supported your future existence … or the future existence of an infinite number of other people who could have resulted from the exact same DNA.

A baby is a baby whether or not it is still in the womb, and a clump of undifferentiated cells is just a clump of undifferentiated cells whether or not events might eventually lead to the existence of a bright young woman.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM

By your reasoning, and hers, Rebecca Kiessling was very lucky her father raped her mother. It was a good thing, on balance.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Complete bunkum. The two issues – the rape and the conception – are completely separate. The rape was an atrocity, one of the most heinous of crimes. The mother should receive every protection of the law and The perpetrator should be punished to the fullest extent.

But the baby, once conceived, should also receive every protection of the law. Hopefully the mother will bring the baby to term and love and nurture it, but if that’s not possible then give the baby up to a family that will love him or her. Because the baby is a baby.

The Leftist description of the baby as “an undifferentiated clump of cells” shows a lack of scientific understanding on the level of Todd Akin in Missouri. Cells begin to differentiate within the first couple of days. Within weeks the neural tube forms. Within a month the baby has a head, within five weeks arms and legs. By the second month the baby has all its organs except reproductive organs.

So unless you kill the fertilized egg immediately via a day-after abortifacient, the entire argument of “undifferentiated cells” falls apart.

But hey, let’s not let science get in the way or murdering babies!

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

So unless you kill the fertilized egg immediately via a day-after abortifacient, the entire argument of “undifferentiated cells” falls apart.

Thank you for your clarification. I am glad to see you can tell the difference between those of us who just think the fertilized egg is not a baby and those who also think the eight month fetus is not a baby.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Thank you for your clarification. I am glad to see you can tell the difference between those of us who just think the fertilized egg is not a baby and those who also think the eight month fetus is not a baby.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM

So when does life start? At exactly what point is it killing a baby, and at what point is it not? If you believe there is a difference, there must be a definitive point at which you are no longer okay with the thought of actually ending a life…amiright?

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Her life is valueless to these people because they cannot admit that she is a life as an embryo. For many, destruction of the family is the ultimate goal, and the imagined feelings of the victim give them a trump card to keep abortion around to continue to destroy the family unit. Other people detest God to such an extent that they revel in the death of the unborn life that he created. Thwarting Gods will gives them a sense of power even as they scream about how they do not believe in God.

Any way you cut it though, when you argue that a woman should be able to abort a child, any child, even one from such a terrible assault on her personage, you are saying that the feelings of one person trumps the life of another person.

Murder by the justification of negative feelings. I dunno, sounds like a recipe for disaster in the making.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Where are the dems trying to lead us on this subject? First, they want abortions, next they will want to tell us if women can get pregnant, how many children we can have and then what sex we can have. Gotta keep everything in balance, ya know.

Kissmygrits on October 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM

So when does life start? At exactly what point is it killing a baby, and at what point is it not? If you believe there is a difference, there must be a definitive point at which you are no longer okay with the thought of actually ending a life…amiright?

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM

And that, of course, is the rub. Even if you’re non-religious and don’t believe in a soul, there’s still no clear logical dividing point. Some have tried to use fetal pain as an indicator, and of course even that is fraught with controversy.

To me, since there is no clear line I would want to err on the side of the baby, who otherwise is most certainly going to die a horrible death.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

At exactly what point is it killing a baby, and at what point is it not?

The people who wish it to be simple, and those who believe truth is subordinate to the perceived need for society to have a useful, simpleminded, bright red line, it is either at conception or at birth …. both absurd points.

My view? The mother should be able to choose until the fetus begins to develop a brain. If she chooses to have sex, she has chosen to take on the responsibility. If she chooses to not take the morning after pill after she was raped, she has chosen. If she was unable to take the morning after pill after having been raped, then she should be able to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy until the brain begins to develop. That will generally mean a simple procedure, possibly even just a chemical abortion such as with ru-486.

However, that is just my opinion. It is a philosophical view. I have no expertise in pre-natal development.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The simple argument is that once life is on the path to growth, any hindrance of its continuance should be considered murder.

Stopping a person from eating or drinking which results in his death is murder. Preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterus is the prevention of the feeding of that embryo.

Poisoning a man is murder. Chemically destroying an embryo is murder.

Stabbing, shooting, cutting a man results in murder. Surgically going in and cutting a baby into pieces is murder.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The people who wish it to be simple, and those who believe truth is subordinate to the perceived need for society to have a useful, simpleminded, bright red line, it is either at conception or at birth …. both absurd points.

My view? The mother should be able to choose until the fetus begins to develop a brain. If she chooses to have sex, she has chosen to take on the responsibility. If she chooses to not take the morning after pill after she was raped, she has chosen. If she was unable to take the morning after pill after having been raped, then she should be able to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy until the brain begins to develop. That will generally mean a simple procedure, possibly even just a chemical abortion such as with ru-486.

However, that is just my opinion. It is a philosophical view. I have no expertise in pre-natal development.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

So it took you three paragraphs to tell me what you could have simply summed up by saying:

It’s all my opinion, and I really don’t have the expertise to answer your question definitively.

What a piece of work. You should get in touch with Peter Singer. I think you’d be real good friends with him.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM

And that, of course, is the rub. Even if you’re non-religious and don’t believe in a soul, there’s still no clear logical dividing point. Some have tried to use fetal pain as an indicator, and of course even that is fraught with controversy.

To me, since there is no clear line I would want to err on the side of the baby, who otherwise is most certainly going to die a horrible death.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

See, I believe there is a clear line: Conception. And I can site medical evidence to back that up. Fadetogray and others of his ilk can only site their lack of experitse in neo-natal and pre-natal development in order to justfy what might be killing.

And there is indeed the rub. If there is a doubt, why act on it? Absent medical evidence that a conceived blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a unique and complete life, this is just another version of Pascal’s wager. The pro-abort crowd is wagering against the odds they are not committing murder.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

My view? The mother should be able to choose until the fetus begins to develop a brain.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

When, in your view does this occur? As you note, this is not your area of expertise, but would it surprise you to learn that the brain begins to form in the third week of pregnancy? By the fourth week you can see the eye stalks, and by the sixth week you have hemispheres and the beginning of brain wave activity.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The simple argument is that once life is on the path to growth, any hindrance of its continuance should be considered murder. …….

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM

So we are lost in the wilderness in the winter and you are starving to death and want to eat my arm, and it is murder for me to stop you.

What a piece of work. You should get in touch with Peter Singer. I think you’d be real good friends with him.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM

It is just this kind of undiscriminating absolutist idiocy that loses us election after election against dirtbags we should have beaten with ease.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM

When, in your view does this occur? As you note, this is not your area of expertise, but would it surprise you to learn that the brain begins to form in the third week of pregnancy? By the fourth week you can see the eye stalks, and by the sixth week you have hemispheres and the beginning of brain wave activity.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Bah, my daughter was way ahead of that path. She was doing calculus at 3 weeks!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM

It is just this kind of undiscriminating absolutist idiocy that loses us election after election against dirtbags we should have beaten with ease.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I think it’s stupid voters of the “I have no expertise but I’ll blow an opinion out of my ass anyway” variety that lose us elections.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM

See, I believe there is a clear line: Conception. And I can site medical evidence to back that up. Fadetogray and others of his ilk can only site their lack of experitse in neo-natal and pre-natal development in order to justfy what might be killing.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

And that’s a reasonable position. What exactly do you mean by conception, though? Even that is a slippery slope: conception has in the last couple of decades been redefined to mean implantation as opposed to fertilization.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM

And as for this “absolutist” claptrap, I think abortion should be a state issue. Each individual state should decide it for themselves, one way or the other. The only absolute, unshakable belief I have concerning abortion is that the federales never should have been involved in the first place.

gryphon202 on October 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM

So we are lost in the wilderness in the winter and you are starving to death and want to eat my arm, and it is murder for me to stop you.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Nice try, but they are not one and the same. The natural feeding place for an embryo is the mother.

It is not like I expect someone who thinks murder is justifiable would use legitimate arguments.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

would it surprise you to learn that the brain begins to form in the third week of pregnancy?

No, it would not. Carefully reread what I wrote about choice.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:51 AM

And that’s a reasonable position. What exactly do you mean by conception, though? Even that is a slippery slope: conception has in the last couple of decades been redefined to mean implantation as opposed to fertilization.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If you have to take an action to prevent life from continuing, then it is murder.
Using a drug that prevents the implantation, using a chemical to kill the baby, using scissors to cut the baby into pieces…

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Nice try, but they are not one and the same. The natural feeding place for an embryo is the mother.

I guess you can argue that rape is natural, but so is eating someone’s arm when you are starving to death. The “natural” argument is incredibly obtuse.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

No, it would not. Carefully reread what I wrote about choice.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I read it carefully. I didn’t get a hard number. The babies of the world want to know how old they have to be before you think it’s okay to stop killing them.

If I take you at your word, it’s three weeks.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I guess you can argue that rape is natural, but so is eating someone’s arm when you are starving to death. The “natural” argument is incredibly obtuse.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

No, embryos have no other environment to live. So their natural feeding place is in the womb of the mother.

You saying it is natural for one person to eat another person pretty much sums up your moral compass. Pretty sick, pretty sick!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I read it carefully. I didn’t get a hard number. ……
AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 10:57 AM

You did not get a hard number because I have no expertise in pre-natal development, which is why I pointed out I had no such expertise even though I knew some neanderthal (not you) here would howl at my “ignorance.”

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM

You did not get a hard number because I have no expertise in pre-natal development, which is why I pointed out I had no such expertise even though I knew some neanderthal (not you) here would howl at my “ignorance.”

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM

And now that you have the information, are you saying that you believe abortion should be disallowed after three weeks, or were you just kidding about that whole “brain” thing?

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM

And now that you have the information, are you saying that you believe abortion should be disallowed after three weeks, or were you just kidding about that whole “brain” thing?

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Why would you think I was “kidding?” I have stated my view. I stand by it.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Why would you think I was “kidding?” I have stated my view. I stand by it.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Kidding was polite. I think you’re lying, primarily because you won’t give a straight yes/no answer. Do you think abortion should be illegal for rape victims after three weeks?

Yes or no.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Kidding was polite. I think you’re lying, primarily because you won’t give a straight yes/no answer.

You made an assumption about my motivations, and in this case it just makes you an ass.

I refuse to give you a yes or no answer regarding three weeks because I do not know it is three weeks. I do not know stuff just because someone on the internet told me in the comment section of a political blog.

I could go research it, but I would still not know it was three weeks. I used the word “expertise” for a reason.

If you are struggling to make a point about the line being unsatisfactorily clear to you, then just say so. Too bad. Reality is what it is.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I posted this on Yahoo to the same topic (with some grammar error corrected here):

In one of the refugee camps I lived 32 years ago, many girls (as young as 10) and women (as old as 60) were raped by Thai pirates and fishermen.

One of those women arrived in my camp, with a husband and a child toddler age. She soon found out that she was pregnant. Her husband wanted her to abort the fetus but she refused, saying the baby was innocent and was fated to be her child (they were Buddhist). Her husband was livid and for some months he left her to live with the single men who came on the same boat. But they remained a married couple with child in paperwork for resettlement process. She suffered scorn and ridicule, albeit in whisper, from many people in the camp, men (who ought to have risked their lives stopping the atrocities she and fellow rape victims were subjugated) and women (who had gone through the same ordeals and were already mothers). (Another irony is that many of these people who had hated Thai people potently then have gone back there as tourists, and many have boasted about the sex tours they took while there.)

My number was called to go on to transit camp and I did not know if she had the baby in the camp or in her resettlement country. From time to time I wondered what has become of their marriage and if she has told her child the story.

One day a few years ago I saw a couple with two sons in an Asian supermarket in my city. The two young men looked very close in age, one with lighter skin like the elders’ and looked like them while the other had dark color skin of Thai and looked Thai, without a trace of the elders’ look. I tried to recall the faces of the couple in my camp but couldn’t. 31 years have gone by since I’d seen them last and even then I did not heed much attention to them. But the couple’s ages fitted the timeline. They were genial and very much a family. The darker young attended to the woman and evidenced a very nice, decent person whose niceness emanated on his face and eyes..

I walked out of the store and thought back to all the miseries I and my fellow people had gone through and thought if the couple was the very one in my camp then theirs is a lesson from God/Buddha. If this couple was not the one in my camp and that couple had broken up then, I have no doubt the woman has been a good mother and the child would have returned the love in the manner the young man in the store did his elder.

Perhaps it was really the Divine’s intention as the woman had believed. For if the couple remained together raising two children successfully into adulthood they now have not one but two sons or children loving them and tending their old age; and the atrocity had been the ultimate test on their love and marrigage which had made their marriage and love stronger and enduring. If the husband had left then woman had rid herself a sad character which may have shown itself in her older, too late to pick-her-self-up days like many female elderly I know have faced.

vnohara on October 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM

If you are struggling to make a point about the line being unsatisfactorily clear to you, then just say so. Too bad. Reality is what it is.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM

No, my point is that you are intellectually dishonest, which is a typical Leftist affliction. You say you believe in stopping abortions after the fetus begins to devleop a brain, but you refuse to define when a brain forms and in fact insist that you cannot know.

Thus, your entire predicate is false and misleading. Intellectually dishonest, in other words. In reality you believe that abortion is fine right up until you say it’s not fine anymore, any sort of facts be damned.

An epic, but unsurprising, failure. If you have no moral values, you inevitably end up in the same place.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 12:13 PM

No, my point is that you are intellectually dishonest, which is a typical Leftist affliction. You say you believe in stopping abortions after the fetus begins to devleop a brain, but you refuse to define when a brain forms and in fact insist that you cannot know.

Your “point” is an obvious fail, as any honest observer of this thread could tell you. It is ridiculous for you to insist I must be lying about what I said even though I have said I stand by it, and it is ridiculous for you to insist I must be being intellectually dishonest because I have the basic humility and wisdom to understand I lack the kind of expertise you seem certain you have.

I did not say I could not know when the brain typically begins to form. I said I lacked the expertise to speak knowledgeably on the subject in a precise way. I do not intend to spend months of my time developing that expertise so I can satisfy people here who have no humility about their own lack of real knowledge.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, descending into baseless insults because you lack the basic good character to recognize someone can disagree with you without being a bad person.

As I said to gryphon: It is just this kind of undiscriminating absolutist idiocy that loses us election after election against dirtbags we should have beaten with ease.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Your “point” is an obvious fail, as any honest observer of this thread could tell you. It is ridiculous for you to insist I must be lying about what I said even though I have said I stand by it, and it is ridiculous for you to insist I must be being intellectually dishonest because I have the basic humility and wisdom to understand I lack the kind of expertise you seem certain you have.

When is a baby a baby? It’s a simple question that you can’t answer, and since you can’t answer it, you have no business telling people who do have reasoned opinions that they are absolutist or anything else.

Seriously, you can’t debate if you don’t have a position. And a non-definable position is not a position, it’s a solipsist red herring.

AJsDaddie on October 25, 2012 at 1:37 PM

At exactly what point is it killing a baby, and at what point is it not?

While the debate is interesting, and there is a lot of “personally I think that…” involved, the fact is the law has to decide this. This is why the “fetal pain” distinction is meaningful; it’s something solid and concrete for the court to hang its hat on. “Abortion is legal when fetus is clump of cells and illegal when its a baby” = unusable judicial standard.

We have to draw the line somewhere. “Abortion is illegal in all cases” is just as extreme as “abortion is legal in all cases”, so can’t draw the line either at conception or at birth. Roe v. Wade uses “trimester” distinctions and says can’t ban all abortions in first trimester (13 weeks m/l). “Abortion is illegal after 13 weeks” = usable and constitutional judicial standard. Also seems to jive with when the fetus first feels pain, when the fetus has significant brain development, and when the mother first feels the baby move (on average). Sounds like a plan.

alwaysfiredup on October 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

alwaysfiredup on October 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

A much easier position is, if it requires outside action to terminate, then it is the ending of a human life. Pretty cut and dried. I would imagine that every single cell has its own pain sensing ability.

Its ok, I totally numbed the dude with pain killers before I offed him!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I would imagine that every single cell has its own pain sensing ability.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Individual cells do not feel pain, only pain-sensing nerve cells can feel pain. (some nerve cells just feel pressure, still others feel temperature, etc.) And it requires a certain level of brain development in order to process nerve signals. Not a lot, but some.

alwaysfiredup on October 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Individual cells do not feel pain, only pain-sensing nerve cells can feel pain. (some nerve cells just feel pressure, still others feel temperature, etc.) And it requires a certain level of brain development in order to process nerve signals. Not a lot, but some.

alwaysfiredup on October 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

So, you are saying that individual cells are incapable of sensing their environment and acting on that environment? Is that your argument?

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

When is a baby a baby? It’s a simple question that you can’t answer, and since you can’t answer it, you have no business telling people who do have reasoned opinions that they are absolutist or anything else.

I answered it, and I answered it in a far more clear and universally understood way than you have done. If it doesn’t have a brain, it isn’t a baby.

You just do not like the answer because it does not fit neatly into your purposefully simpleminded view of what it is to be a person.

fadetogray on October 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

So, Let’s see, ‘I don’t care what my Mother may have had to go through, my Life is more important than anyone else’s pain.

How many 8yr olds have to come to full term when they are raped?
answer, your answer, all of them.

Observation on October 25, 2012 at 4:20 PM

How many 8yr olds have to come to full term when they are raped?
answer, your answer, all of them.

Observation on October 25, 2012 at 4:20 PM

At 8 years old their body cannot survive. Because it cannot survive, and the infant will not survive either, abortion is the right answer. These cases are extremely rare, and there can be exemptions for protecting life. That is what the conversation is about. Do we murder for people’s feelings, or do we protect life to the fullest we can?

If a mother has preeclamsia (spelling?) or some other reare disorder that will end in both the mothers and the child’s death, they can be exempted and allowed the abortion.

If on the other hand, if it really is between a bit of discomfort, some bad feelings, and a burden of carrying to full term a child or aborting, no exemption. Grow up and let life thrive where it can.

Feelings never should trump life.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM