Ahhh OK. That works then.

I understand that treatment centers like these have worked for lots of women and I think they're a good solution to have but I don't think they're THE solution. Not that I'm a woman or pretend to know what it's like, but from what I've heard and read, rape is something that invades weird parts of the mind and essentially ruins someone in terms of their internal and exterior self-image. In other words, knowing that someone else has gone through the same thing might soften the blow, but I don't think it's a ok-great-we-solved-that-now-lets-get-rid-of-abortion because as much as you'd like to believe that things will be OK and healthy afterward, I'd go so far to say that in -most- rape situations, the girl is going to need emotional support for a long time after the event that spas can't provide.

This stems straight into things like abortion, because you'd essentially want the girl to continue with the unwanted/unplanned pregnancy despite her condition before and after the birth. Should she then be forced to take care of that child or do you suggest the child get put up for adoption where a lucky few make it into loving families (I have a couple of lucky cousins to prove it) and most get put into "the system," which completely sucks?


Let me clarify: I don't think abortion should be a standard, it should be an option. Essentially, I agree with Roe vs. Wade in that a woman, with her doctor, should be able to choose abortion in the earlier months (first trimester). That doesn't mean they'd have to or that it would necessarily occur with a viable fetus.

To answer your question, I'd definitely stand against such a policy for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1. For those people aged 77+ who are healthy and take care of themselves, it would make absolutely no sense
2. For those people aged 77+ who are in private homes for the elderly, it would make absolutely no sense (as it's usually their own money keeping them alive)
3. For those people aged 77+ who have willing family members to take care of them, it makes no sense

So a blanket-law that simply states "anyone over 77 gets terminated," even if it were considered seriously (which would be completely ridiculous), would be worth shooting down over other issues, sure.

Your point is that if I give the thumbs up for one "murder," why not do the same for another (despite the age). Noting the similarities in terms of care-takers, cost of living in general and the like, let's consider the top ten reasons abortions are most often performed (according to a survey by AGI in 2004)-

1. Not ready for a baby
2. Can't afford baby
3. Has enough babies
4. Unstable environment to raise a child in
5. Too Immature/Young to have a child
6. Mother has health problems
7. Possible fetal health problems
8. Rape/incest
9. Someone else wants them to have an abortion
10. Religious reasons / Doesn't want anyone to know she's pregnant

Now let's see which ones apply to axing the elderly-

2. Can't afford
3. Has enough grand parents (just kidding)
7. Health problems

You might disagree, but these are the only similarities I can see and ones that don't merit a law:

"If you can't afford the costs of taking care of your loved one, you can have them put to sleep."

or

"If your loved one is considered unhealthy by a physician, you can have them put to sleep."

For the first, if you can't afford to take care of an older person that can't afford to take care of themselves, there are definitely steps one could take before giving them the ax. And for the second, if they're considered unhealthy, chances are they're either being mistreated or they're going to die soon anyway.

EXACTLY. I WORK in that system, and let me tell you, kids are very lucky to get adopted. Most often they end up in homes. It's a tough and shitty life.
This is the problem when theology becomes the basis for our society: if we push abstinence-only programs in schools, teenagers are not made aware of methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, when they have sex (and they WILL, despite all the wishful thinking that abstinence-only pledges mean jack squat), it will be unprotected. Bam, baby on the way.
The teen has the baby and puts it up for adoption. The child is not adopted and goes to a home, becomes a part of society's unwanted.
For those that are so staunchly pro-life, do this instead of protesting abortion clinics or casting judgement: adopt a child of an unwanted pregnancy, push EDUCATION for teens so that less unwanted pregnancies occur.

And I'm sorry, but sending somebody to a SPA is not a cure-all for rape. It is has deep psychological consequences that are not solved with a band-aid and a few kind words. Carrying a rape baby is like having a constant reminder in your body of what was done to you.

Lastly, if the life of the mother is at risk, should she die for a baby that might not survive anyway? Also, what if a young teen girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant? Should she also have to carry that baby to term?

i'm only going to respond specifically to this, because i've also seen much evidence to support brendan's words:


the problem with the education aspect is that there are far too many people who live in a dream world where an abstinence-only focus somehow means kids are gunna stop having sex.  it does not work that way by a long-shot, and trying to hide safe alternatives from those who are sexually active does nothing but exacerbate problems:
-abortions would rise (and become more dangerous if outlawed)
-STDs would become even more prevalent, and the potential for new ones to develop would rise
-for those choosing to go with adoption, there would be even larger floods of unwanted children

i've brought these points up time and time again with people who advocate that type of 'education', yet they still keep thinking that their alternate reality is more important than the truth.
likewise, they will always have an excuse to not have to take it upon themselves to adopt one of these children; not the least of which being, in their minds, 'it's okay, someone else will do it.'
i guess keeping up the illusion of caring for others is more important to them than actually caring for others.

Christians are to obey both, to the best of their abilities.

I don't know. Wasn't Jesus submitting to the law when he allowed himself to be crucified?

They can but they can't.