News Snipet 'Blog

Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
Monday, February 27, 2006
As the ban nears, the "religious fanatics" will evoke any argument to advance their faith. Here is a quote from one of their clerics: - South Dakota nears abortion ban - Feb 24, 2006: "Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health. If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. 'The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,' Heeren-Graber said." Let the Snipet finish the sentence: "The idea the rapist could be in the child's life makes a woman very, very fearful--so lets kill that child"
posted by Jack Mercer @ 2/27/2006 02:43:00 PM  
  • At 2/27/2006 05:22:00 PM, Blogger Smorgasbord said…

    Coming at this from an anti-fascism angle, I think the government should never force a person to give birth. Not only is it more power than the government should have, it's also rather gruesome.

  • At 2/27/2006 05:30:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi Smorg,

    I know we have discussed this before. :)

    I tend to believe in all human rights--I don't believe we should exclude anyone--especially not the most innocent among us.


  • At 2/27/2006 05:35:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    However, I think the sole purpose of government is to protect those who can't protect themselves.

    Another thought is, should it be a "right" to get pregnant in the first place?

    Just some thoughts...

  • At 2/27/2006 05:36:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…


    Thanks for stopping in, Smorg. Its always good to see you!


  • At 2/28/2006 09:21:00 AM, Blogger Smorgasbord said…

    We have had this conversation, so I don't want to belabor it, but to your question should it be a "right" to get pregnant in the first place?...

    I'm actually a little stunned that someone who's so vehemently against the path toward fascism our country is heading would make such a statement. Isn't that what red China does? Do you think our government should be more like theirs? Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate.

  • At 2/28/2006 09:35:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Actually I am, Smorg. But just to generate a little thought. Let's follow this through:

    In this nation we do not have a "right" to drive our car on the road. We do not have a "right" to smoke in a non-smoking area. We do not have a "right" to own property without paying taxes on it.

    There are many things we do not have a "right" to do. And I guess my question would be, if we choose to have a child that we cannot take responsibility for, should we have the "right" to do that? I'll give you an example. There was a court case not long ago where a man had fathered a dozen children or more through different mothers but refused to pay child support or do anything to support them. The judge decreed that the man could father no more children.

    Now this is a classic example of the conflict between egalitarianism and individualism. The guy was represented by the ACLU who said that it was his inalienable right to create children. But...the STATE (you, me, taxpayers) were expected to take care of the children. Now, don't you think that if the State is left with the responsibility of taking care of the children, that it has a say in what the man continues to do?

    As always, Smorg, I just pose questions for thought. Keep in mind, also, that I post in the true Snipet fashion. The thing that really amazed me about the statement this woman made, though, was that the woman above was talking about a child already born in circumstances that were not optimal, but justified killing the child because it would be exposed to a rapist. If we can justify such while they are in the womb why not out? The statement was just irrational--


  • At 2/28/2006 01:06:00 PM, Blogger Smorgasbord said…

    It's an interesting point. From a libertarian point of view, the state shouldn't bear any responsibility at all. In my view, the man should be compelled through government force to at least finance the raising of his offspring (as much as that's possible), if not take care of them directly.

    As far as the woman's comment in your original post, I think it breaks down to the fundamental difference between pro-choice and pro-life people; one which can never be reconciled. Pro-lifers give priority to the unborn child, while pro-choicers give priority to the parent.

    We both know which side of the fence I reside, but I do understand both perspectives. It is truly a tough issue to deal with.

  • At 2/28/2006 05:18:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Well said, Smorg.


  • At 2/28/2006 11:03:00 PM, Blogger English Professor said…

    I'm not sure there's a lot of point in debating SD too much--they've made it clear that they passed this bill just to force the issue at the national level.

    I know both of you mean well (and I'm assuming smorg is a man), but I have to admit that at the gut level it bothers me somewhat to hear two men discussing what I should be able to do if I get raped and become pregnant. I know that we're supposed to look at ethical issues dispassionately and rationally, but while you're discussing how to deal with a situation that can never, ever happen to you, I'm thinking about women I know and love who have been raped. My gut tells me that if she chooses the morning-after pill, neither of you should have any say-so in that matter.

  • At 3/01/2006 09:25:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi EP!

    Good to hear from you. Smorg is very much a man in every sense of the word.

    Relying on an old statistic the abortions performed in the event of rape were about .06% of all abortions. I am a little bit uncomfortable with making the rule by the exception, although I am not opposed to making exceptions to the rule. What I don't understand is why the hospital cannot immediately take action in the case of rape to avoid the situation entirely.

    I also have a little difficulty with the notion that men should not have a say in these matters. Men have a say in all matters dealing with human rights and the question always comes down to whether the baby is human or not. We enforce human rights in many ways through law and this would be no exception. Having grown up in the abortion debate (remember, I'm an old codger:) I remember when the whole argument shifted from "human rights(of the child)" to "choice" or "its the woman's body".

    Of course, I really wasn't posting about the abortion issue so much as I was about the religiosity of its proponents and their often flawed reasoning. :)

    Hope this makes sense!


  • At 3/01/2006 09:59:00 AM, Blogger English Professor said…

    "Men have a say in all matters dealing with human rights and the question always comes down to whether the baby is human or not. We enforce human rights in many ways through law and this would be no exception." And I completely understand that point, intellectually. But I have a visceral reaction to the scenario we're discussing, nonetheless.

    You're referring to some abortion rights supporters' religiosity, which I grant. But it works both ways. While your suggestion of the hospital doing something makes sense to me, hard line pro-lifers would not agree--once sperm has made it to egg, you've got life, and end of story. I don't see it that way, which is why I think the morning-after pill should be available to all rape victims.

  • At 3/01/2006 01:37:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    EP, I think you speak realistically and wisely. I know that often times we deal in theory, but when it becomes reality what do we do? Smorg taught me a lot concerning my "absolute" and theoretical views.

    I think there is resolution, but it will require both sides coming to the table of compromise. Both seem unwilling to do so.

    Do you agree with me, though, about my assessment of what this social worker said? She is talking about eliminating a life because of circumstance it might face. If this were the case, maybe all of us would be better off dead :)


  • At 3/01/2006 03:45:00 PM, Blogger English Professor said…

    LOL, Jack. I agree that her reasoning isn't particularly valid, but I suspect she was going for pathos, not logos. :-)

    Part of the problem, it seems to me, is what has come to be seen as an inalienable right to know everything about the people whose DNA created you. While I sympathize with adoptees who want to know why they were given up, or what hereditary diseases they might pass on to their own children, I have a fundamental beef with any perceived right to hunt down and contact birth parents. If I conceived from rape and chose to carry that child to term and place it for adoption, the last thing in the world I would want 20 years down the road is someone showing up on my doorstep, reminding me of the tragedy in my life. And might not that child be better off wondering about his/her circumstances than finding out that "dad" is a convicted rapist doing life in prison?

    I've digressed. Sorry.

  • At 3/01/2006 04:04:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…


    A lot of that has come about by the emphasis on existentialism and its often flawed reasoning. What we are taught in school, in media, in entertainment, etc. is that "self" is waiting to be discovered. I happen to believe that self is a process of creation--a forward look rather than contemporary psychology's emphasis on the past.

    But being a firm believer in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I feel compelled to afford, as many who deserve, that opportunity. I lump all people's of the earth who choose to live peaceably with one another, and of course the unborn, weak, mentally retarded and the elderly in that category.

    My view of abortion in general is that there is so much that we don't know, that science cannot tell us, that I would rather err on the side of life.

    You aren't the only one digressing :)


  • At 3/09/2006 02:02:00 AM, Blogger Kathy Schrenk said…

    Putting aside the rape debate, my beef is with the ban on abortion if it affects the health of the mother. Effectively the state is saying it has the right to decide when the pregnancy will threaten the mother's life versus when it will "only" threaten her health. This is my fear about any anti-abortion law. It's a slippery slope. The more doctors worry about whether their action will get them arrested, the worse for all women's health.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: If only the right-to-lifers put all that energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place...

Post a Comment
<< Home
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".

Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.

Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.

In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Template by

Free Blogger Templates


free hit counter