What is a pro-life?

[Buffalo]

With today's sophistication, accuracy, etc of forensic evidence, if I was hesitant in the past, I am now in firmer support of the death penalty.

I think science is wonderful but there are human errors out there. Joyce Gilchrist is the reason for my incomplete faith in forensic science. More on this: When The Evidence Lies - TIME. I only can wonder how many more of 'Joyce Gilchrists' are out there My other reason is Chimerism. Suppose the man's semen DNA is different from the DNA of his cheek scraping. If that guy turned rapist and he will never be caught as long as they get his DNA from his cheek. More on this: Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome.

Mann_05, I'm sorry for going off on a tangent but I just want to tell Tousi why I don't agree with his statement.

 

[Reba]

I don't have a fight with anyone, except for my victim's rights.

"My victim"? Much as I appreciate your work with victims of violence, the victims don't belong to you. They are free people with their own families, friends, and value systems. They have to live with those people and values, and with their selves, long after they leave your care.

It's the same paternalistic/maternalistic problem faced by educational interpreters. They aren't "my students".

Advocating is one thing; possessing is another.

 

[Reba]

Who is telling the girl that carrying a baby to term is "punishment" for her? Who is planting and watering that idea?

What kind of other options is the girl given?

What if the girl's beliefs prior to the rape conflict with the "help" that is being offered? On top of all the other trauma she experienced, now she's told to toss out all her previous beliefs? That's supportive?

If the girl is a minor, are her parents involved in this discussion and decision?

 

[Reba]

...My job is to worry about the well being of the victim. She is my first and only concern. . . How is it that these 4 cells are more important that the life that is already up and walking this earth....the child that was raped? You can't have it both ways.

The important question is, how is this important to the victim. Are the options being fully explained to her, without bias? Is a possible pregnancy being presented to her as something awful, painful, and shameful, that must be avoided at all costs? Are the victim's religious beliefs respected?

Does the victim have the same viewpoint about "4 cells" as you do? Do you have the right to convince her otherwise?

 

[Reba]

I found this site which explains several of my own points. He does a much better job of it, and includes statistics and footnoted references.

It's rather lengthy, so you can read it here:

EPM Resource - Prolife Except in the Case of Rape?

 

[Cheri]

I don't have a fight with anyone, except for my victim's rights.

"My victim" You are the ownership of the victim? Victims are not owned by anyone.

And it is not my job to worry about the rapist. That is what law enforcement is for. My job is to worry about the well being of the victim.

Oh really? Isn't it your job to help them get support, protection, and justice? How many cases of rape that hasn't been reported? and rape victims rarely gets justice unless they know who to look for. You seem to be more cornering about how to get rid of the unborn child. The victim need many kinds of help.

 

[Cheri]

I found this site which explains several of my own points. He does a much better job of it, and includes statistics and footnoted references.

It's rather lengthy, so you can read it here:

EPM Resource - Prolife Except in the Case of Rape?

 

[Cowpuppy]

It means 'my victims' as in 'my clients'. A doctor would say 'my patients'......without inferring ownership......as in 'my wife' does not imply ownership. etc etc
It really shows how some people like to twist things to make someone look bad...that is the core of thier argument....not to debate, but to make the other person look bad. It doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make one look like that good person they claim to be.
Again....INTEGRITY....honesty in communications. It means more than telling the truth....it means being honest in the way you deal with people. Being straightforward and honest in the style you choose to communicate with.

 

[Cheri]

It means 'my victims' as in 'my clients'. A doctor would say 'my patients'......without without inferring ownership......as in 'my wife' does not imply ownership. etc etc

That's true, because doctors would say "my patients" and lawyers would say "my clients".

It really shows how some people like to twist things to make someone look bad...that is the core of thier argument....not to debate, but to make the other person look bad. It doesn't make it right.

That's not even true, don't assume, I did not get what she meant by saying "my victim's rights" I thought she meant that we do not care about the victims as much as she does.

 

[Reba]

It means 'my victims' as in 'my clients'. A doctor would say 'my patients'......without inferring ownership......as in 'my wife' does not imply ownership. etc etc
It really shows how some people like to twist things to make someone look bad...

Absolutely not. I respect and admire Jillio for the work that she does, and the person she is. She and I disagree about issues and viewpoints. But I have nothing against her as a person. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

But the "my" point is valid because sometimes people who work in sensitive situations become overly invested in the other people. Sometimes we need to step back from too much influence and control, even when it's well meaning.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I think science is wonderful but there are human errors out there. Joyce Gilchrist is the reason for my incomplete faith in forensic science. More on this: When The Evidence Lies - TIME. I only can wonder how many more of 'Joyce Gilchrists' are out there My other reason is Chimerism. Suppose the man's semen DNA is different from the DNA of his cheek scraping. If that guy turned rapist and he will never be caught as long as they get his DNA from his cheek. More on this: Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome.

Mann_05, I'm sorry for going off on a tangent but I just want to tell Tousi why I don't agree with his statement.

It's okay.

this thread is general prolife; anti pro abortion, anti pro death plenaty, etc etc. Dont worry, your post is not off topic.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

Absolutely not. I respect and admire Jillio for the work that she does, and the person she is. She and I disagree about issues and viewpoints. But I have nothing against her as a person. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

But the "my" point is valid because sometimes people who work in sensitive situations become overly invested in the other people. Sometimes we need to step back from too much influence and control, even when it's well meaning.

I also admire her opinions a well as yours. But let me ask you this, when a young child is rape such as 12 and above get raped and pregnant, what if that poor teenage child could "die" in child birth? is that worth the risk to put that poor teenage child through more traumatic pain? I think abortion would been better off for a 12, 13, 14 years old should go through carrying a pregnancy that can result child birth death. That even putting them through more risks. It this worth it? It only make them more emotinally also to make it worst for them. Just an feeling as a mother.

 

[jillio]

"My victim"? Much as I appreciate your work with victims of violence, the victims don't belong to you. They are free people with their own families, friends, and value systems. They have to live with those people and values, and with their selves, long after they leave your care.

It's the same paternalistic/maternalistic problem faced by educational interpreters. They aren't "my students".

Advocating is one thing; possessing is another.

Nice try at diverting the issue. But, incorrect. She is not my possession. However, she is my victim, in that she has been assigned to my caseload. She has entrusted herself into my care. She is free to choose another counselor at any point she decides to do so. However, while she is on my caseload, she is indeed, my victim or my client, just as I am her counselor. And, yes, the students I work with are also my students, just as I am their counselor. And regarding those friends and that family to which you referred, I am certain that her parents refer to her as "my daughter", and she refers tothem as "my parents", even though familial relationships do not imply ownership, either.

The terminology does not imply ownership, as you so claim, but is indiciative of a relationship. And yes, a counselor indeed has a relationship with thier client; without it they are unable to be of assistance to their client. And a teacher also has a reltionship with his/her students. Without it, he/she is not an effective teacher. I suppose a terp can function without as intimate a relationship with those with whom she works, but a counselor and a teacher, because of the nature of the interaction, must have a realtionship with those whom they work. One can also advocate while remaining completely detached from the individual. However, advocacy is but one part of my job. I can walk into a courtroom, and advocate for this young lady's rights as a victim, based on nothing more than some general humanistic principles. However, to work with her to help her overcome the horror that has been committed against her, I must be able to develop an intimate relationship with her based on trust and reciproaction. So, I will continue to refer to her as my victim, and I will continue to refer to my students as my students for the same reason. If you choose not to refer to your clients this way, you are free to refer to them in any way you choose. However, if you do object to the terminolgy as it is used, I would suggest that you not refer to your daughter as "my child" or your spouse as "my husband" as, under your logic, you are implying ownership of the individual.

 

[Reba]

I also admire her opinions a well as yours. But let me ask you this, when a young child is rape such as 12 and above get raped and pregnant, what if that poor teenage child could "die" in child birth? is that worth the risk to put that poor teenage child through more traumatic pain? I think abortion would been better off for a 12, 13, 14 years old should go through carrying a pregnancy that can result child birth death. That even putting them through more risks. It this worth it? It only make them more emotinally also to make it worst for them. Just an feeling as a mother.

I've posted MANY times, in MANY threads, including this one, that if doctors determine that the physical well being (health) of the girl is endangered by pregnancy, then a therapeutic abortion would be allowed if that's the only way to save the mother's life. That was even allowable back before Roe v. Wade. There would be nothing gained or preserved by allowing the mother and baby to both die.

Even that decision must be made after full disclosure and all options are explored.

 

[jillio]

Who is telling the girl that carrying a baby to term is "punishment" for her? Who is planting and watering that idea?

What kind of other options is the girl given?

What if the girl's beliefs prior to the rape conflict with the "help" that is being offered? On top of all the other trauma she experienced, now she's told to toss out all her previous beliefs? That's supportive?

If the girl is a minor, are her parents involved in this discussion and decision?

As I have stated, the victim does not have anyone's beliefs imposed upon her. She is told all options, and is supported through her choices based on those options. Options are offered without bias toward what the counselor believes her her choice should or should not be. Objectivity is the key. Ethical guidelines prevents the imposition of personal values on a client. We work within the value and belief system of our clients. It is not our job to change or influence their belief and value systems, but to help them overcome their problems and difficulties from the perspective of their own value and belief systems. It is referred to under many different names depending upon one's theoretical perspective. Rogerian counselor's refer to it as "unconditional positive regard". Gestalt practitioners refer to it as "emapathic understanding". Adlerian counselors will refer to it as the client's "personal reality". Reality therapists call it "meeting the client where they are." In short, it is the practice of entering the client's world, and operating from that perspective, rather than asking the client to enter the world of the counselor. It is a nonjudgemental perspective. Judge a client, and you have lost all ability to help that client.

The goal of therapy is not to change another's values and beliefs. It is to provide them with the skills and cognitions that allow them to function completely and with health fromtheir own perspective. Values are based onthe cultural and environmental influences that impact that individual. We do not seek to remove those, but to make those influence work in apositive way for the individual. Therapy is not about telling an individual waht to do or what not to do. It is about asking them what goal they wish to accomplish, and working with them to help them find the sloutions they need for themselves. We seek to empower, not dictate. Freedom of choice is a large part of that empowerment process.

 

[jillio]

Who is telling the girl that carrying a baby to term is "punishment" for her? Who is planting and watering that idea?

What kind of other options is the girl given?

What if the girl's beliefs prior to the rape conflict with the "help" that is being offered? On top of all the other trauma she experienced, now she's told to toss out all her previous beliefs? That's supportive?

If the girl is a minor, are her parents involved in this discussion and decision?[

The girl is provided with information regarding all of her options, as I have stated prior. She is supported through the process of deciding, for herself, which of those options are the right ones for her to exercise.

If she is opposed to abortion prior to the rape, and remains so following the rape, then she is provided with the services necessary to support her through the pregancy, and following the birth of said child. She is not, under any circumstances, told to toss out, or change, any of her beliefs. One of the first questions asked of any victim, or any client, is "What can I do to help you at this point in time?" Clients guide the process, not the other way around.

And if the girl is a minor, her parents are involved in the process to the degree that she chooses for them to be involved. As a rape victim, she is entitled to complete confidentiality. That is an absolute for any counseling client. By law, the only time that confidentiality can be broken is if a client has revealed intention to do harm to themselves or another. If the child wants parental involvement in a session, then it is granted based on client request. However, if they request that a parent not be privy to the session,then those rights are protected by law and ethical guideline. In the case of any victim, be she a minor or an adult, family members are also offered services to deal with the impact that such a horrific event has had on them. As the victim's counselor, I am concerned with her first and foremost. Another couselor will be assigned to assist family members, and those family members will be that counselor's concern, first and foremost. This is necessary to prevent conflict of interest and to insure that autonomy of the client is protected. It is also necesary for the client to feel comfortable with the type of disclosure that is necessary to heal.

It would appear that you are confusing giving a person a value laden judgement about what their decisions should and should not be with the empowerment process of providing a person with information regarding all of their options and then providing support while they exercise their freedom to choose that actions which provides the greatest degree of comfort to them.

 

[Cheri]

Pro-lifers are not against mothers they're against mothers killing their unborn child. If the mother's or the unborn child's life is at risk, and doctors confirm that abortion is the only option, then let it be. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving birth, if we did not care about the mothers, we would not care about their well being when they have the abortion.

And for rape and incest, the person who commit should be punished, not the unborn child. I don't agree in killing the unborn child for the crime of the unborn child's father did. I'm sorry, I don't.

Not all pro-lifers are violent people, I would not stand in front of an abortion clinic and block the doorway, I would not even kill an abortion doctors or their staffs.

I'm just standing up for the unborn child's rights and be their voice, because they were denied the right to life.

 

[jillio]

The important question is, how is this important to the victim. Are the options being fully explained to her, without bias? Is a possible pregnancy being presented to her as something awful, painful, and shameful, that must be avoided at all costs? Are the victim's religious beliefs respected?

Does the victim have the same viewpoint about "4 cells" as you do? Do you have the right to convince her otherwise?

Yes, that is the important question. And that is why the victim is provided with all the information available regarding all of her choices, and then provided the support needed while she makes a choice based on her own value systems. This is about her freedom to choose. If she chooses to carry a prgnancy toterm, then she is supported through that decision, through the pregnancy, and following the birth of the child. Is she chooses to abort, then she is supported through that decision,through the procedure, and following the procedure.

You are assuming that I impose my personal beleif system on the victim, and nothing could be further from the truth. I support the victim's right to choose based on her value system. I offer her choices. Those choices are hers to make. Whether they would be my personal choices are not does not enter into the equation. My job is not to make choices for her, but to provide her the freedom to make those choices for herself. And to support her no matter what those choices may be. In taking your anti-abortion stance ont his matter, you have failed to recognize that this is about choice. This is not pro-abortion, this is pro-choice. In order to enforce that freedom to choose, one must have more than one option from which to choose.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Pro-lifers are not against mothers they're against mothers killing their unborn child. If the mother's or the unborn child's life is at risk, and doctors confirm that abortion is the only option, then let it be. Abortion is much more dangerous than giving birth, if we did not care about the mothers, we would not care about their well being when they have the abortion.

And for rape and incest, the person who commit should be punished, not the unborn child. I don't agree in killing the unborn child for the crime of the unborn child's father did. I'm sorry, I don't.

Not all pro-lifers are violent people, I would not stand in front of an abortion clinic and block the doorway, I would not even kill an abortion doctors or their staffs.

I'm just standing up for the unborn child's rights and be their voice, because they were denied the right to life.

Even this!

It isn't pro-life to bomb places where abortions are performed.

 

[Reba]

Nice try at diverting the issue. But, incorrect. She is not my possession. However, she is my victim, in that she has been assigned to my caseload. She has entrusted herself into my care. She is free to choose another counselor at any point she decides to do so. However, while she is on my caseload, she is indeed, my victim or my client, just as I am her counselor. And, yes, the students I work with are also my students, just as I am their counselor. And regarding those friends and that family to which you referred, I am certain that her parents refer to her as "my daughter", and she refers tothem as "my parents", even though familial relationships do not imply ownership, either.

Familial relationships are not the same as professional relationships.

The terminology does not imply ownership, as you so claim, but is indiciative of a relationship. And yes, a counselor indeed has a relationship with thier client; without it they are unable to be of assistance to their client. And a teacher also has a reltionship with his/her students. Without it, he/she is not an effective teacher. I suppose a terp can function without as intimate a relationship with those with whom she works, but a counselor and a teacher, because of the nature of the interaction, must have a realtionship with those whom they work.

There are some deaf clients with whom I have very close relationships with beyond the working relationship. In a classroom setting, the student "belongs" to the teacher, not the interpreter. In a medical setting, the patient "belongs" to the doctor, not the interpreter.

Sorry for getting :topic:

In that sense, you could say that the girls as your clients "belong" to you; "my clients" would be appropriate. But "my victims"? That sounds very paternalistic and demeaning. In my opinion, that is. I'm sure that's not how you treat them, or introduce them.

One can also advocate while remaining completely detached from the individual. However, advocacy is but one part of my job. I can walk into a courtroom, and advocate for this young lady's rights as a victim, based on nothing more than some general humanistic principles. However, to work with her to help her overcome the horror that has been committed against her, I must be able to develop an intimate relationship with her based on trust and reciproaction. So, I will continue to refer to her as my victim, and I will continue to refer to my students as my students for the same reason. If you choose not to refer to your clients this way, you are free to refer to them in any way you choose.

As I stated above, neither the deaf client nor the hearing client belong to me. Their relationship is to each other and will continue, regardless of the presence or non presence of the interpreter. But I guess that is :topic:

However, if you do object to the terminolgy as it is used, I would suggest that you not refer to your daughter as "my child" or your spouse as "my husband" as, under your logic, you are implying ownership of the individual.

In a family, members belong to each other. My husband says, "my wife", and my daughter says, "my mom." It's a mutual and exclusive familial relationship, not a professional relationship.

Deaf friends and clients have expressed to me their displeasure at being referred to as "my" this or that, and they don't even like to refer to terps as "my" terp. (It's usually the hearing client who makes that mistake.) They don't like the implication that the deafie and the terp are joined at the hip.

In order to get back on topic, I will concede your terminology is not relevant to this topic. It was only relevant to my perception of your client-counselor relationship.