Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone is comfortable with the "no exceptions" rule for banning abortion. However, if they were only performed in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother,I would imagine it would eliminate a huge portion performed.
As far as rape, I would hope that she would get to a doctor, hospital or someone that would get her to a health care provider that can give her Plan B. I have no problem in preventing the pregnancy at this point, especially under the cirmumstances.
BTW - tubal pregnancy is doomed from the start so there is no point in that case. I had one and it blew out my falopian tube and almost killed me.
Who cares whether she supports abortion or not? The constitutional right to an abortion has already been settled. For over 40 years. Nothing President can do.
Watching the Republican debates, it occurred to me that many Conservatives have an ideologically inconsistent view on abortion.
They'll say they are pro-life, because the fetus is a human life that has Rights, and it didn't ask to be conceived and so therefore it shouldn't be punished just because it's unwanted or was an accident....
Ok, I get that. That's not to say that I completely agree with it, I'm just saying that I understand the logic...
Where it get's confusing, is where some Republicans will say they support abortion in cases of rape and incest, or even when the mothers life is in danger....
But how do you justify the distinction? What's changed? It's still a human life, according to you, an it's still innocent and should not be punished, right? It didn't ask to be conceived, and so it should not be punished or deprived of life just because it was conceived violently through rape, incest, or because it threatens the life of it's mother.
This position is inconsistent. It's either an innocent life deserving of protection regardless of the circumstances of it's conception, or it isn't.
Please explain.
Actually it's a good question WhipperSnapper. It's one I go back and forth with. It is the law and if we must have abortion then I can't agree with late term abortion.
Actually it's a good question WhipperSnapper. It's one I go back and forth with. It is the law and if we must have abortion then I can't agree with late term abortion.
In absolutely no case is late term abortion acceptable. With todays science advancement moms life would not be at steak. A C section might be needed when the baby is still very tiny, but that would be it. I do have one other time I support abortion: if the baby is so badly damaged there is no way of any kind of normal life and would probably die as soon as it was born.
In absolutely no case is late term abortion acceptable. With todays science advancement moms life would not be at steak. A C section might be needed when the baby is still very tiny, but that would be it. I do have one other time I support abortion: if the baby is so badly damaged there is no way of any kind of normal life and would probably die as soon as it was born.
Your post reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with a hospital social worker. She told me about a woman who learned that the baby she was carrying had some sort of genetic abnormality that guaranteed that it would be either be stillborn or it would die within a few hours of birth. She was advised to have an abortion, but chose to carry the child to term. She held him in her arms as he died. Later, she got pregnant again and unfortunately the second child had the same condition. After her experience with the first child, she oped for an abortion. She just couldn't put herself through all of that again. Given those circumstances, I can't see how anyone with a heart could condemn the mother for making that painful choice.
To me a baby in the womb is a life and should be afforded all the protections of life we outside the womb have. The only exception is if the Mother's life is in danger due to a risk to her life in carrying the baby to term so a choice between 2 lives...which that's about a one in million possibility.
So how did you arrive at the conclusion that the mothers life is more worthy of protecting than that of the unborn child's? How do you justify the distinction?
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-07-2015 at 04:21 PM..
. Yes, of course it is still a life, but there has to be
exceptions to any rule.
And each exception has to have a justification. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Quote:
A woman who could die from delivering a child should have the option as
to whether she wants to continue her pregnancy and maybe deliver a baby who
would have no mother. Which is better? A woman who is raped,or a young girl who
is part of an insestuous (spelling) act would be bringing a child into the world
without a loving mother. The reason this child was concieved is something the
mother would want to put behind her and may not be able to accept the outcome of
the relationship.
But who are you to play "God"....??? What gives you the authority to decide who lives and who dies? The unborn child is still innocent. It isn't the child's fault that the mothers life is at risk, or that it is the product of an incestuous relationship or a rape.
FYI, I'm an Atheist, and I am pro-choice. I'm just trying to understand the ideologically inconsistent view by some Conservatives that the life of an unborn child is sacrosanct, "except in certain cases" and how they justify the distinction in those exceptional cases.
In absolutely no case is late term abortion acceptable. With todays science advancement moms life would not be at steak. A C section might be needed when the baby is still very tiny, but that would be it. I do have one other time I support abortion: if the baby is so badly damaged there is no way of any kind of normal life and would probably die as soon as it was born.
you would think advance science would prevent maternal deaths in child birth, however in the US 800 women die every year in childbirth.
And each exception has to have a justification. That's what I'm trying to get at.
But who are you to play "God"....??? What gives you the authority to decide who lives and who dies? The unborn child is still innocent. It isn't the child's fault that the mothers life is at risk, or that it is the product of an incestuous relationship or a rape.
FYI, I'm an Atheist, and I am pro-choice. I'm just trying to understand the ideologically inconsistent view by some Conservatives that the life of an unborn child is sacrosanct, "except in certain cases" and how they justify the distinction in those exceptional cases.
from a pro choice perspective the only answers to these questions boil down to if the sex was consensual or not. if the woman enjoyed her sex then she must have the baby. it is more about control, punishment and judgment...unless a anti choicers can give a better explanation for the discrepancy.
I think this is tricky for those who believe that life begins at conception.
For many of us, it's when the baby moves out of the embryonic stage that makes the baby a human.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if the woman enjoyed her sex then she must have the baby. it is more about control, punishment and judgment...unless a anti choicers can give a better explanation for the discrepancy. 
