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.
The vast, vast majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are not the result of rape. I've already given the link to info about abortion so I won't repeat myself by providing it again (and I doubt you'd read it anyway).
Also, not sure if you're aware of this, but many pro life proponents are willing to accept legalized abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being in danger. Some (like myself) would even take it further and be in favor of legal abortion in the case of a young girl under the age of 15 or so. I'm open to discussion on that.
It's true that most abortions aren't due to rape, but it is not right to deny rape victims abortions anyway if abortion were to become illegal again. It's inhumane to take that choice away, IMO, when that rape victim already had her choice taken away from her once and something has already been forced on her against her will. It's re-victimizing her.
How would this be proven and regulated? Many don't report rapes out of fear or for other reasons. If a woman was raped and didn't file a report (happens all the time), then winds up pregnant, what is she to do? Go to a clinic and say "I was raped," and the staff is just to believe her? Ideally, yes, they should, because so many don't report rapes, but the problem is this could easily be abused and that would defeat the purpose of the exception. Same with the incest argument.
It's quite simple. If one doesn't believe in abortion and believes in the right to life, then they can continue with their pregnancies, unwanted or not, accident or not, rape or incest or not, and live their lives as they choose. If another person does believe in abortion, they can have one. One's actions do not directly affect the other's, either way. If I hypothetically had an abortion, it would not affect any of you posters. If I thought abortions in all cases are horrible and never have one, it also would not affect any of you posters.
I don't like the idea that some people use abortion as birth control and some people wind up pregnant at inconvenient times and have an abortion. I don't think it's right. But it's not my problem. I'm allowed to think it's morally wrong but still be pro-choice. Why? Because there are women who are raped, have babies with fatal deformities or conditions, or who have medical problems themselves that, with a pregnancy, can be very dangerous or fatal. To end abortion would mean we deny the choice from all those women. And no, there would be no real way to distinguish and say, "well, abortions should only be allowed for rape victims," for example. Then we'd have a rash of people wanting abortions claiming they were raped when it's untrue, so they could get an abortion. It's just not possible.
This is exactly right.
Either abortion is legal for all, or is not. In all cases, the outcome is the same.
The fact that it's ok to allow it for some women and not others, depending on how they got pregnant - is to make a moral judgment on the pregnant woman that has nothing at all to do with the supposed rights of the fetus.
It's quite simple. If one doesn't believe in abortion and believes in the right to life, then they can continue with their pregnancies, unwanted or not, accident or not, rape or incest or not, and live their lives as they choose. If another person does believe in abortion, they can have one. One's actions do not directly affect the other's, either way. If I hypothetically had an abortion, it would not affect any of you posters. If I thought abortions in all cases are horrible and never have one, it also would not affect any of you posters.
I don't like the idea that some people use abortion as birth control and some people wind up pregnant at inconvenient times and have an abortion. I don't think it's right. But it's not my problem. I'm allowed to think it's morally wrong but still be pro-choice. Why? Because there are women who are raped, have babies with fatal deformities or conditions, or who have medical problems themselves that, with a pregnancy, can be very dangerous or fatal. To end abortion would mean we deny the choice from all those women. And no, there would be no real way to distinguish and say, "well, abortions should only be allowed for rape victims," for example. Then we'd have a rash of people wanting abortions claiming they were raped when it's untrue, so they could get an abortion. It's just not possible.
Now see - this is an honest response and you're someone I feel I could have a rational discussion with. Thanks for your tone and for your honesty.
Do you think there is a middle ground where we could meet? Perhaps legalizing abortions for a variety of reasons (rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother, malformed fetus, that sort of thing)?
I'm not opposed to ALL abortion and I think that I am joined by many people who are pro life in this regard.
The thing is, and this is what's so heartbreaking to so many people who are pro life, when one believes that human life begins at conception, then every aborted fetus is a human life destroyed. Now - as a society, is this destruction sometimes necessary for the wellbeing of others? Sadly - yes. Should it ever be treated casually or should any government - protected (and sometimes sponsored) death be something we just ignore or pretend isn't happening?
See, I am consistent. I believe that the death penalty is so open to abuse and discrimination that I don't feel comfortable allowing our government (as it is at present) administering it. Same with wars - sometimes wars are unfortunately necessary but I doubt they're as necessary as governments make them out to be. Same with abortion - since I do consider every aborted fetus to be a person who is murdered, I do expect more protection to be offered these most vulnerable US citizens - not LESS.
I'm being honest and trying to honestly get this point across to people - there has been absolutely zero proof offered on this forum or by science, that a human fetus is not fully human. In fact the law seems to be so capricious - the fetus IS a person if the parent(s) want it to be, and it isn't if the parent(s) don't want it to be. Cause a miscarriage? You can be charged with manslaughter. Your unborn fetus has inheritance rights. A mother can be charged with child abuse by taking drugs before delivery. And yet, just change the desires of the parents, and these same babies can be aborted and their bodies thrown into an incinerator with the rest of the trash.
Studies also show that conservatives give to their churches, the schools their children attend, the symphony, the ballet... organizations that they receive direct benefit from.
Less than 20% of church donations go to charitable works. The rest goes to pastor and staff salaries, buildings, church activities, etc. The donations for charitable works are often to their own members.
The great majority of funding for Catholic Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, etc. is government funding, not charitable giving from church members.
The Salvation Army is a notable exception. Samaritan's Purse I believe also fits in this category.
It's true that most abortions aren't due to rape, but it is not right to deny rape victims abortions anyway if abortion were to become illegal again. It's inhumane to take that choice away, IMO, when that rape victim already had her choice taken away from her once and something has already been forced on her against her will. It's re-victimizing her.
How would this be proven and regulated? Many don't report rapes out of fear or for other reasons. If a woman was raped and didn't file a report (happens all the time), then winds up pregnant, what is she to do? Go to a clinic and say "I was raped," and the staff is just to believe her? Ideally, yes, they should, because so many don't report rapes, but the problem is this could easily be abused and that would defeat the purpose of the exception. Same with the incest argument.
Not only that, but in those case the state is making a value judgment on which fetuses are protected, based on the circumstance of their conception.
Women should to make the decision whether they want to carry a pregnancy to term or not, regardless of the circumstances of conception. It's irrelevant AFAIC.
It's true that most abortions aren't due to rape, but it is not right to deny rape victims abortions anyway if abortion were to become illegal again. It's inhumane to take that choice away, IMO, when that rape victim already had her choice taken away from her once and something has already been forced on her against her will. It's re-victimizing her.
How would this be proven and regulated? Many don't report rapes out of fear or for other reasons. If a woman was raped and didn't file a report (happens all the time), then winds up pregnant, what is she to do? Go to a clinic and say "I was raped," and the staff is just to believe her? Ideally, yes, they should, because so many don't report rapes, but the problem is this could easily be abused and that would defeat the purpose of the exception. Same with the incest argument.
I believe that we can reach a good middle ground and I for one would never advocate for all abortions to be illegal. Not ever. I find that idea to be abhorrent as well.
Sure laws restricting abortions to some certain conditions would be abused but it would be a start. The other alternative is simply no controls whatsoever, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being thrown away, most NOT due to rape, incest, danger to the mother, etc.
It's horrific. It's a holocaust and it's sanctioned by our government. That's the honest opinion of many pro life proponents. Our position doesn't stem from hate. It doesn't stem from restricting the rights of women, or wanting women to be mistreated or punished. It stems directly from our sincere belief that human life begins at conception. So can you imagine our ongoing horror at this situation?
I want people to quit demonizing the other side. It doesn't help anything or anyone.
Studies also show that conservatives give to their churches, the schools their children attend, the symphony, the ballet... organizations that they receive direct benefit from.
Less than 20% of church donations go to charitable works. The rest goes to pastor and staff salaries, buildings, church activities, etc. The donations for charitable works are often to their own members.
The great majority of funding for Catholic Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, etc. is government funding, not charitable giving from church members.
The Salvation Army is a notable exception. Samaritan's Purse I believe also fits in this category.
households that contribute to religious organizations tend to give more, both in dollars per donation and in percentage of income donated. In both cases, households that give to religious organizations donate about twice as much as households that give to secular organizations.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
By the same token, you have no right to force people who sincerely believe that abortion is murder to fund your abortion or anyone elses.
Its high time this conversation is removed from the national agenda and people who want to have abortions or support the right of others to have abortions fund them.
Not like there is no precedence for this.
We don't force conscientious objectors to participate in war. Should be the same principle imo.
But we don't give them a pass on the taxes that fund those wars either.
Now see - this is an honest response and you're someone I feel I could have a rational discussion with. Thanks for your tone and for your honesty.
Do you think there is a middle ground where we could meet? Perhaps legalizing abortions for a variety of reasons (rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother, malformed fetus, that sort of thing)?
I'm not opposed to ALL abortion and I think that I am joined by many people who are pro life in this regard.
The thing is, and this is what's so heartbreaking to so many people who are pro life, when one believes that human life begins at conception, then every aborted fetus is a human life destroyed. Now - as a society, is this destruction sometimes necessary for the wellbeing of others? Sadly - yes. Should it ever be treated casually or should any government - protected (and sometimes sponsored) death be something we just ignore or pretend isn't happening?
See, I am consistent. I believe that the death penalty is so open to abuse and discrimination that I don't feel comfortable allowing our government (as it is at present) administering it. Same with wars - sometimes wars are unfortunately necessary but I doubt they're as necessary as governments make them out to be. Same with abortion - since I do consider every aborted fetus to be a person who is murdered, I do expect more protection to be offered these most vulnerable US citizens - not LESS.
I'm being honest and trying to honestly get this point across to people - there has been absolutely zero proof offered on this forum or by science, that a human fetus is not fully human. In fact the law seems to be so capricious - the fetus IS a person if the parent(s) want it to be, and it isn't if the parent(s) don't want it to be. Cause a miscarriage? You can be charged with manslaughter. Your unborn fetus has inheritance rights. A mother can be charged with child abuse by taking drugs before delivery. And yet, just change the desires of the parents, and these same babies can be aborted and their bodies thrown into an incinerator with the rest of the trash.
It's so inconsistent.
No, you are inconsistent. The aborted fetuses of rape victims go into the incinerator too. If you believe fetuses are "fully human" then those fetuses are too.
If you believe embryos are fully human, then you've got hundreds and thousands of those sitting in pergatory in freezers, that are likely going to be tossed.
People like to call themselves "pro-life". But the truth is they are pro-taking choice away from women and imposing their beliefs (usually religious) and values on them.
It's absolute BS control freak speak.
Just like the missionaries who go invading areas to 'convert' people. Religious people seem to have a huge need to make others think like they do.
And if these BS pro-lifers cared about lives, they would be helping to take care of unwanted babies after they are born. Do not see that happening. They love life, but are for capital punishment and god help you if you don't think like they do--then they don't care much about 'life.'
They care about 'innocent children' unless they happen to be refugees of war.
They don't care about protecting 'life.' They care about controlling others. This is total crap.
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.
