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.
What comment did I make that would be considered "silly"? What comment did I make that would suggest that I am on a "sanctimony soap box"? Please do not start about some stereotypes about conservatives this or pro-lifers that ... I'm asking about MY comments here.
Chatteress... I dont feel like having this argument... we feel differently about it. All right?
The INTENT and the REASON behind the abortion is different. What don't you understand?
Yes, they are very different. Ronald Reagan was one of the first governors to sign an abortion law: reason for abortion was limited to rape, incest, a girl under 14 or the mothers health or life was at risk. Any idea how quickly the pro choice people found the loop hole? Mothers health, which to them meant mental as well as physical and we all know what happened after that..
Different actions that resulted in the pregnancy - which notably, you are refusing to acknowledge
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyG
The INTENT and the REASON behind the abortion is different. What don't you understand?
Yes , different actions resulted in the pregnancy...but ALL abortions are the same, they produce the SAME results.
A. Anti-choice people have said they're against abortion because it's cruel to the fetus and kills a baby.
B. Abortion does EXACTLY the same thing whether the mother has been raped or the sex was consensual.
C. Therefore IF anti-choice people use "A" as a reason then they HAVE to be against abortion in the case of rape or incest.
IF they make an exception in the case of rape or incest then they are NOT as worried about the "baby" as they say but are worried about the morals of the pregnant woman which is non of their business..
Yes , different actions resulted in the pregnancy...but ALL abortions are the same, they produce the SAME results.
A. Anti-choice people have said they're against abortion because it's cruel to the fetus and kills a baby.
B. Abortion does EXACTLY the same thing whether the mother has been raped or the sex was consensual.
C. Therefore IF anti-choice people use "A" as a reason then they HAVE to be against abortion in the case of rape or incest.
IF they make an exception in the case of rape or incest then they are NOT as worried about the "baby" as they say but are worried about the morals of the pregnant woman which is non of their business..
You are not alone. I understand what you are saying. If abortion is murder, but it is ok in the case of rape, I wonder if it is ok to kill the baby after it is born, if it was the result of a rape. It would follow the logic, right?
Yes, they are very different. Ronald Reagan was one of the first governors to sign an abortion law: reason for abortion was limited to rape, incest, a girl under 14 or the mothers health or life was at risk. Any idea how quickly the pro choice people found the loop hole? Mothers health, which to them meant mental as well as physical and we all know what happened after that..
Nita
I have worked with psychiatric patients, and seeing how quickly people deteriorate off their anti-psychotic medications (many of which are contraindicated during pregnancy) is no joke. They very quickly become a danger to themselves, and I have seen infanticide committed by these patients shortly after they give birth. Not sure if that's the loop hole you are talking about.
IF they make an exception in the case of rape or incest then they are NOT as worried about the "baby" as they say but are worried about the morals of the pregnant woman which is non of their business..
Yes - they are as worried.
Same when it deals with the life of the mother -
When I was in the position of deciding to abort our child and save my wife or, keep my wife on life supports until our baby could be born but lose my wife - it was the hardest decision. Same with those deciding to abort a child that is as a result of rape/incest (although incest tends to be easier because of the genetic issues).
When I was in the position of deciding to abort our child and save my wife or, keep my wife on life supports until our baby could be born but lose my wife - it was the hardest decision. Same with those deciding to abort a child that is as a result of rape/incest (although incest tends to be easier because of the genetic issues).
I doubt those are the same. Yours is worse! My sympathies, whichever route you went.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,018,776 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkb0305
You are not alone. I understand what you are saying. If abortion is murder, but it is ok in the case of rape, I wonder if it is ok to kill the baby after it is born, if it was the result of a rape. It would follow the logic, right?
Let me clarify from a pro-life standpoint. All abortion is killing an innocent unborn baby or fetus regardless of how the woman became pregnant. Just because I'm arguing for an exception in rape cases does not mean that I personally condone abortion under that circumstances. I, as well as other pro-lifers, recognize that many rape victims cannot handle carrying their rapist's child. To force a woman to continue the pregnancy against her will would be cruel punishment for an act that she had no control over. This is one of those gray areas in the whole abortion debate but this is where I stand on the issue. Take it or leave it.
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.
It would follow the logic, right?
My sympathies, whichever route you went. 
