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.
Another honest answer. You get points for consistency.
Hope you or your daughter/sister/wife/mother/friend is never raped.
I would hope no ones' "daughter/sister/wife/mother/friend" is ever raped. Does it require additional expression to those whom are pro-life?
Personally, I suspect those spouses who are pro-life are more likely to stand beside their raped spouse and support them, especially if they were impregnated as a result. Does this bother you on some level that one might value lofe so much as to help their spouse through such a pregnancy?
When a rape occurs and a child is conceived why should its life be the one forfited while the woman raped and the rapist continue on with their lives? The one truely innocet life is the one extinguished, can you justify this logically?
The pregnancy resulting from a rape is a temporary condition, 9 months or less, and the child can be given up for adoption immediately upon birth. Is that temporary contidtion really justification for taking an innocent life? Really?
I don't really agree with abortion, but I disagree with the government telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. So I guess I'm pro-choice?
My argument is not about what is practical at all. We are talking about the lives of children who are born in less than stellar circumstances, and are not given the love, security, and comforts that children deserve/need to thrive. Ethics and philosophies may result in a baby carried to term, but don't necessarily result in a child having a tolerable life.
Okay, not 'practical'...'wordly', then.
Lots of kids are born in to 'less than stellar circumstances' and 'and are not given the love, security, and comforts that children deserve/need to thrive'. Are you saying it would've been better for them had they not been born at all? Isn't a 'tolerable' life defined pretty loosely? What would be tolerable in Zaire wouldn't likely be thought so here.
I would hope no ones' "daughter/sister/wife/mother/friend" is ever raped. Does it require additional expression to those whom are pro-life? Personally, I suspect those spouses who are pro-life are more likely to stand beside their raped spouse and support them, especially if they were impregnated as a result. Does this bother you on some level that one might value lofe so much as to help their spouse through such a pregnancy?
When a rape occurs and a child is conceived why should its life be the one forfited while the woman raped and the rapist continue on with their lives? The one truely innocet life is the one extinguished, can you justify this logically?
The pregnancy resulting from a rape is a temporary condition, 9 months or less, and the child can be given up for adoption immediately upon birth. Is that temporary contidtion really justification for taking an innocent life? Really?
Obviously, I don't wish rape upon anyone. But I would never force a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term.
Your "suspicions" regarding a pro-choice advocate v. a pro-life advocate's support of a rape survivor is as unsupported as your allegation in an earlier post that "some member" of Obama's cabinet thinks children can be killed until they're 5, or whatever that nonsense was.
I'm pro-choice, so I believe the decision to carry the child or not should be up to the woman carrying the child.
The OP's question was to the pro-life people who want to outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Reading really IS fundamental.
The logic that escapes you is that once a life is here, once a baby is born, nobody is suggesting that it's ok to end their life. You came up with that all by yourself. Sick.
But what's the difference between aborting a rape fetus or a drunken, unprotected sex on purpose fetus?
for the baby: there isn't a big difference
for the mother: if she "chooses" to get drunk and have sex then pregnancy is a possible consequence. Rape, on the other hand is not her fault, and she should not be held responsible.
Now, as far as the decision to abort: We should realize that the woman could have serious psychological issues if she carries a rape baby. We should respect her life too... as for the drunk girl, I have no sympathy
You're most certainly right on the first paragraph, but i think you didn't really answer me because you had nothing substantial to say about it.
On the second paragraph...no thanks. I don't owe anyone (besides the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker) anything. You implied that i'm paying some sort of price for women getting abortions. Well, i'm the one who determines whether or not i've paid a price for anything...not you. And so far, i can't see where i've paid ANY price for the right of women to have an abortion.
If you've paid a price, then that's your business. But that has nothing to do with the rest of us.
All you've said here is that you refuse to educate yourself. I'm not your personal researcher. What I am, though, is an educated individual who has read quite a bit on the subject. There's plenty of material out there at your fingertips. Read up. Inform yourself.
People who refuse to educate themselves and engage in personal responsibility are the very reason we're having this discussion. The fact that you refuse to educate yourself speaks volumes about you.
There is murder (killing without cause) and there is justifiable homicide. They are different.
Justifiable homicide, which is a well established legal principle, has different interpretations in different circumstances. For instance, when someone is killed in self-defense (the life of the mother) or when it serves a greater good (legal executions or when a baby is born which will produce life-long emotional trauma for the Mother or even result in physical or mental defects in the baby itself).
Perhaps that's the distinction they make, even if they don't verbalize it that way.
In any case, one should never confuse murder, which is killing without justification, with killing for a good reason.
Nope, this isn't an answer either....WHO decides just what the "greater good " is?
You? The courts? A coven of anti-choicers??
Anti-choicers canNOT think that taking a "life" is wrong but exceptions can be made....NOPE, if it's morally wrong to them, the laws shouldn't let them off the hook....
for the baby: there isn't a big difference
for the mother: if she "chooses" to get drunk and have sex then pregnancy is a possible consequence. Rape, on the other hand is not her fault, and she should not be held responsible.
Now, as far as the decision to abort: We should realize that the woman could have serious psychological issues if she carries a rape baby. We should respect her life too... as for the drunk girl, I have no sympathy
Yes, as stated in the quote above, with Anti-Choicers it IS all about controlling and punishing women.....it has NOTHING to do with the fetus/baby/morals.
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.
