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.
All rhetoric aside about "spare tires" and other nonsense...will abortion change anything? Is it the child's fault that daddy was a scumbag?
Morals and emotional trauma aside, in the case of rape you are forcing responsibility of the child on the woman alone. It's not as though there is going to be shared-custody, or child support.
Morals and emotional trauma aside, in the case of rape you are forcing responsibility of the child on the woman alone. It's not as though there is going to be shared-custody, or child support.
The article isn't very clear. Republicans want to remove abortion coverage from what? Medicaid? If that's the case they are absolutely right. The taxpayer ought not to be forced to pay for abortions, period.
The debate described in this article was in the Kansas legislature. Where they have passed restriction on private insurers offering coverage to women that would include abortion.
It's worth noting that the pro-life contingent has no problems with urging women to carry guns and to KILL their attackers, which is such a pro-LIFE position, isn't it?
It's worth noting that the pro-life contingent has no problems with urging women to carry guns and to KILL their attackers, which is such a pro-LIFE position, isn't it?
How is it not? We're the ones advocating that only people doing bad things get harmed. We don't argue for the killing of innocents.
How is it not? We're the ones advocating that only people doing bad things get harmed. We don't argue for the killing of innocents.
Let me count the ways.
First of all, you are advocating that they be killed before committing rape, without benefit of due process. And if the law simply existed this way, I think many men would be complaining. It's not she said-he said in those situation, it's she said-he's dead in the scenario you're advocating. That doesn't work out very well for the men in our society.
Secondly, one of the foundational pro-life arguments is that ALL life is sacred. Clearly, that argument is false. It's not ALL life that is sacred, many pro-lifers have little respect for the lives of women, so the argument is really not that ALL life is sacred, just the potential lives of the unborn is sacred. Once they're born, not so sacred anymore. It's not like they NEED social programs to ensure their well-being. Right?
Thirdly, it opens the whole judgment of women can of worms. Pro-lifers are essentially arguing that the women cannot be trusted to make the judgments for themselves about their own lives and bodies, women who have abortions are immoral, stupid or irresponsible. That's the crux of the pro-life movement. But evidently, women can be trusted to carry guns and to shoot down potential rapists. How's that work, exactly?
Actually, abortion is the better option, not only in my opinion, but according to statistics as well. Stop calling an embryo a child - it just alerts everyone to what an extremist position you hold about a woman's right to control her own body.
First of all, you are advocating that they be killed before committing rape, without benefit of due process. And if the law simply existed this way, I think many men would be complaining. It's not she said-he said in those situation, it's she said-he's dead in the scenario you're advocating. That doesn't work out very well for the men in our society.
Secondly, one of the foundational pro-life arguments is that ALL life is sacred. Clearly, that argument is false. It's not ALL life that is sacred, many pro-lifers have little respect for the lives of women, so the argument is really not that ALL life is sacred, just the potential lives of the unborn is sacred. Once they're born, not so sacred anymore. It's not like they NEED social programs to ensure their well-being. Right?
Thirdly, it opens the whole judgment of women can of worms. Pro-lifers are essentially arguing that the women cannot be trusted to make the judgments for themselves about their own lives and bodies, women who have abortions are immoral, stupid or irresponsible. That's the crux of the pro-life movement. But evidently, women can be trusted to carry guns and to shoot down potential rapists. How's that work, exactly?
Killing a man who attempts a rape is self defense and justifiable homicide. That man gets all the process he is due.
Your second arument compares apples and oranges. To say that pro life people have little respect for women is preposterous. I'd say the obverse is true. Since 1973 over 50 million babies have been aborted. Half of those were likely little girls. So pro-aborts killed roughly 25 million girls. Where's the respect in that? And I don't know of any social program that discriminates against women.
As to your third argument, it works this way. Women have an absolute right to make judgments affecting their lives and their bodies. But when that judgment affects the life of another person then it is not unlimited. Think of it this way. A smoker has an absolute right to poison his own body. But that right ends when it affects another person. So here in Maine a person cannot smoke in a car that is carrying children because the second hand smoke is deemed harmful to the children. The same principle applies to abortion.
Killing a man who attempts a rape is self defense and justifiable homicide. That man gets all the process he is due.
Your second arument compares apples and oranges. To say that pro life people have little respect for women is preposterous. I'd say the obverse is true. Since 1973 over 50 million babies have been aborted. Half of those were likely little girls. So pro-aborts killed roughly 25 million girls. Where's the respect in that? And I don't know of any social program that discriminates against women.
As to your third argument, it works this way. Women have an absolute right to make judgments affecting their lives and their bodies. But when that judgment affects the life of another person then it is not unlimited. Think of it this way. A smoker has an absolute right to poison his own body. But that right ends when it affects another person. So here in Maine a person cannot smoke in a car that is carrying children because the second hand smoke is deemed harmful to the children. The same principle applies to abortion.
The entire argument of pro-life advocates is that the women who get abortions are 1. STUPID, 2. IRRESPONSIBLE, or 3. IMMORAL. The presumption that millions of women fall into these three categories would be the epitome of disrespect. And there are NO pro-life arguments that don't argue these things. EVERY pro-life argument rests on one or more of these premises.
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.
