I like your First "easy question" better than your "new and improved" Second question! And, I truly thought that my answer was very honest and straightforward. But, I will try to answer your new question and I will try to be as honest and straightforward as I can.
Even if ALL abortions were banned, period, I would not feel disgusted or miserable or feel like my life has been disrupted. I truly, sincerely believe that women who are determined to end their pregnancies would STILL find a way to end their pregnancies. I think that, unlike decades ago, illegal abortions would probably not be as "dangerous" or "harmful" to most women as they once were. I think that "Pro-Choice" women, family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and others would be more willing today, than they were in past decades, to secretly "help" a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy, even though it would be illegal for them to do so.
Now, if abortions were legal for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", then I think it would be even EASIER for a woman to have a "safe" abortion even if her situation did not fall into one of those categories. Some Pro-Lifers oppose these or any "exceptions" because they believe it would be a big "loophole", and that women would "use" these reasons to get an abortion when, in fact, they wanted the abortion for a different reason. I certainly don't blame Pro-Lifers for thinking of these "exceptions" as "loopholes". I'm sure that would often be the case. A movie starring Sissy Spacek, based on a true story that took place in the 1960s ("A Private Matter"), implies that doctors working in hospitals often performed abortions "in secret" and used the very few "loopholes" available back then to "get away with it" if found out. Anyway, I did not intend for this post to be so long! Sooooo, to answer your new question:
If all 50 states banned abortions, but made exceptions for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", I would not only NOT have a problem with that, I'm sure that I would no longer "debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason". I would be relieved to know that in no state were legislators and judges working hard to outlaw abortions for women who are raped or for women who have been told by their doctors that their health is in danger if they continue a pregnancy. Yes, I know that some "Pro-Choicers" would not "settle" for such a law, and that some "Pro-Lifers" would never be happy with such a law. But, I would hope that the vast majority of Americans would "accept" such a law, and I would hope that much, if not most, of the divisiveness over the abortion issue in this country would end. Wouldn't that be great?
Fair Enough. I have no desire to debate the rape issue with a person who's admently pro-choice. Its a waste of time. Perhaps you're diffrent.
As it relates to rape and incest I don't see what crime the unborn comitted so aborting them in those situations is uneccessary. The last I check, about 90,000 women are raped each year and about 600 women die a year from complications of pregnancy. So, if we started to see more women getting prengant from rape than who are being reported for rape that would be a problem.
However, if the pro-choicers were to agree to restrict abortion to the reasons I mentioned above then I would be willing to forgo the debate. I wouldn't bother with it anymore and leave any further discussion to the next generation. If someone where to ask me if I would sacrafice the lives of 10,000 people to save the lives of 110,000 people I would answer yes. If somone then accused me of hyprocacy I would simply say, "I just savied 100,000 lives... how many have you saved? If saving the lives of 100,000 peole makes me a hypocrit then I'm proud to be one." If abortion were restricted in such a fashion, I believe it would save 1 million lives a year.
Now that I think about it, with abortion, it wouldn't even be a sacrafice. 110,000 people are going to die and I have an opportunity to keep 100,000 of them from dying... so yeah, I'd take that deal.
Your reponse gives me hope that some day, one day, the bitter and devisive debate on the issue of abortion will, if not end entirely, at least become Much Less bitter and devisive. If you (and other Pro-Lifers) are open to compromise, and if I (and other Pro-Choicers) are open to compromise, I think that is very encouraging, a Very Good Thing, and Very Good News! Now, yes, there will always be some Pro-Choicers and some Pro-Lifers who will always say, "There can be No Compromise on the issue of abortion!" I would say to them, "Hello! Look at where your 'No Compromise' position has gotten us after almost 40 years!" Sure, I understand that there ARE some issues and causes in which one should never "compromise", but it seems to me that to NOT be willing to compromise somewhat on the issue of abortion means NO ONE will ever be satisfied ANYWAY. And, I agree with you that it is NOT "hypocrisy" to say "My 'compromise' saved many, many lives! How many lives did your 'No Compromise' save?" And, as for "leaving any further discussion to the next generation", wouldn't it be great if our grandchildren and great-grandchildren lived in a country in which this issue was "important", but NOT bitter and divisive, thanks to the parents and grandparents who were willing to compromise! And, who knows, maybe one day soon Medicine, Science, and Technology will make preventing pregnancy much, much easier and foolproof. When there are NO unwanted pregnancies, there are (almost) NO abortions (except in the tragic cases in which a "wanted" pregnancy may need to be terminated for tragic reasons). I certainly would like to think and hope that in the near future the abortion issue will be a very minor issue BECAUSE unwanted pregnancies will be extremely rare.
Anyway, my post, as usual, is longer than I had planned it to be. I guess I mainly wanted to say, "Yeah, I'd take that deal", too. It may seem, from reading the posts on these boards, that few would "join us" in that deal, but, outside these boards, I bet many people on both sides of the issue would at least give "that deal" some serious thought!
I like your First "easy question" better than your "new and improved" Second question! And, I truly thought that my answer was very honest and straightforward. But, I will try to answer your new question and I will try to be as honest and straightforward as I can.
Even if ALL abortions were banned, period, I would not feel disgusted or miserable or feel like my life has been disrupted. I truly, sincerely believe that women who are determined to end their pregnancies would STILL find a way to end their pregnancies. I think that, unlike decades ago, illegal abortions would probably not be as "dangerous" or "harmful" to most women as they once were. I think that "Pro-Choice" women, family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and others would be more willing today, than they were in past decades, to secretly "help" a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy, even though it would be illegal for them to do so.
Now, if abortions were legal for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", then I think it would be even EASIER for a woman to have a "safe" abortion even if her situation did not fall into one of those categories. Some Pro-Lifers oppose these or any "exceptions" because they believe it would be a big "loophole", and that women would "use" these reasons to get an abortion when, in fact, they wanted the abortion for a different reason. I certainly don't blame Pro-Lifers for thinking of these "exceptions" as "loopholes". I'm sure that would often be the case. A movie starring Sissy Spacek, based on a true story that took place in the 1960s ("A Private Matter"), implies that doctors working in hospitals often performed abortions "in secret" and used the very few "loopholes" available back then to "get away with it" if found out. Anyway, I did not intend for this post to be so long! Sooooo, to answer your new question:
If all 50 states banned abortions, but made exceptions for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", I would not only NOT have a problem with that, I'm sure that I would no longer "debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason". I would be relieved to know that in no state were legislators and judges working hard to outlaw abortions for women who are raped or for women who have been told by their doctors that their health is in danger if they continue a pregnancy. Yes, I know that some "Pro-Choicers" would not "settle" for such a law, and that some "Pro-Lifers" would never be happy with such a law. But, I would hope that the vast majority of Americans would "accept" such a law, and I would hope that much, if not most, of the divisiveness over the abortion issue in this country would end. Wouldn't that be great?
Fair Enough. I have no desire to debate the rape issue with a person who's admently pro-choice. Its a waste of time. Perhaps you're diffrent.
As it relates to rape and incest I don't see what crime the unborn comitted so aborting them in those situations is uneccessary. The last I check, about 90,000 women are raped each year and about 600 women die a year from complications of pregnancy. So, if we started to see more women getting prengant from rape than who are being reported for rape that would be a problem.
However, if the pro-choicers were to agree to restrict abortion to the reasons I mentioned above then I would be willing to forgo the debate. I wouldn't bother with it anymore and leave any further discussion to the next generation. If someone where to ask me if I would sacrafice the lives of 10,000 people to save the lives of 110,000 people I would answer yes. If somone then accused me of hyprocacy I would simply say, "I just savied 100,000 lives... how many have you saved? If saving the lives of 100,000 peole makes me a hypocrit then I'm proud to be one." If abortion were restricted in such a fashion, I believe it would save 1 million lives a year.
Now that I think about it, with abortion, it wouldn't even be a sacrafice. 110,000 people are going to die and I have an opportunity to keep 100,000 of them from dying... so yeah, I'd take that deal.
A culture that kills it's children dooms itself to extinction.
Why don't pro choice advocates exercise their right to choose NOT to get pregnant? Why do they demand the right to be irresponsible rather than recognize their obligation to behave responsibly?
If they are not for abortion, why are they fighting for the right to have one or twelve?
If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? She had no "choice" in getting pregnant. She was not "irresponsible". Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?" I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protect" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?
If every abortion was from a woman who was raped there would be about 100k of them, tops, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Just because abortion may be justified in one area does not mean it should be justified in every area. I refuse to get myself caught up and side tracked in a discussion about rape, inscest, and life of the mother abortions because by my calculations they make up less than 10% of all abortions. This debate is about "abortion on demand" or "abortion for any reason you feel". Until those kinds of abortions are elminated, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
The women who become pregnant as a result of rape, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion" when state legislators choose to make it their priority to pass laws that would outlaw abortion Even In Cases Of Rape. Women and girls who become pregnant as a result of incest, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion". Women who were HAPPY to be pregnant, told their friends and family, decorated the nursery, picked out names for the baby, and then one day heard those dreaded words from their doctor, "I'm afraid there is something terribly wrong with your pregnancy", ARE "caught up in the discussion", when politicians, clergymen, and other total strangers want to tell the woman that her fate has been decided by them and that terminating the pregnancy is not her decision to make, even if she, her husband, her doctor, and her pastor believe it's necessary for her health. Until outlawing THESE kinds of abortions is "Off The Table" with Every Pro-Life legislator, judge, and organization, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
So, easy question. If abortion were restricted to life of the mother cases and other related health situations, rape, incest, and child deformity, disease or related health issues, would you have a problem with that?
In another post, "watcher59" called me out for being rude and disrespectful, and I promised that I would sincerely try to be polite and cordial in future posts. I think the best way for me to do that is to keep my posts as short as possible!
Sooooooo, to answer your "easy question": No, I would NOT have a problem if legal abortions were limited to "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, or related health issues." Now, I personally would PREFER that Roe v. Wade not be overturned. I think that ruling is more consistent with Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Personal Responsibility. But, again, NO, I would NOT have a problem with your "scenario" and, YES, I could live with that.
(If this post was disrespectful in any way, I apologize in advance!)
Aparently I have failed to articulate my question accurately. The reason I beleve this is because, according to what I meant with my question, you gave a contradictory answer.
When I wrote, "would you have a problem with that" I did not say that to mean would it cause you great harm, be disgusting to you, make you miserable, or disrupte your life or something of that nature. What I meant was, if abortion were restricted in that way would you continue to debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason the way it is now via Roe vs Wade.
I woud propose that if you were in favor of Roe Vs Wade turing out the way it did, you would have a "problem" with those kinds of restrictions because you would believe we were less free of a people with those restrictions.
I like your First "easy question" better than your "new and improved" Second question! And, I truly thought that my answer was very honest and straightforward. But, I will try to answer your new question and I will try to be as honest and straightforward as I can.
Even if ALL abortions were banned, period, I would not feel disgusted or miserable or feel like my life has been disrupted. I truly, sincerely believe that women who are determined to end their pregnancies would STILL find a way to end their pregnancies. I think that, unlike decades ago, illegal abortions would probably not be as "dangerous" or "harmful" to most women as they once were. I think that "Pro-Choice" women, family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and others would be more willing today, than they were in past decades, to secretly "help" a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy, even though it would be illegal for them to do so.
Now, if abortions were legal for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", then I think it would be even EASIER for a woman to have a "safe" abortion even if her situation did not fall into one of those categories. Some Pro-Lifers oppose these or any "exceptions" because they believe it would be a big "loophole", and that women would "use" these reasons to get an abortion when, in fact, they wanted the abortion for a different reason. I certainly don't blame Pro-Lifers for thinking of these "exceptions" as "loopholes". I'm sure that would often be the case. A movie starring Sissy Spacek, based on a true story that took place in the 1960s ("A Private Matter"), implies that doctors working in hospitals often performed abortions "in secret" and used the very few "loopholes" available back then to "get away with it" if found out. Anyway, I did not intend for this post to be so long! Sooooo, to answer your new question:
If all 50 states banned abortions, but made exceptions for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", I would not only NOT have a problem with that, I'm sure that I would no longer "debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason". I would be relieved to know that in no state were legislators and judges working hard to outlaw abortions for women who are raped or for women who have been told by their doctors that their health is in danger if they continue a pregnancy. Yes, I know that some "Pro-Choicers" would not "settle" for such a law, and that some "Pro-Lifers" would never be happy with such a law. But, I would hope that the vast majority of Americans would "accept" such a law, and I would hope that much, if not most, of the divisiveness over the abortion issue in this country would end. Wouldn't that be great?
A culture that kills it's children dooms itself to extinction.
Why don't pro choice advocates exercise their right to choose NOT to get pregnant? Why do they demand the right to be irresponsible rather than recognize their obligation to behave responsibly?
If they are not for abortion, why are they fighting for the right to have one or twelve?
If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? She had no "choice" in getting pregnant. She was not "irresponsible". Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?" I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protect" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?
If every abortion was from a woman who was raped there would be about 100k of them, tops, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Just because abortion may be justified in one area does not mean it should be justified in every area. I refuse to get myself caught up and side tracked in a discussion about rape, inscest, and life of the mother abortions because by my calculations they make up less than 10% of all abortions. This debate is about "abortion on demand" or "abortion for any reason you feel". Until those kinds of abortions are elminated, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
The women who become pregnant as a result of rape, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion" when state legislators choose to make it their priority to pass laws that would outlaw abortion Even In Cases Of Rape. Women and girls who become pregnant as a result of incest, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion". Women who were HAPPY to be pregnant, told their friends and family, decorated the nursery, picked out names for the baby, and then one day heard those dreaded words from their doctor, "I'm afraid there is something terribly wrong with your pregnancy", ARE "caught up in the discussion", when politicians, clergymen, and other total strangers want to tell the woman that her fate has been decided by them and that terminating the pregnancy is not her decision to make, even if she, her husband, her doctor, and her pastor believe it's necessary for her health. Until outlawing THESE kinds of abortions is "Off The Table" with Every Pro-Life legislator, judge, and organization, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
So, easy question. If abortion were restricted to life of the mother cases and other related health situations, rape, incest, and child deformity, disease or related health issues, would you have a problem with that?
In another post, "watcher59" called me out for being rude and disrespectful, and I promised that I would sincerely try to be polite and cordial in future posts. I think the best way for me to do that is to keep my posts as short as possible!
Sooooooo, to answer your "easy question": No, I would NOT have a problem if legal abortions were limited to "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, or related health issues." Now, I personally would PREFER that Roe v. Wade not be overturned. I think that ruling is more consistent with Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Personal Responsibility. But, again, NO, I would NOT have a problem with your "scenario" and, YES, I could live with that.
(If this post was disrespectful in any way, I apologize in advance!)
Aparently I have failed to articulate my question accurately. The reason I beleve this is because, according to what I meant with my question, you gave a contradictory answer.
When I wrote, "would you have a problem with that" I did not say that to mean would it cause you great harm, be disgusting to you, make you miserable, or disrupte your life or something of that nature. What I meant was, if abortion were restricted in that way would you continue to debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason the way it is now via Roe vs Wade.
I woud propose that if you were in favor of Roe Vs Wade turing out the way it did, you would have a "problem" with those kinds of restrictions because you would believe we were less free of a people with those restrictions.
A culture that kills it's children dooms itself to extinction.
Why don't pro choice advocates exercise their right to choose NOT to get pregnant? Why do they demand the right to be irresponsible rather than recognize their obligation to behave responsibly?
If they are not for abortion, why are they fighting for the right to have one or twelve?
If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? She had no "choice" in getting pregnant. She was not "irresponsible". Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?" I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protect" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?
If every abortion was from a woman who was raped there would be about 100k of them, tops, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Just because abortion may be justified in one area does not mean it should be justified in every area. I refuse to get myself caught up and side tracked in a discussion about rape, inscest, and life of the mother abortions because by my calculations they make up less than 10% of all abortions. This debate is about "abortion on demand" or "abortion for any reason you feel". Until those kinds of abortions are elminated, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
The women who become pregnant as a result of rape, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion" when state legislators choose to make it their priority to pass laws that would outlaw abortion Even In Cases Of Rape. Women and girls who become pregnant as a result of incest, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion". Women who were HAPPY to be pregnant, told their friends and family, decorated the nursery, picked out names for the baby, and then one day heard those dreaded words from their doctor, "I'm afraid there is something terribly wrong with your pregnancy", ARE "caught up in the discussion", when politicians, clergymen, and other total strangers want to tell the woman that her fate has been decided by them and that terminating the pregnancy is not her decision to make, even if she, her husband, her doctor, and her pastor believe it's necessary for her health. Until outlawing THESE kinds of abortions is "Off The Table" with Every Pro-Life legislator, judge, and organization, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
So, easy question. If abortion were restricted to life of the mother cases and other related health situations, rape, incest, and child deformity, disease or related health issues, would you have a problem with that?
In another post, "watcher59" called me out for being rude and disrespectful, and I promised that I would sincerely try to be polite and cordial in future posts. I think the best way for me to do that is to keep my posts as short as possible!
Sooooooo, to answer your "easy question": No, I would NOT have a problem if legal abortions were limited to "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, or related health issues." Now, I personally would PREFER that Roe v. Wade not be overturned. I think that ruling is more consistent with Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Personal Responsibility. But, again, NO, I would NOT have a problem with your "scenario" and, YES, I could live with that.
(If this post was disrespectful in any way, I apologize in advance!)
I was "calling you out" for being evasive, not disrespectful. I bring my passion and a pretty thick skin into these boards. I presume everyone else does the same.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Now, as to your response, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying, "If a woman is pregnant as a result of rape and wishes to have an abortion, wise folks like myself should treat her as if she is a child, sit her down and explain to her why she is being irrational.
Correction; I'm saying that rape is the most traumatic violation a woman will likely experience. A rape victim is, understandably, emotionally incapable of making rational decisions about her own life. It is during this time she is required to make a life or death decision about another. Through some perverted sense of compassion, abortion is acceptable so "she doesn't have to live for nine months with the reminder of the violation". Really? Do you honestly think that an abortion will make the trauma of a rape less? The reality is most women who make the decision to abort are re-victimized. After years of therapy to regain some semblance of emotional equalibrium in their lives, they are confronted with the guilt of the decision that was supposed to "make it all better".
I'm against the killing and murder of all children. I certainly don't believe that a child should be killed because of the "sins of the father" or mother. That makes no sense to me.
Okay. Tell me when this cellular garbage morphs into a child worthy enough to be allowed to live.
Perhaps you are assuming that I share your view that a woman is guilty of murder if she takes a "morning-after pill" within 72 hours of being raped. I don't share that view. Maybe that's why your hypothetical question seems so odd and bizarre to me.
I make no such assumption. Your position is very clear. If you understood procreation as a process you would not find my position odd or bizarre. Your posts lead me to conclude you think it is a series of loosely connected events.
I recommend that you try to convince your fellow Pro-Lifers that they should oppose legal abortion in the case of rape.
How about you and I having a one on one debate of the issue? In the whole of this exchange you have not addressed a single point I've raised. You have projected a perceived bias about what I think. You arbitrarily changed the framing of the discussion and you have used diversion and dismissal to avoid the issues raised. You have not once offered any substantial reason why I should not consider conception to be the begining of life.
Now, you want me to go convince complete strangers to meet some arbitrary criteria in order to be taken seriously by you? Will you stop ranting and convince your fellow "Pro-Choicers" to do the same? Will you stop trying to villify people who disagree with you and actually engage in a serious, meaningful debate? If not, why would you think I care what you want? I'll just encourage, no demand, my state and federal representatives enact laws to protect innocents from being killed before they have any chance to live.
I sincerely apologize if my posts came across as "ranting" and if I'm guilty of "villifying people". My responses to your posts were not so much about your Pro-Life views. In fact, I think I thanked you for being so honest and consistent in your Pro-Life views. Many Pro-Lifers are not honest and consistent in their views. My responses were more about words and phrases you use when making generalized and unsubstantiated claims about the intelligence and rationality of women. In my humble opinion, you did that once again in your last post, when you state that women who are raped "are incapable of making rational decisions". Those are your words. I have no doubt that you truly believe that. I personally think it's absurd. You also say that "most women" who have abortions after being raped regret their decision and spend years in therapy because they feel guilty. Those are your words. I have no doubt that you truly believe that. I personally think that's an absurd statement and know of no proof to back it up.
Anyway, I'm sorry for my disrespectful comments. You do not need to respond to this post. I think it's best if I don't respond to any more of your posts. I will continue to read them. I enjoy reading them. And, I hope you keep posting. I just think "our" conversation should end at this point. And, I do appreciate you "calling me out" on my disrespectful tone. If I respond to any other posters I will definitely try to come across as more polite and cordial. No guarantees, but I WILL try! Bye!
Now, as to your response, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying, "If a woman is pregnant as a result of rape and wishes to have an abortion, wise folks like myself should treat her as if she is a child, sit her down and explain to her why she is being irrational.
Correction; I'm saying that rape is the most traumatic violation a woman will likely experience. A rape victim is, understandably, emotionally incapable of making rational decisions about her own life. It is during this time she is required to make a life or death decision about another. Through some perverted sense of compassion, abortion is acceptable so "she doesn't have to live for nine months with the reminder of the violation". Really? Do you honestly think that an abortion will make the trauma of a rape less? The reality is most women who make the decision to abort are re-victimized. After years of therapy to regain some semblance of emotional equalibrium in their lives, they are confronted with the guilt of the decision that was supposed to "make it all better".
I'm against the killing and murder of all children. I certainly don't believe that a child should be killed because of the "sins of the father" or mother. That makes no sense to me.
Okay. Tell me when this cellular garbage morphs into a child worthy enough to be allowed to live.
Perhaps you are assuming that I share your view that a woman is guilty of murder if she takes a "morning-after pill" within 72 hours of being raped. I don't share that view. Maybe that's why your hypothetical question seems so odd and bizarre to me.
I make no such assumption. Your position is very clear. If you understood procreation as a process you would not find my position odd or bizarre. Your posts lead me to conclude you think it is a series of loosely connected events.
I recommend that you try to convince your fellow Pro-Lifers that they should oppose legal abortion in the case of rape.
How about you and I having a one on one debate of the issue? In the whole of this exchange you have not addressed a single point I've raised. You have projected a perceived bias about what I think. You arbitrarily changed the framing of the discussion and you have used diversion and dismissal to avoid the issues raised. You have not once offered any substantial reason why I should not consider conception to be the begining of life.
Now, you want me to go convince complete strangers to meet some arbitrary criteria in order to be taken seriously by you? Will you stop ranting and convince your fellow "Pro-Choicers" to do the same? Will you stop trying to villify people who disagree with you and actually engage in a serious, meaningful debate? If not, why would you think I care what you want? I'll just encourage, no demand, my state and federal representatives enact laws to protect innocents from being killed before they have any chance to live.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
A culture that kills it's children dooms itself to extinction.
Why don't pro choice advocates exercise their right to choose NOT to get pregnant? Why do they demand the right to be irresponsible rather than recognize their obligation to behave responsibly?
If they are not for abortion, why are they fighting for the right to have one or twelve?
If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped and wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get a legal abortion? She had no "choice" in getting pregnant. She was not "irresponsible". Would YOU tell her "No, you can't have an abortion?" I'm guessing you will say, "Oh, please, that hardly ever happens." You can say that if you want, but I would still like you to answer the question. If you say, "No, she should not be allowed to have an abortion", then that's all I need to know. If you say, "Yes, if she was raped she can have a legal abortion", then I would probably want to ask you why you would not "protect" the "baby" from being "killed" in this case. Isn't a "baby" a "baby" whether it's conceived in love or conceived in rape? If this issue is about "protecting babies from being killed" and not about punishing "irresponsible" women who don't "behave responsibly", why would it be ok to "kill" some "babies" but not others?
If every abortion was from a woman who was raped there would be about 100k of them, tops, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Just because abortion may be justified in one area does not mean it should be justified in every area. I refuse to get myself caught up and side tracked in a discussion about rape, inscest, and life of the mother abortions because by my calculations they make up less than 10% of all abortions. This debate is about "abortion on demand" or "abortion for any reason you feel". Until those kinds of abortions are elminated, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
The women who become pregnant as a result of rape, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion" when state legislators choose to make it their priority to pass laws that would outlaw abortion Even In Cases Of Rape. Women and girls who become pregnant as a result of incest, however few in number, however tiny the number, ARE "caught up in the discussion". Women who were HAPPY to be pregnant, told their friends and family, decorated the nursery, picked out names for the baby, and then one day heard those dreaded words from their doctor, "I'm afraid there is something terribly wrong with your pregnancy", ARE "caught up in the discussion", when politicians, clergymen, and other total strangers want to tell the woman that her fate has been decided by them and that terminating the pregnancy is not her decision to make, even if she, her husband, her doctor, and her pastor believe it's necessary for her health. Until outlawing THESE kinds of abortions is "Off The Table" with Every Pro-Life legislator, judge, and organization, it makes no sense to talk about the other ones.
So, easy question. If abortion were restricted to life of the mother cases and other related health situations, rape, incest, and child deformity, disease or related health issues, would you have a problem with that?
An interesting blog I came across that has begun to truly reflect more and more my feelings on this issue. here is a middle ground and a nearly 50/50 divide of the populace makes for an unenforceable law.
It was a nice read, very will written by a well intended person. However, for the most part, it was garbage. Very difficult to do a quote by quote here regarding a blog so I won't.
But I will mention this....
If women could do what they wanted to with their own bodies they could injest illegal drugs, attempt sucide, and become prosititutes with no government interference. You may say these things should be legal and to a certain extent I would agree, however, they are not legal and I don't see the women's movement or the ALCU doing anything to make these things legal therefore I can only conclude that women truly can't do whtever they want with their bodies.
Injustice should never be tied to benovolance. What sense does it make to require people to exhibit acts of charity in order to prevent another person from committing and unjust act? How can a man approach me and tell me if I don't give him a dollar for bread he is going to rob the store and then accuse me of hypocracy for not givining him the dollar?
If God was pro-choice people wouldn't be going to hell for their actions. Yes, he allows you to choose stupidly but then he allows you to reap the punishment for those stupid decisions.
