A basic question for "pro-lifers" who agree to abortion in cases of rape-

Its not an either-or case, pro-life people care about life whether its an 11 year old or an unborn baby.

 

I don't want her to get raped in the first place. I don't want an innocent baby killed either. It still goes back to the fundamental question - is the baby a human being or not? If it is, then killing it is not something to be taken lightly.

 

NOPE ! Can't have it both ways....it's either force a rape victim to be injured and traumatized for the rest of their life OR allow abortion.

 

What YOU want or don't want isn't what IS .

Not many women take getting an abortion lightly.

There is nothing "lightly" about a raped 11 year old or any rape victim..

An embryo is not A human being... a born raped person IS.

 

Yes, you lose.


""""If I say I believe women should be allowed to abort if they got pregnant from rape, I am called a hypocrite."""



You would be.


"""""If I say abortion should always be illegal in all circumstances, I am called a heartless monster. """"


You would be.


So the Anti-Choice argument loses......

 

Only when it is "American" life.

Finally you are starting to use correct terminology "unborn baby" is a step in the right direction.

 

You got it! that's why i called it a 'trap' earlier. I clarified it as much as i could, showing how pro lifers use it as a concession, or a call for the pro abortionist's bluff, since so few pregnancies are due to rape. But even if you give them the exception, & let them kill a few babies, it is not enough for them. They want more. LOTS more.

I find it so ironic that they are so zealous to kill american unborn babies, yet want all the babies born in poverty throughout the world to live so they can come here & be a burden on this society.

 

I gave you my answer. It is a concession, to try to save some. It is no different than a negotiator in a hostage situation who tries to get the kidnappers to release *some* of the hostages. It does not mean he doesn't care about the rest, he is just trying to save any that he can. In the same way, i'll concede to you killing babies from rape pregnancies, IF you'll let the other live. Would you do that? I didn't think so. This thread is a lame, hypocritical trap for abortion supporters to try to spin their way from having to deal with the uncomfortable reality that they are killing living human beings. But their consciences are so seared, they cannot feel any empathy for the innocent babies, but instead vent their hatred on those who defend them.

 

See the bolded above? How about instead of "I'll " and "you'll" we let the decision STAY with the person affected, the person whose has the right to decide what to do with their own body, the one who is pregnant. "We" have no right to decide for others what to do with their own bodies . Pro-Choicers want to protect that freedom, Anti-Choicers don't.

ALL pregnancies, whether the result of rape or consensual sex, cause injury to the woman in varying degrees including death. So doesn't common sense say butt out and let them decide on their own fate?

And you can get all emotional and inaccurate and call it "killing babies" until pig's fly but it isn't , it's an abortion.

 

You mean murder a baby......is that your answer to all problems, just murder whoever is inconvenient?

- - - Updated - - -

"American"? I have not said anything at all about nationality.

And I'm glad you admit its a baby, not a mass of tissue. That's the first step in recognizing abortion is murder.

 

I have never advocated murder so anyone who says so is a liar.


Is this the answer to all YOUR problems? :force a rape victim to be injured and traumatized for the rest of their life . ?


Enjoy that???

 

Same old rehash of the same old tired arguments. You already know this is about a separate human life, not 'a woman's body'. You are terminating a human life. That is the science & reality behind what abortion is. You can justify it by hiding behind dodges & redefinings, or emotional appeals about the plight of some poor raped woman, as though killing the baby will console her.

ALL abortions cause injury to the woman in varying degrees, including death. They also cause great injury to the baby, terminating its life completely. Common sense says that if we value human life, we should protect & defend the most helpless among us, not kill them because they are inconvenient.

You can get all obscure & muddy the waters, but an abortion is killing a baby. If you insist on doing it, or demand it to be legal, fine. Do as you have done now for many years. But that does not change the reality of what you are doing. You are killing human life... innocent, distinct human life.

 

"""You are killing human life"""

Yup, that's the POINT of abortion.



You can get all obscure & muddy the waters with overly emotional hyperbole and out and out lies, but an abortion doesn't kill a " baby".

Too bad you think women's right to their own bodies is are "tired old arguments" but most women would disagree....

 

So, you are 'killing human life', but it is not a baby? What kind of convoluted logic is that? A baby is an immature human (some are older, to be sure!).

So you also call me a liar, & then try the 'most women' argument.. You know what 'most women' believe about abortion? Really?

Yes, this argument is old & boring.. tired & lame, all at the same time. Abortion kills a living, distinct human being. It is legal, now in the US, after being illegal & considered immoral for centuries. The doctor's hippocratic oath forbids them from giving an abortifacient to a pregnant woman, as they are to save & protect life, not end it. That is for the executioners.

Human culture went through a brief phase where life was considered sacred.. it was revered & esteemed. But now, probably due to overpopulation, we are sick of each other, & want some privacy. So we lower the bar on what we define as 'human', to try to thin the herd. I suppose we'll continue to do that, since bumping off a few million babies in the west has not had a global impact on world wide population growth. The irresponsible breeders.. mostly in the 3rd world.. continue to flood the world & strain the resources of the planet, & the pro abortionists cheer... very ironic. Why not turn your passion to bump off babies to those regions, since they do not have the resources to even care for their progeny, & have to bus them to the american border? Why don't the leftist social engineers lure kids on buses that have secret built in showers, to 'thin the herd?' If your motivation is to cut back on overpopulation, you are attacking the wrong demographic. Western culture has been very responsible in procreating.. some regions has zero population growth. You should concentrate your human engineering in the 3rd world, where uncontrolled breeding is common.. even encouraged, as you ship food & housing from the responsible nations to enable them to overpopulate.

No, i have no faith in the consistency of leftist logic.. i'm sure you will lower the bar more, to include 'old white men' or some other despised demographic. Protection based on humanity is old fashioned.. now it is based on political correctness or ideology. It is a bizarre, brave new world you are promoting.. i'm glad i won't be around to see it completely unfold. I hope you are happy with it, when it comes.

 

The only bizarre thing here has been that rambling, disconnected, incoherent post ...

 

You don't have to it is there in your every comment on this subject.

Here you go again yet another lie.

 

Learn what an adjective and a noun are then you might see that there is no convoluted logic .. but I doubt it.

Most women (60% at the last set of polls) support reducing the limit on abortion to 20 weeks .. however, most women do not support ANY restrictions up to that 20 week limit. (51%)

Abortion was and has been legal in the US for far longer than it was illegal, and even when it was made illegal it had absolutely nothing to do with "protecting the unborn". The first laws introduced were done so under poison legislation as many of the "potions" used were in fact poisonous to the woman, the second stage of laws against abortion were brought in under pressure from the medical profession as they wanted to be the ONLY people allowed to do them .. again nothing to do with "protecting the unborn", in fact the whole ideology of pro-life did not take shape until the 1960's with the pro-life name taken after the Roe decision. The first organized action was initiated by U.S. Catholic bishops who recommended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban abortion.

One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.

Which had nothing to do with why abortion restrictions and bans were enforced.

and one of the reasons for this is that religious groups have been going to 3rd world countries and fighting against the introduction of contraception, add to this the culture attitude of these countries that a man is not a man unless he has lots of children and the fact that before introduction of modern medicine few births survived their first year . .perhaps only as many as 3 out of 10, now it is more like 7 out of 10, and you have the reasoning why population growth has not slowed down in 3rd world countries compared to the rest of the world. It is ironic that the very thing that pro-choicers are trying to introduce into 3rd world countries to reduce the population growth is the very thing that the predominately religious pro-lifers are fighting to block .. ~You want to at least reduce abortions then stop trying to block comprehensive sex education and free contraception.

considering that the "motivation" is not what you are attempting to (and failing) portray then the above is plain BS.

and the measure that are trying to be introduced would work if only the pro-life religious zealots would keep their noses out of it .. but they won't.

Absolute BS.

 

All you have is a total lack of facts & hate. You can insult me all you want, & i'll just tire of you very quickly & ignore you

 

I'm sorry that the facts and truth make you so unhinged, but please do feel free to point out anything I have written that is "distortion".

If you are going to accuse me of being a liar then I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and point out one single lie in ANY of my responses to you.

 

You didn't say "Yes" or "No"....I'll repeat the question-

So if a father rapes his daughter and she gets pregnant, you'd want her to give birth to her own sister?

 

I answered your question - its rape, the perpetrator is just a relative and not a stranger, but that does not change the fact that the baby is an innocent human. If the daughters life is not at risk then abortion is not allowed.

Its a tragic situation, but the solution is not to murder another person.

 

No the solution is to stop the ongoing rape by the girl having an abortion.

Is this the answer to all YOUR problems? :force a rape victim to be injured and traumatized for the rest of their life . ?


The rape victim's life and health are in danger by the fact that she's pregnant.....you won't agree, or even understand, because it has to do with science and facts.


And your " just a relative" as if that's not as bad as stranger rape is just plain SICK.

 

You are so obsessed you cannot process facts and an argument. All you seem to be interested in is unrestricted abortion. That type of extremist view only gets you put in the corner and ignored.

 

Obsessed with what? Protecting women and girls from suffering the rest of their lives because of being raped? YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Just like YOU are obsessed with making them suffer for the rest of their lives because they were raped.


Now, please point out EXACTLY WHERE I posted I was for unrestricted abortions? You can't, so that makes you what??


The only extremist view I see is your view that girls and women must suffer and pay for being raped.

 

LOL, you are blinded by your extremism. You can't even remember what you post.