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

Why is it NOT "murdering a baby"....for you to say that a woman can have an abortion if she gets pregnant from rape?

I know "It's not consensual" or "It's a violent attack upon her"....but in other cases, you claim your opposition to abortion is based on a morality that teachs you that an abortion, even one as early as days after conception, is "killing a human being".

So why is it NOT a fact that you are supporting the "killing of a human being"...if you allow an exception due to rape?

 

I've asked and asked the same question with no coherent answer from Anti-Choicers.

What CAN they say....that a rape victim should be punished for the rest of her life for being raped?

That an 11 year old, raped by her father/uncle/neighbor/brother, should be forced to give birth ?

If they do they are monsters of the worst kind.

If they say no, they are admitting they think they are Supreme Rulers who hold life and death in their arrogant pride filled sinning hands. (the god complex with control freak syndrome)

 

You'll notice ONCE AGAIN...lots of Views of this OP, but still waiting on a "pro-lifer" to show up and TRY to answer the question (or more likely dodge it.)

The "rape exception" is a loser for them. If they say "No, no exceptions for rape. A rape victim who gets pregnant has to stay pregnant, even if it's barely a week along in gestation.".....look like inhuman jerks and they lose support nation-wide.

But, if they say "Yes, I'd support an exception for a rape victim"...they have to explain why it's "okay" to "murder a baby" (even at a few weeks gestation) if it's a product of a rape....and they can't. Their rhetoric contradicts their attempts at compassion or vice-versa.

It's also why politicallly this question becomes a disaster for Republicans like Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. Akin tried to deny that pregnancies from rape ever occur with his bizarre biology "science" that the "woman's body shuts down". Mourdock tried to appease the radical "pro-lifers" by supporting them but trying to say that pregnancy from rape "may be God's plan"....which made him look worse than Akin.

Guaranteed, we'll see few answers on the OP...or those that try will quickly try to dodge, deflect, and change the subject. Thus, ONCE AGAIN, proving my point.

 

90% of unwanted pregnancies happen because a woman is selfish and wants to avoid the consequences of sex. Very few pregnancies happen because of rape.

 

Actually the consequences of sex have already happened, i.e. she is now pregnant.

At that point she must decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to end it.

 

Okay, Sam....then ANSWER THE QUESTION....in the "very few pregnancies from rape"...

do you support a woman having a right to have an abortion? Yes or No....and why?

- - - Updated - - -

Pasi, please.....Sam will now try to drag this thread away from the subject of the OP (as he and other "pro-lifers" do so often)....don't let him.

If we stick to the topic of the OP....the "pro-lifers" will tie themselves in knots or put themselves in a position they don't want to be in.

 

No, but I understand people who argue that those women should have the right to an abortion, because those women are victims of a horrible crime. They are innocent. They did nothing to risk getting pregnant.

 

But an abortion is an abortion, the same procedure, the same outcome.

YOU claim it's murder....why isn't it "murder" if it has resulted from rape?
Why is it "murder" if the woman wasn't raped?
How does the sex act determine(according to you) whether abortion is "murder" or not?


Why do you think rape victims are innocent???????

 

I think that 32,000 pregnancies resulting from rape is actually quite a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape

Any female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male. Rape conception happens between 25,000 and 32,000 times each year in the U.S. In a three-year longitudinal study of 4,000 American women, physician Melisa Holmes estimated from data from her study that forced sexual intercourse causes over 32,000 pregnancies in the United States each year

 

Sam, are you going to answer my question that I asked in the OP....or try to change the subject ...again?

 

Then by that very statement you are playing the blame game on what a woman does or does not do, if she has consensual sex and becomes pregnant you blame her, but if she is raped you don't ignoring the fact that the pregnancy itself is no different regardless of how she had sex .. so much for protecting ALL innocent life, but there again we already know you are pro-American life and nothing else.

It is obvious to see that you want a woman to suffer simply for having sex, nothing at all to do with "saving babies"

 

I'm going to remind everyone (ahem...some more than others)...of the question to the "pro-lifers" who allow an exception for rape-


"So why is it NOT a fact that you are supporting the "killing of a human being"...if you allow an exception due to rape?"

 

People who believe its a human at conception do not believe rape warrants abortion because the child is innocent. The child did not commit the rape, and we do not punish people for actions they did not commit.

The exception is when the pregnancy puts the life of the mother at risk (and "life of the mother" is literal, not a vague term used as an excuse for abortion on demand). If the mother was raped and suffers physical injury which makes the pregnancy truly life threatening, then abortion is an option. Also possible is that the rape results in such severe mental and emotional trauma that the mothers life is at risk, in which case abortion is an option.

However, some will argue that pregnancy due to a violent involuntary act such as rape is also a valid reason for abortion because it might exacerbate the negative consequences of the rape. Even if the mother gives the baby for adoption, the pregnancy itself may cause severe emotional trauma and other life altering actions (quit her job, etc). This exception is because unlike so many abortionists, pro-life people attempt to balance the rights of the mother and baby, in this case the suffering of the mother.

This isn't the same as an accidental pregnancy (birth control failed, etc) resulting from voluntary sex. If a person engages voluntarily, they take the risk and pay the consequences.

 

Which proves, again, that with Anti-Choicers it's all about punishing women for having consensual sex.


WHO do Anti-Choicers think they are that they can determine what "damage" a pregnancy does to each individual woman and pass judgment as to whether they think abortion is OK or not ?


Every pregnancy cause some damage to every woman, women who give birth may suffer emotional trauma, every pregnancy has the possibility of death of the woman, every pregnancy changes her and affects her life.

 

I knew some abortionist would take the ridiculous position that "every pregnancy has the possibility of death". If you absolutely don't want to run the risk of negative consequences from pregnancy, then don't create a life. Using contraception improperly is not an excuse, neither is the failure of contraception.

And once again, its not all about the woman. Unlike abortionists, pro-life people recognize there are 2 lives at stake and try to mediate the rights and demands of the two. No mediation would be needed if abortionists did not abuse the situation and actively promote the murder of children as a form of birth control.

 

Why are Anti-Choicers unable to answer direct questions?

Why do they need to lie about abortion being the "murder of children" ?

 

This OP asked a direct question, and I answered it.

If a person believes its a baby, then abortion is killing a person. In some cases of pregnancy when the life of the mother is at true risk, then the choice is which person dies and its tragic but unavoidable. In the case of abortion for convenience, its killing a person (the baby) for trivial reasons - that's murder.

Observe that you are the one who is not responding to rational arguments. The OP asked a direct question, I answered it, and you don't do anything except complain.

 

An ignorant person would believe it's a baby( a person) that's aborted. It isn't.


YOU don't get to decide what is trivial and what isn't for another individual....

 

Prove its not a baby. That's the real and only issue. Prove its not a baby and the entire issue goes away.

The problem is that you cannot prove its not a baby. It is most certainly a baby at 20 weeks, how much earlier it is a baby is up for debate. But in our society we protect the innocent, respect life, assume innocent until proven guilty, and err on the side of caution - that means its up to you to prove its not a baby. Until you can prove your case, the prudent course of action is to assume it is a baby from conception forwards.

And that highlights another difference between pro-life and abortionists, I argue from a rational position. You don't argue, you just say its all ignorance and lies. That's one reason you will lose (and are losing) the national debate.

 

For overly emotional irrational science-challenged (uneducated) it's a "baby". For intelligent people who don't believe the earth is flat it's an embryo or a fetus.

NO, in our society we do not protect the innocent , respect life(ever heard of WAR, racism, sexism?), and sometimes we assume innocence until proven guilty.

No, , poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans believe abortion should remain legal, even those who wouldn't have an abortion themselves.

 

If its not a baby, then state your case. Name calling is not an argument, its just a statement of your bias.

Because society is not perfect does not mean that it does not have standards and values. Our justice system is based on the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the concept runs through our entire social structure.

Wrong again, polls show abortion should remain legal, but not unrestricted abortion and not partial birth abortion or late term abortion. People want abortion legal because of the hardship cases, they do not support blanket abortion.

Maybe instead of whining you will explain why its not a baby. If you can.

 

I did state my case, For intelligent people who don't believe the earth is flat it's an embryo or a fetus.

You have a computer, google stages of pregnancy...but if you can't accept scientific facts , don't bother.

BUT if it's a baby from conception then why do women waste so much time being pregnant? They should be able to remove it from the moment of conception and have it grow outside the womb. Maybe you want to adopt some zygotes and diaper them up....


I wasn't wrong when I stated that polls show most people want abortion to remain legal, they do. I NEVER stated people want blanket abortions nor do I .

Why are you making things up? Because you're Anti-Choice? Those people usually resort to fallacies.

 

Long story short...if a woman is raped, you still want to make it illegal for her to have an abortion...yes?

 

You didn't prove your point. What is a "hardship case"? Does your polling show support for abortion ONLY in cases of rape or incest (BTW, that would still mean you're in the minority)......or does it support early ELECTIVE abortion as well?

 

Because I think it will create a more grave form of crime that is murder of an innocent,
beyond compare to that crime against chastity.