A question for pro-lifers...

[AmyNation]

unhealthy no...but once it found out about the relationship its mother had with the father it could lead to mental problems for life...incest can lead to physical problems.

I suppose it can upset someone to find out they are the product of rape, although I think "lead to mental problems" is a stretch. Also, the chance of birth defect in incest is roughly the same as anyone else.

 

[The Professor]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/insest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

I think it is unfair to call the sides “pro life” and "pro choice” since it is apparent that both positions are extreme and rare – if they exist in the pure form at all. The proper question is this: under what circumstances – if any – do you believe that abortion should be legal?

In my opinion, abortion in the case of rape or incest is justified. Once you get over the simplistic “pro-life” and “freedom of choice” dichotomy it boils down to a question involving one's personal sense of morality. The US Constitution protects everyone from “cruel and unusual punishment.” Outside of the death penalty, I cannot think of a greater punishment than to force a woman to birth and raise the child of her rapist.

When a woman becomes pregnant through a consensual sex act, I am not so adamant. As a male, I will not pretend to know as much about the difficulties of such a decision as a woman might. While I would HOPE that each child would be given a chance to completes his/her life cycle, I am incapable of weighing one choice against another; therefore, I will leave the final decision with the one who is most directly affected: the mother.

I wish the the laws were such that each prospective mother could be assured that if for any reason she was incapable or unwilling to continue motherhood, she would be absolved of parenthood, not only when the child is born but for a period thereafter such as a year or so. I wish the mother would be assured that her unwanted child would be properly and lovingly cared for; however I have serious doubts of this ideal becoming a reality. Perhaps, if children were given a more promising future abortions would be less common.

As for me, I have my own ideas of child raising. I believe that when a children are six years old their parents should leave them alone in the deep woods with a Swiss Army knife and a peanut butter sandwich. I did this to all my children except for my son, John. I really loved the little guy, so I put a dollop of jelly on his peanut butter sandwich. Joking!!!

 

[AmyNation]

Yes. And in cases of mental/physical problems with baby/mother and if either's life is in danger because of pregnancy.

Why? Honest question. I dont understand the "I'm prolife with exceptions" stance.

It's not that hard, alot of pro lifers dont believe in the rape/incest exception, I do
life of mother, if I have to explain this, you're dumb
incest/rape not consentual and someone shouldnt have to carry a baby after that trama......
anything else......no abortion...

so explain to me the liberal point of view, abortion all the time and no waiting period and no parental consent.

Life of the mother, I'm setting aside, because I understand that. I dont understand the position of "it's a baby, but it's ok to kill it because I feel bad for how it was conceived."

 

[The Professor]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/insest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

I think it is unfair to call the sides “pro life” and pro choice” since it is apparent that both positions are extreme and rare – if they exist in the pure form at all. The proper question is this: under what circumstances – if any – do you believe that abortion should be legal?

In my opinion, abortion in the case of rape or incest is justified. Once you get over the simplistic “pro-life” and “freedom of choice” dichotomy it boils down to a question involving one's personal sense of morality. The US Constitution protects everyone from “cruel and unusual punishment.” Outside of the death penalty, I cannot think of a greater punishment than to force a woman to birth and raise the child of her rapist.

When a woman becomes pregnant through a consensual sex act, I am not so adamant. As a male, I will not pretend to know as much about the difficulties of such a decision as a woman might. While I would HOPE that each child would be given a chance to completes his/her life cycle, I am incapable of weighing one choice against another; therefore, I will leave the final decision with the one who is most directly affected: the mother.

I wish the the laws were such that each prospective mother could be assured that if for any reason she was incapable or unwilling to continue motherhood, she would be absolved of parenthood, not only when the child is born but for a period thereafter such as a year or so. I wish the mother would be assured that her unwanted child would be properly and lovingly cared for; however I have serious doubts of this ideal becoming a reality. Perhaps, if children were given a more promising future abortions would be less common.

As for me, I have my own ideas of child raising. I believe that when a children are six years old their parents should leave them alone in the deep woods with a Swiss Army knife and a peanut butter sandwich. I did this to all my children except for my son, John. I really loved the little guy, so I put a dollop of jelly on his peanut butter sandwich. Joking!!!

 

[AmyNation]

I think using rape and incest victims as human shields to cover up the million-plus abortions each year is a sickening tactic.

Less than one percent of abortions are the result of rape and incest, and yet pro-choicers will use these people who have been subjected to the most vile crimes as a deflection. They simply have no shame.

Let's talk about the million-plus abortions instead.

Getting pregnant when you have a CHOICE not to get pregnant, unlike a rape or incest victim, is irresponsible. Don't be dragging crime victims into the picture to hide that fact.

.

Typically I agree, I prefer when discussing a topic to talk about the norm and not the exception. However I'm not really looking to debate abortion so much as curious about why exceptions like rape are made.

 

[PixieStix]

I think using rape and incest victims as human shields to cover up the million-plus abortions each year is a sickening tactic.

Less than one percent of abortions are the result of rape and incest, and yet pro-choicers will use these people who have been subjected to the most vile crimes as a deflection. They simply have no shame.

Let's talk about the million-plus abortions instead.

Getting pregnant when you have a CHOICE not to get pregnant, unlike a rape or incest victim, is irresponsible. Don't be dragging crime victims into the picture to hide that fact.

.

Typically I agree, I prefer when discussing a topic to talk about the norm and not the exception. However I'm not really looking to debate abortion so much as curious about why exceptions like rape are made.

I do not make that exception, but I know many do. Maybe they feel the need to help erase the wrong done to the woman. You know what they say about what the road to hell is paved with, right?

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/insest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

Yes. And in cases of mental/physical problems with baby/mother and if either's life is in danger because of pregnancy.

Why? Honest question. I dont understand the "I'm prolife with exceptions" stance.

Do I support it?
No, but I understand it.

 

[AmyNation]

Certainly in case of rape and incest. To insist a mother carry the fetus would put her behind in importance of the rapist or family member who impregnated her.

I disagree, it puts the fetus on equal footing, not the father. I think of you believe a fetus is a baby, then it should have an equal right to life as the mother.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Certainly in case of rape and incest. To insist a mother carry the fetus would put her behind in importance of the rapist or family member who impregnated her.

I disagree, it puts the fetus on equal footing, not the father. I think of you believe a fetus is a baby, then it should have an equal right to life as the mother.

And how exactly would that work?

 

[AmyNation]

Certainly in case of rape and incest. To insist a mother carry the fetus would put her behind in importance of the rapist or family member who impregnated her.

I disagree, it puts the fetus on equal footing, not the father. I think of you believe a fetus is a baby, then it should have an equal right to life as the mother.

And how exactly would that work?

As in, I don't have the right to kill you, and you don't have the right to kill me.

 

[WillowTree]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/insest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

unable to answer as I do not know what "insest" iz.

 

[AmyNation]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/insest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

unable to answer as I do not know what "insest" iz.

Fixed. I wouldn't want the typo police hounding me

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I disagree, it puts the fetus on equal footing, not the father. I think of you believe a fetus is a baby, then it should have an equal right to life as the mother.

And how exactly would that work?

As in, I don't have the right to kill you, and you don't have the right to kill me.

How would an embryo less than 20 weeks old – an entity that can neither think nor speak – petition a court to enjoin its mother from seeking an abortion?

The only way for your position to have any legal merit is to advocate a comprehensive ban of abortion, from conception to delivery.

Is that indeed your position?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/incest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

In the case of Rape, unless physically prevented by circumstances there is no need for an abortion. They can and are given a pill to prevent pregnancy.

If that does not work I would counsel against abortion. However up to the 20th week is as far as the choice should go. In the case of Incest again there is the morning after pill. And again I would counsel against it. And again a deadline of 20 weeks.

A child conceived should have the right to life. The only exception should be the health of the mother. Since abortion is the law of the land I would and do push for a deadline of 20 weeks. Again the ONLY exception the health of the mother.

 

[Jackson]

The child has half the genes of the mother and father. I would have a problem if incest is a very close relative where genetic problems could arise.

All other cases the child should not be aborted. Why? My mother was a product of a rape. She was a healthy, delightful, beautiful woman. Her mother was 13 at her birth. Where would I be if she had been aborted?

 

[AmyNation]

And how exactly would that work?

As in, I don't have the right to kill you, and you don't have the right to kill me.

How would an embryo less than 20 weeks old – an entity that can neither think nor speak – petition a court to enjoin its mother from seeking an abortion?

The only way for your position to have any legal merit is to advocate a comprehensive ban of abortion, from conception to delivery.

Is that indeed your position?

Could a 6 month old baby petition to not be murdered?

 

[AmyNation]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/incest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

In the case of Rape, unless physically prevented by circumstances there is no need for an abortion. They can and are given a pill to prevent pregnancy.

If that does not work I would counsel against abortion. However up to the 20th week is as far as the choice should go. In the case of Incest again there is the morning after pill. And again I would counsel against it. And again a deadline of 20 weeks.

A child conceived should have the right to life. The only exception should be the health of the mother. Since abortion is the law of the land I would and do push for a deadline of 20 weeks. Again the ONLY exception the health of the mother.

There are a handful of states that limit abortion to 20 weeks. I think in the next 5 years, the rest will follow.

 

[PixieStix]

As in, I don't have the right to kill you, and you don't have the right to kill me.

How would an embryo less than 20 weeks old – an entity that can neither think nor speak – petition a court to enjoin its mother from seeking an abortion?

The only way for your position to have any legal merit is to advocate a comprehensive ban of abortion, from conception to delivery.

Is that indeed your position?

Could a 6 month old baby petition to not be murdered?

No but many pro lifers do petition in many ways, on behalf of the baby's lives


that is what we as pro lifers do. But the other side wants everyone to think that we just want people to stop having sex.

I just want the slaughter to stop

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Do you support abortion in the case of rape/incest victims, and can you explain why you do( if you do).


Edit to add- I'm just curious where pro-life people fall on the life scale.

Do you have ANY viable statistics on the number pregnancies, per year, caused by rape/incest.

You "pro-death" people apparently believe that there are THOUSANDS of pregnancies caused every year as the result of rape/incest.

You would be WRONG.

 

[Barb]

As far as I've seen, most people who identify as "pro-life" are actually only pro fetus, and that for spurious reasons. They give a shit less about what happens to life once its born, except to deny its need and right to community investment.