Rape exclusion "pro-lifers" - how can you defend your position?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Rape exclusion "pro-lifers" - how can you defend your position? Your position is that a fetus is a full person with all the rights due a full person including the right to life - unless it is the product of a man raping its mother? How the hell does that work?

How is it that the right to life begins at conception for persons whose fathers were not rapists - but begins in late stage pregnancy for those whose fathers were rapists? Isn't that punishing someone for the sins of their father? What about if the mother was the rapist and the father the victim? Then the right to life starts at conception? A bit sexist don't you think?

I'm just confused as to how the position of rape exclusion "pro-lifers" is at all self-consistent. Assigning the right to life based on the actions of one's father really kinda seems anti-American as well.

 

[jwoodie]

Inconsistency in one position does not establish credibility for another position. According to your rationale, the Emancipation Proclamation was illegitimate because it did not free slaves in Union States.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Inconsistency in one position does not establish credibility for another position. According to your rationale, the Emancipation Proclamation was illegitimate because it did not free slaves in Union States.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about? Emancipation proclamation? How the fuck does that answer any of my questions? Are you some kind of mentally handicapped person?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rape exclusion "pro-lifers" - how can you defend your position? Your position is that a fetus is a full person with all the rights due a full person including the right to life - unless it is the product of a man raping its mother? How the hell does that work?

How is it that the right to life begins at conception for persons whose fathers were not rapists - but begins in late stage pregnancy for those whose fathers were rapists? Isn't that punishing someone for the sins of their father? What about if the mother was the rapist and the father the victim? Then the right to life starts at conception? A bit sexist don't you think?

I'm just confused as to how the position of rape exclusion "pro-lifers" is at all self-consistent. Assigning the right to life based on the actions of one's father really kinda seems anti-American as well.

I've wrestled with the dilemma myself. I think many people have a hard time forcing a woman to carry a baby conceived in rape to term. The woman has already been victimized once, it seems cruel to force her to re-live that horror every day for the next nine months.

I know there are women who choose to carry the child to term, and I really admire them and their courage. But I have a hard time DEMANDING that sort of self-sacrifice of any woman.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Inconsistency in one position does not establish credibility for another position. According to your rationale, the Emancipation Proclamation was illegitimate because it did not free slaves in Union States.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about? Emancipation proclamation? How the fuck does that answer any of my questions? Are you some kind of mentally handicapped person?

What he is saying is that failing to protect SOME children from abortion and not others is roughly the same as freeing SOME slaves and not ALL of them. Of course I can't overlook the race-baiting aspect of his post ... so take it for what it is worth.

 

[TNHarley]

Rape exclusion "pro-lifers" - how can you defend your position? Your position is that a fetus is a full person with all the rights due a full person including the right to life - unless it is the product of a man raping its mother? How the hell does that work?

How is it that the right to life begins at conception for persons whose fathers were not rapists - but begins in late stage pregnancy for those whose fathers were rapists? Isn't that punishing someone for the sins of their father? What about if the mother was the rapist and the father the victim? Then the right to life starts at conception? A bit sexist don't you think?

I'm just confused as to how the position of rape exclusion "pro-lifers" is at all self-consistent. Assigning the right to life based on the actions of one's father really kinda seems anti-American as well.

Holy shit!
We have finally agreed on something!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My personal opinion is that no one should have an abortion except for the medical safety of the mother. As to rape, some people believe that even though life starts at conception the act of rape allows for the termination at the mothers request, Much like some people support the death penalty for heinous crimes.

The question to ask is why the uproar from gun grabbers about 20 6 year olds when most of the same people support abortion on demand, the legal murder of unborn children?

Perhaps you can explain how a fetus is not a human life when it will grow into just that in months? It has no other option. It does not magically become a cumquat or a puppy.

 

[TNHarley]

My personal opinion is that no one should have an abortion except for the medical safety of the mother. As to rape, some people believe that even though life starts at conception the act of rape allows for the termination at the mothers request, Much like some people support the death penalty for heinous crimes.

The question to ask is why the uproar from gun grabbers about 20 6 year olds when most of the same people support abortion on demand, the legal murder of unborn children?

Perhaps you can explain how a fetus is not a human life when it will grow into just that in months? It has no other option. It does not magically become a cumquat or a puppy.

Hypocrisy. I have noticed there is so much in politics. Especially here. But what are you gonna do?

 

[AmyNation]

A fetus is a human life. Anyone who denies that isn't basing their opinions in reality. However a fetus is not sentient and so it's life does not hold the same value as a fully formed child.

 

[Politico]

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about?

Since when life begins is not the real issue I would ask you the same thing.

 

[DiamondDave]

My personal opinion is that no one should have an abortion except for the medical safety of the mother. As to rape, some people believe that even though life starts at conception the act of rape allows for the termination at the mothers request, Much like some people support the death penalty for heinous crimes.

The question to ask is why the uproar from gun grabbers about 20 6 year olds when most of the same people support abortion on demand, the legal murder of unborn children?

Perhaps you can explain how a fetus is not a human life when it will grow into just that in months? It has no other option. It does not magically become a cumquat or a puppy.

Bazinga

 

[TNHarley]

My personal opinion is that no one should have an abortion except for the medical safety of the mother. As to rape, some people believe that even though life starts at conception the act of rape allows for the termination at the mothers request, Much like some people support the death penalty for heinous crimes.

The question to ask is why the uproar from gun grabbers about 20 6 year olds when most of the same people support abortion on demand, the legal murder of unborn children?

Perhaps you can explain how a fetus is not a human life when it will grow into just that in months? It has no other option. It does not magically become a cumquat or a puppy.

Bazinga

Yep. Him and Ipoopedmypants both have good points.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My personal opinion is that no one should have an abortion except for the medical safety of the mother. As to rape, some people believe that even though life starts at conception the act of rape allows for the termination at the mothers request, Much like some people support the death penalty for heinous crimes.

The question to ask is why the uproar from gun grabbers about 20 6 year olds when most of the same people support abortion on demand, the legal murder of unborn children?

Perhaps you can explain how a fetus is not a human life when it will grow into just that in months? It has no other option. It does not magically become a cumquat or a puppy.

There's no such thing as a "legal murder" or "unborn children"

 

[DiamondDave]

No such thing as 'unborn children'.. .LMAO.. man, that is dumb even for YOU

And would you rather him say the legal KILLING of unborn children?? same difference

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No such thing as 'unborn children'.. .LMAO.. man, that is dumb even for YOU

And would you rather him say the legal KILLING of unborn children?? same difference

Two of the things that make a child different from a fetus are
a) children breathe something called "air", a fetus does not.
b) fetuses share an organ with another human being and live inside of said human being - children live outside of other humans and unless they are siamese do not share an organ with any other living thing.

If children don't breathe air they die!

These perhaps are two facts of biology that have escaped you. I would recommend picking up any book on pregnancy and any book on child rearing and comparing how the two are different.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It works like this:

The woman had no choice in becoming pregnant so it should be her choice whether or not to bring the baby to term. The woman should be offered a morning after pill as part of the rape examination.

Why should she be further traumatized by being forced to bring an unwanted child into the world?

There's really not a lot of difference between birth control pills and the morning after pill, anyway.

P. S. I would offer this in cases of statutory rape, too.

 

[DiamondDave]

No such thing as 'unborn children'.. .LMAO.. man, that is dumb even for YOU

And would you rather him say the legal KILLING of unborn children?? same difference

Two of the things that make a child different from a fetus are
a) children breathe something called "air", a fetus does not.
b) fetuses share an organ with another human being and live inside of said human being - children live outside of other humans and unless they are siamese do not share an organ with any other living thing.

If children don't breathe air they die!

These perhaps are two facts of biology that have escaped you. I would recommend picking up any book on pregnancy and any book on child rearing and comparing how the two are different.

Uh huh.. yeah.. because he or she is magically so different before coming out of the birth canal or the c-section opening


Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Idiot

 

[Crackerjaxon]

No such thing as 'unborn children'.. .LMAO.. man, that is dumb even for YOU

And would you rather him say the legal KILLING of unborn children?? same difference

Two of the things that make a child different from a fetus are
a) children breathe something called "air", a fetus does not.
b) fetuses share an organ with another human being and live inside of said human being - children live outside of other humans and unless they are siamese do not share an organ with any other living thing.

If children don't breathe air they die!

These perhaps are two facts of biology that have escaped you. I would recommend picking up any book on pregnancy and any book on child rearing and comparing how the two are different.

They are not germane facts, though. They are simply stages of human development. Using them to justify the taking of a human life is silly.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Inconsistency in one position does not establish credibility for another position. According to your rationale, the Emancipation Proclamation was illegitimate because it did not free slaves in Union States.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about? Emancipation proclamation? How the fuck does that answer any of my questions? Are you some kind of mentally handicapped person?

He was showing you the logical inconsistency of your argument, you idiot.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

A fetus is a human life. Anyone who denies that isn't basing their opinions in reality. However a fetus is not sentient and so it's life does not hold the same value as a fully formed child.

Why? Is it any less human?