Serious question for Republicans regarding rape and health exceptions to abortion

apparently a lot of people are ashamed to be Republicans

No, just like to ridicule PooPooDooDoo for the idiotic assumption that ALL Republicans are anti-abortion and that ALL Democrats are pro-abortion.
 
A better question is this? Do you think that a late term abortion gone wrong, where the baby actually survives, do you think the baby should be killed?

"Senate Bill 1095 (4), Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote (5) in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.

Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor (6), March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama’s verbal oppostion to Born alive, (7) “And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.” March 30, 2001"
 
The only time you have the right to take a human life is in the case of self-defense.

Thus, the only only exception to abortion should be when the baby poses a clear, present, and immediate danger to the life of the mother, with these terms held to the same standard as any other case of killing in self-defense.

If it is held to the same standard as the case of self-defense then no abortions would be allowed at all genius. When the life of the mother is in danger isn't because the fetus grabbed a knife or gun and is threatening to kill her.
 
If one is claiming to have been raped there will be a police report. No report no rape unless she can prove it later.

A doctor and a second opinion is what I would call acceptable for exception.
Prove it later? The statute of limitations for rape is less than 9 months. A woman who wanted an abortion would merely have to walk into a cop shop, make a false report of rape by a stranger, and take the report to the clinic and its done.
 
The only exception Republicans have is when Mitt gets millions from Phil Frost. The maker of the Abortion Pill. Then, it's OK.

Conservative radio host and Romney-critic Steve Deace has been hosting a number of right-wing activists who have hit Romney, mainly due to his Mormon faith. But his latest guest says that his problem with Romney is not his religion but that he is “more destructive than Barack Obama.” Rev. Bob Enyart of Colorado Right to Life told Deace that after documenting Romney’s many inconsistencies on the issue of abortion rights, he found him to be worse than Obama “because he gets Republicans and conservatives and Christians to justify everything he’s done.” “Romney is worse than Obama; Obama is the lesser of two evils,” he said, “I think if you fear God, you will not because Romney destroys marriage; Romney destroys the family; Romney kills kids, and he’s a socialist.”

Anti-Choice Activist Vows to Never Back Romney | rightwingwatch.org
 
Congrats to M14 Shooter and RetiredSgtGuy for being the ONLY right wing posters to actually address the issue at ALL.

As for the rest of you - its clear proof that the right wing is 100% ideology 0% practical reality. All of you are utterly incapable of articulating how a rape exception would actually be implemented in the law. This is because Republicans don't actually think before they write laws. This is how we wind up with "personhood" amendment proposals that would, for instance, make it murder to abort ectopic pregnancies. Its also why those amendments get defeated - because its easy for the opposition to point out how horrible such laws would be in practice.

Any abortion ban with exception for rape is simply impractical. Either the burden of showing rape will be too high and it will be an effective ban without exception for rape, or it will be too low and the ban against abortion will be easy to get around simply by claiming rape. So the right is left to choose between a system where rape victims are forced to undergo pregnancy and birth by the government, or a system of salutory neglect where abortion is illegal on paper but easy to get around the law to get one. Either way, you lose.
 
I have a much more relevant question regarding rape and abortion.

The argument goes that the woman should not have to carry around the child of rape for the nine months it would take to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

It IS a valid argument and one with some real weight to it. However, I just need to know how.

How does an abortion erase from a woman's memory, the horror of a rape? If the abortion is some kind of answer to not having to live with rape, what is the mechanism that allows the memory of rape to be exercised after the abortion?

This is NOT a partisan question. I just don't get the semantics of the argument.

After all, it seems to Me that an abortion is just compounding guilt of abortion on the trauma of rape (you could say shame or guilt on guilt since some women feel shame or guilt at being raped, but that's a different debate)..
 
I doubt if most conservatives have serious problems with abortion in the event of rape or incest. Why can't radical liberals give a little and admit that partial birth abortion was nothing short of infanticide?
 
The whole abortion issue should be a state's rights matter.

OMFG. you cannot be serious.

Why should The State have any say in what a woman does with her own body? And, why would someone who calls him/herself "freedom lover" be so eager to throw other people's freedom away?

Its no one's business but the woman's.

Period.
 
Congrats to M14 Shooter and RetiredSgtGuy for being the ONLY right wing posters to actually address the issue at ALL.

As for the rest of you - its clear proof that the right wing is 100% ideology 0% practical reality. All of you are utterly incapable of articulating how a rape exception would actually be implemented in the law. This is because Republicans don't actually think before they write laws. This is how we wind up with "personhood" amendment proposals that would, for instance, make it murder to abort ectopic pregnancies. Its also why those amendments get defeated - because its easy for the opposition to point out how horrible such laws would be in practice.

Any abortion ban with exception for rape is simply impractical. Either the burden of showing rape will be too high and it will be an effective ban without exception for rape, or it will be too low and the ban against abortion will be easy to get around simply by claiming rape. So the right is left to choose between a system where rape victims are forced to undergo pregnancy and birth by the government, or a system of salutory neglect where abortion is illegal on paper but easy to get around the law to get one. Either way, you lose.

I'll take a crack at this. There should be no such thing as the term "abortion." Every state should define murder. At some point the procedure to terminate a pregnancy is murder. Every state already defines murder in all other cases, allowing appropriate exceptions for self defense, crimes of passion etc. If a state wants to allow the termination of a pregnancy up until (pick your number here) weeks then someone who is raped has approximately (insert that number) minus the approximately 4 weeks it takes to figure out you are pregnant to terminate the pregnancy. Being raped should not be a reason to murder another individual. Every state already defines murder so let them do it in this case. If you then want to make the case that it is acceptable to murder another individual (based on the state's definition) then so be it.

Mike
 
The whole abortion issue should be a state's rights matter.

OMFG. you cannot be serious.

Why should The State have any say in what a woman does with her own body? And, why would someone who calls him/herself "freedom lover" be so eager to throw other people's freedom away?

Its no one's business but the woman's.

Period.

At some point it is another individual. Terminating the life of another individual is some degree of murder (or manslaughter). The definition of murder is a state issue.

Mike
 
Serious question for Republicans regarding rape exceptions to abortion


Many anti-choicers favor banning abortion except in the case of rape or life of the mother. This question is for that subset of the anti-choicers.

The fist is

1) How does the rape exception actually work? If I'm a woman and I just got raped and I'm pregnant, by what mechanism do I obtain a legal abortion? How do I show to the state I was actually raped and that I'm a legally justified exception to the rule?

2) How does the life of the mother exception actually work? Does the doctor have 100% final word on the issue? Will a panel of other doctors have to vote on it? Will the doctor be subjected to second guessing, where its possible he could, in good faith, perform an abortion to save the mother's life, and the state could come back and charge him with a crime, contending the mother's life was not in actual danger? And how much danger will the mother have to be in? Is she only allowed to choose abortion if there is a 100% chance she will die in childbirth? If not, where is the cut-off?


These are serious real world practical issues that would need to be addressed if abortion were banned with exceptions for rape and/or life of the mother. I put it to the anti-choice crowd to address them.

Thank you for your thoughts in advance.
The government would get to decide.

And that's what the right wants. Complete control over women's bodies. And, they'll pass any number of laws, grow the government as big as they need to, just so they can control women.

Disgusting peeping toms.
 

Forum List

Back
Top