Serious question for Republicans regarding rape and health exceptions to abortion

[Texanmike]

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)..

The real issue here though is not the "effect on the person who is raped" it is the effects of the actions on the right of an individual to live. At some point in a pregnancy it is not "just a collection of cells". I am not going to be vain enough to try to define that, that is an issue for the states to decide. If the person who is raped thinks that something will help her then she should be allowed to do it as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another individual. Once a state defines what exactly is an individual with regards to the pregnancy then a woman should not be able to infringe on that individual's right to live. We would not let a mother who was raped and had the child kill her 3 day old baby because the baby reminded her of the attack and every state is allowed to decide when that point in the pregnancy is.

Mike

 

[Darkwind]

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)..

The real issue here though is not the "effect on the person who is raped" it is the effects of the actions on the right of an individual to live. At some point in a pregnancy it is not "just a collection of cells". I am not going to be vain enough to try to define that, that is an issue for the states to decide. If the person who is raped thinks that something will help her then she should be allowed to do it as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another individual. Once a state defines what exactly is an individual with regards to the pregnancy then a woman should not be able to infringe on that individual's right to live. We would not let a mother who was raped and had the child kill her 3 day old baby because the baby reminded her of the attack and every state is allowed to decide when that point in the pregnancy is.

Mike

yes, but I've been back and forth on the abortion issue so many times, it seems like both sides are just typing out responses formulated 15 years ago.

I was focusing on a very narrow aspect of the argument that I have not yet decide is valid enough to sway Me one way or the other.

 

[Jackson]

My mother was a product of a rape and was allowed to live, God Bless my grandmother. I should be thanking her every day of my life for I wouldn't have had the delightful mother I had, nor would I be here today.

Fetuses are LIVES. ABORTIONS are SELFISH and MURDER. There are no other comments that are more true than that.

Once a baby is conceived, the woman is a vessel to hold the baby until it is born. She always has the option to give it up to someone who wants to be that child's mother or father. Nine months is not too much to hold that child.

 

[Texanmike]

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)..

The real issue here though is not the "effect on the person who is raped" it is the effects of the actions on the right of an individual to live. At some point in a pregnancy it is not "just a collection of cells". I am not going to be vain enough to try to define that, that is an issue for the states to decide. If the person who is raped thinks that something will help her then she should be allowed to do it as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another individual. Once a state defines what exactly is an individual with regards to the pregnancy then a woman should not be able to infringe on that individual's right to live. We would not let a mother who was raped and had the child kill her 3 day old baby because the baby reminded her of the attack and every state is allowed to decide when that point in the pregnancy is.

Mike

yes, but I've been back and forth on the abortion issue so many times, it seems like both sides are just typing out responses formulated 15 years ago.

I was focusing on a very narrow aspect of the argument that I have not yet decide is valid enough to sway Me one way or the other.

I hear what you are saying. I am of the belief though, that people have chosen sides based on a false idea. The whole idea of "abortion" is wrong. An abortion isn't always an "abortion". Not all instances of abortion are equal. If you were able to terminate a pregnancy a few minutes after conception then it would literally (in the minds of many) be a medical procedure. If, however, in the course of labor you were to pull the "fetus" out of the mother and bash them over the skull with a baseball bat there are very very few people in the world that would call that procedure an "abortion". Somewhere between these two extremes lies a point when a "fetus" becomes a "baby" or an individual. The rights of that baby are no more or no less than the rights of any other individual. People though, are able to "muddy" the waters by making heartbreaking pleas in both directions. "The poor mom" or "the poor baby". Sometimes the pleas are for religious or moral reasons and yet other times the focus becomes on name calling. These are all ways to avoid the topic that neither side really wants to deal with... The right of every human being not to die, unlawfully, at the hands of another human being.

Mike

 

[Nunz]

I'm a pro-choice Republican. But i do know quite a few Democrats who oppose abortion; perhaps you should rephrase the subject title?

Perhaps you'd like to suck a cock?

 

[Nunz]

I'm a pro-choice Republican. But i do know quite a few Democrats who oppose abortion; perhaps you should rephrase the subject title?

Perhaps you'd like to suck a cock?

That's Ok, i don't partake in the same pastimes your daddy shared with you!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did they catch the animals who raped Oompaloompa?

 

[buckeye45_73]

so now people are called, anti-choicers

Yeah. Its the opposite to pro-choice. Dummy

You're not pro choice, you're pro abortion, admit it or I make you look like an idiot again.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm a pro-choice Republican. But i do know quite a few Democrats who oppose abortion; perhaps you should rephrase the subject title?

Perhaps you'd like to suck a cock?

Ooh, if you like sucking cock, I got one for ya. You want to meet in a gloryhole so you can keep it anonymous?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Incorrect. It would be allowed when the babby presents a clear, present and immediate danger to the life of the mother, 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.

Wow. You're far less clever than I thought.