Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

[The Professor]

No.

I believe all life is precious and should be cherised.

I agree, which is why I think that a woman who becomes pregnant by rape should not be required to birth and care for the child who is a product of an unwanted and forced pregnancy.

When you are defining the value of life, it is unfair to assume that only fetuses and children have rights. Adult women have also been endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights, among which - I firmly believe - is the right not to have the course of her entire life determined by a child forced upon her by a criminal attack.

I could be wrong, I mean I was wrong back in 1976 ... wait, I was right, forget it.

 

[g5000]

No.

I believe all life is precious and should be cherised.

I agree, which is why I think that a woman who becomes pregnant by rape should not be required to birth and care for the child who is a product of an unwanted and forced pregnancy.

When you are defining the value of life, it is unfair to assume that only fetuses and children have rights. Adult women have also been endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights, among which - I firmly believe - is the right not to have the course of her entire life determined by a child forced upon her by a criminal attack.

I could be wrong, I mean I was wrong back in 1976 ... wait, I was right, forget it.

Those same inalienable rights apply to the unborn. A life is a life to be protected. How that life was created does not change the fact it is a life to be protected.

You seem to believe that it is only possible to have compassion for the human life in the mother or the mother, but not both. You assume since someone wants to save the life of the child, they do not have compassion for the mother.

This is a completely bullshit assumption.

Look, the emotional blackmail shit doesn't work. You know why? Because it was THE RAPIST who created the conflict, not the pro-lifers. Not God.

The rapist.

This fucking bullshit in this topic and around the left wing universe lets the rapist off the hook and tries to pin the wreckage on people who love life and love children and their mothers.



.

 

[AmyNation]

I agree, rape is the exception not the rule.

A more straight forward question is, where do you draw the line at abortion?

 

[g5000]

I am more than willing to support any legislation which requires emergency services to offer emergency contraception to any rape victim.

I have no objection to that whatsoever.

Problem solved.

.

 

[g5000]

I agree, rape is the exception not the rule.

A more straight forward question is, where do you draw the line at abortion?

Yes, that is the issue. And it is an honest question.

There are people who are okay with abortion in the first trimester, but not beyond, who consider themselves pro-life.

About two thirds of Americans draw the line in that same place. So there is clearly a lot of overlap between pro-life and pro-choice.

Instead of dicking around with the rape and incest question, we should be working with that. There's a lot to work with.

We should be pushing people to stop using abortion as their method of birth control. I have pointed out a zillion times that half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used at all.

Just think about that. The woman is about to have sex with no birth control at all, and she tells herself, "If I get pregnant I will just get an abortion."

This is the kind of irresponsible behavior we should and can be addressing, if we stopped fucking around with human shield crime victims, and getting all giggly when some pro-lifer fumbles the greased Gotcha ball.

The rape and incest tactic is a cheap victory with zero fucking solution in it. A stupid, stupid, stupid, and extremely costly game.

.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As any good Christian would say, "of course."

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

 

[AmyNation]

I agree, rape is the exception not the rule.

A more straight forward question is, where do you draw the line at abortion?

Yes, that is the issue. And it is an honest question.

There are people who are okay with abortion in the first trimester, but not beyond, who consider themselves pro-life.

About two thirds of Americans draw the line in that same place. So there is clearly a lot of overlap between pro-life and pro-choice.

Instead of dicking around with the rape and incest question, we should be working with that. There's a lot to work with.

We should be pushing people to stop using abortion as their method of birth control. I have pointed out a zillion times that half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used at all.

Just think about that. The woman is about to have sex with no birth control at all, and she tells herself, "If I get pregnant I will just get an abortion."

This is the kind of irresponsible behavior we should and can be addressing, if we stopped fucking around with human shield crime victims, and getting all giggly when some pro-lifer fumbles the greased Gotcha ball.

The rape and incest tactic is a cheap victory with zero fucking solution in it. A stupid, stupid, stupid, and extremely costly game.

.


.

For the most part I agree.

I don't think our current laws reflect the feelings of the nation as a whole, and if there was a way for both sides to be satisfied and to settle the issue and move on, so our elected officials could spend all that time and money on something else. I'd be all for it.

However it's one of those issues where there feels like no middle ground. *shrug*

 

[Ravi]

Indeed. It is disgusting the way victims of some of the worst crimes there are (rape and incest) are so consistently used as human shields to protect at least half a million (and then some) abortions resulting from irresponsible behavior each year.

.

Republican candidates keep bring it up.

Bullshit. Republicans don't keep bringing it up. Every time a candidate says they are pro-life, the smokescreen around the abortion rate in this country is immediately thrown up. "What about in cases of rape or incest?" It's a HUGE diversion.

That candidate who is in the news, Murdock, was asked it during a debate. He didn't bring it up, the moderator did.

The media ALWAYS throw up that question. Every, single, time.

It's a gotcha game that has the end result of no progress on the abortion rate being made for decades.

I won't play.

[You didn't answer the question.

I most certainly did. This "yes or no" bullshit is just that; bullshit. It's a sickening tactic used to protect the million-plus other abortions each year by using crime victims as human shields to keep the conversation away from the massive irresponsibility of people who use abortion as their birth control method.

So my answer to that disgusting tactic is, "Fuck you." Stop using crime victims as a tool to institutionalize irresponsibility.

This is yet another variation of the "roll out the cancer lady" emotional blackmail tactic so beloved of the Left.



.

It took me a while to find it, but I just watched the portion of the video in question to see exactly what the candidate was asked. He was NOT asked about rape at all.

See for yourself.

Start at 42:31 when the question is asked, no mention of rape or even of exceptions.

Mourdock brought it up himself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOzm62BYYV4]Indiana Senate Debate: Donnelly, Mourdock, Horning - 10/23/12 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

Yes.

 

[kaz]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

Yes

Do I support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy which has nothing to do with rape or incest?

Yes

 

[Stephanie]

good grief, still obsessing over abortion and rapes..

no one care if you all abort all your children, get on with and shut the hell up about it

 

[Nightson]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

No.


Conditions existed after reading the OP, on the tip of my mind, which suggested my answer be 'yes'. However, when one believes in the criminality and immorality of abortion in general, then to set conditions for specific instances when this baleful act is justifiable is to completely discard his objection to it in the first place. I do not believe in abortion. A time existed when I was much more open minded on the subject, but very personal circumstances arose which shed new and frigid light on the issue. While I am certain that individuals on both sides of the issue have personal reasons for the stance they've taken, I remain highly skeptical of those who argue it in general terms and without tone of emotional weight. I want to label some who support abortion as simply naive in the sense that he or she may have not been personally, intimately touched by this issue. Of course to do so would be a broad generalization.

Remove all emotion and personal connective feelings from the issue of abortion and then one I suppose must approach the issue with an icy thought process of pure logic. Extremely difficult to do, so long as one is honest with himself. Thusly, does the legality and the according practice of abortion worldwide threaten the population of the human race as a whole organism? I doubt it. Logically, would I wish for say a loved one to have no choice but to raise a child conceived by either incest or rape? I certainly hope I never find out. And what of a child too young to safely give birth who has been raped? A horrible situation for both child mother and the child within her.

The issue of abortion, for me, is not about the sanctity of all life. It is about the sanctity of life developing within a woman--a life which is completely incapable of defending itself or of making decisions of any kind. I will never state that I believe in the sanctity of all life. Some life is definitely less valuable than other life. How this determination is made and who determines it are without doubt two of the most pressing issues of our age. In a less imperfect world I would elect the family unit as the ultimate determiner of the right or wrong of any abortion in nearly any applicable situation where the need arises to broach the question. After all, it is the family of both the woman seeking or wanting abortion, and the developing child within, who will ultimately have to live with the consequences of either action regarding the issue.

Some believe obdurately in a woman's right to choose. I fully agree that a woman's body is hers to do with as she chooses--same as a man. She, he both have rights equally afforded by our Constitution, and that's how it ought to be. Where my opinion diverges from those who support abortion is my belief that a developing child has rights as well, is not the property of its mother, and that a woman does not have the right to take the life of another, even though it is growing inside of her.

 

[kaz]

when one believes in the criminality and immorality of abortion in general, then to set conditions for specific instances when this baleful act is justifiable is to completely discard his objection to it in the first place

You care about being consistent when you decide it is in fact you who own other people's bodies and it is the job of government guns to make choices over other people's lives.

My view it is not government's job, it is your job, and neither of you have the right to force, only to persuade. No woman is going to carry a baby to term because you force them to. But ineffective government solutions are a whole lot easier then your taking the responsibility to influence people yourself. Sort of like you say about the liberals on other topics I'm sure...

 

[Wry Catcher]

The method of conception does not change the meaning of life.

lol, no, GOP's proposed constitutional amendment does.

No it doesn't, it just changes the legal definition of it to something more in line with science.

I don't want to 'put words in your mouth' Windbag, but it seems to me you do not believe a women impregnated by a rapists or her father has no right to abort the fetus. Is that correct?

 

[MarcATL]

Does the father have any right to determine the fate of his child?

Unborn? No. None. Or he shouldn't have. Or you change the whole system and give the father all the rights.

You can't have two people sharing equal rights over a fetus. It's totally unworkable.

Why not?

Women don't normally get pregnant on their own.

They carry the baby and birth the baby on their own though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does the father have any right to determine the fate of his child?

Unborn? No. None. Or he shouldn't have. Or you change the whole system and give the father all the rights.

You can't have two people sharing equal rights over a fetus. It's totally unworkable.

If he can be on the hook for child support then why can't the father make the choice to raise the child alone after birth? Is it too much to ask a woman to carry a child 9 months(one she chose to make) in order to give it life and life with his Dad?

Yes it is. If you weren't retarded you could figure that out.

 

[techieny]

yes

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does the father have any right to determine the fate of his child?

Unborn? No. None. Or he shouldn't have. Or you change the whole system and give the father all the rights.

You can't have two people sharing equal rights over a fetus. It's totally unworkable.

Why not?

Women don't normally get pregnant on their own.

How do you propose to settle the issue if, say,

the woman wants to have the baby, and the man wants her to have an abortion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The method of conception does not change the meaning of life.

lol, no, GOP's proposed constitutional amendment does.

No it doesn't, it just changes the legal definition of it to something more in line with science.

Why would you, who has said we don't need any government, care about a 'legal' definition?

 

[NoNukes]

Do you support a Women's right to abort a pregnancy the result of rape or incest?

Yes or No?

Yes