Romney and Rape Babies.

[ABikerSailor]

I can understand (somewhat) the exception for 'life of the mother'...though, most mothers I know would willingly die to give their child a life...

What I want to know is this.

Why an exception for rape?

Honest answer please.

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

 

[Noomi]

I can understand (somewhat) the exception for 'life of the mother'...though, most mothers I know would willingly die to give their child a life...

What I want to know is this.

Why an exception for rape?

Honest answer please.

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Because the baby is innocent and didn't ask to exist, is what they would say. But I would say the woman and her mental health is far more important.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I can understand (somewhat) the exception for 'life of the mother'...though, most mothers I know would willingly die to give their child a life...

What I want to know is this.

Why an exception for rape?

Honest answer please.

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Because the baby is innocent and didn't ask to exist, is what they would say. But I would say the woman and her mental health is far more important.

Why is the topic on this.....it's a red herring, it's for a small percentage.....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Because the baby is innocent and didn't ask to exist, is what they would say. But I would say the woman and her mental health is far more important.

Why is the topic on this.....it's a red herring, it's for a small percentage.....

Of course it's a small percentage. Only 32,000 women per year.

Which means it should be their choice to have the child or not, keep the government out of it.

 

[auditor0007]

What have you been smoking?

It's a very simple argument. If abortion is permitted when rape is the cause of the pregnancy, there must be an actual conviction against the rapist before rape can be used as reasoning for an abortion. By the time the case goes to trial, it would be long past a reasonable time for the woman to have the abortion, therefore she would be forced into having the baby or aborting a baby in the last stages of pregnancy which at that time the baby is a viable human being that can no longer be aborted.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Because the baby is innocent and didn't ask to exist, is what they would say. But I would say the woman and her mental health is far more important.

Why is the topic on this.....it's a red herring, it's for a small percentage.....

Of course it's a small percentage. Only 32,000 women per year.

Which means it should be their choice to have the child or not, keep the government out of it.

The problem is you like to focus the abortion debate on small things that never happen. LEt em have one if they're raped...but not as birth control....the vast vast majority of them.......see we can move on now!

 

[Stephanie]

I can understand (somewhat) the exception for 'life of the mother'...though, most mothers I know would willingly die to give their child a life...

What I want to know is this.

Why an exception for rape?

Honest answer please.

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Lots of women have kept the child of traumatic experiences..
You people are a joke

 

[JoeB131]

I can understand (somewhat) the exception for 'life of the mother'...though, most mothers I know would willingly die to give their child a life...

What I want to know is this.

Why an exception for rape?

Honest answer please.

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Lots of women have kept the child of traumatic experiences..
You people are a joke

So again, why should they have to if they don't want to? More importantly, why should the government force them to.

I find it amusing that the people who don't want to force CEO's to obey the law want the law to change to make women have their rapist's babies.

 

[Stephanie]

Quick question....................do you think it's right for a woman to go through a traumatic experience and have to be reminded about what happened for the rest of her life?

Lots of women have kept the child of traumatic experiences..
You people are a joke

So again, why should they have to if they don't want to? More importantly, why should the government force them to.

I find it amusing that the people who don't want to force CEO's to obey the law want the law to change to make women have their rapist's babies.

NO ONE is advocating the government FORCE them to do anything..and why should that bother you if they were, you don't mind FORCING us to pay for their killing of the babies..
you people are a twisted joke

 

[JoeB131]

Lots of women have kept the child of traumatic experiences..
You people are a joke

So again, why should they have to if they don't want to? More importantly, why should the government force them to.

I find it amusing that the people who don't want to force CEO's to obey the law want the law to change to make women have their rapist's babies.

NO ONE is advocating the government FORCE them to do anything..and why should that bother you if they were, you don't mind FORCING us to pay for their killing of the babies..
you people are a twisted joke

It's currently illegal for the government to pay for abortions... So that won't fly.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is curious that some liberals express outrage at the view that babies conceived in rape should not be executed because of how they were conceived.

Personally, I support allowing the option of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but I respect the view that rape babies should be allowed to live and then given up for adoption. I agree that, ideally, that's what should happen, but I also understand that some rape victims may feel that carrying the baby to term would be emotionally unbearable.

As a matter of practical politics, we're not going to get pro-life laws that do not allow exceptions for rape and incest. It's just not going to happen. Only 4-5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, and endangerment. So, on a purely tactical level, I'm willing to allow the 4-5% in order to stop the remaining 95%.

 

[JoeB131]

It is curious that some liberals express outrage at the view that babies conceived in rape should not be executed because of how they were conceived.

Personally, I support allowing the option of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but I respect the view that rape babies should be allowed to live and then given up for adoption. I agree that, ideally, that's what should happen, but I also understand that some rape victims may feel that carrying the baby to term would be emotionally unbearable.

As a matter of practical politics, we're not going to get pro-life laws that do not allow exceptions for rape and incest. It's just not going to happen. Only 4-5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, and endangerment. So, on a purely tactical level, I'm willing to allow the 4-5% in order to stop the remaining 95%.

But then you are showing you sliding view of morality...

If you accept a kidney-bean sized fetus has just as many rights as a person as the woman it's in, then you have to oppose abortion in ANY circumstance. It's the logical fallacy that you folks fall into.

As a practical matter, women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is. So if you guys were really serious about reducing the number of abortions, you'd be less focused on changing the law and more focused on changing the society.

In the Philippines, abortion is completely illegal. But women there have 500-800K abortions a year.

In France, abortion is not only legal, but the government pays for them. But the government also pays full family and medical leave and all medical expenses. As a result, they have half as many abortions per capita than Americans have.

You tell me which is the desired model to follow.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is curious that some liberals express outrage at the view that babies conceived in rape should not be executed because of how they were conceived.

Personally, I support allowing the option of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but I respect the view that rape babies should be allowed to live and then given up for adoption. I agree that, ideally, that's what should happen, but I also understand that some rape victims may feel that carrying the baby to term would be emotionally unbearable.

As a matter of practical politics, we're not going to get pro-life laws that do not allow exceptions for rape and incest. It's just not going to happen. Only 4-5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, and endangerment. So, on a purely tactical level, I'm willing to allow the 4-5% in order to stop the remaining 95%.

But then you are showing you sliding view of morality...

If you accept a kidney-bean sized fetus has just as many rights as a person as the woman it's in, then you have to oppose abortion in ANY circumstance. It's the logical fallacy that you folks fall into.

As a practical matter, women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is. So if you guys were really serious about reducing the number of abortions, you'd be less focused on changing the law and more focused on changing the society.

In the Philippines, abortion is completely illegal. But women there have 500-800K abortions a year.

In France, abortion is not only legal, but the government pays for them. But the government also pays full family and medical leave and all medical expenses. As a result, they have half as many abortions per capita than Americans have.

You tell me which is the desired model to follow.

It is no logical fallacy, nor is it a sliding view of morality, to make the tactical decision to allow 4-5% of abortions to prevent the remaining 95% and thus to save hundreds of thousands of babies from unjustified death. It is simply facing the reality that we're not going to be able to stop most elective abortions if we do not allow abortion in cases of rape and incest (everybody agrees that abortion should be allowed in endangerment cases).

But speaking of a sliding view of morality, your view simply condemns hundreds of thousands of babies in the womb to death for no valid reason. "Gee, I wasn't planning on a baby" or "A baby just doesn't fit into my life plans right now" are not valid reason to kill a child in the womb.

Finally, the science of embryology should be allowed a voice here, because we now know that after just 4-5 weeks the baby in the womb has a heartbeat, brain waves, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type from his mother's), and a visibly human form (not a complete human form, but a plainly visible human form).

 

[JoeB131]

[

It is no logical fallacy, nor is it a sliding view of morality, to make the tactical decision to allow 4-5% of abortions to prevent the remaining 95% and thus to save hundreds of thousands of babies from unjustified death. It is simply facing the reality that we're not going to able to stop most elective abortions if we do not allow abortion in cases of rape and incest (everybody agrees that abortion should be allowed in endangerment cases).

Well, actually, it is. You are saying you are willing to sacrifice 5% of fetuses to save the othe r95%, because, hey, they are "expendable".

[
But speaking of a sliding view of morality, your view simply condemns hundreds of thousands of babies in the womb to death for no valid reason. "Gee, I wasn't planning on a baby" or "A baby just doesn't fit into my life plans right now" are not valid reason to kill a child in the womb.

Fetuses aren't babies. Sorry. And what you consider a valid reason would only apply to your womb. Since neither of us have a womb, I would say neither of us really should have much to say about it.

[

Finally, the science of embryology should be allowed a voice here, because we now know that after just 4-5 weeks the baby in the womb has a heartbeat, brain waves, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type from his mother's), and a visibly human form (not a complete human form, but a plainly visible human form).

so what?

It still can't live outside the womb it's in until about 20 weeks. And if the owner of that womb doesn't want it there, out it goes.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, actually, it is. You are saying you are willing to sacrifice 5% of fetuses to save the other 95%, because, hey, they are "expendable".

Actually, it is not. And no one says the 5% are "expendable." It's just that, because of folks with views like yours, the only way we're going to even have a chance to stop most elective abortions is to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.

You are saying that all babies in the womb are "expendable," that their fate depends solely on the mother's preference.

Fetuses aren't babies. Sorry. And what you consider a valid reason would only apply to your womb. Since neither of us have a womb, I would say neither of us really should have much to say about it.

Sorry, but you're a good 20 years behind the science on this issue. Again, after just 4-5 weeks the baby has a heartbeat, brain waves, a visibly human form, his own blood supply, and even often has a different blood type than his mother has.

And in your view a "valid reason" consists of a woman's desire to use abortion as just another birth control method, even though there's been no rape or incest and there's no endangerment.

You guys care more about whales, dolphins, and rare birds than you do about perfectly healthy babies in the womb.

[Finally, the science of embryology should be allowed a voice here, because we now know that after just 4-5 weeks the baby in the womb has a heartbeat, brain waves, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type from his mother's), and a visibly human form (not a complete human form, but a plainly visible human form).

So what? It still can't live outside the womb it's in until about 20 weeks. And if the owner of that womb doesn't want it there, out it goes.

"So what?" Wow, a rather chilling mindset. Furthermore, the baby can live just fine inside the womb until that time, unless an abortion doctor poisons him or cuts him up and then sucks him out.

Using your logic, seniors and others who can't live on their own but who need life-support equipment to live should be liable for termination since, by your definition, they are not "viable."

 

[JoeB131]

Well, actually, it is. You are saying you are willing to sacrifice 5% of fetuses to save the other 95%, because, hey, they are "expendable".

Actually, it is not. And no one says the 5% are "expendable." It's just that, because of folks with views like yours, the only way we're going to even have a chance to stop most elective abortions is to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.

There are millions of children who starve to death all over the world, every day... and you guys are worried about unwanted feruses.

You are saying that all babies in the womb are "expendable," that their fate depends solely on the mother's preference.

No, that's just reality, my man. Look at countries where abortion is illegal, women still have them.

4

Sorry, but you're a good 20 years behind the science on this issue. Again, after just 4-5 weeks the baby has a heartbeat, brain waves, a visibly human form, his own blood supply, and even often has a different blood type than his mother has.

And it would still die within seconds of being reomved from the womb. Therefore - not a person.

And in your view a "valid reason" consists of a woman's desire to use abortion as just another birth control method, even though there's been no rape or incest and there's no endangerment.

You guys care more about whales, dolphins, and rare birds than you do about perfectly healthy babies in the womb.

Please don't mistake me for some whale hugging hippy, guy. We have too many perfectly healthy babies on this planet, more than the planet can sustain. Abortion, although unpleaseent, is a better form of population control than famine, plauge and war.

"So what?" Wow, a rather chilling mindset. Furthermore, the baby can live just fine inside the womb until that time, unless an abortion doctor poisons him or cuts him up and then sucks him out.

Using your logic, seniors and others who can't live on their own but who need life-support equipment to live should be liable for termination since, by your definition, they are not "viable."

They have the ability to make that decision... I'd say, yeah.

Fact is, abortions are going to happen, regardless of whatever silly laws you religious zealots get passed. I don't deal with the world as I want it to be, I deal with the world as it is.

 

[Barb]