We are always told by pro-lifers that anti-abortion is only about saving innocent babies, and not about punishing women for sexual emancipation or because of misogyny. If such is the case, why the exception for rape, when abortion should be still allowed? Fetus from rape is exactly the same in all qualities than any other fetus. If its only about saving innocent fetuses which are equal to born persons, it should also be protected. The only justification for killing another person is direct threat to life or health. Assuming the rape pregnancy is physiologically normal, this is not the case. If fetuses are really persons just like born people, the only thing when it should be allowed is direct health or life threat to the woman, that is risky pregnancy, which normal rape pregnancy is not. If you allow abortion of healthy pregnancy in case of rape, you are inherently acknowledging fetus is not a person, that it is something less than normal person, since it can be killed for something other than direct threat for life and health - namely psychological inconvenience stemming from carrying fetus from rape. This would be against its basic human rights as a person. Now, if you have such acknowledged that fetus is not a person, on what grounds do you justify banning abortion in any other situation, even of non-rape fetuses? You cant have it both ways. Either fetus is a person, then rape abortion should also be banned, or it is not a person, then it is a thing, and I dont see any reason to ban any abortion. If you really did not think fetuses are persons, and still wanted abortion banned, there is only one option - you want to punish women for sexual emancipation or irresponsibility.
Though it's a terrible event, rape or incest, the baby is still innocent. There is no difference b/w a baby conceived through a loving marriage or a baby conceived during a rape. A baby is a baby is a baby. Question I have for you is, why do you focus on such a small, minute number of babies as rape or incest to justify your stances? It's an extreme circumstance at best. Why not argue the common abortion practice, which is for convenience? Why harp on the extremes to try and create support?
So do you agree that rape abortion should be also illegal? I dont agree, but at least you are consistent in your thinking, as opposed to those pro-lifers who are against abortions except in case of rape. I dont focus on it, I think abortion for any reason should be legal (up to a limit), and after that abortion for any reason except for threat to life and health should be illegal. But law should give acceptable answers in any possible situation. If it does not, it should be changed to do so. Even if a law results in unacceptable consequences in a small minority of cases, its still a valid criticism of it.
hmmm, interesting. the word "limit" could be taken to mean different things. Do you mean that you wish to limit a woman to x amount of abortions, perhaps 6? Or, are you saying that it's OK to kill the baby.......oops, abort up until a specific timeframe of the pregnancy? If timeframe, then what is that period of time?
OK, I want to be completely clear. Do you support unlimited abortions for women? If so, would you put any caveats such as unlimited as long as it's not taxpayer funded etc ?
oh, watch the video (even the 2-minute version) since you support abortion you should be willing to see what happens http://www.abort73.com/
one more thing, what makes 1 week such a difference? Why not the first week of the 2nd trimester, how about the 2nd week of the 2nd trimester? What's a few days? And, if you make it illegal at the 2nd trimester, how many people at abortions r us (aka planned parenthood) would risk performing an abortion at week 12 becaus ehow can you be exactly sure the baby is only 12 weeks and not 13?
Yes, unlimited, also taxpayer funded would be ideal. Its the poor who need access to abortions and other reproductive services the most, not the rich. Not much of a substance there. Nothing, but we simply have to draw the legal line somewhere. Its the same as with legal drinking limit - in reality, the ability to drink responsibly is fuzzy and attained continuously, but legal limits cannot be fuzzy, so its made exact in the law (21 yrs in the US). The real difference happens in 5th month when brainwaves (and thus possibility of mind) appear, but we should put the legal limit a bit sooner just to be sure. By far the most abortions happen far sooner. I am sure it would not cause any problems, abortion is legal here only in the first trimester (except for health threats) for a long time, and I have never heard of any problems with it. Three months is more than enough time to make a decision.
OK, and I really do appreciate your speaking your mind. i'll never convince you or vice versa but we can still hear out each other's opinions. If you make it illegal after the first trimester what happens if the mom decides at week 14 that she's had enough and doesn't want the child? Is she then forced to carry the baby to term? What if she kills the child herself, are charges brought up against her?
Yes. If she had an assistance of a doctor, he will most probably be convinced, but if she acted alone, she may not be, because of the psychological circumstances surrounding the murder. I have never heard of similar case over here, women wont suddenly change their minds in such way, after 3 months of agreeing with the pregnancy despite having an option to abort at any time.
Blasphemer And I am proud to be anti-choice on this. I think its ironic that those who champion abortion and do not want protection for the life in the womb want to blame people like me who are pro-life for the mistakes of the woman who take the risk to get pregnant. Its their bodies guys. They could say no to sex. But they don't. They know what pregnancy means and what happens when it happens. No one would need an abortion if that which was the result of the sex act was not human and living. And rape babies should be protected. Tell me anyone if you went into a hospital nursery and it was full of newborn babies..and the nurse told you to go pick up the one whose mother had been raped .could you do it? Rape is a violent act that should not go unpunished. That punishment however should not be focused at the new life. It was not the fault of the woman or the child she carries. But life is life and should be protected. Two wrong, in this case two violent acts don't make a right. I agree. But even in the cases of threat of health to the woman .its less than 1% of all pregnancies. Usually they can save both mother and child.
First of all abortions happen all the time in the second and third trimester. Hardly a doctor today is prosecuted except if the woman dies or there are health issues after an abortion. And we don't hear about those because they are settled out of court for all the obvious reasons. But if you look at the pro-choice position .it is not logical to say that abortion should be legal until ???? Third month fourth .fifth ??? They maintain that abortion should be legal because its THE WOMANS BODY. Well its still the woman body after viability and so to deny her is hypocritical on the pro-choicers stance .she should be allowed no matter what the reason is to kill her child. Anything less enslaves her.
Nope. By far the most abortions happen in the first trimester: Later abortions are most frequently because of threat to life or health, so they would happen anyway. I dont hold such extreme position, indeed it is illogical to me. Its no longer womans body when the fetus develops brainwaves (mind), which make him a separate person. But before that it is.
Thats my point. In order for a pro-life position to be consistent, rape fetuses should also be protected. Now, are you willing to outlaw abortions in cases of rape to be consistent pro-life? I dont think most people, even self-proclaimed pro-life people would support such law. Because they are hypocrites.
That's a fair question. There is an obvious logical inconsistency there. But I don't think it's so much a malicious act of misogyny (as you seem to) so much as an emotional weakness of wanting to be empathetic toward women who have been subjected to horrible crimes. The people who make such a big fuss about pro-lifers not caring about women never seem to stop to consider this possibility. Heaven forbid you assume any genuinely good, altruistic, or empathetic motives to our actions. You are too clouded by your own emotions to pause for a moment, take a step outside of your own views, and honestly try to understand our perspective from our side. Instead, you are all too eager to link A (we oppose abortion) to Z (we must want to punish women) without stopping to think the situation through and consider it from all sides. But logically, you are correct. There should be no acception for cases of rape. Now that being said, I have a question for you. You've already stated that you are pro-abortion. But you still brought this up, so I have to ask. Are you saying that, if given the choice, you would rather abortion be outlawed completely all across the board instead of making exceptions for rape?
Try convincing the American public that a pregnancy resulting from rape is a gift from God. Any such attempt would only benefit the pro-choice side.
It seems odd to me that not once have I seen any pro lifer show concern over the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, which tend to mean the life they believe that was created at conception is flushed down the toilet. http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Miscarriage.htm
A known fact is....if you legalize abortion women will start using it as birth control. A baby is a baby no matter what. Why would u take its life away because of some inconsiderate jerk??? Its not the baby's fault it was born.
Or being victims of sexual assault. And further more, by trying to block or limit contraception as an option, they want to take away sexual emancipation. Not a good look to admit they really do believe men have more rights to enjoy sex than women do. Good thread.
I think most people who are pro-life understand the baby from rape is just as precious human life as that from a one night stand or from two commited people. But within our culture at this time....I don't think we could pass a law that would denote a human life from rape as protected. Laws do reflect society, and society tends to view the rape victim's emotional turmoil and the toughness of handling a pregancy from rape as more important then a life.
So, in fact most pro lifers don't believe that all embryos are as equally precious as born people? That makes sense. Almost 100% of foetuses that test positive for a chromosomal disorder are aborted. Nobody would seriously claim that none of that 90+% are pro life.
Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want and give birth to a child she can't care for, would cause extreme psychological damage. The damage could be reduced considerably if the woman was given a lot of support, both financially and emotionally, but nobody wants to do that.
I dont think so. Would the threat of psychological damage allow you to kill another innocent adult person without punishment? No. Especially if said person has no choice in the matter, as the fetus has not. If its "yes" for the fetus, then its inherently something less than a normal person.
