It is a red herring. 1% or less of abortions are due to rape. True! And that is the most difficult situation to reconcile because the woman didn't invite the child in, as is the case with the other 99+% of all abortions. Nope, this is another emotional hype nonsense opinion that actual lifers do not hold. There is no "punishment" aspect at all. Abortion promoters desperately want that to be the motivation of lifers, but it simply isn't the case. Prohibiting a woman from killing her child is not punishing her. Any sane person undedrstands this.
A woman didn't invite the child in? What kind of primitive logic is this? A sexual partner might be said to have been "invited in" but a child? Where was the child when it was supposedly invited? Ludicrous doesn't suffice to describe the idea.
When you engage in a voluntary activity with known consequences, you can be said to have invited the consequences. Its logic, try some.
Except she is terminating her pregnancy, no child is involved. Yet you still have such great difficulty...
Who's dismissing them? In other news, getting into a car with an obvious drunk at the wheel is not consent to a lifetime of paralysis; yet such a victim is no more innocent than the driver.
Whaler. He is dismissing them as a red herring just a page back. And in more news, taking risks has never been a valid reason to deny a person medical care after the fact. So whether you get into a car drunk and harm yourself you still cannot be denied medical care to attempt to put you back the way you were beforehand. (I think using paralysis is a bad comparison with pregnancy though since pregnancy is always temporary, whether you give birth, miscarry or abort.)
Why is a child in utero senetnced to death merely for existing when the killer is the one who made it happen?
It's very simple really, but it is something you always have difficulty comprehending. A woman's body goes through a long list of changes during pregnancy and in the end she must go through painful labor and childbirth. She is also putting her own life and health at severe risk to carry a pregnancy to term, because quite frankly a pregnancy can go horribly wrong at any time, THAT risk always exists whether it actually happens or not. Going through all that should be a personal choice, not a forced one. It is wrong to force someone into unwanted risks that could harm their own body and well being.
Is it right to a allow the killing of another person to avoid these side effects? That is something you will always have a hard time understanding (apparently).
But of course that's nothing like what you're demanding. What you want is for a truly innocent bystander to be killed under the pretext of giving medical care.
Look, if you aren't well read enough on the subject to make an intelligent comment, you always have the option of not posting. "child in utero" is the legal term for a fetus in the womb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act "is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim" It is also used in the medical field: http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/jfetalperiod/gestalt02.html
Actually, since there is clear evidence of fetal sentience in the last trimester, it's fair to say you have no idea what the Hell you're talking about.
No, self-defense in this case is the woman saying no to the lowlife whose child she doesn't want to bear. Obviously no one can be defending himself except against a person who harbors intent to infringe on his liberties; and since you deny that an embryo or fetus is a person to begin with, you don't have a case.
