Do I think the lives of terrorists are as precious.............heck no Do I think all babies deserve a chance to grow and live.......heck yeah
OK, then this thread does not apply to you, and your position is consistent. I am also against abortion in case of rape and incest, but only after 5th month of pregnancy has passed.
Then I just have to know your opinion about this case of a 9-year-old, pregnant with twins: http://catholics4choice.wordpress.c...the-victims-9-year-old-incest-victim’s-story/
My opinion? People should not have sex with their nine year old relatives. The mother, if she was worried about what her church might think, should have consulted with the priest prior to getting an abortion for her daughter.
I love how libs present a story of a rare occurance like a 9 year old incest victim pregnant with twins in a 3rd world country as justification for murdering millions of unborn children in the U.S. every year. As if every abortion in the U.S. is done for simular reasons and under simular circumstances.
That tells me what I wanted to know. You wouldn't question or criticize the Catholic Church not matter how horrific its actions were. The rapist stepfather was not excommunicated, because he could be forgiven. Doctors said the 9-year-old would likely not survive the pregnancy, and neither would the twin fetuses. That means THREE lives would have been lost instead of two. This is what people call religious insanity.
So this is the "Reasons to hate Catholics" thread now? Again, perhaps the mother could have explained the circumstances to the priest. Maybe she could have gotten a second opinion from another doctor. I don't know all the variable circumstances, but it all seems a bit off the topic to be presenting a rare occurance and then attack Catholics. If you don't like the Catholic Church, you don't have to be a member.
Don't be so defensive; more accurately, I made a couple of posts to point out reasons to question rigid Catholic doctrine. Bingo! You DON'T know all the variable circumstances of ANY rape case, but you want to criminalize abortion for all of them regardless. The Catholic Church wants the government to enforce its teachings on all women, regardless of their membership. Why shouldn't I object to that? Isn't it hypocritical to claim to value life, yet take actions which result in more lives lost? That doesn't apply to just this case; it's happening in many countries with extreme abortion laws.
I don't recall ever hearing that rape justified the death penalty, especially when the sentence would be carried out on an innocent human life as opposed to the actual guilty party.
The nine-year-old girl is alive; don't forget that. Do you mean one who bashes Planned Parenthood, pro-choice politicians and activists, and any institution that is even neutral on the abortion issue, but complains that critics of Catholic policies are haters? How hypocritical is that?
You've heard of it now. In this particular case, an innocent nine-year-old girl, denied abortion, would likely have died, according to doctors. The actual guilty party was not excommunicated, because he could be forgiven.
That's an extreme case. I'd appreciate it if you could find statistics explaining just how frequently this occurs, specifically how frequently this occurs in places other than third world countries.
Once again: I never said you were a "hater". I merely posted the definition of bigot. Last time I check, people who oppose Planned Parenthood policies or those of pro-choice politicians, activists or yadda yadda yadda do not meet that definition.
The reason for the abortion isn't important under US law. The reality is simply this, the unborn aren't persons. The mother is. She doesn't abandon her right to life or liberty simpy by getting pregnant. She is perfectly able to change her mind and there is no justification required. We don't pass any laws that force anyone to abandon their right to life or liberty without due process. Pregnancy isn't a due process. The rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the living, they are persons, the unborn are not and the law protects only persons.
Really? Again? I'm seriously going to start counting every time someone makes this false assertion. "Personhood" is not something which is objectively defined by science. "Personhood" is subjective. So you might not think the unborn are "persons," but you are not automatically the voice of objective truth. Right, which is what we're trying to change. There is no justification for killing an unborn, especially when it's for the sake of "convenience" and is used basically as a free pass from taking on the responsibility which results from the causality of sexual activity. Yes it is. Have sex = get pregnant, it's sex education 101. It's cause and effect, causality to a T. By opting for an abortion, the woman carrying the unborn is opting out of personal accountability for her own "choice." Pro-"choice" advocates of all people should recognize the responsibilities that come with making a choice and bearing the consequences versus throwing them all away while killing an innocent life in the process. Find me some piece of United States legislature that deigns to define "personhood" or explicitly states as law that an unborn is not a person and then we'll talk. Until then, your argument's primary premise is based on unsupported rhetoric. And don't try to link to some "fetal rights" site either, because such a site will only explain the rights a fetus has currently under the law, I have yet to see a site like that which is able to pinpoint legislature which objectively defines "personhood" or states that the unborn are not "persons."
I agree with the previous post by Locke9-05. The unborn do have rights as outlined in Roe v Wade and criminal laws recognize them as a victim if you murder them.
It was not my intention to use this case to justify abortion in the case of rape. That needs no justification. To force a woman to gestate and give birth to the spawn of her attacker is depraved and sadistic.
Regarding the nine year old with twins case, assuming it is a risky pregnancy, then it is an abortion to protect life or health of the mother. Surely nobody wishes to restrict these abortions? Person or not a person is irrelevant here, as this is no different than killing in self-defense. Killing even born adult persons is allowed in defense. So these cases have little connection to the whole abortion debate.
Yeah, I did notice the addition of the word politics, which is stupid. It used to be just creed, color, race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. Including politics doesn't make sense because then everyone who is politically opinionated is a bigot. (I also knew that it would catch your attention).
