NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people, like Harry Reid, oppose Abortion except when it involves incest, rape, or it endangers the life of the mother.

But isn't the reason for being against abortion is that a fetus is a child? So, if a child is the product of incest or non-consentual sex, it's ok to kill him/her?

So..."Pro-lifers" who believe the same as minority leader Harry Reid, is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?

So..."Pro-lifers" who believe the same as minority leader Harry Reid, is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?
Why not

The issue is whose rights outweigh whose. Do the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the mother, or vice versa? On one hand, the child is seen to have a right to life, a tenet of the pro-life position. On the other hand, the mother is seen to have a right to her own body and jurisdiction over it, a tenet of the pro-choice position. Either way, someone loses their rights; it's just a matter of who loses their rights and who doesn't.

In cases of saving the mother's life, abortion should absolutely be legal. It's madness to ban abortion in this situation, what with how many mothers can die in childbirth. After all, someone's going to die in this situation; if the mother opts to save herself rather than leave the father to raise the child or have the child orphaned, depending on the status of the father, she can't be derided for that by anyone with a reasonable sense of humanity.

Incest and rape are a bit trickier. I guess the logic is that with rape, the mother didn't do a damn thing to end up pregnant, and with incest, the child's better off not being born due to physical and mental deformities. With incest, physical and mental deformities are not a certainty by any means, even if they are at an increased degree of likelihood.

In cases of rape, wouldn't it be more fitting to make the rapist raise the child while paying out to the rape victim for her trouble? Imagine how many jobs he would have to hold down just to accomplish this. And damn, would the state ever be watching him. One slip-up and the kid goes into foster care and the rapist goes to prison for some ungodly length of time. If the rapist is psychotic, then they can just lock him up for a while and put the kid in foster care if they don't want to allow abortion.

That said, banning abortion is horribly impractical right now. Back-alley abortions are the last thing any nation needs to deal with.

A lot of people, like Harry Reid, oppose Abortion except when it involves incest, rape, or it endangers the life of the mother.

But isn't the reason for being against abortion is that a fetus is a child? So, if a child is the product of incest or non-consentual sex, it's ok to kill him/her?

So..."Pro-lifers" who believe the same as minority leader Harry Reid, is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?

It's all about stopping women from enjoying sex. Not *having* sex, but enjoying it. If the woman is raped, they don't need to be 'punished' by child, because they didn't enjoy the sex anyway.

Of course, most people deny thinking like this, but you only have to look at their wording... it all boils down to "if we let woman have abortions, they'll have more sex and be able to enjoy it without having to go through childbirth! Oh noes!" Personally it sickens me. No other human being can be forced to donate their body even if someone else dies because of that. Why should pregnant women be the only human beings that lose the right to remove consent for donating their body? Why does a fetus deserve rights that no other human being has?

A lot of people, like Harry Reid, oppose Abortion except when it involves incest, rape, or it endangers the life of the mother.

But isn't the reason for being against abortion is that a fetus is a child? So, if a child is the product of incest or non-consentual sex, it's ok to kill him/her?

So..."Pro-lifers" who believe the same as minority leader Harry Reid, is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?
To answer your questions in order: Yes. No. No, but I've never heard of Harry Reid and I don't know his opinions.

I, personally, am only in favor of abortion in cases of rape and incest as a political concession*. In principle, I don't think that abortion should be used except in cases where the mother could die otherwise.

*I have to look up the statistics, but I don't think that the majority of abortions are performed for these reasons, anyway.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Last time I heard stats, 97% of abortions in the US are performed for convenience. Personally, I would only allow abortion when the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother. We can't punish kids for the sins of the parents. And It is better to have a child living with a deformity than to kill it in the womb. Who knows. Maybe a deformed person could contribute to society. Like Steven Hawking.

As for the idea that denying abortion is trying to deny women sex, that's hogwash. I might point out that denying women sex would also deny sex for men too, unless we're going to go homosexual. Most folks who are against abortion are also against homosexuality, so I think we can get rid of that one. I think what we're trying to promote is responsible sexuality. Don't sleep with someone unless you can raise the kid, if one comes along. Make your choice back there, not where it can kill an innocent life.

Equal rights for unborn women!

It's all about stopping women from enjoying sex. Not *having* sex, but enjoying it. If the woman is raped, they don't need to be 'punished' by child, because they didn't enjoy the sex anyway.

Oh, so that's why I'm pro-life. Thanks. I don't know what I'd do without you here to tell me what I believe.

To answer your questions in order: Yes. No. No, but I've never heard of Harry Reid and I don't know his opinions.

I, personally, am only in favor of abortion in cases of rape and incest as a political concession*. In principle, I don't think that abortion should be used except in cases where the mother could die otherwise.

*I have to look up the statistics, but I don't think that the majority of abortions are performed for these reasons, anyway.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

This essentially is the position of the vast majority of pro-life supporters.. people who are pro-life would not in principle accept the idea of an abortion because of rape or incest.. because essentially the child can be put up for adoption. But if this concession had to be made to remove the overlying idea that women some how have the RIGHT to terminate another persons life (essentaily the fetus) then it is a SMALL price to pay.. the idea that a fertalized egg (fetus) is their body soley and that their say is the only say is obsured (seeing how 50% of the genetic material is someone elses)

I belive this is an unbias source if not tell me (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

and if all this is correct something like 91.8% of all abortions are abortions of convience

This essentially is the position of the vast majority of pro-life supporters.. people who are pro-life would not in principle accept the idea of an abortion because of rape or incest.. because essentially the child can be put up for adoption. But if this concession had to be made to remove the overlying idea that women some how have the RIGHT to terminate another persons life (essentaily the fetus) then it is a SMALL price to pay.. the idea that a fertalized egg (fetus) is their body soley and that their say is the only say is obsured (seeing how 50% of the genetic material is someone elses)

The womb is her body, as is her blood. She has the right to deny any other human being access to them, why not a fetus?

People people people. Can't we all just agree that there are too many... well...people?

But seriously. Nice threads.

[QUOTE=Saipea]Can't we all just agree that there are too many... well...people?
QUOTE]

I agree, there are too many damn people already without unwanted children existing. Overpopulation is going to be as big a problem in the future as global warming. So, I have developed a strange, new concept that may save
humanity. YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN. Once I read in the paper about a couple who had close to a dozen children. Why? Why would you do that? Why would you have a dozen children? What's the
point? Ooo, look at you with your dozen children, you'll definitely go to heaven for doing such a wonderful thing Whats the POINT?? It makes me angry just thinking about it. What would happen if every couple had a dozen children? Not enough food or housing (okay, not enough as it is, but
if every couple had 12 kids - more so) before you know it, plague breaks out. What's wrong with you people? What are you trying to prove?

I think I've gone a little off topic here. Sorry. I can think
of something to say about abortion if you like?

People people people. Can't we all just agree that there are too many... well...people?

But seriously. Nice threads.
Thanks. But does my bum look big in this?

Thanks. But does my bum look big in this?

I think it's the bottle of cheap wine in the paper bag that makes your bum look big. *nod*

I think it's the bottle of cheap wine in the paper bag that makes your bum look big. *nod*
Oh no, silly! *chuckles to self* That's not wine! It's White Lightning.

A lot of people, like Harry Reid, oppose Abortion except when it involves incest, rape, or it endangers the life of the mother.

But isn't the reason for being against abortion is that a fetus is a child? So, if a child is the product of incest or non-consentual sex, it's ok to kill him/her?

So..."Pro-lifers" who believe the same as minority leader Harry Reid, is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?
remember that for those people (Pro-life, typically religious, conservative, etc) how human you are is determined by morality; gays aren't as human as the rest of us because they are immoral, and babies who are created in sinful situations are less human than babies who are created in virtuous situations.

I belive this is an unbias source if not tell me (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

and if all this is correct something like 91.8% of all abortions are abortions of convience
you have an error in your reasoning: those are percentages of the women who DECIDE to have an abortion. in other words, it's not looking at the total number of abortions, it's just looking at the elective ones and seeing what reasons were given.

This essentially is the position of the vast majority of pro-life supporters.. people who are pro-life would not in principle accept the idea of an abortion because of rape or incest.. because essentially the child can be put up for adoption. But if this concession had to be made to remove the overlying idea that women some how have the RIGHT to terminate another persons life (essentaily the fetus) then it is a SMALL price to pay.. the idea that a fertalized egg (fetus) is their body soley and that their say is the only say is obsured (seeing how 50% of the genetic material is someone elses)
the fetus isn't a part of her body, but it is using her body. as Shaed has pointed out, a human being has the right to deny use of their body and tissues to another human being, so why should a fetus be the only life form that is given an over-ride claim to another human being's body? if you believe a fetus is a human being, then shouldn't you be arguing to give it the same rights as all human beings? why, then, are you arguing to give it rights that no human being is entitled to?

Eh, to simplify the whole matter, I know what we should do.

Pass a law saying that the receptionist in every abortion clinic be a 7-foot body-builder with a black hood over his head and a medieval axe bigger than his head. The lady walks in, he booms, "DO YOU WANT AN ABORTION?" Lady runs away to find an obstetrician. Ta-da! Problem solved.

Eh, to simplify the whole matter, I know what we should do.

Pass a law saying that the receptionist in every abortion clinic be a 7-foot body-builder with a black hood over his head and a medieval axe bigger than his head. The lady walks in, he booms, "DO YOU WANT AN ABORTION?" Lady runs away to find an obstetrician. Ta-da! Problem solved.
and if the woman doesn't run away then she gets the abortion, right? because you need to remember that most women who have abortions are far more alarmed by the idea of having a baby than by some cartoonish bouncer figure, so they probably will stand their ground just fine. in fact, the women you are most likely to scare away will be the ones who have been victims of rape and sexual abuse...what a lovely solution!

Fine.

A broadsword, then.

In that case, make the doctor a massive bodybuilder with a weapon, and have the receptionist be a matronly, nurturing grandmother who ends her sentences with "dearie." The receptionist asks the reason for the abortion (and offers counseling). Rape, incest, risk to mother's life, door on the left, where she gets a bona fide abortion. Everything else, door on the right.

you're in hospital, in the lift (elevator for the less linguistically advanced) and you're pretty sure you need to get off at floor 8. however you shut your eyes for a moment and accidentally end up on floor 9 you head to the room where you are to be operated on and receive anasthesia (sp?) when you wake up you are in a bed and in the bed next to you is a guy. he is linked to your body by all sorts of tubes and medical devices. you try to leave but are told that if you unhook yourself from the guy lying next to you before a period of 9 months has passed he will surely die. Does this man have the right to your body for the period of 9 months when all you did was get off on the wrong floor?

you knew damn well you were in a hospital where they do nasty operation (having sex)

but you did not intend to get off on floor 9 (let your man cum in you, use bad condoms, get raped etc etc)

why is your right to autonomy over your body suddenly non-existent. do the hospital have the right to hold your body hostage against your will?

you're in hospital, in the lift (elevator for the less linguistically advanced) and you're pretty sure you need to get off at floor 8. however you shut your eyes for a moment and accidentally end up on floor 9 you head to the room where you are to be operated on and receive anasthesia (sp?) when you wake up you are in a bed and in the bed next to you is a guy. he is linked to your body by all sorts of tubes and medical devices. you try to leave but are told that if you unhook yourself from the guy lying next to you before a period of 9 months has passed he will surely die. Does this man have the right to your body for the period of 9 months when all you did was get off on the wrong floor?

you knew damn well you were in a hospital where they do nasty operation (having sex)

but you did not intend to get off on floor 9 (let your man cum in you, use bad condoms, get raped etc etc)

why is your right to autonomy over your body suddenly non-existent. do the hospital have the right to hold your body hostage against your will?

Apparently, if the majority of the people running the hospital are Christian, not only do they have that right, they also have the right to not put numbers in the elevator (no sex-ed in schools), and make it so that once you get off the lift you can't get back on, even if you realise your mistake before you get knocked out and hooked up (pharmicists allowed to refuse to dispense BC).

I remember reading somewhere that most women of childbearing age have had multiple miscarriages and never know it. They might only believe that they were "late" and then things resumed.

Technically speaking, this means that the fetus (microscopic though it might be), is eliminated and ends up on the feminine hygiene product of choice.

So, if life begins at conception, and if these miscarriages are occurring without the woman's knowledge, should we mourn those lost unborn children? Should we inspect each used feminine hygiene product with a magnifying glass and a toothpick to see if we should buy a casket and bury the poor fella?

There is such a thing as taking things to extremes.

Is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of date rape?

For some reason, I read that as "Is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of DUCK TAPE?"

I was always a big believer in retroactive self-abortion.

For some reason, I read that as "Is it ok if I go knife some kid I know that was the product of DUCK TAPE?"


the reason is you are diss leck sick

(read as dickless sick if you want)

Here in the U.S.S.N.R we have solved this problem with mandatory sterilization. Our doctors have invented a non hormonal implant which is inserted at age four for boys and age nine for girls. The implant is effective for one hundred and twenty years. Additionally, contracting a sexually transmitted disease is a crime in the U.S.S.N.R. as is premarital sex and divorce.
For those wishing to have children, you must be a married couple both being between the ages of twenty five and thirty five with at least two years of college. They must own or be buying a house and property and at least one must be gainfully employed, at the same job, for at least two years before the application will be approved. Couples are required to participate in a three year, free parent training class so couples are permitted to apply at the age of twenty two. Once ALL of the requirements have been met, the couple is issued a license certificate, which must be presented to a doctor to allow removal of the sterility implants. Immediately after the child is born, usually during delivery, the implants are reinserted. The couple may reapply for ONE additional child.
Couples who try to subvert the system by going overseas to have the implants removed are denied reentry to the U.S.S.N.R. Couples who move to another country and bear children lose their citizenship to the U.S.S.N.R. and will have to reapply if they wish to move back. Anyone who shows signs of having tampered with their implant at their mandatory annual physical, face jail time and permanent sterilization.
Some complain that out regulations are draconian. But consider that in the U.S.S.N.R there are no abortions needed because there are no “accidental” children, no children of a broken home, no children living below poverty, no families with too many children relying on society to support them, no out of wed-lock children. Children in the U.S.S.N.R. are always wanted by their parents, parents that are capable of raising them. The way we look at it, in most countries you must have a license to drive a car, practice medicine or law, own a business, cook food for people, even to own a dog! Isn’t creating a new life even more of a responsibility than any of these?


(Bracing myself) Okay! Let the flaming begin! ;)

you have an error in your reasoning: those are percentages of the women who DECIDE to have an abortion. in other words, it's not looking at the total number of abortions, it's just looking at the elective ones and seeing what reasons were given.

3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

There is an error in ur reasoning also.. becuase all abortions are elective.. it is a choice women currently are taking advantage of.. weather to have one or not to..

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

this option takes into account the only true situation which may warrent an abortion.. in what other instances are women not exceresing a choice ?

Even if u wanted to take rape and incest out of those statistics.. they would still only account for 1 or 2% of all abortions if even that.. my reasoning isn't flawed at all.... the nature of the debate of pro-choice and pro-life is over the question of the decision to have an abortion.. any other circumstances in which an abortion is unavoidable should not be considered because the woman has no control over it

I'm mostly against abortion because I believe in people taking responsibility for their mistakes, which is something society tries to eliminate more with each generation.

I'm pro-life with mostly the same views about this subject as Reid (who I hadn't heard of until now). I don't believe in abortion for cases of incest. While the baby is more likely to be diseased, that's no reason to kill (what I see as) a human being.

I should also mention that I'm agnostic. I don't hold my views on this because the power of Christ compels me to. I simply feel that life begins at conception. I believe that once the potential for human life has been started it is wrong to stop it without due cause. Yes, I also believe in the prevention of fertilization (through condoms, etc.) since that halts the process before a fetus is formed.

I hope pro-lifers realize there are at least some people on the other side of the line who aren't crazed bible thumpers, doctor killers, or angry bigots.

Anyway, I'd like to respond to some of these comments.

It's all about stopping women from enjoying sex. Not *having* sex, but enjoying it. If the woman is raped, they don't need to be 'punished' by child, because they didn't enjoy the sex anyway.

Of course, most people deny thinking like this, but you only have to look at their wording... it all boils down to "if we let woman have abortions, they'll have more sex and be able to enjoy it without having to go through childbirth! Oh noes!" Personally it sickens me. No other human being can be forced to donate their body even if someone else dies because of that. Why should pregnant women be the only human beings that lose the right to remove consent for donating their body? Why does a fetus deserve rights that no other human being has?

Have all the sex you want. I'm not opposed to that at all. I'm a 20 year old guy, after all. But make use of a condom or the pill. This still won't give you 100% protection from becoming pregnant but if you're going to have sex all parties involved had better be ready to handle the consequences anyway.

The fetus deserves rights which partially impede on the mother's since it was the mother's choice to take the risk of becoming pregnant. The fetus has commited no harm and has not put itself in the position to die. It deserves the chance to live.

I still haven't gotten an answer from anyone about my prior post, in which I want to know if we need to be burying used tampons in full funeral ceremonies (after all, it's true that most women miscarry unknowingly many times in their lives, and the only evidence of it is carried out on the tampon or pad).
If life begins at conception, then we MUST inspect every used tampon for miscarried fetuses and give them a proper Christian burial.

I'll be selling microscopes.

remember that for those people (Pro-life, typically religious, conservative, etc) how human you are is determined by morality; gays aren't as human as the rest of us because they are immoral, and babies who are created in sinful situations are less human than babies who are created in virtuous situations.

Actually, it's more about the rights of the mother. While the fetus should have rights, if the mother became pregnant without willingly taking the risk of sex, her rights would take precedence.

Also, I'm both pro-life and pro-gay issues (marriage, equality, etc.).

you're in hospital, in the lift (elevator for the less linguistically advanced) and you're pretty sure you need to get off at floor 8. however you shut your eyes for a moment and accidentally end up on floor 9 you head to the room where you are to be operated on and receive anasthesia (sp?) when you wake up you are in a bed and in the bed next to you is a guy. he is linked to your body by all sorts of tubes and medical devices. you try to leave but are told that if you unhook yourself from the guy lying next to you before a period of 9 months has passed he will surely die. Does this man have the right to your body for the period of 9 months when all you did was get off on the wrong floor?

you knew damn well you were in a hospital where they do nasty operation (having sex)

but you did not intend to get off on floor 9 (let your man cum in you, use bad condoms, get raped etc etc)

why is your right to autonomy over your body suddenly non-existent. do the hospital have the right to hold your body hostage against your will?

Sex isn't all about fun. There's also responsibility that comes with it, like anything in life as an adult. Rape aside, if you let your responsibility slip that's not the fault of the fetus.

However, the main issue in this isn't about what the mother did anyway. It's all about at which point you feel a fetus becomes a person. Think of it from my viewpoint: the fetus is a person at conception. Then you aren't just dealing with a woman and a fetus, you're dealing with two people. Whose side would you take in that case? When I look at it from the viewpoint that a fetus isn't a person until brain wave activity begins (around week 22 of the pregnancy I believe) I can understand why you would side with the mother.

It's all about stopping women from enjoying sex. Not *having* sex, but enjoying it. If the woman is raped, they don't need to be 'punished' by child, because they didn't enjoy the sex anyway.

Of course, most people deny thinking like this, but you only have to look at their wording... it all boils down to "if we let woman have abortions, they'll have more sex and be able to enjoy it without having to go through childbirth! Oh noes!"
Just to let you know, I'm pro-choice but I've never heard any pro-life person use this argument. Pro-life people hold the position they do not because they're against fun sex, but because they think abortion is murder.

I remember reading somewhere that most women of childbearing age have had multiple miscarriages and never know it. They might only believe that they were "late" and then things resumed.

Technically speaking, this means that the fetus (microscopic though it might be), is eliminated and ends up on the feminine hygiene product of choice.

So, if life begins at conception, and if these miscarriages are occurring without the woman's knowledge, should we mourn those lost unborn children? Should we inspect each used feminine hygiene product with a magnifying glass and a toothpick to see if we should buy a casket and bury the poor fella?

There is such a thing as taking things to extremes.

If there is a miscarriage through no fault of the mother, that's just nature. Not every baby will be born successfully. While it is loss, it's something that can't realistically be prevented in any way.

Who would be mourning the loss? If nobody ever knows of the fetus there would be nothing to be mourned for. The mother never would have cared for the fetus as she didn't even know it was there.

Like you said, things taken to extremes.

Why do pro lifers never consider the irrepairable damage a pregnancy through incest or rape can have on the unfortunate mother?
I wonder how many pro-lifers would wan't to carry a baby full term, and give birth to the baby if their own father was the one who raped them? What do you think their mental state would be in at the end of 9 months?

Getting an abortion *is* far too easy for those who just don't want the inconvenience of having a child, or have not used a decent contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy, but making rape and incest victims go through with a pregnancy is not only immoral (pushing your wishes on them instead of letting them decide what's best for their own health) it is downright evil! I always thought Christians were supposed to be above evil deeds.

Incest *can* have an adverse effect on the health of an unborn child, that in turn can have a devestating effect on the poor woman who is carrying that child.
Rape is not about sex but about power, sex is just the tool they use to hold the power over their victim, therefor any child conceived through rape will always be the product of a violent act, not a loving sexual act (though obviously no one can get pregnant without sex, I had to put that bit in because there is bound to be some wag who would point it out anyway), a child who is the product of rape or incest will never get a fair deal out of life, even if they are adopted they may at some point in the future need to trace their roots to see if there are any medical problems inherant in their biological family, what do you think the child would feel like if he/she discovers the true facts of their existance?

Abortion for incest and rape victims must always be available without the victims being made to feel any more guilty than they already do, anything else is just plain wrong!

Why do pro lifers never consider the irrepairable damage a pregnancy through incest or rape can have on the unfortunate mother?
I wonder how many pro-lifers would wan't to carry a baby full term, and give birth to the baby if their own father was the one who raped them? What do you think their mental state would be in at the end of 9 months?

Getting an abortion *is* far too easy for those who just don't want the inconvenience of having a child, or have not used a decent contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy, but making rape and incest victims go through with a pregnancy is not only immoral (pushing your wishes on them instead of letting them decide what's best for their own health) it is downright evil! I always thought Christians were supposed to be above evil deeds.

Incest *can* have an adverse effect on the health of an unborn child, that in turn can have a devestating effect on the poor woman who is carrying that child.
Rape is not about sex but about power, sex is just the tool they use to hold the power over their victim, therefor any child conceived through rape will always be the product of a violent act, not a loving sexual act (though obviously no one can get pregnant without sex, I had to put that bit in because there is bound to be some wag who would point it out anyway), a child who is the product of rape or incest will never get a fair deal out of life, even if they are adopted they may at some point in the future need to trace their roots to see if there are any medical problems inherant in their biological family, what do you think the child would feel like if he/she discovers the true facts of their existance?

Abortion for incest and rape victims must always be available without the victims being made to feel any more guilty than they already do, anything else is just plain wrong!

I agree about cases of rape but what about incest that isn't rape? Should abortion be allowed in those cases as well? The mother would have known what she was getting into. Yes, the baby has a high chance of being deformed but is that reason enough to kill it? Remember, in the eyes of typical pro-lifers life begins at conception or soon after. Can you fault someone for trying to prevent what they perceive to be murder?

I agree about cases of rape but what about incest that isn't rape? Should abortion be allowed in those cases as well? The mother would have known what she was getting into. Yes, the baby has a high chance of being deformed but is that reason enough to kill it? Remember, in the eyes of typical pro-lifers life begins at conception or soon after. Can you fault someone for trying to prevent what they perceive to be murder?

Yes, because that is what *they* percieve to be murder, they are trying to force their belief onto someone else!

As for incest that isn't rape well I am not saying that in every case of rape or incest abortion is the only option, I am saying that it should be available, without reservation or guilt to anyone in that situation.

Yes, because that is what *they* percieve to be murder, they are trying to force their belief onto someone else!

As for incest that isn't rape well I am not saying that in every case of rape or incest abortion is the only option, I am saying that it should be available, without reservation or guilt to anyone in that situation.

I would almost always agree with you about the forcing of beliefs but this time I have to disagree. The right to life is the ultimate human right. I hope anyone would do what they could to prevent mass murder. According to pro-lifers, life begins earlier than the typical abortion. As such, we're only trying to uphold the human rights of the unborn children.

So then, if someone is having incestuous sex repeatedly and has had, say, 7 abortions already should they still be given the opportunity without reservation or guilt?

Why do pro lifers never consider the irrepairable damage a pregnancy through incest or rape can have on the unfortunate mother?
I wonder how many pro-lifers would wan't to carry a baby full term, and give birth to the baby if their own father was the one who raped them? What do you think their mental state would be in at the end of 9 months?

Getting an abortion *is* far too easy for those who just don't want the inconvenience of having a child, or have not used a decent contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy, but making rape and incest victims go through with a pregnancy is not only immoral (pushing your wishes on them instead of letting them decide what's best for their own health) it is downright evil! I always thought Christians were supposed to be above evil deeds.

Incest *can* have an adverse effect on the health of an unborn child, that in turn can have a devestating effect on the poor woman who is carrying that child.
Rape is not about sex but about power, sex is just the tool they use to hold the power over their victim, therefor any child conceived through rape will always be the product of a violent act, not a loving sexual act (though obviously no one can get pregnant without sex, I had to put that bit in because there is bound to be some wag who would point it out anyway), a child who is the product of rape or incest will never get a fair deal out of life, even if they are adopted they may at some point in the future need to trace their roots to see if there are any medical problems inherant in their biological family, what do you think the child would feel like if he/she discovers the true facts of their existance?

Abortion for incest and rape victims must always be available without the victims being made to feel any more guilty than they already do, anything else is just plain wrong!


It is not that Pro-lifers do not consider this as an extreme situation.. we realize it is.. and are even wiling to make political concessions to accept it.. however, these extreme situations are consistiantly used to validate abortion.. and they make up less then 5% of all abortions completed within the country.. over 90% of abortions are for convience only
Again i post these statistics to give perspective (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)
Even in cases of incest and rape.. why would yet another life be forever damaged (destroyed) because of the actions of one person. If the woman is not treatened by death from the pregnancy then she could always give the child to adoption.. if the money spent on abortion today was redirected to adoption foundaitons and programs.. adoption would be a far better option.

However, If incest and Rape are the only things which make abortion right.. i think most pro-lifers would agree that it is better then to restrict abortion to all with the excpetion of these extreme circumstances.. Abortion should not be seen as a "right" but a privlage given to those in dire circumstances

should we allow such an immoral and unethical practice to conintue simply because a VAST minority is aflictied with conidtions out side their control.. how many children are killed through abortion every year simply so these 5% or less situations may be allowed to have the option open..

It is clear from every statistical test on the subject that the practice of abortion is abused annually simply because people do not want to take responsiblity for the consequences of their sexual activity.

It is not that Pro-lifers do not consider this as an extreme situation.. we realize it is.. and are even wiling to make political concessions to accept it.. however, these extreme situations are consistiantly used to validate abortion.. and they make up less then 5% of all abortions completed within the country.. over 90% of abortions are for convience only
Again i post these statistics to give perspective (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)
Even in cases of incest and rape.. why would yet another life be forever damaged (destroyed) because of the actions of one person. If the woman is not treatened by death from the pregnancy then she could always give the child to adoption.. if the money spent on abortion today was redirected to adoption foundaitons and programs.. adoption would be a far better option.

However, If incest and Rape are the only things which make abortion right.. i think most pro-lifers would agree that it is better then to restrict abortion to all with the excpetion of these extreme circumstances.. Abortion should not be seen as a "right" but a privlage given to those in dire circumstances

You say that even in cases of rape or incest "why should yet another life be forever damaged", well we could argue on what constitutes "life", I am sure that you believe it starts with conception, I believe it starts when brain function kicks in, but thats not what I was arguing about in my post.
What I was saying (if you read my post carefully you will see that I was certainly not advocating abortion on demand for any reason) was that the rape or incest victim should retain the absolute right to either abort or continue with a pregnancy brought about in these specific circumstances (though if a womans life was in danger regardless of the nature of how she fell pregnant she should also have the right to terminate a pregnancy, yet another issue...........), what would be wrong would be for pro-lifers to dictate through legislation what her choices would be. No one has the right to make a woman carry a child under these conditions.
I also stand by what I said about adoption of these "rape babies or incest babies", if you made a woman give birth, as opposed to termination, and in later years the child needs to find out about family medical history then a whole new can of worms could emerge, all because some people forced their morals and opinions on a VICTIM.
It's like getting punished twice for being the victim of a violent attack!

I should probably make it clear that I really believe that abortion for abortion's sake is wrong, I am only pro abortion on the specifics I mentioned in my previous posts.

the eastern bloc is pro life.
abortion is outlawed in this state, people are nessecary to power our country forward.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. Now, I'm also personally against abortion and would never suggest to a woman, especially the woman I love, to get one under any circumstance and would prefer peopple think of such consequences before they have sex, but I am even more against someone else making such personal decisions for me, and so refuse to make such personal decisions for others.

The world would be a much better place if so many people didn't feel the need to force their morals or desires on others.

the eastern bloc is pro life.
abortion is outlawed in this state, people are nessecary to power our country forward.

So in essence, you feel that the rights of your people don't need to be taken into account because a larger population benefits your government?

About mid-October, my roommate made a comment that he could never vote for Kerry because Kerry supported partial birth abortion. He stated that anyone who could support that must be sick.

He then went on to explain that his girlfriend had explained the process of partial birth abortion to him. According to her, partial birth abortion is where the woman gives birth and the doctor promptly smacks the baby's head on a table. I am not making this up, this 21 year old woman thought that partial birth abortion involved a doctor beating a live born baby to death. Now, all of your thoughts on the actual process of partial birth abortion aside, I can't believe any adult woman could be so ignorant about it.

But I think I should say something. I am neither pro-life, nor pro-choice, they both have their weak and strong points. My opinion is thus: Seeing as males of the species do not have to go through pregnancy and labor, they should have no say in the debate over abortion. Yes, you may have very strong views either way, and yes, you might thing I am totally wrong and should get out of this discussion, since I obviously have no clue what I am talking about. Honestly though, let's see one of the males on here ( I am male myself), somehow get the prospect that they could become pregnant. Otherwise, your opnion shouldn't be able to effect the lives of the women for whom this is a very real possibilty. Thank you.

I suppose only pregnant women or women who have been pregnant as you said should be able to "talk". They're the only ones with the actual experince required.

That being said, the people mostly with their self interest in mind will make the decision.

Because obviously we males and our penises are just too stupid to talk about ABORTION. I mean, god forbid anyone except the PARTY DIRECTLY involved make a decision about the matter.

You might as well cut out women who've never had babies they didn't want. What do they know?

So let's see, the only people left are the people who are making a decision for their [/i]own[i] self worst or best interest. I wouldn't trust any group of people to make an unclouded decision under these circumstances.

Well, your statement being *noted. I propose everyone keep talking.

I still haven't gotten an answer from anyone about my prior post, in which I want to know if we need to be burying used tampons in full funeral ceremonies (after all, it's true that most women miscarry unknowingly many times in their lives, and the only evidence of it is carried out on the tampon or pad).
If life begins at conception, then we MUST inspect every used tampon for miscarried fetuses and give them a proper Christian burial.

I'll be selling microscopes.

Why? We're not required by law to bury people.

Yea, but dead people smell. And they're ugly.

I'm pro-life with mostly the same views about this subject as Reid (who I hadn't heard of until now). I don't believe in abortion for cases of incest. While the baby is more likely to be diseased, that's no reason to kill (what I see as) a human being.

I should also mention that I'm agnostic. I don't hold my views on this because the power of Christ compels me to. I simply feel that life begins at conception. I believe that once the potential for human life has been started it is wrong to stop it without due cause. Yes, I also believe in the prevention of fertilization (through condoms, etc.) since that halts the process before a fetus is formed.

I hope pro-lifers realize there are at least some people on the other side of the line who aren't crazed bible thumpers, doctor killers, or angry bigots.

Anyway, I'd like to respond to some of these comments.



Have all the sex you want. I'm not opposed to that at all. I'm a 20 year old guy, after all. But make use of a condom or the pill. This still won't give you 100% protection from becoming pregnant but if you're going to have sex all parties involved had better be ready to handle the consequences anyway.

The fetus deserves rights which partially impede on the mother's since it was the mother's choice to take the risk of becoming pregnant. The fetus has commited no harm and has not put itself in the position to die. It deserves the chance to live.

Actually fetuses do cause harm to a pregnant woman. Do'nt kid yourself its a life threatening expereince to birth a child.
So your no harm reasonale is flawed.

I suppose only pregnant women or women who have been pregnant as you said should be able to "talk". They're the only ones with the actual experince required.

That being said, the people mostly with their self interest in mind will make the decision.

Because obviously we males and our penises are just too stupid to talk about ABORTION. I mean, god forbid anyone except the PARTY DIRECTLY involved make a decision about the matter.

You might as well cut out women who've never had babies they didn't want. What do they know?

So let's see, the only people left are the people who are making a decision for their [/i]own[i] self worst or best interest. I wouldn't trust any group of people to make an unclouded decision under these circumstances.

Well, your statement being *noted. I propose everyone keep talking.
Though I wouldn't say men have no right to talk of abortion, I mean, the baby is half their genetic material, I would say that it should ultimately be the decision of the parents, and no one else has the right to make such a decision for them.

As for adoption, really, that's not all that great of an alternative, there's more than enough kids who need a home already, and putting more children into the system isn't going to attract more potential parents. Not only that, but a lot of potential parents are denied the ability to adopt based on overly strict regulations. My uncle, for instance, couldn't adopt a child because of drunk driving tickets from over 8 years prior. So yeah, adoption is pretty much a whole lot of kids without real families to be adopted by an extremely small number of perfect parents, leaving a whole lot of kids to never be adopted, even by less-than-perfect, but still loving and fully capable parents.

I'm mostly against abortion because I believe in people taking responsibility for their mistakes, which is something society tries to eliminate more with each generation.
having an abortion IS taking responsibility for your mistake. its just doing it in a way that you dont like.