Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rape Exception: Why Do We Kill Babies Instead of Rapists?
Life News ^ | 12/28/11 | Sara Johnson

Posted on 12/28/2011 3:50:05 PM PST by wagglebee

I got into a debate with a pretty good friend about abortion the other day. She’s typically a pro-life gal, but she has adopted (no pun intended) the GOP’s ‘get out of a debate alive’ exception to the rule—that abortion is murder, unless it’s the fetus of a rape victim, then it’s just removal of lifeless tissue.

For some reason, she was completely dumbfounded that I don’t have exceptions to my pro-life stance. My argument is that I don’t need them.

As a former student at a medical college, I’ve taken the Hippocratic Oath in order to participate in clinicals. (Full disclosure: I quit that job in order to save America from idiotic ideas, much like this one.) Because of this, I know there is a “first do no harm” clause. So no, I don’t think doctors should have to let a mother die in order for their baby to live. I think that is up to the mother and her doctor—at least until Obamacare kicks in.

The mother is a patient of a particular doctor. It is that doctor’s job to be an advocate for their patient. I have the same opinion in the case of a young child who is a victim; if delivering a baby is going to do irreparable physical harm to that child, no I don’t think they should be forced to have it. They should be well aware of what that means, but it is that doctor’s job to ‘first do no harm.’ Not saving the life of a patient is first doing harm, and that’s against the oath.

Where I always get into trouble with my “politically correct” friends is in cases of rape. Yes, I am aware that the woman lost her choice in this situation. Most women know someone who has been a victim of sexual assault, (I’m one who personally knows a sexual assault victim), so I’m not devoid of feelings here. However I don’t believe killing the baby is going to make the rape victim feel any better.

Let me cut to the chase here… if we can’t kill the rapist, why can we kill the baby? The baby is innocent. The rapist is a soulless loser who is going to get out of jail in 5 years, and in many cases will repeat the act. If I’m violently attacked, raped, and end up pregnant, killing my unborn child isn’t going to make me feel any less raped and isn’t going to bring me to peace. If my rapist was getting the death penalty… I’d at least feel safer.

I’m not saying rapists should get the death penalty. Granted… I’m not, not saying it either… What I am saying is, that being pro-life, except in the instance of rape, is one of the most illogical “exceptions” to a rule I’ve ever heard.

It’s like saying “This guy has been convicted to serve a sentence of ten years in jail for murdering your brother, but we’re going put his innocent daughter in the electric chair. Feel better?” Obviously that’s not going to make anyone feel better. In fact, I’d feel guilty for the innocent victim getting the death penalty.

I think an innocent baby is about the only positive, pure thing that can come from such a terrible situation. Is it ideal? Of course not. But whether that baby goes to a different home or stays with it’s mother, it is as innocent as the victim.

Critical thinking skills America…let’s use them.

LifeNews Note: Sara Johnson writes for Misfit Politics, where this opinion column originally appeared.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Let me cut to the chase here… if we can’t kill the rapist, why can we kill the baby? The baby is innocent.

And yet rape is the reason that abortionist ALWAYS use to excuse killing babies.

1 posted on 12/28/2011 3:50:11 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 12/28/2011 3:51:16 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 12/28/2011 3:52:32 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Exactly. Good, great question....but.....it makes too much sense.


4 posted on 12/28/2011 3:52:53 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Abortion is an abomination for whatever the reason.

I wonder if there is any information available
as to what percent of rapes result in pregnancy.


5 posted on 12/28/2011 3:53:42 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks to the liberals, felons have rights -— unborn babies do not.


6 posted on 12/28/2011 3:55:12 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
There are nearly 4000 abortions EACH DAY in the United States.

There are approximately 3200 pregnancies per year as the result of rape.

Rape Statistics

7 posted on 12/28/2011 3:57:57 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Estimates are that 5% of forcible rapes result in pregnancy. Statistically that computes to around 32,000 a year.


8 posted on 12/28/2011 3:59:05 PM PST by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; BykrBayb
I have to say that the exception for rape was a very difficult issue for me to overcome. Although I have never been raped, I did know someone who was, and who was also tortured. I felt a horror for the idea of carrying the child of a rapist. I believe that I am probably not alone in that.

I am grateful for all of those who argued the point here, and who convinced me that my feelings were wrong.

Thank you wagglebee, and Bykr Bayb, and all of the others who led me in the right direction. It is my firm belief that these threads can change hearts and minds.

9 posted on 12/28/2011 4:05:09 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
However I don’t believe killing the baby is going to make the rape victim feel any better.

First off, that we can't kill the rapist is an error of justice, but one does fix errors by committing others.

To answer your question, why should the question be up to you? Why shouldn't it be up to the rape victim? Following the non-consensual rape, should the law force another suffering upon her, namely, to endure pregnancy and bear the child against her wishes? Then she would be raped once by the rapist, and once again by the law.

Furthermore, why should criminal rapists be rewarded with genetic offspring, particularly from unwilling mothers? Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.

10 posted on 12/28/2011 4:07:32 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
It's about 3200 a year, not 32,000.
11 posted on 12/28/2011 4:07:51 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trisham
On the surface the rape exception SEEMS sensible, but when you really look at it the fallacy of it is glaring.
12 posted on 12/28/2011 4:10:46 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
if we can’t kill the rapist, why can we kill the baby? The baby is innocent.

You're right, of course. But people on our side would be be much better off deflecting the issue. It's a political loser. You wind up not saving the 10,000 rape babies or the several million others either.

ML/NJ

13 posted on 12/28/2011 4:11:55 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; ...
To answer your question, why should the question be up to you? Why shouldn't it be up to the rape victim? Following the non-consensual rape, should the law force another suffering upon her, namely, to endure pregnancy and bear the child against her wishes? Then she would be raped once by the rapist, and once again by the law.

So, your solution is to kill the only person involved who hasn't committed any sin?

Furthermore, why should criminal rapists be rewarded with genetic offspring, particularly from unwilling mothers? Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.

So, if YOUR FATHER were to go out and rape someone or commit some other equally horrible crime would it be acceptable for society to execute YOU? After all, you are genetically linked.

14 posted on 12/28/2011 4:14:07 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
OK, so when a guy is convicted of rape, and his kids are already born, they're carrying the same genetic material. Why not just wipe them out, to avoid passing it on? Margaret Sanger . . . paging Margaret Sanger . . . .

Reductio of course, but fact is we have no idea of nature vs. nurture, or the role of free will.

I have seen decent kids come from horrible parents. I've also seen kids who had wonderful parents and every advantage turn out to be monsters.

Claiming that we can predict what the offspring is going to be like even in any general sense is playing God.

Nothing after forcible rape is going to be perfect. Nothing is ever going to be the same. But murdering an innocent child (regardless of whose 'genetic material' it carries) is not going to fix anything. Nine months (or less) carrying a child until it can be born and adopted is not comparable to murder, which lasts forever.

And of course the real problem with an exception for rape is that everybody who wants to get rid of a baby claims she was raped.

15 posted on 12/28/2011 4:18:09 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
...the US Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing.

--Rick Santorum
16 posted on 12/28/2011 4:18:27 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If I may be permitted to be a bit expansive, I think I can explain the reason some, perhaps many, opponents of abortion want to create an exception in the law on behalf of women who have been impregnated in a rape (or by incest):

The starting point is to realize that the motto “abortion is murder” is not strictly accurate. Abortion is homicide. As homicide committed on whim, for convenience, because one doesn’t want to deal with the other person, or simply because one wishes another human being dead is murder, the vast majority of abortions committed under the aegis of “choice” are murder. The question of abortion policy turns on which abortions are justifiable homicide.

To illustrate that some are, I would note that anyone who has resolved the ambiguity of what the ancient patristic and Scriptural understanding of conception (as in ‘behold a virgin shall conceive. . .’) in light of the understanding that it is not the “planting of man’s seed in the fertile soil of the womb”, but the more complex process of fertilization and implantation, by holding as the Latin church and most Orthodox bishops who have spoken on the matter do that “conception” means fertilization, is faced with the fact that ending an ectopic pregnancy in which the embryo has implanted in the woman’s fallopian tube is homicide. However, if a physician does not commit this homicide, not only with the child die later, but the woman will either die or at least need dire emergency surgery when her fallopian tube bursts. I believe any person able to reason clearly about moral matters will agree that this is a justifiable homicide.

We can then consider other cases where continuation of a pregnancy threatens the life of a the woman, threatens to cause her severe permanent disability, and the like. As Christians, we might hope and pray that God give a woman the grace to risk a martyric death or giving herself over to severe disability for the sake of her unborn child, but should the state impose this podvig (as the Slavs call a spiritual burden) on her? And are there not very rare cases in which we ought not even pray for this, as the continuation of the pregnancy would kill the woman before the child could survive a caesarian deliver?

In the case of a pregnancy engendered by rape or incest, the growth of the child is surely felt by many victims to be a continuation of the assault, a continued violation of her person. Again, as Christians, we might hope and pray that God give all such women the grace to triumph over such feelings and carry the child to term, but should the state impose this on her? Here, as in the case of abortion to remove risk of death or disability, it may be argued that such an abortion is a form of homicide akin to homicide committed in self-defense.

For my own part, I do not expect the secular law to conform perfectly to the moral teachings of the Church, and until we are a sufficiently Christian society (should God give us grace) that women who chose to bear such podvigs are supported and even held in honor for carrying children engendered by rape or incest to term, I would prefer to not see the state impose them.


17 posted on 12/28/2011 4:22:39 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Ectopic pregnancies are not a good example, because the child cannot survive, let alone be carried to term.

The removal of a section of fallopian tube to prevent bursting and infection is not an abortion, and the early death of the child (who could not survive in any event) is considered an undesired consequence of the intended act (removal of the tube).

Once you get into direct abortion, purportedly to relieve "emotional trauma" you open the door wide for all sorts of claims such as "I just can't deal with this baby".

Direct abortion is direct abortion and you can't do it, no matter how justified you think you are. That's a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it has nothing to do with Christianity. Murder is murder in every culture, and until "enlightened" modern Westerners thought of a plausible excuse, aborting a child was everywhere on a par with infanticide and murder.

18 posted on 12/28/2011 4:34:28 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: coloradan; wagglebee
That leftist garbage you're spewing is what was used to get abortion laws on the books. We were told years ago that it would NEVER be used as birth control. Except...........it is.

And it's an emotional and felonious assault on human rights. Yes, babies are human beings and have the right not to be murdered for the sins of a parent.

And a rape pregnancy is rare.

Assault Rape Pregnancies Are Rare

19 posted on 12/28/2011 4:37:56 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So, your solution is to kill the only person involved who hasn't committed any sin?

Has the woman who was raped committed a sin by “allowing” herself to be raped? I don’t think that’s what you mean. At least I hope it isn’t.

20 posted on 12/28/2011 4:42:15 PM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Sorry, but if, as the Latin church teaches, and most bishops in the Orthodox Church who have spoken on the matter agree, a unique human person began at the union of sperm and egg, the end of an ectopic pregnancy is homicide, just as is ending a pregnancy carried in the womb which threatens the mother’s life, threatens the mother with severe disability, was engendered by rape, or simply is contrary to the mother’s whim. The first is plainly justifiable homicide, the last is plainly murder, morally sound policy deals with the question of which of the others are justifiable homicide and which murder.


21 posted on 12/28/2011 4:45:01 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Has the woman who was raped committed a sin by “allowing” herself to be raped?

Absolutely not!

22 posted on 12/28/2011 4:46:29 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

One of the most important functions of a just government is the protection of innocent human life. To the extent that statutory law can reflect this principle, than that law must reflect the intent to protect the child from the homicidal intent of the mother and the abortionist, untill it can be delivered to other caretakers after it’s birth.

Note that even though this philosopy comports with the higher tenants of Christianity, it is not exclusive to it. This is a human rights issue that should be capable of comprehension by the most relentless of human secularists.


23 posted on 12/28/2011 4:49:38 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

I’m confused with what you are saying about ectopic pregnancy. Do you advocate allowing the fetus and mother to die?


24 posted on 12/28/2011 4:58:16 PM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Please explain how the rape victim is not sinless.


25 posted on 12/28/2011 5:03:11 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Sinless in the rape certainly, but not in life.
26 posted on 12/28/2011 5:05:07 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
“abortion is murder” is not strictly accurate. Abortion is homicide.

If I recall my law school definitions correctly, a homicide is the killing of another human being; Murder in the first degree is an intentional, premeditated homicide committed with malice aforethought. One may wish to quibble the current state of abortion being, ipso facto, justifiable homicide by Court decree. But, at its core, and without juris fete accompli, it is murder.

I do like your introduction of the fallopian pregnancy argument, such as it is. Few take the position that a true medical contingency of inevitable death to the mother or her unfortunately placed fetus warrants the same scrutiny as the abortion of convenience.

What really becomes repugnant is when medical contingency is expanded to encompass any duress, inconvenience, alteration of life style, or change in life expectations the pregnant mom feels about the growing human being within her. Some even go so far as to suck the brains out of the nearly delivered child and call in justified. Which brings us back to that wonderfully contrived and nuanced definition of legal abortion and justifiable homicide.

27 posted on 12/28/2011 5:07:53 PM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

I believe the implication of sin only arises when the rape victim aborts her child.


28 posted on 12/28/2011 5:11:24 PM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands
Well said by Rick Santorum.It is a political landmine but should be a moral/ethical nobrainer.I have many pro death in my family:"choice" is the keystone to most liberal women's thinking.
29 posted on 12/28/2011 5:22:39 PM PST by shanover (All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.-J.Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

1. Should a rapist get to reproduce at the expense of his victim? (How is it going to weigh her mind as her attacker’s child grows in her? Suicide, anyone?)

2. Should the victim be put through the anguish, expense, and risk of bearing the rapist’s child? (Pregnancy ranges from uncomfortable, to downright dangerous, you know.)

3. Should the victim or the taxpayer be put at the expense of raising the rapist’s child? (Yeah, there is a money angle, too.)

All in all, if the woman doesn’t want the rapist’s child, then killing it is fine with me. Innocence doesn’t matter here. Hurting the rapist (if this hurts him) and removing his genes from the gene pool can take precedence.

I’d like to kill the rapist, too, but there are too many “unintended consequences” associated with that (like an incentive to murder the victim).

Yeah, I know. Outrageous, unChristian, etc.


30 posted on 12/28/2011 5:28:57 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

1. Should a rapist get to reproduce at the expense of his victim? (How is it going to weigh her mind as her attacker’s child grows in her? Suicide, anyone?)

2. Should the victim be put through the anguish, expense, and risk of bearing the rapist’s child? (Pregnancy ranges from uncomfortable, to downright dangerous, you know.)

3. Should the victim or the taxpayer be put at the expense of raising the rapist’s child? (Yeah, there is a money angle, too.)

All in all, if the woman doesn’t want the rapist’s child, then killing it is fine with me. Innocence doesn’t matter here. Hurting the rapist (if this hurts him) and removing his genes from the gene pool can take precedence.

I’d like to kill the rapist, too, but there are too many “unintended consequences” associated with that (like an incentive to murder the victim).

Yeah, I know. Outrageous, unChristian, etc.


31 posted on 12/28/2011 5:29:16 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray; wagglebee
So you think murdering a child solves everything? It doesn't. Did you know that abortions cause severe depression? There are hormonal changes and suddenly stopping that has consequences. And increases the chance of breast cancer.

Your argument is the one used by the left and quite liberal. See Post 19.

32 posted on 12/28/2011 5:46:07 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Abortion of a child conceived after a rape is executing a person who did not exist at the time of the crime.


33 posted on 12/28/2011 5:48:56 PM PST by Deepest South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Radical idea:

Like we have ample funds from vaccine taxes to compensate the unlucky few the are harmed by them (while society vastly benefits), why not have a generous fund to compensate the pregnancy and adoption costs for those victims of rape.

Killing the innocent product of the rape isn’t just.

Maybe we could fund the effort by a tax on birth control (Democrats love counter-intuitive taxes.)


34 posted on 12/28/2011 5:49:32 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thommas

It was in response to: “So, your solution is to kill the only person involved who hasn’t committed any sin?”


35 posted on 12/28/2011 5:55:06 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; All

Anyone in this discussion an expert?

Anyone in this topic been held down and raped at
knife point?

Anyone here been raped by 3 guys at once?

Anyone here been beat and brutalized by your rapists?

Anyone here end up pregnant and traumatized?

Anyone here lose their mind over the whole thing?

Anyone here feel like they had ants and infection
in their body while the seed of animals grew in their
womb?

Anyone here couldn’t eat or sleep or work or go
to school and just sit and rock back and forth
while your jaw just locked and you couldn’t speak
to anyone and could barely get the story out to cops?

Anyone here have an abortion after all this and just
feel relief?

Anyone here still not regret the decision 34 years later?

Anyone still ready to scream at the memory?

Anyone???

Oh, just me, I guess.

Pray you never have to be in the position
to make the decision.

And don’t judge me, I’ve already been forgiven.


36 posted on 12/28/2011 6:25:29 PM PST by CaptainPhilFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

So the victim faces the possibility of breast cancer further down the road or the immediate risks of child bearing. And she gets to choose from depression from carrying the rapist’s child or from aborting it. Doesn’t seem to invalidate my reasoning.
Nothing “liberal” about my argument. Utilitarian, maybe, but not liberal. They stand.


37 posted on 12/28/2011 6:32:19 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CaptainPhilFan; wagglebee
You have my compassion. Truly.

I have a friend who had a botched abortion. It took 20 years for her to get pregnant again. And she heard her little girl cry every night. She still cries. Even with 2 beautiful boys.

And I was raped at age 17. My parents had ME arrested for delinquency. Then gave my rapist a ride home and made me sit next to him. I have no clear memory of the following 2 weeks. Maybe it was 3. I was fortunate not to be pregnant.

All that aside. There are still moral absolutes. And pregnancy from rape is rare. Please see Post 19.

38 posted on 12/28/2011 6:34:40 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CaptainPhilFan

My language is a bit more clinical, because I cannot imagine that sort of anguish.
But, much as I dislike abortion, a child conceived in rape should not have any claim on the mother, and she should be able to terminate the child or bear it, as she chooses.


39 posted on 12/28/2011 6:38:20 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Your liberal arguments are what ushered in abortion on demand years ago. They ARE liberal arguments. They are based on emotion. And pregnancy from rape is rare. Murdering the innocent is not an answer.


40 posted on 12/28/2011 6:38:41 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Nope.
If we have to get in to name calling, YOURS are the liberal arguments.
First, we’re not talking about abortion in general. We’re talking about a specific circumstance.
Like some sort of commie-pinko, you are proposing to ENSLAVE the mother - seizing a large part of her life - exposing her to mental anguish, physical discomfort, medical risk, and personal expense. The victim suffers, the rapist benefits. And talk about emotion: you do this simply out of a sense of your own self-righteousness.
My arguments still stand.


41 posted on 12/28/2011 6:48:44 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
If we have to get in to name calling, YOURS are the liberal arguments.

Pro-life is not a liberal tenet. Ever.

First, we’re not talking about abortion in general. We’re talking about a specific circumstance.

Yup. The liberals pushed abortion using emotional arguments while crying foul that conservatives said it would be used as birth control. Conservatives were told they were cruel to try to block abortion for rape and incest victims. Oh and the life of the mother. Those were the "foot in the door" issues. And it worked.

Like some sort of commie-pinko, you are proposing to ENSLAVE the mother

Another liberal talking point, motherhood and pregnancy is enslavement.

The victim suffers, the rapist benefits.

How does the rapist benefit? Hm? You think they go around trying to get women pregnant? Rape is not about sex. It's about power.

And talk about emotion: you do this simply out of a sense of your own self-righteousness.

Yup. When I was raped I was fortunate not to be pregnant. That sure makes me self-righteous. Yup.

My arguments still stand.

Your arguments are straight from the left and fail.

42 posted on 12/28/2011 7:00:15 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Would you support a law which completely outlawed all abortions in the US -- except for the 3200 or so pregnancy cases each year which came about as a result of rape? In those few cases (and only in those cases) abortion would be a legal option?

That would stop well over 99.9% of the abortions in this country over night. Is that your stance?

43 posted on 12/28/2011 7:00:38 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war. It's coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

These days, a rape victim has the option of taking a drug like “Plan B” to further decrease the small chance of getting pregnant. While I’m firmly against the use of such “morning-after” pills as routine birth control, they do have valid purposes.


44 posted on 12/28/2011 7:58:35 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.

My uncle is a rapist and murderer. Before he embarked on his life of crime, he had two children. Should my cousins be executed so as to avoid passing on potential "crime genes"? How about the babies of one cousin, who are around age 10 now? Should they also be executed for their grandfather's crimes? How far should one go to rid humanity of "crime genes"?

45 posted on 12/28/2011 8:03:39 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Recently, as Jamie Dugard has opened up about her horrifying ordeal - she has put this “rape” argument to shame.


46 posted on 12/28/2011 8:55:51 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: wagglebee

I know of a married couple that had several children. One of the children was the father’s idea, not the mother’s (so the mother told me). That unwanted (by the mother) child suffered horribly at the hands of the mother: physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and deprivation. The father received severe retaliation and rebuke from the mother (and her other children) if he showed this child any affection or favor.

The family was Roman Catholic, so I suppose abortion was out of the question, but there were some occasions when the neglect by the mother could have resulted in the physical death of the child.


49 posted on 12/28/2011 9:20:52 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No reason at all. The mother can always carry the baby and then offer the baby for adoption.

Bless the mothers who make that choice.


50 posted on 12/28/2011 9:28:07 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson