The consent that is needed is the consent of the baby to be killed. To prevent the "silent scream."
Being as the baby can't advocate for his/herself millions of Pro Life people do it.
Murdering the innocent to appease the victim of the crime of rape is murder period.
She should be given the consent to kill the rapist instead of her unborn innocent kid.
Ethyl Waters is grateful her white mother didn't kill her in the womb because she was raped (while she was a teenager) by a black man.
The absence of the shame and guilt felt by the majority of those that aborted their children would be a great reward for this mother to be if she was "forced" to give birth to her child.
There is a great chance she would be grateful in the future for that "forced" life saving action.
Most women are conned into thinking their baby in the womb is just a mass of cells, not a human. They are lied to so the abortion industry can make their billions. Yes, it is a multi BILLION dollar business.
Really, it's her decision to make...
Better it would be to give her permission to kill the criminal rapist instead of maybe a future Beethoven or Waters.
Oh but that would be murder, right?
It's not my fault you and most others her cannot recognize or accept simple reality.
The reality is that killing a baby in the womb is murder. That is the most important "reality" in this situation.
I have never once said that I am for dead babies, really, try to get that through your skull. [Speaking of a skull, you are aware that a woman can get an abortion at nine months by allowing a "health care worker" to stick sissors in the baby's skull and suck the brain out aren't you?] Are dead babies going to happen? Yeah, doesn't mean I'm for it though.
No, but you appear to be just fine with enabling it, just the same if someone gave you a gun and asked you to kill an innocent person. That someone would be just as guilty of murder as you if you did as asked according to our laws.
it was the woman’s choice to consent to having a baby before a baby was even conceived to begin with.
That was always her right to say yes or no, so the baby cannot advocate for itself then either, because it does not yet exist.
That consent was denied by the rapist, and that denial of consent is a crime.
The fact that there are women who have indeed chosen to bear the children of rape is proof positive that giving the woman her right to consent does NOT result in automatic abortion.
The course of action they take is up to them, if they choose to murder the baby that that is what they choose.
I have never said that abortion isn’t murder, I do believe that it is. I would also be fine with given them the option to kill the rapist.
Killing happens in this world. In fact, I’d say killing is common. Doesn’t make it right, but killing is a fact of this world.
And yes I am aware scissors being stuck into skulls, and I am not for that or any late term abortion under any circumstance, not even rape or incest.
As another poster asked me to clarify earlier in this thread, if murder is to be done, then it needs to be done early.
And as per your example of being given a gun and killing an innocent person, then the gun giver also being guilty, yes that’s true, but what’s also true is that abortion isn’t viewed the same way legally as a gun crime is, and that is another reality of this world I do not see changing.
Doesn’t make abortion right, and it also doesn’t make abortion not exist anymore either, and just because it’s legal in this world doesn’t mean that people won’t answer for it in the next.
What I have sought to illustrate in this thread, quite simply, is what reality is, and that it isn’t likely to change, in fact it’s likely that it will not change, and I have further stated that I am not for forcing raped women to bear those children, I’m also not for pushing them to abort them either.
So yeah, grey area indeed.