Exactly, if his mother had been allowed to abort him, this wouldn’t have happened.
Then vasectomies should also be a crime. Viagra should also be a crime, after all, isn’t it “god’s will” to not have an erection? Jerking off should be a crime because those little swimmers are a potential child. Let’s be fair here.
I have learned a lot from this discussion. You say choice is the main issue. However, it seems to me that “informed choice” is the issue.
There are four scenarios for a rape victim who falls pregnant.
She is forced to carry the baby to term.
She is forced to abort.
She chooses to abort.
She chooses to have the baby and to decide after the birth whether to keep it, or adopt it out.
If the priority is the long-term mental and physical health of the victim, we should apply the strategy to her situation which historically had the most healing outcome for those the most girls/women who experienced it.
I suspect forcing either choice has poor long-term results. However, I also suspect that Family Planning and many abortion first advocates have not been informing rape victims and inconveniently pregnant women/girls about the positive outcomes experienced by those choosing to bear the child, nor the real negative consequences experience by many who had chosen to abort the child.
So, at this point I would favour eaving the the girl/woman the right to make a truly “informed” choice, by mandating in law that she must be exposed to true statistics and testimonies that explain the likely outcomes for these four options, and they must not be pressured by anyone with a financial interest in her decision to make a particular choice.
You want to pressure women and girls into uninformed choices, it seems.
Authoritarians hate people having access to information that compromises their narratives and agenda. They hate the idea of citizens making their own decisions based on genuine data.
And I’m arguing there should only be two:
The state should play no role.
I don’t agree-because you’re clearly wording that to try to avoid looking like you’re pushing an agenda. All I care about is that the state stays out of the way, and that the family be allowed to consult their doctors, therapists/counselors of their choosing. Key word “choosing.” There should be no requirement for them to be forced to receive information you want them to hear.
I disagree. The government shouldn’t be involved.
No, authoritarians love removing choice. Make them aware of potential resources in guiding their decision, but it should not be forced.
1 Like
Don’t be silly. You are equating male birth control and erection dysfunction treatment to killing unborn babies. And jerking off? That is more akin to a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle than abortion.
1 Like
Between work and posting limits sorry for the long delay
So you dont think religious views are tied to this matter? I doubt that very much, but if that isn’t your view that’s fine.
The point i am trying to make if a person thinks taking the life of a fetus, embryo, whatever is murder, I ask if God has done so before?
The answer according to the bible is yes. I dont like absolutes based on a 6000 year book. My wife and I cannot have children when the time is right we hope to adopt someday, I am generally opposed to the idea of abortion, but clearly in this case you cannot expect an 11 year old to go through this ordeal.
That borders on “whataboutism”. God did it, so it must be okay. That’s a pretty lame excuse IMO. Personally I’m am not okay with forcing 11 yr-old rape victims to give birth, and I am not okay with killing unborn babies for the convenience of the mother. So where does that leave me?
1 Like
Religions that oppose abortion happen to agree with the biology behind the issue. That biology stands whether or not a particular religion agrees with it.
Just because some entity someone might disdain happens to oppose a certain practice doesn’t make opposition to that practice wrong.
I’ll be blunt. Far too many people make “religion” a convenient boogeyman for dismissal of a position on an issue. It’s a cheap and lazy way to dismiss an argument. Perhaps even cowardly.
1 Like
My point is that one cannot use religious teachings to oppose abortion.
Moral opposition to abortion is another thing. What is the biology that says this 11 year old girl is murdering this unborn child?
You voted in the religious right
And you voted with commies…
Christ is just dumber and dumber…
1 Like
Killing is killing. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It is a horrible situation, but it will not make the youngster any better by killing the baby. Rebecca’s Story | Rebecca Kiessling Pro-Life Speaker Conceived in Rape Rebecca Kiessling, conceived in rape, someone should email her, that her mother should have killed her and she shouldn’t be alive.
Kelly Wright, a Fox News reporter, his mother was 16 years old, was raped, I guess he should have been killed. Other recognizeable people were conceived in rape:
11 Celebrities Who Were Conceived By Rape or Bore a Child Out of Rape - Tinseltown Mom
The thing is, it does happen but the proabortion prodeath crowd always want to focus on the extreme circumstance to be the grounds of legalization of the exterminating of babies. Roe vs. Wade was based on a lie, Norma McCorve, the person in Roe v Wade, made the claim that she was gang raped, and that was a lie, became the whole basis for the Roe vs. Wade decision. Abortion on demand’s legalization was based on the lie.
One can use an analysis of pregnant girls’ long-term mental, emotional snd physical health, comparing outcomes for those who chose each of the various available options, and advise them towards the one which has proven to have the most positive long-term results for the “victim”.
Which of these four groups’ health are most benefitted long-term?
- Those who were coerced into carrying the baby to term.
- Those who were coerced into aborting the baby.
- Those who were provided with access to data concerning all four options and freely chose to abort.
- Those who were provided with access to data concerning all four options and freely chose to carry the baby to term.
Those truly concerned for the “Mother’s” health would be cool with her choosing the option that statistically offers her the best physical, mental, and emotional health outcome.
Those truly concerned for the “Mother’s” health would be very upset if information concerning the optimal course were kept from her for political reasons to induce her into choosing an course that leads generally to a less healthy result.
Which would that be, do you think?
We’re talking about an 11 year old here for Cripe’s sake.
Emotional knee jerk reactions do not a cogent argument make. In many cultures menstruation has been the indicator of having reach marriagable age. There is no inherent greater medical danger for an eleven year old having a child than having an abortion.
You’re not real.
You can’t be.
1 Like
