I keep running across that argument; "I'm totally against abortion, unless the mother was raped". If you believe that it is murder, than you are still advocating the murder of an innocent child. The mother could put it up for adoption if she wants nothing to do with it. So what is the logic?
2007-01-19 07:52:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Logic, don't need no stinking logic, it is an emotional issue.
2007-01-19 07:55:52 · answer #1 · answered by Dane 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is rather hypocritical isn't it? I'm pro-choice and I won't go into the obvious reasons why.
But, if one is anti-choice/pro-life, then who are they protecting under those circumstances? Is there some sort of veil drawn over a baby who had the unfortunate luck to be fathered by a rapist? Is that baby tainted in some way so that it becomes less valuable to society? I've never really understood the pro-life people's stance on this either. Who are they protecting? The emotional well-being of the mother? If that is the case then why aren't they concerned about the emotional well-being of a woman who is not fit, for whatever reason, for motherhood, whether she was raped or not? If their stance is that all life is valuable then how does that zygote become expendable for them above all others? I haven't read any of the answers yet, but I'd be surprised to see an explanation that shows any logic from a pro-lifer who supports abortions rights for those who have been raped. It seems as though if one is against abortion, then they should logically be against abortion for ANY reason, including saving the life of the mother. Sorry, I asked more questions and didn't really give an answer, but that is because I cannot see the logic to it at all from their point of view.
2007-01-19 08:52:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't get it either. We have people in this nation who would jump in front of a bulldozer to save a birds egg yet the same ones say that its a woman's choice or right to an abortion. So, is that a right to murder what they consider worthless or inconvenient? Reminds me of how Hitler got started. I don't agree with abortion in any circumstance. The "rape baby" had nothing to do with how it was created. The baby is innocent even if one of the parents is not. People say that so they don't sound so hard just to appease the liberals. If you do not want the baby in a rape case just give it up for adoption.
2007-01-19 08:04:15 · answer #3 · answered by blood and ashes 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well i'm completely pro choice and i agree, if it's usually my body it's always my body. if it's against the law for someone to try and impregnate me against my will, i should have every right to try and rectify that through any avenues allowed by technology.
nature is something humans have always fled and shielded ourselves from. it is not realistic to make abortion illegal. it has so more attendant facts than a murder. a body is not a crime scene. i will not live in a world where women miscarry and are afraid to go to the hospital. i am not going to make the world a nastier, meaner place because i wish to live in a fantasy where everyone who gets pregnant wants to give birth. that isn't how it is and making abortion illegal won't change that.
this has nothing to do with innocence or evil. it doesn't matter. babies are wonderful and innocent, but the truth is that it isn't yours. there are not hundreds of people lining up to adopt babies. see for yourself.
if we lived in a world where healthcare and everything else was socialized i could. that's the truth. if your average fifteen year old could squeeze out a kid on a sidewalk and people would swoop in to care for it and it didn't cost them a dime to do so, then i could do it your way. are we there yet? ask yourself what the world needs, then ask yourself if it's what you are trying to do.
2007-01-19 08:00:34 · answer #4 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. While I see the logic of danny-boy there (she didn't choose it, why should she suffer the consequences), a life is a life (so why should the baby suffer the consequences either).
This is a particularly complicated part in the discussion. But like you said, she can put it up for adoption. And there are many, many parent wannabes out there who would love this child. We must find better ways of letting the victims of rape know what is available to them for the child.
2007-01-19 08:03:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well I'm not all into logic, but I'd put it up for adoption.You can have the kind of adoption were you don't have anything to do with the baby after it's born.Email me at wvcountrygrl_1993@yahoo.com if you wanna talk (if this is a question related to you)Anywho good luck.
2007-01-19 12:47:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That my friend is the flaw in the pro-life argument. They say that if a woman has sex and gets pregnant, she must live with the consequences. If a woman is raped, she should not have to live with the consequences of actions that were out of her control. But, the pro-lifers also that life begins at conception making abortion murder. So, I guess it is okay to murder a rape baby in the eyes of a pro-lifer.
2007-01-19 08:02:51 · answer #7 · answered by The Maestro 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think abortion is wrong either way. The mother could put it up for adoption... bc its not the babies fault that she was raped (neither the mothers fault)... But that baby should be given the chance to live! A "rape baby" is totally not evil! Cuz like i said, its not the babies fault. Although... for all you "rapists" in this world, USE CONDOMS! seriously! I mean, are ppl in this world that stupid? That gets on my nerves. But, that's gettin a little off the subject. So, in conclusion, ABORTION IS WRONG EITHER WAY!
2007-01-19 08:00:15 · answer #8 · answered by nikkicomstock_69 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ya and incest is the other case that I would agree with. Someone shouldn't be forced to have a baby that will remind them of being raped every day of their life. I suppose the adoption part is a valid point but she still has to do 9 months of it.
2007-01-19 08:04:55 · answer #9 · answered by Ballzy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that's a ill way of finding at rape. the priority with maximum human beings is they connect stages to different incorrect acts. that's like rape is misguided yet abortion is extra incorrect because of the fact that's seen homicide. whilst abortion might desire to be prevented particularly, human beings might desire to understand that living with the end results of unintended being pregnant might desire to be undesirable and the two incorrect for the mother besides because of the fact the newborn. there is not any might desire to insert God in rape or its result.
2016-10-07 10:09:48 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not personally speaking but some people beleive that like the genetic make up could be passed down.like if the father was a rapist the child could have issues as well and if you didn't want a rapist why the he** would you expect someone else to have that burden.like would you want to have a child by a child molester?and please I'm not directing anything at you personally i'm just trying to give you some insight on why that argument may come up.I hope I didn't offend you;that most certainly was not my intintion,i hope this helps.
2007-01-19 08:07:37 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋