Can pro life defend their position

[Questerr]

They gambled and lost.

If you go driving after 2am on a Saturday, there’s a good chance that even with all the precautions in the world, you might get hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean that you “gambled and lost” and just have to live with your injuries and totaled car with no recourse?

 

[Questerr]

Stop! Just stop! You can't even equate this with the normal pro-life, pro-abortion debate.

If you are willing to make exceptions where “killing innocent babies” is okay, then clearly it’s not a real moral line for you.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Why such a narrow mind? Most pro life thinking people accept reasonable exceptions. Only a very small minority are against abortion in an absolute way.

Which means that anti-choicers view the mother's life as more important than the fetus's life.

Just like pro-choicers do.

The above proves it. Rather than continue the pregnancy as long as possible in order to give the fetus the best chance, or continue the pregnancy and see whether the mother does die and take the baby then...or whether maybe they'll both survive...giving mother and fetus an equal chance, these anti-choicers are like, "Okay, have the abortion." They consider the mother's life and health more important. Just like pro-choicers do.

And for many...rather than carry a rapist's baby: "Okay, have the abortion." (It isn't murder if the "innocent human life" was created in a way the anti-choicer considers gross?) They consider the mother's mental health and her physical comfort and health more important than the fetus's actual life.

So it's all BS and it's all about anger at women being able to freely have sex.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what’s the point in agonizing over the “innocent babies” part? Even you believe it’s okay to kill them under the right circumstances. They don’t suddenly stop being “innocent” do they?

That is a deeper discussion and farther away than my knowledge allows for a reasonable debate. I will say that the example in the OP is a rare exception for an abortion. I would prefer not to abort, but when the like of the mother is truly at risk, that is different. Normally with rape, something like the "plan B" can be used.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you go driving after 2am on a Saturday, there’s a good chance that even with all the precautions in the world, you might get hit by a drunk driver. Does that mean that you “gambled and lost” and just have to live with your injuries and totaled car with no recourse?

That analogy would be closer to being the rape victim.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Which means that anti-choicers view the mother's life as more important than the fetus's life.

Just like pro-choicers do.

The above proves it. Rather than continue the pregnancy as long as possible in order to give the fetus the best chance, or continue the pregnancy and see whether the mother does die and take the baby then...or whether maybe they'll both survive...giving mother and fetus an equal chance, these anti-choicers are like, "Okay, have the abortion." And for many...rather than carry a rapist's baby: "Okay, have the abortion." (It isn't murder if the "innocent human life" was created in a way the anti-choicer considers gross?)

So it's all BS and it's all about anger at women being able to freely have sex.

The difference is pro choice generally advocates on demand abortions for any reason. Not just medical.

 

[Questerr]

That is a deeper discussion and farther away than my knowledge allows for a reasonable debate. I will say that the example in the OP is a rare exception for an abortion. I would prefer not to abort, but when the like of the mother is truly at risk, that is different. Normally with rape, something like the "plan B" can be used.

Unless they are far enough along that it can’t.

Why should a mother be allowed to live and not an “innocent baby”?

 

[Questerr]

That analogy would be closer to being the rape victim.

No it wouldn’t. Women can’t consciously choose to not get pregnant, just like you can’t consciously choose to not get hit by a drunk driver.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

The difference is pro choice generally advocates on demand abortions for any reason. Not just medical.

There is no difference except that anti-choicers want to decide when it's "an innocent life" and when it's just something to get rid of, based on their own morality and attitudes.

"Just medical" still shows, per my statements above, that anti-choicers also consider the mother more important than the fetus. (And many don't use the "just medical" excuse, they also advocate for rape victims to be able to abort, no matter what the age of the victim is.)

Anti-choicers they want the option to punish women based on their own morals. It isn't about "innocent human lives," a determination which turns on a dime when anti-choicers feel like it.

It's about:

* Pretending to God that you're a good person -- look! You tried to save innocent babies, didn't you? (Well...the ones you determined met your own criteria for saving.)
* Pretending to others that you're a good person.
* Pretending that you yourself didn't at some point pay for an abortion, have one, or know another conservative who has had one. (Data supports this. Conservative women DEFINITELY abort.)
* Punishing women for being "allowed" to have sex.

 

[BabaVoss]

"So called "pro-life" people are usually "pro forced-birth". They don't really care much about children once they are born. As long as they aren't gay or trans - THEN they want to control what they do, who they marry, etc."

Why such a narrow mind? Most pro life thinking people accept reasonable exceptions. Only a very small minority are against abortion in an absolute way.

Narrow? I don't think so at all. Moreover, you missed the point of my comment. Pro-life people want to control others' lives based on their belief system - and they want the government to enforce their belief on everyone. THAT is narrow, in my view. As much as possible, the government should absolutely NOT be involved in people's personal ives. Trust American women to do what is right for them and their loved ones. Get the government out of peoples bodies - and their bedrooms.

We have a lot of problems the government should be taking on. This is not one of them.

 

[Gordy327]

These anti abortion laws are causing real harm and it appears are having the unintended consequence of increasing the number of abortions.

Because cruelty is the point.

 

[Gordy327]

They gambled and lost.

Gambling is a bad habit. If you cannot pay the price if you lose, do not gamble.

Fortunately, abortion is the proverbial trump card.

 

[Gordy327]

The difference is pro choice generally advocates on demand abortions for any reason. Not just medical.

What difference does it make? There's no rational or legal basis for abortion restrictions to begin with.

 

[jaeger19]

Stop! Just stop! You can't even equate this with the normal pro-life, pro-abortion debate.

Sure you can. This is the reality of the pro life pro abortion debate. Real people in real situations.

I have patients right now..that were at risk for harm or death due to their pregnancy.. that had to either wait until they were at risk for death before having an abortion
Or had to transfer to another facility in another state to avoid the risk.

These aren’t hypotheticals anymore. But real issues. Which need real debate .. not slogans

 

[jaeger19]

Why such a narrow mind? Most pro life thinking people accept reasonable exceptions. Only a very small minority are against abortion in an absolute way.

Well. Let’s explore that.
So what are the exceptions that should be allowed and how are they determined?
How does a provider know they will not be arrested and charged for treating a patient?

 

[jaeger19]

Why such a narrow mind? Most pro life thinking people accept reasonable exceptions. Only a very small minority are against abortion in an absolute way.

Well. Let’s explore that.
So what are the exceptions that should be allowed and how are they determined?
How does a provider know they will not be arrested and charged for treating a patient?

Under the current law in many states with abortion bans. My 14 year old patient could not be treated until the pregnancy caused an issue that put her life at risk.

So instead of being able to give her a medical abortion6 at to10 weeks. When it would be safer as she just takes two medications Instead She would have to wait until the baby reaches the second trimester and begins manifesting life threatening symptoms.
Now she has to have a procedural abortion which is much more risky.

And in some states it’s only allowed if the risk is death. Risk of paralysis. Blood clots brain damage and other health issues don’t qualify

So..
How are these exceptions determined

 

[Lord of Planar]

What difference does it make? There's no rational or legal basis for abortion restrictions to begin with.

I'm sorry you have no soul.

 

[Lursa]

If she went through with pregnancy it would likely cause paralysis or death.

Here's another example, from this forum, and she's OK'd my reposting it.

"(married woman) I had a healthy baby boy. But that experience almost killed me as I bled internally and lost massive amounts of blood. I would NEVER take the chance that would happen again and would have had an abortion if I ever got pregnant again."​

At least one poster on this forum has said that he does not support legislation that would allow women in this situation to have an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. How does someone justify this morally?

The self-righteousness is inhumane. The only goal of many anti-choice people: "As long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." If one or both end up on a vent, or vegetables, or maimed for life or die shortly after, Yes, it's dehumanizing for both but that is what they are fighting for. It's certainly no moral High Ground.

 

[Lursa]

So what’s the point in agonizing over the “innocent babies” part? Even you believe it’s okay to kill them under the right circumstances. They don’t suddenly stop being “innocent” do they?

None of his reasons are about protecting the life of the unborn, none are about its humanity or stage of development...they're based on if it's the woman's fault or not. They're about punishing women...not about the value of the unborn.

Good luck getting answers why it's ok to kill the unborn resulting from rape or incest but not from birth control failure? Women deserve the consequences from "gambling" on BC...it's not only about punishing the woman, it's using the kid AS the punishment. Nothing more dehumanizing for both than that, eh?

Right @Lord of Planar?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what’s the point in agonizing over the “innocent babies” part? Even you believe it’s okay to kill them under the right circumstances. They don’t suddenly stop being “innocent” do they?

When the purpose is to save the mother's life, the innocent becomes collateral damage. But to do so, without a valid purpose, rises to murder.

 

[Questerr]

When the purpose is to save the mother's life, the innocent becomes collateral damage. But to do so, without a valid purpose, rises to murder.

Why is the mother’s life worth more than the innocent baby’s life?

 

[Bullseye]

When the purpose is to save the mother's life, the innocent becomes collateral damage. But to do so, without a valid purpose, rises to murder.

I think all but the most hardcore anti-abortionists (per gallup ~15-20%) support abortion in some cases. Rape, incest, hazard to the monster, non-viability and chlld abuse seen to be the most common. Beyond that there's some support for a "no questions asked" period.

One of the benefits of repealing Rowe is that it opens up the field to be debated and voted on by the citizens of each state rather than being forced to adhere to House and Senate (and their benefactors) dictates.

 

[Questerr]

I think all but the most hardcore anti-abortionists (per gallup ~15-20%) support abortion in some cases. Rape, incest, hazard to the monster, non-viability and chlld abuse seen to be the most common. Beyond that there's some support for a "no questions asked" period.

One of the benefits of repealing Rowe is that it opens up the field to be debated and voted on by the citizens of each state rather than being forced to adhere to House and Senate (and their benefactors) dictates.

It should a medical decision left up to a woman and her doctor.

 

[Gordy327]

I'm sorry you have no soul.

Thats irrelevant. Feel free to discuss souls in the B&S forum. But its not my problem you can't make a valid argument or point or answer questions.

When the purpose is to save the mother's life, the innocent becomes collateral damage. But to do so, without a valid purpose, rises to murder.

Abortion isn't murder, so you're flat out wrong right there. The only purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Who are you to determine if it's valid or not for someone else.

 

[Gordy327]

I think all but the most hardcore anti-abortionists (per gallup ~15-20%) support abortion in some cases. Rape, incest, hazard to the monster, non-viability and chlld abuse seen to be the most common. Beyond that there's some support for a "no questions asked" period.

One of the benefits of repealing Rowe is that it opens up the field to be debated and voted on by the citizens of each state rather than being forced to adhere to House and Senate (and their benefactors) dictates.

Funny how anti abortionists cannot seem to come up with rational or legal bases to restrict abortion at all.