Sorry, i just don't get it.

[noonereal]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

 

[CaughtInThe]

They see the political kickback and are trying to minimize it by allowing women to "kill" some "babies".

 

[Gateman_Wen]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?

 

[noonereal]

How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?

Who is against food for children? What does this have to do with abortion?
Same with medical care. Who is against this for kids and what is this question doing in my thread?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Who is against food for children? What does this have to do with abortion?
Same with medical care. Who is against this for kids and what is this question doing in my thread?

Republicans are against it and it goes directly to the "pro life" bullshit by proving they aren't.

 

[mac]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

Because many of us understand the psychological impact (harm) that carrying the pregnancy to term can cause the mother. Also, such abortions amount to a very small percentage over all. Of course the unborn baby in question is completely innocent of the circumstances of its creation, those circumstances may fit into the catagory of "defense" of the mother. Many of the rape and incest pregnancies that do occur are to children where the physical impact of a pregnancy may be as harmful or more harmful than the psychological impact.

Personally, I would rather see the child put up for adoption than aborted, but acknowledge that denying abortion in these cases is draconian.

 

[What if...?]

How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?

Because internal consistency isn’t a republican trait.

The part couldn’t exist if it was.

 

[mac]

How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?

Recognizing a fundemental right to life for all human beings doesn't require pledging to support that life. I recognize that you have a right to free speach, but so doing doesn't necesitate me providing you with internet.

 

[Tlrmln]

How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?

What percentage of your own income do you give away to provide food and medical care for children you don't know?

 

[quip]

Personally, I would rather see the child put up for adoption than aborted, but acknowledge that denying abortion in these cases is draconian.

Just curious as to why a policy forcing a woman to give birth into the presence of poverty, is not considered draconian to you?

 

[Lursa]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

It breaks down like this (previously posted):

Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.​

​

--If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.​

​

--If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.​

​

So what we can see here is that:​

​

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal or the same... If the unborn was truly equal/same, you could not terminate its life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (There are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)​

​

--many many pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')​

​

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for most pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.​

Here's my question (for anyone): why is the general belief that when the risk is equal and only one can be saved, that the mother's life should be saved and the unborn's sacrificed? Why not save that new life with its whole life ahead of it?

 

[j brown's body]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

These pro-lifers are fools if they opposed Roe because it basically gave them the loopholes they support while allowing states to limit abortion so stringently it barely existed.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

The incest and rape exceptions are extremely important because in those cases, the the father committed a crime against the mother. One of my pro-choice slogans here is, "Never punish the mom for what the dad did."

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Recognizing a fundemental right to life for all human beings doesn't require pledging to support that life. I recognize that you have a right to free speach, but so doing doesn't necesitate me providing you with internet.

So you're "pro birth".

 

[quip]

​

Here's my question (for anyone): why is the general belief that when the risk is equal and only one can be saved, that the mother's life should be saved and the unborn's sacrificed? Why not save that new life with its whole life ahead of it?

Simple. Incipiant life is never the equal to the life sustaining it. When the actual rubber meets the actual road....the lifers' are forced to contend with the actual situation.

(Kudos on the post @Lursa)

 

[mac]

Just curious as to why a policy forcing a woman to give birth into the presence of poverty, is not considered draconian to you?

First, no one is forcing them to give birth. The pregnancy is a result of personal choices. Not allowing a homicide to be the fix is not morally equivalent to forcing. Second, poor lives matter just as much as rich ones.

 

[Blue Dog]

If one is a prolife “purist”.

There would be no exceptions for abortion.

“The body inside of the mom’s body is not her body. Not her body, not her choice,” said Rep. John Jacob

 

[mac]

So you're "pro birth".

Sure, as well as pro-life. Recognizing your right to X doesn't mean anyone has to enable your X, it means no one can deny your right to X.

 

[mac]

If one is a prolife “purist”.

There would be no exceptions for abortion.

“The body inside of the mom’s body is not her body. Not her body, not her choice,” said Rep. John Jacob

"Purist" as you use it can easily be stated as "extremist". Like people that think abortion up to the day of birth is morally acceptable. Extremist.

 

[donhughesmusic]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

There are no absolutes in life.

 

[Blue Dog]

"Purist" as you use it can easily be stated as "extremist". Like people that think abortion up to the day of birth is morally acceptable. Extremist.

No argument from me.

 

[Gordy327]

First, no one is forcing them to give birth. The pregnancy is a result of personal choices. Not allowing a homicide to be the fix is not morally equivalent to forcing. Second, poor lives matter just as much as rich ones.

If a woman is forced to remain pregnant, she'll eventually be forced to give birth. Pregnancy may be the result of (but not always) personal choice. But so is having an abortion.

"Purist" as you use it can easily be stated as "extremist". Like people that think abortion up to the day of birth is morally acceptable. Extremist.

Except abortion up to birth generally does not happen or is not allowed/performed.

 

[mac]

If a woman is forced to remain pregnant, she'll eventually be forced to give birth. Pregnancy may be the result of (but not always) personal choice. But so is having an abortion./quote

AKA prevented from committing homicide.

Except abortion up to birth generally does not happen or is not allowed/performed.

That doesn't mean some pro-choice people don't believe it legitimate.

 

[Gordy327]

AKA prevented from committing homicide.

That doesn't mean some pro-choice people don't believe it legitimate.

Abortion is not legally considered or recognized as a homicide.
What people believe is irrelevant. It is about actual reality.

 

[quip]

First, no one is forcing them to give birth. The pregnancy is a result of personal choices.

So, in the case of "elective" sex, you favor forcing upon her the responsibilities of giving birth. Somewhat of a finely parsed distinction don't you say?

Not allowing a homicide to be the fix is not morally equivalent to forcing.

Yet, you've little qualms in allowing her to"fix" her pregnancy in cases of rape/incest.

Second, poor lives matter just as much as rich ones.

Apparently not, if they happen to be a product of rape/incest. You traverse from pragmatism to idealism in one irrational swoop!

Why is your (uninvolved) moral resolutions regarding these situations more applicable than the woman's whose actually carrying the unborn?