How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?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?
Republicans are against it and it goes directly to the "pro life" bullshit by proving they aren't.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?
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.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 internal consistency isn’t a republican trait.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.How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?
How can anyone call themselves "pro life" and be against food and medical care for children?
Just curious as to why a policy forcing a woman to give birth into the presence of poverty, is not considered draconian to you?Personally, I would rather see the child put up for adoption than aborted, but acknowledge that denying abortion in these cases is draconian.
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 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 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?,
So you're "pro birth".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.
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.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?
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.Just curious as to why a policy forcing a woman to give birth into the presence of poverty, is not considered draconian to you?
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.So you're "pro birth".
"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.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
There are no absolutes in life.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?,
"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.
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.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.
Except abortion up to birth generally does not happen or is not allowed/performed."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.
AKA prevented from committing homicide.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
That doesn't mean some pro-choice people don't believe it legitimate.Except abortion up to birth generally does not happen or is not allowed/performed.
Abortion is not legally considered or recognized as a homicide.AKA prevented from committing homicide.
That doesn't mean some pro-choice people don't believe it legitimate.
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?First, no one is forcing them to give birth. The pregnancy is a result of personal choices.
Yet, you've little qualms in allowing her to"fix" her pregnancy in cases of rape/incest.Not allowing a homicide to be the fix is not morally equivalent to forcing.
Apparently not, if they happen to be a product of rape/incest. You traverse from pragmatism to idealism in one irrational swoop!Second, poor lives matter just as much as rich ones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?