Posted on 11/20/2014 10:16:59 AM PST by wagglebee
Its nice that this woman was able to make peace with this. However, knowing some people who were victims of rape, I can’t make a sane argument that they should be asked to carry a lifetime remembrance of having such a violent act perpetrated on them.
If the only abortions today were those of rape victims it would be light years better than it is. I don’t believe these babies should have to die either, but if a law proposed to end all -other- abortions I would not move to block it. It would be senseless to condemn the other 99% to death in the meantime.
“Until that time, how will we as human beings address the right to life of the alive unborn other human being?”
The only sensible rule, when two parties’ rights are in conflict and the conflict cannot be resolved without harming one party or the other, is to choose the course which does the least amount of harm.
So, on the one hand, we have certain death for the infant, if we choose to allow abortion, and on the other hand, we have less than certain death for the mother if we don’t choose to allow abortion. Therefore, abortion does more harm, and we must choose the alternative.
But then you’d have the problem of sterilization.
Here is your ethical dilemma: A terrorist is about to detonate a bomb in a room with 100 people in it. You can evacuate all but one of the people in the room in time. You can try to diffuse the bomb in time but you don’t know how and it is virtually certain you’ll fail. Do you evacuate the 99 while you try to save the last person or do you let them all die?
That reasoning —honest and simple as it is— has been rejected by the oligarchy pushing the slaughter.
The point is not that a child conceived in rape is "less valuable" than other humans; the point is that a woman's right to control her own body trumps the rights of the innocent fetus, when that fetus was put there against her will.
Imagine that I am lost in the woods, and a blizzard is coming up that will mean my certain death. I stumble upon your cabin, where you have a blazing fire and more than enough food for both of us. The law permits you to drive me off-- at gunpoint if necessary-- because it values your right to control your property over my life. Should a woman have the same right to her uterus as you do to your cabin in the woods?
I have been raped. And on a news website, there was a discussion about this issue. People went nuts when I said that if I had gotten pregnant, I would have never had an abortion because it is still taking an innocent life. People called me a monster because “it” would always be a “child of rape and grow up with that stigma”-and I was “selfish” to bring a “child of rape” into the world.
My position has always been that having a baby from that awful experience, would have been a silver lining in a rather dark cloud; and to see good come from so much evil, would have been like a miracle.
This one poster, who identified himself as a man of the cloth (who knows?) asked me “what about your future husband or the man in your life at the time? Would it be fair to make him look at that child everyday and see the rapist?” I responded that I wouldn’t stay with or be with a man who expected me to KILL an INNOCENT life, a child, just so he could feel comfortable day to day!
He told me that it wasn’t “fair” to put a man through that and it was expecting too much from a person...I replied that if a man wanted me to kill a child-for ANY reason-than that man is much worse than the rapist—he’s a murderer in my book.
He told me “God bless and have a nice day”....I’m hoping he was struck with a thunderbolt if he really was a ‘man of the cloth’!
I like it.
...............
Basically instead of aborting a child. You are stopping one from even being conceived. You are denying those genetics from being passed on. That’s just as bad as abortion.
There is a reason why we have reproductive organs. Who are you to decide who is born, and who isn’t? You aren’t God. Nor the mother carrying an egg, or a father carrying the sperm.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
You do realize that once conception happens a human life is being grown? Why should anyone no matter the reason have a right to extinguish that?
Sterilization as well, you’re denying life. Disgusting, and I can never understand why anyone can support the destruction of human life. The same people that cry over cutting trees down. Who would not eat meat even if their life depended on it.
These people would stop an innocent life from living. It is all bad. I can argue it even from their point of view, that any type of abortion is wrong. It is against the way the world works. The way life works, it is against everything we know, and value. If you say it is okay to kill any living fertilized embryo, or fetus, then it would be okay for others to say: You are worthless, a drain on society because we don’t want to “deal with you”, we are going to end your life. It’s the same thing. Denying the right to life.
Nobody has the right to take another human life away....in any stage. The mother is carrying the life, it isn’t her life to throw away. It is part of her, but it isn’t her.
I understand and respect your position. I also think the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
What is the percentage of children who are actually conceived through rape and/or incest? I’m assuming it is pretty small (does any Freeper know?). If for example, we could save 49 out of 50 aborted children by outlawing abortion in all cases but rape and/or incest, I’d give these assaulted women the choice, hoping they’d choose life. Taking this position removes the strongest counter-argument used by those using this wedge issue to push the continued mass murder that is unrestricted abortion.
Somebody commits a crime and who gets the death penalty?
The baby . . . That seems fair.
Does aborting the innocent child somehow erase the memory?
You're kidding, right? An abortion is not a hysterectomy and an unborn child is not the pregnant woman's "property".
In my example, I am not your property, but your right to your property gives you the right to kill me.
In my example, I am not your property, but your right to your property gives you the right to kill me.
Lurking’s analogy is quit stupid. Would it execute an abandoned child found in a cabin in the woods? Libertarians are such dolts sometimes.
Inevitably, setting aside the law of YHWH for a moment, according to the Constitution, the child would be an American citizen, and the only way that this government, on any level, has the right to take ANY life is by due process (crime) or just cause (war). In all other cases, this government exists to protect your God given rights, the first enumerated thereof being LIFE.
To remain true in all intellectual honesty to our Constitutional laws, to the very cause of our establishment, the life of the child must be protected.
The more disturbing problem is when the life of the mother truly lies in the balance. Whichever one would choose to save is at the expense of the other. THAT decision is far harder to take.
Just for you, I was conceived in rape. My Mother would not think of killing me over a crime committed against her. I was blessed to have her for more than 90 years. She was a school teacher and I would bet that every sixth grader she taught still cherishes that time in her classroom. My Mother considered me ‘alive’ from the moment she found out she was pregnant. BTW, I was born the very day the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, August sixth in Japan, August fifth in Washington DC General Hospital. Mothers like you and she are truly blessings from God!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.