MORALLY however, they have a problem.
If they concede that the fetus in the womb is a human being ( and they do ), they are STILL allowing the murder of a baby.
There is one better solution to the problem --- ADOPTION.
Few talk about it but it's time someone brought it up.
Marco Rubio is a member of the GOP-e and cannot be trusted.
Caving in to evil never proves practical. The people at National RINOview will learn that too late.
The best way to fight this red herring is to challenge them.
“Would you or any liberal support a law that limited abortion to cases of rape & incest?”
“Until we see liberals passing such laws, quit pretending this is conservative extremism.”
The babies that he’s referring to could not be reached for comment.
Why should the child pay for the crime of rape or incest with its life? They are the ultimate victim in these cases.
Is the baby innocent, or is the baby guilty.
These are not hard questions.
Rape and incest without option would be forcing the Mother to have a child that was completely and entirely not her intention.
This would be a horrific 9 months for the Mother to endure. The rape was bad enough. Now we’re telling her she has to relive that ordeal every day for 9 months. I agree that it’s still murdering a helpless child but how do you draw a line like that? Just asking. I’m pro life, but I do have a difficult time getting past forcing a Mother to have a child that was forced on her.
You are absolutely correct. Opposition to abortion is not based on its relative popularity. Abortion is the killing of innocents. The baby in the womb is not poison based on its paternity. if the baby is to be cherished the womb must be sacrosanct. Abortion is the most ghoulish act possible. Nothing is more evil.
Will put you on the slippery slope to endless debates over what constitutes “rape” in this uber-PC world.
IMHO, as pro-lifers we lose when we allow the pro-abortionists to make the debate about rape victims. They successfully position themselves as the “protectors” of rape victims and us as their persecutors.
Instead we should call their bluff and move the debate to the heart of the issue. Offer a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for rape, incest (which is rape in almost all such cases) and to save the life of the mother.
The pro-deathers will obviously reject this deal and it will demonstrate that they are the radicals and that they don’t care about rape victims at all and are using them.
Such a deal is morally defensible as it would save over a million lives a year and would likely drop the number of legal abortion to 10,000 or fewer(possibly much lower). While we desire to save them all, if you can save millions or save none, the morally right choice is to save the millions and then try to save the others later.
Also, in a society where abortions were almost unheard of, I believe most rape victims would not choose abortions. Right now they see a million babies been killed for convenience each year, which makes an abortion in their horrible situation seem more justified to them. Without all those convenience abortions, attitudes on abortions for rape victims will change.
There is NO WAY you can advocate for an exception for rape and incest without saying you think its fine for the children of rape victims who are walking around today to be killed.
Abortion does not undo the rape or incest. It does not erase the memory. What is does is add the fact that the person ended a human life to the burden they will bear the rest of their lives.
That’s kind of like saying that, if a man rapes/hits a woman, she should be allowed to kill one of his kids or younger siblings and nobody should bat an eye or point out that it’s wrong - the baby is innocent.
That is the exception that would have aborted me. Whether the world is better off, is open to conjecture. Only a silenced soul never asks this question.
Carl Sagan was an agnostic but his own life of scientific questioning led to his idea that intelligent life was the substance of the universe finally attaining a form where it could look back at itself and know itself. In that sense aborting a baby is like putting out God’s eye.
But the calculus and the response is: “I am against all abortion but if you are giving me the opportunity to trade the millions of humans you destroy out of convenience for a mere dozen victims of rape and incest, then, as much as it is distasteful, I will accept your offer and I will save millions of lives!”
I think a lot of this avoided by just saying “I believe that life starts at conception, that’s my position, next question.”