[MEGoody]

Interesting that abortion opponents keep arguing that (1) women who are raped rarely if ever get pregnant, so there is no need to have an exception for cases of rape and (2) that in cases of child abuse, the victim does get pregnant (3) because the perpetrator is so stupid as to not use a condom. These positions seem inconsistent to me.

No one is claiming that child sexual abuse ALWAYS results in pregnancy. It probably is more common, however, because child abuse is a repetitive thing, whereas rape is not. Obviously, the more times one has sex, the more likely it is that pregnancy will occur.

But putting all that aside, wouldn't you support using every bit of information available to catch pedophiles?

Would they support forcing a 12-year old girl who has been raped to carry the child?

Speaking for myself: Unless the 12-year-old's life is medically at stake, yes. There's no reason to execute one of the innocent parties. If you want to kill someone, catch the rapist and kill him.

[LtdGovt]

No one is claiming that child sexual abuse ALWAYS results in pregnancy. It probably is more common, however, because child abuse is a repetitive thing, whereas rape is not. Obviously, the more times one has sex, the more likely it is that pregnancy will occur.

Good point. But at least 40,000 abortions are for cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother, and I base that on the statistics provided to me by a pro-life Catholic on this website. Even then, extreme pro-lifers keep talking about it as if the number is negligable.

I assume that if it's repetetive, it is more likely to be planned. If you have abused a child three times, you'll know that it's likely that you'll do it for a fourth time. Thus, I would submit that condom usage is more likely, if the pedophile has any brains.

But putting all that aside, wouldn't you support using every bit of information available to catch pedophiles?

Certainly. But not in the way that your hero Phil Kline has done, namely, by violating the privacy of women who have abortions.

Speaking for myself: Unless the 12-year-old's life is medically at stake, yes.

As I have already said: this position sickens me. I just can't believe that one human who considers himself to be a good and moral being would do that to another human, least of all a CHILD. It's a relief that such lunacy shall never be codified in the laws.