rapist’s spawn, rights of the criminals sperm? If that is what you think of an unborn baby no matter how they came to be, then you have more problems than an argument about intrusive government.
Abortion is wrong, evil, and horrible every time. It harms the woman every time. It is almost always fatal for the baby. If the baby does survive, they are left to die.
A WOMAN HAS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ABORTION. Therefore no one is infringing upon her rights. However, humans DO have a fundamental right to LIFE.
The state is not punishing her (if they didn’t allow abortion), they are protecting the baby’s right to LIFE. ABORTION IS MURDER OF AN INNOCENT LIFE. People who argue that abortion is wrong except in the case of rape are not being consistent.
Carrying a baby isn’t a punishment. It is a natural consequence of the horrible thing that happened to her. The baby isn’t a horrible thing, the rape is. So you think the state should infringe on the right that the baby has to LIFE so that the mother can “be rid of the rapist’s spawn”. Why does this particular baby NOT have a right to Life but every other baby does? You never answered my question. Why do you oppose abortion?
Is it totalitarian to have a law against murder? Abortion is murder. A baby is a human from the time of conception, it doesn’t magically happen later. So being consistent that murder is wrong, then abortion for any reason is wrong.
Madam, you and I agree a lot more than we disagree. I have been attacked over the years for being a “militant pro-lifer” by the pro-aborts (including my own grandmother who would berate me for being a Conservative pro-lifer), and now I’m being attacked in this thread as if I’m the representative from Planned Barrenhood (a front for genocide if there ever was one). I have explained to you repeatedly my position in this thread, and you and the other individual persist on grotesquely perverting my stance. You’re throwing arguments at me that I agree with over 90% of the time - but said argument stops when it comes to a rape victim at the time of the crime, that’s it. You want to argue it’s wrong, you can, that’s your right, and I defend your right to do so, and your argument has validity, but you also have no right, nor do I, nor the state, to dictate to a crime victim in the immediate aftermath that she will be FORCED to carry the produce of a rapist to term. That, madam, is reprehensible beyond description.
The line has to be drawn here, or we cease to live in a free society. My position on this point is Libertarian, and only this point, otherwise your positions are essentially correct. But I will not, in good conscience, tell a crime victim that she will continue to be punished for something she didn’t do and that a clump of cells (and I’m sorry, but at that point within 24 hours, that it is what it is - it’s not yet a viable baby by any stretch of the imagination) has more rights than she does. Totalitarianism in the pursuit of morality is immoral. The fact that you, as a woman, cannot see my argument (you don’t have to agree with it, I’m not asking you to, only to comprehend and understand it and why - to see that I am merely focused on one singular point about a rape victim’s rights) is extraordinarily disturbing.
I speak for those who are pro-lifers who see that exception as an unfortunate - very unfortunate - but necessary one. That’s it. But for those, like the subject of this thread, who choose life, who try to make something good come from evil, well, they have my enormous respect and admiration (I’d say without sarcasm that they are practically saints for doing so). But it is wholly up to them to make the free and conscious decision to do so when forced with such a terrible situation, and nobody else.