Posted on 02/05/2012 6:59:20 PM PST by mnehring
Edited on 02/05/2012 7:06:55 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
During an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.
“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.” Source
I think wagglebee’s most recent post to you says it best. What it is about this issue that you just don’t understand??
A person’s a person, no matter how small.
‘“Should that baby be aborted?”
I think that would be up to the rape victim.’
Wrong. The “victim” does not have the right to kill an innocent baby.
If abortion were outlawed (and I hope that one day it is) there will be exceptions to the law. There always are. That is how our system of governance works.
One of those exceptions (and the only one that I support)will be in the case of rape, the rape victim will be allowed (not coerced) to choose wether she will or will not be forced to become pregnant.
Or do you believe that forcing her to become pregnant by her rapist is allowable under the U.S. Constitution, paying special attention to the 13th amendment?
I respect your posting history and your knowledge on this forum and would really appreciate your opinion.
Thanks.
“The “victim”
With victim in quotes, I have to ask...do you believe she had it coming?
The rape victim (according to how I understand your reasoning) is also afforded NO protection under the 13th amendment of the United States Constitution.
You ever see a picture of a zygote on day one?
That’s a person?
I believe that the Constitution is the “how to” of the rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are LIFE....
The 5th amendment, I think, is the one that says life can’t be taken without due process of law.
Since the life in the woman is protected by law and cannot be taken without due process, then I truly believe it necessary for charges to be brought against the baby and for it to be convicted of some capital crime, before it can be killed.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is life, and there’s no doubt that it’s human life.
And the Constitution’s preamble (purpose statement) clearly says that all that follows is to ensure these rights for us and for our posterity (our unborn).
BTW, I once held exactly the same position as you. I really had to struggle (this is a true story) with the line: “if it weren’t alive, they wouldn’t have to kill it.”
Since no human exists who is not here as a result of pregnancy and delivery, that process is the law of nature and cannot be slavery.
Utter nonsense.
Notwithstanding that, you do know the moral difference between chickens and people, right?
Well, maybe you don’t.
I want to agree with your point and you do have me leaning that way but doesn’t your point, taking it’s natural course further victimize a rape victim?
I mean if she chooses to have the baby, that is a decision to be celebrated and supported, but there is a strong part of me that is stuck still on “who am I to force a rape victim to do anything?”
I might feel better that those babies are being given a chance at life but (unlike several others on this thread given their attitudes) I’d feel pretty damned guilty for further traumatizing a rape victim.
I think that I and others that feel as I do can get to where you are on the subject but it’s going to take a lot of soul searching and btw, your attitude towards me on this thread is a lot more useful in making the case than the attitude of many others.
New tagline ...
Why would a condom be a murder weapon?
Once a woman is raped, is she merely a “rape victim” to you?
Let’s try another tack.
At exactly what point in time or development, in your opinion, does this “thing” you call an “egg” cease being an “egg” and become the sort of human PERSON that the Constitution explicitly and imperatively protects?
Can you explain to us how any answer you give beyond creation, or, if you will, biological inception, is anything but arbitrary?
It’s human life.
“You ever see a picture of a zygote on day one?
That’s a person?”
Yes, it is. It is a seperate individual with its own DNA - different from the DNA of the mother.
It’s a person same as you, same as me, same as a 1 year-old, same as a 90 year-old. We are all human beings. Some of us are at different places throughout our lifespan, but no more or less human than the next.
If one does not believe in the presence of the soul, perhaps chickens and humans don’t seem that different.
No I don’t believe victims of rape “had it coming”, as you put it. What has happened to them is an unbeliveable tragedy & violation of their rights and dignity. However, THAT does not afford a rape victim the right to off her unborn child.
I fail to see how the 13th amendment, which deals with slavery & imprisonment, is applicable to this discussion
Nothing could cause more "trauma" than abetting them in the killing of their own offspring.
How about the trauma to the innocent person who is being dismembered and destroyed? No guilt about that?
Nice tagline. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Indeed.
I've noticed that you seem hesitant to answer my questions, why is that?
But we'll try this again, if a woman accused YOU of rape which of YOUR CHILDREN should she be allowed to kill? Please be specific.
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.