Posted on 02/15/2014 10:52:59 AM PST by NKP_Vet
Feb. 14, 2014 (MonicaKelsey) - When someone says, "I am pro-life except in the case of rape or incest," they are using an oxymoron to describe themselves. This is in essence describing themselves as pro-choice and shows they have a lack of understanding of what being pro-life is truly about. Glenn Beck, who my husband listens to almost daily, is a good example of someone who is highly intelligent, but lacks the understanding of what it means to be pro-life with no exceptions. Let me explain.
First of all, let me tell you about who I am. I am a medic and a firefighter from Indiana. Four years ago at the age of 37 I reconnected with my birth mother, who placed me for adoption at birth. The information she entrusted me with the day we reconnected has changed the course of my life forever.
My birth mother was brutally raped at 17 and as a result became pregnant with me. But in 1972 my life was protected by a law that said that my life had value. And even though the law was in place, protecting me, my birth-mother succumbed to the pressure of carrying a child conceived out of rape and found herself at a back alley abortion clinic at the advice of her mother.
While standing in front of the man who was going to take my life, my birth mother changed her mind. She left this clinic and never looked back. Her mother hid her from the outside world. She gave birth to me and never even looked at me. But she gave me the greatest gift I have ever received, on top of my life. She gave me an amazing family. And for that I will forever be grateful.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
A murderer is one who has already committed murder, is it not?
That’s funny, anyone reading this thread would see that you are arguing against the pro-lifers.
Exactly.
It is a fantasy solution that will never occur.
And while people constantly beat their chests about this fantasy solution, they are making no efforts to convince these raped women on what the right thing to do is.
Thus the problem persists and will continue to persist.
It seems to me that because they believe that they will not be able to convince 100% of these women to bear the children, then they will try to convince none of them.
Again, all or nothing, but mostly nothing and never all.
What I am seeing here in this discussion is not rational, but when I try to point out and illustrate how it isn’t rational, people just get mad at me and call me names.
Well, I’m reading this thread, and I’m anyone right?
What I see that I’m arguing against is forcing women impregnated by rape to bear those children without their consent.
What I see that you are arguing for is raping a raped woman again, but instead of using a penis, you want to use a law.
Wow, that is breathtakingly pro-abortion and hostile to freerepublic's pro-life community.
and what part of "children" is it ok to kill. It is not the children's fault how they were conceived. Murdering them is selecting them for euthanasia for the sins of their parents.
No, ansel, what it is, quite simply, is truth.
I see that you don’t agree with my assertion, so counter it.
I’m not really interested in your name calling.
I’ve already told you that I’m not pro-abortion, and no matter how many times you call me pro-abortion, it isn’t going to make me pro-abortion.
So, that being said, defeat my argument, or shut up.
What I read is that you want to take an innocent victim of rape and make her a murderer, make her sin against God...
you want to add to her burden by adding guilt,. not alleviate her of emotional and psychological pain..
a woman can get over a rape long before she can get over the horror and guilt she will feel from murdering her innocent baby....
at a time when she could be turning to God for comfort and healing for the rape that she had no part in, you want her to spit in His face and kill His creation...
Thus making herself an active participate in willful sin and a crime against God...the breaking of one of the Ten Commandments...
and placing herself in a perilous place with God..
way to go genius...
Bravo sierra!
No part.
I never said it was ok.
What I have said that it is not ok to force a woman by law to bear the child of her rapist.
What is ok is to convince her that it’s the right thing to do, because it isn’t the child’s fault.
I would rather vote against all abortions. At least the law you imagined here would be a first step.
I don’t like the phrase “her rapist,” as if the woman has some permanent association with or even responsibility for the man. The possessive case assigns ownership.
I’m not making her anything at all, genius.
The choice is hers, genius.
The choice is not yours, genius.
Really, the fact of the matter is, it’s none of your damn business at all, genius, so why don’t you butt out, genius.
But if it’s really that important to you, genius, why don’t you go to her bedside and convince her that bearing the child is the right thing to do.
Because, outside of that, genius, you have no course of action at all, genius.
But she does, most especially if she raises his child.
The phrase is accurate.
I think a persons relationship with God is normally the number one reason a person is pro-life and traditional family. I attended catholic grade and high school and did not care about abortion because God was not real to me. When I became a Christian and read the bible I realized God cares about each of us and what we do, my life changed. Lots of people say they believe in God, but don’t live like it, like I did. The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom, is so true.
If she raises HER child, that is HER decision.
The phrase elevates rapists.
He’s still a lapsed Catholic.
He is a cult member.
Well, yes, but that was the point of my question.
I am of the opinion that abortion after rape or incest will never be outlawed (or, if you prefer, will be the last pro-death bastion to fall after America undergoes an enormous conversion of heart).
Since I believe that, I regard arguments like this one as distractions from incremental improvements with the potential to save millions of lives.
So, I'm interested in how people who want to MAKE the argument that such abortions must be outlawed view incremental change.
Counter your assertion that pro-lifers are for “raping a raped woman again, but instead of using a penis, you want to use a law.”?
Or that you arguing a pro-abortion argument of “I’m arguing against is forcing women impregnated by rape to bear those children without their consent.” isn’t a pro-abortion argument?
I can accept that wording. I believe you are right about that, and I do not want to elevate rapists.
I think it’s fair to say that in choosing to raise the child, that being a decision of incredible strength and wisdom, it makes it her child and not his.
I appreciate your pointing this out to me, I will refer to it as the rapist in the future and not her rapist.
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.