You can call yourself a “pro-lifer” all your want. But all your tactics are out of the pro-abort’s playbook.
I am not asking the government to coerce anyone to do anything, I am asking the government to protect the life of a human being.
Calling a developing human being “the rapist sperm” is really typical of what all the pro-aborts do, denigrate the value of the baby by pretending it’s not a human being, just a clump of cells or a sperm.
Well, it’s neither, it’s a human being. Whom you think it’s okay to kill. I don’t. Even in difficult circumstances.
Does that mean that if a comprise were to be made where abortion is outlawed with the rape exception, would I be in favor of it over the status quo? Of course. That would represent a major victory for the pro-life cause. Political compromises are sometimes made for the greater good. But I will never compromise the principle. If a woman who was raped have an abortion, it is still murder, and it is still wrong.
I don’t call myself a pro-lifer, I am one. I do not think it’s OK to kill a fetus, only that you have no right to deprive the victim of rape/incest an option not to proceed with carrying the act of violence to term. It is a sad and tragic thing, but in a society that values rights and dignity, until such time as we can develop a method where females are immune to pregnancy under such conditions until they so choose of their own accord to become pregnant, this has to be legally an option.
I still remain deeply troubled that your and Christianmom’s arguments don’t stop to fully consider the grown human woman victim’s rights, and that they not continue to be a victim of an act of violence, which you insist they must be while claiming otherwise. And coercive state tactics is what you’re endorsing here, in the name of morality, and protecting a clump of cells in the wake of the crime, and reducing, indeed, sentencing a rape victim to a forced babymaker for a criminal for 9 months.
You don’t like the language, but that is what you’re endorsing here. I don’t think, frankly, it’s too far afield from the anti-gun rights people who would deprive innocent citizenry from defending themselves against criminals. They’re “life”, and shooting them would be murder, too (and that, well, you should just die or be crippled so as not to cause harm to them). Well, I’m sorry, but forget that.
Despite my hesistation about wading in, I still think this thread provided us with a valuable discussion as to what is too far to go in the name of the pro-life movement, and using/endorsing coercive methods by the state in order to achieve said moral goals is very wrong, especially against grown human females who are victims. Being immoral in the pursuit of morality is not very respectable (see Zero trying to shove his health scare plan down our throats all in the name of utopian morality - coercion by the state against people of free will). The pro-aborts will rightly get away with tagging you as extremists that care nothing for female crime victims and your reducing them to second-class/non-entity status below that of a clump of cells that may (or may not) reach viability. And all the time you attack my position, refusing to see my point (and I have seen yours, yes, abortion is wrong - we know that it is), you also refuse to see that I want Roe overturned and virtually all other abortions outlawed (where two persons willingly participated - free will). Let’s work for that.