Church condemns abortion performed on raped girl, 11

Just trying to show both sides of the selfish part. Better to raise a beaten starved child that will most likely do as it's parents did ?
 
IHateGovernment said:
Outside of consideration for her age which Damo is correct is a life threatening issue I have a problem with those who address the abortion question with the issue of rape.

I am pro-life (special kind most know my position here). I don't dislike pro-choice automatically. Most are good people who have a different assessment of what constitutes a human or what is a reasonable burden the state can put upon you.

The people I do not like though are those who are pro-life supposedly but support abortion if the woman is raped. This stance totally negates the idea the human life should be protected and that is why abortion must be prohibited.

Instead such a stance shows another darker motive that pro-lifers are often accused of. Pro-lifers who make exception for abortion are saying it is permissable because it is not the fault of the woman who became impregnated. Thus these people deny abortion to women who were not raped because they are making a judgement about their lifestyle and are seeking to punish the woman for her behavior. The life of the unborn is not their concern for if it was they would see aborting a child conceived through rape is just as egregious as any other circumstance because it is the taking of an innocent life.
Click to expand...

Profound.

I think that all that are pro-life should examine their conscience on this issue, including myself.

ty for bringing it up ihg.

care
 
The poor are selfish for having children. Clearly life is not worthwhile if you are poor.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Let me add to the list of those I don't like when it comes to abortion. I also don't care for those who try to support abortion with practical considerations like: they are poor or the parent are unfit. This is some kind of eugenics program which is actually what planned parenthood was created for.

I can accept arguments about the ownership of ones body or the right to not have government interference in one's life. Talking about abortion as a useful social tool is abhorrent and disgusting.
 
All the Democrats including President Clinton were asking for when they refused to pass the ban on late term abortions was an exception for the health or safety of the mother. All they wanted was what the supreem court has said is required!
 
IHateGovernment said:
Outside of consideration for her age which Damo is correct is a life threatening issue I have a problem with those who address the abortion question with the issue of rape.

I am pro-life (special kind most know my position here). I don't dislike pro-choice automatically. Most are good people who have a different assessment of what constitutes a human or what is a reasonable burden the state can put upon you.

The people I do not like though are those who are pro-life supposedly but support abortion if the woman is raped. This stance totally negates the idea the human life should be protected and that is why abortion must be prohibited.

Instead such a stance shows another darker motive that pro-lifers are often accused of. Pro-lifers who make exception for abortion are saying it is permissable because it is not the fault of the woman who became impregnated. Thus these people deny abortion to women who were not raped because they are making a judgement about their lifestyle and are seeking to punish the woman for her behavior. The life of the unborn is not their concern for if it was they would see aborting a child conceived through rape is just as egregious as any other circumstance because it is the taking of an innocent life.
Click to expand...

IF you are addressing my last post, that is not what I said. I do not support abortion in any case. What I won't do is force my beliefs upon a woman who has been raped. I don't oppose abortion because it it the "fault" of the couple in the first place even when the couple was simply irresponsible. I oppose abortion because the fetus is a living human being. In the case of rape, the additional trauma that the mother would have to undergo is not something I would force upon her. I still pray for the life of that child but when the mother is raped and in this case where she is only 11 there must be some compassion for her as well.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
IF you are addressing my last post, that is not what I said. I do not support abortion in any case. What I won't do is force my beliefs upon a woman who has been raped. I don't oppose abortion because it it the "fault" of the couple in the first place even when the couple was simply irresponsible. I oppose abortion because the fetus is a living human being. In the case of rape, the additional trauma that the mother would have to undergo is not something I would force upon her. I still pray for the life of that child but when the mother is raped and in this case where she is only 11 there must be some compassion for her as well.

Immie
Click to expand...

But no compassion for the 14 year old who got pregnant in a consentual encounter?
 
Jarod said:
But no compassion for the 14 year old who got pregnant in a consentual encounter?
Click to expand...

And where did I say that?

You just to conclusions about as poorly as Toby does.

Is abortion compassionate? Is the 14 year old's life in danger?

Immie
 
IF you are addressing my last post, that is not what I said. I do not support abortion in any case. What I won't do is force my beliefs upon a woman who has been raped. I don't oppose abortion because it it the "fault" of the couple in the first place even when the couple was simply irresponsible. I oppose abortion because the fetus is a living human being. In the case of rape, the additional trauma that the mother would have to undergo is not something I would force upon her. I still pray for the life of that child but when the mother is raped and in this case where she is only 11 there must be some compassion for her as well.

Immie I actually didn't see your post but now that you have made yourself clear I must take exception to it.

By what you have said you are demoting the life of the unborn to be at least below that of consideration for the emotional health of the mother.

Basically value of emotional health of mother > life of unborn.

From this I can see that you differ from me in that you see the unborn as valuable and worth protecting but you do not give them equal status with humans that are born.

This is obvious because not only are the lives of the born greater consideration of their emotional health is a greater concern.

Concern of emotional health puts you in a dangerous zone between valuing the life fully as a person and not valuing it all as it is not a person at all. What you are doing is saying they are a person but not a full person. A 3/5th human if you will.

What truly would separate you from someone who would say people shouldn't abort a child unless their husband would leave them, or their parents would hate them or it would result in high liklihood of post partum depression.

Would you grant these people an exception as well and if not why?
 
IHateGovernment said:
By what you have said you are demoting the life of the unborn to be at least below that of consideration for the emotional health of the mother.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I put the life of the baby at the same level as that of the life of the mother. As I said, I would not support the abortion. However, I will hold my tongue if the mother makes that decision out of respect for that woman.

IHateGovernment said:
Basically value of emotional health of mother > life of unborn.
Click to expand...

No. I simply see this as an issue where I should respect the victim here.

IHateGovernment said:
This is obvious because not only are the lives of the born greater consideration of their emotional health is a greater concern.
Click to expand...

Where the heck would you have come up with this in anything I have EVER said?

IHateGovernment said:
Concern of emotional health puts you in a dangerous zone between valuing the life fully as a person and not valuing it all as it is not a person at all. What you are doing is saying they are a person but not a full person. A 3/5th human if you will.
Click to expand...

The point is not my concern for the mental health of the mother but rather the realization that there are in fact times that I should keep my mouth shut. I have always said that I would counsel the woman to have the baby.

IHateGovernment said:
What truly would separate you from someone who would say people shouldn't abort a child unless their husband would leave them, or their parents would hate them or it would result in high liklihood of post partum depression.

Would you grant these people an exception as well and if not why?
Click to expand...

This question doesn't make sense.

Again, my position is not that abortion is acceptable for rape but rather that there are times that I should be silent and prayerful for the best outcome. I cannot force my beliefs on a woman who has been raped. I can only hope for the right outcome. In fact, I can't force my beliefs on any woman. I can, however, show compassion for a woman who is struggling through such a decision a rape has forced her into.

In the case of rape, there comes a time when those who oppose abortion should step back, shut up and pray for the best.

Immie
 

I disagree. I put the life of the baby at the same level as that of the life of the mother. As I said, I would not support the abortion. However, I will hold my tongue if the mother makes that decision out of respect for that woman.

But thats not true. You would not hold your tongue if the woman wasn't raped. Therefore you see the rape as an offsetting factor in the value of the unborns life.

Also what if you were a lawmaker. Are you telling me you would or would not support a rape exception?

No. I simply see this as an issue where I should respect the victim here.

Alright as far as getting into somebody's face about it I can understand but from a legal perspective I don't. Remember there is another victim regardless.

Where the heck would you have come up with this in anything I have EVER said?

I suppose it depends on if your legal view differs from your personal conduct views.


The point is not my concern for the mental health of the mother but rather the realization that there are in fact times that I should keep my mouth shut. I have always said that I would counsel the woman to have the baby.

Oh ok that wasn't as clear from the post I was responding too.

Again, my position is not that abortion is acceptable for rape but rather that there are times that I should be silent and prayerful for the best outcome. I cannot force my beliefs on a woman who has been raped. I can only hope for the right outcome. In fact, I can't force my beliefs on any woman. I can, however, show compassion for a woman who is struggling through such a decision a rape has forced her into.

In the case of rape, there comes a time when those who oppose abortion should step back, shut up and pray for the best.


Ok ok sorry I jumped on you a little to hard. You have explained well your personal position and I think thats just fine.

I always thought you were one of those people who was both personally pro-life and politically pro-life.

Are you personally pro-life and politically pro-choice?
 
IHateGovernment said:
IF you are addressing my last post, that is not what I said. I do not support abortion in any case. What I won't do is force my beliefs upon a woman who has been raped. I don't oppose abortion because it it the "fault" of the couple in the first place even when the couple was simply irresponsible. I oppose abortion because the fetus is a living human being. In the case of rape, the additional trauma that the mother would have to undergo is not something I would force upon her. I still pray for the life of that child but when the mother is raped and in this case where she is only 11 there must be some compassion for her as well.

Immie I actually didn't see your post but now that you have made yourself clear I must take exception to it.

By what you have said you are demoting the life of the unborn to be at least below that of consideration for the emotional health of the mother.

Basically value of emotional health of mother > life of unborn.

From this I can see that you differ from me in that you see the unborn as valuable and worth protecting but you do not give them equal status with humans that are born.

This is obvious because not only are the lives of the born greater consideration of their emotional health is a greater concern.

Concern of emotional health puts you in a dangerous zone between valuing the life fully as a person and not valuing it all as it is not a person at all. What you are doing is saying they are a person but not a full person. A 3/5th human if you will.

What truly would separate you from someone who would say people shouldn't abort a child unless their husband would leave them, or their parents would hate them or it would result in high liklihood of post partum depression.

Would you grant these people an exception as well and if not why?
Click to expand...

You are way off base here.

First of all, I do not demean life in my position. However, I have come to the realization that there are times that shutting up and praying for the best is the best thing to do.

Second, I said, it would always be my preference and reccommendation that life come first as it should.

Third, I have always, even in my pro-life stance, been concerned for the mother. Never once have I waivered in this. However, life comes first.

As for your holier than thou statement about me not giving them equal status with the born, well, about the nicest reply I can give to that, and I do it because I have always liked you is that you are full of shit. However, there is a conflict in this instance. When you have two conflicting individuals someone is going to win. Should it always be the baby? In my opinion, the babies life should always take precedence but then who am I? I'm a nobody. In the cases where the life of the mother is in serious danger or in the case of rape (about 3% of all abortions) we have legitimate conflicts between the mother and the baby.

Immie
 
Me politically pro-choice? You should be shot!

No, But what I am not is one of those damned Religious Right who think they have all the answers and that everyone else must believe exactly as they do.

If it were up to me, abortion would be outlawed period. But there must be some compassion in the law. The baby deserves compassion and its life should always be considered first. But, there must be some play in the law. I don't want a hard and fast law that has no compassion for those in need.

Immie
 
But thats not true. You would not hold your tongue if the woman wasn't raped. Therefore you see the rape as an offsetting factor in the value of the unborns life.

Also what if you were a lawmaker. Are you telling me you would or would not support a rape exception?

As I insinuated in my last post, I would have to leave some compassion in the law. Any abortion law must leave some room for certain situations.

Remember there is another victim regardless.

I fully understand this. However, there is a time when the mother who is also a victim must be protected too.

Politically pro-choice! How dare you associate me with them? You might call me a true compassionate conservative. Unfortunately, the phrase has been abused and no one wants to be compassionate or conserative anymore.

Immie
 
As for your holier than thou statement about me not giving them equal status with the born, well, about the nicest reply I can give to that, and I do it because I have always liked you is that you are full of shit. However, there is a conflict in this instance. When you have two conflicting individuals someone is going to win. Should it always be the baby? In my opinion, the babies life should always take precedence but then who am I? I'm a nobody. In the cases where the life of the mother is in serious danger or in the case of rape (about 3% of all abortions) we have legitimate conflicts between the mother and the baby.

Easy Immie I'm not saying I'm better than you. I carelessly took a life yesterday (not a human one). I'm just trying to show you that if we value life we have to protect it no matter the mitigating circumstances. To me the only reason we can ever take someones life is to protect our own from being taken by those we must unfortunately kill.

No, But what I am not is one of those damned Religious Right who think they have all the answers and that everyone else must believe exactly as they do.

But if you are pro life you would at least think that you know better than someone who would abort a child for a lesser purpose like convenience, money or possible relationship problems right?

If it were up to me, abortion would be outlawed period. But there must be some compassion in the law. The baby deserves compassion and its life should always be considered first. But, there must be some play in the law. I don't want a hard and fast law that has no compassion for those in need.

Well I think you already know what I would do. My position which we can all see in the warzone is considerate of a womans concerns and I would never force a woman to remain pregnant. However I will never accept the direct killing of any human being either unless it is absolutely necessary to save a life.

Rape definitely falls short of that.
 
Last edited:
Easy Immie I'm not saying I'm better than you. I carelessly took a life yesterday (not a human one). I'm just trying to show you that if we value life we have to protect it no matter the mitigating circumstances. To me the only reason we can ever take someones life is to protect our own from being taken by those we must unfortunately kill.

I agree, but my remaining silent or even allowing the law to show compassion to a victim of rape is not taking a life. I believe in the law being compassionate and realize that I cannot foresee every situation.

But if you are pro choice you would at least think that you know better than someone who would abort a child for a lesser purpose like convenience, money or possible relationship problems right?

I'm not pro-choice and this does not make sense to me in the least.

Immie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top