For those who think abortion is ok only in cases of rape/incest/heath danger of mother?

WHY?


i mean...if the embryo is a life that has rights and deserves a chance to live, how does it matter in what way the baby was conceived. should the babies rights seize to exist merely because of the way it was conceived?





i'm wondering how people reconcile this decision.





i'm pro choice btw and fully support roe vs wade. i am interested in hearing from pro-lifers. especially those who base their opinions on religious reasons.





For those who think abortion is ok only in cases of rape/incest/heath danger of mother?
Anti-abortionists want to punish the mother (never the father) for having an unwanted pregnancy. It's the way of the world since they first wrote about Eve in the garden. A few allow that if she's suffered adequately she might be allowed, begrudgingly, to have an abortion. The majority, however, will say it's wrong under any circumstances.


For those who think abortion is ok only in cases of rape/incest/heath danger of mother?
This is actually a good point.





I believe that abortion should only be completely ok if the mothers life is in danger.





In the case of rape/incest/abuse I would say that the person should have to go thru some major counseling sessions first and if she is in severe emotional danger then I would be ok with it. I dont really think it should be a given, though, that if it was due to rape/incest that its automatic abortion. Its not the childs fault it happened and many times an abortion makes the trauma even worse.
Why should the mother's life be endangered? Suppose she has other children at home? Should she risk her life and possibly deny her other children the benefit of their mother? Given that scenario, wouldn't the mother's life be more important?





I think a woman who has been impregnated by rape or incest should be given the choice of either bringing the child to term or aborting the fetus. After all, she didn't have any choice about getting pregnant, did she?





Personally, I am against abortion when it is merely a cosmetic procedure or when the parents decide that the pregnancy is ';inconvenient.';
In regards to the health issue, what person in their right mind would choose the unborn child over their wife? That’s just common sense. I’m not “Pro-Killing” but if a robber was about to shot a family member and I had no choice but to kill that person or let them kill my family, I’m going to kill that robber. Anyone would.


In regards to rape, incest, the reason they believe it is okay, is because it was an “involuntary act” an assault upon them. What person who has a knife stabbed into them, or a bullet shot in them wouldn’t take it out? All they are doing is making themselves whole the way they were before the assault.


For the religious, under the circumstances I mentioned above, they realize that God is a God of understanding of circumstances, and judges accordingly, not by just a set of rules like most people think.






In the case of rape: The woman had no choice in engaging in intercourse and there for should not have to bear the responsibility.





In the case of incest: This is usually a case of coercion, with a trusted older male forcing his attentions on a child who has no ability to resist. See rape above.





In the case of the pregnancy being life threatening: Pregnancy is not a suicide situation. If the mother chooses to live then she has the right to do so. It may be in that situation she needs to have some life saving procedure that would endanger the child inside her such as chemo therapy.





edit


I am pro-life btw
DNA is the answer, its not the DNA of the father, its not the DNA of the mother, its a new DNA. Life starts when the DNA starts. How else would you explain how one cell has your eyes,ears,bones,hair,teeth,skin,toe nails,finger nails,etc-etc-etc-etc-etc-etc-etc, there's a plan there,life's plan. In my opinion, only closed minded people, or a selfish person would believe that life only starts at birth, if that was the case you would just find babies here or there, they don't exist before that time???? You do not need a religious reason to be pro-life, you just need to know what life is. My reason for being against abortion is my religion. Jehovah states a life for a life when a pregnant woman loses her unborn child by someone intending to cause harm to that unborn child. So I would asume that all for pro choice are not religious(again this is my opinion). I do not think how a life was concieved should ever be an issue!!
pro choice!





I know the legal section of the world considers life at conception and so on and so forth blah blah blah, but I have this crazy idea that human life begins at birth when the child exits the womb gets disconnected from the mother and breaths on its own. call me crazy and all that, but um...yeah.





I maintain a certain way of life, damn it all I'm a selfish *****, sorry that's just who I am. There is no one to assist me in raising this hypothetical child. The child would 1 disrupt my universe and the balance of my world and 2 There's no one else there to help no doubt I would stress out and cause serious harm to the child in one way or another. Why should these things be done when I can access the legal and medical world around me.





Ya' can't go back in time.
To me, what really pisses me off is when Women go around having sex irresponsibly and then OOPS! i'm pregnant! its time for an abortion. it just makes me wonder how they can live with themselves everyday. because most likely they will find a guy have a family a few years later and i wonder how she's going to feel while looking at her kids and remember she got rid one of one by sticking needles and hangers up her body, destroying an innocent life all because of her selfish irresponsible actions. i will never get it.
well people tend to think what if when the baby is born there is no one to take care of it? what if the mother and father are bad parents and the child gets hurt?


of course the baby has a right to live but would u really want a child to live in horrible conditions and have a terrible life.


im muslim and islam it is wrong to have an abortion because its murder.
I am a full blown pro lifer I don't think abortion is right in any circumstance....because its still YOUR baby that you are carrying, and alot of bad things happen in life that can't be prevented or changed....for instance if someone is going around murdering people how can WE change that? Well I suppose we could murder them right?? So then we would go to jail. Same thing if abortions were illegalized, and someone performed them anyway, they'd go to jail...
No, man...roe is bad law, it should be up to the states. I'm all for abortion in the first trimester only. I think Dr Ron Paul was right on when he spoke about abortion, to bad this county is too dumb to vote for someone who actually respects the Constitution.
Honestly, I don't know the entire reasoning behind it. But my own feelings are that in the case of rape/incest/health, the woman or someone else may become upset above what they can handle and commit suicide. In which case both would die.
I answered a question quite similar to this one earlier today...maybe you'll find some of these answers helpful:





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Its the same as ';you shouldn't murder, so se should have capital punishment to punish murderers';. The have an underlying moral, and don't realize when that they are changing it depending on the situation.
Incest; extreme danger of horrific quality of life for the child.





Danger to the mother; no point in BOTH dying.





I'm pro-choice as well btw, just giving a couple of logical reasons there.
I think it's alright for whatever reason they want to abort the baby.


It's their choice. If they don't want the baby, than they don't want it.
What disturbs me most about the abortion question is that it is dominated by the extremists. With extremists there is no dialog, no middle ground, only rancor.
Im pro-choice too....but Ill try to emulate what the anti abortionists would say...











'; CUZ GOD SAYS SO!! WE DONT UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS OF THIS SCIENTIFIC AND DIFFICULT PROCEDURE!!! IF WE DONT UNDERSTAND IT ITS THE WORK OF DA DEVIL!!! BURN BURN BURN WITCHES!!!';
pro-choicer here


i really dont think the baby would want to know she/he came from rape or incest. is that a good thing, living your life knowing you came from rape? I know my morality would be down the tubes.
I believe everyone on earth should simply stand up and murder everyone else and the last one standing should remember to turn out the lights!





PS I'm pro-choice too darlin!
Well, these are the same folks who root for war and picket for the death of certain individuals on death row. They just can't see the hypocrisy and double standard of their ways
I believe it is an ethical weighing of an established life vs a potential life.



Life... we didn't choose to have it, why would we choose for somebody else if he lives or not?





Religious side: You shall not kill
and the ranters will come...
I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white view of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.





First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain ';personhood'; and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.





Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why? The characteristics of an object of any sort are not contingent on another persons belief for perception.





By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down and constantly in pain. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.





But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.





This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at conception. Prior to that, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:





2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:





You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.





God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.





2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ';A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,'; ';by the very commission of the offense,'; and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.





2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ';criminal'; practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.





2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.





Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, ';if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.';
I am never in favor of abortion.





Except in the case of Mrs. Obama. ( Just kidding! ) The Senator's mother not his wife.





If a mother's life is in danger, you do a C-section and do everything possible to save the life of the mother and the child.





In the case of rape or incest, kill the rapist not the baby.





I believe that those who sexually abuse children should be executed on the first offense.





I believe that all the guys who get caught on Dateline NBC's ';To Catch a Predator'; they should have a fair trial of course, but then take them out and shoot them or put a needle into their arm.





I live in a town of about 100,000 people. 263 of them are registered sex offenders.





Those who manufacture, sell, buy child porn, same thing.





Where do the children come from who are photographed to make porn?





These are real children being abused by someone.





Perhaps some of them are the 3,000 children which DCFS in Florida seems to have lost track of. I don't know.





Or they have been sold into slavary by some former communist or third world country.





Normal 13 year old girls don't like to touch themselves while naked in front of camera. It does not take a Ph.D. in shrinkology to figure that out.





What I'm suggesting here is what we need to do to protect children.





I believe children have the right NOT to be exploited by adults who make, sell or buy porn.





Judges who say the First Ammendment protects porn are pretty evil in my opinion.





One US Supreme Court judge appointed by Bill Clinton, wants to lower the age of conset to 12.





Do you know what havoc that would create?
Sometimes God wants babies dead.


';...their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.'; -- Hosea 13:16