Home - List All Discussions

Rape & Incest Cases?

Where do PL's stand on this?

by: abc123

As a pro-lifer where do you stand on the issue of abortion being allowed due to a rape or incest? I know it is a very small percentage of abortions but just wanted to hear some PL'ers opinions on it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I believe both the mother and baby are entitled to live and get whatever care or treatment they need. I refer you to these articles http://www.defendingtruth.org/content.asp?content_id=42 http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06090702.html
http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2001-01/14-20.asp
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/499/26/
About 3/4 of women impregnated by rape/incest choose not to kill their child. In a survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest, nearly 80 percent said that they regretted their abortions, while none of the women who carried to term said that they wished they had not done so or that they had chosen abortion instead.
"I, having lived through rape, and having raised a child conceived in rape, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," DeZeeuw wrote. "I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story." [The Elliot Institute News, Post-Abortion Research, Vol.5, No. 4, June 18, 2006
"[Christ] loves all of His children, even those conceived in the worst of circumstances. ...," says Julie Makimaa, whose birth resulted from her mother's rape, in Victims and Victors. "After all, it does not matter how we began in life. What matters is what we will do with our lives."

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yeah, pregnancy is subvervience

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Its funny.
Usually people who aren't interested in learning, and just try to piss others off get bored after a while. You on the other hand must have no life. You are obviously NOT here to debate with an open mind or you would not use the same bs rhetoric day after day ignoring the response you get each time.
As you said on another thread "Maybe we should help [YOU] find a job".
Wait wait wait, if the unborn child can DEMAN service then doesn't it have cognative ability on a level high enough to be deemed a person? Your poor logic has shot you in the foot again. I'm amazed because you are constantly shooting off your own body parts.
I'm still laughing at the fact you claim a "Product of Conception" can DEMAND service. Moreso because you always claim that "PoC's" can't DO anything on their own.
So when you are killing them they are amorphus blobs, but if you want to JUSTIFY killing them its because they Entered by Force and DEMANDED service. Would it be not as okay if they asked politely?
No, Learn to admit your own immiturity. You had sex, You created that child. It made no attempt to be created, nor asked to be put in the womb of a killer. Stop trying to blame everyone else then yourself for your choices. You created the child, you killed the child.
Now spin, I would challenge you to NOT try using this stupid arguement within the next week, see if you can remember why its stupid for even that short a time before we have to remind you.
I REALLY wouldn't have a problem with you if you would just debate intelligentally and find new / esoteric points to debate the morality of abortion on.
And the fact you say that a fetus isn't fully a person therefor its okay to abort them is NO different then when the Supreme Court said blacks were 3/5 humans and therefor okay to be turned into slaves. YOU are the ones condoning slavery, just of a different kind. you "Own" children and kill them, instead of grown africans. Does that soothe your conscience?

reply from: 4given

I call Heaven and Earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you LIFE and DEATH, blessing and cursing: therefore choose LIFE, that both thou and thy seed shall live.. DEUTERONOMY 30:19
Surely God is the giver of life and being mortal means we must from all suffer through the trials and tribulations set before us. No one will say they do not have compassion for the mother in this situation... but how much more compassion we must have for the soul w/in her! The atrocities of man (human) have been since the beginning of time (there is no new sin to man).. there is no justification for MURDER.. even to somehow provide deliverance and healing for the woman that will be deeply wounded because of such an ordeal.. even more so if an abortion is her answer.. So NO.. God is the giver of life. He .."will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed." Destroying a life because of the sin of the father.. does not provide any justification for the cause!.."... he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live."..

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm pro-life with no exceptions, even rape/incest.
Since when is it the child's fault its "father" is a criminal? It shouldn't be slaughtered for what happened to the mom.
Yes rape is hard to deal with, but the child shouldn't be killed either. It too has a right to life. How it was conceived doesn't alter anything, it doesn't take away its right to life.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm pro-life with no exceptions, even rape/incest.
Since when is it the child's fault its "father" is a criminal? It shouldn't be slaughtered for what happened to the mom.
Yes rape is hard to deal with, but the child shouldn't be killed either. It too has a right to life. How it was conceived doesn't alter anything, it doesn't take away its right to life.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sorry about the double post.

reply from: JaysonsMom

The child didn't ask to be created and shouldn't be killed for his father's choice. I understand it's a traumatic experience, but two wrongs don't make a right. Give the innocent child a chance; carry him to term and give him up for adoption. (I use "him" to keep from saying him/her and his/hers and so forth all the time). Just because the child is a product of rape or incest, that doesn't make him bad. He is innocent of any wrongdoing and shouldn't be held accountable.

reply from: carolemarie

I am for justice. The rapist should be punished for his crimes. I believe strongly that we need to love and support the victim through her pregnancy not forcing her to commit an act of violence against her child because we don't want to deal with her pain.
Carole

reply from: yoda

Rape and incest are the only crimes for which an innocent bystander is sometimes executed. The unborn children of such circumstances have done no wrong, and do not deserve the death penalty.
And for the ignoramouses on this forum who can't use a dictionary, I supply the following:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil┬Ědren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Wordsmyth: The educational dictionary: Phrases: with child http://www.wordsmyth.net
Webster's Revised Unabriged Dictionary: Child: To be with child, to be pregnant. -- the immediate progeny of human parents http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html
Main Entry: child Function: noun
1 : an unborn or recently born person
http://www.intelihealth.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?book=Medical&adv=0&cgi=1&t=9276&p=%7Ebr%2CRNM%7C%7Est%2C331%7C%7Er%2CWSRNM000%7C%7Eb%2C*%7C&WEB_HOME=%2FIH%2F&MIVAL=ihtIH&WEB_HOST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelihealth.com&va=child&search.x=14&search.y=10

reply from: faithman

SSSSSSOOOO Justice for the crime of rape ehh. But a free walk for killer mom, and no justice for the child? OH yes, but rape is against women, and abortion against the voiceless second class person womb child..... always about the woman and to heck with everyone else. Punish the rapist, let the child murderer go..... hummm. Thats fair and just!!

reply from: MoonLady

In the case of rape, I don't believe that abortion is the right choice as long as the mother is physically and mentally capable of carrying the child to term. If she cannot deal with raising the child of her rapist, she should give it up for adoption. I agree that aborting the child is not a way of punishing the rapist and that the child is an innocent victim.
In the case of incest, if it is the girl's father or brother who is the rapist, there is such a large chance of genetic abnormalities in the child and mental problems for the mother that abortion might be the best choice. If the man who molested her is not such a close relative and she can deal with the pregnancy safely, birth and adoption would be best. Once again, you should not punish the child for its father's crime.
In both cases, the rapist/molester should be harshly punished.

reply from: yoda

That is absolutely not true, and a malicious lie. Actual genetic defects caused by inbreeding are quite rare, and to advise abortion based on nothing more than a belief that there is a "large chance" is cold hearted and cruel. Without concrete proof of a fatal defect, your suggestion is nothing less than an invitation to slaughter an innocent child.

reply from: MoonLady

I respectfully disagree that genetic defects due to incest are "quite rare."
from: http://www.gotquestions.org/Cains-wife.html

"The reason that incest often results in genetic abnormalities in children is that when two people of similar genetics (i.e. a brother and sister) have children - genetic defects are far more likely to result because both parents had the same defects themselves."
from: http://www.hinduonnet.com/seta/2004/04/29/stories/2004042900161600.htm

"While assessing the consequence of consanguineous against non-consanguineous (non-blood related) marriages in health and disease, several scientific studies have shown that consanguinity leads to death of infants before, during or immediately after birth, increased incidence of birth defects, genetic diseases including blinding disorders, blood cancer (acute lymphocytic leukemia), breathing problems for children at birth (apnea), increased susceptibility to disease etc."
"In our study we showed that consanguinity could increase the incidence of many blinding disorders like retinitis pigmentosa, Leber congenital amaurosis, Lawrence-Moon-Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Stargardt disease, Usher syndrome etc (Consanguinity and Ocular Genetic Diseases in South India: Analysis of a Five-year study. Community Genetics: 2002:5:180-185). Consanguinity could increase the risk of inheriting any one of the 4968 (autosomal recessive) genetic diseases that could affect any part of the body from head to foot."
(Note: These studies were done on uncle/niece and first cousin progeny, which are genetically further from father/daughter incest. One can infer that if these lesser degrees of cosanguity produce a greatly increased risk of genetic defects, the much closer father/daughter relationship would at least double the risk.
I live in an area with a large Amish community and their limited gene pool has led to a scientifically verified higher incidence of genetic defects than is found in the general population. We even have two special clinics investigating and treating (when possible) these medical problems. Granted, some of the defects are minor (poor eyesight and dwarfism, for example) but others are fatal to children.

reply from: NewPoster1

I'm curious, how many of the women who became pregnant through rape or incest said that they supported forcing women in their situation to remain pregnant against their will?

reply from: NewPoster1

I disagree. Whether intentional or not, the fetus's continued, non-consensual attachment to and presence inside of the woman, perpetuates the violation of her rights and bodily autonomy, that started with the rapist's attack.

reply from: MoonLady

NewPoster - "I disagree. Whether intentional or not, the fetus's continued, non-consensual attachment to and presence inside of the woman, perpetuates the violation of her rights and bodily autonomy, that started with the rapist's attack."
Oh, didn't you know? Once a woman becomes pregnant, no matter how it occurs, the rights of the unborn, undeveloped, non-sentient fetus trump the rights of the woman. Remember, women are nothing more than breeders and their rights are automatically subjugated to that of the fetus who is apparently much more important than any born woman.
I agree that being forced to continue a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is only compounding the humiliation and degradation caused by the attack. What joy is there in being forced to bear the child of a violent stranger or perverted parent? Pregnancy and childbirth should be the source of great joy for women, not a reason to perpetuate pain.

reply from: JaysonsMom

That 'fetus' is a human being who is utterly innocent of any wrongdoing. Non-consensual? Yes, but not by choice. And his presence does not in any way violate the mother's rights. In this case, the criminal is the rapist, not the child. Punish the rapist, yes. Don't punish an innocent child. Give him a chance at life and give him up for adoption. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't believe any of us PL'ers have ever referred to a woman as a "breeder" and I find that offensive. And yes, the child is important because he is innocent and to kill that innocence would only be crime #2. Punish the rapist, the offender, not the one who didn't ask to be created and who has no choice but to take whatever is given. What joy is there in knowing you willingly killed a child who did nothing wrong? 9 months out of an entire lifetime is not too much to ask. Carry the child and give him up for adoption. Allow him to live, don't punish the innocent.

reply from: xnavy

i agree with jaysonsmon, if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, the unborn baby should not
suffer the death penalty. the rapist should
be punished with the full extent of the law.

reply from: Teresa18

A person should not be killed because of the possibility that they "may" have a genetic abnormality. A person should not even be killed if they DO have a genectic abnormality. We wouldn't kill a born person because of a genetic abnormality. Why would we kill an unborn person? Size? Level of development? Location?
Of course the woman did not consent to intercourse or the possibility of pregnancy in this situation. However, I might add that the child never consented either. The child never asked to be concieved. He/she was just as unconsenting as the mother. When the rapist attacked the woman, he imposed his aggression upon her, but he also imposed it on the child. It's obvious that he is a negligent father right from the start. He brought a child into an abusive situation caused by himself, and he then ran off, leaving the poor child at the traumatized woman's mercy. She has two options. She can accept herself and the child as both being innocent victims of a horrible crime, or she can take the aggression imposed on her by the rapist, and she can impose it on the child by killing him/her. What will the rapist get? He will get a slap on the wrist, a few years in the slammer, a few years probabtion, maybe a fine, and then he'll be on his way. What will the innocent child get? The innocent child will recieve permanent death.
I believe we need to help both parties in this situation. The woman deserves counseling and help throughout the pregnancy and beyond, regardless of her financial situation. She can then give the child up for adoption or keep the child if she so chooses. I believe I would probably keep the child if I was raped. After all, the child is 50% mine.
There is no clash of rights. There are two people involved. It doesn't matter if one is much smaller than the other or not as developed. They both have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we set one person above the other, we would be creating a two-tiered level of human offspring where one person is above the other. That is a form of slavery not supported in this country. When the woman decided to have sex, she consented to the possibility of pregnancy. The man also consented to the possibility of becoming a father. Birth control is an attempt to separate reproduction from intercourse, but it is not possible to thwart nature 100% of the time. The child never asked to be concieved. He/she is merely an unconsenting third party resulting from a consentual act from the original two parties. It is imperative that we humans take responsibility for our actions, regardless if we want to or not, especially if not doing so would result in the death of another person. Parents have a duty to their children. They must feed, clothe, shelter, and educate them. Even if they don't want to, they must care for them, or at least until they can find an adoption agency that can take charge of them. So given the fact that killing the child would set up a two-tiered level of human offspring, the sex was consentual in 98% of cases, the child never asked to be concieved, people must take responsibility for their actions, and parents have a duty to their children, there is not a clash of rights but a clash of needs.
Pro-lifers love both parties equally, mother and child. We want both to live, not just one. We look at women as much more than breeders. In 98% of cases, no one forced the woman to have sex. Therefore, no one forced her to reproduce. If pro-lifers forced women to get pregnant, have a child, and repeat the cycle until menopause, saying that we think of women as breeders would be a fair assesment. However, that is not true, and it is therefore an unfair assesment.
Ideally, it should be a joyous situation. However, there are some horribly unfortunate situations in life. Just because the father is a horrible man or the pregnant woman is unhappy, does not mean that an innocent child should be killed.

reply from: AshMarie88

You don't have the right to kill born rape babies; you don't have the right to kill unborn rape babies, either.
The "fetus" owns ITS OWN body. The only way it has the RIGHT to die, is if it gave the "okay" to be killed.

reply from: yoda

Then why don't you post something other than two phony links to websites that are either not scientific in the least or do not say what you claim they say?
Is it because, like MC3 says, you really don't know a thing about what you're talking about?

reply from: yoda

Hardly. If anything, it is the baby that is under attack, once a pregnancy is established... through no fault of it's own.
NATURE creates the babies, not the rapists, and not the babies themselves.
But of course, you cowards who want "blood revenge" but are too timid to take on the rapist usually seek to get their revenge upon the helpless baby.

reply from: yoda

Well, in your ignorant, bloodthirsty way you almost got it right.
The right to life morally trumps all other rights, period. It trumps your right to keep your figure, your right to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy, even your right to take "revenge" on your rapist.
You poor, frustrated women just love to take out your frustrations on a tiny, helpless, defenseless baby, don't you? You know they can't fight back when you stick the knife in them, don't you?

reply from: SodaBoy

i never understood this question (i don't mean to offend-my logic just cant wrap around it).
if I believe it is a life why would I kill him/her because of someone else's actions?

reply from: yoda

Well, SodaBoy, the proaborts on this forum will tell you that a woman is entitled to kill an innocent baby of rape just because it's father did a bad thing to her...... a sort of a "license to kill" situation is how they see it...... especially when it's a person that can't fight back.

reply from: SodaBoy

ive heard it before but never adequately defended imo.

reply from: Shiprahagain

For the person who asked, in my original post there were women impregnated by rape who wanted rape abortions to be illegal.

reply from: faithman

Well, in your ignorant, bloodthirsty way you almost got it right.
The right to life morally trumps all other rights, period. It trumps your right to keep your figure, your right to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy, even your right to take "revenge" on your rapist.
You poor, frustrated women just love to take out your frustrations on a tiny, helpless, defenseless baby, don't you? You know they can't fight back when you stick the knife in them, don't you?
BBBBOOOOOOYYY!!! Stick a knife in them!!! Are we mifted today Yoda? Timber hitch in the pantalooms again?

reply from: carolemarie

Rape and incest are against the law, so of course we should punish people who comit crimes. Abortion is legal, so we can't punish women for having them.
Carole

reply from: faithman

The question isn't can we punish, but should they be. If women shouldn't be punished for abortion, then we must stop calling it murder.

reply from: carolemarie

The question isn't can we punish, but should they be. If women shouldn't be punished for abortion, then we must stop calling it murder.
Even when abortion was against the law, women were not punished for obtaining one. I don't understand why you are so obsessed with getting women punished. God will handle justice. If we punish her, God doesn't let her off the hook. Are you afraid that she will repent and escape punishment?

reply from: NewPoster1

That's a load of crap and you know it. I've said repeatedly that rapists should be executed, so don't you dare accuse me of being soft on them.
Good, so I presume if both of random stranger's kidneys were to fail and you were the only known match, you wouldn't have a problem with the government legally mandating that you donate 1 of yours, even against your will, because, by your own admission, the right to life morally trumps all other rights, period.

reply from: NewPoster1

Good, so I presume if both of random stranger's kidneys were to fail and you were the only known match, you wouldn't have a problem with the government legally mandating that you donate 1 of yours, even against your will, because, by your own admission, the life of an innocent person is more significant than the rights of another.

reply from: yoda

There's just something about baby killers that brings out the poet in me, FMan.

reply from: yoda

Seems fair to me. Why not just let "God" handle justice for all criminals... like murderers, rapists, robbers, etc.??
Are you afraid that they will escape punishment?

reply from: yoda

And NOW you're telling us that the babies should ALSO be executed right along with the rapists!!! My, what a sense of "justice" you have....... NOT!!
Sure. As long as that stranger was my own child, ...... no problem.
A parent ought to take full responsibility for his/her own child, even to the point of sacrificing his/her own life for the child..... no parent ought to ever take the life of their own child intentionally.
No one has the moral obligation to sacrifice their own life, or even their own organs for an innocent stranger, as they would for their own child. But they do have a moral obligation not to do anything to harm that stranger. THAT is how you put "life" first in the case of an innocent stranger.
Obviously, it's in the interest of a baby killer such as yourself to confuse the two issues, so as to hide your penchant for killing babies.

reply from: faithman

The question isn't can we punish, but should they be. If women shouldn't be punished for abortion, then we must stop calling it murder.
Even when abortion was against the law, women were not punished for obtaining one. I don't understand why you are so obsessed with getting women punished. God will handle justice. If we punish her, God doesn't let her off the hook. Are you afraid that she will repent and escape punishment?
Are you playing dumb, or do you come by it natural. It ain't about killer mom, but justice for the baby killed. I don't care who killed the baby, they should be punished. That is the big difference between post abortion and pro-life. Pro-life is, and should be all about the child. Post abortion movement is all about killere mommy, and even uses the same language as the baby killers to sooth the conscience. No matter how much you want to twist words like a pro-abort, and make out that I said things I didn't, bottom line I didn't kill womb children...and yes I believe those who partisipate in the slaughter of the innocent should be punished.

reply from: faithman

There's just something about baby killers that brings out the poet in me, FMan.
I have understanding...

reply from: JaysonsMom

Really, really great post. Well said! I've often wondered why women have the "right" to kill their unborn baby if they wish to, and the father is basically helpless in that regard since the baby is inside HER body, not his. If the woman decides to carry the child to term, does he have a say so in whether the child is kept or adopted? And the support issue is so very true. Men are then forced into poverty to support a child they didn't want to begin with. The woman has all the power in this situation and the child is lost in the mix, defenseless and forced to take whatever SHE decides to give.
Amy

reply from: AshMarie88

The question isn't can we punish, but should they be. If women shouldn't be punished for abortion, then we must stop calling it murder.
Even when abortion was against the law, women were not punished for obtaining one. I don't understand why you are so obsessed with getting women punished. God will handle justice. If we punish her, God doesn't let her off the hook. Are you afraid that she will repent and escape punishment?
Are you playing dumb, or do you come by it natural. It ain't about killer mom, but justice for the baby killed. I don't care who killed the baby, they should be punished. That is the big difference between post abortion and pro-life. Pro-life is, and should be all about the child. Post abortion movement is all about killere mommy, and even uses the same language as the baby killers to sooth the conscience. No matter how much you want to twist words like a pro-abort, and make out that I said things I didn't, bottom line I didn't kill womb children...and yes I believe those who partisipate in the slaughter of the innocent should be punished.
You know nothing about post-abortion healing, do you?

reply from: Teresa18

This is a common argument used by pro-aborts to throw the argument off track. If it was my child or another family member, I would donate my kidney, but that is a choice that I should be able to make. The person who needs a kidney from me may die without my kidney. However, I didn't personally have him/her killed (as in abortion) nor am I responsible for his/her death. I probably didn't even put him/her in a dangerous situation through a consensual act with another person (as in pregnancy). The person would die from whatever ailment plagued his/her kidney and caused his/her kidney to fail. Perhaps we take it a step further and I purposely or accidentally did cause his/her kidney to fail. If I accidentally did, it would be kind of me to donate a kidney, but if I didn't, he/she would die from the sad results of the accident, not my purposeful act of having him/her killed (as in abortion). If I purposefully did it, I could decline, but if he/she died, I will wind up with a harsh murder sentence that would have been most likely shorter if I had donated a kidney to the person I harmed. Plus, in donating a kidney, I lose a part of myself that I will never get back. In pregnancy, a woman losers nothing. Even her uterus remains in tact, as it is designed specifically for that purpose.

reply from: yoda

Isn't if fascinating that the foaming at the mouth proaborts are so blind that they can't see the difference between actively killing an innocent baby and not volunteering to give up an organ for a stranger?
For some reason, I just doubt that too many of them go around offering to donate their organs to those who would die without them, even to their own children/family. Their response would probably be something like "I wanted you aborted anyway, so go ahead and die!"

reply from: faithman

Isn't if fascinating that the foaming at the mouth proaborts are so blind that they can't see the difference between actively killing an innocent baby and not volunteering to give up an organ for a stranger?
For some reason, I just doubt that too many of them go around offering to donate their organs to those who would die without them, even to their own children/family. Their response would probably be something like "I wanted you aborted anyway, so go ahead and die!"
They would probly be for forced organ harvesting to save the more important people, as long as everyone realized they are the more important people.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Hmm ever notice how spinny likes to not quote what the response is to? Kinda makes it easy to twist and change the topic. Not to well hidden though.
Here is your quote buddy :
So. YOU are the one who claimed that the fetus can demand service.
this is exactly what I was saying, you say a Fetus can demand or force or do some action when you want to. and when a Fetus being able to DO something is BAD for your stance, well then its an amorphus blob. I said that in the last post, you didn't respond to it. Which is all you ever do. Run.
I want ONE HONEST pro-abort. ONE. One honest proabort who will stand for what he/she says and not backtrack and run like a coward. yes spinny you are a coward. I would loooovvvveee debating you if you werent. Its exactly what I said in the last post, you can't debate worth anything. You can't stand up for what you say.
I challenged you to not use a stupid statement that has been shoved back at you again. Which you love to do. When someone responds to something you say you ignore it, then you reuse it somewhere else acting like nobody has ever refuted it. Im kind of sick of it.
You AGAIN didn't respond to that, or the fact that I called you out on not being here to debate or learn and only being here to antagonize.
You obviously weren't able to stand not doing that for a week. Or even just a few silly days.
You say this all the time, then Yoda responds with quotes from the dictionary proving that indeed abortion kills children, and you never respond and you usually don't even post on that topic source again or for a period.
STOP SAYING THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT ON.
STOP RUNNING.
STOP.
Jeeze.
Its funny Moonlady EVEN CARIFAIRY (sp?) at least admit when they are wrong, a debate tool doesn't work, or they can't defend a stance. and they don't reuse the same crap.
You on the other hand...are just pathetic.
Is this entire post a bit of a personal attack? Yeah. Because I don't think anyone will ever get you to use that brain if you don't get called out.
Maybe you are too immiture to stop after you are called out, I don't know. I am just sick of it.
Respond to what people say, anwser honestly and fully, and don't twist their words/intended meaning (especially when its blatantly obvious.)

reply from: Perlita

Well in regards to your message... isnt that for God to decide if the child of an incest pregnancy should live or die? I mean even if the baby is born abnormally, i strongly doubt God would rather it die than live slowly and have a chance to enter heaven. I dont think it would be legal to kill an abnormal child do u?

reply from: Perlita

You know ur screen name is faithman. Although having just entered this chatting group im beggining to wonder if u have any faith at all... A trully faithfull person wouldn't go around judging people for their mistakes, such as women who have had abortions. God does love them too u know? Even if they've made a mistake. Just like he loves u even though u also have made mistakes. And about punishment... Isnt God the one who said leave all vengance to me? I love babies, and it trully does hurt me that women go about aborting babies like its nothing, although i accept that they might repent and i cant just turn my back on them and tell them that they need punishment. I would encourage them to come to church and ask for forgiveness and help stop abortion. For i know and respect many women that have had abortions yet they have changed their ways and stopped many other women from aborting. GBY man and i hope u change ur heart! LOVE! Perla.

reply from: 4given

It is exactly God's decision. He is the giver of life. Surviving rape or incest has to be a difficult trial to face.. now then add survivng the realization that you are a murderer to that mix. Even w/out faith in God.. understanding that abortion takes a human life.. an innocent life.. a living soul.. who can demoralize with such ease? How is it not obvious that abortion is the taking of a life? A survivor of any sexual attack can move on and find some way to cope w/ that burden.. They can't however have an abortion and get over the fact that they committed a heinous crime and can not ever undo that.. That is why it is important to educate those that really don't understand what abortion and a fetus are.. Hard to believe it, but there are still people that think it isn't a child until the last trimester.. or whatever else they have to tell themselves to go on and about their day.

reply from: 4given

And I agree. God can and will use anyone that has turned their heart towards Him! Post abortive woman are in a good position to change the hearts of those considering abortion. They have insight into the pain they have endured because they chose to end a life.. More insight than I could ever have! God wants to use everyone for His glory and there is grace and forgiveness, but the consequences can't be undone. Why God gave us free will..

reply from: faithman

When have I turned my back on anyone? This post is full of your feelings, and not based on any kind of reality at all. You make alot of false claims, and asumptions against me. All I am asking is, if a person who kills a born child goes to prison, what should the penalty be for those who kill the womb child? I have answered the vengance thing over and over again. God has put justice in the hands of government. We the people are the government. We the people should not go against our constitution, by not establishing justice for all. Is government just in punishing evil doers? Is abortion an evil act? What should the penalty be for abortion? Is abortion as bad as killing a born child? If so, shouldn't the penalty be the same? If we accept a double standard in "pro-life", how in the world are we going to demand that the pre-born are legal, equal citizens? ....and yes, I do believe if one were truely penantent about destroying a womb child, then restitution would be more of a desire than a requirement. I am not saying they need punishment, I am saying they deserve it. If not, then you agree with planned parenthood, that the womb child is second class and does not deserve the same consideration as the born child. You simply can not have it both ways.

reply from: carolemarie

When have I turned my back on anyone? This post is full of your feelings, and not based on any kind of reality at all. You make alot of false claims, and asumptions against me. All I am asking is, if a person who kills a born child goes to prison, what should the penalty be for those who kill the womb child? I have answered the vengance thing over and over again. God has put justice in the hands of government. We the people are the government. We the people should not go against our constitution, by not establishing justice for all. Is government just in punishing evil doers? Is abortion an evil act? What should the penalty be for abortion? Is abortion as bad as killing a born child? If so, shouldn't the penalty be the same? If we accept a double standard in "pro-life", how in the world are we going to demand that the pre-born are legal, equal citizens? ....and yes, I do believe if one were truely penantent about destroying a womb child, then restitution would be more of a desire than a requirement. I am not saying they need punishment, I am saying they deserve it. If not, then you agree with planned parenthood, that the womb child is second class and does not deserve the same consideration as the born child. You simply can not have it both ways.
I understand your point. It is valid in some respects. But your own post answers it. Government (who God ordained to get justice) says killing babies is okay and not a crime. So Government has set up the double standard.
What do we do now? We pass laws overriding Government and make it against the law to kill babies. Anyone who violates the law is subject to the punishment that is attached to the law. That puts the child in the womb on the same footing as the born child. You do realized that the only way anyone would be prosecuted is if the mom tells, and if you send her to jail she isn't likely to report her abortion. I think that is why women were not prosecuted back when abortion was against the law.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Perlita. Yes, it ought to be for God to decide when an abnormal child should die, and we should not "play God". But the legality of killing an abnormal child varies from state to state, and in many states very little justification is required to kill a child right up to birth. Take Kansas, for example, where Killer Tiller kills them after viability because the woman says she's afraid she "might not be able to attend concerts" if her baby is allowed to live. It varies.
As to FMan, you really ought to read a bit more before "judging" him so harshly. Like me, he's harsh on women who are unrepentant about their abortions, not those who are ashamed of them. But there is a valid point to be made that when a woman kills a born baby, being ashamed of her deed does not acquit her of her legal guilt...... and as prolifers we think there should not be a legal distinction between born and unborn. See the difference?

reply from: yoda

I don't understand your objection. What's wrong with treating abortion the same as infanticide? And what's wrong with some jail time, if it would cause her not to be as likely to repeat her abortion?

reply from: amylou

"i knew you before i created you" -GOD.....whether it be rape, consentual sex....all "accidents", GOD Himself created before you a path on which you must walk by following, or fail by cutting the ties you hold with him. That is a life, one that has had no choice (like the mother, yes) but it is then her job to PROTECT, (NO DESTROY) that life. Why would it be degrading to carry life. I have a friend who was raped...got pregnant, had the child and the moment she held that baby, she fell in love. This was not the mother's fault, why would she feel the pain or relive that moment of distress through her pregnancy. You wouldn't! I myself was raped....believe me, i didn't not feel degraded and helpless forever. I grew from it, I became strong. THrough faith and through God (above all) you will overcome.
ABORTION IS NOT THE SOLUTION, IT IS THE PROBLEM. I go to school with a girl who was raped at a party, she carried the child for nine months, gave birth and they have a wonderful mother/daughter relationship. i know many people who were raped, and let the child survive and became mothers and the rape never held them back. it's all in how you want to deal with the situations in life. everything is a choice you make whether it be right or wrong. if you decide to let the rape be a constant torture on your heart and soul you will always be miserable. all things through god can be overcome.

reply from: carolemarie

Welcome to the forum, Perlita. Yes, it ought to be for God to decide when an abnormal child should die, and we should not "play God". But the legality of killing an abnormal child varies from state to state, and in many states very little justification is required to kill a child right up to birth. Take Kansas, for example, where Killer Tiller kills them after viability because the woman says she's afraid she "might not be able to attend concerts" if her baby is allowed to live. It varies.
As to FMan, you really ought to read a bit more before "judging" him so harshly. Like me, he's harsh on women who are unrepentant about their abortions, not those who are ashamed of them. But there is a valid point to be made that when a woman kills a born baby, being ashamed of her deed does not acquit her of her legal guilt...... and as prolifers we think there should not be a legal distinction between born and unborn. See the difference?
There is no legal guilt since abortion is a legal act. Reality is that abortion is a non-criminal act. Obtaining one doesn't make you a criminal.
Abortion is wrong. Abortion is evil. Abortion is sin. But it is not a crime. It may be in your eyes, but that has nothing to do with the legal reality of the situtation.

reply from: faithman

Welcome to the forum, Perlita. Yes, it ought to be for God to decide when an abnormal child should die, and we should not "play God". But the legality of killing an abnormal child varies from state to state, and in many states very little justification is required to kill a child right up to birth. Take Kansas, for example, where Killer Tiller kills them after viability because the woman says she's afraid she "might not be able to attend concerts" if her baby is allowed to live. It varies.
As to FMan, you really ought to read a bit more before "judging" him so harshly. Like me, he's harsh on women who are unrepentant about their abortions, not those who are ashamed of them. But there is a valid point to be made that when a woman kills a born baby, being ashamed of her deed does not acquit her of her legal guilt...... and as prolifers we think there should not be a legal distinction between born and unborn. See the difference?
There is no legal guilt since abortion is a legal act. Reality is that abortion is a non-criminal act. Obtaining one doesn't make you a criminal.
Abortion is wrong. Abortion is evil. Abortion is sin. But it is not a crime. It may be in your eyes, but that has nothing to do with the legal reality of the situtation.
How conveniant for you? Exactly what the death camp guards said at the end of WW2.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't understand your objection. What's wrong with treating abortion the same as infanticide? And what's wrong with some jail time, if it would cause her not to be as likely to repeat her abortion?
First, she is the only one who would know about the abortion, aside from the provider. If you are going to send her to jail for reporting it, she obviously will not report it, which enables the provider to continue providing abortions.

reply from: 4given

I am so thankful for the testimony of your own personal experience and also the others you know who are overcoming trial and tribulation.. A personal experience is worth far more to me, than a hypothetical one.. God will use you and He wants to.. This is the 1st step. This is the message that needs to be heard! It is a delight to have honest and candid communication and I think it will be a blessing to others- just as I am encouraged that you found your way here!

reply from: faithman

I don't understand your objection. What's wrong with treating abortion the same as infanticide? And what's wrong with some jail time, if it would cause her not to be as likely to repeat her abortion?
First, she is the only one who would know about the abortion, aside from the provider. If you are going to send her to jail for reporting it, she obviously will not report it, which enables the provider to continue providing abortions.
SSSSSOOO it's not about the baby at all? We should not aqttempt to seek justice for the killers of the womb child? They deserve no consideration of personhood, because killer mommy dearest is too slick a criminal? WY thanks for the insight. We all feel better about letting womb children die.

reply from: yoda

Many states outlaw abortion after a certain gestational age, or allow it only under certain circumstances. Many states also have regulations on who may perform them, and in what type medical setting. So not all abortion is "non-criminal", as you put it.
You really do remind me of moonlady...... you speak most about that of which you seem to know least.

reply from: yoda

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Police can send undercover officers and/or "informants" to suspected doctors and/or clinics to solicit illegal abortions, and make their case without an actual abortion taking place.
But please, keep on talking........

reply from: carolemarie

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Police can send undercover officers and/or "informants" to suspected doctors and/or clinics to solicit illegal abortions, and make their case without an actual abortion taking place.
But please, keep on talking........
Apparently you have no idea of what you are talking about Yoda! How would the woman get caught for having an abortion? Only if she reports it, because only she and the Dr. know about it.

reply from: ThomasRNV

But please, keep on talking........
Apparently you have no idea of what you are talking about Yoda! How would the woman get caught for having an abortion? Only if she reports it, because only she and the Dr. know about it.
Ahh you are forgetting the father. If the father knew & reported it. That's one way. Maybe some one finding the childs corpse in the trash. I'm sure there are other ways, just need to do a little thinking. I'll get back to you if i think of more.

reply from: yoda

How about all the clinic personnel? How about the friends of the woman that she discussed it with? How about the contractors who sell medical supplies to the clinic? How about the neighbors of the clinic?
How do you think they caught illegal abortionists before Roe? How do you suppose that happened?

reply from: carolemarie

How about all the clinic personnel? How about the friends of the woman that she discussed it with? How about the contractors who sell medical supplies to the clinic? How about the neighbors of the clinic?
How do you think they caught illegal abortionists before Roe? How do you suppose that happened?
Pre Roe, Women were admitted to the hospital with a septic abortion and were reported to the police. She got a walk if she turned in the Doctor. That is how! But now we have antibiotics so that will not happen
If abortion was against the law, the Dr. could claim said woman wasn't pregnant, but needed a D & C, OR
he could do the procedure without a nurse present. OR
Could write a script for M & M for an out of office abortion. OR
She could fly to Canada or Mexico to obtain one for that matter. OR
Dr. could claim a molar pregnancy and terminate it legally. All kinds of ways to get around the law. Dr. Tiller does it right now in Kansas and nobody is arresting him. He gets a free walk.
I doubt that there would be abortion clnics!!! There are legitamite reasons for a D & C and for a DR. to have a suction machine other than elective abortion.
You would need more than the father claiming a woman had an abortion.
That could be just a lie from a boyfriend. He can't prove it, and it would be heresay. She could claim a miscarriage, no proof.
As for a body, you can make sure that there isn't one.
Talk with friends, well she can just say her period started and she wasn't pregnant or that she had a spontaneous miscarriage.

reply from: yoda

And you think that's the ONLY way abortionists were caught?
The POINT, which seems to be getting LOST in all this VERBIAGE.... is that there are many ways for a rumor to spread that a particular nurse or doctor is doing abortions.... and police can use an undercover female officer or informant to make an appointment with such a person and make an arrest before any actual medical procedure takes place, based on that rumor.
It's like they do with a prostitution sting... they exchange money for a promise of services, and then the arrest happens (or it's supposed to happen that way, anyway).
So no, your objection that ONLY the doctor and the woman having the abortion would know that he was doing abortions does not make sense..... not to me, at least.

reply from: carolemarie

And you think that's the ONLY way abortionists were caught?
The POINT, which seems to be getting LOST in all this VERBIAGE.... is that there are many ways for a rumor to spread that a particular nurse or doctor is doing abortions.... and police can use an undercover female officer or informant to make an appointment with such a person and make an arrest before any actual medical procedure takes place, based on that rumor.
It's like they do with a prostitution sting... they exchange money for a promise of services, and then the arrest happens (or it's supposed to happen that way, anyway).
So no, your objection that ONLY the doctor and the woman having the abortion would know that he was doing abortions does not make sense..... not to me, at least.
I am sure that some would get caught in other ways as well. But that wouldn't catch the women who had the abortion, which is what the post was about, giving her jail time.

reply from: Joytotheworld

Yoda, I've been reading your posts for quite a while. I've come to the conclusion that you despise women. I can only imagine what happened in your past to cause you to detest women so. It boggles the mind to guess.
All this hoopla over abortion can be solved if women would simply refuse to have intercourse with men unless they are financially, emotionally, and physically able and willing to bear a child. End of story. Let men wear their hands out instead. Result? No intercourse. No unwanted babies. No abortions. Problem solved.
Men are the creatures who think with two organs, not one. They are usually the initiators of sex. They are usually the aggressive, insistent ones in the relationship. A "no" from the woman could mean the man will look elsewhere to satisfy his animal hunger, so she acquiesces. And pays the consequences. I wish we could put a stop to this.
Refuse him. Tell him to take a hike. Who cares if he leaves? It's the woman who could get pregnant, it's the woman who is a vile creatures if she aborts, it's the woman who bears the agony of childbirth. In ninety-nine percent of all parenting situations, it's the woman who does the nurturing and childrearing, it's the woman who walks the floors with a sick child. Not the man. He ejaculates and goes his merry way looking for his next conquest like any wolf on the prowl.
If women really want to be independent and stand up for themselves, they should put their bras back on and do something really constructive. Like start telling men to hit the road Jack. If the man leaves, the woman should celebrate. She was just saved a lifetime of grief.
LOL. Then women would be accused of being frigid if they refused sex. Damned if they do and damned if they don't! There will always be reasons for men to villify women.
BTW. I'm married for a very long time, and mother to one grown child. I had sex exactly when I wanted to. When I didn't want to, I said NO. And I meant it. My husband is one of those rare men who aren't jealous of women, who do not begrudge them having a brain and a free will, and who is my constant companion and friend, not just a babymaking machine.
Yep. I'm lucky.

reply from: 4given

Yoda, I've been reading your posts for quite a while. I've come to the conclusion that you despise women. I can only imagine what happened in your past to cause you to detest women so. It boggles the mind to guess.
All this hoopla over abortion can be solved if women would simply refuse to have intercourse with men unless they are financially, emotionally, and physically able and willing to bear a child. End of story. Let men wear their hands out instead. Result? No intercourse. No unwanted babies. No abortions. Problem solved.
Men are the creatures who think with two organs, not one. They are usually the initiators of sex. They are usually the aggressive, insistent ones in the relationship. A "no" from the woman could mean the man will look elsewhere to satisfy his animal hunger, so she acquiesces. And pays the consequences. I wish we could put a stop to this.
Refuse him. Tell him to take a hike. Who cares if he leaves? It's the woman who could get pregnant, it's the woman who is a vile creatures if she aborts, it's the woman who bears the agony of childbirth. In ninety-nine percent of all parenting situations, it's the woman who does the nurturing and childrearing, it's the woman who walks the floors with a sick child. Not the man. He ejaculates and goes his merry way looking for his next conquest like any wolf on the prowl.
If women really want to be independent and stand up for themselves, they should put their bras back on and do something really constructive. Like start telling men to hit the road Jack. If the man leaves, the woman should celebrate. She was just saved a lifetime of grief.
It seems like maybe you may have a problem too.
LOL. Then women would be accused of being frigid if they refused sex. Damned if they do and damned if they don't! There will always be reasons for men to villify women.
THIS ISN"T ABOUT WOMEN IT IS ABOUT THE SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN!- Granted women have the control to do that.. You want to justify your obvious man issues by trying to discredit YODAVATER? He is motivated by no other reason but to SAVE LIVES! Damned if you don't is correct..
BTW. I'm married for a very long time, and mother to one grown child. I had sex exactly when I wanted to. When I didn't want to, I said NO. And I meant it. My husband is one of those rare men who aren't jealous of women, who do not begrudge them having a brain and a free will, and who is my constant companion and friend, not just a babymaking machine.
Yep. I'm lucky.
Is that what you call it? I just find it difficult to believe you have read his posts for awhile and that is what you came out with? Abortion is murder.. Did you read that part?

reply from: AshMarie88

I have no problem with people wanting to have sex.
What I have a problem with, however, is people wanting sex BUT refuse to accept the possible consequences that might come out of having sex. If you want sex but refuse to care for a child you might help make if you even got pregnant, then you SHOULD NOT be having sex.
Sex doesn't come without consequences, it's even not a free-for-all. Stop treating it as such and take care of your responsibilities. Don't take the easy way out!

reply from: yoda

Once the abortionist is identified, it's quite an easy matter to "stake out" the place of business and identify the customers.... yes, that would mean identifying the women getting the abortion also.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum (at least the posting part), joy. Have you decided that the subject of this forum is me, rather than abortion? Okay, let's stipulate that you're right for the sake of the debate..... how does my feeling about women make it right to kill babies? Were you going to get to that later?
We both know that isn't going to happen, so why suggest it? What's the point?
Men are responsible for at least 50% of all abortions, IMO. Is that what you wanted to hear? Men intimidate, pressure, and use all sorts of ways to "force" women to abort, in at least half the abortions that occur, IMO.
I'm really sorry that you have that impression of all men, because they're not all like that. A large percentage of them are sober, upright, responsible fathers who love and protect their children and families to the best of their abilities. I'm sorry you've never met many of them.
Men aren't all the monsters you paint them to be. But even if they were, how would that make it right to kill babies?
Umm...... you do realize this is a forum about abortion, right?

reply from: NewPoster1

Good, so I presume if both of random stranger's kidneys were to fail and you were the only known match, you wouldn't have a problem with the government legally mandating that you donate 1 of yours, even against your will, because, by your own admission, the life of an innocent person is more significant than the rights of another.
Everybody dies. All surgeries are potentially life threatening. The government (law) has a responsibility to protect every member of society, but that responsibility does not include a governmental right to force citizens to risk their own health in order to prolong the lives of "random strangers."
You say this, yet you maintain there's a governmental right to force women to risk their own health in order to prolong the life of a fetus. How logical!
Just so you know, the (as you put it) "potentially life threatening" surgery required to donate a kidney is actually safer than a caesarean section. Your arguement is flawed.

reply from: Teresa18

My response to the kidney argument was ignored as well. I'll repost here. I do want to add that a parent also has a duty to care for the child that they helped concieve in 98% of cases.
This is a common argument used by pro-aborts to throw the argument off track. If it was my child or another family member, I would donate my kidney, but that is a choice that I should be able to make. The person who needs a kidney from me may die without my kidney. However, I didn't personally have him/her killed (as in abortion) nor am I responsible for his/her death. I probably didn't even put him/her in a dangerous situation through a consensual act with another person (as in pregnancy). The person would die from whatever ailment plagued his/her kidney and caused his/her kidney to fail. Perhaps we take it a step further and I purposely or accidentally did cause his/her kidney to fail. If I accidentally did, it would be kind of me to donate a kidney, but if I didn't, he/she would die from the sad results of the accident, not my purposeful act of having him/her killed (as in abortion). If I purposefully did it, I could decline, but if he/she died, I will wind up with a harsh murder sentence that would have been most likely shorter if I had donated a kidney to the person I harmed. Plus, in donating a kidney, I lose a part of myself that I will never get back. In pregnancy, a woman losers nothing. Even her uterus remains in tact, as it is designed specifically for that purpose.

reply from: Shiprahagain

How about all the clinic personnel? How about the friends of the woman that she discussed it with? How about the contractors who sell medical supplies to the clinic? How about the neighbors of the clinic?
How do you think they caught illegal abortionists before Roe? How do you suppose that happened?
Pre Roe, Women were admitted to the hospital with a septic abortion and were reported to the police. She got a walk if she turned in the Doctor. That is how! But now we have antibiotics so that will not happen
I believe, women always got a walk b/c they were considered "witnesses" not murderers.

reply from: yoda

That sounds about right, at least that was the end result. I don't know of a single case in which a woman was ever prosecuted for having an abortion. I'm not sure if every state used the same rationale to explain that policy, but that is how it worked out in the end. They went after the abortionists kind of like the DEA prefers to go after the dealers rather than the drug users, but in a more deliberate way.
But I think there's a problem with going back to that status quo. Part of our logic for outlawing abortion again is that we want the unborn to be treated as an equal under criminal law, right? And under criminal law, the person who hires a killer to kill someone is equally guilty as the person who does the actual killing. So if we're going to say that we truly believe in the moral equality of unborn human beings, how can we say that those mothers who hire someone to kill their baby ought not to share the same legal culpability under a new antiabortion law as the actual abortionist?
In point of fact, the new "human pesticides" may in some cases allow women to have "Do-it-Yourself" abortions, without the assistance of anyone else. In such a case, who should be culpable?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Morally, I believe that women who kill the unborn should face the same penalties as those who kill the born but even this site doesn't espouse their view. Taken from their pro-choice answers to pro-choice questions:
If abortion is illegal, what should the penalty be for a woman who has one?
Laws prohibiting abortion target the abortionist, not the woman. This is evidenced by the fact that, before Roe v. Wade, American women were never indicted for having illegal abortions. For several pragmatic reasons, that same approach should be adopted when abortion is again illegal.
First, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible.
Second, the woman is the best source of information needed to bring charges against the abortionist. If she also faced prosecution, she would not cooperate with the authorities, thus keeping them from getting the evidence needed to convict the abortionist. That would leave him free to kill again.
This doesn't excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act which took the life of her child. It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening. It's no different than the authorities giving immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer.
Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion. Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead. However, imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future.
The point is, jail is exactly where every abortionist deserves to be. If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making. As for the pro-life movement, we just don't know of a practical incentive for jailing women who submit to abortions. The really odd thing is, it always seems to be someone from the pro-choice crowd who argues that they should be. So I have a suggestion. If these people think it's unfair for abortionists to go to jail but not their customers, they need to be the ones lobbying for legislation to put women in jail.
Comments?

reply from: lifted

Only my initial response; if made illegal, these people promote the disobedience by stating it isn't likely they will be prosecuted. They promote murder anyway, why not promote civil or criminal disobedience? The lowest form of existence is the person that murders or encourages the murder of the least of us. who can defend that?

reply from: carolemarie

I think that is a great suggestion!

reply from: faithman

I think that is a great suggestion!
Reguardless whether they get it or not, women who pay to have their womb children murdered, deserve to be punished the same as those who have their born children killed. I am not lobbying for women to be thrown in jail. I am simply saying that justice should be fair. And I do not think that those who have killed a child should have a voice in what should be done. They have a HUGE conflict of interest. We need to establish justice for the womb child. We may never achieve it, but we should at least advocate it. As long as we give killers a free walk, the womb child is devalued, and theirs lives remain at risk. We hear that in this forum. The cold blooded killers of the womb child, want to pontificate to us, as to the needs of woman over the right of a child to live. This issue is the right of the pre-born to live, and anything that gets in the way of that is not truely pro-life.

reply from: yoda

Yes, and I haven't seen any answer yet to the question of what to do about women who use a "human pesticide" like RU486 or something like it and have a "Do-it-Yourself" abortion.......... who goes to jail for that?

reply from: mc1956

its hard to relay feelings online but my two daughters and i were raped and impregnated 3 years ago by a man who was cutting our lawn. my daughters ages were 15 and 17 and you cant imagine what we went through. pro life is a choice-- make your own choice--- if you endured what hell we went through and the horror of 1 man impregnating a mother and her 2 beautiful teen daughters you would understand.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm so sorry MC. There are other rape victims on the forum too. Have your daughters read David C. Reardon's Victims and Victors? They might be comforted by the words of others in their position.

reply from: 4given

That doesn't sound like a truthful statement. The likelihood of that happening is an issue in itself. If you are being honest about this and your family of three all came to the same conclusion- to violently murder your own child and 2 grandchildren.. God have mercy on you! Did you consider that if the fact that this happened to all of you was for a reason other than to try to overcome a rape together? Women survive rape. Do you think that when you stand before a Living God, that He will spare you from the judgement of slaughtering His own? One atrocity does not excuse another. You and your surviving children can go on w/ your lives and find help for yourselves. You can not undo the crime of murder. Adoption is always a sollution. So you would have to endure the shame of it all- but you would have done it together, and got through it. It is unfortunate that the 3 of you were victimized in this way and thusfore would be challenged this way, but if you and your children actually understand what an abortion is- the methods used, I don't believe you could be posting here today.( Look for 100 abortion pics.) So no, you aren't justified. You should have sacrificed the 9 months and gave the baby up. But it is too late to discuss what could have been done. I urge you to speak w/ someone that has also been through that and now feel very differently. There are people that post here that have been there.. I am sure they will find you. I understand it may sound like I am harsh or unsympathetic to what you all went through. The reality is I can not find sympathy for someone that would put an innocent soul through such a violent death. I can only pray for you that you come to the understanding on your own and God directs you to His Word where you can find forgiveness and safety w/ Him.

reply from: yoda

It is an extremely unlikely scenario, the odds against it are such that it belongs in the category of science fiction, really.
Even so, this person wants us to be sympathetic to the victims, and we can certainly do that. We can be "tough on crime", by advocating the death penalty for the perpetrator. But it's not being tough on crime to advocate the death penalty for innocent bystanders.
And technically, the babies would not have even been bystanders, since they would not have even existed at the time of the crime.
But MC wants them executed anyway, right?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics