Article from Life News
Quick one for the first of the new year.
Excerpt: "I got into a debate with a pretty good friend about abortion the other day. She’s typically a pro-life gal, but she has adopted (no pun intended) the GOP’s ‘get out of a debate alive’ exception to the rule.
For some reason, she was completely dumbfounded that I don’t have exceptions to my pro-life stance. My argument is that I don’t need them.
As a former student at a medical college, I’ve taken the Hippocratic Oath in order to participate in clinicals. (Full disclosure: I quit that job in order to save America from idiotic ideas, much like this one.) Because of this, I know there is a “first do no harm” clause. So no, I don’t think doctors should have to let a mother die in order for their baby to live. I think that is up to the mother and her doctor—at least until Obamacare kicks in."
And yet rape is the reason that abortionist ALWAYS use to excuse killing babies.
I have to say that the exception for rape was a very difficult issue for me to overcome. Although I have never been raped, I did know someone who was, and who was also tortured. I felt a horror for the idea of carrying the child of a rapist. I believe that I am probably not alone in that.
I am grateful for all of those who argued the point here, and who convinced me that my feelings were wrong.
First off, that we can't kill the rapist is an error of justice, but one does fix errors by committing others.
To answer your question, why should the question be up to you? Why shouldn't it be up to the rape victim? Following the non-consensual rape, should the law force another suffering upon her, namely, to endure pregnancy and bear the child against her wishes? Then she would be raped once by the rapist, and once again by the law.
Furthermore, why should criminal rapists be rewarded with genetic offspring, particularly from unwilling mothers? Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.
You're right, of course. But people on our side would be be much better off deflecting the issue. It's a political loser. You wind up not saving the 10,000 rape babies or the several million others either.
Like we have ample funds from vaccine taxes to compensate the unlucky few the are harmed by them (while society vastly benefits), why not have a generous fund to compensate the pregnancy and adoption costs for those victims of rape.
Killing the innocent product of the rape isn’t just.
Maybe we could fund the effort by a tax on birth control (Democrats love counter-intuitive taxes.)