What a Candidate Thinks About Abortion Rights Is Not Especially Important.

You are going to have to summarize your link because it is past my bedtime by hours. Clearly, you have taken a position that I support but do not believe. I think that a woman who is raped by a stranger or by her father or brother has the right to an abortion as a matter of self-defense. In the case of her impending death, I agree that her life should be saved and the child left to perish if there is no other alternative.

All I am saying is that the disagreement between your position, Ken, and the one that I personally believe is part of the reason for the stalemate with no compromise in sight even though it would save 99 ½% of all children lost if the exemption of life of the mother, rape and incest were allowed. Of course, I have known men who have said that they and their wives believed that the child would be more important than the mother. This exemption would not be mandatory so that rape victims could raise the child if they wanted and so could incest victims.

 

What crime has the child committed to deserve the death penalty?

 

Exactly! Elective abortion is either killing or it isn't. Motive doesn't change the act. If I shoot you because I like to shoot guns or because you ran over my dog, it doesn't matter. You're still shot.

IMO, the life of the mother is the only legitimate circumstance, and that's only because it's done in an emergency to preserve at least the mother's life. I consider ectopic pregnancies to fall into this category as well.

 

There is a distinction between killing and murder. You have a right to kill if necessary a rapist in the act of raping. This issue is dividing and stalemating the anti-abortion movement. The debate is cliches. That is the reason I am supporting the Reagan plank of the GOP platform that calls for a constitutional amendment. There just is no intelligent discussion of the issues among the pro-life side, and pro-lifers wonder why the public is turned off by them.

 

Good question :thumbs:

 

Slaughtering an innocent unborn child is not self defense and no amount of psychological gymnastics can even begin to justify that.

 

If in attempting to save the life of the mother, such as in treating a disease, the child dies, that is not an abortion. The death of the child is not what was intended. The mother is not required to give up her life for her child. She can but she is not required to do so.

 

That is the way I looked at the link. They are trying to say that the death of the child to save the mother is not abortion. Fine. However, it falls in that category in spite of their attempts to talk around it.

 

See that is the reason why I hate this debate and think that the pro-life movement is divided and weak. You state a conclusion without any supporting logic--and I am not trying to single you out--but it goes to show that Christians are not any better educated than the heathen if this passes for reasoning. I deal with your response by saying that I support the constitutional amendment protecting human life that is the Reagan plank in the GOP platform. But I add that I think that the failure to discuss this issue rationally is part of the reason for the failure to amend the constitution. That and the fact that a lot of blacks are being murdered by Roe v. Wade so that Planned Parenthood is doing the work of white racists and the fact that a lot of whoresons, to use an old English word, are also being murdered by this law in the name of saving welfare expense. In fact, I think those reasons are the main logic for the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

The reality is that it does not and it is not being talked around. It is logical and reasonable.

 

There is nothing rational for finding excuses to slaughter unborn children. I am unsure of what you find unrational about my comment but rape is not a rational reason to murder a child.