Before I pose my little thought, let me say that I am pro-choice and that I am an agnostic with a christian background. Bush and Conservatives want to make abortion illegal acccept in cases of rape and incest. Now, isnt this a bit hypocritcal. Just because of the way life was concived makes it okay for the fetus to be terminated? Thats terrible, all or nothing I say. Also, spirtually what does this mean?
Anyone who argues for the pro-choice side of abortion rights after a 6-month period of pregnancy time is losing it...
I assume allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest is a political move. If the goal of limiting abortions to cases of rape and incest were achieved, going after those would be next on the line. If you're a pro-lifer, you just don't want every abortion debate to end up with the other side trotting out women who became pregnant after rape telling their stories since it would likely derail the entire effort. Politics is often inherently hypocrticial because of the need to get where one wants to go in incremental steps since an all-or-nothing philosophy usually means ending up on the losing end.
Well, the Texas GOP platform calls for "Support for legislation to allow forcible rape to be punished by the death penalty." I do think some of them consider the life worthless if it was conceived by rape. They obviously_have no problem determining what life has value and what doesn't.
I don't think you can find the true feelings of the rank-and-file party member by what the crazies who do the platforms think (and, generally speaking, they are usually the craziest of the crazies), especially when you're extrapolating an opinion from an unrelated statement to apply an opinion to them that hasn't been stated.
What mr.p said. The exceptions are a concession to pro-choice groups. Most pro-lifers don't want such conditions and would likely tolerate, at most, an exception for the life (not health) of the mother. That doesn't seem to me to be hypocritical at all, just politics.
yeah, I really dont know where I stand on the issue of abortion, but that really gets me how there are acceptable excpetions when the arguements against it have always been "abortion is murder"
I agree, the rape and incest exception are inconsistent. I think there are two reasons why many people who are pro-life make these exceptions. The first has already been explained, that it is to avoid dealing with tear-jerking stories of rape and incest. The second reason is that people (including the ones making this exception) stigmatize children born from rape and incest. I don't think we can reasonably claim their lives are any less valuable so I don't make that sort of exception myself. As for the life of the mother, it is usually much more complicated than that. At least one life is going to be lost. In an ectopic pregnancy, for example, if the mother loses her life with a nine-week pregnancy, that baby isn't going to make it either. However, terminating under those circumstances isn't usually even called and abortion. If the pregnancy is in the third trimester and the mother's life is at risk, people generally do everything they can to try to preserve both lives. If your life is in danger you probably will be dealing with this in ER, not at an abortion clinic.
A great example, Mrs. Valdez. Someone very close to me very nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy. She fainted in her doctors office while they were still thinking she had a stomach ailment. That goodness EMS knew immediately what was wrong. She still almost died.
Personally, I agree that 6 months is FAR, FAR too late to have an elective abortion. The ONLY reason for an abortion at that late a time is complications that could endanger the woman's life. I think that if a woman wants to have an abortion, she needs to make that decision in the first 8-12 weeks.
