Responding to supporter of abortion in cases of rape

[SgtSchultz]

Is your friend in agreement that life begins at conception?

Actually, I am unsure if he’s in agreement on this point. If not, then we’re going to be arguing from two completely opposite premises and will need to focus on when life begins before we can talk about rape.

If they try to argue that these kinds of ethical situations cannot be intruded upon by the law, simply bring up the example of the separation of conjoined twins.

Can you please elaborate? I don’t know anything about this topic of twins.

Frankly, the “abortion for rape” arguments disgust me. They reek of a true anti-woman mindset.

For one, it seems to say “Oh, so you were raped, and you got pregnant! An abortion will make all your problems disappear!”

That’s a load of cows’ udders. Abortion doesn’t unrape a woman. All it does is make it convinent for everyone else to have to avoid the subject, no swollen belly, no rape.

That’s what I said! It makes no logical sense to somehow link abortions will fix the trauma of rape. That someone would argue that is completely absurd to me. Every time I try to mention this, out comes the old appeal to emotion and the anecdotal evidence about “some women I know blahblahblah…” to which I have to say… “uh…fallacy!”

The other thing it does is place that woman in a really nasty situation, what if she’s pro-life, what if she detests abortion, suddenly she’s pregnant from rape and listening to comments like “How could you want that thing inside you?” “why would you want to carry your rapist’s baby?”

This is the type of language I’m having to attack. The whole “how could you want that cancer living inside of you?” hateful bile. How on earth do you convey the sense that someone who thinks that killing a kid is the way to punish a rapist and make one get over their trauma? Talk about lack of sense, it’s insane! Perhaps this is why my friend’s acquaintances who have had abortions post rape feel the need to talk to him about it – to justify it to themselves since they’re sick with their choice. Otherwise why bring it up at all, except for hopes of getting someone to tell you “oh, you did the right thing!” Otherwise why use the emotion-laden, hateful language against the kid, who had no say in the matter and is an innocent victim?

For the pro-abortion movement to use something as hideous as rape to further their cause, well, its just repulsive!

Indeed.

We’re talking about a very rare occurance, 98% of abortions are for “social reasons”, and yes, there could be some women who were raped ticking “social reasons” on the forms but we can’t base arguments on “could be” statistics. That leaves only 2% for life of mother, foetal defect, and rape.

I tried to say all of this as well. I said “rape is not a good reason to keep abortion legal – bad and unlikely extreme cases make for bad law. We don’t licence something for everyone that only affects less than 2% of the population, especially when dealing with life and death.” Then comes the whole “we can’t legislate morality” claim. To which I respond, “so we can’t say that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the face and rape your wife? Keep your morality to yourself, man!”

Seems that aborting a rape pregnancy will only make that woman more emotionally unstable.

I said that too. I made an, albeit imperfect, analogy to saying “if someone robs you should you rob someone else to make you feel better?”

I don’t mind you thinking that it is immoral for, say, a 12-year-old raped girl to have an abortion, but I do mind you saying it should be illegal. Is this what you say?

I never actually brought up whether it should be illegal or not in my conversation, but my friend did. But yes, I do think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I think any penalties should fall solely on the one performing the procedure, not on the recipient.

In reality though, I’d be quite pleased if we simply had some law, any law, limiting abortion. As it stands now, it’s legal to have an abortion the day before birth, though I don’t think this happens. After that, we could simply stop having taxpayers finance abortions of people who use it as birth control. Anything’s better than what we have now, which is nothing. I just found out today that the Women’s and Children’s Hospital performs more abortions than any other place in the province. Why on earth does a “Children’s Hospital” kill children?! This is the place with all the adverts on trains about little terminally ill kids on machines, about how “someone has to be there to help them”. I can’t believe it!

 

[SgtSchultz]

As I read these comments on this thread I am reminded about how many of my old Catholic friends are no longer Catholic and actually have turned pro-choice over the years, I will never win an argument about abortion with them.

This statement of yours has got me thinking about a few Catholic friends of my own. They believe that birth control is okay, they think euthanasia is okay “for the terminally ill who need pain relief” (my mention of how this is being abused in Europe and how such people aren’t of sound mind, etc. doesn’t work), but one topic which which they are in full communion with the Church is on the topic of abortion. Do you think that this position is the more important one? I for one am glad they at least hold fast with the Church’s view on this topic, even if they ignore the others. (I do hope if they come to understand the reality of euthanasia in practice that they’ll come to view it as an evil as well. I feel they are already on the right foot by being adamantly pro-life, where innocent babies are concerned at least.)

Look, abortion is either murder or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then why limit people’s access to it at all? If it is, then nothing, not even the emotional trauma of a rape, can justify it.

To believe in abortion only in cases of rape is to say,“Sure, abortion is murdering a child, but sometimes, murdering a child is o.k, like when someone is really upset.” It sounds ridiculous because it is.

I agree. It is either illogical to hold such a position or extremely intellectually dishonest. But your point now made me think. Now that I’m thinking about it, I don’t think for sure my friend is actually against abortion in non rape and incest circumstances. I do believe he’s one of these “oh, I’d never do or allow for a ghastly thing like abortion, but I won’t stand in someone else’s way…” people. To which I’d also say “oh I’d never shoot a gay in the face for looking at me cross-eyed, but damned if I stop the next man from exercising the right!”

I simply do not understand why anti-abortionists find it necessary to dress up their moral case, which has considerable force, with extreme language. Such statements convince no one but the convinced, and stop people listening to your ideas.

You make a good point here. Excessive hyperbole and radical language will turn people off who might otherwise be convinced to listen.

 

[Corki]

Rebecca Kiessling, Conceived in Rape.

rebeccakiessling.com/index.html

"Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don’t put a face to this issue – for them abortion is just a concept – with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue. "

I came to this thread specifically to see if anyone had posted Miss Kiessling’s perspective. I heard her on the radio this past week. She is an attorney and very well spoken. She has a lot of good statistics that bolster her points. But what she keeps coming back to is that this idea that rape as an excuse for an abortion means that the people who believe this think that her life and the lives of all other people conceived through rape is less valuable than the lives of other people.

One of her “stats” that I found very interesting is that rape victims choose abortion at a much lower rate than women who have unplanned pregnancies from other reasons. It’s only about 15% compared to 40% of unplanned pregnancies in general.

 

[SgtSchultz]

Thanks to everyone who posted suggestions and info.

I did a bit more reading and research and found a good site, called The Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform that was recommended to me by someone in my parish (WARNING, graphic pictures of abortions! http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/ ) They seem like they have a lot of good info about the evils of abortion, even in cases of rape. They too linked to the Rebecca Kiessling perspective, which I read and find very powerful and useful.

I think I am a lot more well prepared to defend the pro-life position even in cases of rape now. However, as some of you either directly mentioned or alluded to, someone who is not convinced that the unborn are human cannot be argued with regarding the evil of abortion in the case of rape. Also, I read on the CCBR site listed above that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with on any aspect of the evils of abortion, so don’t try. The goal should be to win over lukewarm abortion supporters or people who are fundamentally against abortion but feel afraid to consciously acknowledge this fact because of political correctness.

 

[Nate13]

Let’s look at the logic you are using.

First, your premise "life begins at conception’. No, it does not. Both sperm and egg are alive prior to conception. You mean, I think, that individual lives begin at conception. I agree with this, but not that ‘life’ begins at conception, as it plainly does not.

You then miss out a number of steps before getting to your “murder” conclusion. These steps are:

Because an individual life has begun, a person exists.

The person who exists has the same right to continue life as a born human.

Before birth, people have the right to occupy the body of a woman who does not want them to occupy it.

Action to remove the person from the body of the woman is murder.

Each of the logical steps can be disagreed with on a number of grounds. You need to understand the strength of your opposition’s argument if you are to win people to your case. Simply saying “illogical!” “Murder!” will not convince anyone. I should point our too, that under your logic the removal of a fallopian tube containing a fetus because of the threat to the life of the mother is murder. The Church says it is acceptable on the principle of the double effect.

If a person is only stuck on the rape exception than I assume they already know when human life begins. I only provided the information and logic that it appeared in my estimation, answered the question the op asked. If you look in my first response I actually specified myself that my response assumed the person in question believed life begins at conception.

 

[agnosticgirl]

My opinion will be unpopular, and I’m not a Catholic but here it goes. I personally am indifferent to abortion, except in cases of rape. I can see how you could argue for abortion on demand to be illegal, but not in cases of rape. Hear me out:

If I’m dying, you’re not legally or morally obligated to give me your kidney. Why? Because it’s your body and you aren’t obligated to use it to sustain others. You’re also not obligated to give blood or bone marrow because it’s your body and you aren’t obligated to use it to sustain others. Forcing a rape victim to use her body to sustain a fetus she didn’t consent to creating would be inconsistent with that and reduce her to being an incubator. In my opinion.

As for Rebecca Keissling I can see how she would have her view, but I personally feel she comes across as unsympathetic and inconsiderate to rape victims. To me she paints herself as a victim because of how she was conceived. It was her mother that was raped, not her. Pardon my bluntness but I don’t think her father being a rapist gives her a special authority to decide a rape victims fate. She says abortion acceptable in cases of rape is offensive to her because it means “if I had my way you would have been aborted”, well how is that anymore offensive then saying you wish rape never happened. That would be saying “If I had my way you would have never been conceived”.

I would probably never have an abortion. I would possibly be open to keeping a pregnancy conceived in rape depending on the circumstances. However, I don’t think society, and a rapist have the right to plan a rape victims family for her. I’ve seen a girl attempt to recover from rape up close, and it was the most heart wrenching thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve never in all my life ever met a rape victim opposed to abortion in cases of rape. That speaks for itself imo.

I’m agnostic, but the Catholic church has always fascinated me. However, this is one thing that I cannot and probably will not ever agree with them on.

 

[interestedman]

I know two people who’ve been pregnant from rape who kept their babies. One was a ten year old girl I went to school with who was raped by her uncle and brother, and even at 10 was horrified at the mention of aborting that baby - who’s now 21 or so and doing well in law school.

So where is this baby now? What if she didn’t have a support system. What if she was a poor 10 year old in the ghetto with drug addicts for parents?

 

[SgtSchultz]

If I’m dying, you’re not legally or morally obligated to give me your kidney. Why? Because it’s your body and you aren’t obligated to use it to sustain others. You’re also not obligated to give blood or bone marrow because it’s your body and you aren’t obligated to use it to sustain others. Forcing a rape victim to use her body to sustain a fetus she didn’t consent to creating would be inconsistent with that and reduce her to being an incubator. In my opinion.

Well with abortion, the unborn are directly and intentionally killed in the environment made for them – the uterus. In contrast, a kidney-disease patient dies directly as a result of the kidney disease – not because of the choice of another person. In your analogy, if nothing is done, one person dies. In the pregnancy case, if nothing is done, no one dies.

As for Rebecca Keissling I can see how she would have her view, but I personally feel she comes across as unsympathetic and inconsiderate to rape victims.

It seems a lot more unsympathetic to a rape victim to tell them that they should kill their child, as if an abortion will solve all their problems. Surely the thing to do to help rape victims would be to offer them care and counselling, not encourage or condone the punishment of someone who was an innocent bystander.

It was her mother that was raped, not her.

And it was the rapist who raped Rebecca Keissling’s mother, not Rebecca Keissling. Rebecca Keissling didn’t deserve death for the sins of her rapist father.

Pardon my bluntness but I don’t think her father being a rapist gives her a special authority to decide a rape victims fate.

And I don’t think that being a rape victim confers the ability on anyone to determine an unborn baby’s fate.

She says abortion acceptable in cases of rape is offensive to her because it means “if I had my way you would have been aborted”, well how is that anymore offensive then saying you wish rape never happened. That would be saying “If I had my way you would have never been conceived”.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. She could have been conceived by the same man without a rape needing to have occurred.

I’ve never in all my life ever met a rape victim opposed to abortion in cases of rape. That speaks for itself imo.

Leaving aside the anecdotal and biased nature of your comment, the fact of the matter is that a rape victim’s views on abortion has no bearing on the morality of abortion.

So where is this baby now? What if she didn’t have a support system. What if she was a poor 10 year old in the ghetto with drug addicts for parents?

What if she is? Does this mean she should have been killed? Does it mean there is no possibility for her to ever have a different life? Since we’re being anecdotal here, I personally know a woman who lived such a life and has now broken free of it thanks to the help of a Catholic street ministry.

If we take your line of thought to its logical conclusion, we’re right back to the Negative Eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Indeed, this line of thinking is directly in line with the likes of Planned Parenthood foundress Margaret Sanger.

 

[St_Francis]

So where is this baby now? What if she didn’t have a support system. What if she was a poor 10 year old in the ghetto with drug addicts for parents?

I am reading/listening to GK Chesterton’s books. He tends to turn bad ideas on their heads then take them apart, and now I am seeing many things upside-down myself.

I have heard people argue similarly to this before. What does this young girl in the ghetto who has been raped by those who should and protect her need? Does she need to be talked into killing her baby? Or does she need help, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant? It seems like society itself can ignore the needs of a child in this situation by sweeping the “evidence” under the rug.

Killing her baby is a false solution for only the least of her problems. She should be given much more help than that.

 

[interestedman]

I came to this thread specifically to see if anyone had posted Miss Kiessling’s perspective. I heard her on the radio this past week. She is an attorney and very well spoken. She has a lot of good statistics that bolster her points. But what she keeps coming back to is that this idea that rape as an excuse for an abortion means that the people who believe this think that her life and the lives of all other people conceived through rape is less valuable than the lives of other people.

One of her “stats” that I found very interesting is that rape victims choose abortion at a much lower rate than women who have unplanned pregnancies from other reasons. It’s only about 15% compared to 40% of unplanned pregnancies in general.

What is her opinion on the actual rape of her mother? Does she think “man, it is a good thing my mom got raped or I wouldn’t be here.” What kind of mentality do you have if you were conceived out of rape? Would you think that sometimes rape is a good thing if the woman gets pregnant and a life comes out of it? I mean, IF that guy didn’t rape her mom she wouldn’t exist, and obviously she likes existing, so she HAS to be thankful for at least that one rape, right? And what about other rapes? Is she thankful about those too? If a woman prevents a rape maybe it is a missed opportunity?

 

[interestedman]

Well with abortion, the unborn are directly and intentionally killed in the environment made for them – the uterus. In contrast, a kidney-disease patient dies directly as a result of the kidney disease – not because of the choice of another person. In your analogy, if nothing is done, one person dies. In the pregnancy case, if nothing is done, no one dies.

How the end result happens (either doing something or not doing something) has no effect on the outcome. Just because one requires you to do something and one does not does not make the analogy any less valid. But then again you are describing the Catholic view of things, which I disagree with.

 

[interestedman]

It seems a lot more unsympathetic to a rape victim to tell them that they should kill their child, as if an abortion will solve all their problems. Surely the thing to do to help rape victims would be to offer them care and counselling, not encourage or condone the punishment of someone who was an innocent bystander.

You talk about helping a rape victim and you say that an abortion wouldn’t solve their problems? Well it would solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy and child.

 

[interestedman]

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. She could have been conceived by the same man without a rape needing to have occurred.

What exactly are you saying? Women shouldn’t resist rape? That isn’t a false dichotomy…somehow I have a feeling that the rapist wouldn’t have been able to have consensual sex with her mom. And remember, even if he DID, the child born would not have been her unless that same exact sperm fertilized the same exact egg, something that seems pretty unlikely.

I feel like forcing a rape victim to take her rapists baby to term is cruel. I see how if you believe that they are killing a human baby that you would have this opinion but I think it is unsympathetic to the rape victim. If you get raped and get pregnant you have no say in it. You are just pregnant and if you don’t get it aborted your life is turned completely upside down. First of all pregnancy sucks from what I can tell. My wife had some problems in her pregnancies and they weren’t comfortable for her. I am sure they would be a lot worse if she didn’t have a father to be around or the baby’s weren’t created out of love. Add to that that a lot of these girls that get raped in pregnant are far younger than they would normally have children. It is basically punishing a girl for getting raped.

 

[St_Francis]

What exactly are you saying? Women shouldn’t resist rape? That isn’t a false dichotomy…somehow I have a feeling that the rapist wouldn’t have been able to have consensual sex with her mom. And remember, even if he DID, the child born would not have been her unless that same exact sperm fertilized the same exact egg, something that seems pretty unlikely.

I feel like forcing a rape victim to take her rapists baby to term is cruel. I see how if you believe that they are killing a human baby that you would have this opinion but I think it is unsympathetic to the rape victim. If you get raped and get pregnant you have no say in it. You are just pregnant and if you don’t get it aborted your life is turned completely upside down. … It is basically punishing a girl for getting raped.

Suppose the victim had had her spinal cord severed or her face slashed up instead? would she not have to live with that? Would you consider that a punishment for being raped?

First of all pregnancy sucks from what I can tell. My wife had some problems in her pregnancies and they weren’t comfortable for her. I am sure they would be a lot worse if she didn’t have a father to be around or the baby’s weren’t created out of love. Add to that that a lot of these girls that get raped in pregnant are far younger than they would normally have children.

So maybe instead of telling her to kill the *other *innocent victim, we should be offering support to the mother? *Our *lives are certainly made easier by her having abortion, that it true, but maybe instead we should be working to ensure that she has the help she needs, which is something the Church has worked on a lot over the centuries.

Maybe

 

[agnosticgirl]

Well with abortion, the unborn are directly and intentionally killed in the environment made for them – the uterus. In contrast, a kidney-disease patient dies directly as a result of the kidney disease – not because of the choice of another person. In your analogy, if nothing is done, one person dies. In the pregnancy case, if nothing is done, no one dies.

So? Don’t split hairs. Either people are obligated to use their bodies to sustain others or they are not. And you could argue that abortions don’t intentionally kill embryos and that the embryo dying is simply a byproduct of them being removed from a place they had no permission to be. Just like a kidney disease patient dying is the result of them not having an organ that they have no permission to use. If I’m not obligated to allow use of my bone marrow, than I’m not obligated to allow use of my uterus. My vagina was made for penetration, that doesn’t mean I’m ‘allowed to be raped’.

It seems a lot more unsympathetic to a rape victim to tell them that they should kill their child, as if an abortion will solve all their problems. Surely the thing to do to help rape victims would be to offer them care and counselling, not encourage or condone the punishment of someone who was an innocent bystander.
You assume that I would have to tell a rape victim to have an abortion and that she wouldn’t want one in the first place. When did I ever say an abortion would solve a rape victims problems? You act as though having their rapists child would. It’s not about punishment, it’s about the rape victims right to control her body.

And it was the rapist who raped Rebecca Keissling’s mother, not Rebecca Keissling. Rebecca Keissling didn’t deserve death for the sins of her rapist father.
What does that have to do with what I said? Don’t twist my words.

And I don’t think that being a rape victim confers the ability on anyone to determine an unborn baby’s fate.
Well I think it’s pretty ironic that most of the people who want to make a decision for a rape victim are people who have never been raped. It’s faux morality imo. Since I’m not in that position, and never will be I can decide for you what you should do because I know I’ll never have to deal with the consequences. Also, why is it okay to determine the rape victims fate, but not the embryo?

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. She could have been conceived by the same man without a rape needing to have occurred.
Considering she was raped, her conception never would have happened because obviously her mother didn’t want to have sex with him at all.
Leaving aside the anecdotal and biased nature of your comment, the fact of the matter is that a rape victim’s views on abortion has no bearing on the morality of abortion.
So a rape victims views on what should happen to her body has no bearing on what should happen to it? Wow.

What if she is? Does this mean she should have been killed? Does it mean there is no possibility for her to ever have a different life? Since we’re being anecdotal here, I personally know a woman who lived such a life and has now broken free of it thanks to the help of a Catholic street ministry.

If we take your line of thought to its logical conclusion, we’re right back to the Negative Eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Indeed, this line of thinking is directly in line with the likes of Planned Parenthood foundress Margaret Sanger.

My responses are in red.

 

[agnosticgirl]

Suppose the victim had had her spinal cord severed or her face slashed up instead? would she not have to live with that? Would you consider that a punishment for being raped?

So maybe instead of telling her to kill the *other *innocent victim, we should be offering support to the mother? *Our *lives are certainly made easier by her having abortion, that it true, but maybe instead we should be working to ensure that she has the help she needs, which is something the Church has worked on a lot over the centuries.

Maybe

The church wasn’t a shining example of morality for centuries so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. And how is the embryo a victim? It wasn’t raped.

You can offer all the support in the world, but the fact is if a woman doesn’t want to do something with her body, she’s not going to want to do it.

 

[St_Francis]

The church wasn’t a shining example of morality for centuries so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

We are all sinners, that is true. The Church is like a hospital for sinners so , yes, you will find sinners in the Church, just as you will find sick people in hospitals.

While it is true that there always have been sinners in the Church, there have also always been saints in the Church. Which of these two groups, sinners and saints, have been those most faithful to Church teaching?

Let us not judge the Church by its currently truncated form as one of many ways of thinking in a society, because that is not the way it is supposed to be. When Catholcism was the underpinning of society, we had lots of convents and monasteries to care for those who were sick, both morally and physically.

Even now, the Church is the largest charitable institution in the world, helping those in need everywhere.

And how is the embryo a victim? It wasn’t raped.

If I am mugged, would you say I was not a victim?

Those conceived through rape are victims of the rapist as well, because everyone has the right to be conceived as the result of a loving union between two people who are both 1000% committed to the family they may be creating.

In addition, the unborn baby has the right not to be killed, which he or she is in danger of as the result of the circumstances of his or her conception.

The baby conceived by rape has done nothing wrong, and yet is subject to a much harsher penalty than we would even consider giving to the father.

You can offer all the support in the world, but the fact is if a woman doesn’t want to do something with her body, she’s not going to want to do it.

People do things with the bodies that they don’t want to do all the time! People get up and go to work, and it’s quite frequent that they do not, in fact, *want *to go to work. People undergo chemotherapy even tho that probably was not what they wanted to do that year. People suffer the consequences of the sinful acts of others all the time: those injured by drunk drivers, those suffering as the result of being stolen from, and those suffering as the result of natural disasters.

 

[catholictiger]

I’ll just say this, what is most important especially in a one on one conversation is to show that you care about the situation you know how bad it is.

lets take example 1 and example 2 and tell me which is more charitable.

EX1 you are a college student and you are hosting a discussion table on campus, should abortion remain legal.

Pro lifer: high how are you today

pro choicer: I’m fine what is all of this

pro lifer: oh this is a polling table we wanted to see how pro life the campus is would you like to answer this question.

PC: your pro life, so your telling me if I was rapped you would force me to carry by baby to term and make my life even worse.

PL: please don’t be so accustive of me. if you were rapped It would be a very horrible situation, and if I were able to help you I would do my best to bring your rapist to justice, help you have healing from your rape and any other help you may need. But why do you think abortion will help you heal from your rape?

PC: well because that baby would remind me of the rapist, and it may grow up to be a rapist itself.

PL: I understand that, but why should we punish someone for something they haven’t done yet?

PC: well there is a good chance he would do something like this.

PL: but there is also a chance he could be the next Enstine or Drew Brees. Why should we punish or reward someone for something they haven’t done, even if there is a good chance he will do that in the future.

PC: you make a good point but I still think we should be able to abort the child.

Conversation continues.

example B

Pro lifer: high how are you today

pro choicer: I’m fine what is all of this

pro lifer: oh this is a polling table we wanted to see how pro life the campus is would you like to answer this question.

PC: your pro life, so your telling me if I was rapped you would force me to carry by baby to term and make my life even worse.

PL: well yes is the baby guilty of rape, did she hurt you in any way.

PC: no but the baby doesn’t matter what is best for me matters.

PL: no your wrong what is best for you can’t allow to kill that unborn baby.

PC: UNBORN BABY!!! its just a fetus you idiot, and plus its MY BODY!!! I can choose what I can do with it.

PL: its not your body the unborn baby is its own individual person you can’t kill it if you like:

PC: yes I can.

I think you see where this is goign.

is A or B more charitable and will A or B be more likely to change this women’s mind?

I think a couple things are important when dealing with this first, make it clear to the other person that you think rape is horrible and that you would help her if you could, second if the argument gets heated try to calm the person down tell her there is no point of us yelling at each other, third make sure you make it clear that the unborn shouldn’t be punished for what it didn’t do, but don’t let it come off as the person in Example B did. If you **** someone off you lost your chance to show her your side.

 

[SgtSchultz]

I see how *if you believe that they are killing a human baby *that you would have this opinion but I think it is unsympathetic to the rape victim.

Herein lies the key issue, which is beyond the scope of this thread. If you truly believe, as I assume you do based on your use of phrase, that the unborn are not human, then we are arguing a completely different issue – the humanity of the unborn. If this is the case, then rape is irrelevant.

And you could argue that abortions don’t intentionally kill embryos and that the embryo dying is simply a byproduct of them being removed from a place they had no permission to be.

Except that abortions *do *intentionally kill babies, whether at the embryo or foetus stage of development. They are chopped up, decapitated, disembowelled, etc. They aren’t put in a little bed and tucked away. Even if they were, to neglect something so that it is allowed to die is also tantamount to intentionally killing it.

Just like a kidney disease patient dying is the result of them not having an organ that they have no permission to use. If I’m not obligated to allow use of my bone marrow, than I’m not obligated to allow use of my uterus.

“Permission”? “Allow”? So is a baby to fill out a contract or something? That’s absurd. But I’ll look beyond that absurdity and declare that, based on your line of thinking, I should be able to kill a child who trespasses in my yard – when there was no sign and said child wasn’t able to fathom the concept of unlawful trespass. I find it sad that you’re treating childbirth as if it were a line item in a tort case, yet you talk about “respect” and “sympathy”.

My vagina was made for penetration, that doesn’t mean I’m ‘allowed to be raped’.

Who ever said anyone was or should be “allowed to be raped”? How did you come to the conclusion that anyone on here thus far has put forward such a view? This claim makes no sense at all.

You assume that I would have to tell a rape victim to have an abortion and that she wouldn’t want one in the first place. When did I ever say an abortion would solve a rape victims problems?

You don’t say it outright, but the way you characterise a baby that was conceived from rape suggests that you do. Words such as “no permission to be there” imply that abortion is the preferred choice. You wouldn’t be using such extreme language otherwise.

You act as though having their rapists child would.

No, I merely think that adding another grave crime onto an existing one seems counterintuitive and immoral, as it punishes someone who committed no wrong.

It’s not about punishment

Again, the language you use make it seem otherwise.

it’s about the rape victims right to control her body.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. One cannot have rights that trump another’s.

Considering she was raped, her conception never would have happened because obviously her mother didn’t want to have sex with him at all.

Which doesn’t negate the fact that, under different circumstances she could have been conceived without rape. She could have been conceived via IVF, with the father being one who donated sperm to a sperm bank well before becoming a rapist. It’s not an issue of “conception of said person never ever in a million years have been possible had it not been for rape”.

So a rape victims views on what should happen to her body has no bearing on what should happen to it? Wow.

Wow, indeed. At your manner of completely ignoring my comment that is. What I said was that feelings do not determine morality. The way a rape victim “feels” doesn’t justify murder.

You can offer all the support in the world, but the fact is if a woman doesn’t want to do something with her body, she’s not going to want to do it.

Anyone can do whatever they want with their own body so long as it doesn’t hurt another.

 

[SgtSchultz]

I think a couple things are important when dealing with this first, make it clear to the other person that you think rape is horrible and that you would help her if you could, second if the argument gets heated try to calm the person down tell her there is no point of us yelling at each other, third make sure you make it clear that the unborn shouldn’t be punished for what it didn’t do, but don’t let it come off as the person in Example B did. If you **** someone off you lost your chance to show her your side.

You are absolutely right. Coming across like that American politician who said that it’s impossible to get pregnant from rape only serves to hurt the pro-life cause. (Not only that, but it’s unscientific and dishonest as well.) One must not lower oneself to the level of talk-show blowhard if one is to convince people to change their views.

That being said, I do think it’s both nearly impossible and a monumental waste of time and resources to try and convince someone who is adamantly pro-abortion. The goal should be to convert those who are apathetic, those who lean pro-life but fear being "un-PC’ or in looking like they’re different from what they perceive as being “the norm”, those who “think abortion is wrong, but can’t tell another what to do”, etc. When dealing with these latter groups, the goal is to show those who already know it’s wrong to kill human beings, and who just know in their gut that abortion does this, that it’s wrong to kill even in cases of rape. As for those who truly believe that the unborn are not human, or are less human, talking about rape serves no purpose, as it’s irrelevant to the case of whether the unborn are human. It’s merely an appeal to emotion to get these lukewarm pro-life types to change their minds.