Why does rape always come up when discussing abortion?

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see a double standard, TK. There is a difference between someone who has been born and someone who has not...

So an acorn isn't a tree? An egg doesn't have a baby chick inside of it? Geez, my biology teacher must have lied to me, Noomi.

He must have, only fertilized eggs produce chicks(the cock must fertilize the egg), hens lay eggs every day until the heat of summer or the cold of winter, with the exception of turkeys and buzzards.
We normally only eat unfertilized eggs.

Shaddap.

 

[Moonglow]

I do not condone nor approve of abortion, that is a choice to be made by the person affected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm still curious about this.

Federal law prohibits the use of public funds to pay for abortion, with the exception of rape, incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy.

Not satisfied with this, Akin and other nitwits on the social right contrived this moronic nonsense about ‘legitimate rape,’ particularly with regard to statutory rape.

Let’s assume a 14-year-old is impregnated by a 20 year old man – the sex was ‘consensual,’ but is legally construed as rape because the girl is not of the age of consent in her state. The 14-year-old is eligible for public funding for an abortion if she cannot otherwise afford it. Social conservatives oppose this designation, believing because the sex was ‘consensual,’ taxpayers shouldn’t be ‘compelled’ to pay for her abortion, as the pregnancy was not the result of a ‘legitimate rape.’

Yes, social conservatives are indeed pathetic and depraved.

 

[Qball]

I'll reiterate my point:

It makes little sense for rape, incest, and maternal health to be used as trump cards for the principled arguments made by pro-lifers because these instances constitute a negligible amount of unwanted pregnancies. It's not a strong justification for abortion because sometimes bad things happen through no fault of our own. It's something to think about and to consider -- which is why most people would make a moral and public policy exception in these cases -- but it isn't a game-changer.

To those liberals who want to pretend they can't wrap their minds around that, just think of your cynical reaction to gun enthusiasts claiming they need several firearms because of protection. Do you change your mind about gun control because of that, or do you qualify that argument as being less than the desire to keep children safe and firearms out of the hands of crazy people?

 

[earlycuyler]

A lot was made over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock's comments over this past election season. A lot of people say they contributed not only their failed campaigns, but to Republicans in general losing ground with women and young voters.

I have to say, though, it's a little confusing to me why rape is always being brought up when discussing abortion. I get why to the extent that rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse causes pregnancy. Though, as an aside, I find it interesting that "sex causes pregnancy" is completely valid when justifying aborting a fetus caused by rape, but when social conservatives push for abstinence-only sex education, all of a sudden "sex causes pregnancy" is too simplistic a notion to discourage sex in young people because it's "unrealistic" or, to use one of their favorite terms, "it isn't scientifically accurate". It's just as true in either case, it's just selectively inconvenient, I guess.

Anyway.

What I don't get about rape always coming up is that no credible source has ever suggested most, half, or even a third, of abortions are by women who were victims of rape. Not only that, but for as unsavory as Akin and Mourdock's comments were, and how "anti-woman" pro-lifers supposedly are, most women, regardless of how they feel about abortion, can't honestly say they only or mostly know of abortions taking place by women they know were victims of rape.

This isn't to say it's never happened, or is an impossibility. It's just that it's dishonest to justify the general practice of abortion based on something that is rarely ever the case.

Many pro-lifers, like myself, feel abortion is wrong primarily because it's the taking of a human life for no good reason. It's not that we're pro-baby, or we believe all women ought to have children, or that there's something wrong with a woman for not wanting to parent. It's that for all of the good reasons there are to wait to parent, or not parent at all, you don't get to wait until you're pregnant to use good sense and opt-out, especially if that reasoning wasn't enough to keep you from risking it in the first place.

Of course, there are caveats. If a woman is raped, I believe she should have the choice to abort, because she didn't choose to risk creating a child. That choice was made for her, and that should never be. And it should go without saying, but a woman whose life is at risk should be able to abort if it means saving her life.

But neither of those circumstances account for any significant number of abortions.

Because of that, it isn't right to excuse the practice of abortion or women who have aborted because they got pregnant through consensual means at an inconvenient time because they didn't have the wherewithal to use good judgment, use protection, or abstain.

Because its all about emotion. They need raw emotion and ignorance to sell abortion because if the process , the actuel procedure were known, it would become a less populer form of birth control.

 

[Vox]

because it is the only straw man argument left to abortion nazis defending murder of children in utero.

People like you would love to see a rape victim tied up and forced to give birth.

Abortion nazis like you would force abortion on everybody.

There is nothing wrong with giving birth for an innocent child after rape.. The child does not have to be murdered because somebody is a criminal. Aborting that baby makes you a criminal even worse than the rapist.

 

[earlycuyler]

Why is it liberals use children to exude the false aura of caring about children, such as school shootings, healthcare, welfare, etc., when they advocate killing children in the womb regardless of their stage of development?

Dilemma A: You mourn the loss of children who were shot and killed in some elementary school.

Liberal Response: Ban guns to save children. Nevermind the children, just ban the guns.

Dilemma B: You want affordable healthcare and welfare for children so they won't have to suffer in poverty and squalor

Liberal Response: Republicans are doing anything they can to stand in the way of it, they hate children and want them to suffer or die (Google Bill Pascrell for your example and Harry Reid's statements during the government shutdown for a counterexample).

Dilemma C: Hundreds of thousands of unborn children are slaughtered in utero each year, 54 million since Roe v. Wade. Some of these abortions have been carried out by less then acceptable means which in turn can endanger or kill the the woman.

Liberal Response: Those are just women simply exercising their choice to have an abortion.

Now, why the double standard? Why the complete disregard for life in regards to abortion?

An acorn is a tree yet to be born, an egg is a bird yet to be hatched, and unborn child is a human being about to be born. (Or so I thought)

I don't see a double standard, TK. There is a difference between someone who has been born and someone who has not...

So an acorn isn't a tree? An egg doesn't have a baby chick inside of it? Geez, my biology teacher must have lied to me, Noomi.

New Me is not even a citizen here. So what she says is nothing but opinion based onnwhatnshe grabs on line , or reads here. Not really worthy of adressing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

why-does-rape-always-come-up-when-discussing-abortion-

Because some buttholes believe no abortions should ever occur.