Personally, as hard as this is for the mother, in cases of rape and incest I still don’t think it should be legal. It’s still a life, however it was conceived, and you have no right to take it because of the discomfort or inconvenience. Learn to love the child, go to therapy if need be, and recognize the tough truth that God often redeems painful things and creates something beautiful from what Satan intended for destruction.
I follow Ron Paul’s view. We need to encourage women who have been raped to immediately go to hospital for a rape kit check. Doctors will give women estrogen shot which prevents conception.
Counterpoint is it the child's fault the woman was raped? Why does it deserve death?
Personally I'm of mixed feelings on the matter. It is wrong to kill the child but it also feels wrong to make abortion illegal in that sense. Eliminating emotion the logical path to take would be to outlaw it except in cases of life threatening conditions, since murder is the worse offense between the two options. Specifically because nothing is forcing the woman to keep the child after birth could easily give it up to an orphanage, etc.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
I see both sides of the argument, but I disagree. Especially in the cases of incest.
The reason why I say I disagree, is because a Child born of rape is.... Well unfortunately it's never really going to be "loved". For rape, I can see maybe Adoption being more preferred if the child is further along (Think Second Trimester or beyond) but I'm also alright with Abortion being opened for these cases since it's kind of rare that these things happen.
I'm more inclined to be supported of Abortion for Incest babies because of the fact that well, they're inbred. They might have genetic diseases that lie dormant in both partners that could make that Child's life hell. And I personally feel like we should avoid inducing inbred children into the world, as kind of dark and archaic as that sounds. There's a reason why it's super discouraged.
Maybe that language was a bit too hard. What I mean is that, When a woman gets raped, a lot of times, there's PTSD associated with that. Now imagine if a Child is also attached to that. Is this every case? No. I'm sure there are cases that children born out of rape are loved, but I'm sure there are many more cases of them getting aborted or put up for adoption for how much pain it causes the mother emotionally. (Obviously at no fault of the Child)
Who are you to say the child would never be loved? If not by their mother, which seems unlikely following the actual birth, then perhaps by others in their community or an eventual partner. Certainly that child is still loved by God. Adoption is the answer, which I still think is wrong, but should not be illegal.
Regarding incest, the child’s quality of life in reference to potential diseases is not a determination you can reasonably make, nor should that even matter. Many children with disabilities live happy healthy lives.
It is not right to kill an innocent child based on conjecture of whether they will be loved or sick. This is just thinly veiled eugenics.
It doesn’t matter how you slice it. Abortion is always wrong, even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, but I still struggle with the morality of that decision. Choosing between the life of my wife or child is a horrible situation to be in. Perhaps this could be the only exception, but I’m still unsure on that.
These scenarios you describe are where social programs funded by the tax payer actually make sense. These people are in terrible and rare circumstances and deserve the support of our communities and nation.
Abortion is one of the most morally reprehensible things a person can ever do. We should be extremely vigilant in even the consideration or it’s permission.
In the part of "never being loved" I was more referencing the part of the mother's prospective. (AKA the woman being raped) Of course if the Child is put up for adoption (which I do mention if you read on) you won't see any of that issue. I just think it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term for a child she didn't want to have that she had no choice having due to forced sex. Obviously this is 1000000% Different from an unplanned child, and you'd need evidence through rape kits to be able to determine that it was rape.
My incest argument is about the fact that familiar diseases show up more in babies that are inbred. Obviously your opinion on the subject is going to based on your morals, and I applaud you on that, but I still disagree. I don't think we should be introducing inbred children into the world, especially ones that have no viability to live a fulfilling life. (Think adults that have the brains of infants) Obviously there's no way to completely tell how far down that rabbit hole you can go (Cause genetic diseases vary so much) It's why until we have things like CRISPR available to most people, I'm more fine with deterring Incest babies as well as incest being a decently good reason to get an abortion (long as the child isn't viable outside the womb) For me, it's one of those things where I tend to look at a lot of this stuff from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a moral one. And a lot of this barely gets into the economic argument which is an entirely different rabbit hole we could go down.
Yes, but the community should pay all the expense that the woman will have to support the life of the unborn, like a check as she can't work and all the medical care.
Also she lost her job for that she should have a job after the pregnancy or have a check until she got a job, no matter if she gives the child for adoption
A small social safety net for babies is something no one would have an issue with I think. The community should definitely come together and support the most vulnerable.
Not only for the baby but especially for the woman. If you got raped to take an extreme case and you cannot have an abortion you should be fully covered for the pregnancy for everything. If you lose your job or cannot work you should get covered until you get a new job with at least equal pay.
The problem with "fully covered" is that many women would claim rape to get free coverage. You don't want to create an incentive for fraud. Crisis pregnancy centers should do the vetting.
No matters if the alternative is abortion.
If a woman wants an abortion and cannot have then she has to be compensated for that or it's not pro life, is just punishing a woman and the fetus as she will seek for illegal abortion.
And this is why i can't stand liberals. They will NOT agree to any middle ground. They REFUSE to compromise.
And what's really irritating is they always throw out that "but but but what about muh rape/incest?" argument. Then you ask them "if we agree abortion is ok in those instances, will you agree to no abortions because of inconvenience?" Then, they always, ALWAYS, say "no! those abortions are needed too!" i just want to slam their heads into a wall. Why do you bring up rape/incest if you aren't willing to stop there??????
False of course. The majority of conservatives would agree to a middle ground. Unfortunately liberals have driven many to abandon any attempt to find a middle ground.
The majority of conservatives would agree to a middle ground
Well I hope you're right on this! Sometimes when this topic comes up on this board comments give me the opposite impression but I'd love for you to be right. And really a middle ground is the only way both sides would ever be able to agree anyway.
Yeah, they use that as the reason when the mother just doesn't want a kid because it's a threat to her mental health or whatever. It needs to be a potential for direct and immediate physical harm to the mother.
Yes, I would not want to force a woman to give birth to a child that is doomed to die within weeks at best. Very cruel and the small risk from giving birth is not worth it at all.
They really love killing babies. Imagine that is your big issue. Can I kill babies or are you going to stop me from killing babies? That question dominates every decision you make. Fuck
100% This is a fair and balanced ruling. I know it's a meme on the left to conflate "Rape, incest, and threat to a mother's life" with "I should be able to get an abortion at Mcdonalds along with my fries." But I think this is completely very fair.
Honestly? I think more people need to look into things like CRISPR. I think that's going to knock the sails out of the Abortion activists once we're able to basically wipe out any kind of Neo-Natal Diseases.
"I WANT AN ABORTION THIS BABY IS KILLING MY MENTAL HEALTH!!!!!" "Ma'am... We're just going to put it up for adoption and put it in an Artificial womb" "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Sooooo this has already been the law in Poland for many years. Not sure why the high court was deciding on it. Degenerate Europe sends abortion cruise ships and docks right offshore to temp Polish girls.
Yes. You are. Had a friend who was told based on genetic testing that his kid would have Down syndrome. They’re Catholics, they accepted their fate and had her. She’s 100% fine. You cannot kill kids because they might be sick.
The commenter didn't say "might". There are tests you can do early on where necessary that test the genetics with a high reliability to definitively say whether or not a certain condition is present. You always have the option to keep the baby if that's what you want, but put yourself in the shoes of some women and you can understand how hard a position that is for them. Especially those who have certain conditions in their family, or know they or the father are carriers of something, or have already had children with problems.
They took that genetic test. Their kid doesn’t have Down syndrome. You can’t kill kids whether they might be sick or because they are sick. It’s satanic.
Eeeeeeh, I more think that there'd be more viability in things like CRISPR to solve those problems as opposed to just killing a child. I can see the argument for it, I just think we should be looking for proactive cures (like gene editing in the womb) as opposed to just eliminating the fetus because of a genetic malfunction.
I just think we should be looking for proactive cures (like gene editing in the womb) as opposed to just eliminating the fetus because of a genetic malfunction.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but that sounds kind of insane to me? I'd much rather we make things like PGD testing prior to pregnancy more readily affordable and available to women so fewer find themselves mid-pregnancy having to make these decisions. This allows women to reliably test for genetic conditions and chromosomal abnormalities to ensure healthy pregnancies from the get go.
Well yeah, I'm not saying we should abadon what we have now obviously. But we should also be looking at proactive cures as well. I believe (I could be wrong with the exact disease) but CRISPR was used to de-active the Gene that causes AIDS in two Twins who I believe they got it through their mother. That's why I'll be happy to see it become more widely used because it'll basically remove one of the tenets of the reason why Abortion is held to such a high regard to the left.
I completely agree that certain conditions should mean the woman has an option to abort, especially now that tests like CVS testing are highly reliable and able to be done early on.
In America, that could work, but we would also have to add rape, incest, threat to mothers health, and color of the expected babies skin to keep democrats happy.
The worst-case scenario that could have come true has come true. It is a devastating sentence that will destroy the lives of many women and many families
Imagine thinking that killing babies does not destroy women and families.
This is nearly as absurd as planned parenthood having a BLM sign out front.
Yeah, but if people are not financially able to support a pregnancy? Apart the cost of insurance and the fact that the unborn baby should get not a minimal care, after that? If you lose your job? All the expense after birth as food diapers & co? If you have an income that can support two people but not a baby? You need a bigger wealth support not only for people who are on food stamps and give a lot more money for child support. Up to the middle class should get full coverage for child expanse so you can have more child. If you are poor then you have assured preschool and work support.
If you take off the table any work or financial reason you can curb abortions for real
The point of the post was that the compelling arguments for abortion, ie rape, incest and severe threat to the mother's health only make up a small fraction of abortions. This is true in Poland and the US.
Coincidentally I think abortion should be legal (its not a constitutional right though, Roe v Wade is an example of ridiculous judicial activism) for exactly the reason you point out - accidental pregnancies do happen (though with proper birth control use thats extremely rare) and I'm not sure bringing unwanted children into the world is great when we already have 100,000s of foster kids in the US.
Because only 2% of abortions fall into these catagories. Rape, incest and health were always just to get the foot in the door for abortion on demand
Personally, as hard as this is for the mother, in cases of rape and incest I still don’t think it should be legal. It’s still a life, however it was conceived, and you have no right to take it because of the discomfort or inconvenience. Learn to love the child, go to therapy if need be, and recognize the tough truth that God often redeems painful things and creates something beautiful from what Satan intended for destruction.
I follow Ron Paul’s view. We need to encourage women who have been raped to immediately go to hospital for a rape kit check. Doctors will give women estrogen shot which prevents conception.
That I can back 100%
Then liberals will scream about how some women can't afford those shots. I might could be convinced to agree to a way to compromise on that.
You can also just go to a drug store and get Plan B. I don't think that costs much?
Like $60.
I’d agree with making it free if we can prevent abortions.
Counterpoint is it the child's fault the woman was raped? Why does it deserve death?
Personally I'm of mixed feelings on the matter. It is wrong to kill the child but it also feels wrong to make abortion illegal in that sense. Eliminating emotion the logical path to take would be to outlaw it except in cases of life threatening conditions, since murder is the worse offense between the two options. Specifically because nothing is forcing the woman to keep the child after birth could easily give it up to an orphanage, etc.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Yes. Plus the additional false rape allegations just to get an otherwise unobtainable abortion
But we have to believe all wymyn, they say.
Those bitches who falsely accuse men of rape are spitting all over actual rape victims
I see both sides of the argument, but I disagree. Especially in the cases of incest.
The reason why I say I disagree, is because a Child born of rape is.... Well unfortunately it's never really going to be "loved". For rape, I can see maybe Adoption being more preferred if the child is further along (Think Second Trimester or beyond) but I'm also alright with Abortion being opened for these cases since it's kind of rare that these things happen.
I'm more inclined to be supported of Abortion for Incest babies because of the fact that well, they're inbred. They might have genetic diseases that lie dormant in both partners that could make that Child's life hell. And I personally feel like we should avoid inducing inbred children into the world, as kind of dark and archaic as that sounds. There's a reason why it's super discouraged.
I'm fine with the law going either way, but that's just demonstrably false.
Maybe that language was a bit too hard. What I mean is that, When a woman gets raped, a lot of times, there's PTSD associated with that. Now imagine if a Child is also attached to that. Is this every case? No. I'm sure there are cases that children born out of rape are loved, but I'm sure there are many more cases of them getting aborted or put up for adoption for how much pain it causes the mother emotionally. (Obviously at no fault of the Child)
Adoption is better than death.
Who are you to say the child would never be loved? If not by their mother, which seems unlikely following the actual birth, then perhaps by others in their community or an eventual partner. Certainly that child is still loved by God. Adoption is the answer, which I still think is wrong, but should not be illegal.
Regarding incest, the child’s quality of life in reference to potential diseases is not a determination you can reasonably make, nor should that even matter. Many children with disabilities live happy healthy lives.
It is not right to kill an innocent child based on conjecture of whether they will be loved or sick. This is just thinly veiled eugenics.
It doesn’t matter how you slice it. Abortion is always wrong, even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, but I still struggle with the morality of that decision. Choosing between the life of my wife or child is a horrible situation to be in. Perhaps this could be the only exception, but I’m still unsure on that.
These scenarios you describe are where social programs funded by the tax payer actually make sense. These people are in terrible and rare circumstances and deserve the support of our communities and nation.
Abortion is one of the most morally reprehensible things a person can ever do. We should be extremely vigilant in even the consideration or it’s permission.
In the part of "never being loved" I was more referencing the part of the mother's prospective. (AKA the woman being raped) Of course if the Child is put up for adoption (which I do mention if you read on) you won't see any of that issue. I just think it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term for a child she didn't want to have that she had no choice having due to forced sex. Obviously this is 1000000% Different from an unplanned child, and you'd need evidence through rape kits to be able to determine that it was rape.
My incest argument is about the fact that familiar diseases show up more in babies that are inbred. Obviously your opinion on the subject is going to based on your morals, and I applaud you on that, but I still disagree. I don't think we should be introducing inbred children into the world, especially ones that have no viability to live a fulfilling life. (Think adults that have the brains of infants) Obviously there's no way to completely tell how far down that rabbit hole you can go (Cause genetic diseases vary so much) It's why until we have things like CRISPR available to most people, I'm more fine with deterring Incest babies as well as incest being a decently good reason to get an abortion (long as the child isn't viable outside the womb) For me, it's one of those things where I tend to look at a lot of this stuff from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a moral one. And a lot of this barely gets into the economic argument which is an entirely different rabbit hole we could go down.
I agree with you but if we can build enough of a coalition by taking the Polish approach I think we should.
Personhood rights for the unborn.
Yes, but the community should pay all the expense that the woman will have to support the life of the unborn, like a check as she can't work and all the medical care.
Also she lost her job for that she should have a job after the pregnancy or have a check until she got a job, no matter if she gives the child for adoption
A small social safety net for babies is something no one would have an issue with I think. The community should definitely come together and support the most vulnerable.
Not only for the baby but especially for the woman. If you got raped to take an extreme case and you cannot have an abortion you should be fully covered for the pregnancy for everything. If you lose your job or cannot work you should get covered until you get a new job with at least equal pay.
The problem with "fully covered" is that many women would claim rape to get free coverage. You don't want to create an incentive for fraud. Crisis pregnancy centers should do the vetting.
No matters if the alternative is abortion. If a woman wants an abortion and cannot have then she has to be compensated for that or it's not pro life, is just punishing a woman and the fetus as she will seek for illegal abortion.
And this is why i can't stand liberals. They will NOT agree to any middle ground. They REFUSE to compromise.
And what's really irritating is they always throw out that "but but but what about muh rape/incest?" argument. Then you ask them "if we agree abortion is ok in those instances, will you agree to no abortions because of inconvenience?" Then, they always, ALWAYS, say "no! those abortions are needed too!" i just want to slam their heads into a wall. Why do you bring up rape/incest if you aren't willing to stop there??????
This is true but it's also true of a lot of people in this thread which is the opposite end of the same problem.
False of course. The majority of conservatives would agree to a middle ground. Unfortunately liberals have driven many to abandon any attempt to find a middle ground.
Well I hope you're right on this! Sometimes when this topic comes up on this board comments give me the opposite impression but I'd love for you to be right. And really a middle ground is the only way both sides would ever be able to agree anyway.
"Threat to the mother's health" is kind of a vague qualifier too.
Yeah, they use that as the reason when the mother just doesn't want a kid because it's a threat to her mental health or whatever. It needs to be a potential for direct and immediate physical harm to the mother.
This is a perfectly reasonable position and I think we should adopt similar legislation here
agree, only change i'd make is to allow it if the baby is non-viable... with specific diagnoses listed, such as anencephaly (NSFW...)
Anencephaly is tragic. Yeah, don’t Duck that if you’re sensitive.
Yes, I would not want to force a woman to give birth to a child that is doomed to die within weeks at best. Very cruel and the small risk from giving birth is not worth it at all.
this is the exact rule I want in the US.
Poland I would say I am moving there but:
a) you've said for us not to, you already have enough problems, ok fair enough
and b) I WANT TO STAY AND MAGA MOTHERFUCKERS LET'S GOOOOO, REVERSE ROOOOOEE
They really love killing babies. Imagine that is your big issue. Can I kill babies or are you going to stop me from killing babies? That question dominates every decision you make. Fuck
We don't call it based Poland for nothing
100% This is a fair and balanced ruling. I know it's a meme on the left to conflate "Rape, incest, and threat to a mother's life" with "I should be able to get an abortion at Mcdonalds along with my fries." But I think this is completely very fair.
Best line of the article is the last one “we cannot kill a child just because he is sick”
Honestly? I think more people need to look into things like CRISPR. I think that's going to knock the sails out of the Abortion activists once we're able to basically wipe out any kind of Neo-Natal Diseases.
Eventually we'll have artificial wombs and that will completely destroy their arguments.
"I WANT AN ABORTION THIS BABY IS KILLING MY MENTAL HEALTH!!!!!" "Ma'am... We're just going to put it up for adoption and put it in an Artificial womb" "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Sooooo this has already been the law in Poland for many years. Not sure why the high court was deciding on it. Degenerate Europe sends abortion cruise ships and docks right offshore to temp Polish girls.
Spez— looks like it was also legal when the baby was very ill—which is now also illegal.
Yes. You are. Had a friend who was told based on genetic testing that his kid would have Down syndrome. They’re Catholics, they accepted their fate and had her. She’s 100% fine. You cannot kill kids because they might be sick.
Sadly you are wrong. He's not alone at all and many people think we should be able to kill children AFTER birth if they have certain defects.
The commenter didn't say "might". There are tests you can do early on where necessary that test the genetics with a high reliability to definitively say whether or not a certain condition is present. You always have the option to keep the baby if that's what you want, but put yourself in the shoes of some women and you can understand how hard a position that is for them. Especially those who have certain conditions in their family, or know they or the father are carriers of something, or have already had children with problems.
They took that genetic test. Their kid doesn’t have Down syndrome. You can’t kill kids whether they might be sick or because they are sick. It’s satanic.
I think satanic is going a bit far. It's fine to disagree with an opinion but it's not satanic.
Killing children because they’re inconvenient is satanic.
^
Nobody is suggesting merely aborting due to inconvenience and that minimizes the struggles some women and families face.
Eeeeeeh, I more think that there'd be more viability in things like CRISPR to solve those problems as opposed to just killing a child. I can see the argument for it, I just think we should be looking for proactive cures (like gene editing in the womb) as opposed to just eliminating the fetus because of a genetic malfunction.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but that sounds kind of insane to me? I'd much rather we make things like PGD testing prior to pregnancy more readily affordable and available to women so fewer find themselves mid-pregnancy having to make these decisions. This allows women to reliably test for genetic conditions and chromosomal abnormalities to ensure healthy pregnancies from the get go.
Well yeah, I'm not saying we should abadon what we have now obviously. But we should also be looking at proactive cures as well. I believe (I could be wrong with the exact disease) but CRISPR was used to de-active the Gene that causes AIDS in two Twins who I believe they got it through their mother. That's why I'll be happy to see it become more widely used because it'll basically remove one of the tenets of the reason why Abortion is held to such a high regard to the left.
I completely agree that certain conditions should mean the woman has an option to abort, especially now that tests like CVS testing are highly reliable and able to be done early on.
Use some GD birth control and you won't have unplanned pregnancy.
right to choose ends at intercourse.
It's not about unplanned pregnancy's, read the story.
It's a step in the right direction!
In America, that could work, but we would also have to add rape, incest, threat to mothers health, and color of the expected babies skin to keep democrats happy.
I’m so jealous of Poland right now.
Imagine thinking that killing babies does not destroy women and families.
This is nearly as absurd as planned parenthood having a BLM sign out front.
Unfortunately by the time of publication we could not reach the aborted babies to get their opinion.
Nice! Now that's a country, a people, and a culture that will remain intact for the foreseeable future.
Fuck yea!
Yeah, but if people are not financially able to support a pregnancy? Apart the cost of insurance and the fact that the unborn baby should get not a minimal care, after that? If you lose your job? All the expense after birth as food diapers & co? If you have an income that can support two people but not a baby? You need a bigger wealth support not only for people who are on food stamps and give a lot more money for child support. Up to the middle class should get full coverage for child expanse so you can have more child. If you are poor then you have assured preschool and work support.
If you take off the table any work or financial reason you can curb abortions for real
The point of the post was that the compelling arguments for abortion, ie rape, incest and severe threat to the mother's health only make up a small fraction of abortions. This is true in Poland and the US.
Coincidentally I think abortion should be legal (its not a constitutional right though, Roe v Wade is an example of ridiculous judicial activism) for exactly the reason you point out - accidental pregnancies do happen (though with proper birth control use thats extremely rare) and I'm not sure bringing unwanted children into the world is great when we already have 100,000s of foster kids in the US.
God forbid lefties keep baby making ingredients separate
My based lineage showing their basedness again.
The legacy of General Pulaski lives on strongly!
I'm old enough to remember 10 years ago, when these 3 instances were what the left was arguing for.
Now you can kill your baby up to the moment of birth in some places.