LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Time for a visit to everybody's favorite flamefest. I ask that we please keep it focused and not have yet another debate about abortion in general.
It seems like the majority of people who oppose abortion find it at least acceptable, maybe just tolerable, in cases of rape or when pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Myself, I think abortion is between pregnant people and doctors, not legislators or evangelicals. But that's not the point - the point is that weird line that "pro-lifers" see when rape results in pregnancy. The situations where the abortion is a life-saving procedure aren't too confusing, it's one loss instead of two. The rape line, though, I don't understand. If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?
So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?
It seems like the majority of people who oppose abortion find it at least acceptable, maybe just tolerable, in cases of rape or when pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Myself, I think abortion is between pregnant people and doctors, not legislators or evangelicals. But that's not the point - the point is that weird line that "pro-lifers" see when rape results in pregnancy. The situations where the abortion is a life-saving procedure aren't too confusing, it's one loss instead of two. The rape line, though, I don't understand. If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?
So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?