Question to self described "pro-life" posters

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In the light of what is going on in my country.

Option 1:
Abortion should be allowed in such exceptions as rape/incest or danger to mother's life and health

Option 2:
Abortion should be banned entirely, even in cases of rape/incest and danger to life and health

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can understand (but disagree strongly) those arguing abortion should not be provided "on demand", but I completely fail to understand why a woman should be forced to give a birth after being raped or to basically commit suicide when abortion is required for health reasons. I wonder how can anyone defend this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, for me allowing abortion in case of rape is some modern sort of eugenics. Disgusting similarly to any male or female who is so degenerated to rape anyone.

So, being forced to reproduce under this scenario is somehow less disguisting?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Where is the only the first half option. Had to vote option 2 because No means No. If there are exceptions, then your position is meaningless. You lose the moral cause. I understand if you are choosing between two lives, but if forced to choose between these two options, one results in a whole lot less people dying (and an equal number, likely in the single digits, to the ideal).

I'm not a great Fan of The West Wing, but I can't help but be reminded of this quote from one episode: "Every once in a while, every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many un-nuanced moments" 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, for me allowing abortion in case of rape is some modern sort of eugenics. Disgusting similarly to any male or female who is so degenerated to rape anyone.

So, being forced to reproduce under this scenario is somehow less disgusting?

Abortion isn't going to un-rape anybody, and child created form rape isn't unworthy to live because of that.

That's right, abortion isn't going to un-rape anybody. A victim will live with the trauma of the rape forever (I don't know how it is to get raped and I honest to God would never want to know, but we all can at least comprehend this is something terrible), so forcing her to deliver only deepens scars. It's like rubbing a salt on the wound.

I just don't see how being essentially forced to give birth against your will after being forcibly impregnated is in any way acceptable.

I don't see "eugenic" comparison as fitting too. A rape victim can choose to give birth, and it should be personal decision.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Interesting question Kalwejt.

How are we defining 'health'? In Canada abortion from 1969-1988 was illegal except for cases where the mother's life or health was in danger. 'Health' included mental health and was routinely abused by friendly physicians.

That's a pickle. Defining health in clear legal terms may be difficult. I'm generally lukewarm, at best, about the "mental thing" issue, given how many abuses occurred, especially when abortion/sterilization was compulsory under eugenic laws (and eugenics is something I have very hard time overlooking when talking about Swedish Social Democrats.) I can't say I have an easy answer here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here we approach a gray area what any of us considers as "beginning of the life". In my opinion, an embryo or fetus at early stages can't be consider "life", with no developed nervous system, consciousness or ability to survive on it's own. A potential life, yes. But so is a stem cell or even a semen. Thus, I don't believe we can talk about punishing something that does not exist yet as life for others' action.

Generally I'd prefer to have as little abortions as possible and if a woman that undergo a rape decided to give birth (whether to keep the child or give away for adoption) I'd be impressed, but, again, I don't feel it any more moral to force someone to even more relive trauma of what is a dastardly act. Nathan makes a good point that abortion may be a scarring experience on it's own, and that's why I'd like to see as few abortions as possible, but I don't feel to have an absolute answer to impose on the others. In my opinion that approachment leads to even more unwarranted abuse.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

http://lewicowo.pl/regulacja-urodzin-a-klasa-robotnicza-robotnicze-towarzystwo-sluzby-spolecznej-na-posterunku/

And I agree with that Interbellum period text from aligned with PPS magazine, that:

Dla wszystkich wrogów regulacji urodzeń i środków ochronnych przeciw ciąży my, kobiety pracujące i niezamożne, mamy tylko taką odpowiedź:
Stwórzcie takie warunki życia, w których każda kobieta mogłaby z radością urodzić i wychować swoje dziecko. Jeśli tego nie potraficie, milczcie!

(From Polish: For all opponents of birth regulation and contraceptives, we working and poor women, have only such answer:
Create such life conditions, in which every women could happily birth and raise up child. If you can't, be quiet.)

Interesting find. And is touches something that I find despicable: namely attitute showed by some who yell "abortion is murder, protect unborn life" while showing complete indifference to all the hurdles a mother and a child must face once the latter is born. Such people calling themselves "pro-life" are a joke.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No joke, I once saw a comment online complaining that allowing abortion in incest cases was bad because it would encourage "consequence-free incest". Like somebody is going to say "hooray! I can  my brother all day and get abortions woot!".

Damn you, CrabCake, for telling me this. I don't even have a sister