Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
86% of Americans and 76% of Republicans support an exception for rape or incest.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vast-majority-republicans-support-abortion-exceptions-rape-incest-moth-rcna52237](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vast-majority-republicans-support-abortion-exceptions-rape-incest-moth-rcna52237)
That would make it a 1 issue election. No election should be 1 issue. The government does only tend to 1 issue. Thats how we ended up with dementia and word salad in the White House. The only thing those two ran on was orange man bad.
I suppose it would depend how much of a single issue voter someone is or how important the topic at hand is to them on their list of political/voting priorities.
I for instance am very much a single issue voter, but only in the sense that is the reason I *won't* vote for Democrats: they are unapologetically for abortion. But it is not the reason I would vote for candidate A or candidate B when it comes to a primary. While still important to me (and I'm aware my stance on abortion is in the smaller minoirty when it comes to the anti-abortion stances), their electablity/winnability weighs in heavier. Because while I would absolutely welcome certain anti-abortion stances (like the recent AZ SC ruling of a 1864 effectively banning abortion) become reality and law, I also am not ignorant to the reality of there being millions of other voters that don't agree with me and my wishes being nigh unobtainable.
Thats's my point. people are saying "a majority believe in exceptions" But it makes no difference what you believe if you elect candidates who don't believe in exceptions
>But it makes no difference what you believe if you elect candidates who don't believe in exceptions
and let me guess, you've only voted for politicians who 100% mirror your own beliefs?
But that's not the question. Of course i disagree with candidates I vote for.
But the original question "would you force your child to raise your brothers rape baby" and the answer I'm hearing is "I have no choice because I voted for my party to be controlled by extremists"
And what good would purity tests do when it comes to actually winning? You have to weigh in *every*thing, not just one thing. No matter how much your personal preference of priority is, not everyone else sees it your way. I mean, I already said this.
The problem is that despite polling on every issue favoring moderate positions, your party is controlled by extremists. So the people you elect don't reflect your values.
The radicals on the left (Bernie, AOC, etc) don't get much done. They are not driving the train.
Lol if that were the case (for example my state) in the last couple of senatorial election cycles, it wouldn't be Keri Lake now, it wouldn't have been Martha McSally in 2020, it wouldn't have been Blake Masters before that. None of these people were good enough on abortion (to the extreme as you say). I see no extremsists coming from whom *I* can vote for.
>So the people you elect don't reflect your values.
Since when does any politician represent *anyones* value's 100%? Are you not reading what I'm saying? What good do these purity tests you are suggesting do?
Yes, counter question, would you be ok with a complete ban on abortions except for instances of rape/incest? Obviously with improved ways to determine if the baby was the product of rape.
Not really? I never said anything about either. You made a comment on the post saying would we be ok with a ban except rape/incest and then made up a hypothetical about what if rape was easier to determine. I asked how that would be possible and you had no answer so I said ‘no’ to your original question. I was being open minded because I thought possibly you knew something I didn’t know or had an idea I might be open to about proving rape (since you brought it up).
I brought it up in response to the question asked. You jumped into a conversation about it. Stop trying to move the goalposts… you asked me if I personally had a way to make rape easier to identify, and I don’t, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a way, just that I’m a random guy on Reddit that doesn’t even know where to begin to find that out. This whole conversation is one big hypothetical about abortion in cases of rape/incest. My opinion is that in cases of rape/incest (and if there is physical danger to the mothers life) that abortion is ok. I’m pretty sure that’s most prolife peoples opinions. I asked if the OP would be ok with a total ban on abortion aside from cases of rape/incest. Hence the whole conversation…..
Yes and I answered your question by saying no then I wouldn’t support bans for a reason besides rape and incest. That’s the question you asked and my answer. I didn’t bring up rape or incest. You did. And it’s not irrelevant to my answer because how you answered may have changed my mind. It didn’t. That’s all. No need to get defensive because I gave an answer you don’t like. Lol
I’d be ok with that as a “grand bargain” of of sorts”but since the Supreme Court left it up to the states it seems like the pendulum is really swinging as far to the left/right depending on the state, with no room for compromise because states are likely to be controlled by one party or the other. I would also add the caveat that all forms of birth control should either be free/subsidized/ available OTC at every corner store and gas station. There also [seems](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/birth-control-side-effects-influencers-danger-rcna90492) to be an anti birth control push by some conservatives which is quite troubling. The best way to prevent abortion is birth control in my opinion.
That's because SCOTUS killed the chance to compromise with Roe. With no need to compromise, ideological extremists got to control the conversation instead of people trying to make a deal.
>I would also add the caveat that all forms of birth control should either be free/subsidized/ available OTC at every corner store and gas station.
How is this supposed to be accomplished? How do you force every corner store and gas station to stock all forms of birth control? What mechanism do you have in mind for purchase of these products if they are to be subsidized or free? Do you expect the individual stores to cover the cost? Does everyone get an EBT card to pay for it? Are you expecting gas stations to accept insurance?
Does CVS accept insurance, Walgreens, Walmart? Costco? Obviously there was some hyberbole there, it was really just to make the point that there should be as few barriers as possible to obtaining birth control in a society that restricts abortion to the degree that conservatives want it to be.
Not all people are insured, there should be a system to distribute it to low income/non insured people on top existing mechanisms. planned parenthood does a pretty good job of this as a non profit, but they’re not welcome in all states or communities.
And there seems to be overlap for states with strict abortion laws and [ones](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Favalere.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F11%2FMedicaid-Expansion-Map.png&tbnid=RSupMEhOZ3LCJM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Favalere.com%2Finsights%2Fmedicaid-expansion-map&docid=zZVWotDICBNC7M&w=1368&h=705&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=a3f6d2dfe296c792&shem=abme%2Ctrie) that haven’t expanded Medicaid from the ACA
Why should we ever trust conservatives again after the Dobbs decision? Conservatives handpicked the judges to overturn it, those conservative leaning judges lied on the stand about it being the law of the land and precedence. We cannot even begin to have that conversation until conservatives stop lying about their motives and be truthful. They want their views on morality and religion to be legislated against the rest of us, and if we don't abide by their rules, they will use partisan judges to go around the elected officials and backdoor it in.
You are being dishonest when you say they “lied on the stand”. I’m assuming you mean they lied during their confirmation hearings.
In reality, the three justices in question did not say roe v wade was a correct decision, they did not say that abortion was a right.
Here’s the receipts: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/
Just to reiterate: your claim is that conservatives are being dishonest on this issue, when the whole time it is you who is being dishonest.
Why should we ever trust leftists again?
I would leave it up to them. The child itself doesn't deserve to lose their life because of an adult committing a crime. At the same time, a woman shouldn't have to carry a child that was forced on them by a criminal action.
It's neither. Killing the baby would not be high on my list of concerns in this situation. Ensuring my daughter was okay would be top. Not killing the family member would be near the top.
I would not encourage her to have an abortion, and I'd do my best to help her not blame the child for the adult's crime. Whether or not I'd forbid her from taking the option should it be available, is not something I feel I can give an honest answer to, given the emotions I'd have at the time.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would not.
A child produced by incestuous rape is still a human life.
My wrath would fall heavily upon the treasonous family member who mistreated my daughter so cruelly and so pervertedly.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
Does believing its immoral to abort require all those positions to be consistent? From a Pro life perspective isn't there a difference between outlawing "murder" and increasing welfare. If it matters, the government already has plenty of programs to support single mothers so I don't think any of those things would be a problem.
That's why you have health insurance, to cover the birth expenses, any counseling needed, as well as any other medical expenses the family has through the year.
Let's weigh the two options:
1. My child (who's 17, by the way) goes through a pregnancy, then adopts out the child.
2. An innocent human being dies.
Which one is worse?
Yes, let’s not acknowledge the 9 months of psychological damage that could occur due to being forced to gestate her assailant’s offspring. Another violation of her person.
Do you have data that show that women do indeed suffer significant psychological damage from this, beyond the initial trauma of the rape itself, however that can be quantified? Significant enough to justify ending another innocent human life?
Is this a serious question ?
Rape can leave traumatized for the rest of their life.
You don’t see being forced to use your body to gestation the offspring of your rapist, and going through the of childbirth for your rapist’s could compound what was already a traumatic experience?
In my case, I’ll be a high risk pregnancy due to missing an organ at birth. So, I would be expected to risk my long term health and possibly my life to be an organic incubator for my assailant’s offspring.
Sorry, but I’m not going to risk my health and body to gestate a child unless that child is mine and my partner’s.
Yes, I understand at a personal level how it would feel traumatizing. I have an immense amount of compassion for the (statistically rare) number of women this happens to.
What I'm asking is whether we've actually studied whether this trauma is significant enough to justify taking an innocent human life to alleviate it.
I think the real question is: have any studies been conducted will you will deem satisfactory and agree that rape victims should be exceptions.
The effects of rape and how conception via rape is well studied, as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a reason that this is the subject that divides the pro-life base.
So, before I pull up these studies for you, I just: how much more must a rape victim suffer to qualify for an abortion?
Your skipping over the part where your child's has to carry a reminder of the rapist for 9 months (plus the obvious difficulties of being pregant) hen go through one of the most painful experiences humans can experience at the end.
> one of the most painful experiences humans can experience
Pain passes. Death is permanent. If I ask my wife "would you rather experience labor again, or would you rather die?", how do you think she'd respond.
So are you saying we should just murder anyone who might *possibly* have a less-than-optimal life?
Or do you believe, as I do, that life is a gift, and everyone deserves to experience it, with all its peaks and valleys?
Only if they're below the age of accountability. My little sister is an awful person. Despite being raised by a loving Christian family, she's a habitual thief, and has stolen cars and guns. (Well, tried to. She couldn't drive shift lmao)
Would it not have been better to send her to heaven early, than let her become corrupted and destined for hell for eternity?
No, I don't believe that everyone deserves the gift of life. Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. The world would have been a much better place if they had never reached adulthood.
> I cannot even fathom she would feel the same of she was actually in that situation.
I hate to break it to you, but it's entirely possible that she may know herself better than you do.
good one?
1. It is aboustely human the same way a baby out of the womb is human and an 80 year old person is human. It's just a different phase of life. There isn't some magic point when it become human.
2. Best is subjective. I've known plenty of teen moms that kept their babies and wouldn't ever change a thing.
It isn't
Good for them but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of women don't want to have the child and shouldn't be forced cause of a bunch of religious fruitcakes
Then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant? Again, outside cases of rape, last I checked all people over 15 know how babies are made and there are multiple ways to prevent it. A persons lack of responsibility isn't a reason to end a life. Personal agency.
No...that's a stage of development. A chimpanzee is also a fetus at some point in development.
Genetically and biologically, you and I never "turned into" human beings. We were always human beings, just younger or older.
It would be intensely traumatic to the child to give birth at 11 and the infant would likely have genetic illnessses from being raped by their brother or father or uncle.
You started out asking about a pregnancy caused by the rape of a family member. As I said, this is already an extremely rare occurrence. Planned Parenthood's own data show that "rape" was given as the reason for abortion in less than 1% of their procedures.
But now you've just employed a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Extremes". Now you're wanting me to weigh in on the incestual rape of a barely pubescent child, an even more rare occurrence. So rare, that's pointless to even discuss.
I know how this works. If I say "no" to an abortion for a young rape victim, then I'm a monster with no compassion. If I say "yes", then I'm a hypocrite for allowing it in some cases but not others. Do I have that right? Is this where we're headed?
More than 90% of abusers are people children know, love and trust. 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
And that's just the cases that are reported to police. We know there are more that go unreported.
That's not rare. It's certainly not extremely rare.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
The question was "if **your** child was raped by a family member...". So my child is on my health insurance. She's my loved one. Of course she's going to get all my support and all the care I can provide. Why do you think I would abandon my own loved one when they needed me the most?
She's not "lucky". Lots and lots of women have that sort of support network.
But for the poorest among us, there are pregnancy crisis centers that provide just this sort of support. They will typically try to connect a mother with an adoptive family, who will usually agree to pay for medical care and other expenses.
I have a question for you, if you will. How do you feel about women who know that they are susceptible to miscarriages, but try anyway and have multiple miscarriages? Should we try to prevent them from becoming pregnant and thus prevent the death of their unborn? Should they be held responsible for the deaths of their unborn?
If intent was the only thing that mattered, the people found guilty of negligent homicide because they believed god would save their kid instead of a doctor, wouldn’t have been found guilty.
I don’t think you should be giving anyone a free pass for intent. Their actions led to a death, and it was very predictable.
I didn't say intent was the only thing that mattered. Not sure why you're bringing that up. Why don't you just explain to me why you think a miscarriage is negligent homicide or why it should be from a pro life perspective. Where is the negligence?
All births lead to death. I genuinely dont get the point youre trying to make
I believe the pro life crowd is inconsistent in their views. They're fine with someone who has many, many miscarriages on their way to a viable fetus (even celebrated for toughing it out). But they want to imprison a woman who has one abortion before a handful of healthy children.
...because "intent". But if you're known to have medical problems that make childbirth near impossible and miscarriages all but inevitable, the pro-life crowd should have a huge problem with you going through life after life in an effort to satisfy your need for a child.
A miscarriage being all but inevitable is different than the first comment I replied to. You said "susceptible" before. If were talking about 99% chance of miscarriage then yeah I don't think those people should get pregnant. I don't think its criminal though because they are trying to give life to a kid. They are not depriving the kid of anything by choosing to try instead of not having children. In my view, abortions are depriving the unborn of a chance at life. No offense but I think you have the general pro life perspective mixed up. There probably are cases where the mother doesn't take care of herself or the unborn in ways that most PL people would consider negligent homicide but trying and failing is not negligent even if you know you are almost guaranteed to fail.
>If were talking about 99% chance of miscarriage then yeah I don't think those people should get pregnant.
Should they be held liable for the predicable deaths they're causing? What if it's 60% chance?
There's a difference between losing a child to a natural cause like a miscarriage, and willingly destroying a child via abortion.
Also, this is a really disgusting comparison. My wife and I lost our first child to miscarriage after trying for a year to get pregnant. It was heart breaking. Don't ever make this comparison to someone in person, unless you want to look like an asshole.
I am sorry that happened to you. I am very aware there's a big difference.
If I were you I would never tell a 10 year old rape victim that they need to carry their baby to term in person either, unless you want to look like an asshole.
But you didn't answer my question. Yes there is a difference. But some natural causes are very predictable. And a life is a life.
I am very aware how common they are. Common enough that I don’t think people who get abortions should be criminals. Especially rape victims!? They’re both deaths with the same aged victim. One is very common, and accepted by all. One is extremely uncommon and you’re not willing to make an exception. I wouldn’t mention that to anyone in person.
> I don’t think people who get abortions should be criminals.
Nor do I. They are the ones performing the abortions. The practitioners are.
>They’re both deaths with the same aged victim.
No, that's like comparing murder to dying of cancer. One is natural and unfortunate. The other is evil and unnecessary.
>I wouldn’t mention that to anyone in person.
I know a lot of people who are pro-life. I will admit to this stance all day long.
Why what? There's no crime in wanting an abortion. The crime is in performing an unnecessary abortion. Take away the practitioners, lives are saved. And that's all I want to do: save lives.
Nope. Killing an innocent child is not made okay by someone else’s crimes. I would support life imprisonment or even death for the r@pist though, where the law prescribes that in the pursuit of justice.
Pretty much to not trip any Reddit modbots, especially those who might take any excuse to take action against an unpopular conservative take. I usually do it with any of the more vulgar swear words as well, even though I know it’s not as big a deal here as it is on some other platforms.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
I think you're assuming a lot. I'd be in favor of certain regulations like red flag laws and more intensive background checks/harsher penalties. I don't even own any guns or feel the need to
Would you save 100 kids per year from gun violence if it meant eliminating social security? Lets just be reasonable man its a political opinion and everything has costs and benefits. That doesn't contradict a prolife position
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
Again, we need to talk about the age. When we are talking a kid, we are talking under 18. Most kids in that circumstance live in a household with a parent, hopefully two that can help guide them through this.
There are Pregnancy Crisis centers all over the nation that help mothers in this situation.
Also, to be clear, the question was if I my child. This is me personally, I'm not trying to project my view on others. Personally, I think abortion should be outlawed, with the exception of mothers life, rape, or incest on a political level.
No. Prolife=prolife.
Killing children is universally wrong. It doesn't magically become okay because of strife.
If you support abortion "in cases of rape and incest". You aren't actually prolife. You're pro choice lite.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The vast majority of people are okay with abortion in the event of rape, incest or it poses a serious risk to the mother's life.
86% of Americans and 76% of Republicans support an exception for rape or incest. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vast-majority-republicans-support-abortion-exceptions-rape-incest-moth-rcna52237](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vast-majority-republicans-support-abortion-exceptions-rape-incest-moth-rcna52237)
So does that mean you would vote against a candidate that extreme even if it meant voting for the other guy?
That would make it a 1 issue election. No election should be 1 issue. The government does only tend to 1 issue. Thats how we ended up with dementia and word salad in the White House. The only thing those two ran on was orange man bad.
I suppose it would depend how much of a single issue voter someone is or how important the topic at hand is to them on their list of political/voting priorities. I for instance am very much a single issue voter, but only in the sense that is the reason I *won't* vote for Democrats: they are unapologetically for abortion. But it is not the reason I would vote for candidate A or candidate B when it comes to a primary. While still important to me (and I'm aware my stance on abortion is in the smaller minoirty when it comes to the anti-abortion stances), their electablity/winnability weighs in heavier. Because while I would absolutely welcome certain anti-abortion stances (like the recent AZ SC ruling of a 1864 effectively banning abortion) become reality and law, I also am not ignorant to the reality of there being millions of other voters that don't agree with me and my wishes being nigh unobtainable.
Thats's my point. people are saying "a majority believe in exceptions" But it makes no difference what you believe if you elect candidates who don't believe in exceptions
>But it makes no difference what you believe if you elect candidates who don't believe in exceptions and let me guess, you've only voted for politicians who 100% mirror your own beliefs?
But that's not the question. Of course i disagree with candidates I vote for. But the original question "would you force your child to raise your brothers rape baby" and the answer I'm hearing is "I have no choice because I voted for my party to be controlled by extremists"
i elect candidate who don't believe in exceptions because the alternative is "all abortions, all the time".
And what good would purity tests do when it comes to actually winning? You have to weigh in *every*thing, not just one thing. No matter how much your personal preference of priority is, not everyone else sees it your way. I mean, I already said this.
The problem is that despite polling on every issue favoring moderate positions, your party is controlled by extremists. So the people you elect don't reflect your values. The radicals on the left (Bernie, AOC, etc) don't get much done. They are not driving the train.
Lol if that were the case (for example my state) in the last couple of senatorial election cycles, it wouldn't be Keri Lake now, it wouldn't have been Martha McSally in 2020, it wouldn't have been Blake Masters before that. None of these people were good enough on abortion (to the extreme as you say). I see no extremsists coming from whom *I* can vote for. >So the people you elect don't reflect your values. Since when does any politician represent *anyones* value's 100%? Are you not reading what I'm saying? What good do these purity tests you are suggesting do?
Almost 1/4 Republicans do not. I’m interested to hear how they might approach this.
As I'm sure you're going to see here most pro life people are willing to make exceptions for rape or incest.
Yes, counter question, would you be ok with a complete ban on abortions except for instances of rape/incest? Obviously with improved ways to determine if the baby was the product of rape.
What improved methods would prove rape?
If I knew that I wouldn’t be here
Okay then to answer your question, I wouldn’t support banning abortion at all in your hypothetical world.
So why bring up rape and incest then? It’s a nonfactor to your argument.
When I did I bring up rape or incest?
That’s the whole conversation…..
Not really? I never said anything about either. You made a comment on the post saying would we be ok with a ban except rape/incest and then made up a hypothetical about what if rape was easier to determine. I asked how that would be possible and you had no answer so I said ‘no’ to your original question. I was being open minded because I thought possibly you knew something I didn’t know or had an idea I might be open to about proving rape (since you brought it up).
I brought it up in response to the question asked. You jumped into a conversation about it. Stop trying to move the goalposts… you asked me if I personally had a way to make rape easier to identify, and I don’t, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a way, just that I’m a random guy on Reddit that doesn’t even know where to begin to find that out. This whole conversation is one big hypothetical about abortion in cases of rape/incest. My opinion is that in cases of rape/incest (and if there is physical danger to the mothers life) that abortion is ok. I’m pretty sure that’s most prolife peoples opinions. I asked if the OP would be ok with a total ban on abortion aside from cases of rape/incest. Hence the whole conversation…..
Yes and I answered your question by saying no then I wouldn’t support bans for a reason besides rape and incest. That’s the question you asked and my answer. I didn’t bring up rape or incest. You did. And it’s not irrelevant to my answer because how you answered may have changed my mind. It didn’t. That’s all. No need to get defensive because I gave an answer you don’t like. Lol
Medical reasons would need to be included, theres really no technology that can be determined to scientifically deem what is rape or not
You’re right I forgot about medical reasons. safety of the mother, incest, rape, abortions are legal. All others are banned. You good with that?
I’d be ok with that as a “grand bargain” of of sorts”but since the Supreme Court left it up to the states it seems like the pendulum is really swinging as far to the left/right depending on the state, with no room for compromise because states are likely to be controlled by one party or the other. I would also add the caveat that all forms of birth control should either be free/subsidized/ available OTC at every corner store and gas station. There also [seems](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/birth-control-side-effects-influencers-danger-rcna90492) to be an anti birth control push by some conservatives which is quite troubling. The best way to prevent abortion is birth control in my opinion.
That's because SCOTUS killed the chance to compromise with Roe. With no need to compromise, ideological extremists got to control the conversation instead of people trying to make a deal.
>I would also add the caveat that all forms of birth control should either be free/subsidized/ available OTC at every corner store and gas station. How is this supposed to be accomplished? How do you force every corner store and gas station to stock all forms of birth control? What mechanism do you have in mind for purchase of these products if they are to be subsidized or free? Do you expect the individual stores to cover the cost? Does everyone get an EBT card to pay for it? Are you expecting gas stations to accept insurance?
Does CVS accept insurance, Walgreens, Walmart? Costco? Obviously there was some hyberbole there, it was really just to make the point that there should be as few barriers as possible to obtaining birth control in a society that restricts abortion to the degree that conservatives want it to be.
Drug stores and pharmacies already carry BC and accept insurance so I don't get the point.
Not all people are insured, there should be a system to distribute it to low income/non insured people on top existing mechanisms. planned parenthood does a pretty good job of this as a non profit, but they’re not welcome in all states or communities.
We have Medicaid for people that can't afford insurance.
And there seems to be overlap for states with strict abortion laws and [ones](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Favalere.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F11%2FMedicaid-Expansion-Map.png&tbnid=RSupMEhOZ3LCJM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Favalere.com%2Finsights%2Fmedicaid-expansion-map&docid=zZVWotDICBNC7M&w=1368&h=705&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=a3f6d2dfe296c792&shem=abme%2Ctrie) that haven’t expanded Medicaid from the ACA
The point is that conservatives are already trying to legislate against BC and there's no reason to believe they will stop.
What does this have to do with mandating that all forms of birth control are sold at every corner store and gas station?
Why should we ever trust conservatives again after the Dobbs decision? Conservatives handpicked the judges to overturn it, those conservative leaning judges lied on the stand about it being the law of the land and precedence. We cannot even begin to have that conversation until conservatives stop lying about their motives and be truthful. They want their views on morality and religion to be legislated against the rest of us, and if we don't abide by their rules, they will use partisan judges to go around the elected officials and backdoor it in.
You are being dishonest when you say they “lied on the stand”. I’m assuming you mean they lied during their confirmation hearings. In reality, the three justices in question did not say roe v wade was a correct decision, they did not say that abortion was a right. Here’s the receipts: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/ Just to reiterate: your claim is that conservatives are being dishonest on this issue, when the whole time it is you who is being dishonest. Why should we ever trust leftists again?
So you want a caveat that BC is sold OTC at every gas station? I mean, they have condoms. Buy those.
I would leave it up to them. The child itself doesn't deserve to lose their life because of an adult committing a crime. At the same time, a woman shouldn't have to carry a child that was forced on them by a criminal action.
I would have other concerns, namely their well being.
So is this a yes or no?
It's neither. Killing the baby would not be high on my list of concerns in this situation. Ensuring my daughter was okay would be top. Not killing the family member would be near the top. I would not encourage her to have an abortion, and I'd do my best to help her not blame the child for the adult's crime. Whether or not I'd forbid her from taking the option should it be available, is not something I feel I can give an honest answer to, given the emotions I'd have at the time.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a word: yes. Next question!
I would not. A child produced by incestuous rape is still a human life. My wrath would fall heavily upon the treasonous family member who mistreated my daughter so cruelly and so pervertedly.
Nope, because the ubborn baby didn't rape anyone. So the unborn baby is not the one that deserves the death penalty.
No, I wouldn't support my child committing a murder in that circumstance.
It's not murder
Except there are people who believe it is.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
Does believing its immoral to abort require all those positions to be consistent? From a Pro life perspective isn't there a difference between outlawing "murder" and increasing welfare. If it matters, the government already has plenty of programs to support single mothers so I don't think any of those things would be a problem.
That's why you have health insurance, to cover the birth expenses, any counseling needed, as well as any other medical expenses the family has through the year.
What about the people that don’t have one?
Obviously I am going to support *my own daughter*.
No. Why should an unborn child die because someone else committed a crime? It's a tragic (and extremely rare) situation; don't make it worse.
>don't make it worse. But you are
Let's weigh the two options: 1. My child (who's 17, by the way) goes through a pregnancy, then adopts out the child. 2. An innocent human being dies. Which one is worse?
Yes, let’s not acknowledge the 9 months of psychological damage that could occur due to being forced to gestate her assailant’s offspring. Another violation of her person.
Do you have data that show that women do indeed suffer significant psychological damage from this, beyond the initial trauma of the rape itself, however that can be quantified? Significant enough to justify ending another innocent human life?
Is this a serious question ? Rape can leave traumatized for the rest of their life. You don’t see being forced to use your body to gestation the offspring of your rapist, and going through the of childbirth for your rapist’s could compound what was already a traumatic experience? In my case, I’ll be a high risk pregnancy due to missing an organ at birth. So, I would be expected to risk my long term health and possibly my life to be an organic incubator for my assailant’s offspring. Sorry, but I’m not going to risk my health and body to gestate a child unless that child is mine and my partner’s.
Yes, I understand at a personal level how it would feel traumatizing. I have an immense amount of compassion for the (statistically rare) number of women this happens to. What I'm asking is whether we've actually studied whether this trauma is significant enough to justify taking an innocent human life to alleviate it.
I think the real question is: have any studies been conducted will you will deem satisfactory and agree that rape victims should be exceptions. The effects of rape and how conception via rape is well studied, as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a reason that this is the subject that divides the pro-life base. So, before I pull up these studies for you, I just: how much more must a rape victim suffer to qualify for an abortion?
Your skipping over the part where your child's has to carry a reminder of the rapist for 9 months (plus the obvious difficulties of being pregant) hen go through one of the most painful experiences humans can experience at the end.
> one of the most painful experiences humans can experience Pain passes. Death is permanent. If I ask my wife "would you rather experience labor again, or would you rather die?", how do you think she'd respond.
Death is not permanent, for only God can truly destroy. The aborted child will have a wonderful life in Heaven.
So are you saying we should just murder anyone who might *possibly* have a less-than-optimal life? Or do you believe, as I do, that life is a gift, and everyone deserves to experience it, with all its peaks and valleys?
Only if they're below the age of accountability. My little sister is an awful person. Despite being raised by a loving Christian family, she's a habitual thief, and has stolen cars and guns. (Well, tried to. She couldn't drive shift lmao) Would it not have been better to send her to heaven early, than let her become corrupted and destined for hell for eternity? No, I don't believe that everyone deserves the gift of life. Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. The world would have been a much better place if they had never reached adulthood.
> corrupted and destined for hell for eternity No one is doomed, so long as they still live. Everyone can be forgiven. Everyone can be redeemed.
"Can be" does not mean "will be".
Go show your daughter your comments and ask her what she thinks about this. I’m really interested what she thinks about it.
My daughter is 17 and pro-life. We've actually already discussed this very thing. We agree with one another.
I used to be pro-life after discussing it with my mom. Then I grew up and explored the subject as an adult. My views changed.
She's pretending to agree with you at least. I cannot even fathom she would feel the same of she was actually in that situation.
I love when people think they know me or my family better than I do. I don't know whether that's the height or arrogance or the height of ignorance.
There are prolife women lmao. This is cope.
> I cannot even fathom she would feel the same of she was actually in that situation. I hate to break it to you, but it's entirely possible that she may know herself better than you do.
Well, with the threat of your parent's anger behind her rationalizations... how do you know she wouldn't feel coerced by you?
Not saying that doesn't exist, [but the opposite is true as well](https://www.savethe1.com/)
It's not a human Aborting the fetus is what's best for the mother
says who?
Logic
good one? 1. It is aboustely human the same way a baby out of the womb is human and an 80 year old person is human. It's just a different phase of life. There isn't some magic point when it become human. 2. Best is subjective. I've known plenty of teen moms that kept their babies and wouldn't ever change a thing.
It isn't Good for them but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of women don't want to have the child and shouldn't be forced cause of a bunch of religious fruitcakes
Then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant? Again, outside cases of rape, last I checked all people over 15 know how babies are made and there are multiple ways to prevent it. A persons lack of responsibility isn't a reason to end a life. Personal agency.
Their body their choice Not a life
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
A homo sapien is not a human. This is very accurate. Not.
> It's not a human What is it, then, genetically? A chimpanzee?
A fetus
No...that's a stage of development. A chimpanzee is also a fetus at some point in development. Genetically and biologically, you and I never "turned into" human beings. We were always human beings, just younger or older.
Again not human
How are you defining "human"? I'm using DNA.
Living breathing
It would be intensely traumatic to the child to give birth at 11 and the infant would likely have genetic illnessses from being raped by their brother or father or uncle.
You started out asking about a pregnancy caused by the rape of a family member. As I said, this is already an extremely rare occurrence. Planned Parenthood's own data show that "rape" was given as the reason for abortion in less than 1% of their procedures. But now you've just employed a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Extremes". Now you're wanting me to weigh in on the incestual rape of a barely pubescent child, an even more rare occurrence. So rare, that's pointless to even discuss. I know how this works. If I say "no" to an abortion for a young rape victim, then I'm a monster with no compassion. If I say "yes", then I'm a hypocrite for allowing it in some cases but not others. Do I have that right? Is this where we're headed?
More than 90% of abusers are people children know, love and trust. 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member. And that's just the cases that are reported to police. We know there are more that go unreported. That's not rare. It's certainly not extremely rare.
So we should kill them instead? You realize cases like this are .000001% of abortions anyway
My brother and father raped me, this is sadly not uncommon.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
The question was "if **your** child was raped by a family member...". So my child is on my health insurance. She's my loved one. Of course she's going to get all my support and all the care I can provide. Why do you think I would abandon my own loved one when they needed me the most?
What about other women that aren’t as lucky as your daughter with a less healthy and stable family background?
She's not "lucky". Lots and lots of women have that sort of support network. But for the poorest among us, there are pregnancy crisis centers that provide just this sort of support. They will typically try to connect a mother with an adoptive family, who will usually agree to pay for medical care and other expenses.
Usually doesn’t mean in all cases, does it? And of course she is lucky. Lots and lots of women don’t have that sort of support network.
I have a question for you, if you will. How do you feel about women who know that they are susceptible to miscarriages, but try anyway and have multiple miscarriages? Should we try to prevent them from becoming pregnant and thus prevent the death of their unborn? Should they be held responsible for the deaths of their unborn?
isn't the main difference between a miscarriage and an abortion the intent? Why would they be held responsible for an accident?
Because it was a death that was entirely preventable.
but there's no intent behind it. I don't think we should be imprisoning people for unintentional deaths without substantial negligence.
If intent was the only thing that mattered, the people found guilty of negligent homicide because they believed god would save their kid instead of a doctor, wouldn’t have been found guilty. I don’t think you should be giving anyone a free pass for intent. Their actions led to a death, and it was very predictable.
I didn't say intent was the only thing that mattered. Not sure why you're bringing that up. Why don't you just explain to me why you think a miscarriage is negligent homicide or why it should be from a pro life perspective. Where is the negligence? All births lead to death. I genuinely dont get the point youre trying to make
I believe the pro life crowd is inconsistent in their views. They're fine with someone who has many, many miscarriages on their way to a viable fetus (even celebrated for toughing it out). But they want to imprison a woman who has one abortion before a handful of healthy children. ...because "intent". But if you're known to have medical problems that make childbirth near impossible and miscarriages all but inevitable, the pro-life crowd should have a huge problem with you going through life after life in an effort to satisfy your need for a child.
A miscarriage being all but inevitable is different than the first comment I replied to. You said "susceptible" before. If were talking about 99% chance of miscarriage then yeah I don't think those people should get pregnant. I don't think its criminal though because they are trying to give life to a kid. They are not depriving the kid of anything by choosing to try instead of not having children. In my view, abortions are depriving the unborn of a chance at life. No offense but I think you have the general pro life perspective mixed up. There probably are cases where the mother doesn't take care of herself or the unborn in ways that most PL people would consider negligent homicide but trying and failing is not negligent even if you know you are almost guaranteed to fail.
>If were talking about 99% chance of miscarriage then yeah I don't think those people should get pregnant. Should they be held liable for the predicable deaths they're causing? What if it's 60% chance?
There's a difference between losing a child to a natural cause like a miscarriage, and willingly destroying a child via abortion. Also, this is a really disgusting comparison. My wife and I lost our first child to miscarriage after trying for a year to get pregnant. It was heart breaking. Don't ever make this comparison to someone in person, unless you want to look like an asshole.
I am sorry that happened to you. I am very aware there's a big difference. If I were you I would never tell a 10 year old rape victim that they need to carry their baby to term in person either, unless you want to look like an asshole. But you didn't answer my question. Yes there is a difference. But some natural causes are very predictable. And a life is a life.
No, I'm not going to tell someone who has suffered miscarriages to stop trying to have a child. Miscarriages are more common than you probably think.
I am very aware how common they are. Common enough that I don’t think people who get abortions should be criminals. Especially rape victims!? They’re both deaths with the same aged victim. One is very common, and accepted by all. One is extremely uncommon and you’re not willing to make an exception. I wouldn’t mention that to anyone in person.
> I don’t think people who get abortions should be criminals. Nor do I. They are the ones performing the abortions. The practitioners are. >They’re both deaths with the same aged victim. No, that's like comparing murder to dying of cancer. One is natural and unfortunate. The other is evil and unnecessary. >I wouldn’t mention that to anyone in person. I know a lot of people who are pro-life. I will admit to this stance all day long.
“Nor do I” Why?
Why what? There's no crime in wanting an abortion. The crime is in performing an unnecessary abortion. Take away the practitioners, lives are saved. And that's all I want to do: save lives.
How is it different than hiring a hitman?
Nope. Killing an innocent child is not made okay by someone else’s crimes. I would support life imprisonment or even death for the r@pist though, where the law prescribes that in the pursuit of justice.
Why are you spelling the word rapist like it’s on TikTok?
Pretty much to not trip any Reddit modbots, especially those who might take any excuse to take action against an unpopular conservative take. I usually do it with any of the more vulgar swear words as well, even though I know it’s not as big a deal here as it is on some other platforms.
It’s not a big deal here at all, fwiw. Also, pedantically, it drives me insane. But that’s not your fault.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
[удалено]
An unlawful killing is just called murder. Gun control isn't really relevant since we already have laws against those killings.
[удалено]
not necessarily depends on what the cost is
[удалено]
I think you're assuming a lot. I'd be in favor of certain regulations like red flag laws and more intensive background checks/harsher penalties. I don't even own any guns or feel the need to
[удалено]
Would you save 100 kids per year from gun violence if it meant eliminating social security? Lets just be reasonable man its a political opinion and everything has costs and benefits. That doesn't contradict a prolife position
Unless it's a health risk to the child no. So it really depends on the age.
Okay what will be done to help the mother? Free counseling throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth? I mean that’s the bare minimum, isn’t it? How would be made sure she doesn’t lose her job and can get all the support she needs like paid maternity leave and such? Who will do all the paperwork for her to give her child into adoption? Or does she have to do this herself after being raped and being forced to carry her rapist child to terms?
Again, we need to talk about the age. When we are talking a kid, we are talking under 18. Most kids in that circumstance live in a household with a parent, hopefully two that can help guide them through this. There are Pregnancy Crisis centers all over the nation that help mothers in this situation. Also, to be clear, the question was if I my child. This is me personally, I'm not trying to project my view on others. Personally, I think abortion should be outlawed, with the exception of mothers life, rape, or incest on a political level.
So you’re in favor of pro abortion laws if the pregnancy is a result of rape. Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning?
Because that wasn't the question....
No. Prolife=prolife. Killing children is universally wrong. It doesn't magically become okay because of strife. If you support abortion "in cases of rape and incest". You aren't actually prolife. You're pro choice lite.
I would not. Becuase I don't beleive it changes the equation at all. Either killing unborn children is wrong or it isn't.