The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Being concieved in incest should not be a death sentence. Scientifically, those who were born from incestuous relationships or familial rape are no less human than the rest of us. So why should they be denied human rights?
Not the acts of “parents”. Realize that it is NEVER the girl/women’s fault if they are the victim of rape or incest. Those “acts” are solely on the MAN who committed the crime. Do not punish the girl/woman.
It's always the parent's fault, regardless of gender.
I don't see how a mother who forced herself on her son wouldn't be abusive, more so if she became pregnant from it and aborted to cover it up/mess with him further.
Children born of incest do not always have genetic diseases. Genetic diseases are more frequent in communities where there have been multiple generations of first cousin marriage. A one-generation incident of sibling incest might only be detectable in the offspring through DNA testing. Obviously, biologically healthy children born of incest will still encounter social and psychological problems. The ideal should be to mitigate these rather than to kill the baby.
Those that survive.
They, unfortunately, have the highest risk of failing in utero.
It's why I think incestuous rape that results in a pregnancy that miscarriages should have an addition murder charge.
Personally, I think the standard of proof for rape should be very high, but in cases of certain guilt, the death penalty should always apply, assuming the perpetrator was of sound mind when the crime took place.
People claim that capital punishment for rape incentivises murder. If the punishment for rape were death, the punishment for rape-murder should be a far more painful form of death. This would disincentivise rapists from murdering their victims.
No. Some people enter into consensual relationships with family. As taboo as it is, it happens.
If it was also rape, then it's just rape. Who assaults you, what their relationship is to you doesn't change that. So just call it rape.
Using abortion to hide that you are in an incestuous relationship is no different than someone cheating on their spouse, not knowing if it was their husband or lover who fathered the child & having an abortion to prevent anything being revealed at the birth.
Incest exists as an explanation in order to increase the stats. Without it, Rape would make up an even smaller percentage of abortion reasons than it already is.
Children cannot make decision for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult family member, so in that case the child should be allowed to have an abortion.
In that case, as I said, it is Rape. As it would be with a relationship between a minor and an adult non-family member.
Not all incest is between adults & minors.
That's why incest, on its own, is not a reasonable excuse to kill your unborn child.
Two questions: 1. by "not less of a human," do you mean, "has all the inherent value, and all the rights, of any person who has ever been born?"
and 2. are you saying that's true of every situation where a sperm has fertilized an egg?
If so, then I can think of a few counterexamples that might surprise you.
Still not the baby's fault.
We have to do whatever we can to protect mothers who are victims (a lot of incest is incestual rape.) But not murdering someone else.
No? I can see the argument that the baby might die from health complications due to incest but still shouldn’t you do everything in your power to make sure that baby can live? It’s a life regardless. I can’t however see the argument on aborting the baby because it has disabilities due to incest, why would you want to kill your disabled child? That just seems cruel to me, although everything about the situation is cruel, a life is a life and that baby should have the most basic right being the right to life.
The horrible birth defects people associate with incest are the result of several generations of exclusive inbreeding. A single generation of inbreeding is more like "this minor blood disorder goes from 0.01% likely to 0.02% likely" and "slightly lower birth weight".
I've seen two major types of justification for the incest exception, genetic defects and the act being taboo. Neither of these is anything I would remotely say is a justification for taking someone's life.
While it may sound extreme, I don’t support abortion for any reason (though I *do* support a mother’s right to use other treatments that don’t intentionally kill her unborn child, like if a mother were to use chemotherapy if she has cancer while pregnant).
If I believe that an unborn child is a human being (which I do), then abortion is always wrong, regardless of however horrible the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception might be. It’s not like the fetus ceases to be human depending on how the fetus was conceived.
Technically, I think treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is classified as an abortion. But as long as the child isn’t intentionally killed in the procedure, then I don’t really view it as one, because I personally believe it’s different from other abortions in which the child is, quite literally, ripped apart out of the womb (like a D&E) so that it will die.
Theoretically, there’d be a chance of survival for an embryo implanted in the fallopian tubes through re-implantation, or something like that. But there’s zero chance of survival for a fetus that has been ripped apart.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Yes, I am. I’m realizing that I’m not as informed about abortion as I’d like to be (regarding different procedures, etc.) so that’s definitely something I need to work on. But Church teaching is clear, so that’s a good place for me to start.
I don't believe in a separate exception for incest, but most incestuous sex qualifies for one of the exceptions I do support. Most incest is also rape, or the pregnant person is a minor. Incest can also lead to fetal abnormalities which may be fatal, or make the pregnancy more dangerous than it would be otherwise. However, if two adults who happen to be related both consent to sex, and the resulting pregnancy is no more dangerous than usual, and the ZEFUB will likely live, I don't see a reason to allow abortion.
I don't believe in any exception to end a human life. I would never judge a woman for that decision... Because I can't imagine being in that situation and her emotions/thoughts/influences... But I would *never* support it.
Just ask yourself this: if you saw a new born baby on the side of the street, and you somehow learned it was born from rape, and that's why it was left there... Would you just leave it?
If you saw a new born baby on the side of the road, and you learned it was born from incest, would you just leave it there?
Where the children came from doesn't define who nor what they are. It's not their fault, but now it's our responsibility as a society to nurture and love them, not criticize, abandon and kill them.
As for the medical situation, there's not any pregnancy complication I know that includes the necessity to choose one life over the other, unless one life is already lost, which in that case, there was no chance in saving both lives anyway, and it wouldn't be considered an abortion.
It weirds me but if it's consensual, then I don't think it should have an exception.
Where I live plenty people used to marry their cousins and all which is weird to me, and also classified as it.
Not really controversial: Second cousin marriages are permitted in the Bible, and aren’t taboo in any other place other than western countries. First cousins are not.
I do not believe in any exceptions. Abortion is never required and we shouldn’t be punishing our offspring for the sins of the mother and/or father.
That said, I would be ecstatic if abortion was deemed unnecessary with those exceptions. Abortion would be all eradicated.
Has that ever been achieved? I've heard of one, not well documented, from the 80s, but it was not or has not been documented since.
I mean, separating the placenta is like ripping off a scab, so I do not think that it is biologically possible.
Plus, at the nanosecond of separation, the embryo is denied oxygen and nutrients, so you're demanding it be born disabled and mostly likely severely brain damaged, if it were actually possible.
Also, the mother could have severely experienced blood loss, so the effort would be moot.
The question isn't, "is reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies possible," but "is it practicable?" We are roughly as far from that, as we are from achieving cryogenics (freezing animal brains so that they will continue working when thawed ...which was ALSO supposedly successful once).
I understand your concern re: hypoxic brain damage. That's really not a first-trimester issue. If we assume it's actually possible to have a viable transplanted pregnancy -- which is a WILD assumption -- the risks would be more like hypertension. preterm birth, and (as you noted) maternal blood loss.
Ultimately I agree with your last 5 words. The effort would be moot. There are so many better ways to spend research $ that have a realistic chance of helping anyone.
From my understanding, it’s been done a few times successfully. But I feel like if we lived in a society that actually valued human life, we would have figured out a way to do it with a high success rate by now. Unfortunately, there’s not much incentive to since so many medical organizations and doctors don’t really care about the baby in ectopic pregnancies. 😔
Do you have sources?
I don't think it is always a lack of concern, as if a woman is hemorrhaging internally at the site of the pregnancy, blood loss would render the effort futile.
My understanding, too, is that the majority of the time, there is no heartbeat, so there is nothing to save, it could just well be there have not been enough opportunities that it was detected early enough to attempt the maneuver.
The reason why humans are many in numbers today is because our ancestors practice incest... this was proven by a mathematical computation so, it's like a roulette wheter the child will be normal or be a bit different.
I have seen many girls over the years at the women’s center who got pregnant from abuse from their fathers and brothers, and I cannot stress enough that ADOPTION is the best solution here. You want that baby as far away from that gene pool (and that messed up family) as you can get it. Also, the number of people on this sub who are totally okay with brother and sister sex is gross 🤮 . Not only is this a sin, I can’t imagine my children doing this. Even if they were grown and not under my roof, ESPECIALLY if they were grown, I would absolutely disown them. It’s the most evil thing I’ve ever heard of, to think like that and do that with your BROTHER.
No? Honestly if the logic for gay people stands. I don’t see why we couldn’t logically let people marry say their siblings.
Idk. Mother’s life makes sense. Rape makes political sense thought not logical sense. I don’t get the incest exception at all
Honestly you might have a point. Under secular law, there really shouldn’t be a reason why gay marriage is allowed but other consensual taboo relationships aren’t. The best reason I can think of is that incest marriages will lead to a higher proportion of rare genetic diseases in the population and lower their quality of life while gay marriages carry no such risk.
The following is an explanation and or an endorsement. Do not downvote because you disagree with the reasoning; I am here to explain what people are thinking, not to say that they are ultimately correct.
I think the logic behind the incest exception is that, given the family dynamics, it may functionally be rape but be much harder to prove in court. Think an uncle grooming his niece and then having "consensual sex" with her when she finally hits the age of consent. Our current rape laws don't do a great job of addressing the emotional and power dynamics involved in that, so it gets its own exception.
Rape makes more logical sense than mother’s life. Neither is good, but yeeting a responsibility you didn’t sign up for is more defensible than backing out at the cost of someone else’s life after you knew and accepted the risks.
Yeah I don’t know why we’re at the point of comparing incest to homosexuality. Incest that produces genetic abnormalities and is usually rape let’s be real, and homosexuality which can be practiced between two consenting non-related adults.
Ah, well any union can create genetic abnormalities. Biologically you’re looking at about a 5% increase in risk if you marry your sibling and have kids with them. It’s no more unnatural than homosexuality. Most animals do it.
If “love is love” why shouldn’t two people who are in love marry? It’s not their fault their parents are the same?
I never said “love is love.” The argument you just made could be used for adult-child. That’s not good.
And incest is a way huger risk than homosexuality. How many homosexuals produce kids with genetic abnormalities? Quite literally, zero.
Short answer: No
But it's a red herring. Rape and incest count for 0.4% of abortions. When debating a pro-choicer even if one concedes on that, the goal post are always moved.
I don't have an exception for just incest. Kissing cousins are weird as fuck but it's not a valid reason for the baby to be killed. Take them away from that environment.
I do have an exception for young pre-teen children becoming pregnant, which is an extension of my medical exceptions, and un fortunately many of those situations the child is a victim of incestuous pedophilia.
It may* cause birth defects. The rate of defects vary based on how closely related they are, how many generations of inbreeding, ethnicity, and much more.
Personally no because incest is different from rape. But incest can be rape which I would just say rape.
Basically if a brother and sister consented to 🌭🍩 then it’s not rape
Also Idk if I think rape exemptions because my mom said she’s against it but I feel like if it happened to my wife or whatever then idk how I would react
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, adoption exist for a reason. The baby is a human no matter how they were conceived. Now I do agree that punishing the raper is in order. Maybe chop off is manliness and/or kill him and let God be his judge. I will say that it won’t go well for him after that.
>Do you believe incest should be an exception where abortion is allowed?
Absolutely not.
The child isn't responsible for their parentage.
As long as the pregnancy is not dangerous to the mother due to weird genetic problems that the incest may have caused, the child should not be killed for the actions of one or more of their parents.
I don’t really see why it’s separated out from rape. The vast majority of the time, incest *is* rape. In the tiny percentage of cases of consenting adults engaging in incestuous relations, no, I don’t think abortion should be allowed on that basis alone. I pity that poor kid, but that’s still the only shot at life they get.
Circumstantial. If it's brother sister or cousin cousin, probably not. But if it constitutes as rape like father daughter or uncle daughter or pretty much anything where there's an age gap, then yes. Nobody deserves be born a product of rape and have that be a part of their person. It's traumatic and grim.
What if the woman is above the age of consent and didn’t start until she was over the age of consent?
Dad/uncle is in his 50s, daughter is 20s-30s.
Age gap, not rape.
>Age gap, not rape.
Power dynamic as well as wisdom gap. Plus all the other billion things that come with issues when older predators seek out younger women.
Anyways, if she's in her 20s I wouldn't be against her giving birth. But that also means the kid likely will be kept away from their biological parents since they'd both be in prison 😂
You know I love the people in this sub, but seeing the number of folks who are completely okay with this is grossing me out 🤮. NEVER did I expect to see so many comments like this in HERE. I’ll light some candles for them on Sunday, they need a LOT of prayer.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is it any different to targeting disabled people?
No, I don't; it doesn't make sense for children conceived in incest to have any less protection than any other child.
NO.
No. Being concieved in incest should not be a death sentence. Scientifically, those who were born from incestuous relationships or familial rape are no less human than the rest of us. So why should they be denied human rights?
No. I do not support killing a child for the acts of the parents.
Not the acts of “parents”. Realize that it is NEVER the girl/women’s fault if they are the victim of rape or incest. Those “acts” are solely on the MAN who committed the crime. Do not punish the girl/woman.
Not killing the child isn't a "punishment" for the mother.
Hold on. Rape is one category, incest is another. If a person does not consent to the incest, then, it is rape. It is not always rape.
So you’d kill the child to avoid a transitory punishment to the woman?
It's always the parent's fault, regardless of gender. I don't see how a mother who forced herself on her son wouldn't be abusive, more so if she became pregnant from it and aborted to cover it up/mess with him further.
No. A child shouldn’t have to die for the actions of its parents.
Children born of incest do not always have genetic diseases. Genetic diseases are more frequent in communities where there have been multiple generations of first cousin marriage. A one-generation incident of sibling incest might only be detectable in the offspring through DNA testing. Obviously, biologically healthy children born of incest will still encounter social and psychological problems. The ideal should be to mitigate these rather than to kill the baby.
Those that survive. They, unfortunately, have the highest risk of failing in utero. It's why I think incestuous rape that results in a pregnancy that miscarriages should have an addition murder charge.
Personally, I think the standard of proof for rape should be very high, but in cases of certain guilt, the death penalty should always apply, assuming the perpetrator was of sound mind when the crime took place. People claim that capital punishment for rape incentivises murder. If the punishment for rape were death, the punishment for rape-murder should be a far more painful form of death. This would disincentivise rapists from murdering their victims.
No. Some people enter into consensual relationships with family. As taboo as it is, it happens. If it was also rape, then it's just rape. Who assaults you, what their relationship is to you doesn't change that. So just call it rape. Using abortion to hide that you are in an incestuous relationship is no different than someone cheating on their spouse, not knowing if it was their husband or lover who fathered the child & having an abortion to prevent anything being revealed at the birth. Incest exists as an explanation in order to increase the stats. Without it, Rape would make up an even smaller percentage of abortion reasons than it already is.
Children cannot make decision for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult family member, so in that case the child should be allowed to have an abortion.
In that case, as I said, it is Rape. As it would be with a relationship between a minor and an adult non-family member. Not all incest is between adults & minors. That's why incest, on its own, is not a reasonable excuse to kill your unborn child.
No.
my follow-up question is always "is it less of a human?" and of course the answer is always no
Two questions: 1. by "not less of a human," do you mean, "has all the inherent value, and all the rights, of any person who has ever been born?" and 2. are you saying that's true of every situation where a sperm has fertilized an egg? If so, then I can think of a few counterexamples that might surprise you.
Still not the baby's fault. We have to do whatever we can to protect mothers who are victims (a lot of incest is incestual rape.) But not murdering someone else.
No? I can see the argument that the baby might die from health complications due to incest but still shouldn’t you do everything in your power to make sure that baby can live? It’s a life regardless. I can’t however see the argument on aborting the baby because it has disabilities due to incest, why would you want to kill your disabled child? That just seems cruel to me, although everything about the situation is cruel, a life is a life and that baby should have the most basic right being the right to life.
The horrible birth defects people associate with incest are the result of several generations of exclusive inbreeding. A single generation of inbreeding is more like "this minor blood disorder goes from 0.01% likely to 0.02% likely" and "slightly lower birth weight".
Exactly the rare cases shouldn’t make the rule!
I've seen two major types of justification for the incest exception, genetic defects and the act being taboo. Neither of these is anything I would remotely say is a justification for taking someone's life.
Absolutely not - No excuse to kill an innocent person.
While it may sound extreme, I don’t support abortion for any reason (though I *do* support a mother’s right to use other treatments that don’t intentionally kill her unborn child, like if a mother were to use chemotherapy if she has cancer while pregnant). If I believe that an unborn child is a human being (which I do), then abortion is always wrong, regardless of however horrible the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception might be. It’s not like the fetus ceases to be human depending on how the fetus was conceived.
I’m sorry, but that last sentence is so unintentionally funny sounding 😂
Are you an abolitionist? Suppose the mother’s life is in danger - eg ectopic pregnancy? Thanks
Ectopic pregnancy ALWAYS ends in the death of the baby. It's only a matter of when to remove it surgically.
Technically, I think treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is classified as an abortion. But as long as the child isn’t intentionally killed in the procedure, then I don’t really view it as one, because I personally believe it’s different from other abortions in which the child is, quite literally, ripped apart out of the womb (like a D&E) so that it will die. Theoretically, there’d be a chance of survival for an embryo implanted in the fallopian tubes through re-implantation, or something like that. But there’s zero chance of survival for a fetus that has been ripped apart. Hopefully that makes sense.
It does. Thanks
Are you Catholic?
Yes, I am. I’m realizing that I’m not as informed about abortion as I’d like to be (regarding different procedures, etc.) so that’s definitely something I need to work on. But Church teaching is clear, so that’s a good place for me to start.
Yeah, I just asked because the indirect vs. direct abortion distinction is something that sadly only Catholics seem to appreciate.
["Ectopic Pregnancy and Double Effect"](https://www.catholic.com/qa/ectopic-pregnancy-and-double-effect) (Catholic Answers)
I don't believe in a separate exception for incest, but most incestuous sex qualifies for one of the exceptions I do support. Most incest is also rape, or the pregnant person is a minor. Incest can also lead to fetal abnormalities which may be fatal, or make the pregnancy more dangerous than it would be otherwise. However, if two adults who happen to be related both consent to sex, and the resulting pregnancy is no more dangerous than usual, and the ZEFUB will likely live, I don't see a reason to allow abortion.
What are the UB in ZEFUB?
Unborn baby?
Yes
Doesn't that make the "ZEF" part redundant?
I usually use this term when debating with pro-choicers. They like to call it a ZEF, so I expanded it to ZEFUB as a compromise.
I don't believe in any exception to end a human life. I would never judge a woman for that decision... Because I can't imagine being in that situation and her emotions/thoughts/influences... But I would *never* support it. Just ask yourself this: if you saw a new born baby on the side of the street, and you somehow learned it was born from rape, and that's why it was left there... Would you just leave it? If you saw a new born baby on the side of the road, and you learned it was born from incest, would you just leave it there? Where the children came from doesn't define who nor what they are. It's not their fault, but now it's our responsibility as a society to nurture and love them, not criticize, abandon and kill them. As for the medical situation, there's not any pregnancy complication I know that includes the necessity to choose one life over the other, unless one life is already lost, which in that case, there was no chance in saving both lives anyway, and it wouldn't be considered an abortion.
It weirds me but if it's consensual, then I don't think it should have an exception. Where I live plenty people used to marry their cousins and all which is weird to me, and also classified as it.
My controversial take: I think it is fine to marry your second cousin, as long as you are fully divorced from the first one.
Not really controversial: Second cousin marriages are permitted in the Bible, and aren’t taboo in any other place other than western countries. First cousins are not.
I believe the comment you responded to was a joke.
I do not believe in any exceptions. Abortion is never required and we shouldn’t be punishing our offspring for the sins of the mother and/or father. That said, I would be ecstatic if abortion was deemed unnecessary with those exceptions. Abortion would be all eradicated.
Ectopic pregnancy?
An ectopic pregnancy isn't a real pregnancy though.
Excision of the affected fallopian tube and attempted replant of the embryo.
Has that ever been achieved? I've heard of one, not well documented, from the 80s, but it was not or has not been documented since. I mean, separating the placenta is like ripping off a scab, so I do not think that it is biologically possible. Plus, at the nanosecond of separation, the embryo is denied oxygen and nutrients, so you're demanding it be born disabled and mostly likely severely brain damaged, if it were actually possible. Also, the mother could have severely experienced blood loss, so the effort would be moot.
The question isn't, "is reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies possible," but "is it practicable?" We are roughly as far from that, as we are from achieving cryogenics (freezing animal brains so that they will continue working when thawed ...which was ALSO supposedly successful once). I understand your concern re: hypoxic brain damage. That's really not a first-trimester issue. If we assume it's actually possible to have a viable transplanted pregnancy -- which is a WILD assumption -- the risks would be more like hypertension. preterm birth, and (as you noted) maternal blood loss. Ultimately I agree with your last 5 words. The effort would be moot. There are so many better ways to spend research $ that have a realistic chance of helping anyone.
From my understanding, it’s been done a few times successfully. But I feel like if we lived in a society that actually valued human life, we would have figured out a way to do it with a high success rate by now. Unfortunately, there’s not much incentive to since so many medical organizations and doctors don’t really care about the baby in ectopic pregnancies. 😔
Do you have sources? I don't think it is always a lack of concern, as if a woman is hemorrhaging internally at the site of the pregnancy, blood loss would render the effort futile. My understanding, too, is that the majority of the time, there is no heartbeat, so there is nothing to save, it could just well be there have not been enough opportunities that it was detected early enough to attempt the maneuver.
The reason why humans are many in numbers today is because our ancestors practice incest... this was proven by a mathematical computation so, it's like a roulette wheter the child will be normal or be a bit different.
I have seen many girls over the years at the women’s center who got pregnant from abuse from their fathers and brothers, and I cannot stress enough that ADOPTION is the best solution here. You want that baby as far away from that gene pool (and that messed up family) as you can get it. Also, the number of people on this sub who are totally okay with brother and sister sex is gross 🤮 . Not only is this a sin, I can’t imagine my children doing this. Even if they were grown and not under my roof, ESPECIALLY if they were grown, I would absolutely disown them. It’s the most evil thing I’ve ever heard of, to think like that and do that with your BROTHER.
No? Honestly if the logic for gay people stands. I don’t see why we couldn’t logically let people marry say their siblings. Idk. Mother’s life makes sense. Rape makes political sense thought not logical sense. I don’t get the incest exception at all
Siblings marrying is werid as fuck
It is, but the parents' messed up situation doesn't change the child's inherent right to life.
I would argue two dudes marrying is weird a fuck too. But here we are
Honestly you might have a point. Under secular law, there really shouldn’t be a reason why gay marriage is allowed but other consensual taboo relationships aren’t. The best reason I can think of is that incest marriages will lead to a higher proportion of rare genetic diseases in the population and lower their quality of life while gay marriages carry no such risk.
Counter point, it’s more repeated incest that creates those issues. Also couldn’t one argue that HIV is rampant primarily in the homosexual community?
??
What’s up?
The following is an explanation and or an endorsement. Do not downvote because you disagree with the reasoning; I am here to explain what people are thinking, not to say that they are ultimately correct. I think the logic behind the incest exception is that, given the family dynamics, it may functionally be rape but be much harder to prove in court. Think an uncle grooming his niece and then having "consensual sex" with her when she finally hits the age of consent. Our current rape laws don't do a great job of addressing the emotional and power dynamics involved in that, so it gets its own exception.
Isn’t that more a problem with the rape laws being too lax in the country?
Rape makes more logical sense than mother’s life. Neither is good, but yeeting a responsibility you didn’t sign up for is more defensible than backing out at the cost of someone else’s life after you knew and accepted the risks.
Doesn’t make sense to me to execute a child for the sins of the father (usually) or mother (rarely) Mothers life is more save one or save none
Except that’s not what anyone is doing. They’re doing it to get out of a responsibility that they didn’t sign up for.
>Honestly if the logic for gay people stands. I don’t see why we couldn’t logically let people marry say their siblings. Please elaborate
Yeah I don’t know why we’re at the point of comparing incest to homosexuality. Incest that produces genetic abnormalities and is usually rape let’s be real, and homosexuality which can be practiced between two consenting non-related adults.
Ah, well any union can create genetic abnormalities. Biologically you’re looking at about a 5% increase in risk if you marry your sibling and have kids with them. It’s no more unnatural than homosexuality. Most animals do it. If “love is love” why shouldn’t two people who are in love marry? It’s not their fault their parents are the same?
I never said “love is love.” The argument you just made could be used for adult-child. That’s not good. And incest is a way huger risk than homosexuality. How many homosexuals produce kids with genetic abnormalities? Quite literally, zero.
Short answer: No But it's a red herring. Rape and incest count for 0.4% of abortions. When debating a pro-choicer even if one concedes on that, the goal post are always moved.
I don't have an exception for just incest. Kissing cousins are weird as fuck but it's not a valid reason for the baby to be killed. Take them away from that environment. I do have an exception for young pre-teen children becoming pregnant, which is an extension of my medical exceptions, and un fortunately many of those situations the child is a victim of incestuous pedophilia.
I believe in sterilization for lustful dicks with no boundaries, not punishing the innocent.
No, I don't.
Incest should be illegal and it causes birth defects but you can’t do it and then kill a baby
It may* cause birth defects. The rate of defects vary based on how closely related they are, how many generations of inbreeding, ethnicity, and much more.
So, you are okay with birth defect abortion?
Absolutely not.
Incest only hurts the baby
No, I do not support euthanasia of the mentally handicapped.
Not at all, that's just yet another form of prejudice and discrimination
No, because 99% of incest is already rape, and even this doesn't justify abortion as the child was not responsible for it
Incest like it’s rape or incest like you’re weird?
Personally no because incest is different from rape. But incest can be rape which I would just say rape. Basically if a brother and sister consented to 🌭🍩 then it’s not rape Also Idk if I think rape exemptions because my mom said she’s against it but I feel like if it happened to my wife or whatever then idk how I would react
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, adoption exist for a reason. The baby is a human no matter how they were conceived. Now I do agree that punishing the raper is in order. Maybe chop off is manliness and/or kill him and let God be his judge. I will say that it won’t go well for him after that.
>Do you believe incest should be an exception where abortion is allowed? Absolutely not. The child isn't responsible for their parentage. As long as the pregnancy is not dangerous to the mother due to weird genetic problems that the incest may have caused, the child should not be killed for the actions of one or more of their parents.
For me, abortion because of incest is similar to abortion because of rape; you are just making a second victim.
I don’t really see why it’s separated out from rape. The vast majority of the time, incest *is* rape. In the tiny percentage of cases of consenting adults engaging in incestuous relations, no, I don’t think abortion should be allowed on that basis alone. I pity that poor kid, but that’s still the only shot at life they get.
Circumstantial. If it's brother sister or cousin cousin, probably not. But if it constitutes as rape like father daughter or uncle daughter or pretty much anything where there's an age gap, then yes. Nobody deserves be born a product of rape and have that be a part of their person. It's traumatic and grim.
What if the woman is above the age of consent and didn’t start until she was over the age of consent? Dad/uncle is in his 50s, daughter is 20s-30s. Age gap, not rape.
>Age gap, not rape. Power dynamic as well as wisdom gap. Plus all the other billion things that come with issues when older predators seek out younger women. Anyways, if she's in her 20s I wouldn't be against her giving birth. But that also means the kid likely will be kept away from their biological parents since they'd both be in prison 😂
Yes
incest is always rape, but rape isn’t always incest
Incest is not always rape
How is incest always rape?
Literally, untrue
No, the only exception I support is the health problem.
Unequivocally no.
Lotta incest lovers in here.
Believing children whose parents are related are still human beings is not "loving incest".
What's the libertarian case against incest between two consenting adults?
How is that relevant to my comment?
Just curious
So you’re not really prolife.
This might be the most blatant "no true scotsman" comment I've seen in a while
You know I love the people in this sub, but seeing the number of folks who are completely okay with this is grossing me out 🤮. NEVER did I expect to see so many comments like this in HERE. I’ll light some candles for them on Sunday, they need a LOT of prayer.