The more religious you are the less compassionate:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Who said I was blaming christians for her kidnapping? I was blaming christian anti-abortionists who talked her into having the baby of rape. And there was no help by anyone including the county victims unit after the child was born except for some food stamps.

your blaming someone for saving a life, do you realise how thoroughly contorted your
reasoning is? It was not her fault she was raped, it was not the child's fault that it was
the product of a rape, so your solution, we simply kill the child and everything will be
alright, how convenient for you. Your depriving someone of the right to life because of
a circumstance that was beyond his/her control, how thoroughly deviod of compassion,
how thoroughly deviod of anything other than spite.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-highly-religious-people-compassion-non-believers.html

My impression from the article was that nonreligious people were more likely to express generosity out of a sense of compassion than were religious people. With that said, I didn't get the sense (although please correct me if I'm wrong) that nonreligious people were more likely to express generosity overall than were religious people. Rather, religious people were more likely to express generosity for reasons other than "compassion."

So from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the big deal--ends are still ends, despite the means, even if a motivation of compassion would probably be more meaningful to everyone involved.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your blaming someone for saving a life, do you realise how thoroughly contorted your
reasoning is? It was not her fault she was raped, it was not the child's fault that it was
the product of a rape, so your solution, we simply kill the child and everything will be
alright, how convenient for you. Your depriving someone of the right to life be ...[text shortened]... rol, how thoroughly deviod of compassion,
how thoroughly deviod of anything other than spite.

I think abortion is always a tragedy, but particularly in the case of rape victims, I think the ends of outlawing abortion don't always justify the means.

If the government can require female rape victims to bear the physical and psychological burden of their assault for an extended amount of time, why shouldn't the government be allowed to require individuals to give their own food to the hungry, or their own medicine to the sick? Why shouldn't the government be allowed to require individuals to adopt orphaned children who are otherwise doomed to a cycle of poverty or violence?

And I don't really care for your argument that these types of cases only account for X percent of abortions, until you go tell a 14-year-old rape victim that the government has a right to force her to bear her child until delivery.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I think abortion is always a tragedy, but particularly in the case of rape victims, I think the ends of outlawing abortion don't always justify the means.

If the government can require female rape victims to bear the physical and psychological burden of their assault for an extended amount of time, why shouldn't the government be allowed to require ind d rape victim that the government has a right to force her to bear her child until delivery.

my stance is not political, but religious. I am a-political.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my stance is not political, but religious. I am a-political.

I think it is very difficult to compartmentalize religion and politics on an issue like this, but your point does give me pause. I'll repost later when I have more time.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I think it is very difficult to compartmentalize religion and politics on an issue like this, but your point does give me pause. I'll repost later when I have more time.

sure thing 🙂

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I am willing to agree to disagree, for the most part, with those who hold the view that abortion is morally unacceptable except in cases of rape or the endangerment of mothers.

I still don't think the means justify the end, in cases of rape. And again, I don't care if most abortions occur for "other reasons"; if you're going to argue for the legitimacy of abortion in cases of rape, you should have to tell a 14-year-old rape victim in person that she ought to be required to bear her child until delivery.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You do realize I was talking about the anti-abortionists, not other support groups, right? They could care less what happens to mom.

I think you are wrong. Quite a lot of anti-abortion groups support mothers.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I think he is speaking out of his arse.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I am willing to agree to disagree, for the most part, with those who hold the view that abortion is morally unacceptable except in cases of rape or the endangerment of mothers.

I still don't think the means justify the end, in cases of rape. And again, I don't care if most abortions occur for "other reasons"; if you're going to argue for the le ...[text shortened]... r-old rape victim in person that she ought to be required to bear her child until delivery.

So why don't they execute the father?? Because the punishment exceeds the crimes yet the child who never hurt noone gets death....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It was not her fault she was raped,

Exactly.

So doesn't this give her at least some heft on the moral considerability scale?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Exactly.

So doesn't this give her at least some heft on the moral considerability scale?

no one has the right to deprive another of life, regardless of the circumstances. Life is
sacrosanct.