"He has the right to be here."

[musterion]

Raped woman refuses abortion, cherishes 3 year old son.

http://christiannews.net/2018/03/30...eived-in-rape-speaks-before-iowa-legislature/

Jennifer Christie-Brierly was attacked in a hotel room in 2014 and was raped during the assault. She refused to abort her child after learning that she was pregnant, and now speaks out on behalf of babies who are conceived in rape, as she stated on March 20, who are “targeted, it seems, for eradication.”

“This doesn’t make sense to me because the Supreme Court has already decided that for a rapist to be punished with death is considered cruel and unusual punishment, and yet somehow, somehow we are okay with killing the children who are not even in existence at the time the crime was committed,” Christie-Brierly lamented.

Excellent point.

Some of the responses she's gotten from pro-aborts:

“I’m not sure why you bothered to share. Or why you’re parading yourself around as some great, moral person. This isn’t just about YOU. You had a child who will know he came from rape. He may be okay with that, he may not. Congratulations. (Sound horrible? So does your attitude about other survivors who make different choices than you.)”

“I hope she keeps in mind when the kid turns into the same as the man who infected her with a rape child and turns into a rapist, that is partially on her.”

“. . . there was no rational reason to allow this animal’s spawn to walk the earth.”

“Maybe when he punched her in the face there was some brain damage.”

“People with this mentality feel free to get the f*** off my planet! Coat hanger that walnut sized rapist DNA deposit.”

“What kind of ‘man’ would raise another man’s rape baby?? These people are f***ed in the head. I hate sharing the world with f***ing idiots.”

“What a whack-job. Her husband’s a coward and she’s a freakin psycho. I would terminate the s**t out of that raper spawn of Satan. What a sick and twisted family.”

“That baby has the same genes as the man who attacked you and gave you what you call a blessing. That child is not from God but from Satan.”

“So getting pregnant from rape is a gift from God? By religious logic men should rape more women. These people are crazy.”

“This whole article is tooth achingly smugly self righteous”

“That little boy should have died because he did not belong to your husband. What hell does God have in store for you and your bastard?”

https://www.liveaction.org/news/my-son-was-conceived-in-rape-but-he-was-not-a-mistake/

http://voicesunborn.blogspot.com/2016/03/think-this-woman-should-be-dead-amnesty.html

Also...

https://www.gofundme.com/h3b4h

 

[The Barbarian]

Jennifer Christie-Brierly was attacked in a hotel room in 2014 and was raped during the assault. She refused to abort her child after learning that she was pregnant, and now speaks out on behalf of babies who are conceived in rape, as she stated on March 20, who are “targeted, it seems, for eradication.”

It's an awful thing to be assaulted sexually. Kudos to this mom for being able to move past that and to fully accept and love her child, who after all, is innocent of the awful crime of the father.

 

[musterion]

Well this is a first. Agreed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well this is a first. Agreed.

I think that you're probably a pretty decent person, when ideology doesn't get in the way. This woman is a saint, as good an imitation of Christ as I can imagine.

A weaker or less good person could have easily hated the child in her womb and aborted it. That she was strong and loving enough to do the right thing is a shining example for every one of us.

 

[musterion]

Her comment raises once again the important philosophical question.

Why is it okay to murder a child conceived by rape in the interest of convenience, but not kill a rapist in the interest of justice?

 

[The Barbarian]

Her comment raises once again the important philosophical question.

Why is it okay to murder a child conceived by rape in the interest of convenience, but not kill a rapist in the interest of justice?

I don't think it's justified in either case. Life comes from God and a human life is precious to Him. So ending a human life for whatever means is a deadly sin unless a greater evil would come of not ending the life.

For example, killing a person in self-defense is justifiable. There are just wars where force is necessary to prevent greater evil. Ending the life of an unborn child would be much harder to justify, although there are conceivable cases where it would be the best of a number of bad alternatives.

Humans have always taken life too lightly. Except each of us for our own, of course. There are far too many people saying "this one needed killing." Jesus seems to have always leaned to the side of mercy, even challenging the letter of the Law, in order to have mercy on (for example) an adulterous woman.

Everything He did was an example for us to follow. Life is not to be taken lightly, and unborn life is no different.

I understand that there are those who don't think life really exists until one is born. Scientifically, that makes no sense at all. As Carl Sagan remarked, once there's a functioning nervous system,(around the end of the first trimester) it would seem that ending it is taking a human life.

And Sagan had no religious convictions.

 

[The Horn]

This was her choice and her right . However, the state should not try to force any woman in such terrible circumstances to bear that child against her will . To use her choice as an excuse to demand that all women who become pregnant bear children no matter what the adverse circumstances is wrong .
And remember- like it or not, abortion is still legal in America .

 

[The Barbarian]

like it or not, abortion is still legal in America .

So was slavery at one time. What she had a legal right to do, and what she should have done, were two different things. Which she realized, fortunately.

If a child is conceived under horrifying circumstances, that is not license to kill the child.

 

[The Horn]

Slavery & abortion ? False equivalency . No one in America forces women to have abortions . Certainly not the government . If anything, making abortion illegal again in America would be more like slavery . It would be reducing women to baby-making machines and robbing them of their freedom to control their bodies, lives, health and futures .

 

[The Barbarian]

Slavery & abortion ? False equivalency . No one in America forces women to have abortions.

No one forced a slaveowner to sell his slave, or steal his labor, either. You see, there are two people involved in these issues.

I can understand when someone thinks there's only one person in these two situations, or perhaps in one of the two. I don't agree with it, but I do realilze that some people think so.

But what we believe may be tragically wrong, and cause great evil.

Certainly not the government . If anything, making abortion illegal again in America would be more like slavery .

There was abortion before it was legal. It was just more accessible to those who had the money to seek it out safely. Just like now.

The answer is not more law; the answer is to change people. And that's happening. Pro-life sentiment is gathering in America. And that matters more than government.

 

[The Horn]

Barbarian , "pro-life sentiment " isn't going to stop abortion . Nothing will . Except for preventing unwanted pregnancies . There is no other way to do this . So why are most anti-choicers opposed to the government providing better health care for women and making sure they always have easy access to contraceptives , and see to that once pregnant, they will get the medical care they need and will be able to provide for those children ?

 

[john w]

Her comment raises once again the important philosophical question.

Why is it okay to murder a child conceived by rape in the interest of convenience, but not kill a rapist in the interest of justice?

And we don't allow the mother to kill the rapist, the one who did the crime, to make her "feel better." Why should we then let her kill the child?That is, should we allow the mother to summarily kill the guilty rapist if he was caught, so she would feel better? Then why should she be allowed to kill the innocent child to feel better?

So, re. the trauma experienced by rape victims: when someone reminds you of something extremely painful, you can eliminate them, have them "wacked?"? But you can't kill another human being just because their existence, living, makes your life physically, or emotionally burdensome, or distresses you. I am not allowed to wack the wolves/wolf-ette's on TOL, that cause me pain, trauma, distress, am I?

The issue boils down to human rights, as everything is just a smoke screen, misdirection. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby, the "little one," has the same right to life as any child born by parents, whether they are loving parents, or "fall short" of being Ward and June Cleaver, or Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, perhaps being "The Bundy's." Only the Nazis would/did punish a child for the crimes of his, or her father.So shuck this Roe v. Wade ruling, the most vile , unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the recent alleged "modern," "cultured" era of ours, that is no different than the equally wicked Dred Scott decision, in which a pre-Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons,and hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution .

A more "progressive, enlightened, cultured, sophisticated" society, culture, in which we live, people muse? Sure. No, a society that allows the "little ones" to be butchered,wacked, is treachery to both the just cause, duty, of protecting the innocent, those that cannot defend themselves, and heaven itself.

I ought to be ashamed....we all ought to be ashamed...



Isaiah 5:20 KJV Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[john w]

This was her choice and her right . However, the state should not try to force any woman in such terrible circumstances to bear that child against her will . To use her choice as an excuse to demand that all women who become pregnant bear children no matter what the adverse circumstances is wrong .
And remember- like it or not, abortion is still legal in America .

So, "terrible circumstances" is your justification for wacking a child, who cannot defend themselves? So, you argue that it should not be illegal to kill a toddler, already born, if the mother is in a tough circumstance? Is that it?

 

[musterion]

So, "terrible circumstances" is your justification for wacking a child, who cannot defend themselves? So, you argue that it should not be illegal to kill a toddler, already born, if the mother is in a tough circumstance? Is that it?

Once started, there is no point in the inevitable chain of logic for them to reasonably say "Okay, whoa, we've gone far enough." They set the precedent - if they want to stop, someone who wants to go further only has to toss back in their faces their own arguments that got them this far. That'd be impossible to dispute.

Of course this assumes there is a point at which they'd stop. I think we all know there isn't.

 

[Tambora]

This was her choice and her right . However, the state should not try to force any woman in such terrible circumstances to bear that child against her will . To use her choice as an excuse to demand that all women who become pregnant bear children no matter what the adverse circumstances is wrong .
And remember- like it or not, abortion is still legal in America .

What about the actual argument being made in the OP?
Why is it unacceptable to kill the offending one, but OK to kill the innocent one?

 

[Tambora]

So, "terrible circumstances" is your justification for wacking a child,

That's it right there.
What does it say about the morality of a society that claims a solution to unfortunate circumstances is to murder innocent children?

 

[Tambora]

Barbarian , "pro-life sentiment " isn't going to stop abortion . Nothing will . Except for preventing unwanted pregnancies . There is no other way to do this . So why are most anti-choicers opposed to the government providing better health care for women and making sure they always have easy access to contraceptives , and see to that once pregnant, they will get the medical care they need and will be able to provide for those children ?

Here's a common sense method that would ensure all those women would not need those ------- keep your legs closed.
It's been proven 100% effective for centuries.