OlDove said:
Is that because as a man you would rather have your "toy" or be dead? If you don't have a "toy" to harm anyone with, would a rapist still be dangerous?
Wow. You really have to do some reading up on the rapists and other scum in this country.
Rape isn't about sex, it's all about violence, power, and control...and a male sexual organ isn't the only weapon used by a rapist.
Allow me to give two graphic examples: Ted Bundy was one of the most prolific serial rapists and murderers this country has ever seen. John Wayne Gacy could hold his own as a violent pervert, as well. Both men used objects (pop bottles, large broken tree limbs, etc.) to violate their victims further. These are not the exceptions. If someone wants to commit that kind of torture, they will find a way.
As for rape and pregnancy...how can you possible claim to be pro-life, but then make this exception? If you are pro-life, presumably you believe a child has a right to live. Why would a child resulting from a violation have any less of a right lo live? The baby didn't commit the crime.
You then dragged money into it ("a rapist can't pay child support.") In essence, you say that child only has a right to live if there's money to pay for it. Do you then support sterilization of the poor? What a ridiculous premise for advocating the killing of a child.
The question becomes: do you really support life, or do you only support life when it isn't an inconvenience?