Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[Alceste]

If someone needed a kidney to live and you were a donor match, and a third party without the knowledge of either party rendered you unconscious and transferred your kidney, would you have a moral right to cut the kidney back out and kill the person? Should you have a legal right?

We aren't talking about people. Fetuses utterly lack the necessary equipment for sentience, self-awareness and physical sensation until about 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Is something with no sense of self, no sensation, no awareness, no intelligence, no desires or aspirations, etc. the same thing as a living person?

No. It isn't. It's something else. Not yet a person, but no longer a separate sperm and egg. There are words for what it is throughout the entire process, but it isn't a "person" until it's born. Until it is viable without the mother's body, it's more of a parasite.

 

[Me Myself]

We aren't talking about people. Fetuses utterly lack the necessary equipment for sentience, self-awareness and physical sensation until about 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Is something with no sense of self, no sensation, no awareness, no intelligence, no desires or aspirations, etc. the same thing as a living person?

Phh. An adult dog is smarter than a newborn, yet we wouldn´t say a newborn is less of a person than an adult dog. The dog has more refined and defined desires, sensations, awareness, aspirations, emotions, etc than the newborn.

We value the baby over the dog because it is a human. It is the basic value of human life.

 

[Alceste]

Phh. An adult dog is smarter than a newborn, yet we wouldn´t say a newborn is less of a person than an adult dog. The dog has more refined and defined desires, sensations, awareness, aspirations, emotions, etc than the newborn.

We value the baby over the dog because it is a human. It is the basic value of human life.

I'm not going to argue about this issue any more with people who can not ever become pregnant or give birth themselves. It's totally pointless. I've learned from these discussions that many, if not most, anti-choice men completely lack any capacity for empathy with women.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not going to argue about this issue any more with people who can not ever become pregnant or give birth themselves. In most cases, it's totally pointless. Many men completely lack any capacity for empathy.

Valuing human life = no empathy.

Sure

Just because I cannot kill in such fashion does not mean I cannot see said killing is not magically okay.

 

[crossfire]

Phh. An adult dog is smarter than a newborn, yet we wouldn´t say a newborn is less of a person than an adult dog. The dog has more refined and defined desires, sensations, awareness, aspirations, emotions, etc than the newborn.

We value the baby over the dog because it is a human. It is the basic value of human life.

You are implying that an adult female is less of a person than a blastocyte.

 

[NIX]

For many, empathy for a concept- an idea of a human life- is far easier to grant/find than empathy for a woman.
Some people relate better to ideas- and causes, than they do to the people in general.
Perhaps it is easier to love the idea of a new perfect life, than it is to love an actual person complete with flaws, hurts, and personal desires and needs.

 

[crossfire]

For many, empathy for a concept- an idea of a human life- is far easier to grant/find than empathy for a woman.

I have to spread some more frubals around before I can frubal you again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone needed a kidney to live and you were a donor match, and a third party without the knowledge of either party rendered you unconscious and transferred your kidney, would you have a moral right to cut the kidney back out and kill the person? Should you have a legal right?

Interesting question, but I realized that you're setting up an apples-to-oranges comparison: your hypothetical deals with how we should respond after a violation of bodily security has been committed; the question of abortion is about (among other things) whether a woman should be forced to endure an ongoing violation of her bodily security.

 

[Storm]

So, when my stepfather impregnated me at the age of 13, I should have been legally required to bear his child? I guess I ought to be grateful that he beat me into miscarriage, then.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

For many, empathy for a concept- an idea of a human life- is far easier to grant/find than empathy for a woman.
Some people relate better to ideas- and causes, than they do to the people in general.
Perhaps it is easier to love the idea of a new perfect life, than it is to love an actual person complete with flaws, hurts, and personal desires and needs.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

I wish pro-lifers would at least admit that the "life" represented by a fetus is a unique form of life in that it's still inside another being, and that being deserves to be considered relevant in this matter. The way pro-life propaganda doesn't mention the mother, or acts like these glowing fetuses are simply floating around in space somewhere, creeps me out.

If I'm guilty of dehumanizing a fetus or blastocyst by not calling it a "human," then I'm just recognizing that it hasn't been born yet. Like you said, it's preferable to dehumanizing an adult female by forcing her to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

-Nato

 

[Storm]

44% of rape victims are under the age of 18 (source).

Does it make any difference at all that, when you talk about rape and incest, you're talking about GIRLS, not women?

 

[Storm]

Wow, Mister Emu just came online, viewed this thread for approximately half an hour, then went offline again without replying. I suppose it's easier to advocate the 40-week extension of a thirteen year old's sexual violation when she's an anonymous statistic.

 

[Mister Emu]

Mister Emu was answering with thought but realized he didn't have proper time to respond with the dictates of work so left the screen up while he prepared.

 

[Storm]

Mister Emu was answering with thought but realized he didn't have proper time to respond with the dictates of work so left the screen up while he prepared.

The fact that you have to work that hard to think of what to say doesn't give you pause?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We aren't talking about people. Fetuses utterly lack the necessary equipment for sentience, self-awareness and physical sensation until about 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Is something with no sense of self, no sensation, no awareness, no intelligence, no desires or aspirations, etc. the same thing as a living person?

No. It isn't. It's something else. Not yet a person, but no longer a separate sperm and egg. There are words for what it is throughout the entire process, but it isn't a "person" until it's born. Until it is viable without the mother's body, it's more of a parasite.

While I agree with you that a fetus is not a person, I think it's interesting that the "bodily rights" argument in favour of the pro-choice position still works even if the fetus is deemed a person.

I think it illustrates that for the anti-choice position to work, they need to put forward an argument that gives a fetus rights and protections well beyond those of a normal person. If they don't do this, they're disregarding the rights of the mother.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

While I agree with you that a fetus is not a person, I think it's interesting that the "bodily rights" argument in favour of the pro-choice position still works even if the fetus is deemed a person.

I think it illustrates that for the anti-choice position to work, they need to either put forward an argument that gives a fetus rights and protections well beyond those of a normal person. If they don't do this, they're disregarding the rights of the mother.

It's telling when someone very easily says "so what?" when it comes to what a woman wants for her own body.

Because if a woman - or a girl - has no right to decide what she should do with her own body, it creates a perspective that her lack of rights of what she can and can't do with her own body extends to other areas.

How long did it take for marital rape to be recognized as a crime? You know....the thought that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what her husband can and can't put inside of her body?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's telling when someone very easily says "so what?" when it comes to what a woman wants for her own body.

Because if a woman - or a girl - has no right to decide what she should do with her own body, it creates a perspective that her lack of rights of what she can and can't do with her own body extends to other areas.

How long did it take for marital rape to be recognized as a crime? You know....the thought that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what her husband can and can't put inside of her body?

It's not just an issue for women, either. If women don't have the right to bodily security, then it's not a human right, period. I value my own bodily security, too. Even though I'll never be pregnant myself, attacks on abortion rights undermine rights that apply to me.

 

[crossfire]

It's not just an issue for women, either. If women don't have the right to bodily security, then it's not a human right, period. I value my own bodily security, too. Even though I'll never be pregnant myself, attacks on abortion rights undermine rights that apply to me.

Oh, you don't want government to implant monitoring chips in your body to make sure you are not imbibing illegal substances, going places they think you shouldn't be, or doing anything else they wouldn't be able to otherwise control? Good to hear! (I think we can cover you under the third amendment--no quartering of soldiers)

 

[NIX]

Just a reminder - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...i-choice-quesion-forced-gestation-forced.html

 

[Warren Clark]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

This is why it should not be over turned. Because by the time rape was proven the window for termination will be over.