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

[beenie]

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.

I usually stay out of these threads because they infuriate me beyond belief, but I stumbled across this and couldn't not post.

I'm so sorry this happened to you, Storm.

 

[Storm]

I usually stay out of these threads because they infuriate me beyond belief, but I stumbled across this and couldn't not post.

I'm so sorry this happened to you, Storm.

Thank you.

 

[beenie]

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

but (to me) it's crystal clear that this matter is all about sexually active females & males... being responsible enough to use safe sex preventative measures :help: to avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

Ok once again I had to post.

You think using preventative measures will prevent pregnancy?

Ask my first, third, fifth, and sixth child how they got here, please. . not so crystal clear anymore, is it?

 

[PRV357]

So in your opinion, :no: as long as you can convince 100% of rapists and pederasts to use safe sex preventative measures, properly, every time, we can go ahead and make abortion illegal? Good luck with that!

YOUR sarcastic rebuttal is NOT even remotely MY opinion in the first place...
NOR is it in context with the scenario of the post I'd actually responded to either

 

[PRV357]

Ok once again I had to post.

You think using preventative measures will prevent pregnancy?

Ask my first, third, fifth, and sixth child how they got here, please. . not so crystal clear anymore, is it?

well, since you just "HAD to post"?...
what's "not so crystal clear" about YOUR response...

since they're missing from your list... what happened with your 2nd & 4th child?...
also; perhaps you could explain how ANY of your kids could even have AN ACTUAL memory of how they were conceived, please?...
by that I obviously mean; OTHER than what they've been told

 

[Indira]

Every country in the world is using an exponential growth economic model, bar none. And no, I don't live in the US.

Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees?

Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates - Forbes

"When I first became prime minister in 1959, more than 62,000 babies were born that year—and Singapore’s population was half that of today’s. Low fertility and an aging population are two of our greatest concerns. In the future we will have to depend on immigrants to make up our numbers, for without them Singapore will face the prospect of a shrinking workforce and a stagnant economy. Fewer young *people means fewer new cars, stereos, computers, iPhones, iPads and clothes will be sold, not to mention that there will be fewer customers to partake in fine dining—and all the ancillary businesses."

Well, I get your point and I hope you weren`t under the impression this current mass of materialistic, self destructive human beings wouldn`t implode eventually.

 

[PRV357]

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.

in context with the title of this thread; "abortion ONLY for rape, incest, or life of the mother"...

I'd consider your stepfather's abuse as BOTH incest & pedophilia/rape...
even if he wasn't a biological parent, he was still supposed to be in that role...
& had absolutely no right to force himself upon you, by raping or beating you up

 

[averageJOE]

No, not sure how you got that from my post..Ummm..`Force`of choice of any human condition is not beneficial. Especially so for social manipulations for political control and/or financial greed.

Understood. Thanks.

 

[averageJOE]

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

but (to me) it's crystal clear that this matter is all about sexually active females & males... being responsible enough to use safe sex preventative measures :help: to avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

I'm sure that the first thing on a rapist mind is safe sex.
(I can't believe I used the word rapist and safe sex in the same sentence)

 

[Alceste]

Well, I get your point and I hope you weren`t under the impression this current mass of materialistic, self destructive human beings wouldn`t implode eventually.

Not for the last twenty years. The fact that growth-based economics was bound to fail was the first thing I noticed about the world. Nevertheless, much like faith in God, most people believe in infinite exponential growth regardless of the impossibility of it, and behave as if it is real.

 

[Mister Emu]

Hyperbole?

Yes, as in, there is no way outside of wild exaggeration to equate Pro-life laws with axlotl tanks.

Why do you get the right to have your body be the boundary against force and pregnant women do not?

I have no more bodily rights than women.

And how effective is that?

Do you apply this logic consistently?

I would consider ample evidence to the contrary as attempting to use reason and persuasion in a manner that acknowledges the personhood of the pregnant woman and their ability to come to rational conclusions regarding their pregnancy, rather than the use of force and removal of any choice or sovereignty over their bodies.

You define the evidence out of existence. To be Pro-life, as I understand it, is to hold to the idea that life deserves legal protection. In the final line you require for this evidence that one resign from being Pro-life in a meaningful way.

Mister emu, you seen to feel you can avoid all serious thought on the subject by simply calling a miscarriage a "death" and claiming that miscarrying a pregnancy on purpose is "wrong".

Ah, because I do not accede to the acceptability of abortion I am absent earnest appraisal, though apparently my ability to alliterate is not afflicted.

Morality is a social contract. What's "right" is what most people in any given society would agree is moral. Obviously your opinion on whether or not abortion is wrong differs from the majority

You spoke of insanity in moral ideology? Tyranny, slavery, genocide, war crimes, have been moral?

Are the current state bans on homosexual marriage moral?

Do you place any value on moral action?

On that subject, you are very much in the minority.

Though it be Emu Contra Mundum...

risk their lives

If a pregnancy poses such an ascertainable threat to the mother that a doctor fears for her life would allow for legal, if not moral, leeway.

So seeing as we will never agree, I have a suggestion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion.

Nobody who offers that suggestion would subscribe to it themselves...

For all the talk of understanding and empathy, I think such a statement betrays a lack of it. You simply don't and/or can't see the issue from a Pro-life view to say that.

Would you have said that Frederick Douglass? "If you don't like slavery don't own someone"?

How would you respond to a conservative Christian offering as a suggestion "If you don't like that marriage is between a man and a woman, don't get married"?

I won't think of you as an evil man.

Wouldn't that have to go up for a vote

He is unquestionably a person, and an innocent person. So should you be forced by the government to stay plugged up to this individual for nine months? Or should you have the right to decide for yourself?

I was thinking of bringing a scenario like this up, but chose a less drastic one. I had only one alteration and that was the only method of disconnecting yourself was to shoot the person in the head, to account for surgical abortion directly killing the developing child.

I would say not only do you not have a moral right to kill said violinist, you have a moral obligation to not kill him.

At the risk of muddying things even more with another analogy

Muddy waters are the best, and I think we are going to dance around analogies...

Because I'd liken it more to the thief being gone and an unconscious kid who saw him breaking in being left there, and you decide to throw the unconscious kid into the subzero winter weather to die.

Exactly: whatever rights the fetus has - if it has any at all - they end the moment the fetus represents an infringement on the rights of the mother.

This is why I specifically said a hierarchy of rights. The child's right to live, the most basic and therefore top of the hierarchy, compels protection against any direct act against it by the mother for sake of her rights excepting her own life.

Just as I at 35 don't have the right to compel my mother to donate bone marrow, blood, or even a hair on her head to save my life, the rights of the fetus don't compel the woman in that case to provide her body.

Even if we decide to grant the fetus the rights of personhood, we do not consider the right to violate the bodily security of another as one of the rights of personhood.

Edit: based on the principle you just gave, if we grant normal human rights to both the woman and the fetus, the woman wins. That's why I say you're disregarding the rights of the woman.

I agree with you except your conclusion.

There is no right for anyone to positively demand a portion of another's body, even to provide for life saving measures.

Neither can we, except in the commission of crime and following due process, positively demand death.

The obvious difference between a fetus and an actual person is that a fetus lacks the qualities (sapience, sentience, the capacity for emotion, the ability to reason, etc.) that define personhood.

I disagree with your criterion for personhood.

How would the pro-life position respond if a woman....or in this case a 13 year old girl.....who feels doubly violated for gestating a fetus against her will?

I'm unsure what you mean by how would the position respond... the position is a concept, it would be pro-life people who respond., and ideally they would respond with care, empathy, kindness and support.

Calling a blastocyst a child - or, "life" - is an argument to emotion.

Child I'll give you, but no more than the more clinical and distancing terms blastocyst, embryo and fetus... Life, that's what it is, specifically human life.

Or would you have shamed her into carrying the fetus to term at her risk?

I certainly wouldn't shame a 13 year old girl who is pregnant from rape into anything, but I don't support abortions period, that is a personal belief. For the sake of life though... I've already answered that one above.

 

[PRV357]

I'm sure that the first thing on a rapist mind is safe sex.
(I can't believe I used the word rapist and safe sex in the same sentence)

:areyoucra your sarcasm is not the first to be posted, in such a ridiculous rebuttal

 

[Sunstone]

but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby

How about a reasonable distaste for your careless indulgence in the fallacy of appealing to emotion?

 

[NIX]

Yet, would you have supported her getting an abortion at 13 because she would be gestating a fetus that she not only did not want, but could irreparably harm her at her age? Or would you have shamed her into carrying the fetus to term at her risk?

As this issue is concerned particularly, a frightening number of people have a conveniently myopic idea of what it means to destroy a life.

 

[Storm]

in context with the title of this thread; "abortion ONLY for rape, incest, or life of the mother"...

I'd consider your stepfather's abuse as BOTH incest & pedophilia/rape...
even if he wasn't a biological parent, he was still supposed to be in that role...
& had absolutely no right to force himself upon you, by raping or beating you up

There's more to context than the thread title. Try reading the preceding posts.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, as in, there is no way outside of wild exaggeration to equate Pro-life laws with axlotl tanks.

So it is hyperbole when I use it, but not hyperbole when you use it?

Hey, you got it. Addendum, as long as that miscarriage necessitates death. When we have the technology to preserve the pregnancy outside of the uterus, by all means, don't have the child.

I have no more bodily rights than women.

You have the right to decide whether to welcome an unknown person found in your dwelling as guest or to deem this unknown person as an intruder, and expel them no? That right that is being threatened to be taken away from women.

Do you apply this logic consistently?

As far as governmental power is concerned regarding mature persons of sound mind, yes. I am quite libertarian. Do you agree with NYC's ban on the sale of large sized sugary soft drinks?

You define the evidence out of existence. To be Pro-life, as I understand it, is to hold to the idea that life deserves legal protection. In the final line you require for this evidence that one resign from being Pro-life in a meaningful way.

Let's see, to review:

Perhaps I can ask you to refrain from doing exactly what you are complaining about and we can forestall any more "demonic caricatures" of those being Pro-life as being unempathetic ******** who don't care about women and only think of them as incubators.

I would consider ample evidence to the contrary as attempting to use reason and persuasion in a manner that acknowledges the personhood of the pregnant woman and their ability to come to rational conclusions regarding their pregnancy, rather than the use of force and removal of any choice or sovereignty over their bodies.

Well let's see--I guess the label you provided sticks then.

 

[PRV357]

How about a reasonable distaste for your careless indulgence in the fallacy of appealing to emotion? :sad4:

the post I'd responded to was very distasteful, in the same manner you describe...

pro-lifers feel that the only women who deserve to be punished by being forced :sad4:to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby are the ones who consented to having sex in the first place.

 

[PRV357]

There's more to context than the thread title. Try reading the preceding posts.

:sorry1: to see this as your response to my actually taking up for you

because of the things we often disagree about your prejudice seems to have blinded you :cover: from even recognizing any common ground to agree upon

 

[Indira]

Not for the last twenty years. The fact that growth-based economics was bound to fail was the first thing I noticed about the world. Nevertheless, much like faith in God, most people believe in infinite exponential growth regardless of the impossibility of it, and behave as if it is real.

Many aspects of the human condition is illogical and bound to fail but the delusion of grandeur of our minds is a humorous issue once realized. I do believe we have strayed off topic, sorry. Respecting the value of human life has a bigger implication than those who don`t realize. Blessings and Joy to you Alceste

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm unsure what you mean by how would the position respond... the position is a concept, it would be pro-life people who respond., and ideally they would respond with care, empathy, kindness and support.

I'll give you that. If the 13 year old child wanted an abortion, how would support come into that?

Child I'll give you, but no more than the more clinical and distancing terms blastocyst, embryo and fetus... Life, that's what it is, specifically human life.

A blastocyst is as sacred as a 13 year old girl?

I certainly wouldn't shame a 13 year old girl who is pregnant from rape into anything, but I don't support abortions period, that is a personal belief. For the sake of life though... I've already answered that one above.

If you were to communicate your personal beliefs, however, it is shaming to a 13 year old girl that she doesn't have the right to do with her body what she thinks is best. A pregnancy is a major health risk to her, and I take it you would tell her your thoughts is that her health risk isn't worth what your personal beliefs are.

It IS shaming, Emu.