Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child

[Me Myself]

Never having been pregnant and having to choose whether the best option would be to abort it or not hasn't stopped you from declaring an opinion on that.

You are not talking about a scenario where careful onsideration can be had. You are talking some flaming **** can fall on my head in any second scenario

Besides, I am saying what I think is best, not what I think I would do. I would like to think I would do the best, but I know I am not perfect, I have virtues and defects. I know it´s hard to notice for how awesome I am, but please do try to believe me, I am also flawed

Humor me. Make it perfectly simple: Nothing you can do will allow both to survive. You have the moral fortitude to grab one of them before you flee. If you choose to grab the embryos, with my magic fairy powder I will make sure that they survive until they can be safely placed back into a non-burning fertility clinic.

You see the point, surely. It would be a pretty strange person that would be able to ignore the life of a terrified two year old, and a pretty normal response to not give a second thought to the cooler. This demonstrates that we clearly don't view embryos as people-- or at least, not nearly as valuable-- as a child that has already been born.

Most people would favour their single children over many strangers. This doesn´t mean the life of your children is more valuable, this means is more valuable to you.

What "most" people would do doesn´t feel like the best way to determine what is right for me.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am sure putting it a different name makes it much easier to digest



So what? Our rights end where there other people´s rights start.

The fact that she had no choice to what people did to hear is truly disgraceful, but to take away an inocent baby´s right to live should not be considered a reasonable response.

edit: and I don´t consider the woman who does this horrible or anything similar. I can understand the emotional reasons that would lead her to this, the same way I could understand a mother who vegefully kills his daughter´s killer, and I do symphatize for those reasons. This wouldn´t mean I believe this actions be correct naturaly.

A glob of cells lacks the qualities that define personhood, therefore they cannot be defined as a person. They lack sentience, sapience, consciousness, the capacity for emotion and the ability to reason. They have no hopes, dreams, character or personality. They're more akin to bacteria than they are to us.

Also, the world is better off with each abortion.

 

[Me Myself]

A glob of cells lacks the qualities that define personhood, therefore they cannot be defined as a person. They lack sentience, sapience, consciousness, the capacity for emotion and the ability to reason. They have no hopes, dreams, character or personality. They're more akin to bacteria than they are to us.

thanks for sharing the knowledge that came from yourr avid memories of cel like state.

Also, the world is better off with each abortion.

And whit each child death and human death and old death too I take?

Overpopulation shouldn´t be solved with abortions, it should be solved with every other men other thanme becoming homosexual and me becoming the only viable partner for the rest of the female population of the world Okay, maybe not every other men... just enough of them for overpopulation to seize to be a problem and I to become the best option for females anywhere

 

[Falvlun]

You are not talking about a scenario where careful onsideration can be had. You are talking some flaming **** can fall on my head in any second scenario

Besides, I am saying what I think is best, not what I think I would do. I would like to think I would do the best, but I know I am not perfect, I have virtues and defects. I know it´s hard to notice for how awesome I am, but please do try to believe me, I am also flawed

Well, what do you think would be your ideal action in this scenario?

Most people would favour their single children over many strangers. This doesn´t mean the life of your children is more valuable, this means is more valuable to you.

What "most" people would do doesn´t feel like the best way to determine what is right for me.

I am not asking what other people would do. I am asking what you would do. I am specifically wondering if what you would do meshes with your belief that an embryo is just as much a person as a child who has already been born.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, what do you think would be your ideal action in this scenario?


I am not asking what other people would do. I am asking what you would do. I am specifically wondering if what you would do meshes with your belief that an embryo is just as much a person as a child who has already been born.

I don´t know.

I would know only if it happened to me.

One day I would choose one, another day other one probably.

"Not saving" is very different that "murdering" in my book. At least in this kind of circumstances.

 

[Alceste]

Well, things get very simple then

Do they? You say all those eggs are "babies". Would you let 50 babies burn to death in a fire?

 

[Falvlun]

One day I would choose one, another day other one probably.

"Not saving" is very different that "murdering" in my book. At least in this kind of circumstances.

So, some days you think embryos are people with the same value as a born child and some days you don't? I'm struggling to understand why you are struggling with the question, if you find it self-evident that a fetus is a person with the same value as one that has already been born.

It would be like asking whether you would choose to save one child or 50 children. Given the choice, every single one of us would choose to save the 50 children, every time, instead of the one (unless it was our child in question, but that's not a factor in this scenario). Why isn't it as cut and dried for you?

 

[Me Myself]

So, some days you think embryos are people with the same value as a born child and some days you don't? I'm struggling to understand why you are struggling with the question, if you find it self-evident that a fetus is a person with the same value as one that has already been born.

It would be like asking whether you would choose to save one child or 50 children. Given the choice, every single one of us would choose to save 50 children, instead of the one, if we had to choose. Why isn't it as cut and dried for you?

Because somebody being "a person" is not the only thing that makes it viable for moral consideration. If I have to choose between two persons to save I still have moral considerations implicated.

Not saving the child would mean he would suffer psychological and emotional damage before dying and that the parents would suffer great psychological emotional damage too. The fathers of the Embryons I don´t know if they would suffer or not, I am not sure what kind of circumstance is this for what does one have embryos in freezers. I would guess they also have parents who would suffer greatly because of their deahts? yes? no?

The embryos wouldn´t suffer as much I would guess. A lot of them haven´t deveoped for that.

Morality in the way I see it comes from the heart more than from words, and my only real commandment is:

I will do every moment what feels correct.

the situation seems moraly gray to me more or less because in both circumstances there is a great tragedy.

If in that moment I feel I should rescue the 2 year old I would do so, if in that moment I feel the 50 embryos, I would do so. I have no obligaction moral or othwerwise to save any. My moral impulses (not obligations) to save one of those options would make me choose at least one though, and which, woudl depend of my moral impulse in that moment. (all of this of course, having an outmost faith in your magical pixie dust that will preserve the babies n_n ; )

 

[Falvlun]

And in a nutshell, right there, you gave an argument for pro-choice: "somebody being a "person" is not the only thing that makes it viable for moral consideration" (Me Myself) The embryo doesn't suffer as much emotional or physical harm as the person (ie, the woman) already born. If the woman is much more likely to suffer much more than the embryo will suffer by being aborted, then according to you, the moral choice would be to let the woman choose.

If your own personal moral compass dictates that you "do every moment what feels correct", then why would you not offer that same opportunity to woman across the country? If a woman feels that having that baby is not in her or the child's best interest, than that is what her moral compass is telling her what she should do in that situation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How come it is only in the USA that states even consider this sort of law making.

 

[Falvlun]

How come it is only in the USA that states even consider this sort of law making.

Refer to my sig.

 

[Me Myself]

The embryo doesn't suffer as much emotional or physical harm as the person (ie, the woman) already born.

But for the woman to make the choice to kill her baby so that she feels better is in horrible detriment to the woman´s moral compass.

Many important things can be emotionally scaring. I didn´t deem the baby burning to be something important to happen so that the emotional scar doesn´t matter. I do deem the baby´s life inside of a mother´s belly to be important enough for her to at least try to suck it up, and for society to understand that it is the moraly best thing to do.

If your own personal moral compass dictates that you "do every moment what feels correct", then why would you not offer that same opportunity to woman across the country?

I would never say my moral compass is right for everyone.

A lot of people think a lot of dumb *** is correct. Murderers, drugadicts, druglords, gangsters, corrupt politicians, etc. They all thought what they were doing was all jolly dolly.

 

[Falvlun]

But for the woman to make the choice to kill her baby so that she feels better is in horrible detriment to the woman´s moral compass.

And to let 50 children (ie, embryos you believe are children) burn in a building isn't a testimony to your own poor moral character?

You stated that one of the reasons you might choose to save the toddler over the 50 embryos is that the emotional scarring for the parents would be greater than it would be for the "parents" of the embryos. You think that a good reason to allow 50 children to die-- to make sure one set of parents is not traumatized-- is somehow different than making sure one woman isn't emotionally or physically scarred? Explain that one.

Many important things can be emotionally scaring. I didn´t deem the baby burning to be something important to happen so that the emotional scar doesn´t matter. I do deem the baby´s life inside of a mother´s belly to be important enough for her to at least try to suck it up, and for society to understand that it is the moraly best thing to do.

How can you claim to know what is morally best for society to do when you have admitted that you don't know what is morally best for yourself? You said that you determine what is morally best on a situation by situation, your feelings on that particular moment.

I would never say my moral compass is right for everyone.

A lot of people think a lot of dumb *** is correct. Murderers, drugadicts, druglords, gangsters, corrupt politicians, etc. They all thought what they were doing was all jolly dolly.

You have made two claims:
1) It is wrong for woman to have abortions.
How is that not claiming that your moral compass is right for everyone?

2) That you would determine what to do based upon the situation.
This is a statement about how you determine what to do. Why would you not give that option to other people? Because they might choose the wrong thing? What if believe you are choosing the wrong thing? Should we take away your right to determine what you think is right too?

 

[Me Myself]

And to let 50 children (ie, embryos you believe are children) burn in a building isn't a testimony to your own poor moral character?

To save a being that was not under my responsability is hardly a form of immorality in my book.

not saving any of them wouldn´t be moraly wrong in my book neither (although it naturaly not be moraly good. It would be neutral. Not saving is not the same as killing.)

You stated that one of the reasons you might choose to save the toddler over the 50 embryos is that the emotional scarring for the parents would be greater than it would be for the "parents" of the embryos. You think that a good reason to allow 50 children to die-- to make sure one set of parents is not traumatized-- is somehow different than making sure one woman isn't emotionally or physically scarred? Explain that one.

1-It is different because I didn´t start the fire

Killing is not the same as not saving.

2- It is different because one thing is to do something to save other people of emotional scarring and other thing is to do something to save yourself of emotional scarring. to kill a baby because you can´t deal with it emotionaly would be moraly hurtful for you IMO.

How is that not claiming that your moral compass is right for everyone?

Most of what you said then I would believe could be sumarized by answering this question I believe so my answer:

We all have our views of what is right and what is not. there are things we believe others have the right to choose if they deem moral or not moral (like smoking, religion, how much alcohol you consume, gambling, etc) There are other things that we will just decide for the person (If you kill someone you are going to jail. PERIOD.)

So yes, most sounding people do would limit other person´s freedom to choose what is or what is not moral to do (wouldn´t have jails otherwise) and also most sounding people would say there are areas in which they can choose for themselves even if they see them as moraly questionable.

So I would say there are parts of my moral compass that I do would llike to be followed by everyone and parts I wouldn´t recommend (because they don´t have the personal aptitude for it)

About not "knowing" what is right or not, I think nobody "knows". Is emotional, it is reached by consensus and compassion, and this both can reach absolutely different conclusions depending on the senario and the persons that are getting to this concensus.

But I believe that around th most important thing you need in order to be moral is to be compassionate with other people, and a mother that decides to kill his baby because she is thinking on herself rather than the baby is not being compassionate,s o I wouldn´t promote this kind of thinking, it goes against compasion of a human being that is even literaly linked in the body of the person, the SON/DAUGTHER. I just feel it as a very low scale in the compassion meter.

Do I feel compassion for the mother? YES, do I think her not being compasionate is good for her? NO.

So unless you are of some specific literalistic religion nobody "knows" what´s best for society in morals. We can only "feel" it.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

That's what I love about Far-Right states, especially the South. They want personhood for fertilized eggs, no In Vitro, and no options for rape victims. Then they make it harder for poor people (like say, uneducated single teen moms?) to get assistance. And THEN they have the audacity to cry out against the dirty Yankee Socialists even though their red state has more people on welfare and food stamps, more uneducated citizens, more teen moms, AND they take in more money from the gubmint than they put out.

 

[Falvlun]

I'll get to your most recent post in a minute, but I think this point deserves to be highlighted:

I found it incredibly striking that you not only were able to find reasons why the toddler was of greater worth to save, than the 50 embryos, but that those reasons were strikingly similar to those given by pro-choicers in defending the right of a woman. I did not expect that, and it has given me something to chew on.

 

[Me Myself]

I'll get to your most recent post in a minute, but I think this point deserves to be highlighted:

I found it incredibly striking that you not only were able to find reasons why the toddler was of greater worth to save, than the 50 embryos, but that those reasons were strikingly similar to those given by pro-choicers in defending the right of a woman. I did not expect that, and it has given me something to chew on.

Hey that´s great I found your example really interesting and I am enjoying the discussion. Do take time if you may

more even, I am soon to leave house, so I´ll answer when I am able. So take your time freely

 

[Falvlun]

To save a being that was not under my responsability is hardly a form of immorality in my book.

not saving any of them wouldn´t be moraly wrong in my book neither (although it naturaly not be moraly good. It would be neutral. Not saving is not the same as killing.)

I don't even know how to respond to that. :areyoucra To believe you have no moral responsibility to save a child you are capable of saving is pretty shocking to me. It's pretty shocking to the world at large, too.

1-It is different because I didn´t start the fire

Killing is not the same as not saving.

I agree that it is not, but that's not really the point here. The point of the scenario is to highlight whether pro-lifers will actually act in accordance with their oft-repeated mantra (that a fetus has the same value as a child who has been born).

You gave reasons why it would be acceptable to save the single toddler rather than the many embryos. You assigned greater value to the toddler, for various reasons, including the fact that the emotional distress of the toddler's parents would be greater than the emotional distress of the parents of all of those embryos.

If reducing the emotional stress of a single set of parents is worth sacrificing 50 embryos, then surely reducing the emotional stress of one person would be worth the sacrifice of precisely 1 embryo (her own).

2- It is different because one thing is to do something to save other people of emotional scarring and other thing is to do something to save yourself of emotional scarring. to kill a baby because you can´t deal with it emotionaly would be moraly hurtful for you IMO.

How do you know whether bearing a child would be more or less emotionally scarring than not bearing that child? What if that child is the result of rape? What if it is a 13 year old girl who just had sex too early? What if it's the 3rd child of an unwed mother who is already barely making ends meet?

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but should we deny the rights of women the ability to make their own opinion about their own propensity for emotional scarring, in deference to your opinion about how you think they will emotionally scar?

If it's all just opinion, then I think the opinion of the women in question should have more weight than your own.

But I believe that around th most important thing you need in order to be moral is to be compassionate with other people, and a mother that decides to kill his baby because she is thinking on herself rather than the baby is not being compassionate,s o I wouldn´t promote this kind of thinking, it goes against compasion of a human being that is even literaly linked in the body of the person, the SON/DAUGTHER. I just feel it as a very low scale in the compassion meter.

Do I feel compassion for the mother? YES, do I think her not being compasionate is good for her? NO.

Do you not realize how strange a lecture on the value of compassion sounds, coming from someone who has asserted that there is no moral responsibility in saving someone?

If we are to be compassionate, should we not also be compassionate towards the woman? What of her plight? Why should compassion be reserved for the clump of cells?

 

[Me Myself]

I don't even know how to respond to that. :areyoucra To believe you have no moral responsibility to save a child you are capable of saving

Donate to ActionAid | ActionAid

http://actionaidusa.org/what/monthly_feature/giving/

The death of every single child by hunger that you cuold have solved by giving them all your money is in your hands.

The thing is a situation like the one you described is more shocking that the link that I sent you, and there will always be children dying of hunger, and we doing nothing to help them.

If what you say is correct then we have lenty more than the life of one kid at our hands, and that is all of us. Reality is that we don´t have a "moral responsability". It is not a "responsability". We should do it by iniciative, yes, but if we do not we are hardly to be blamed much.

Should I expect your next answer from a cyber?

I agree that it is not, but that's not really the point here. The point of the scenario is to highlight whether pro-lifers will actually act in accordance with their oft-repeated mantra (that a fetus has the same value as a child who has been born).

I am sorry that your scenario didn´t manage this.

It was interesting nonetheless.

You gave reasons why it would be acceptable to save the single toddler rather than the many embryos. You assigned greater value to the toddler, for various reasons, including the fact that the emotional distress of the toddler's parents would be greater than the emotional distress of the parents of all of those embryos.

If reducing the emotional stress of a single set of parents is worth sacrificing 50 embryos, then surely reducing the emotional stress of one person would be worth the sacrifice of precisely 1 embryo (her own).

You are confusing killing with not saving again.

To kill a baby so you feel better about yourself is worst than to not give some bucks and save some african children (even when you do are able to save them).

How do you know whether bearing a child would be more or less emotionally scarring than not bearing that child? What if that child is the result of rape? What if it is a 13 year old girl who just had sex too early? What if it's the 3rd child of an unwed mother who is already barely making ends meet?

Most killers have had very *** lives too and kill as a result of all the pain they had through their lives. Killing makes them feel better, who are we to say that the pain that they heal in themselves is not greater than the pain that they cause?

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but should we deny the rights of women the ability to make their own opinion about their own propensity for emotional scarring, in deference to your opinion about how you think they will emotionally scar?

If it's all just opinion, then I think the opinion of the women in question should have more weight than your own.

You think everyone should make their own opinions about every moral rule? Then everyone should be allowed to kill anyone. Who are you to tell them they should not kill? If it´s all just opinion then I think the opinion of the murderers in question should have more weight than your own.

As a society we vote and make rules (least in democracies). We rule murder out. As a society, the people in any place have the right to democraticaly say no to the murder of inocent baby childs in their mother´s womb.

to kill a baby inside the belly might not be "the same" than to kill a baby outside, but the principle of devaluying human life is there crystal clear and in the worst permisible ways: killing of the most inocent, vulnerable being allowed by she who is supposed to love him the most.

To protect the unborn is a noble call to protect for any society.

Do you not realize how strange a lecture on the value of compassion sounds, coming from someone who has asserted that there is no moral responsibility in saving someone?

compassion is independent of responsability. Compassion trascends responsability. I told you I would feel a moral impulse to save the child or the 50 babies, but a moral impulse and a moral responsability are not the same.

I wouldn´t do it because I "have" to. Compassion canonly happen because one WANTS to.

People that contribute here

Donate to ActionAid | ActionAid

Are not moraly responsable for those african kids, but they can help, and they feel the impulse/need/desire to do so.

If we are to be compassionate, should we not also be compassionate towards the woman? What of her plight? Why should compassion be reserved for the clump of cells?

Yes we should.

 

[blackout]

There's nothing stopping a woman from going to another state for legal services there, right?
(I didn't read the bill)