Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Especially for women
As a woman, consider your concern declined.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
As a woman, consider your concern declined.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Especially for women
I can't wrap my brain around would want to legally force a female to carry and birth a child after the trauma of rape. It's nothing short of cruelty to me.
One doesn't have to condone abortion from a moral perspective to have compassion for and respect the rights of others.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The Amendment failed.
Good on Mississippi voters!
Good on Mississippi voters!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If Mississippi voters were legislators, they would not be called to the polls for something so stupid.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's actually quite a good decision, especially if the pregnancy would be detrimental to the woman's health or even fatal. In the case of fatally complicated pregnancies, it's a loose-loose situation when a woman and fetus both perish because she could not rid herself of that which was killing her.Especially for women
You did. However, there are 50 embryos in the bag! So, if an embryo and a toddler are to be equally valued as human life, then your choice should be heavily weighted in favor of the bag of embryos, even if you occasionally let your emotions get the better of you, and grabbed the toddler instead.
Your stance-- that you essentially have no preference and would sometimes choose one, sometimes choose another-- would like me claiming that sometimes I would choose to save 50 kids on a school bus and sometimes I would choose to just save one kid. :areyoucra I should overwhelmingly choose to save the 50 kids, in nearly every instance.
Yet you don't. Which is why I believe it shows that the value of a child that is already born is not the same as the value of an embryo.
of course they will....do you honestly believe that those in power do anything 4 no reason.... what a better way to produce rebellious children....how much do these rapists get paid,do they get out after 3mths on good behaviour and get the green light 2 do it again.....dont laugh at what im saying.... rapists, child molesters, woman who stand by these men,murderers are all handled with kid gloves.....smoke a joint,dont pay ur tax or fines and see how heavy a book is thrown at you....
Alceste
Vagabond
I'm assuming all those states also allow women to vote, so I'm not too worried.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
You would be amazed at humanity's distinct tendency to act against its own interests...
Concerned Women for America - RationalWiki
Me Myself
Back to my username
I could answer all of this by just requoting past posts of me of why there is a distinction and to be fair I kinda lost the spirit of the discussion at least for now upon hearing the veredict, but I will put it this way to you:
If you can choose between two people and you know one of them is surely going to die but you can save one, who do you choose to save:
The one that is going to die a horrible dead in a traumathizing way and leave people who love him weeping in agony, or someone who will die quietly in his sleep and lived happily in a forest and nobody else knew him?
Both are valued as human life, but your answer, of who to save, is not based on who is or is not human life, because there are other factors. For further explanations, you may re-read past answers, I apologize for sounding a little bit pedant
but I do feel you are repeating yourself things I already answered 
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Alceste
Vagabond
Oh, I know about these loons. They're in the minority though. In general, woman are very pragmatic.
The bolded, I think, highlights our miscommunication. It's not about whether embryos are a human life or not. Of course they are; the vast majority of pro-choice advocates understand this. The pro-choice argument is not that embryos are not humans; the question is whether they are people. Should they be given the same rights as a person? Do they have the same value as a person? This is the crucial question: value. And your response indicates that no, embryos are not equal in value to a child who has already been born.I could answer all of this by just requoting past posts of me of why there is a distinction and to be fair I kinda lost the spirit of the discussion at least for now upon hearing the veredict, but I will put it this way to you:
If you can choose between two people and you know one of them is surely going to die but you can save one, who do you choose to save:
The one that is going to die a horrible dead in a traumathizing way and leave people who love him weeping in agony, or someone who will die quietly in his sleep and lived happily in a forest and nobody else knew him?
Both are valued as human life, but your answer, of who to save, is not based on who is or is not human life, because there are other factors. For further explanations, you may re-read past answers, I apologize for sounding a little bit pedant
Should we value the woman's life, over that of the embryo/fetus? Pro-choicers say yes; prolifers say no. And yet the reasons you gave for saving the toddler-- that it would be less traumatic for all involved-- than saving the embryos, is very similar to why pro-choice proponents claim that it is better to value the woman's life, and her choices regarding it, over that of the fetus.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Yes, they are not exactly the same in the ways that I described, they are less prone to different kinds of sufering because they haven´t developed the ability to suffer.
Here we might have another communication problem: The woman indeed should be the one choosing if she keeps or not the child when this child is a direct hazard to her LIFE.
I can understand a mother who is ready to die even for the slightest chance of her baby surviving even of most things say they will both die, it´s her life and she should choose, but I wouldn´t say it´s "wrong" to kill the child if this was thescenario, when the child is endangering the actual life of the mother.
Now when we are equating discomfort with life, then we are talking whole different dillema there. If she wants to get rid of the child because the idea of having him/her is horrible to her, then we are not talknig about her life, we are talking about her preference so it should be put as "valueying more women´s life over the Fetus" but more like "valueying the woman´s discomfort over the life of the child"
This are very different questions.
BTW, would you mind keeping on the discussion here ? :
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/123982-abortion-wrong-8.html#post2685372
Basically it is what we are arguing I´ll say, and the "missisipi" thing stopped being the main topic for us some time ago anyways. (least for me)
Sure thing, Me. I'm reading it through now.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Sure thing, Me. I'm reading it through now.
nice
I´ll be keeping an eye for you in it then