Trigger warning: Prolife with exceptions? Abortion debate.

[shmogie]

For such sentences, I ask how would you blame someone who was raped? Would you force them to have and keep the baby?

I believe that in the first trimester, before the fertilized egg becomes a recognizable and functional human, abortion should be allowed.

This is not a position based upon my personal morality, but rather a position based upon a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[shmogie]

What if... they weren't consenting in the first place? Because of rape, poking holes or some other jerk move. Or if they don't have access to adequate healthcare?

What does adequate healthcare have to do with rape ?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nothing.

As a gay male, the abortion debate has no real impact on me. I favor access to abortion to the end of the 2nd trimester - for any reason. Beyond the end of the 2nd trimester would require both a court and a doctors approval.

If anyone thinks my position is unreasonable bring it on, baby. (Pun intended).

Why a court order? If you have a life-threatening emergency that sends you to the ER, waiting for that court order will probably kill you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't mean this personally, because I don't know you well enough.
But I have a huge problem with the term "ProLife", as its generally used. Most of the people I know who apply the label to themselves are anything but ProLife.
I oppose virtually every method people have for choosing death for other human beings. I am ProLife. Most of the people I know who adopt the label are merely opposed to feticide rights. That's not the same at all.
Opposing feticide rights, while also opposing comprehensive sex ed and access to contraceptives is not ProLife. Supporting environmental damage and pre-emptive wars and economic policies that result in desperately poor people and Capital Punishment (and any ProDeath stance) is NOT ProLife.

I find the term ProLife generally a misnomer. So much so, I see it as blatantly dishonest. Most ProLifers are much more ProDeathers.

Not all, and maybe not you. But most.
Tom

Face it...by being pro-life, you're a misogynist....just like the women who hold
the same views. Hmmmm.....this would mean that women too are misogynist
when they have views about the beginning of life which conflict with pro-choice
men & women. Could it be that "misognyist" is merely an ill considered insult
for pro-lifers? I'd never say that....but one might think so.

As for me, I'm pro-abortion. Always have been.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm in favor of women being able to control their own bodies, so if they don't want a baby, they should keep their knees together.

And men stop whining about having to wear condoms, stop pressuring women into sex and stop raping women.

 

[shmogie]

Sooo...are you saying that there is something that God can't control? Or forces that are greater or as great as God?

Nope, not saying that at all. I am saying that God chooses not to intervene, for his own purposes.

My opinion is that earth is a rogue entity in a universe full of entities that did not choose to go rogue.

Therefore allowing this non compliance to Gods will to run itś course is an object lesson to illustrate the disaster that occurs when free will is used improperly.

Godś creation is much more complicated and expansive than we can comprehend.

 

[YmirGF]

Why a court order? If you have a life-threatening emergency that sends you to the ER, waiting for that court order will probably kill you.

Sorry, me bad, it was assumed that any life-threatening event would be an exception. I should have said so. Thanks for pointing it out.

My opinion is that earth is a rogue entity in a universe full of entities that did not choose to go rogue.

I'd say you have the market cornered on self-loathing with thinking like this.

 

[BSM1]

Nope, not saying that at all. I am saying that God chooses not to intervene, for his own purposes.

My opinion is that earth is a rogue entity in a universe full of entities that did not choose to go rogue.

Therefore allowing this non compliance to Gods will to run itś course is an object lesson to illustrate the disaster that occurs when free will is used improperly.

Godś creation is much more complicated and expansive than we can comprehend.

Sooo...God sits around and actually cogitates on a linear time basis? IMHO, any time you try to incorporate human traits and characteristics on God, then your not talking about god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think birth control is the answer. The solution is not killing people. The question should be "what is the fetus" before we ask that we can kill it. I believe the fetus is a baby with rights unless the mother was raped, or medical need.

Birth control helps immeasurably. One also needs groups that provide birth control such as Planned Parenthood.

in the OP you said that you could prove a fetus is human. I don't know how you could do that. Even the Bible does not seem to be a source that will help you in that matter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nothing.

As a gay male, the abortion debate has no real impact on me. I favor access to abortion to the end of the 2nd trimester - for any reason. Beyond the end of the 2nd trimester would require both a court and a doctors approval.

If anyone thinks my position is unreasonable bring it on, baby. (Pun intended).

So this is random, but...
1) I kinda agree with you, I think.
2) I didn't know, or forgot that you're gay.
3) I like the pun.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

in the OP you said that you could prove a fetus is human. I don't know how you could do that. Even the Bible does not seem to be a source that will help you in that matter.

I wondered about this too, but thought it probably comes down to a different concept of what constitutes 'proof'.

 

[YmirGF]

Sooo...God sits around and actually cogitates on a linear time basis? IMHO, any time you try to incorporate human traits and characteristics on God, then your not talking about god.

We have a winner!

 

[Axe Elf]

For such sentences, I ask how would you blame someone who was raped? Would you force them to have and keep the baby?

I'm never in favor of forcing anyone to do anything.

Our sense of morality does not condemn all killing; only unjustified killing--like killing in self defense. So killing a fetus that poses a risk to the mother would be a justified killing; the mother killed in self-defense.

I don't think that killing as a method of birth control is a justified killing. If a woman wants to control her own body, then she should keep her knees together if she doesn't want to risk having a baby.

Killing to remove the consequences of rape is a little more of a gray area. If the mother was strong enough to appreciate the creation of life without being adversely affected by the events that resulted in a new life, I think it would be great if she were able to carry the child to term, whether she chose to raise it herself or chose to let it be adopted. But I can also understand how the killing might also be a form of self-defense against severe, harmful, and even debilitating psychological reactions to the circumstances of the conception.

If we really wanted to end rape, though--or at least severely curb it--we should go back to the Biblical consequence for rape laid out in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. If a man rapes a girl, he has to pay her father a hefty dowry, and then he has to marry her for the rest of his life--without the possibility of divorce.

I can guarantee that if that were the consequence for rape, occurrences would drop to almost zero. Who wants to risk THAT kind of punishment?

 

[Axe Elf]

If someone isn't responsible enough to use contraceptives, how could you expect them to be responsible enough for motherhood?

I spent most of my career working with abused, neglected, runaway and delinquent teens and their families. I never expect ANYONE to be responsible enough for parenthood. But it's the only system we have for surviving as a species.

 

[shmogie]

Sooo...God sits around and actually cogitates on a linear time basis? IMHO, any time you try to incorporate human traits and characteristics on God, then your not talking about god.

Hmmmmmmm, if humans were made in His image.................................................... So God is incomprehensible, yet you know what He isn´t ?

 

[Jumi]

I believe that in the first trimester, before the fertilized egg becomes a recognizable and functional human, abortion should be allowed.

That is more sensible.

This is not a position based upon my personal morality, but rather a position based upon a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm not from a country with an identical Constitution, so I argue universally.

What does adequate healthcare have to do with rape ?

It doesn't, it's a different case.

 

[PureX]

Abortion is murder outside of medical need.

Only if the human life being taken is an autonomous being. My arm is an expression of "human life", but it is not an autonomous being. Which is why we do not assign it the right to exist as we do to an autonomous being. A fetus is like an arm, until it reaches a stage in it's development when it can reasonably be considered an autonomous being. When it can exist on it's own and of it's own accord. At present, the courts have determined that this point is reached between the 22nd and 24th week of development. And so it is at this point that the right to abort it is denied, unless there are exceptional medical circumstances.

See my other post about the inherent misogyny of the abortion industry and how birth control or women having their tubes removed for birth control is more logical. Consent to unprotected sex is consent to pregnancy, so please be responsible.

You have a right to your opinions the same as anyone else. What you don't have, and should never have, is the ability to inflict your opinion on everyone else. And until you can explain to me why you should be able to do this, I will fight to keep you and those others like you who think they should be able to inflict their opinions on everyone else from doing it.

 

[BSM1]

Hmmmmmmm, if humans were made in His image.................................................... So God is incomprehensible, yet you know what He isn´t ?

Now you're getting close.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, me bad, it was assumed that any life-threatening event would be an exception. I should have said so. Thanks for pointing it out.


I'd say you have the market cornered on self-loathing with thinking like this.

These sorts of exceptions don't work, because there's always going to be some subjective opinion in the potential outcomes in any real-world medical situation.

When you create an exception "for life-threatening events" or "to save the life of the mother" but impose criminal penalties for carrying out an abortion outside of those cases, what you're really doing is setting up a situation where the medical professionals will be afraid to carry out the abortion if there's any chance that, at trial, the prosecutor might pull out some other doctor to say "well, in that situation, *I* could have saved her without an abortion, so the abortion wasn't medically necessary."

What you'd be doing is setting the stage to repeat Savita Halappanavar's story over and over again: by the time it was clear that nothing but an abortion would save her, it was too late to save her with an abortion.

Requiring a medical justification for abortion at any point is ridiculous - it's basically a big middle finger to the pregnant person and the idea that they're an autonomous person who ought to have a say in their own medical care - but setting the line where you suggest would cost lives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that in the first trimester, before the fertilized egg becomes a recognizable and functional human, abortion should be allowed.

This is not a position based upon my personal morality, but rather a position based upon a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

Fun fact: the pregnant person is "a recognizable and functional human" in all three trimesters.