A fetus has no "right to life" if it is the product of rape.

[Elrohir]

Mdwh, since when does "significantly" automatically mean "most"? If 30% of British Muslims were part of Al Qaeda, wouldn't you say that would be a "significant" portion? What if it were 10%, but still several hundred thousand? I would still say that is "significant", even if it is not a majority or "most".

Note: I'm not drawing comparisons between people who have abortions and Al Qaeda, I'm just using this as an example to show the absurdity of saying a significant portion equals a majority. All majorities are significant portions, not all significant portions are majorities.

 

[scy12]

Any abortion of a " healthy fetus to be soon a healthy human" is a murder of a human being. As a mother is able to produce other offspring however we may choose to kill Human beings with disabilities so that she can bring to the worth human beings without disabilities. That is because both humans with disabilities and humans without disabilities are a burden . And so the woman may bring into life three normal humans while Killing one with disabilities or bring into life only three human beings , one with disabilities without killing it.

The ability of the mother to create life makes murder of Humans that we deem inappropriate to be sometimes more acceptable. Are perfectly normal children of a mother that was raped inappropriate ? I don't know.

I do object however Abortion in all other cases where a human being is perfectly normal and not a risk for the health of a mother . For several reasons A) We have given society the right to take away life if it will give life to us . i.e a mother may kill her child now but may bear an other in the future. However it is possible for a mother to kill a child and then change her opinion regarding giving birth to children. Their is no equality between taking away life and giving life.

B) Regarding your morality , Life can be deemed precious. In that case even a system that forces equality between Births and abortions would be inappropriate.

C) European aging population.

 

[Nobody]

i always find it funny that those people who are for the death penalty and normally against abortion and euthinasia and visa versa.

SO either people want to save the lives of semi-alive babys and old people who want to die but execute people.

Or

they are for killing babys and the elderly but not murders.

 

[scy12]

i always find it funny that those people who are for the death penalty and normally against abortion and euthinasia and visa versa.

SO either people want to save the lives of semi-alive babys and old people who want to die but execute people.

Or

they are for killing babys and the elderly but not murders.

Fortunately their are exceptions.

 

[mdwh]

Mdwh, since when does "significantly" automatically mean "most"? If 30% of British Muslims were part of Al Qaeda, wouldn't you say that would be a "significant" portion? What if it were 10%, but still several hundred thousand? I would still say that is "significant", even if it is not a majority or "most".

Okay let's use numbers - what proportion of that 2% is women pretending to be raped, as a rough estimate?

 

[JohnRM]

I contend that the pro-life camp isn't so much about trying to save lives, but rather to try to punish fornicating women. Otherwise they would be able to see the hypocrisy in there logic if they were in fact pro-life. The difference is that even Suzzy Q Churchgirl can get raped and pregnancy "is not her fault," but Sally J who consents to sex with boys is just a slut that deserves what she gets.

To me even the language at they use implies that they're trying to place blame and punish rather then supporting life

And what language would that be?

 

[Shadylookin]

And what language would that be?

language like

In so far as the child's pregnancy is concerned. She is not suffering
and if she is, it is because of her own mistake. Nobody is forcing
anything 'down her throat', she was irresponsible enough to do what
she did and now she has to live with the consequences.

-john hsog on a 13 year old girl living under State control getting pregnant

When it comes down to bare bones, I really don't care to illegalize
it. There is enough murder and violence going on in this world.
What is a few more unborn babies to the mix? Maybe they should pass a
law that if you want an abortion, then the doctor aborts you as well.
Some of these whores need to be aborted, for sure.

-john hsog bolding added by me

These individuals are selfish, looking out for themselves rather than a life that they created, choosing to destroy that life so they can continue to party and have sex with random guys every night. The culture of abortion is disgraceful.

-john hsog

More power to them. If they are stupid enough to compound one mistake (getting pregnant) with another (dangerous abortion), then I say 'let nature take its course'. God - Ultra non-offense higher/neutral/lower power/inconequential object of your or not of your choice or lack thereof - forbid we force people to take responsibility for their actions.

-john hsog on women resorting to back alley abortions

They should give it to everyone who wants an abortion. Maybe the threat of death might make these people think and use their brain, once again.

-john hsog on possible death resulting from an abortion drug.


language that demeans the women as mere "sluts, skanks, and degenerates" that deserve their lot and deserved to be punished with pregnancy, rather than focuses on the life of the fetus. For what it's worth to me it sounds like it isn't about saving lives, but rather about demeaning the women.

 

[warpus]

Yes, _I_ think that, but I'm in favour of abortion for any reason.

The point is those people who believe life begins at abortion, and hence think killing a 1 week old fetus is murdering a child - except when it's rape for some unknown reason.

Well, I don't know if you can really say 'murder'.. even if you did - you are trying to squeeze a very complex issue into a black/white mold, which just doesn't work.

Both entities (mother and child) have rights here; this isn't as simple as "rights of mother to her body" > "right of child to live"

 

[LucyDuke]

I think it's possible to be against abortion, whilst still allowing an exception for rape.

It makes sense if your opposition to abortion is something other than fetus's "right to life". Either it has it or it doesn't. Whether or not you weigh it against something else, like warpus is saying, you can't have both. Either it doesn't have a right to life and your opposition to abortion is something else, or it does have a right to life but you think something can trump that.

The point is those people who believe life begins at abortion

I'm sorry, but this cracked me up. Maybe my sense of humor is warped.

Any abortion of a " healthy fetus to be soon a healthy human" ... C) European aging population.

That's nice. Do you have anything to say about the topic?

Well, I don't know if you can really say 'murder'.. even if you did - you are trying to squeeze a very complex issue into a black/white mold, which just doesn't work.

Both entities (mother and child) have rights here; this isn't as simple as "rights of mother to her body" > "right of child to live"

Even if there are shades of gray, a line must be drawn. How do you justify the placement of your line?

 

[scy12]

That's nice. Do you have anything to say about the topic?

?

The ability of the mother to create life makes murder of Humans that we deem inappropriate to be sometimes more acceptable. Are perfectly normal children of a mother that was raped inappropriate ? I don't know. I lean to possibly not. As they are perfectly normal the stigma those children may carry should be due to cultural,social reasons and so it can be improved. On the other hand science had yet to find a cure to persons born with genetic disabilities concerning intelligence.

 

[Gibsie]

Tell me something - if the women never report the rapes, and presumably no one ever confesses, and no one is ever charged, how do you know that they took place? How do you know that 90% of rapes are reported instead of a small percentage? You don't, and you are just guessing.

Hello there, I mentioned that there are studies that have shown this, I'm not guessing like you are. A cursory look at wikipedia indicates that the "1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey" says that 39% of rapes are reported whilst a UK government report suggests it's anything from 75% to 95% that go unreported. Hopefully you can accept wikipedia and the methodologies used in this instance, I can't be bothered to go hunting for direct sources though feel free to do so if you dispute wikipedia's words

What attitude of mine would be degrading to anyone? I'm not saying women who were raped "deserved" it - I think rape is a vicious crime that should be punished severely. All I'm saying is that not all women who allege rape are telling the truth. Why is that so outrageous? If I said that not all people who says someone burnt down their insured home were telling the truth, no one would care, and everyone would agree with me. I don't see a difference here.

I wouldn't ever accuse you of saying that women deserve it, don't worry. And it's okay for you to say that not all women who allege rape are indeed victims. But if you make that claim to suggest that there are far fewer abortions as a result of rape than are reported, you simply must also acknowledge the FACT that rape is vastly under-reported and so for every woman who lies about being raped so she can get an abortion (which she can get just as easily either way) there will be more women who have fallen pregnant as a result of being raped but don't want to report it to anyone, yet still get an abortion.

And in case you're going to make some claim about political correctness and that I'm attacking you because you are denouncing false rape claims... I'm just correcting you because you're wrong.

Addendum: if rape victims were one of the only people allowed an abortion, the number of false claims would skyrocket even further.

 

[Mark1031]

language like

-john hsog on a 13 year old girl living under State control getting pregnant

-john hsog bolding added by me

-john hsog

-john hsog on women resorting to back alley abortions

-john hsog on possible death resulting from an abortion drug.


language that demeans the women as mere "sluts, skanks, and degenerates" that deserve their lot and deserved to be punished with pregnancy, rather than focuses on the life of the fetus. For what it's worth to me it sounds like it isn't about saving lives, but rather about demeaning the women.

pwned

 

[warpus]

Even if there are shades of gray, a line must be drawn. How do you justify the placement of your line?

The woman did not consent to the possibility of pregnancy, therefore she has the right to remove the fetus within a reasonable time period.

Then again, I would say the same thing about any sort of abortion. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it's done early enough. If you get past a certain point - too bad, you're stuck with the kid.

 

[MayNilad Man]

And the kid is stuck with you...

 

[Ayatollah So]

Wow, page 4 already and only Warpus has come close to answering the question.

It's immediately evident to anyone who's read Thompsons famous "famous violinist" argument (no, that's not redundant.) In fact this top hit on Google on searching for "Thompson's famous violinist" will explain the basics to you.

All rights require us to consider people's interactions and how they got to be in whatever predicament they're in. If you are a danger or a harm to me, I have a right to defend myself by harming you first - unless it is only by my actions, not yours or a third party's, that created this predicament in the first place.

P.S. I'm just answering the question asked, no more. If you've inferred my position on abortion, you're probably wrong.

 

[Eukaryote]

Many pro-lifers also like asserting the right to life for fetuses while at the same time saying war in countries like Iraq, people dieing in Africa from disease, and life without basic government funded health care and medicine is all right too. No one said their arguments have to make a hell of a lot of sense.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[fishjie]

yeah i agree. im pro life, and i think in the cases of rape and incest, the child has every right to life.

edit: but of course, abortion will always be illegal because republicans use it as a way to milk the votes out of xtians. cause lets face it, banning abortion while cutting funding for social welfare programs = tons of unwanted children = tons of criminals. freakonomics came up with that interesting conclusion. not to mention ppl would just get illegal ones anyway

 

[mdwh]

Well, I don't know if you can really say 'murder'.. even if you did - you are trying to squeeze a very complex issue into a black/white mold, which just doesn't work.

Both entities (mother and child) have rights here; this isn't as simple as "rights of mother to her body" > "right of child to live"

I agree. But obviously people who believe that abortion is murder exist, and that's what I find barmy.

 

[Warman17]

Here a question:

Do I have the right to kill a child that was the product of rape. What if I'm the mother and its very existance reminds me every minute of that terrible experience which gave it life. Even if I gave it away for adoption, knowing its still alive gives me mental trauma. After all if a fetus is a human life, it is comparable to a birthed child. Why then can I kill the fetus in the name of my mental health, etc, but I couldn't do it to my baby?

 

[LucyDuke]

The woman did not consent to the possibility of pregnancy, therefore she has the right to remove the fetus within a reasonable time period.

Then again, I would say the same thing about any sort of abortion. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it's done early enough. If you get past a certain point - too bad, you're stuck with the kid.

Okay. I'd like to push you on the "consent to the possibility of pregnancy" but you're being genuine here and it wouldn't be useful. But what I'm getting is that you're not claiming "right to life! no abortions, right to life!" in any opposition here. Which isn't what I'm looking for. I'm trying to call out something that strikes me as unreasonable, and while I don't agree with your stance, it seems perfectly reasonable.

Wow, page 4 already and only Warpus has come close to answering the question.

It's immediately evident to anyone who's read Thompsons famous "famous violinist" argument (no, that's not redundant.) In fact this top hit on Google on searching for "Thompson's famous violinist" will explain the basics to you.

All rights require us to consider people's interactions and how they got to be in whatever predicament they're in. If you are a danger or a harm to me, I have a right to defend myself by harming you first - unless it is only by my actions, not yours or a third party's, that created this predicament in the first place.

P.S. I'm just answering the question asked, no more. If you've inferred my position on abortion, you're probably wrong.

That's an interesting case, and a good look at the general case of "no abortion except if rape". What I'm stuck on, though, is the "right to life" claim. There is a disconnect! It is logically inconsistent to say that a fetus has a right to life under any circumstances except rape.


Shadylookin and Mark1031 are the only ones who've pointed out what I think is the actual situation with the "right to life" crowd that okays abortion in the rape case. If it were really about the fetus, there couldn't be any exception for the circumstance of conception. These people know that it is politically indefensible to deny abortion to a raped woman, so they concede that situation and in that concession betray their own positions. It's not about a fetus having a right to life, it's about not letting women separate sex from pregnancy.

But I would love to have someone explain how I'm wrong.