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

[LucyDuke]

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?

A baby can be sent away intact. A fetus cannot be sent away intact.

Removing the fetus does not erase the trauma. It just prevents further trauma.

 

[Warman17]

What if ending baby's continued existance prevents further trauma?

if a baby's life = fetus' life than I should be allowed to end the baby's life if I can end the fetus' life for the same reason.

 

[LucyDuke]

What if ending baby's continued existance prevents further trauma?

if a baby's life = fetus' life than I should be allowed to end the baby's life if I can end the fetus' life for the same reason.

I'm not arguing that fetuses are babies. But either way, you cannot escape from a fetus without destroying it, though you can with a baby.

 

[Warman17]

I'm saying for the sake of argument that you can't. Knowing that it still exists continues to create trauma for you everyday. Simply sending it away does no good, I need to know its very life is ended.

 

[LucyDuke]

I need to know its very life is ended.

That's not something that very many people would be willing to treat seriously.

 

[Perfection]

Let's get some case studies!

 

[capslock]

The fetus has a rights, but like everyone elses rights, they end when they start infringing on others' rights. The fetus in the case of rape is an uninvited guest, and the woman has no responsibilty to give up her body, money, time, or anything else for it if she doesn't want to.

In the case of consensual sex, she waived her rights by agreeing to sex.

 

[Mark1031]

The fetus has a rights, but like everyone elses rights, they end when they start infringing on others' rights. The fetus in the case of rape is an uninvited guest, and the woman has no responsibilty to give up her body, money, time, or anything else for it if she doesn't want to.

In the case of consensual sex, she waived her rights by agreeing to sex.

Aha. And here we have it. The clear demonstration that the fetus is nothing but a pawn in a misogynistic effort to put women back in their place circ. 1900.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

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

You're wrong, and I already explained why, but my explanation was too telegraphic:

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.

IF you consider the fetus a person, then the fetus is an "innocent aggressor". It is causing some harm (burden of pregnancy, some health risks associated with pregnancy, etc.) without intending to harm. But ordinarily, it was placed into that predicament by the person being harmed, namely the woman. So, what would be her rights of self-defense had the predicament been created by someone else (a rapist, for example), do not necessarily apply when the predicament was created by her.

When I quoted you, I underlined "to say that a fetus has a right to life under any circumstances except", because I think you are misinterpreting. At least, I have never heard anyone say what you just said.

A lot depends on one's views about self-defense, especially against "innocent aggressors". An innocent aggressor is someone - like a desperate drowning person clinging to you after a shipwreck - who does not intend you any harm, but is nevertheless doing harm. Are you entitled to kill them in self-defense, if that is the only way to be reasonably sure they won't do you serious harm? I would say yes. Your mileage may vary, but if so, pretend for a moment that you agree, it is OK to kill the desperate drowning person who unwittingly is impeding your ability to swim.

Now, does that mean we think he doesn't have a right to life? (Hint: no!)

 

[LucyDuke]

You're wrong, and I already explained why, but my explanation was too telegraphic:

...

Now, does that mean we think he doesn't have a right to life? (Hint: no!)

Okay. Fair enough. A fetus's right to life overrides a woman's right to her body as long as that woman waived her right by consenting to sex. You're reinforced my belief that the whole ban-abortion crusade is about women, not fetuses. How? "But ordinarily, it was placed into that predicament by the person being harmed, namely the woman." It takes two.

 

[Ayatollah So]

as long as that woman waived her right by consenting to sex.

Wrong metaphor. The right to self-defense isn't waived - it's just that the situation is outside the normal scope of that right.

"But ordinarily, it was placed into that predicament by the person being harmed, namely the woman." It takes two.

The other guy (or test tube, as the case may be) isn't harmed or endangered - at least, not in a remotely comparable way - so the scope of his rights to self-defense don't really come into question.

If you are the captain who shouted "damn the reefs, full speed ahead" right before the shipwreck, or one of two co-captains, doesn't make much difference. Either way, your rights to harm the desperate drowning person in order to get away, are less absolute than the rights of the passengers on the boat, if they also have desperate swimmers clinging to them. Of course, if your co-captain is swimming freely and refuses to help you, then he's a bastard; but that's another topic.

 

[warpus]

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

I would say some abortion is murder, but not all.

 

[LucyDuke]

Wrong metaphor. The right to self-defense isn't waived - it's just that the situation is outside the normal scope of that right.

What metaphor?

The other guy (or test tube, as the case may be) isn't harmed or endangered - at least, not in a remotely comparable way - so the scope of his rights to self-defense don't really come into question.

I'm not talking about his rights to anything. I'm talking about how he has just as much to do with placing the fetus into its predicament as does his partner. A woman can't do it on her own, yet she's left with the burden. I know that's nature's fault, and it's not some government conspiracy, but it's not to be ignored.

 

[Elrohir]

What if ending baby's continued existance prevents further trauma?

if a baby's life = fetus' life than I should be allowed to end the baby's life if I can end the fetus' life for the same reason.

Irrelevant if we are talking about a human being. Would you kill a baby that is six months old because it would cause trauma for the mother to know it was still alive? I doubt it.

 

[amaterasu]

The woman never chose to have the child, usualy they say " well the woman still chose to have sex with them, she knows what it entails." With rape she has been forced and has no choice.
As for sticking the baby into state care, well making the woman bear a child, after being rape, therefore carrying the consequence of that rape with her forever ( Hard to believe you forget giving birth) so it would be pretty low to make them go through that...

 

[Elrohir]

The woman never chose to have the child, usualy they say " well the woman still chose to have sex with them, she knows what it entails." With rape she has been forced and has no choice.
As for sticking the baby into state care, well making the woman bear a child, after being rape, therefore carrying the consequence of that rape with her forever ( Hard to believe you forget giving birth) so it would be pretty low to make them go through that...

I'm not saying that this is a good solution. I'm saying it's better than murdering an innocent human being.

The issue is not whether forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, especially raped women, will be fun, or even good. The issue is whether unborn fetuses can qualify as human beings - because if they do, then abortion cannot be justified. We don't live in a society that kills human beings to make people feel better, no matter how screwed up the victim may be. Can you seriously say with a straight face "It's OK to kill a human being to avoid more emotional trauma for the Mother"?

 

[Chieftess]

It seems like the majority of people who oppose abortion find it at least acceptable, maybe just tolerable, in cases of rape or when pregnancy threatens a woman's life.
So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?

I guess I'm not in that particular majority that oppose it. (I'm 100% pro-life) Anyone's rights, wether born or not, shouldn't be tossed around like it's some illegal play in a sporting event.

 

[Ayatollah So]

What metaphor?

A woman "waiving her rights" by having voluntary sex. That's a metaphor (it's not like people sign release forms before having sex) and a bad one.

I'm not talking about his rights to anything. I'm talking about how he has just as much to do with placing the fetus into its predicament as does his partner. A woman can't do it on her own, yet she's left with the burden. I know that's nature's fault, and it's not some government conspiracy, but it's not to be ignored.

I agree there. That's why I support child support from non-custodial parents. Even if the guy said "I don't want this child, you should have an abortion" he still is, and ought to be, on the hook if she decides to have the child.

 

[Merkinball]

Society would get a lot further if we'd just realize that the fight over abortion is stupid. Abortion is NOT the problem. We're never going to solve any problems with abortion. The problem is unwanted pregnancies in whatever shape or form they may come in. That is the problem that needs addressing.

I think abortion should be left up to the states. Ideally I think it should be 100% legal. It's such a superior right to snub in peoples faces. However, I would prefer if people never used it...

 

[Zarn]

I would appreciate it if you guys stopped stereotyping pro-lifers. Don't insult those who don't even hold a particular viewpoint (abortion on rape). The fetus does have a right to live.

Like I said earlier in this thread (which everyone ignored), the only questionable issue is when both the life of the fetus and of the mother are in danger.