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

[Ayatollah So]

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

That's not the only issue. The fetus may be innocent, but it's still causing harm and risk by its growth; childbirth is one of the top 10 killers of women in their fertile years. It's one thing to be the co-creator of the burdens and risks and sheer invasiveness of pregnancy, and another thing to have them foisted upon you. If killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of rape is justifiable, then killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of pregnancy is also justifiable.

And yes, I know the fetus is different from the rapist in that the fetus has no intent to harm. But intent is not crucial; see my "drowning swimmer" example above.

 

[Warman17]

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.

The entire point is that a fetus = a baby to many people. I don't think a fetus = a baby, but if you consider a fetus a human life, then you also have to treat it like one. If you're unwilling to kill a baby because it was the result of rape, then you should be unwilling to kill a fetus because it was the result of rape.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

That's not the only issue. The fetus may be innocent, but it's still causing harm and risk by its growth; childbirth is one of the top 10 killers of women in their fertile years. It's one thing to be the co-creator of the burdens and risks and sheer invasiveness of pregnancy, and another thing to have them foisted upon you. If killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of rape is justifiable, then killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of pregnancy is also justifiable.

And yes, I know the fetus is different from the rapist in that the fetus has no intent to harm. But intent is not crucial; see my "drowning swimmer" example above.

The reason killing in self-defense is right is that you are killing someone who chose to risk their life in harming you. The child is not choosing anything. You could even go so far as to say it was forced to be conceived.

And dragging the cases of rape issue out is such a red herring. The overall situation of abortion is much simpler. Though my answer to the op would be that yes pro-lifers who think there should be an exception are pretty dumb, if well meaning.

 

[Elrohir]

That's not the only issue. The fetus may be innocent, but it's still causing harm and risk by its growth; childbirth is one of the top 10 killers of women in their fertile years. It's one thing to be the co-creator of the burdens and risks and sheer invasiveness of pregnancy, and another thing to have them foisted upon you. If killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of rape is justifiable, then killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of pregnancy is also justifiable.

And yes, I know the fetus is different from the rapist in that the fetus has no intent to harm. But intent is not crucial; see my "drowning swimmer" example above.

If the pregnancy will inevitably result in the death of the mother, I think abortion is justified. (As I've said before) I even think abortion is justified in cases of ectopic pregnancy where the baby cannot under any circumstances survive, but will do harm or possibly kill the mother if allowed to grow far enough. There's a difference between being Pro-Life and anti-abortion, just like there is a difference between being Pro-Choice and being pro-abortion.

As for the inherent risks in childbirth - yes, that does exist. But forgive me if I'll take a slight chance of death over a certainty of death. Even if, for the sake of argument, ten percent of pregnancies ended with the death of the mother, and a further 25% ended with the death of the mother and the child, I would still not support abortion in cases of rape. It is just a matter of numbers. If those numbers are correct (Even though I know they are terribly inflated, especially for a country like America) then in a sample of 100 pregnant rape victims, 60 people total would die if abortions were not allowed, while if abortions were allowed 100 people (Human fetuses) would die.

And since the percentage of pregnancies that result in death is much lower than that, I see no reason to conclude that the inherent risk of pregnancy is a reason to allow abortion in cases of rape.

The entire point is that a fetus = a baby to many people. I don't think a fetus = a baby, but if you consider a fetus a human life, then you also have to treat it like one. If you're unwilling to kill a baby because it was the result of rape, then you should be unwilling to kill a fetus because it was the result of rape.

And that's exactly what I've been arguing for this whole thread.

 

[bob bobato]

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.

No, I think you're misuderstanding them. It's not that they find it acceptable, it's that they find it understandable.

 

[Merkinball]

Just a little curious. What good comes out of aborting fetus' that were created by rape. Just real curious.

There's some eye opening studies that have been done over the years about rape victims and abortion.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The reason killing in self-defense is right is that you are killing someone who chose to risk their life in harming you.

That's not correct: look at the drowning swimmer example. The drowning swimmer doesn't choose to risk his life by clinging to you. He doesn't know that he's harming you, he just knows that he can breathe air so long as he clings to you and that he starts breathing water as soon as he lets go. But, if it's necessary to kill him in order to get away, you do have that right, despite his complete lack of intent to harm you.

It is just a matter of numbers.

It can't be just a matter of numbers, to determine right from wrong. What if every time someone needed a kidney transplant, we coerced a matching blood type person who still has 2, to "donate" one? We'd save more lives, but at the cost of violating some pretty fundamental rights. I don't think you'd approve of that, would you?

 

[LucyDuke]

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.

It's not metaphorical at all. There's no comparison happening. You don't have to sign a release to waive rights. This is absolutely literal. If I have a right to something (a fetusless uterus in this case) but can lose that right by doing X, if I do X I have waived that right. If other words would make you happier, by all means, translate this into something you like better.

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.

Contraception prevents abortions, yeah. This is what I want to clock anti-condom anti-abortion wackos in the head with.

No, I think you're misuderstanding them. It's not that they find it acceptable, it's that they find it understandable.

That's why I included the words "maybe just tolerable". Isn't "tolerable" what you're getting at?

 

[EdwardTking]

I think that the logic of treating raped women
differently goes something like this.

Rape is the insertion of an unwanted foreign object
in an intimate part of a lady's anatomy against her will.

Forcing a raped woman to carry a fetus to term,
means that she is therefore being raped for 9 months.

And the right of the fetus to life < right not have 9 month rape.

 

[Merkinball]

Contraception prevents abortions, yeah. This is what I want to clock anti-condom anti-abortion wackos in the head with. - LucyDuke

Abortion is largely just another form of contraception. Contraception and abortion is nothing but a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The problem of unwanted pregnancies is inherently a societal problem. You're never going to fix fissures in society with bandaids. You're treating the symptoms, but not curing the disease.

 

[LucyDuke]

Abortion is largely just another form of contraception. Contraception and abortion is nothing but a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The problem of unwanted pregnancies is inherently a societal problem. You're never going to fix fissures in society with bandaids. You're treating the symptoms, but not curing the disease.

A contraceptive is something that prevents conception. Conception is what starts off a pregnancy. Abortion does not prevent conception, and does not prevent a pregnancy from occurring. It terminates a pregnancy. Abortion is not any form of contraception.

Are you suggesting that the best solution to unwanted pregnancies is to stop people from having sex?

 

[Elrohir]

That's not correct: look at the drowning swimmer example. The drowning swimmer doesn't choose to risk his life by clinging to you. He doesn't know that he's harming you, he just knows that he can breathe air so long as he clings to you and that he starts breathing water as soon as he lets go. But, if it's necessary to kill him in order to get away, you do have that right, despite his complete lack of intent to harm you.

I'm sorry, but this scenario doesn't make any sense at all to me. Why not just punch him? You wouldn't have to kill him, and I'm afraid I don't see how you could anyway, short of drowning him yourself. (And if you are strong enough and are in enough control to do that, then you could almost certainly just save him) I understand what you are trying to say, but to put it bluntly, your scenario sucks.

Your argument is really irrelevant, though. In your scenario, there is an immediate, impending, and thoroughly certain death coming for one or both of you. In the case of pregnancy, there is only a small chance the pregnancy will result in death under normal circumstances. Which immediately separates this from your swimmer scenario, because there is not a small chance of death for one or both of you in that, but a large and immediate one.

Simply put, a large and immediate risk of death for one or both may under some circumstances allow the use of deadly force. A small future risk for one or both does not.

It can't be just a matter of numbers, to determine right from wrong. What if every time someone needed a kidney transplant, we coerced a matching blood type person who still has 2, to "donate" one? We'd save more lives, but at the cost of violating some pretty fundamental rights. I don't think you'd approve of that, would you?

I don't think that is comparable at all, for several reasons. The largest reason is that you can live without a kidney - it isn't comfortable, and it sucks, but you can do it. But unborn babies can't live after an abortion, by definition they are killed. There are other reasons why that is an invalid comparison, but that is the primary one.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm sorry, but this scenario doesn't make any sense at all to me. Why not just punch him? You wouldn't have to kill him, and I'm afraid I don't see how you could anyway, short of drowning him yourself.

Of course just punch him - but that could kill him. If you knock him out cold, he immediately drowns. If you don't hit hard enough to knock him out, he probably still clings for dear life. Let's say that punching him hard enough has a 50/50 chance to kill him. Let's also suppose that you figure that if you manage to get him off you without knocking him out, he has a 1&#37; chance of making it, on his own, to the nearest lifeboat.

Let's also say that you figure you're a strong enough swimmer that, if you get rid of him, you are certain to be able to get to that lifeboat. And that if you let him cling to you, you have about a 60% chance to make it, in which case you also save him.

Do the numbers: you have a better mathematically expected number of survivors if you let the guy cling on. Does that mean you're obligated to let the guy cling on? Not just that it would be the virtuous, heroic thing to do -- that's a given -- but you're obligated to risk your life?

Your argument is really irrelevant, though. In your scenario, there is an immediate, impending, and thoroughly certain death coming for one or both of you. In the case of pregnancy, there is only a small chance the pregnancy will result in death under normal circumstances.

But the risk to life is only a small part of the problem. Probably the biggest, to a woman who understandably feels that the rape pregnancy is a 9 month long violation, is the sheer invasiveness of it. Defense against threats to your life is not the only valid kind of self-defense. As I said before: If killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of rape is justifiable, then killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of pregnancy is also justifiable.

I don't think [forced kidney "donation"] is comparable at all, for several reasons. The largest reason is that you can live without a kidney - it isn't comfortable, and it sucks, but you can do it.

That would just be ALL THE MORE reason to force people to donate kidneys when someone is in need and when there aren't enough voluntary donors. Is that really the policy you favor?

It's not metaphorical at all. There's no comparison happening. You don't have to sign a release to waive rights. This is absolutely literal. If I have a right to something (a fetusless uterus in this case) but can lose that right by doing X, if I do X I have waived that right. If other words would make you happier, by all means, translate this into something you like better.

So I was wrong about the metaphor: "waive rights" is still the wrong term. Waiving rights means deliberately relinquishing them. By contrast, this is a case of moving into a new situation, up to the limits of your rights, while retaining the same fundamental rights. The appearance of "lost rights" is created by describing those rights in non-fundamental terms.

By your way of talking, I "waive my rights" to swing my fists by walking into a crowded room. But that's not the right way to think of it. I still have the same fundamental right of freedom of movement. I just don't have the right to swing my fists all around me because I have moved myself into a new situation, moving up to the limits of my right.

 

[Elrohir]

Of course just punch him - but that could kill him. If you knock him out cold, he immediately drowns. If you don't hit hard enough to knock him out, he probably still clings for dear life. Let's say that punching him hard enough has a 50/50 chance to kill him. Let's also suppose that you figure that if you manage to get him off you without knocking him out, he has a 1% chance of making it, on his own, to the nearest lifeboat.

Let's also say that you figure you're a strong enough swimmer that, if you get rid of him, you are certain to be able to get to that lifeboat. And that if you let him cling to you, you have about a 60% chance to make it, in which case you also save him.

Do the numbers: you have a better mathematically expected number of survivors if you let the guy cling on. Does that mean you're obligated to let the guy cling on? Not just that it would be the virtuous, heroic thing to do -- that's a given -- but you're obligated to risk your life?

This is all irrelevant, because the type of risk is completely different. This is an impending, immediate risk of life, not a possible future risk of life. Aren't you listening?

But the risk to life is only a small part of the problem. Probably the biggest, to a woman who understandably feels that the rape pregnancy is a 9 month long violation, is the sheer invasiveness of it. Defense against threats to your life is not the only valid kind of self-defense. As I said before: If killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of rape is justifiable, then killing in self-defense against the invasiveness of pregnancy is also justifiable.

Not the killing of an innocent. You can kill someone who is attacking you with deadly force because of the right to self defense, you cannot kill a random innocent because another has violated your rights. Raping someone is a vicious crime, and you can use deadly force to protect yourself from that crime. Being conceived is not a crime, and you cannot use deadly force to prevent yourself from having to carry a baby to term.

The right to self defense is not a license to kill, especially when we are not talking about defense of life, merely of convenience.

That would just be ALL THE MORE reason to force people to donate kidneys when someone is in need and when there aren't enough voluntary donors. Is that really the policy you favor?

What? You can live without a kidney at all using certain medical machines. Thus, there is no reasonable danger of death in most cases in a Western country, and this isn't comparable at all. Kidney donation and transplant is in most cases a quality of life issue, not a life or death issue.

Furthermore, even if we accept for a moment that these people cannot live without kidneys, and that by donating a kidney you can save them, that doesn't mean that you must. There is a difference between passively not taking action (Action which would endanger yourself and lower your quality of life, no less) which may or may not lead to the death of a human being, and taking direct action which will certainly lead to the death of a human being, such as abortion.

Face it - abortion for any reason besides protecting the mother from impending death, or severe harm when the baby will inevitably die anyway (Like in ectopic pregnancies) cannot be morally justified if we accept that unborn fetuses are human beings with a right to life. You can argue all you want that fetuses aren't really babies, but you can't argue that killing babies is acceptable if it makes a woman's quality of life for a few months higher. Do you really want to live in a society that murders its own innocent citizens as a matter of convenience?

 

[Ayatollah So]

This is all irrelevant, because the type of risk is completely different. This is an impending, immediate risk of life, not a possible future risk of life. Aren't you listening?

I'm listening to you make claims that show a misunderstanding of the arguments.

Edit: Probably you are talking about the good swimmer, in the shipwreck case, who is at immediate risk of life, versus the raped woman in the abortion case, who is not. But you already agreed that risk of life is not the only valid reason for self-defense, so this difference is not enough to make the two cases relevantly disanalogous. People have a right to protect their bodily integrity as well as their life. Removing the fetus from the womb may harm or kill it, but if she didn't place it there by her own act, its presence there is a violation of her bodily integrity, and she has a right to do harmful things in self-defense. Of course, the harm done in self-defense against an innocent aggressor should be the minimum necessary to achieve self-defense (see below).

Raping someone is a vicious crime, and you can use deadly force to protect yourself from that crime. Being conceived is not a crime, and you cannot use deadly force to prevent yourself from having to carry a baby to term.

Let the abortion consist only of removal of the fetus, not tearing it to bits. If it can survive in an incubator, more power to it. Assuming that the fetus has a right to life, I only support the woman's right to remove it in this case, not to destroy it. (And, like Warpus, I see a difference between a zygote and an 8-month fetus, with the latter having a right to life.) However if the fetus will die anyway, then I also support the woman's right to remove it in whatever way most promotes her health.

Furthermore, even if we accept for a moment that these people cannot live without kidneys, and that by donating a kidney you can save them, that doesn't mean that you must. There is a difference between passively not taking action (Action which would endanger yourself and lower your quality of life, no less) which may or may not lead to the death of a human being, and taking direct action

I agree, active vs passive is important. Which implies that it's not just about the number of survivors - it's about the rights of the parties to the conflict, and who is doing what to whom. Which was the point I was making, when I raised the whole kidney transplant scenario.

 

[chinesefireball]

For those who are saying that if you are unwilling to kill a baby, then you should be unwilling to kill an foetus: Have you considered with the foetus (presuming that it is in the first trimester), the woman has at least 6 months of caring for the unborn child (so by this I mean not drinking, smoking, looking after herself more then she would generally), general awkwardness (so ranges to not being able to walk due to the baby being in an awkward position, not being allowed to fly, probably not being able to work close to the due date) and then she has to go through the pain and cost of giving birth. THEN you have a baby that you are comparing to a foetus

For the record I am pro-abortion (as long as it is in the first trimester), although I would not have an abortion myself

 

[Merkinball]

A contraceptive is something that prevents conception. Conception is what starts off a pregnancy. Abortion does not prevent conception, and does not prevent a pregnancy from occurring. It terminates a pregnancy. Abortion is not any form of contraception.

Are you suggesting that the best solution to unwanted pregnancies is to stop people from having sex? - LucyDuke

Yeah, you're right. Let me rephrase that. Abortion is just another form of birth control. And no, I'm not suggesting that people stop having sex. But I am suggesting that people need to be more responsible, realistic, and mature when it comes to sex.

 

[Azash]

Nobody has a right to life. Every moment, our survival depends on the choices, actions and causality of our environment.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What about adoption?

 

[chinesefireball]

What about adoption?

Which means the women has to go through a whole pregnancy still