If abortion is wrong, why is it justifiable in the case of rape?

[Earthling]

What does "human life = human rights" have to do with religion?

Different religions don't agree on what human rights are. It's almost like someone could quote you on a thread about Islam or something and see how you may be contradicting yourself.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What does "human life gets human rights" have to do with religion?

You haven't noticed that virtually everybody who sees this the same way you do happens to be quite religious? That this is their way of rationalizing their religious views?

BTW I deleted my previous comment based on your next post, which made it clear you were only referring to those who are pro-lifers.

 

[Ecofarm]

Correlation = causation for the purpose of demonization!

You might as well blame blacks instead of poverty for inner-city violence, if you are going to blame religion for pro-life.


Seriously, using correlation = causation just to create a religious strawman is weak sauce.

 

[Earthling]

You might as well blame blacks instead of poverty for inner-city violence, if you are going to blame religion for pro-life.

Good thing no one said that in the first place. But also:

"You haven't noticed that virtually everybody who sees this the same way you do happens to be quite religious? That this is their way of rationalizing their religious views?"

 

[Ecofarm]

"You haven't noticed that virtually everybody who sees this the same way you do happens to be quite religious? That this is their way of rationalizing their religious views?"

I don't have religious views to rationalize, and I'm pro-life. Why assume they are rationalizing religious views?

To create a strawman with a pope hat? Yeah.

Keep equating pro-life with religion, that'll win with alot of thinkers :rollie eyes:

 

[Earthling]

When people they say they are basing things on religious beliefs, and many do, what other conclusion is there to draw? What strawman do you think you're up against here?

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm up against the strawman of "pro-life = religious".

 

[Formaldehyde]

As far all humans having rights is concerned, I take it you mean those you don't personally think are scum, and who should be killed outright merely for their views.

And no, it's no strawman. It's an obvious fact that very few atheists are "ecocentric" pro-life.

 

[Earthling]

I'm up against the strawman of "pro-life = religious".

Yes, the one that it seems you introduced to the thread, as no one else was saying that. Good thing that's clear.

 

[Ecofarm]

The correlation between pro-lifers and religious people is more the result of sobriety than any other religious belief.


Give human life basic human rights. That's all we are asking. Some of us are even willing to compromise in extreme cases; let's agree on those and be fair to the unborn. Everyone gets a decent opportunity; that's fair.


And while we are at it, let's stop using women as a scapegoat and just dumping the whole issue on them.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like your response. Good analogies.

I guess this would raise the question of what's the difference between passively and actively killing someone? I can't quite explain my gut feeling on this, but actively killing someone is far worse an action, even if they both end with the same result.

An abortion is an active process where as withdrawing your funding would be passive.

"Active killing" is certainly where it gets complicated. I expect that if rape victims were medically capable of extricating a fetus without killing it, the pro-life people would suggest that this is an acceptable alternative to abortion. Even if, maybe, the extrication was more damaging to the woman than an abortion.

I understand your gut feeling though. I'm pretty sure that 'active vs passive' is an important component of moral theory.

PFFT FOX NEWS!!

I should read through pages I link entirely.

I just did a ctrl+f for 'rape' and figure out which polls fit your question

So in that poll, we had 21% illegal for rape incest and 50% illegal for unwanted pregnancy, which is ~30% of respondents who, as I read it, think abortion should be legal for rape / incest but not for just any unwanted pregnancy.

Yeah, it's fair enough

 

[Elrohir]

Yet in your own explanation you used irresponsible to describe women who get pregnant consensually, innocent to describe women who got pregnant through rape, and similar language to back up my stereotypical and generalized statement that it's not about the fetus, but about the mother.

I guess you're a bit nicer about it than many, however my point still stands that the idealogical position of "legal abortion in the case of rape" is not about being "pro-life", but anti-woman.

If you get pregnant because you would rather have an abortion (or a series of abortions) rather than use birth control, yes, I would say that you are being irresponsible. I don't see how that is an anti-woman view - I would say that men who don't insist on birth control, but then don't want to be responsible for any resulting children, are also being irresponsible. It's my view that if you know something undesirable could happen from your actions, and you refuse to take relatively easy an inexpensive measures to prevent that from happening, then yes, you are being irresponsible. Would you disagree with that stance if we were talking about anything else? If I were, say, worried that my dog might get out of the yard, but I didn't bother to patch the holes in the fence, even though I passed Lowe's on my way home every day, wouldn't I be acting irresponsibly? If my dog got out, as you could reasonably expect, wouldn't it be my responsibility?

I'm not saying don't have sex if you don't want babies. I'm saying, if you don't want babies, but want to have sex, then be responsible about it. (And implicitly, if you do not act responsibly, then you are being irresponsible) I confess, I'm having trouble seeing the controversial side of this. Tell me, if you don't mind - do you believe in abstinence only education? I doubt it. If you don't, what would you like to see replace it? Perhaps a message based on the idea of being responsible and safe? (With the implicit assumption that there are irresponsible, and unsafe behaviors?)

I don't see why it can't be about both the fetus, and the mother. If we start with the assumption, as we have in this thread, that both are human persons, then I think it's obvious that anything that seriously impacts both of them has to take into account both their situations. Because that's all that's happening here. In rape versus non-rape situations, the situation of the mother changes, so it's not unreasonable for possible avenues courses of action to change as well. Do you honestly disagree with that? If so, could you explain why? Now, that's still a value judgment, so you can agree or disagree on whether abortion would or would not be justified in that instance - all I'm saying is that you can legitimately change from "no abortions are allowed" to "OK, they're allowed in this one instance," and not be acting out of misogyny.

 

[Quackers]

You haven't noticed that virtually everybody who sees this the same way you do happens to be quite religious? That this is their way of rationalizing their religious views?

BTW I deleted my previous comment based on your next post, which made it clear you were only referring to those who are pro-lifers.

I'm an athiest. I've never been to Church except when I was very young as my school was involved with it - but from my general values and judgement abortion is wrong. So it doesn't matter religious or not - its like saying all pro-choice are athiests its silly.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd also like to speak up on behalf of those who think early-term abortions are acceptable, but genuinely believe late-term abortions to be unnacceptable. Sometimes that is honestly what people believe, it's not merely a political compromise, and whether they identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice- if either- represents whether they feel allowing early-term abortions or preventing late-term abortions is more improtant. People's views can, it turns out, be more nuanced than "abortion is always wrong" or "life has no value".

 

[Lord Gay]

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.

I read a post recently from a woman who claimed to be an abortion doctor who said that she felt that PL weren't so much pro-life as "pro-forced birth". I agree with you however that the terminology used does seem to suggest a punitive desire for those filthy whores.

I think for some people, this drive for punishment even extends to the victims of rape. They think the women would not have been raped if they were acting like proper Christians.

"He raped me your Honor!"
"Well, what were you wearing?"

Spoiler :

The logic goes something like this: If you choose to take an action, then you're liable for the foreseeable consequences. So if you have sex, knowing you could get pregnant (And especially if you don't take action to prevent it) then you're responsible if you get pregnant. So it's not fair to punish an innocent, because you were irresponsible. But, in cases of rape, there was no foreseeability - the woman didn't act irresponsibly, but rather had the choice taken away from her entirely. The question shifts from "Should we make someone take responsibility for their actions, instead of punishing an innocent person?" to "Is it acceptable to further burden the victim of a horrible crime, and deny her complete control of her bod for 9 months, if doing so saves the life of an innocent person?"

Some people will say that it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term, if she had no choice in getting pregnant - others will say it's more wrong to allow an innocent to be killed, even if that means further harming an innocent adult. Either way, it's a value judgment weighing the rights of an early human life versus the rights of a human adult and victim.

It might not be expressed in quite that detail very often, but this is basically the line of thought that takes place. So while I'm not sure where I stand on this, I do understand both sides, as someone who considers himself to be a pro-lifer.


Nonsense. I really don't think you understand the pro-life movement at all. Perhaps there are elements that think that way, but most people don't. Don't ascribe sheer bigotry, when a reasonable explanation fits just as well - have the decency to presume common decency in your ideological opponents. Doing so is not only more moral, but also much classier.

Interesting, thank you.

And while we are at it, let's stop using women as a scapegoat and just dumping the whole issue on them.

You chose not to explain in the other thread, so I'll ask again here. Why do you keep talking about scapegoating women, dumping on them, etc.? I really don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

How are women being scapegoated? What are they being blamed for? How are they being dumped on? Are you suggesting this is a problem that men should be dealing with, but have decided to pass the buck and dump it on women to deal with? Are you suggesting this is a weighty issue and it's simply too heavy for women to be expected to handle on their own?

 

[bigdog5994]

If abortion is ok, why should we try to limit the number of abortions?

 

[Atlas14]

If abortion is ok, why should we try to limit the number of abortions?

I think the idea is to avoid abortion becoming used as a contraceptive.

 

[bigdog5994]

I think the idea is to avoid abortion becoming used as a contraceptive.

if there is nothing wrong with abortions why should it matter

 

[Atlas14]

if there is nothing wrong with abortions why should it matter

There is nothing morally wrong with them, but they do cost a good bit of money and force the potential/would-be parents to make a decision that could affect them emotionally for the rest of their lives, and so the intent of limiting the number of abortions would be to encourage the would-be parents and other people engaging in sex to have really thought about the impacts of whatever decision they go with, as opposed to the abortion becoming a wide-spread last resort option for irresponsible teens, which could leave them with emotional and bodily scarring and the public with a tax bill for other peoples' bad decision making.

 

[Karalysia]

if there is nothing wrong with abortions why should it matter

Its generally easier and safer for the mother to just use contraception. Abortion is sometimes a surgical procedure and there may be ruptures, and bleeding and its safer to avoid surgery if at all possible. Thus abortion should be legal of course but that's no reason to stop encouraging use of contraception.