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

[Berzerker]

would Hitler's mother have been justified in aborting him?

 

[Akka]

Now, I have a question: If abortion is a decision to be left up to a woman and her doctor, then why do most people who consider themselves PC have no problem with the government dictating that a woman cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time?

Considering it has been extensively explained in most of the hundreds of abortion threads, including at the very least one where you were actually discussing, I call BS on your false innocence about this question.

 

[Bill3000]

I'm not exactly sure there are examples of people who were for banning partial-birth abortion and genuinely believe that abortion shouldn't be regulated at all. Those who genuinely completely believe the latter (they exist) don't believe the former. Plenty of pro-choice people that believe in some level of regulation as the fetus approaches birth. In that case it's just recognizing a conflict of rights, and it's a matter of balancing a legitimate state interest with the mother's own rights to bodily autonomy.

 

[holy king]

would Hitler's mother have been justified in aborting him?

and if alexander fleming's mother had aborted we would have no penicilin.

seriously, dont be stupid.

 

[Earthling]

I'm not exactly sure there are examples of people who were for banning partial-birth abortion and genuinely believe that abortion shouldn't be regulated at all. Those who genuinely completely believe the latter (they exist) don't believe the former.

I only tried to say that about fifteen times, but to be clear, I still agree with this statement Bill, nice post.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I agree. There comes a point where a fetus is developed sufficiently where should be considered be a "human being". And it should not be aborted past that stage unless it imperils the life of the mother.

It was likely ultrasound of a late term abortion which convinced this apparent fundamentalist Christian she had been working in the wrong profession for 6 years.

 

[Bei1052]

Considering it has been extensively explained in most of the hundreds of abortion threads, including at the very least one where you were actually discussing, I call BS on your false innocence about this question.

Considering how I haven't read every, or even most, threads regarding abortion on this forum, nor do I read every page in every thread regarding abortion that I do happen to click on, I think it's safe to say that your claims of BS on my 'false innocence' are, well, BS. I wouldn't ask a question that I've seen someone answer, you know.

...And this is generally where I'd ask you to oblige me with an answer to my question, but if memory serves me correctly, I'm still waiting on an answer to a question I asked you a few weeks ago, so I'm not holding my proverbial breath at that one.

 

[El_Machinae]

Therefore, I don't think anything I typed out thus far is wrong. I think it's safe to say, as I have, that the majority-- If not all-- PC'ers would argue that the government has no business interfering with a woman's "private medical decisions". But given how the majority of them squirm at the thought of late-term abortions and do not oppose government restrictions on abortion after a certain point in time, I was asking how one reconciles those two positions. I didn't think it was this hard, personally. But maybe I was wrong.

I become uneasy at the idea of a late-term abortion. I am also prochoice.
I also do not want the government to get in the way if a doctor & patient decides that a woman needs an abortion. Needs.

I am fine with having unrestricted access to abortions in the earlier stages. At later stages, I don't think that it should be treated as an elective surgery. However, upon a doctor's recommendation, I think that a woman should be able to get one. Because, you know, she might actually need one.

This is why 'health of the mother' isn't just a talking point. This is easier in Canada, because we have legislation that forbids abortion as an elective process at a certain stage, but we also have legislation where an essential abortion is covered under our health insurance. It's actually not a bad system.

 

[Counterclaw]

So at what point do you think access should be restricted and why?

 

[Shadylookin]

I would be much obliged if someone could explain to me why one person's choice should trump another person's right to life.

You make choices that kill people everyday. If you pay taxes the government spends some of that money on killing people. If you vote, you choose to elect people that go to war and kill people. If you chose to eat today instead of giving your money to starving africans you killed someone. If you buy imported products that were made in sweatshops then you've chosen to support industries that people have a larger risk of dying in.

 

[El_Machinae]

So at what point do you think access should be restricted and why?

Well, I don't think access should ever be restricted. If the woman & doctor think that an abortion is necessary, then I want them to be able to do it. In Canada, this means that I am okay with medically necessary abortions being paid through our health insurance.

As an elective procedure, however, I think that anything before 24 weeks is perfectly acceptable (there's no mind in the fetus at that stage). After that, the idea of 'at demand' abortion makes me a little nervous.

 

[JerichoHill]

Being wronged doesn't mean you get to kill babies.

So basically, congrats on getting raped, now you get to stare at the offspring for 18 years? Congrats on doing nothing to deserve this bad occurence, but its just your bum luck?

Sorry, that doesn't jive

I do not understand how posters here can say "If you are a woman and you are raped, sorry, you must have the rapist's kid." That is basically saying "I'm sorry you got shot Mr. Innocent Bystander, you'll have to pay for your own hospital bill" or "I'm sorry your car was hit by a drunk driver. You'll have to foot your own bill"

A woman has every right to abort a fetus that was unwillingly, violently, forcefully, created through an act of rape. Unless you think God's will is done by a rapist.

 

[Counterclaw]

You make choices that kill people everyday. If you pay taxes the government spends some of that money on killing people. If you vote, you choose to elect people that go to war and kill people. If you chose to eat today instead of giving your money to starving africans you killed someone. If you buy imported products that were made in sweatshops then you've chosen to support industries that people have a larger risk of dying in.

That still doesn't show me how one person's right to choose is more important than another's life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Counterclaw: if I steal your VISA, and sponsor an orphan in Africa (she'll die if you cancel your payments), are you allowed to cancel your card?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

So basically, congrats on getting raped, now you get to stare at the offspring for 18 years? Congrats on doing nothing to deserve this bad occurence, but its just your bum luck?

Sorry, that doesn't jive

I do not understand how posters here can say "If you are a woman and you are raped, sorry, you must have the rapist's kid." That is basically saying "I'm sorry you got shot Mr. Innocent Bystander, you'll have to pay for your own hospital bill" or "I'm sorry your car was hit by a drunk driver. You'll have to foot your own bill"

A woman has every right to abort a fetus that was unwillingly, violently, forcefully, created through an act of rape. Unless you think God's will is done by a rapist.

No-one's suggesting that the woman be forced to raise and look after the baby. There is such a thing as adoption.

Is the relief to the rape victim of not having to give birth really worth killing a foetus? Really its a question of how much value you place on the life of a semi-developed human foetus. Some people say a foetus is a human life, plain and simple.

I personally can't say either way, but to me its life is at least worth something and I get very concerned when I see the sheer numbers of abortions carried out (a million a year in the US). It seems to me that there's a lot of people out there who just don't think it's worth anything at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

In Canada, abortions kill as many embryos as miscarriages do. "Trying to get pregnant" is creating a veritable slaughterhouse of sacrificed human beings.

And at least with abortions, we can try other methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies. That's why the number of abortions are going down.

 

[Bei1052]

I become uneasy at the idea of a late-term abortion. I am also prochoice. I also do not want the government to get in the way if a doctor & patient decides that a woman needs an abortion. Needs.

I am fine with having unrestricted access to abortions in the earlier stages. At later stages, I don't think that it should be treated as an elective surgery. However, upon a doctor's recommendation, I think that a woman should be able to get one. Because, you know, she might actually need one.

But I'm not talking about cases where it's determined that a woman needs an abortion. Rather, I'm talking about cases where a women simply wants an abortion. If abortion is truly a decision to be left up to a woman and her doctor without government interference, then why shouldn't a woman who wants an abortion her eighth month of pregnancy who has a doctor who will do it for her not be allowed to have an abortion? Simply because it makes you squeamish isn't an adequate answer. You can't say that the government shouldn't be involved in a woman's private medical decisions yet turn around and, at some point in time, argue that the government is justified in involving itself in a woman's private medical decisions. That's trying to have your cake and eating it, too. Either you admit that the government has no business getting involved in the abortion debate, at which point you end up allowing a woman to be the ultimate dictator of when she gets to have an abortion, or you admit that the government can be involved in the abortion debate, at which point it's just an argument of how much does the government wish to regulate abortion.

This is why 'health of the mother' isn't just a talking point. This is easier in Canada, because we have legislation that forbids abortion as an elective process at a certain stage, but we also have legislation where an essential abortion is covered under our health insurance. It's actually not a bad system.

In the U.S., I'm pretty sure that Medicaid (Or is it Medicare? I really should learn which is which) and other public assistance will cover abortions if they're deemed to be necessary.

 

[Bill3000]

But I'm not talking about cases where it's determined that a woman needs an abortion. Rather, I'm talking about cases where a women simply wants an abortion. If abortion is truly a decision to be left up to a woman and her doctor without government interference, then why shouldn't a woman who wants an abortion her eighth month of pregnancy who has a doctor who will do it for her not be allowed to have an abortion? Simply because it makes you squeamish isn't an adequate answer.

He answered already.

As an elective procedure, however, I think that anything before 24 weeks is perfectly acceptable (there's no mind in the fetus at that stage). After that, the idea of 'at demand' abortion makes me a little nervous.

Also please note that there is a difference between "the decision is to be left up to a woman and her doctor" and "abortion on demand" - El Mach is clearly stating that he believes the former to mean things such as medical necessity as opposed to elective abortion.

In the U.S., I'm pretty sure that Medicaid (Or is it Medicare? I really should learn which is which) and other public assistance will cover abortions if they're deemed to be necessary.

Other than the fact that I think it's pretty impossible for Medicare to cover abortions (since that's for the old people ) Medicaid doesn't cover abortion due to the [wiki]Hyde Amendment[/wiki].

 

[El_Machinae]

I know it's not completely cohesive, but please keep in mind that the decision to have an abortion, in my system, is up to the woman and the doctor. It's left to them to decide. It's without government interference.

Additionally, the system is trying to speed the process of elective abortions, so that in the first six months, a woman can do all the heavy deciding about whether she wants an abortion, and then can act on that decision. It's still a bit of time pressure, yes. 3 months is still a decently long time, though, to come to a decision. (3 months because she doesn't know she's pregnant the first month, hoping that she missed her period for 'other reasons' the second month, and then arranging health care the third month).

With the understanding that there're medically necessary abortions, and that medical information is confidential, we're going to have to allow late term abortions if the woman & the doctor decide that it needs to be done.

The 'downside' of this is that women might be killing viable fetuses in cahoots with their doctors. The 'upside' is that women are able to get necessary medical intervention. Obviously, it's difficult to gauge the statistics of women who're getting late-term abortions for 'proper' reasons (due to confidentiality), but let's please realise that very few women are going to decide after 6 months that, yeah, they want to kill the fetus afterall.

This is one reason why I don't like forcing delays onto women who want to get an abortion; especially governmental delays. Because as the time passes, the chances of an abortion being an 'undesirable one' (according to my ethics), increases.

 

[Counterclaw]

Counterclaw: if I steal your VISA, and sponsor an orphan in Africa (she'll die if you cancel your payments), are you allowed to cancel your card?

While canceling your credit card might not save this orphans life, it is not a violation of her right to life.

The cancellation of the credit card is not what is killing her, rather, it is her starvation and the events leading up to it. Furthermore, if I cancel my card, you can always steal another, so I don't but that canceling the card necessarily leads to the orphans death. Or perhaps it is your inability to feed the orphan via legal means. Surely, if you can steal a credit card, you can steal a few big macs.In any case, your example is not at all comparable.

With abortion, we are talking about a direct violation of a person's most basic and most important right. You are deliberately taking away the life of another human being. It WOULD be comparable if it read as follow:

If a starving woman steals your credit card and puts a burden on you by limiting your financial choice and freedom, do you have the right to kill her?

Now, I do think it would be immoral to cancel your card if you knew it was the only thing keeping someone alive. But I think your comparison is a bad one.