21
   

Why would abortion after rape be ok?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 08:57 am
@DrewDad,
There is a moral difference between ending a dog's life a part of a dog fight and ending a dogs life because it has no home.

On emotionally charged issues, people make distinctions based on circumstance.

DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 08:59 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
We argue about whether it is a human life or not

Isn't that kind of the point?

I "end life" all the time. My immune system kills viruses and bacteria. I exterminate pests. I eat the flesh of dead animals. I do all of this for my convenience.

Should people not be allowed to take antibiotics for venereal disease? After all, antibiotics "end life."
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:00 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

There is a moral difference between ending a dog's life a part of a dog fight and ending a dogs life because it has no home.

You mean the moral difference between causing a dog to suffer painful injuries and giving it a humane injection?

Yes, but the difference is not in the fact that the dog is dead.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:05 am
@DrewDad,
I think we are in agreement.

If I believed that abortion ended a human life, then I would be against abortion in any circumstance. In that case, in my mind, it would be murder.

But if I believed that abortion was morally troubling without being murder. Then I might want to regulate abortion with exceptions for certain circumstances.

The point is there is a lot of room between the two extremes.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:13 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
if I believed that abortion was morally troubling without being murder.

I've never heard a coherent argument for that in regard to abortions early in a pregnancy, though.

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:16 am
@maxdancona,
I think the debate is on whether people have asked themselves why they are against abortion, all the way down to the root belief system. If you believe abortion is ending a life, then there are no reasonable exceptions. Murder is murder. You might agree than terminating a non-viable pregnancy to save the mother's life is deciding whether one person will die or two, but that's about it. If that is not your belief system, then what is driving your opinion? I can accept "I have some moral concerns with abortion in some circumstances" but I want to know why. Show me the argument that says why abortion in case A is acceptable and not in case B. I'm not saying it can't be done. You may feel that in the case of rape, the emotional tramua of carrying the rapist's child to term is so great that it justifies an abortion. Someone else might argue that the emotional tramua of an unwanted pregnancy is similar, but I don't care about that, I just want to know the underlying argument. I think that is what the original post was about - people who have not thought through their belief system but have insanely fixed positions.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:24 am
@engineer,
Engineer,

I think you have it backwards. The original post was saying that people must have an insanely fixed position.

There are millions of different opinions on abortion. Some thinks it's murder. Some think it's just a medical procedure. Some people think it is something in between.

The idea that someone can't have a middle position is ridiculous.

People support physician-assisted suicide without supporting murder. People suport animal cruelty laws without banning meat. People support anti-narcotics laws without banning the medical used of Morphine for terminal patients.

The original post is disputing any middle ground. I think that is bogus.

DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:35 am
@maxdancona,
I don't think you and I both read the same post.

She discussed an interaction with one individual, and you've extrapolated from that to infinity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:26 am
I see no reason to label abortions for "family planning" (birth control would be a more honest and a more "to the point" description) should be labelled callous. To me, that reeks of moral judgment, and i suspect that Max has a moral agenda.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:28 am
Max, you're really reaching with your claims about straw man arguments. Joe didn't create the point about fetuses having rights, he's just responding to it. That's no straw man argument.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:34 am
@Setanta,
You don't need to suspect anything Setanta. I have been very up front on my moral agenda.

My moral agenda is simple. There is plenty middle ground on abortion. There are millions of Americans who are against legal abortion, but think that there should be an acception in the case of rape and incest. This is just as logically consistant as the other parts of the spectrum.

My objection is that Chai seems to be implying that there are only two positions that people can take. This claim is bogus.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:35 am
@Setanta,
Who brought up the case about fetuses having rights then? You can be opposed to abortions without believing that fetuses have rights (whatever that means).

If it is not a straw man, then it is irrelevant. No one here has expressed that belief.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:06 am
@maxdancona,
OMG . . . did you actually read and take in Chai's initial post?

Quote:
The conversation was over essentially by then, we both moved on. However, thinking about it, it seems that her idea was that if a woman got pregnant by voluntarily having sex (never mind that any birth control can fail) she needs to, well, be punished by being forced to have the child, a child not wanted. But when the woman is forced to have sex, it's fine to say the fetus doesn't have rights.
If the fetus doesn't have rights, what difference do the circumstances make?
Does the fetus have no rights if it's the result of rape, but has rights if it's the result of voluntary sex?


Joe did not construct a straw man.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:08 am
@maxdancona,
No, in fact you haven't been "up front" about your moral agenda. You haven't told what it is. All you've talked about is what millions of Americans think. So what? Are you familiar with the fallacy known as argumentum ad populum?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:19 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If I believed that abortion ended a human life, then I would be against abortion in any circumstance. In that case, in my mind, it would be murder.


So in that case you would be willing to imposed your believes on the women who need to carry such fetuses to term while suffering all the risks and discomfort of doing so?

There laid my problems with the abortion debate, the very idea that the society, half of whom have zero chance of being in that position, having a moral right to imposed the majority believes on pregnant women against their will.

Once more personally I find abortions for any reason sad however I also find the idea that the society have a right to seized control of a woman womb outrageous.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:43 am
The argument I am making is simply this.

A rational, sane person can come to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

That is the only claim that I have supported in this thread. My interpretation from Chai's original post is that she believes that the statement above is logically inconsistent.

There is nothing logically inconsistant about the belief that abortion is morally troubling without rising to the level of murder. And, there are lots of things that we find morally troubling that we regulate, but allow exceptions.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:46 am
@maxdancona,
That's nice.

You haven't said what your moral agenda is.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:47 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

There are millions of different opinions on abortion. Some thinks it's murder. Some think it's just a medical procedure. Some people think it is something in between.

OK, but what is the logic, belief system, moral basis, whatever for the in between position? The people who are against abortion in all cases have a very clear belief system and from those beliefs, their position can be naturally derived. Those who support aborti0n rights also generally have a clear belief system and you can logically understand their position from that. For those in between, I find they cannot explain their beliefs. It's not just abortion. You could say the same thing about taxes, government, welfare, etc. I'm willing to listen to an argument for a middle position - I might even be able to make one up that would sound reasonable but I find that most people in the middle don't even understand their own position so they end up wobbling all around the issue.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:59 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
hat abortion is morally troubling without rising to the level of murder. And, there are lots of things that we find morally troubling that we regulate, but allow exceptions.


I find that abortions have moral troubling elements however repeat however I find the very idea of mandating how a woman can used her womb far more morally troublesome.

Forcing her to take life threatening risks even in a "normal pregnancy" and many months of discomforts.

I see the society as a whole being in the same moral position as a rapist if it force a woman to have a child again her wishes.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:59 am
@engineer,
You are asking me to speculate on a belief system that isn't mine (I believe that abortion should be legal and available for anyone to some stage of development where we define the fetus as "viable").

Consider someone who feels that abortion is taking a life and is therefore morally troubling. They might also feel that it is not taking a human life and is therefore not immoral to the point of murder. There are plenty of morally troubling behaviors that we regulate but allow exceptions.

Let me push back on the idea that this is about two distinct opinions rather than a spectrum of opinion.

Most Americans (I believe) believe that there is a point, considerably before the due date, where abortion is no longer permissible. What if a woman just before labor wants to end the pregnancy.

Are you really willing to take the other extreme that a woman has the right over her body up to delivery? Or are you actually somewhere in the middle (along with Chai's friend)?

I am also interested in your opinion of abortion for gender selection, or genetic profiling (e.g. having lots of pregnancies and choosing the ones with athletic genes).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is the fetus in the womb a human being? - Question by kellirosej
Abortion - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
Abortion. Right or Murder? - Question by lmac2017
Motivation of Abortion Protesters - Question by gollum
People Wonder Why . . . - Question by plainoldme
God Damnit, Texas. - Discussion by DrewDad
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 01:55:58