21
   

Why would abortion after rape be ok?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 07:15 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
But if your position on abortion is based primarily on your visceral reaction to the circumstances of the fetus's conception, then your position is fundamentally esthetic. As such, it is little different from saying that you oppose abortion because it's "icky."


It is logically consistent to oppose abortion because it is immoral. And allow an exception for rape because the nature of rape, and the damage done to society and to victims, warrants it.

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 07:28 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
It is logically consistent to oppose abortion because it is immoral. And allow an exception for rape because the nature of rape, and the damage done to society and to victims, warrants it.

If abortion is immoral, it is because of something about the act of abortion. Any exception, therefore, should be an exception related to that act (e.g. allowing for an exception for aborting a fatally deformed fetus because it doesn't constitute an "abortion"). An exception in cases of rape, on the other hand, has no connection with the act of abortion, it has something to do with the circumstances of conception. Those two things are not the same thing.

You were better off with the esthetic position. Nobody can argue with taste.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 08:04 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You said you were against abortions past a certain stage of development (8 weeks). Did I misunderstand?




Could you please find where I said that, and quote me?

chai2
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 08:11 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the rape exception in proposed anti-abortion legislation is illogical because rape is not always that horrible?

I don't know how to respond.


You don't know how to respond, because (a) I'm not engaging in an argument, (b) I haven't said a word about anti abortion legislation or a rape exception and (c) I'm calling Bellvue cause you're nuts!
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:09 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
) I'm calling Bellvue cause you're nuts!


Aren't there places closer to either you or Max, Chai?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:13 pm
@chai2,
Chai wrote:
Everyone draws a line from life at the moment of conception, to a partial birth abortion of a fetus of 39 weeks. I draw mine prior to when the fetus could survive on its own, starting at the point where it is starting it's own bodily functions, around the 8 week mark.


That's how I took this. But please answer the question directly.

Do you believe abortion at 39 weeks should be illegal?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 09:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
Really? You are basing your argument on the assertion that there is no connection between conception and abortion.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:13 pm
@maxdancona,
Actually, I'm more interested, since you brought it up max, why tsar, or others would think a 39 week old fetus doesn't have a say in whether it would want to be aborted while it's head is hanging out of its mothers vagina, and it's very possibly taken it's first breath.

Even if it was the result of a rape.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 10:20 pm
@chai2,
I think they made that clear, Chai.

They said that the interest of the mother (who is born) is more important than the interest of the unborn. And they argued that no one can tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

Either of these arguments apply until the moment the baby is born (i.e. actually exits the mother's body).
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:17 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
I don't see where rape, or even incest would suddenly make having an abortion acceptable, compared to just getting one because the woman wanted one....


You're right, there's a huge logical problem in the picture. US law does not distinguish between born persons as to rights and there is no reason to think it should distinguish amongst the unborn. If ANY unborn is to be thought to have any sort of a "right to life" sufficient to compel the woman to bear it, then all of them do INCLUDING the unborn child of the rapist. The only rational conclusion in the picture is that no such right can exist logically.

I would ADVISE people against abortions in something like 90% of all cases, but that other 10% contains too many compelling cases and the idea of banning the procedure strikes me as heinous.

Abortion/right2life is the one right-wing idea I wish I'd never heard of. It's one of a half dozen or so issues I have with conservatives and republicans.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:31 pm
Why do some people who believe abortion is immoral and tantamount to murder express a willingness for exceptions in the case of rape or incest?

Primarily because they are not capable of or willing to withstand the social onslaught in store for them if they express the belief that there should be no exceptions.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 09:39 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Really? You are basing your argument on the assertion that there is no connection between conception and abortion.

Here's what I wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
An exception in cases of rape, on the other hand, has no connection with the act of abortion, it has something to do with the circumstances of conception. Those two things are not the same thing.


My argument is that there's no connection between an exception from the prohibition on abortion and the circumstances of conception. That's because the exception has to relate to the act of abortion itself. I hope that clears things up for you.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 02:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
No, it still doesn't make any sense.

But with you and Gungasnake in agreement on this moral issue, who am I to continue arguing.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 02:25 pm
Things are a lot simpler for those like myself who take the position that the only person in the world that should have a say concerning a woman womb is the woman.

If you have morals problem of whatever nature with abortions then your only recourse should be to convict the woman who is pregnant of your position not using the law and society to seized control of the womb in question.

To seized control of a woman reproduction system against her wishes is in the same class as a rapist actions even if it is done with the force of the legal system instead of a knife at a woman throat.

Love the idea that women can not be trusted with those kinds of decisions and we will get better results by having mostly male lawmakers set conditions and limits on when they can end a pregnant.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 02:49 pm
@BillRM,
Let's be absolutely clear Bill,

Does this mean that at 39 weeks (when the baby is fully developed but hasn't come out yet) you would be ok with a woman choosing to have an abortion up until the the moment of the birth.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 02:59 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm definitely not Bill, but it's irrelevant whether it's ok with me if anyone has an abortion at any stage.

I could think it is horrible and disgusting and it still wouldn't be any of my business.

I have no right to interfere with anyone else's decisions about their medical treatment - of any kind.

I don't think anyone else has that right either.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 03:05 pm
@ehBeth,
Sory... Let me clarify the question ehBeth,

Do you think it should be legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy at 39 weeks for any reason? At this stage the baby is fully developed but not born yet.

ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 03:08 pm
I have big qualms about late stage abortion (or any) and haven't read up on the numbers re in what circumstances that happens, but I still hold with the woman's right.

But, that wasn't the thread question.
My answer to that is, are you kidding?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 03:16 pm
@ossobuco,
The thread question was about legal exceptions to abortion laws. If you make late stage abortions illegal, then that counts as an exception (actually that makes early stage abortions the exception, but it is the same thing).

The argument Bill et al are making is that abortion should be viewed a a simple issues with no exceptions.

I am trying to make the point that once you start making exceptions, then you can't complain about people who make different exceptions which is why the nice simple black and white, cut-and -dry view on this issue runs into problems.

Of course, if people here really believe that terminating a pregnancy should be legal until the moment of birth (meaning that ending a late term pregnancy where there is a fully developed baby is perfectly legal) then the point I am trying to make doesn't work.

ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 03:23 pm
@maxdancona,
I get that you see middle ground. My personal take is not on the table. I am stating my opinion, that I want the law to be that it is a woman's right to choose.

Oh, and you don't have to shout at me.
 

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 0.18 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 07:26:59