|
As if abortion wasn't a complicated enough issue already, it just got a little more thorny after the US Congress proposal to amend the Anti-Abortion bill and include rape and incest as exceptions. Notwithstanding the House bill, this is an important issue that needs a careful discussion.
According to the US law, abortion is not allowed after the late-term of pregnancy. Medically speaking, this falls between from 16th and the 20th week of pregnancy, and the US has adopted the 20th term limit. This is the period when the foetus is still dependent on the uterus and will not survived if removed from it.
Now let's go to each of the proposed exemptions. Rape is an obvious and easy one. Pregnancy though rape brings about unspeakable trauma to the woman, and stigma to the child. The trauma to the woman comes twofold - the criminal act itself, and the unwanted product. On the other hand, pregnancy through incest carries over the social taboo as well as the high possibility of congenial birth defects.
What do you think TL? Are any of the two cases, namely rape and incest, justification for abortion (whether pre-20th week or after)?
|
I don't know what the big deal is with incestuous birth; congenial birth defects don't sound so bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
IMO, both are no-brainers with the same answer: Yes, they are legitimate exceptions.
Rape obvious, as it's againstthe womans will, and the child will live a life hating his father while at the same time riscs being hated by his/hers mother.
Incests is only bad for the child, however the child riscs severe defects, both mental and physical.
Getting a child through incest is no more humane, than beating a newborn baby half to death.
|
Obviously I don't know much about how things are over there in the States, but I really don't see how the issue got "a little more thorny"?!
As far as I'm concerned, this is progress, which is why I commend and support the proposal to legalize abortion at least in these couple of situations where very clearly a child would only do harm.
|
Anti-abortion bill
I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion.
|
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed.
|
On June 16 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is with incestuous birth; congenial birth defects don't sound so bad.
^^. Actually, just like Incest has a high probability to inforce genetic defects, it also can produce stronger offspring.
I like the Idea of finally deciding to morally ban rape, as so far, it was very prevalent through natural selection, one of the times, where we decide to be "better/greater" than nature.
|
On June 16 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is with incestuous birth; congenial birth defects don't sound so bad.
It's much more than that...
A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[100] Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding
Sauce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding
|
On June 16 2013 01:54 jello_biafra wrote:I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion.
Religion, thats why it exists.
|
The OP isn't clear to me at all. Are these proposed exceptions to the 20-week limit? Then what is the suggested new limit, or is it then fine to destroy the foetus right up until birth?
|
On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed.
Why do you think it's a violation of life? And why do you think you have the right to decide over other humans, if they should have abortions or not? Life is not fair, and definately not easy. It's a cruel world, and most of the time, things don't go as you want them to do..
|
On June 16 2013 01:57 MattD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:54 jello_biafra wrote:Anti-abortion bill I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion. Ancient nomads high on shrooms once wrote a book, thats why it exists.
FIFY
User was warned for this post
|
Yes for rape, depends for incest.
(Consider myself opposed to abortion in terms of morality in all cases resulting from consensual sex which do not pose a threat to the mother's life or in which the fetus is afflicted with some disease that precludes its acquisition of sapience; my reasoning has nothing to do with religion).
|
On June 16 2013 01:57 MattD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:54 jello_biafra wrote:Anti-abortion bill I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion. Religion, thats why it exists.
The are nonreligious grounds against abortion, namely morality and ethics. But on topic, I think I agree that these may be valid reasons for possible abortion.
|
On June 16 2013 02:00 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed. Why do you think it's a violation of life? And why do you think you have the right to decide over other humans, if they should have abortions or not? Life is not fair, and definately not easy. It's a cruel world, and most of the time, things don't go as you want them to do..
Don't question the Son of God.
And on topic, are they proposing extensions for those cases? And if yes, then what to? 5 months is already quite a long time to know if you want it or not regardless of the cause.
|
On June 16 2013 02:02 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:57 MattD wrote:On June 16 2013 01:54 jello_biafra wrote:Anti-abortion bill I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion. Ancient nomads high on shrooms once wrote a book, thats why it exists. FIFY
we got a baiter!
|
20 week limit seems fair, no exceptions imo. Prior to 20 weeks you don't need to justify your actions to anyone, post 20 weeks you have no excuse to terminate the life (the line has to be drawn somewhere and it's been drawn at 20 weeks)
|
On June 16 2013 02:03 Christ the Redeemer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:57 MattD wrote:On June 16 2013 01:54 jello_biafra wrote:Anti-abortion bill I have no idea why such a thing should exist in the first place and of course these are legitimate reasons for abortion. Religion, thats why it exists. The are nonreligious grounds against abortion, namely morality and ethics. But on topic, I think I agree that these may be valid reasons for possible abortion.
Morality is designed to help the society it comes from to prosper. I think most non-religious people will think it's immoral to ban abortions.
here in Denmark, we have free abortions, because the vast majority consideres it nessecary.
|
If a 20 week foetus has been determined to be a person, with the legal rights that come with that, then I don't see why killing it is suddenly fine, just because it is the product of rape or incest.
|
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
