|
On June 16 2013 18:26 ChriS-X wrote:
should the innocent child be punished for the sins of the father?
should the victim be punished, again, for the sins of the father ?
|
On June 16 2013 16:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 12:47 Taguchi wrote:On June 16 2013 12:30 Millitron wrote:On June 16 2013 12:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 16 2013 12:09 Millitron wrote:On June 16 2013 12:08 Djzapz wrote:On June 16 2013 12:00 Millitron wrote:On June 16 2013 11:47 Ghostcom wrote:On June 16 2013 11:37 Millitron wrote:On June 16 2013 11:04 RCMDVA wrote:
[quote]
In reality, it isn't that arbitrary. Around 20 weeks is when the lungs are developed enough that a fetus has a shot at breathing air with the help of a respirator/incubator.
That's the reason for it...and the reason why the SC has "viability" as the line in the sand so to speak between abortion or no abortion. Roe v Wade and the Planned Parenthood decision.
Can't breathe air = not viable fetus. It will die if it leaves the womb.
Chance at breathing air = viable fetus. ** With the help of mechanical assistance
And that reason is also why in the last 40 years there hasn't been that much more advance in that window of 20 weeks. We can't duplicate how a fetus breathes in the womb.
The kicker will be when technology advances to the point where you can keep a fetus alive in a liquid environment and it can absorb oxygen through the placenta...or you can splice an umbilical cord to some kind of device that replicates the placenta/uterine wall connection.
But you don't actually know a fetus is capable of breathing air at any particular point around then. A fetus at 19 weeks and 6 days is practically identical to one at 20 weeks and 1 day. Why should one be treated any different than the other? In the real world your argument is completely null and void. It would have some merit if time of conception was known without an approximately 10 days margin of error. However it is not. Thus we have to put in a threshold where we are certain there are no (or at least extremely low) survival chance for the fetus (fetal viability does not cross the 50% threshold before week 25/26 and at week 20 it is 0). Whether or not an abortion can take place is not literally based on days. It's still arbitrary because one must still set a line, to one side of which abortion is fine, to the other it is not. The only difference is this time the line is based on viability, which is just as arbitrary as simply setting a date. Say the odds required are 80%, a fetus with 81% odds isn't much different than one with 79% odds. I don't understand why we're trying to pretend like this won't be decided arbitrarily. Any attempts to do this objectively will fail horribly because biologists will find a bunch of different "phases" to a fetus's formation, all of which are actually ballpark estimations... Even if we accept their ballparks estimation, for instance, fetus becomes "viable" on average on day X, then the debate will whip right back to the "morality" front because using viability as a basis is arbitrary too. Don't fool yourselves, this is a moral debate. Well, I can think of at least two options that aren't arbitrary. Either abortion is always OK, or its never OK are both not arbitrary. It hardly gets more arbitrary than a binary answer with no explanation actually. Especially when you're suggesting that context is irrelevant. As far as I can tell, you've somehow decided for the rest of us that the stage of development of the fetus is not worthy of considering. I just don't know what to say to that :o Sorry for not including context, I assumed I had been clear enough, my mistake. I would defend abortion right up until birth based on claims of personhood, and on potentiality. I would defend preventing all abortion by the classic "personhood occurs at conception". The fetus receives its genetic material then, and is biologically neither the mother nor father from that moment on. I don't really care which you pick, because both are internally consistent. Being the Kantian I am, I don't care for A Posteriori reasoning as far as moral issues are concerned. Really, really don't understand why 'personhood' is defined as either 'at birth' or 'at conception'. A child whose mother dies before actual birth and then survives because of great science isn't getting the 'personhood' tag out of you? Was Kant the guy that invented trolling or something? (not actually asking who Kant is mr Kantian) As a hint, to avoid the situation where a nonperson would be born we have this thing called 'viability of the fetus!!' and the rest goes as Ghostcom and others already said. The actual birth still occurs when the doctors remove the fetus from the womb. It's just a C-section, basically.
So you've decided that 'personhood' is attained at birth, which is whenever the fetus is removed from the womb. So a 100% viable 8 month fetus is not granted 'personhood' status unless it is actually removed from the fetus, nevermind that it can clearly do what a 4 month fetus cannot, namely survive removal, either on its own or by mechanical assistance.
Talk about semantics overcoming morality.
Thing is you've arbitrarily set your line in the sand at 'birth' and 'conception' and used these two timings to define 'personhood', which is just as arbitrary as defining 'personhood' as the time when a fetus gains >0% viability if its carrier was removed, or it gains >50% or whatever else.
In the real world people have taken the very moral, in my opinion, decision to allow abortions before the >0% threshold, and since this is around the 22 week mark they've also given it a little cushion of a couple weeks to eliminate any possibility of immorality and... 20 weeks is the result. This is as arbitrary as whatever you're supporting, but it also makes a whole lot of sense from a practical and scientific viewpoint.
On topic, don't really understand why rape/incest constitute special cases from the fetus' viewpoint, if the mother won't abort during the first ~5 months I don't see why she should be given a choice from that point on. And I give consideration to the fetus viewpoint because from that point on it is clearly a viable human. Unless I misunderstood the OP, and there's some vague info in there.
|
On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo?
The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all.
|
On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all.
Would be nice if people actually discussed this simple point instead of just blabbing on about abortion in general.
Agree with you 100% here btw.
|
On June 17 2013 00:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. Would be nice if people actually discussed this simple point instead of just blabbing on about abortion in general. Agree with you 100% here btw.
If you consider that at 20 weeks +1 day you cannot terminate a fetus and that at 20 weeks -1day you can (I use 20 weeks as an example) and that there is a consensus about that for medical reason, your point is 100 % right.
If you say that for a certain duration (let's say 4 weeks) it is harder and harder to terminate the fetus, i.e the line where you cannot terminate it is blur, then you can use pragmatism and say that the psychological well being of the mother and the child can play a role in choosing in that "blur time" when you cannot terminate the fetus anymore.
|
On June 17 2013 01:49 Thurken wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 00:37 Reason wrote:On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. Would be nice if people actually discussed this simple point instead of just blabbing on about abortion in general. Agree with you 100% here btw. If you consider that at 20 weeks +1 day you cannot terminate a fetus and that at 20 weeks -1day you can (I use 20 weeks as an example) and that there is a consensus about that for medical reason, your point is 100 % right. If you say that for a certain duration (let's say 4 weeks) it is harder and harder to terminate the fetus, i.e the line where you cannot terminate it is blur, then you can use pragmatism and say that the psychological well being of the mother and the child can play a role in choosing in that "blur time" when you cannot terminate the fetus anymore.
This isn't how sex works so why should it be any different here?
In my country, 15 years 364 days is underage and 16 years 1 day is ready for some sweet sweet loving. That's how the law works and this is a matter of legislation. So I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, obviously when you really look at it it's insane to say that you can abort at 19 weeks 6 days but not at 20 weeks 1 day, but it's also insane to say that you can't have sex at 15 years 364 days but you can at 16 years 1 day.
However, that's just the way it is, no exceptions. If you accept that we do have to draw the line somewhere I'm still not seeing any reason to make exceptions for it.
|
On June 16 2013 02:03 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:00 cloneThorN wrote: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.
It's funny, but I don't remember Jesus saying anything about Abortion.
|
On June 17 2013 01:59 Reason wrote:
This isn't how sex works so why should it be any different here?
In my country, 15 years 364 days is underage and 16 years 1 day is ready for some sweet sweet loving. That's how the law works and this is a matter of legislation. So I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, obviously when you really look at it it's insane to say that you can abort at 19 weeks 6 days but not at 20 weeks 1 day, but it's also insane to say that you can't have sex at 15 years 364 days but you can at 16 years 1 day.
However, that's just the way it is, no exceptions. If you want to debate the whole "you have to draw the line somewhere" then fine, go create a separate thread for that separate discussion. Given that we do have to draw the line somewhere, I'm still not seeing any reason to make exceptions for it.
It's not like that everywhere. Here in Finland the law considering age of consent says that the age limit isn't absolute but depends on the circumstances. If the relationship seemed fine and fair, nobody will be convicted. Laws don't have to be stupid.
|
Arent incest and rape the same? like every case of incest is also a case of rape.
If the incest did happen with consent and was not rape, then it should not be an exception for abortion imo.
|
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..
The worst part of this argument about abortion being "a violation of life" is that until the 19th century, most pregnancies ended in the death of the baby or the mother, or both. Humans have completely altered the balance of life, only 1 in about 4 children are SUPPOSED to survive to adulthood but through science we have managed to improve that success rate. In nature most offspring die before even reaching a year old, death is the most natural part of life and babies inside the womb have no idea they even exist, they aren't alive yet... even at 20 weeks.
I'm not for late term abortion without limits, however rape and incest are two of many valid reasons for a late term abortion, including the health of the mother, a mother forced in to pregnancy by their partner or forced in to keeping the baby by the father (who has NO RIGHT to have any say on the matter, and I'm a man saying that) etc. i am however for early term abortion without limits because the child isn't even a child yet, they are a fetus, they aren't alive and can't feel yet, they are not by any definition alive and are completely dependent on the mothers body to survive.
|
On June 17 2013 02:18 Rassy wrote:
Arent incest and rape the same? like every case of incest is also a case of rape.
If the incest did happen with consent and was not rape, then it should not be an exception for abortion imo.
Incest simply means sex between people who are closely related to legally get married.
|
On June 17 2013 00:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. Would be nice if people actually discussed this simple point instead of just blabbing on about abortion in general. Agree with you 100% here btw.
The reason the law is not consistent is because it is made by different people. The people who decided Roe v Wade rejected the notion of fetal rights. The people who write anti-abortion bills accept the notion of fetal rights. There are hundreds of laws that are inconsistent, arbitrary, and frivolous. Logic and reason need not apply.
|
On June 17 2013 02:18 Rassy wrote:
Arent incest and rape the same? like every case of incest is also a case of rape.
If the incest did happen with consent and was not rape, then it should not be an exception for abortion imo.
Not necessarily. If you're having sex with your daughter and she's a child, then yes, it's both incest and rape (because she can't legally consent to sex). However, if you're having sex with your daughter and she's an adult and it's consensual (she agrees), then it's not rape... just incest.
|
This all assumes that supposed rape charges are legitimate. False rape charges are on the rise and dwarf actual proven rape. Most of the time with rape related pregnancies its just women with buyer's remorse not wanting to own up to their mistakes.
|
On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all.
I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that for some people, being pro-choice isn't just about the fetus and the fact it exists (regardless of whether it appeared through rape, incest, or "normal" circumstances); many people also consider the situation in which the fetus arises to be an important factor when allowing and agreeing with abortions. And this is because, to some people, the pregnancy isn't just about the fetus becoming a baby. It's also about the woman who's carrying it, and possibly other people and variables as well.
You may not think the circumstances are relevant when debating abortion, and that's a point of controversy... but other people do, because the abortion laws not only affect the future child, but also existing people.
|
On June 17 2013 02:40 scaban84 wrote:
This all assumes that supposed rape charges are legitimate. False rape charges are on the rise and dwarf actual proven rape. Most of the time with rape related pregnancies its just women with buyer's remorse not wanting to own up to their mistakes.
Can you provide any evidence/sources for this claim?
|
On June 17 2013 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that for some people, being pro-choice isn't just about the fetus and the fact it exists (regardless of whether it appeared through rape, incest, or "normal" circumstances); many people also consider the situation in which the fetus arises to be an important factor when allowing and agreeing with abortions. And this is because, to some people, the pregnancy isn't just about the fetus becoming a baby. It's also about the woman who's carrying it, and possibly other people and variables as well. You may not think the circumstances are relevant when debating abortion, and that's a point of controversy... but other people do, because the abortion laws not only affect the future child, but also existing people.
I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that this isn't about pro-choice or pro-life, this is a separate discussion about breaking the 20 week rule because of rape or incest, not whether abortions should be allowed in the first place. They already are.
|
On June 17 2013 02:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that for some people, being pro-choice isn't just about the fetus and the fact it exists (regardless of whether it appeared through rape, incest, or "normal" circumstances); many people also consider the situation in which the fetus arises to be an important factor when allowing and agreeing with abortions. And this is because, to some people, the pregnancy isn't just about the fetus becoming a baby. It's also about the woman who's carrying it, and possibly other people and variables as well. You may not think the circumstances are relevant when debating abortion, and that's a point of controversy... but other people do, because the abortion laws not only affect the future child, but also existing people. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that this isn't about pro-choice or pro-life, this is a separate discussion about breaking the 20 week rule because of rape or incest, not whether abortions should be allowed in the first place. They already are.
I know that  But the circumstances that differentiate a rape scenario and an incest scenario (and a "normal pregnancy" scenario) may still be applicable, regardless of the week/ month we're referring to. So, again, the factors that make rape different than incest and both different than regular sex, may still be important to those who look past the simple existence of a fetus in all cases.
EDIT: For some, it's not as simple as "Fetus exists; therefore, you should always (or never) allow abortions."
|
On June 17 2013 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 02:54 Reason wrote:On June 17 2013 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that for some people, being pro-choice isn't just about the fetus and the fact it exists (regardless of whether it appeared through rape, incest, or "normal" circumstances); many people also consider the situation in which the fetus arises to be an important factor when allowing and agreeing with abortions. And this is because, to some people, the pregnancy isn't just about the fetus becoming a baby. It's also about the woman who's carrying it, and possibly other people and variables as well. You may not think the circumstances are relevant when debating abortion, and that's a point of controversy... but other people do, because the abortion laws not only affect the future child, but also existing people. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that this isn't about pro-choice or pro-life, this is a separate discussion about breaking the 20 week rule because of rape or incest, not whether abortions should be allowed in the first place. They already are. I know that But the circumstances that differentiate a rape scenario and an incest scenario (and a "normal pregnancy" scenario) may still be applicable, regardless of the week/ month we're referring to. So, again, the factors that make rape different than incest and both different than regular sex, may still be important to those who look past the simple existence of a fetus in all cases. EDIT: For some, it's not as simple as "Fetus exists; therefore, you should always (or never) allow abortions."
We already decide the unborn child takes precedence over the mother, that's why the line is drawn and we don't just say "lol idgaf abort at 8 months 30 days if you want", so why there should be exceptions made to this rule because bad stuff happened to the mother is what I don't agree with/understand/see.
|
On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 02:54 Reason wrote:On June 17 2013 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 00:11 Luepert wrote:On June 16 2013 13:28 Acritter wrote:On June 16 2013 13:22 MadProbe wrote:On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote:
There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. holy shit - someone who is on topic, intelligent AND concise. god bless you. Except they're also wrong. They ignore that the mother also has rights. In the situation of rape, the mother never consented to bear the intense stress of having a child. Why are we forcing that mother to put up with that when there's not even any guarantee that baby will have a good life, knowing that he or she was forced upon his or her mother? Why don't either of you care about the person who will be bearing that child in the slightest? Is the fully formed mother less human than the barely formed embryo? The will of the mother and the circumstances do not physically or legally change what the fetus is. That information changes the situation surrounding the fetus but it in no way makes the fetus different from any other fetus. If it is legal to terminate some fetuses, why then, under any circumstances should it not be legal to end all. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that for some people, being pro-choice isn't just about the fetus and the fact it exists (regardless of whether it appeared through rape, incest, or "normal" circumstances); many people also consider the situation in which the fetus arises to be an important factor when allowing and agreeing with abortions. And this is because, to some people, the pregnancy isn't just about the fetus becoming a baby. It's also about the woman who's carrying it, and possibly other people and variables as well. You may not think the circumstances are relevant when debating abortion, and that's a point of controversy... but other people do, because the abortion laws not only affect the future child, but also existing people. I think the point you're missing (or perhaps where the argument needs to take place) is that this isn't about pro-choice or pro-life, this is a separate discussion about breaking the 20 week rule because of rape or incest, not whether abortions should be allowed in the first place. They already are. I know that But the circumstances that differentiate a rape scenario and an incest scenario (and a "normal pregnancy" scenario) may still be applicable, regardless of the week/ month we're referring to. So, again, the factors that make rape different than incest and both different than regular sex, may still be important to those who look past the simple existence of a fetus in all cases. EDIT: For some, it's not as simple as "Fetus exists; therefore, you should always (or never) allow abortions." We already decide the unborn child takes precedence over the mother, that's why the line is drawn and we don't just say "lol idgaf abort at 8 months 30 days if you want", so why there should be exceptions made to this rule because bad stuff happened to the mother is what I don't agree with/understand/see.
I disagree that we decide the unborn child takes precedence over the mother. That's why we allow abortions in the first place- because the woman's choice what to do with her body overrules (at least, up until X weeks/ months) the fetus. Also, keep in mind that even in the later stages of pregnancy, there can be unfortunate situations where there are complications in the pregnancy, and the woman can often choose to terminate the pregnancy.
At some drawn line, the fetus generally has developed enough for people to be less accepting of an abortion, and some people think that the pregnant woman should have already made the decision to abort, and so then there is protection for the fetus.
Exceptions to the rule exist "because bad stuff happened to the mother" because the mother (especially her egg and her body) are essential parts of the pregnancy. If fetuses naturally developed on their own without using a woman as a host, then I don't think there would be as much gray. But it's not necessarily black and white to some people, and different circumstances tend to cause a differing of opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
