|
On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
The reason we allow abortions in the first place is because we've decided a bunch of dividing cells doesn't constitute a human life that needs protecting, it's still early enough to nip it in the bud so to speak. We've also acknowledged that terminating at 8 months 30 days is literally baby murder, and using science we've decided upon 20 weeks as the best place to draw the line. The unborn child takes precedence, period. Prior to 20 weeks, we don't view it as an unborn child.
This isn't a matter of opinion and I think you knew all of that already.
Complications where there is danger to the parent or child resulting in later abortions are a separate issue, given my previous posts it sounds like I have discounted those but I'm just already so aware of this and treat it as such a separate issue I didn't think it would even need to be mentioned, I apologise if I caused any confusion there.
Again, I see no reason to break the rules for unwanted pregnancies. That's the point that needs to be discussed.
I guess there's not really much discussion to be had though :S Either you think because the pregnancy is unwanted and a bad thing happened to the mother that justifies breaking this agreed cut off point or you don't.
I fall under the category of those who don't, the cut off point is there for a reason and that reason isn't changed by external circumstances, so unless like you mentioned there are complications or danger to the life of the baby/mother then it could be the worst incest/rape/torture/abusive pregnancy in the history of mankind, if you've left it for 20 weeks before getting an abortion then tough luck, take it to term then give it up if you don't want to keep it.
|
On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote: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.
This is absolute nonsense. Of course we decide *at some point* that the unborn child's right to life takes precedence over the mother's desires. The question is when. If we do not make that determination, what justification is there for any late term abortion restriction? You support late term abortion restriction in non rape/incest cases. If it is not the right of the fetus overriding the mother's concerns at that point, what is it exactly?
|
On June 17 2013 03:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote: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. The reason we allow abortions in the first place is because we've decided a bunch of dividing cells doesn't constitute a human life that needs protecting, it's still early enough to nip it in the bud so to speak. We've also acknowledged that terminating at 8 months 30 days is literally baby murder, and using science we've decided upon 20 weeks as the best place to draw the line. The unborn child takes precedence, period. Prior to 20 weeks, we don't view it as an unborn child.This isn't a matter of opinion and I think you knew all of that already. Complications where there is danger to the parent or child resulting in later abortions are a separate issue, given my previous posts it sounds like I have discounted those but I'm just already so aware of this and treat it as such a separate issue I didn't think it would even need to be mentioned, I apologise if I caused any confusion there. Again, I see no reason to break the rules for unwanted pregnancies. That's the point that needs to be discussed. I guess there's not really much discussion to be had though :S Either you think because the pregnancy is unwanted and a bad thing happened to the mother that justifies breaking this agreed cut off point or you don't. I fall under the category of those who don't, the cut off point is there for a reason and that reason isn't changed by external circumstances, so unless like you mentioned there are complications or danger to the life of the baby/mother then it could be the worst incest/rape/torture/abusive pregnancy in the history of mankind, if you've left it for 20 weeks before getting an abortion then tough luck, take it to term then give it up if you don't want to keep it.
On June 17 2013 03:24 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote: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. This is absolute nonsense. Of course we decide *at some point* that the unborn child's right to life takes precedence over the mother's desires. The question is when. If we do not make that determination, what justification is there for any late term abortion restriction? You support late term abortion restriction in non rape/incest cases. If it is not the right of the fetus overriding the mother's concerns at that point, what is it exactly?
I didn't say it wasn't (and Reason: I was using terms like fetus or unborn child interchangeably just to name the thing developing inside the woman- I didn't make the distinction that you did); I was also just pointing out that extenuating circumstances might occur that changes the situation from simply a black and white line drawn at X weeks, where the justification for abortion is more significant. I'm of the opinion that new information or different contexts may make it more important to favor the woman over the unborn child, even in the later stages of pregnancy. I definitely consider this to be the case with complications in pregnancy, but on topic, I think it might even be acceptable in some rape cases where the woman- who has been through emotional trauma and needs time to think clearly again- may choose to abort the fetus at a time that's normally too late.
Earlier in the thread, I had asked (like you two) why there may be exceptions to rape or incest that deserve abortions past the drawn line, and a few people gave the convincing (at least, to me) argument that, since rape can add not just physical problems but emotional trauma, it may not be possible to expect pregnant victims to make an immediate call about their unborn child. And you can't just pause the pregnancy for time to recover mentally, so that's where (I think) shades of gray occur.
|
On June 17 2013 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 17 2013 03:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote: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. The reason we allow abortions in the first place is because we've decided a bunch of dividing cells doesn't constitute a human life that needs protecting, it's still early enough to nip it in the bud so to speak. We've also acknowledged that terminating at 8 months 30 days is literally baby murder, and using science we've decided upon 20 weeks as the best place to draw the line. The unborn child takes precedence, period. Prior to 20 weeks, we don't view it as an unborn child.This isn't a matter of opinion and I think you knew all of that already. Complications where there is danger to the parent or child resulting in later abortions are a separate issue, given my previous posts it sounds like I have discounted those but I'm just already so aware of this and treat it as such a separate issue I didn't think it would even need to be mentioned, I apologise if I caused any confusion there. Again, I see no reason to break the rules for unwanted pregnancies. That's the point that needs to be discussed. I guess there's not really much discussion to be had though :S Either you think because the pregnancy is unwanted and a bad thing happened to the mother that justifies breaking this agreed cut off point or you don't. I fall under the category of those who don't, the cut off point is there for a reason and that reason isn't changed by external circumstances, so unless like you mentioned there are complications or danger to the life of the baby/mother then it could be the worst incest/rape/torture/abusive pregnancy in the history of mankind, if you've left it for 20 weeks before getting an abortion then tough luck, take it to term then give it up if you don't want to keep it. On June 17 2013 03:24 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2013 03:00 Reason wrote: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. This is absolute nonsense. Of course we decide *at some point* that the unborn child's right to life takes precedence over the mother's desires. The question is when. If we do not make that determination, what justification is there for any late term abortion restriction? You support late term abortion restriction in non rape/incest cases. If it is not the right of the fetus overriding the mother's concerns at that point, what is it exactly? I didn't say it wasn't (and Reason: I was using terms like fetus or unborn child interchangeably just to name the thing developing inside the woman- I didn't make the distinction that you did); I was also just pointing out that extenuating circumstances might occur that changes the situation from simply a black and white line drawn at X weeks, where the justification for abortion is more significant. I'm of the opinion that new information or different contexts may make it more important to favor the woman over the unborn child, even in the later stages of pregnancy. I definitely consider this to be the case with complications in pregnancy, but on topic, I think it might even be acceptable in some rape cases where the woman- who has been through emotional trauma and needs time to think clearly again- may choose to abort the fetus at a time that's normally too late. Earlier in the thread, I had asked (like you two) why there may be exceptions to rape or incest that deserve abortions past the drawn line, and a few people gave the convincing (at least, to me) argument that, since rape can add not just physical problems but emotional trauma, it may not be possible to expect pregnant victims to make an immediate call about their unborn child. And you can't just pause the pregnancy for time to recover mentally, so that's where (I think) shades of gray occur.
I've been using terminology interchangeably as well and I didn't mention that at all nor do I have a problem with your use of terminology so let's just leave that out of it. (not sure why you mentioned it tbh  )
What I'm saying is, if you're happy to break the line because of X trauma or *whatever*, then you have to draw a new line which makes no sense, otherwise you have to be happy terminating all the way up to 8 months 30 days, which also makes no sense. Therefore, no exceptions (aside from complications etc).
|
On June 16 2013 02:10 Crushinator wrote:
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.
We can always have more babies.
|
If it is for the mother or child doesn't matter much, a limit on abortion is important for society
My take on this topic would be in distinguishing what makes rape or incest so special.
Rape is a a kind of physical violence and is pretty terrible for those affected. However, it changes nothing for the fetus/unborn child! Having special exceptions for rape is not for the fetus sake and unless the rape-victim has lost the opportunity for abortion for related reasons it is completely irrelevant in terms of time of abortion.
Incest is another question entirely. Incest, depending on how close the people having a child are, can cause inbreeding which increses the chance of giving the child a serious genetic illness. In this case, the child is definitely affected! Now, the thing to do against incest is probably mostly prevention, but should it happen it is still a question of the woman having a choice before the limit so it is more of a choice, but it is probably not for society to make in and off itself. Incest is already illegal to some extend in many countries. Making abortion a topic of specific legislation on its own seems unnecessary all in all.
Combined incest and rape is truely horrifying in nature. The question is again, if the victim has had a choice before the limit to abort and that can be quite a bit trickier since the incest and rape we usually see in the news are situations where men are keeping their daughters trapped for sex. However, the question in this case seems more like: If the raper is making a choice to keep a baby under this situation, is that his responsibility? In any case, it is in most situations still possible for the pregnant to make the decission before the limit, though by painful and/or dangerous means.
I do not see anything special about rape if you accept a reasonable limit for abortion. Incest is a problem, but it is more important to prevent that kind of pregnancy. The combination is a lot more of a hard topic, but I still see the limit as a reasonable way of determining the right of the fetus/unborn child here.
|
I think that banning abortion just for rape/incest victims is logically inconsistent for anyone who is pro-life. If you actually believe the fetus is a human being, then the fact that it's from a rape isn't the baby's fault. If you go on to talk about the emotional well being of the mother, then you're pretty clearly going into pro-choice territory. So, how can the pro-life conservative actually hold these two beliefs?
Well, the only possibility I can think of is that they are blaming women for having sex. Basically, if a woman gets pregnant, "that's the consequence of her actions." But if she got raped, well, obviously she couldn't help it.
|
Why does a woman need to justify anything she does with her body? If men carried babies, there would be no justification needed, and frat boys would brag about how many abortions they have had.
|
On June 17 2013 05:40 shinosai wrote:
I think that banning abortion just for rape/incest victims is logically inconsistent for anyone who is pro-life. If you actually believe the fetus is a human being, then the fact that it's from a rape isn't the baby's fault. If you go on to talk about the emotional well being of the mother, then you're pretty clearly going into pro-choice territory. So, how can the pro-life conservative actually hold these two beliefs?
Well, the only possibility I can think of is that they are blaming women for having sex. Basically, if a woman gets pregnant, "that's the consequence of her actions." But if she got raped, well, obviously she couldn't help it.
My bold.
Thank you for this. It's blatantly obvious that conservatives want to punish women for having sex. Need a clear example? Viagra is covered by health insurance, but birth control pills are not. Granted, Viagra can have beneficial effects on health, but come on, you're not fooling anyone.
|
On June 17 2013 03:52 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:10 Crushinator wrote:
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. We can always have more babies.
We can always raise more people. Or was that sarcasm?
|
There is funny Doug Stanhope quote in regards to people justifying abortion only in the cases of rape, something like: "So you feel that 'Yes, a fetus is a real person, unless his dad was an asshole.'" Then there is some segue into coming into your cubical and vacuuming your head flat if your dad does something shitty after you have been born.
|
On June 17 2013 03:52 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:10 Crushinator wrote:
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. We can always have more babies.
Then why is infanticide a problem? In fact, why is any killing a problem? We can always make more people after all.
|
I don't get why for any reason a late term abortion should be necessary, even in the cases of rape or incest UNLESS the person is unable in any way to get one prior (extreme kidnapping cases, etc).
"Herp derp i regret my decision to not terminal earlier" shouldn't be used as an excuse to end a late term pregnancy - you had plenty of time to terminate a mass of developing cells but at roughly this point the fetus is no longer a 'mass of cells'.
edit:sp
|
a fetus is only a potential life.
a female is already a life.
therefore, abortion is ethical up until the point that the thing growing inside the female can sustain itself. doesn't matter whether rape or incest are involved.
i think this view is pretty close to the 3rd party's official stance on abortion.
|
On June 17 2013 06:36 TheSwamp wrote:
Why does a woman need to justify anything she does with her body? If men carried babies, there would be no justification needed, and frat boys would brag about how many abortions they have had.
If men carried babies, they would be women.
|
On June 17 2013 08:28 lamprey1 wrote:
a fetus is only a potential life.
a female is already a life.
therefore, abortion is ethical up until the point that the thing growing inside the female can sustain itself. doesn't matter whether rape or incest are involved.
i think this view is pretty close to the 3rd party's official stance on abortion.
But premature babies lives can be sustained with medical technology and grow to live perfectly normal lives, so while that is a logical response, a premature baby can easily survive separated from its mother.
|
On June 17 2013 08:37 S7EFEN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 08:28 lamprey1 wrote:
a fetus is only a potential life.
a female is already a life.
therefore, abortion is ethical up until the point that the thing growing inside the female can sustain itself. doesn't matter whether rape or incest are involved.
i think this view is pretty close to the 3rd party's official stance on abortion.
But premature babies lives can be sustained with medical technology and grow to live perfectly normal lives, so while that is a logical response, a premature baby can easily survive separated from its mother.
A diabetic cannot survive long without insulin injections. So before insulin was discovered in 1922, can we say that their lives held less moral weight, because they couldn't "survive on their own?" Would it be fine to go around killing diabetics?
Babies can't survive on their own. Go ahead, leave a baby somewhere by itself, see how long it lives. The whole "parasitic" notion of a baby does not end with birth.
I will never understand how "survival on it's own" became such a crucial moral concept. It's absolutely meaningless to me.
|
The "survival on its own" concept is important because it marks the point where a fetus can potentially become a living, breathing human. A one week old blob of cells cannot survive outside the womb with current technology. A ~24 week old fetus has the potential to be born and survive.
Basically, it's the difference between abortion and adoption.
|
On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue. It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism.
The moment the sperm and egg fuse together, a full set of human DNA have been created, and the construction of these blueprints (DNA) have started, which is a ongoing process of 20 years or so. If it's not considered a life, 1 week after conception, then it's not considered a life 20 weeks after, or 20 years after. There's no difference. They are the same organism, just at different stages of development.
Take identical twins as an example. Identical twins share the same DNA which means they were both formed by the same sperm and egg cells. Identical twins are split in a matter of days after conception, and at that time they are exact duplicates, clones or what have you, and afterwards they carry on growing independently of eachother. The end result is still identical, except for minor differences as a result of mutations, ie things that went wrong. What this tells us is that who we are is already defined, earlier than a few days after conception. In fact, science have shown that this happens immediately after conception. With future technology we could immediately after conception, predict its looks and possibly personality as an adult. It's just a matter of figuring out the coding of human DNA, and finding a way to extract the DNA.
The reason why ppl have set a border at 20 weeks or whatever (it varies depending on what country) is because that's when abortion starts getting graphic for them. If you terminate a bunch of cells, you can tell yourself that you're not terminating a human life, and it's not hard to believe it. But if it looks like a tiny baby, it's very hard to convince yourself that it isn't a baby. The only way you could arrive at 20 weeks is by using pseudoscience, by looking at images, or by arbitrarily drawing a line between functions that are/arn't allowed to be developed. It's foolish to assume that a bunch of scientists magically arrived at 20 weeks.
The question of whether abortion should be allowed or not depends on two things, convenience and whether you believe in the sanctiety of human life. People who don't believe that all human life is sacred have a very good reason to be pro-choice, because to them, noone have what you would call a "right to live", so to them it's not up to the government to decide. People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, but who believe that immorality needs to be allowed sometimes out of convenience can also be pro-choice. You could say that these ppl views certain ppl's lives as less than others.
People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, with no exceptions, are pro-life, because they believe that we, ie the government needs to protect the life of all human organisms, no matter what stage they are at.
What's worse?
Forcing a woman to carry a unwanted baby for 9 months
or
Taking a young life
As for the main question, I don't see a valid reason why the manner of the conception would matter, since this is a question about the sanctiety of life, contra the convenience of the mother, and I don't think anyone would value a rape child as any less than a wanted child.
|
On June 17 2013 09:37 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue. It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism. The moment the sperm and egg fuse together, a full set of human DNA have been created, and the construction of these blueprints (DNA) have started, which is a ongoing process of 20 years or so. If it's not considered a life, 1 week after conception, then it's not considered a life 20 weeks after, or 20 years after. There's no difference. They are the same organism, just at different stages of development. Take identical twins as an example. Identical twins share the same DNA which means they were both formed by the same sperm and egg cells. Identical twins are split in a matter of days after conception, and at that time they are exact duplicates, clones or what have you, and afterwards they carry on growing independently of eachother. The end result is still identical, except for minor differences as a result of mutations, ie things that went wrong. What this tells us is that who we are is already defined, earlier than a few days after conception. In fact, science have shown that this happens immediately after conception. With future technology we could immediately after conception, predict its looks and possibly personality as an adult. It's just a matter of figuring out the coding of human DNA, and finding a way to extract the DNA. The reason why ppl have set a border at 20 weeks or whatever (it varies depending on what country) is because that's when abortion starts getting graphic for them. If you terminate a bunch of cells, you can tell yourself that you're not terminating a human life, and it's not hard to believe it. But if it looks like a tiny baby, it's very hard to convince yourself that it isn't a baby. The only way you could arrive at 20 weeks is by using pseudoscience, by looking at images, or by arbitrarily drawing a line between functions that are/arn't allowed to be developed. It's foolish to assume that a bunch of scientists magically arrived at 20 weeks. The question of whether abortion should be allowed or not depends on two things, convenience and whether you believe in the sanctiety of human life. People who don't believe that all human life is sacred have a very good reason to be pro-choice, because to them, noone have what you would call a "right to live", so to them it's not up to the government to decide. People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, but who believe that immorality needs to be allowed sometimes out of convenience can also be pro-choice. You could say that these ppl views certain ppl's lives as less than others. People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, with no exceptions, are pro-life, because they believe that we, ie the government needs to protect the life of all human organisms, no matter what stage they are at. What's worse? Forcing a woman to carry a unwanted baby for 9 months or Taking a young life As for the main question, I don't see a valid reason why the manner of the conception would matter, since this is a question about the sanctiety of life, contra the convenience of the mother, and I don't think anyone would value a rape child as any less than a wanted child.
The moment a sperm and egg are fused together doesn't give them rights of an adult. A child doesn't have the right to vote, to drink, to smoke, or to drive until they reach certain ages. The government treats them as property of the parents until a certain age. So a child is clearly a different kind of human being according to the government. A pro-choice person isn't saying that nobody has the right to live, they're saying that the rights of the fetus don't supercede the rights of the mother to her own body. Telling a women in a free society that they can't alter their own body as they wish turns them into slaves and it turns the women, a higher kind of person (because she has the right to smoke, to drink, to drive, and to vote), into slave to some lower of kind of being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
