|
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?
I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views.
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.
I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on.
At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it.
|
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.
yea since in our society father takes the responsibility for the child as well, thus we should also entrust the child to the father who's currently living in a cell. They are going to have a great time together developing that father-child relationship.
|
On June 17 2013 11:34 vitruvia 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. yea since in our society father takes the responsibility for the child as well, thus we should also entrust the child to the father who's currently living in a cell. They are going to have a great time together developing that father-child relationship.
The first premise you've offered is somewhat untrue. It is becoming quite common in our society for father's to take no responsibility whatsoever for the children he has fathered. In fact, sperm banks themselves are a widely accepted (morally speaking) way for a man to father children without any legal responsibility or right at all. Further, it is somewhat rare that a father will win a custody battle with the mother of the child in question.
Your premise itself is flawed and also doesn't seem to have any relevance to the actual statement you're quoting.
|
On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. Show nested quote +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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it.
When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go.
|
On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go.
What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions.
The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy.
|
I've always believed that at if the baby is conceived, is should be carried to term unless there was rape, incest or there is a credible and serious threat to the mother's health.
There's a ton of great ways out there to not get pregnant (I think the changes of pregnancy in a given year while on the pill and using a condom is like 0.07%), and honestly if you managed to get pregnant congrats you're either an idiot or whoopdedoo, its a miracle. Nothing in the world is 100%, if you're willing to risk a 0.07% chance, then that means you should be willing to accept the consequences.
|
On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy.
How about the lives of the people affected? Seems like a pretty damn valid reason. I never understood this 20 week thing. If anything, the option of abortion should stay only until the safety of the person getting the abortion is at risk. What risk chance you want becomes up to debate of course.
I don't believe that a child still in the womb should have rights which go over the lives of the parents (yes, both parents, unless either partner can choose to just completely back off with no costs/strings attached). These are people living their lives right now, and should they not feel ready to raise a child (I'm sure nobody is going to argue that is an easy thing to do) I don't even know if society should be comfortable with it. A child being raised in a possibly negative setting is not my idea of a good thing to do, and we should (and I do believe society does this) take whatever steps we can and are able to increase the likelihood that a child is raised in both a mental and physically healthy environment.
I don't believe things like religion or arbitrary stages of life determined by science should even be a factor.
|
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, the laws would probably favor their chances of custody of the child should they want, or forcing women to pay for charges even if they did not want the baby, and had it by accident.
You see, babies are not created by women. They are created by the union of both a man and a woman.
The thing that people worry about with justifications is that what a woman does with her body in these situations affect multiple people, not just herself. I don't want someone who is free from any sort of criticism to have any sort of control over other peoples' lives.
|
On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy.
No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation.
|
On June 17 2013 12:45 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy. No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation.
And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society?
|
On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy. No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation. And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society?
That's fine, but you need to have an actual reason why.
|
On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:
When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go.
You're right, but abortion isn't a religious debate. Obviously the people who bring religion into the debate aren't really worth talking with. I could argue against abortion perfectly fine without ever bringing religion into the argument. I don't need some sacred text to tell me a human life is worth saving.
|
On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. 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. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy.
Religion is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy as an individual, if you want to base your ethical understanding off the teachings of your god and his disciples then that's all well and good for you.
However it is not a perfectly legitimate reason to make something legal or illegal as it has no logical backing.
|
I think so, but then again I think there shouldn't be any restrictions on abortion in the first place. Staying on the issue, it's immoral in my opinion for the government to force a woman have a baby that was conceived against her will
|
Of course rape and incest are justifications for abortion. The mother's wish to have it done is all that is necessary to justify abortion.
EDIT: so long as the mother is mentally stable. otherwise, her wishes should maybe be taken with at least a grain of salt.
|
I don't really see what the big deal about this is.
Are there actually any statistics about how many women -- that are pregnant from rape or incest -- wait 20 week then decide "Well crap, guess I shouldn't have procrastinated so much"? It seems like they are trying to legitimize abortion by making laws for a miniscule set of circumstances. They are spending time and money on something that merely extends the time, for hand full of women, to decide.
It seems more likely that we're just going to see a large number of girls going into the clinics crying rape, when it was nothing of the sort, just to get an abortion.
|
A lot of things can be "Justification" for abortion, the issue shouldn't be if it's ok legally and in our society, but if it's ok for both the mother and the father. I have a friend that thinks nobody should have a child under 30, because they usually lack life experience and/or don't earn enough money to support their kid(s)
like I said, it really should be a decision made by the mother/father, not by the government or society.
|
I`m not going to argue about the whole thing , just want to understand one argument that I never really understood.
People say that woman has to have a choice "what to do with her body" but there is a whole set of circumstances that dont involve harming anyone but willing subject and they are still banned everywhere and I see almost no one talking "it`s slavery" or "it isn`t dark ages anymore , how could you think that?".
Main are (but definitely not limited to,would just like to focus on this) : hardcore drug/alcohol (ab)use ( I don`t know about you but here where I live , and am sure it`s true for most countries too, they can just send you to rehab forcibly [govt has 100 % decisizon,not family /whoever else to be clear]. They can ban me from smoking a cigarette out in the street (say no on is around in 100 m radius, for the sake of discussion) but it`s not ok for them to tell the mother she can`t abort ?
Why is it not ok to refuse paying taxes and getting services from goverment (aka free what i want to do with my body/my work/my money from govts will)?
And please don`t tell me I was born on their soil , it`ll make me laugh...
Also, how is something like provisional detention ok when restricting ability to abort is so immoral ? I mean those people aren`t even trialed and still their ability to do what they like with they body (and their life) is heavily restricted? and they are grown idividuals , which seems to give them more rights in your eyes ( definitely not mine...)
Just to be clear - we are talking about people who are smoking/drinking/drugging themselves with 100 % their money, at home and not harassing anyone
|
On June 17 2013 12:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've always believed that at if the baby is conceived, is should be carried to term unless there was rape, incest or there is a credible and serious threat to the mother's health.
There's a ton of great ways out there to not get pregnant (I think the changes of pregnancy in a given year while on the pill and using a condom is like 0.07%), and honestly if you managed to get pregnant congrats you're either an idiot or whoopdedoo, its a miracle. Nothing in the world is 100%, if you're willing to risk a 0.07% chance, then that means you should be willing to accept the consequences.
Then you are completely missing the point of discussion here!
Prevention is all well, but is 1 in a thousand times of having sex a small enough chance to justify a very intrusive law (A law should protect both the fetus and the mother at the same time. That takes a more pragmatic view than conception as a divine limit!)?
Abstinence is probably a good idea, but should by no means stand alone as the thing to do in todays society (no abstinence only sexual education!).
Your first sentence is exactly what is getting discussed here, but I haven't seen a credible fetus developmental, danger to the mother definition or circumstance in rape or incest that cause a justified exception for rape. Incest is another thing, but probably not as much a question related to when the pregnancy is started.
|
Why would the reason for an abortion matter to an unborn child? If the point is to uphold a supposed sanctity of life, then every exception for rape or incest is a moral fallacy for the sake of convenience.
If it´s about a woman´s right over her own body, then abortion should be legal, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
