• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:24
CEST 11:24
KST 18:24
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off7[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway13
Community News
SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia7Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues26LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments3Weekly Cups (August 25-31): Clem's Last Straw?39Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax6
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon What happened to Singapore/Brazil servers?
Tourneys
WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around Mutation # 487 Think Fast
Brood War
General
Pros React To: SoulKey's 5-Peat Challenge ASL20 General Discussion BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group B [ASL20] Ro16 Group A [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1505 users

Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 16

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 58 Next
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
June 17 2013 02:27 GMT
#301
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.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
vitruvia
Profile Joined June 2009
Canada235 Posts
June 17 2013 02:34 GMT
#302
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.
what quote?
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
June 17 2013 02:48 GMT
#303
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.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
June 17 2013 02:57 GMT
#304
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.
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
June 17 2013 03:04 GMT
#305
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.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
June 17 2013 03:14 GMT
#306
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.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Dark_Chill
Profile Joined May 2011
Canada3353 Posts
June 17 2013 03:36 GMT
#307
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.
CUTE MAKES RIGHT
Dark_Chill
Profile Joined May 2011
Canada3353 Posts
June 17 2013 03:39 GMT
#308
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.
CUTE MAKES RIGHT
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-17 03:46:04
June 17 2013 03:45 GMT
#309
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.
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
June 17 2013 03:56 GMT
#310
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?
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
ZackAttack
Profile Joined June 2011
United States884 Posts
June 17 2013 04:04 GMT
#311
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.
It's better aerodynamics for space. - Artosis
CallMeLukas
Profile Joined January 2012
United States39 Posts
June 17 2013 05:05 GMT
#312
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.
zbedlam
Profile Joined October 2010
Australia549 Posts
June 17 2013 06:32 GMT
#313
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.
Arisen
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States2382 Posts
June 17 2013 06:43 GMT
#314
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
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention"
kochanfe
Profile Joined July 2011
Micronesia1338 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-17 06:55:01
June 17 2013 06:50 GMT
#315
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.
"The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long." - Lao Tzu
Sagle
Profile Joined December 2010
United States25 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-17 07:16:46
June 17 2013 07:15 GMT
#316
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.
domisama
Profile Joined December 2010
Switzerland46 Posts
June 17 2013 07:54 GMT
#317
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.
zebaty
Profile Joined December 2010
19 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-17 08:44:27
June 17 2013 08:38 GMT
#318
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
radiatoren
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Denmark1907 Posts
June 17 2013 08:41 GMT
#319
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.
Repeat before me
Daswollvieh
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
5553 Posts
June 17 2013 08:46 GMT
#320
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.
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 58 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 36m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 10111
Larva 542
Hyun 373
sSak 185
Soma 155
Pusan 142
Barracks 127
Dewaltoss 67
ToSsGirL 32
yabsab 22
[ Show more ]
Noble 19
NaDa 6
Dota 2
The International106404
Gorgc8387
Dendi1244
NeuroSwarm107
PGG 34
League of Legends
JimRising 485
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K961
allub148
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King136
Other Games
XaKoH 139
Nina61
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick412
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 11 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1148
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
36m
Cure vs Zoun
Classic vs Maru
Maestros of the Game
7h 36m
ShoWTimE vs herO
Bunny vs Zoun
TBD vs Serral
TBD vs Classic
BSL Team Wars
9h 36m
Afreeca Starleague
1d
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
1d 1h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
LiuLi Cup
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
[ Show More ]
[BSL 2025] Weekly
6 days
BSL Team Wars
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
SEL Season 2 Championship
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL Polish World Championship 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.