|
The only factor that should govern abortion is whether the fetus is a human being with rights. If yes, then even if it was conceived in rape, it cannot legally be terminated. If no, then there is no reason for abortion to be illegal in any circumstances. Rape and incest have no impact on whether the fetus itself is a human being.
|
On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard.
|
On June 17 2013 17:46 Daswollvieh wrote:
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.
On June 17 2013 22:43 Luepert wrote:
The only factor that should govern abortion is whether the fetus is a human being with rights. If yes, then even if it was conceived in rape, it cannot legally be terminated. If no, then there is no reason for abortion to be illegal in any circumstances. Rape and incest have no impact on whether the fetus itself is a human being.
Haha, it seems kind of obvious, really. This probably gets said every other page. 
|
wow these people who are anti-abortion because of rape.. really?
So what if someone rapes your daughter?
will you raise the child against your daughter's will?
Easy for you to say when you are not on the receiving end.
I say, legalize abortion! It is better to stop early than to let an irresponsible soon to be parent raise a child impropoerly then see the child become a criminal or what shit of a person he or she will be because of shitty upbrining and childhood.
|
On June 17 2013 21:10 mijagi182 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:58 Quotidian wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:
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.
if you're actually a conservative christian, you'd be pro abortion and pro infanticide even. That's what your god is, after all... Just read the bible. Really, there's no reason to bring religion into this as part of an overall political ideology. What you do and think in your own family and life is one thing, but to dictate what other people are allowed to do based on your particular fantasy of choice is another thing entirely WAY too much weed bro!
I don't partake.
It's in the bible, "bro." Just read the stuff that has been filtered out by contemporary christians, because it's too impalpable for today's society. The christian god is one fucked up psychopath who has no problem "dashing babes on rocks," "ripping up" mothers etc. Oh, and he's pro-slavery, pro forced prostitution as well... And don't forget that Jesus specifically said that everything that was said in the old testament, he was there to uphold. So he wasn't a reformist of any kind.
http://www.evilbible.com/god's not pro-life.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard.
the entire field of sociology wants a word with you.
|
On June 18 2013 00:53 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard. the entire field of sociology wants a word with you.
First of all, guys, let's stop the Bible discussion.
No one in this thread has provided any evidence that their political opinions will benefit society.
|
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right?
|
The government shouldn't have a say in the personal decision of a woman. It's really that simple.
|
On June 18 2013 02:02 UdderChaos wrote:
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
The entire discipline of moral philosophy disagrees with your assertion that "ethics and morality is [sic] not logical."
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right?
Yes, current abortion laws should protect him to some extent, which is completely consistent.
|
On June 18 2013 02:06 mythandier wrote:
The government shouldn't have a say in the personal decision of a woman. It's really that simple.
Yeah aborting at 8 months 30 days is a personal decision and if the mother wants to use a coat hanger and flush it down the drain 1 day before giving birth, that's fine. It's really that simple folks, nothing to see here.
On June 18 2013 02:02 UdderChaos wrote:
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right?
Great question! I'd love someone with law experience to give their opinion on this.^
Also
What about slipping a morning after pill into someone's drink without them knowing about it?
What about covertly giving your partner pills so they don't get pregnant whilst they think you are trying for a baby?
|
On June 18 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:06 mythandier wrote:
The government shouldn't have a say in the personal decision of a woman. It's really that simple. Yeah aborting at 8 months 30 days is a personal decision and if the mother wants to use a coat hanger and flush it down the drain 1 day before giving birth, that's fine. It's really that simple folks, nothing to see here. Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:02 UdderChaos wrote:
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right? Great question! I'd love someone with law experience to give their opinion on this. What about slipping a morning after pill into someone's drink without them knowing about it? What about covertly giving your partner pills so they don't get pregnant whilst they think you are trying for a baby?
Both of those latter things should be illegal, since both of them utterly violate your partner's right to bodily autonomy.
|
On June 18 2013 02:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 02:06 mythandier wrote:
The government shouldn't have a say in the personal decision of a woman. It's really that simple. Yeah aborting at 8 months 30 days is a personal decision and if the mother wants to use a coat hanger and flush it down the drain 1 day before giving birth, that's fine. It's really that simple folks, nothing to see here. On June 18 2013 02:02 UdderChaos wrote:
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right? Great question! I'd love someone with law experience to give their opinion on this. What about slipping a morning after pill into someone's drink without them knowing about it? What about covertly giving your partner pills so they don't get pregnant whilst they think you are trying for a baby? Both of those latter things should be illegal, since both of them utterly violate your partner's right to bodily autonomy.
Yeah of course they're illegal but in context we're asking about the importance of ending the process of cell division at a time when abortion would be acceptable and if this would constitute something more serious than bodily autonomy aka murder.
|
On June 18 2013 02:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 02:06 mythandier wrote:
The government shouldn't have a say in the personal decision of a woman. It's really that simple. Yeah aborting at 8 months 30 days is a personal decision and if the mother wants to use a coat hanger and flush it down the drain 1 day before giving birth, that's fine. It's really that simple folks, nothing to see here. On June 18 2013 02:02 UdderChaos wrote:
Laws on ethics are not fundamentally logical, since ethics and morality is not logical, therefore it is difficult to argue that religion is irrelevant when it is a prevalent force in shaping peoples ethics.
I have thought of an interesting situation who's answers could shed a bit of light on the situation. Suppose there is a psychopathic surgeon. This surgeon kidnaps two women. For one he removes their appendix, the other he aborts their unborn-child, this women is early enough so that an abortion if she wanted one would be legal. Both of these acts happen without permission. He is then caught. Would he face a murder charge? How much more jail time would he receive for the second act? Would the abortion rights laws not protect him to some extent in the second case and would that be right? Great question! I'd love someone with law experience to give their opinion on this. What about slipping a morning after pill into someone's drink without them knowing about it? What about covertly giving your partner pills so they don't get pregnant whilst they think you are trying for a baby? Both of those latter things should be illegal, since both of them utterly violate your partner's right to bodily autonomy.
But could you honestly as a judge turn round and explain to a mother that they didn't receive a murder charge because it wasn't a "real" baby because of some arbitrary biological milestone? Would society's relativistic morals change if my situation was far more common and rape cases were in the single digits each year, would we suddenly decide life starts earlier to protect these women? I think we would.
|
I go for legalization, but on some conditions like when if the woman is still in first trimester of a pregnancy, or if it's necessary to protect a woman‟s health, or to save a woman's life.
And that includes pregnancy from rape and incest(if she was raped only) because that is a huge psychological trauma on her part.. Women should have the choice about her body and mind. They have been oppressed by the church for a long time and the state should help them on this matter.
|
Women have been oppressed under the majority of human societies since written history and still are to the present regardless of what form of religion is prevalent and regardless of what level of influence said religion has on the region at the time. Conjuring up the churches in the west as the main impediment towards "progressive" policies is a red herring although it cannot be denied that the churches do play a large role.
In any case, rape and incest are also red herrings as none of this has any bearing on what rights a human life should have and what obligations individuals and societies as a whole should have towards human life. It is not as if rape or incest causes the life that is birthed out of such events to be fundamentally and ontologically different in its status as a living human being from any other human being.
|
On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard.
Define "no one else".
While I acknowledge that many people do express unsupported opinions and political positions, those of us who are better versed in critical thinking and rational discourse (which appears to be at least a substantial number of people here on TL) tend to back up our arguments with evidence and logic.
That's why the substantive arguments of the gun control thread here, for example, are mostly centered around whether or not the studies and data on gun control demonstrate that it would positively impact society.
|
On June 18 2013 05:26 koreasilver wrote:
Women have been oppressed under the majority of human societies since written history and still are to the present regardless of what form of religion is prevalent and regardless of what level of influence said religion has on the region at the time.
Citation needed for this unfound assumption.
On June 18 2013 05:26 koreasilver wrote:
In any case, rape and incest are also red herrings as none of this has any bearing on what rights a human life should have and what obligations individuals and societies as a whole should have towards human life. It is not as if rape or incest causes the life that is birthed out of such events to be fundamentally and ontologically different in its status as a living human being from any other human being.
It does for religious conservatives who argue that carrying a pregnancy to term is a form of responsibility simply for having sex in the first place, similar to how men are responsible for paying child support simply for having sex. Under that argument, a woman would then not carry the same responsibility in the instance of rape, since having sex was not her decision in the first place. In other words, religious anti-abortion conservatives are basing their argument on the notion that consent to sex = consent to carrying a pregnancy to term.
As for incest, religious conservatives generally consider that a sinful abomination (which is hilarious when you consider the Biblical account of how the human race propagated), and therefore their desire to prevent such fetuses from being born outweighs their desire to oppose abortion. In other words, religious conservatives aren't actually "pro-life", as they claim, but merely "pro-certain-kinds-of-life", a notion that is corroborated by the fact that anti-abortion advocates disproportionately support the death penalty in spite of their supposed concern for the "sanctity of life."
I disagree with both sets of arguments, but hopefully that better explains why conservatives argue for rape/incest exceptions.
|
there doesn't need to be justification for abortion period. If a woman feels she is incapable of being a fit mother then that's her right to choose.
|
On June 18 2013 08:03 Felony wrote:
there doesn't need to be justification for abortion period. If a woman feels she is incapable of being a fit mother then that's her right to choose.
Sure, after she delivers the baby and we sterilize the hell out of her. If you don't want kids, close your legs or fix yourself. pretty dam simple. If you get raped, give it up after birth... Children should have as many rights as parents.
|
What does it matter what some conservatives might think if they're conceptually broken? Aside from that, biblical precedence isn't clear on the issues of abortion as such either, and although it is clear that it considers incest abhorrent, there is nothing that suggests that a child born of incest is to be considered lesser as a human being. We only begin to see clear opposition to abortion as such as a distinct problem apart from sexuality with the early church. Personally I've never actually heard or read any conservative Christian offer such a comical opinion like that a life born from incest is a "sinful abomination" as if the orthodoxy doesn't teach that all humans are sinful and are always born in sin regardless of whether or not conception took place within or out of wedlock (Augustine). It's comical to a degree that I find it more likely that you're just setting up a scarecrow than that you're actually reiterating a position that "religious conservatives" take. But given that I spend little time with religious conservatives and with Americans much less so, maybe it's a possibility. But regardless such a position is incoherent not just conceptually but within the framework of Christian orthodoxy and should readily be dismissed by everyone because it's inane.
As for the first paragraph, any East Asian that has lived in/with/through our Confucian motherlands would understand that completely. One doesn't even need to go that far - one could go through the arduous task of opening up a history book (or wikipedia) and looking at the pre-Christian West with the Greeks and the Romans and see the oppression of women easily enough. It is not as if the modern secularist is all so suddenly equitable to all gender and sex either. There are plenty of nonreligious misogynists now and there always has been. Blaming the churches for everything is a very peculiar eurocentric ethnocentrism that doesn't have any ground in historical reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
