EPTThis thread is turning into a real hornet's nest - therefore, i'm out!
Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Xorphene
United Kingdom492 Posts
This thread is turning into a real hornet's nest - therefore, i'm out! | ||
|
Gjhc
Portugal161 Posts
On June 16 2013 06:57 TheExile19 wrote: I don't have much desire to get too heavily into a thread where people are saying things like "violation of abortion parallels violation of rape", but this idea right here, that society is chock-full of totally rational actors, is demonstrably false. this is nothing new, but the amazing part is that you're actually going to try appealing to that standard when it comes to sex without pregnancy precautions, which could quite possibly be the best case of a biological drive overpowering any sense of basic, obvious rationality that you could find in a first-world society, or any society. so many people do not give two shits in the moment, and the amount of children born without supportive parents or a parent not in the picture at all destroys any concept of rational ownership of your sexual actions. reality does not bear it out. If you read my whole post you can understand that I'm well aware of that and even accept that excuse of not giving two shits during the moment you are having sex, but after that there's a limit to 'fix' the problem which is the 20 week period, there's no excuse to delay the abortion after that. You make me sound like a dumb utopist. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
On June 16 2013 07:33 Gjhc wrote: If you read my whole post you can understand that I'm well aware of that and even accept that excuse of not giving two shits during the moment you are having sex, but after that there's a limit to 'fix' the problem which is the 20 week period, there's no excuse to delay the abortion after that. You make me sound like a dumb utopia believer. it's true that you're not exactly the demographic for that extrapolation, but it was an interesting way to state the misguided concept of responsibility, that most hardline pro-life advocates won't budge on whatsoever, as being founded in the idea of consistently rational action. I don't exactly get the rhetorical point of leading your post with that statement, but I'm not trying to call you out and I want to minimize my contributions to this thread so I apologize if it bothered you overmuch. | ||
|
Gjhc
Portugal161 Posts
On June 16 2013 07:40 TheExile19 wrote: it's true that you're not exactly the demographic for that extrapolation, but it was an interesting way to state the misguided concept of responsibility, that most hardline pro-life advocates won't budge on whatsoever, as being founded in the idea of consistently rational action. I don't exactly get the rhetorical point of leading your post with that statement, but I'm not trying to call you out and I want to minimize my contributions to this thread so I apologize if it bothered you overmuch. Nah you didn't bother me nor do I feel insulted by what you said, you have a good point, it's just that I didn't ignore it in my post, and it is even covered by the acceptance of the abortion. My post merely tried to explain that I don't find abortion morally right in any situation, which means that in that 'ideal' and rational world it is wrong, but realistically it is something that should be allowed until a certain point, because the consequences of not aborting when you don't want the child can be worse than skipping some moral integrity. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
First, for the men saying that men have no place in this discussion, I would agree with you if we lived in a society where, after impregnating a woman, the man just kept on going in life and did not have anything to do with child-rearing. However, in general, we do. Additionally, in the USA, we have laws binding us to certain responsibilities towards a child even if we would rather it be aborted. So, we do have a say in the discussion. Obviously, our (yes I'm a dude) opinions come with a certain sense of humility, we cannot demand abortions of women at our whim, nor can we prevent them all (at least, certainly, early-term abortions), but we do have a large stake (sorry for the possible phallus-imagery, pun unintended) in the matter. Second, realize that the law here is a reflection of many opinions. For some, even in this thread, it is "no abortion is ever justified," while for others, it's an "every abortion no matter when is justified." So the change in this law reflects that the passion over this subject demands a pragmatic response at the moment, so we have "abortion until the 20th week." But, in the cases of rape or incest, I think it's wise to give the woman more time to consider whether she would like to have an abortion. With rape, the woman herself might not find out that she is pregnant until later-than-usual. Then she would have to actually decide (on her own, as the rapist probably isn't going to really help out much) not what she would like to do, because I am sure that most rape victims would wish that the rape did not lead to pregnancy, - I know this is my opinion but I feel confident in it - but what she will do. I cannot suppose that weighing moral (maybe religious), economic, and psychological factors for something like this will be easy for anyone. With incest, there are the added risks of birth defects that may need to be considered for longer, however, I feel that with incest, the law reflects more that you can have very unique situations which result in incest. Especially since you are more likely to find an incestuous relationship which disfavors women. As for my opinions on life, I consider us to just be a dynamic growing cluster of cells while we're in the womb - alright, a totally badass dynamic growing cluster of cells. I personally do not have a problem with later-term abortions. While I consider us to be alive, I do not consider us to have rights pre-birth which supersede the will of the woman whose bellies we occupied. While I find the moral arguments against abortion very intriguing, I think that they mostly reflect an empathetic viewpoint with the fetus, that is, nobody likes the thought of having been aborted themselves. I think that this is probably where the anti-male opinion comes from in this debate. To guarantee that they are not being biased against women, I think some of the men in this thread (I even used to be of this opinion) realize that they cannot truly empathize with a pregnant woman, and would prefer to silence their thoughts. Though I used to hold this opinion, and maybe it was even correct for the time period in my life where I had it, as I said above, I think that men do have a say in this debate, though it needs to be presented with humility. To those who have posted the pro-life choices (sorry to sum them all up with just that term), keep posting those analogies! They really do make it easier to see the debate from your point of view, and are, as I said, very thought-provoking. | ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
| ||
|
i_bE_free
United States73 Posts
| ||
|
datcirclejerk
89 Posts
On June 16 2013 09:51 Luepert wrote: There is nothing inherently different about fetuses conceived in incest and rape. There should be no special laws that apply to only them. Anything that applies to them should also be applied to all fetuses. And yes, this is a very compelling point. If you only look at abortion from the parent side of the equation, then there is really no reason to restrict abortions at all. The only reason abortion is a contentious issue is because there is this third party involved. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On June 16 2013 06:53 UdderChaos wrote: But your definition of life is arbitrary. You claim because the foetus isn't concious it doesn't count as a human? Well im about to go to sleep in a few hours, and be unconscious for several, i hope i don't give up my rights for a human for that period. What about those in a coma or mentally ill? You also mention the unintelligent, well there are plenty of disparity in intelligence across our species, if that is a sign of life then does that mean that some of us are more alive than others? You fail to provide a convincing reasoning for a fetus not being a life or at least a human life in the making. When you asleep you are still a being with self-awareness, you just happen to be asleep. Fetuses, like corpses, are not "sleeping" in the womb prior to receiving the capacity for awareness of self. There is a difference between being awake and having sentience. Similarly when scientists discuss "intelligent life" they aren't excluding oafish members of sentient species. This is a linguistic phenomenon known as a "Homonym" - another example would be right (Directional) and right (Correct). | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On June 16 2013 05:39 refmac_cys.cys wrote: I don't think there is anything that makes me quite as mad as these exceptions. Regardless of any individual convictions you might have, I think everyone can agree that there's some sort of moral argument to be made against abortion: if killing a baby is wrong, how far back in its development do you have to go before its ok? There's obviously the same sort of argument to be made for its legalization - the law shouldn't mandate the personal relation between a woman and her doctor, or try and regulate her reproductive system. What I don't exactly get is this: where in either of those are the stipulations that the baby be/not be the product of sexual assault or incestuous relations. If its inhumane to force someone who's been raped to carry the child to term, isn't it also inhumane to force someone who's experienced some other sort of violence (abuse, etc.) from the father of the child to carry it to term? And isn't it just as inhumane to force someone who can't financially support the child to carry it to term? The point being, if abortion is immoral, then it just is, and if it isn't, then it isn't. No exceptions either way, I don't imagine. Hmmm. Imagine the alien from the movie Alien inseminated you forcibly. Would you want to be required to carry it's young to term and subsequently endure the possibly fatal process of giving birth to them? It's not a perfect example - but it might give you an idea as to why women who have been raped are unwilling to be shouldered with such an experience. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 16 2013 09:58 datcirclejerk wrote: This is one of those situations where the vast majority of cases it will be abused as a loophole for irresponsible people. This is where your post became retarded. It takes quite a lot of proving to convince me (and any other reader) that an entire group of people are irresponsible. You haven't even offered any evidence as to why an incredibly diverse group of people are 'irresponsible people'. 1. Seek abortion 2. You're irresponsible. Doesn't really hold up. | ||
|
datcirclejerk
89 Posts
On June 16 2013 10:06 Jormundr wrote: This is where your post became retarded. It takes quite a lot of proving to convince me (and any other reader) that an entire group of people are irresponsible. You haven't even offered any evidence as to why an incredibly diverse group of people are 'irresponsible people'. 1. Seek abortion 2. You're irresponsible. Doesn't really hold up. Well, in the vast majority of cases, if you don't want to get pregnant, and end up pregnant, you were probably irresponsible in some way. We've already discounted rape here, and we can also discount failed birth control. The rest, assuming I'm not forgetting any other rare extenuating circumstances, can safely be described as irresponsibility. It is a generalization, but not a retarded one. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On June 16 2013 10:19 datcirclejerk wrote: Well, in the vast majority of cases, if you don't want to get pregnant, and end up pregnant, you were probably irresponsible in some way. We've already discounted rape here, and we can also discount failed birth control. The rest, assuming I'm not forgetting any other rare extenuating circumstances, can safely be described as irresponsibility. It is a generalization, but not a retarded one. It seems to me the only demographic you are referring to are those individuals who failed to take into account the fact that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. I put it to you that these are probably not the individuals best suited to child-rearing. | ||
|
SonZHi
Hong Kong30 Posts
In Hong Kong we don't debate it, we just treat it as medical procedure. I think we legalized it in the 80s, now nobody talks about it. Also most of us are not religious. | ||
|
Ponera
Canada596 Posts
Honestly people place too much issue on a fetus. Yeah it's genetically human but that doesn't entitle it to life. There are animals far more intelligent and capable that get slaughtered (dolphins, many of the more cunning birds, pigs etc) | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
I personally don't care which wins in the end, just as long as one of them does. There isn't much I hate more than internal inconsistency. On June 16 2013 10:28 SonZHi wrote: The abortion debate is mostly cultural. In Hong Kong we don't debate it, we just treat it as medical procedure. I think we legalized it in the 80s, now nobody talks about it. Also most of us are not religious. Well that's why you don't talk about it. You all mostly agree, there isn't much to talk about. We in the US though, can't agree on anything. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On June 16 2013 03:55 Maxie wrote: Do you honestly believe consensual incest can't happen? Clearly doesn't watch GoT. On topic, the fetus is part of the woman's body until she gives birth, she should have 100% control over it at all times. Still, people who abort during the later stages of pregnancy should have a damn good reason or be charged more for it as the fetus becomes more self sufficient. Women abort because they aren't ready, can't support the baby or do not want it to that father. Rape and incest are included in this, forcing a woman to have a child because you stand on a higher moral highground or because you are religious when she clearly doesn't want or isn't prepared for it is all sorts of asinine. Saying that though, women who use abortion in place of contraception or women who decide they don't want it the later stages should be paying a premium fee for their indecisiveness/stupidity. edit: @ post above, from what I understand difficulty of obtaining abortions varies from state to state, some states are essentially more theological than others and as such obtaining an abortion there is extremely difficult and you would need to travel across state borders if you wanted one. Most non-thelogical countries or states in the US case have no problems with the abortion procedure. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On June 16 2013 10:41 Millitron wrote: The whole "Abortion is OK before this time, but not after" thing is complete nonsense. Say the limit is 30 days. A fetus at day 29 is practically identical to one at day 31. The same is true no matter when you set the deadline. Setting deadlines like this is complete arbitrary nonsense. You either have to allow abortion at any time, or forbid it at any time, or you're being irrational. I personally don't care which wins in the end, just as long as one of them does. There isn't much I hate more than internal inconsistency. Well that's why you don't talk about it. You all mostly agree, there isn't much to talk about. We in the US though, can't agree on anything. In reality, it isn't that arbitrary. Around 20 weeks is when the lungs are developed enough that a fetus has a shot at breathing air with the help of a respirator/incubator. That's the reason for it...and the reason why the SC has "viability" as the line in the sand so to speak between abortion or no abortion. Roe v Wade and the Planned Parenthood decision. Can't breathe air = not viable fetus. It will die if it leaves the womb. Chance at breathing air = viable fetus. ** With the help of mechanical assistance And that reason is also why in the last 40 years there hasn't been that much more advance in that window of 20 weeks. We can't duplicate how a fetus breathes in the womb. The kicker will be when technology advances to the point where you can keep a fetus alive in a liquid environment and it can absorb oxygen through the placenta...or you can splice an umbilical cord to some kind of device that replicates the placenta/uterine wall connection. | ||
|
datcirclejerk
89 Posts
On June 16 2013 10:41 Millitron wrote: Well that's why you don't talk about it. You all mostly agree, there isn't much to talk about. We in the US though, can't agree on anything. I'll take universal discord over universal agreement any day of the week. You'll get less holocausts or killing fields that way, at the very least. | ||
|
goody153
44238 Posts
i dont like incest .. i consider it as a taboo .. but it should depends on each individual ..it should never be disallowed (though it was never restricted) it should depend on per individual this tavern is getting dangerous .. i should not wander here any longer | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/this-is-not-a-difficult-concept.jpeg)
