Abortion

[magekillr]

Lol, you're living up to your forum name, my friend:

 

If you are Pro-Life, would rape/incest count as a exception? If not, why?

 

I'm not pro-life, but I think you could argue for the exception and not be logically inconsistent (I don't think they are being logically consistent, but you could argue it).

 

A woman has a right to life, but she also has a right to good health. She has a right to be free from mental anguish, which is a component of good health. She has a right to privacy. With the exception of the most radical, the debate is over what the balance should be within the law between these rights that all potential mothers enjoy and any presumptive rights that a embryo or fetus should enjoy.

 

As a moral question, this is obviously one of the most difficult questions to answer. As a legal matter, the courts basically say that the mother's life and health (including mental health) has the higher claim. However, her privacy right moves on a continuum, weakening as the pregnancy progresses until, eventually, the privacy right has the weaker claim. It's this last issue that is the most contentious, as most pro-life politicians concede the first two points, but fervently dispute any privacy right.

 

This is why it is much more radical to take the position that the embryo's rights trump every right the mother has, including her right not to suffer the mental anguish of mothering her rapist's child.

 

So, in conclusion, it's not really the case that there is some logical fallacy in being anti-choice with exceptions. It's actually a mirror image of Roe, which is pro-choice with exceptions.

 

^^Keep in mind that this argument isn't one I'd make because I disagree with it, but if you asked me in Debate Class to argue that it's not logically inconsistent to make exceptions for rape and incest, this would be my argument.

 

On the flip side of that, which is ultimately my own argument, people who make this exception are just exposing why they're against abortion in the first place: to control a woman's sex life and her body. People who make exceptions are like Puritans placing Scarlet Letters on women and shaming them: "Oh, you weren't raped? You [bleep], you can't have an abortion."

 

Still, to say that a woman must carry a rapist's baby to term is beyond your average pro-lifer; it's outright obscene, and even most abortion ban laws don't take it that far (Brazil, for example, makes these exceptions). However, what do we have running for the Senate this year? Extreme pro-rape child Republicans with Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware all holding this position.

 

Does an unborn fetus have a right to life?

 

Lulz, no. It'a a fetus. It doesn't even know it exists. However, even if you argue that it has a right to life, I argue that a mother's right to privacy trumps its right to life.

 

Under what circumstances would it be okay to abort, and where do you draw the line?

 

Any reason the mother chooses is okay with me during the first and second trimesters; it's her damn body. I'd say that beyond 24 weeks is only ok if there is a complication with the mother's mental or physical health, the baby is going to die, the baby won't live long once it's born, if the baby will be severely physically or mentally handicapped, or if the fetus is already dead.

 

However, though I draw those lines, I don't like the government regulating it because I don't trust America's politicians. They're extremely right-wing, and will do anything they can to limit a woman's choice or make it extremely difficult to get an abortion. Not to mention the fact that there's so few abortion providers in many of the red states (in some of them, there's ONE in the entire state). So I don't support the government making any laws regarding it. It's a decision between the doctor and the woman, period, and the government can get its hands out of it totally.

[Makaaveli]

Hate it when people do it, it's the same concept as murder. If you don't want to take care of the baby, someone else will. If it happened through rape or something, now you know life's a [bleep], deal with it.

 

Wow.

 

"Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks."

 

People like this make me speechless.

 

I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle. Do they decide to give up on it and kill it? Do people that midway gain permanant disabilities decide to just commit suicide? No they don't, many realise how much harder someone else has it and learn to deal with it and continue living. You can't choose the cards you are dealt, but it's your job to make the best out of that hand.

 

Imo no matter who you are, you don't have the right to judge whether someone else should live or die, even if it's your child.

 

So you're implying, that even if keeping the child would kill you, you would be morally obliged to keep the child?

 

How would keeping a child kill you...? I mean if in some situation it was either you or the child, you may naturally have to choose yourself for survival grounds, as you wouldn't really have a choice in losing a life.

[Assume Nothing]

[hide]

Lol, you're living up to your forum name, my friend:

 

If you are Pro-Life, would rape/incest count as a exception? If not, why?

 

I'm not pro-life, but I think you could argue for the exception and not be logically inconsistent (I don't think they are being logically consistent, but you could argue it).

 

A woman has a right to life, but she also has a right to good health. She has a right to be free from mental anguish, which is a component of good health. She has a right to privacy. With the exception of the most radical, the debate is over what the balance should be within the law between these rights that all potential mothers enjoy and any presumptive rights that a embryo or fetus should enjoy.

 

As a moral question, this is obviously one of the most difficult questions to answer. As a legal matter, the courts basically say that the mother's life and health (including mental health) has the higher claim. However, her privacy right moves on a continuum, weakening as the pregnancy progresses until, eventually, the privacy right has the weaker claim. It's this last issue that is the most contentious, as most pro-life politicians concede the first two points, but fervently dispute any privacy right.

 

This is why it is much more radical to take the position that the embryo's rights trump every right the mother has, including her right not to suffer the mental anguish of mothering her rapist's child.

 

So, in conclusion, it's not really the case that there is some logical fallacy in being anti-choice with exceptions. It's actually a mirror image of Roe, which is pro-choice with exceptions.

 

^^Keep in mind that this argument isn't one I'd make because I disagree with it, but if you asked me in Debate Class to argue that it's not logically inconsistent to make exceptions for rape and incest, this would be my argument.

 

On the flip side of that, which is ultimately my own argument, people who make this exception are just exposing why they're against abortion in the first place: to control a woman's sex life and her body. People who make exceptions are like Puritans placing Scarlet Letters on women and shaming them: "Oh, you weren't raped? You [bleep], you can't have an abortion."

 

Still, to say that a woman must carry a rapist's baby to term is beyond your average pro-lifer; it's outright obscene, and even most abortion ban laws don't take it that far (Brazil, for example, makes these exceptions). However, what do we have running for the Senate this year? Extreme pro-rape child Republicans with Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware all holding this position.

 

Does an unborn fetus have a right to life?

 

Lulz, no. It'a a fetus. It doesn't even know it exists. However, even if you argue that it has a right to life, I argue that a mother's right to privacy trumps its right to life.

 

Under what circumstances would it be okay to abort, and where do you draw the line?

 

Any reason the mother chooses is okay with me during the first and second trimesters; it's her damn body. I'd say that beyond 24 weeks is only ok if there is a complication with the mother's mental or physical health, the baby is going to die, the baby won't live long once it's born, if the baby will be severely physically or mentally handicapped, or if the fetus is already dead.

 

However, though I draw those lines, I don't like the government regulating it because I don't trust America's politicians. They're extremely right-wing, and will do anything they can to limit a woman's choice or make it extremely difficult to get an abortion. Not to mention the fact that there's so few abortion providers in many of the red states (in some of them, there's ONE in the entire state). So I don't support the government making any laws regarding it. It's a decision between the doctor and the woman, period, and the government can get its hands out of it totally.

[/hide]

 

Exactly the kind of post I was looking for. Besides, is the embryo even a living being?

 

Hmm, I found an interesting wiki quote regarding this;

 

"Argument from uncertainty

Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).[57] This would place abortion in the same moral category as manslaughter (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life) or certain forms of criminal negligence (if it turns out that the fetus does not have a right to life).[58]

 

David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.[59] Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.[60]"

[Assume Nothing]

Pro-life is almost like a religion, =/

 

Still haven't established clearly whether a unborn fetus has a right to life yet. It can't technically feel pain or know anything until at least the 6th week, and is it a 'human person' yet? I could argue that it's not living, but then someone will bring up the fact that it has potential life...

[Iamdan]

"Pro life" is [cabbage]. It's an old hardwired idea of self interest that isn't needed anymore because we are no longer at risk of extinction because we aren't breeding enough.

 

Most "Pro lifers" keep sweatshops in business, contribute to animal deaths, spend money they could use to save lives in third world countries etc. They aren't pro life, they're pro high horse.

 

Also, george carlin makes an excellent point:

 

"Pro lifers say that life starts at conception. I say life started a few billion years ago and it just keeps rolling along."

 

I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle.

 

It sure is. Some people live, some don't.

[Racheya]

Hate it when people do it, it's the same concept as murder. If you don't want to take care of the baby, someone else will. If it happened through rape or something, now you know life's a [bleep], deal with it.

 

Wow.

 

"Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks."

 

People like this make me speechless.

 

I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle. Do they decide to give up on it and kill it? Do people that midway gain permanant disabilities decide to just commit suicide? No they don't, many realise how much harder someone else has it and learn to deal with it and continue living. You can't choose the cards you are dealt, but it's your job to make the best out of that hand.

 

Imo no matter who you are, you don't have the right to judge whether someone else should live or die, even if it's your child.

 

So you're implying, that even if keeping the child would kill you, you would be morally obliged to keep the child?

 

How would keeping a child kill you...? I mean if in some situation it was either you or the child, you may naturally have to choose yourself for survival grounds, as you wouldn't really have a choice in losing a life.

The sensitivity of OT yet again comes across like a brick.

 

Keeping a child could kill you if either you or the foetus has a medical problem. There are cases where you might die if you don't terminate a foetus.

 

I'm trying to not get dragged into this debate, again, there's a point where it just gets boring :P

[Dax]

I'm fine if they want to, it's their choice. But personally, I don't think I could tell my wife/partner/what have you to get an abortion.

[Satenza]

I tend to be pro-life but I am not against abortion either.

[obfuscator]

"Pro life" is [cabbage]. It's an old hardwired idea of self interest that isn't needed anymore because we are no longer at risk of extinction because we aren't breeding enough.

 

Most "Pro lifers" keep sweatshops in business, contribute to animal deaths, spend money they could use to save lives in third world countries etc. They aren't pro life, they're pro high horse.

 

Also, george carlin makes an excellent point:

 

"Pro lifers say that life starts at conception. I say life started a few billion years ago and it just keeps rolling along."

 

I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle.

 

It sure is. Some people live, some don't.

 

I promised myself I wouldn't get into a debate here but I think this is the most ridiculously bigoted post I've seen on these forums, and I've seen a lot.

 

Why is it so incredibly hard to comprehend that this issue is about a set of morals that is different from person to person - and one is not better than the other.

 

It's ridiculous and unfair to make assumptions about why I'm pro-life when I've constantly reiterated that I believe a fetus is a human life.

 

Most pro-lifers keep sweat shops in business? Most pro-lifers contribute to animal deaths? Most pro-lifers spend money they could use to save lives in 3rd world countries etc?

 

Where the hell do you get the blanket authority to assume every pro-lifer follows your ridiculous stereotypes?

 

However, let's start with my personal views. I'm pro-life. I believe a fetus is a human being, and thus should be protected. I believe in a right to life for all humans. Sweat shops are inhuman places where the right to life of many is severely hindered and sometimes taken completely. Wow, guess what? Looks like my "[cabbage]" pro-life views make me extremely anti-sweat shops? What a surprise.

 

I'm a little confused by what you mean as contributing to animal deaths. I eat meat. Not often, but from time to time. I don't hunt, I don't deliberately kill animals, yet somehow...Look guys, I'm pro-life! I absolutely must be a mass baby-seal murderer!

 

I spent money I could use to save third world countries? Guilty as charged. You don't spend any money at all, right? You take your paycheck and ship it right off to the red cross, correct?

 

Actually, I've been on several community service projects to very poor places in Canada and other countries over my life span and plan to go on one again after I graduate.

[Guest Rob]

Just curious, has a fetus (Less then, I'll say 10 weeks into pregnancy) been proven to have the "conscience" of a human? (As in, knowing it's alive, emotions...ect)

[sees_all1]

You couldn't just read the last thread?

[Alg]

Just curious, has a fetus (Less then, I'll say 10 weeks into pregnancy) been proven to have the "conscience" of a human? (As in, knowing it's alive, emotions...ect)

i think the argument is that it has the potential to gain that at a later period. A lot of the stuff you just listed doesn't actually develop until (up to) a few years after the baby is already born.

You could look at it as real birth taking several years, at 9 months the vital bits are just done. It takes a while after to finish the parts that we say make us 'human'.

[Dupin]

"Pro life" is [cabbage]. It's an old hardwired idea of self interest that isn't needed anymore because we are no longer at risk of extinction because we aren't breeding enough.

 

Most "Pro lifers" keep sweatshops in business, contribute to animal deaths, spend money they could use to save lives in third world countries etc. They aren't pro life, they're pro high horse.

 

Also, george carlin makes an excellent point:

 

"Pro lifers say that life starts at conception. I say life started a few billion years ago and it just keeps rolling along."

 

I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle.

 

It sure is. Some people live, some don't.

If all beings have a natural instinct for self-preservation and preservation of the species, as I believe you have stated in the past, then wouldn't killing a fetus be contrary to those instincts? Then, logically, you are fighting your instincts, and have a chemical imbalance in the brain. If you have a chemical imbalance in the brain, then you are not capable of making your own decisions, and therfore your choices need to be regulated by the government.

 

This is the logical reasoning you used to support your anti-suicide views in another thread, if I remember correctly. Why does it not apply here?

 

TLDR

People like you annoy me to no end. We were all happily making our sweeping anti-pro-life generalizations and restating each other's points until you decided you would disrupt our debate with a real argument.

 

And this brings us back to my first post, which said that this topic is really a matter of opinion, not of logic. In the end, what it comes down to is whether or not you believe a fetus has a right to life.

[sees_all1]

And this brings us back to my first post, which said that this topic is really a matter of opinion, not of logic. In the end, what it comes down to is whether or not you believe a fetus has a right to life.

Except it isn't whether or not, it's when.

 

Here's a hypothetical situation (not sure if its ever occurred or not, but the way the law is written... well you never know) -

A woman 6 months pregnant gets in a car to drive to a clinic to procure an abortion. Nothing eventful happens, and she returns home not pregnant. No laws were broken, nothing to report.

 

Same story, but with a twist. That same woman gets in a car to drive to a clinic. On her way to the clinic, another driver runs the light, and hits her car. On the way to the hospital, the woman has a miscarriage. The woman is fine otherwise. The driver is charged with reckless homicide because they killed the preborn (who, by the way, was scheduled to die anyway). Instead of getting a six months, the driver gets 60 years in prison.

 

 

Good fight, law.

[lizzywizzy]

In the bigger picture of things I am neither for or against abortion.

 

I know I could not easily abort a baby, but I think rape and serious medical problems would be a serious factor to make me consider abortion. However while I would not easily choose abortion, I would not hold it against someone who had one.

 

I am pregnant at the moment, and I am planning on keeping it (i am 10 weeks gone) I think the mother (and father to some extent) has every right to do what is right for them and the situation they are in.

 

 

I do believe that they should lower the maximum limit for having an abortion to before 24 weeks, there was a story in one of the papers where a woman went into labour at a few days short of 24 weeks, and the baby survived(all be it for a few hours), although its highly unlikely that the baby could survive for a while at that early stage, I think it should be brought forward.

 

 

I really do believe that every woman has the right to the last say as to what happens with her body, if she doesn't want to carry that child (Although pill/condoms/whatever should have been used) she should have the right to not carry it.

 

 

Sees..... I am pretty sure that you cant get prosecuted for murder if you kill an unborn child, unless you have different laws against that, but im pretty sure that wouldn't be classed as killing someone here.

[Assume Nothing]

In the bigger picture of things I am neither for or against abortion.

 

I know I could not easily abort a baby, but I think rape and serious medical problems would be a serious factor to make me consider abortion. However while I would not easily choose abortion, I would not hold it against someone who had one.

 

I am pregnant at the moment, and I am planning on keeping it (i am 10 weeks gone) I think the mother (and father to some extent) has every right to do what is right for them and the situation they are in.

 

 

I do believe that they should lower the maximum limit for having an abortion to before 24 weeks, there was a story in one of the papers where a woman went into labour at a few days short of 24 weeks, and the baby survived(all be it for a few hours), although its highly unlikely that the baby could survive for a while at that early stage, I think it should be brought forward.

 

 

I really do believe that every woman has the right to the last say as to what happens with her body, if she doesn't want to carry that child (Although pill/condoms/whatever should have been used) she should have the right to not carry it.

 

 

Sees..... I am pretty sure that you cant get prosecuted for murder if you kill an unborn child, unless you have different laws against that, but im pretty sure that wouldn't be classed as killing someone here.

 

There's also the case of when Pills + Condoms have been used, but fails, which may lead to an exception if a ban is in place. It's hard for the government to really decide, it's a touchy subject and it really differs on society. There are places with a 70% pro-choice, and other places that are less than 20% pro-choice. I think the woman's right to privacy, and rights of her own body should technically override the right to life of a unborn fetus. It is, still, unborn and unaware of its surroundings, unable to feel pain for at least the first 10 weeks.

 

Hmm.. There are people so pro-life that they think a woman should suffer the mental anguish of carrying a rapist's baby, which is illogical to me.

[lizzywizzy]

I was on the pill, and took the morning after pill and i am still pregnant, so i am not a walking advert for contraception working 100% lol.

 

I would find it hard to bond with a baby or accept it if it came through rape. I know there are some people out there who would be able to love the child no matter what but to me every time i saw the child i would just see what happened :-/

[obfuscator]

Hmm.. There are people so pro-life that they think a woman should suffer the mental anguish of carrying a rapist's baby, which is illogical to me.

 

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical.

 

Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter?

 

In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life.

[Assume Nothing]

Hmm.. There are people so pro-life that they think a woman should suffer the mental anguish of carrying a rapist's baby, which is illogical to me.

 

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical.

 

Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter?

 

In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life.

 

Well, do pro-life people kill any bugs/insects/viral invaders/plants? Even using anti-biotics is killing. And to say that bacteria isn't a life is just size-ism.

 

Oh - And there are other rights a person has. It's just the deciding factor of which rights triumphs which.

[Alg]

Hmm.. There are people so pro-life that they think a woman should suffer the mental anguish of carrying a rapist's baby, which is illogical to me.

 

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical.

 

Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter?

 

In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life.

 

Well, do pro-life people kill any bugs/insects/viral invaders/plants? Even using anti-biotics is killing. And to say that bacteria isn't a life is just size-ism.

 

Oh - And there are other rights a person has. It's just the deciding factor of which rights triumphs which.

There's a huge difference between killing bacteria and insects and killing humans.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Hmm.. There are people so pro-life that they think a woman should suffer the mental anguish of carrying a rapist's baby, which is illogical to me.

 

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical.

 

Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter?

 

In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life.

 

Well, do pro-life people kill any bugs/insects/viral invaders/plants? Even using anti-biotics is killing. And to say that bacteria isn't a life is just size-ism.

 

Oh - And there are other rights a person has. It's just the deciding factor of which rights triumphs which.

Pro-life people aren't Jainists. Why do you breathe, you kill bacteria and insects.

 

And bacteria and plants are not even conscious as far as we can tell. An animal at least like a dog is conscious, but it still lacks the existential consciousness of a human being.

[KittyKat]

I don't see the problem of killing something that isn't sentient? Hell, I don't see a problem of killing things that are sentient as long as they're livestock or game.

[sees_all1]

Pro-life people aren't Jainists. Why do you breathe, you kill bacteria and insects.

 

And bacteria and plants are not even conscious as far as we can tell. An animal at least like a dog is conscious, but it still lacks the existential consciousness of a human being.

You're missing the basic point. Because we're pro-life, we're not allowed to eat, breathe, or drink because it harms other organisms. Anyone who's not pro-life isn't held to the same standard, because they're not pro-life. Sheesh, wish you all would understand that. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Also on the subject of protecting "potential" life - many coastal states have ordinances against disturbing sea-turtle nests. Some places fine as much as $1000 for potentially disrupting nesting grounds (like, fines for lights on after dark because it might disturb the turtles). Remember, baby turtles are more valuable than baby humans.

[obfuscator]

Pro-life people aren't Jainists. Why do you breathe, you kill bacteria and insects.

 

And bacteria and plants are not even conscious as far as we can tell. An animal at least like a dog is conscious, but it still lacks the existential consciousness of a human being.

You're missing the basic point. Because we're pro-life, we're not allowed to eat, breathe, or drink because it harms other organisms. Anyone who's not pro-life isn't held to the same standard, because they're not pro-life. Sheesh, wish you all would understand that. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Also on the subject of protecting "potential" life - many coastal states have ordinances against disturbing sea-turtle nests. Some places fine as much as $1000 for potentially disrupting nesting grounds (like, fines for lights on after dark because it might disturb the turtles). Remember, baby turtles are more valuable than baby humans.

This. It's hypocrisy like this that makes me laugh.

 

Plus the Greenpeace types - oh my God a whale is being hunted? Even if you're pro-choice it's hardly a lot to kill a whale compared to the millions that die in third world countries...

[Assume Nothing]

Pro-life people aren't Jainists. Why do you breathe, you kill bacteria and insects.

 

And bacteria and plants are not even conscious as far as we can tell. An animal at least like a dog is conscious, but it still lacks the existential consciousness of a human being.

You're missing the basic point. Because we're pro-life, we're not allowed to eat, breathe, or drink because it harms other organisms. Anyone who's not pro-life isn't held to the same standard, because they're not pro-life. Sheesh, wish you all would understand that. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Also on the subject of protecting "potential" life - many coastal states have ordinances against disturbing sea-turtle nests. Some places fine as much as $1000 for potentially disrupting nesting grounds (like, fines for lights on after dark because it might disturb the turtles). Remember, baby turtles are more valuable than baby humans.

This. It's hypocrisy like this that makes me laugh.

 

Plus the Greenpeace types - oh my God a whale is being hunted? Even if you're pro-choice it's hardly a lot to kill a whale compared to the millions that die in third world countries...

 

Don't get me started. "It may be nothing more than sizeism that pressure groups are formed for saving the whale but never the ear-mite. Dr. Lister, director general of the Wildlife Trust has complained that ' we get lots of sponsorship for otters and red squirrels, but none for the narrow-headed ant' "