Abortion v.08.2

[Betrayer0fHope]

Damned good point!

I agree, very thought provoking. But, I think it comes down to whose life is more important, even in the eyes of a pro-lifer. The unborn baby with no memories, nobody to love, not sure how sentient it is, or a mother. Most people would choose the mother, even if the baby is still alive.

 

[Norsefire]

I never said in instances of rape, but in instances of mother's health at risk, in which case we are forced to make a choice. However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

 

[(Q)]

However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

What would it be, exactly?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

As a pro-choicer, I have no problem with that.

But if you're pro-life, then you supposedly believe that at the moment of conception a precious human life has been created, and that bit of life ought to have all the rights and privileges of every other human being.

So, it puzzles me why a pro-lifer would throw all his principles out the window as soon as he hears that the precious life was created as a result of rape. Who cares how the baby came about? A baby is a baby, by the logic of the pro-lifer.

Why would the pro-lifer suddenly start caring whether the mother will be reminded of the rape whenever she looks at her child? The mother's feelings and choices have never mattered before. So, why now, all of a sudden?

I think most pro-lifers would remain consistent on that.
Even as a pro-abber, I definately hold the baby's life as a more serious consideration than the mother's feelings when deciding whether to ab or not to ab.
But norsefire summed it up-

However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

The mother would luck out and get the ab she so desires on these grounds.

 

[one_raven]

However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

I couldn't come up with a more assinine justifcation if I tried.

I think most pro-lifers would remain consistent on that.
Even as a pro-abber, I definately hold the baby's life as a more serious consideration than the mother's feelings when deciding whether to ab or not to ab.

Consistent in what way?
Most anti-choicers DO make an exception for rape or incest, so the mother's feeling and/or the potential child's potential trauma ARE more important than carrying to term. There is a distinct contradiction there, because if the mother's feelings and the potential child's potential trauma are more important than carrying to term, they would be pro-choice.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Consistent in what way?

I mean I think most pro-lifers wouldn't be like "unless the woman was raped, then an abortion is ok", most think an abortion under those circumstances is still not ok. James had a great argument against those who do, but most don't.

 

[Roman]

It's a Human being for God's sake. After conception, the life is there. If we abort people, you deny them the right to life after they have begun. It's unfair, unfair, unfair.

Do fags count as human beings?
What about the women you want to rape?

Come on dude, grow a pair and admit that killing babies is totally ok.

 

[Bells]

However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

"Impure"? "Not truly human"?

To reiterate what has already been asked in this thread.. What exactly would it be if not human?

Part chicken?

 

[James R]

I never said in instances of rape, but in instances of mother's health at risk, in which case we are forced to make a choice. However, in the instance of a rape the baby would be impure and therefore, not truly "human"

You have some mixed-up ideas about this "purity" you imagine.

It's almost like an obsessive compulsive disorder.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Notes on prior discussion, thread edit

Mod Hat — Notes on prior discussion, thread edit

Acknowledging that I may be misinterpreting the phrase "No other reference in this subforum for abortion" found in the topic post of this discussion, I would nonetheless suggest that readers and participants might find of some use a recent discussion of the subject in EM&J that ran over four-hundred posts. Owing to the passage of months, however, I have chosen to not merge the present into the other. In order to avoid possible confusion regarding matching titles, I have added a version number to the present discussion title.

 

[Tiassa]

Could be the 20th, if a coat hanger wasn't available

Only an idiot would do that. What is this, the 16th century?

You might have a point. After all, in the 20th century, technology had improved, so that women seeking illegal abortions could expect a wire coat hanger as the preferred tool.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Why does everyone make out abortion to be a bad thing in today's 1st world societies, at least? We have plenty of access to birth control. We even have a pill to cause a miscarriage. Does a fertile woman in 1st world society actually go an extended time with severe irregularity to her period, without plopping down a few bucks for a stick to pee on? Here's my rules for abortion, if I got to set the rules. 1st abortion-understandable for whatever reason 2nd abortion-must show cause or give birth 3rd attempted abortion-sterilization That's just the way I think, though.

 

[MacGyver1968]

um, Norse- do you have any knowledge of the situation in the US pre-Roe v Wade?

I am...and glad that it wasn't around in 1968 or my ass wouldn't be here.

Ps. I also could be the product of a rape and not even know it.