Home - List All Discussions

None of you seem to get the rape issue....

by: JRH

Here two of my recent posts about the rape issue. I have yet to see a coherent response to either.
The right to life any person has does not include the right to use non consenting individuals. If you will die no one must help you simply because you require it-they have the right to refuse to help you and let you die. If you attempt to use them to continue your life then they have the right to stop you from using them by any means necessary. This applies to the rape situation because the woman did not agree to have sex, and thus she did not in any way agree to be pregnant. If she did not agree to be pregnant then the fetus has not been given consent to use her body . Therefore, abortions should be allowed for rape victims even if a fetus is a person. Denying this leads to many philosophical problems.
If you can justify violating autonomy to save lives in this case how can you argue against it in others? Why can't we force people to save lives by making them work certain jobs? Why can't we take their property from them in order to save lives? Under your proposed system, no one has the right to control their own lives if they can save someone else. Their life is owned collectively.....
There is only one reasonable position: No one has to help someone else live even if that person is an innocent. A fetus has no right to use a raped woman. To claim otherwise is to claim that a woman's autonomy is less important than the life of another. One you justify removing the autonomy of any individual without justification we can apply this principle to anything. Bill Gates has money that can save lives-let's take it! Tom can save lives by performing a certain job job-let's make him do it no matter what he wants! It is the route of slavery and tyranny.
People are self owners and can protect themselves from being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

reply from: JRH

The silence is deafening.

reply from: faithman

Womb children are not property to be disposed of as you wish. The same was said of slaves, and was wrong, it is just as wrong to call these little persons the same.

reply from: JRH

This is not my claim. Please do not strawman my position.
My claim is that if they are people then they do not have the right to use the raped woman without her consent. Please respond to my actual argument.

reply from: faithman

Killers have to blur that line to justify their evil deeds. Darkness avoids light, because it is exposed for what it is in light. The borties want to cover their issue, and as the profetii killer has said herself," fight tooth and toenail" against the light of personhood for the womb child. Personhood is the light. The line drawn in the sand. The distinction between false and true. If things seem shadowy, it is no time to compromise. It is time to turn up the light of personhood until there is no more "what if" shadows. Just the simple fact of womb child personhood, and the final judgment of citizen jurist as to what punishment for those who destroy the preborn. That is the way it is for the born person, that is the way it should be with the womb child person.

reply from: JRH

Even if they are people my argument holds. No person has the right to use another person without consent.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: JRH

Wow, you really cannot think of a response. This is sort of sad.

reply from: JRH

I am not concerned with originality. Knowing that they have no response to my argument and that their positions are intellectually bankrupt is worth far more than originality.
Also, I like your posts.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Pregnancy is simply not like any other situation! If you refuse to donate an organ or blood or anything else to another person, you are not ACTIVELY killing them and there is always a chance that someone else can make the needed donation. To stop a pregnancy, however, you MUST actively kill the fetus. Are you truly unable to see the difference? Yes, it sucks to be pregnant from a rape, but will killing the fetus somehow magically undo the rape? Or is it simply killing the child for the sins of the father?

reply from: JRH

So? You do the same thing to stop a rape or a parasite. Those are the situations which are truly analogous. Action action is justifiable if you are already being used without consent.
Between action and inaction? Of course I see it. The thing is-that makes no difference. The fetus is using the woman. It does not have consent. Ergo, she may take what ever actions needed to remove it-which is what I said in my OP. I never said she was going to be denying it blood or something.
What does this have to do with my argument?
Perhaps this is the reason many women do not give the fetus consent and go through with their pregnancy. I don't care since the reasoning used by the women to give or deny consent is not important for discussions of my argument.

reply from: JRH

Thank you for at least attempting at counter argument. That's more than most of the others can say .

reply from: faithman

Take a glass of milk, and add a few drops of arsnic. Now how much of the glass is milk, and how much is poison? Just a few drops of pro-death poison makes one pro-death, no matter how much good pro-life milk is in your glass. To vow to fight personhood for the womb child, for what ever reason, is deadly borthead poison. It is no act of "compassion" to ignore that fact.

reply from: JRH

How does this relate to my thread?

reply from: Banned Member

I get the rape issue.
A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman. The conceived child is not an invader. The physical relationship which allow life to flourish in the womb is a natural one. That the woman might not consciously consent to the functions which keep that unborn child alive and growing does not change the fact that she is a mother carrying a conceived child. This conceived child is a person due all the rights of other human persons. Once the child is conceived, the woman may be reasonably expected to accomodate this life in her womb by caring for the health of both, until the child can be safely delivered. This newly conceived life in the womb is a person and has the same right to live as the mother has. After the child is born, the woman is perfectly within her rights to give that child away to the proper institutions that would provide care for that child and seek a proper home for the child where they may be permently care for and loved.
The woman may not have given consent to the means and time of the conception in her womb, but that does not give her the right to cease care and terminate the life of another human person. Abortion in the case of rape should never be allowed, especially because it is a human person in the womb. The carrying of a conceived life in the womb against consent is but one of many instances where a person, through no fault of their own, finds themself in the care of another human person's safety and well being. Carrying the child to term is truly an instance and opportunity for charity and caring and healing. The unlawful act of the child's father does not reflect upon or revoke the rights of the child as a human person in any way. Caring for life is a way to control the events of a persons life by excercising human compassion rather than compounding the violence of rape with the violence of abortion. Caring for life is true personal autonomy. By seeking an abortion you only turn the control of two human persons over the the rapist. By choosing life, a woman dictates the terms of her personal freedom and entrusts herself to the care of and compassion for the second victim of rape, the conceived child.

reply from: JRH

Parasitic relationships are natural, and so was rape for much of the history of humanity.
When has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
This does not include the right to use others.
No, please see my post for where this type of thinking leads. You are denying her right to refuse to consent to help the fetus. This is an egregious violation of her autonomy.
Does the mother have the right to use people without consent to live? No.
Of course it does. She has no obligation to care for another human unless she has consented to help it. If it already using her then she can remove it.
So? Who cares about fault? Lack of consent is lack of consent.
Please explain. This makes no sense based on the definition of autonomy.
She does the same when she aborts.
You seem to think that consent means nothing based on this post. If that is so then why can we not force people to do whatever we tell them to save lives or take away their property to save lives? What makes on morally permissible and the other not morally permissible?

reply from: Banned Member

A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman. The conceived child is not an invader. The physical relationship which allow life to flourish in the womb is a natural one. That the woman might not consciously consent to the functions which keep that unborn child alive and growing does not change the fact that she is a mother carrying a conceived child. This conceived child is a person due all the rights of other human persons. Once the child is conceived, the woman may be reasonably expected to accomodate this life in her womb by caring for the health of both, until the child can be safely delivered. This newly conceived life in the womb is a person and has the same right to live as the mother has. After the child is born, the woman is perfectly within her rights to give that child away to the proper institutions that would provide care for that child and seek a proper home for the child where they may be permently care for and loved.
The woman may not have given consent to the means and time of the conception in her womb, but that does not give her the right to cease care and terminate the life of another human person. Abortion in the case of rape should never be allowed, especially because it is a human person in the womb. The carrying of a conceived life in the womb against consent is but one of many instances where a person, through no fault of their own, finds themself in the care of another human person's safety and well being. Carrying the child to term is truly an instance and opportunity for charity and caring and healing. The unlawful act of the child's father does not reflect upon or revoke the rights of the child as a human person in any way. Caring for life is a way to control the events of a persons life by excercising human compassion rather than compounding the violence of rape with the violence of abortion. Caring for life is true personal autonomy. By seeking an abortion you only turn the control of two human persons over the the rapist. By choosing life, a woman dictates the terms of her personal freedom and entrusts herself to the care of and compassion for the second victim of rape, the conceived child.
I am not going to expend any more energy in explaining this to you than it takes to operate the copy and paste function. However....
THE UNBORN HUMAN PERSON IN THE WOMB IS NOT A PARASITE.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: JRH

I did not say it was; I merely implied that the two are analogous, which is true.

reply from: JRH

Augustine, your pwnage here will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. If you can't think of a response fine, but don't try to make me believe these lame cop outs.

reply from: Banned Member

A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman. The conceived child is not an invader. The physical relationship which allow life to flourish in the womb is a natural one. That the woman might not consciously consent to the functions which keep that unborn child alive and growing does not change the fact that she is a mother carrying a conceived child. This conceived child is a person due all the rights of other human persons. Once the child is conceived, the woman may be reasonably expected to accomodate this life in her womb by caring for the health of both, until the child can be safely delivered. This newly conceived life in the womb is a person and has the same right to live as the mother has. After the child is born, the woman is perfectly within her rights to give that child away to the proper institutions that would provide care for that child and seek a proper home for the child where they may be permently care for and loved.
The woman may not have given consent to the means and time of the conception in her womb, but that does not give her the right to cease care and terminate the life of another human person. Abortion in the case of rape should never be allowed, especially because it is a human person in the womb. The carrying of a conceived life in the womb against consent is but one of many instances where a person, through no fault of their own, finds themself in the care of another human person's safety and well being. Carrying the child to term is truly an instance and opportunity for charity and caring and healing. The unlawful act of the child's father does not reflect upon or revoke the rights of the child as a human person in any way. Caring for life is a way to control the events of a persons life by excercising human compassion rather than compounding the violence of rape with the violence of abortion. Caring for life is true personal autonomy. By seeking an abortion you only turn the control of two human persons over the the rapist. By choosing life, a woman dictates the terms of her personal freedom and entrusts herself to the care of and compassion for the second victim of rape, the conceived child.

reply from: Shenanigans

Here's the deal... I'll try and make it nice and short so you bort heads can get it.
Rape is a circumstance, albeit a very nasty, horrific circumstance.
You cannot use a circumstance to justify killing a human being, unborn or otherwise.
What's the difference between a foetus concieved in a Friday night orgy, in a loving, committed child ready relationship or in a rape?
Nothing.
Its still human, its still worthy of personhood rights and protection.
The only differences are the circumstance. If we deny the use of abortion for the friday night orgy foetus and the loving relationship foetus, then we must extend that refusal for abortion to the rape foetus.
Yeah, it sucks for the woman, I'm sure, but more and mroe evidence and women are coming out who have been raped and fallen pregnant and NOT killed their children. Victims and Victors. Go google it cos I"m sick of posting the link.
Concurrently, pregnancy from rape is very rare. Less then 1% of rapes end in pregnancy. And 97% of abortions on average for social reasons. And the other 3% include the majority of foetal abnormality, life of mother, and very rarely, the rape excuse.
Shame on you and your pro-choice to kill unborn children kin for putting women in a *****ty situation where if they don't abort their rape children people will question their stories! SHAME! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest you armpits!

reply from: Shenanigans

You are biologically faulted. The human uterine entity is not a parasite. A parasite is an entitity that is a different speicies to the host. The mother and the human uterine entity are the same species, ergo, the human uterine entity/zygote/embryo/foetus is not a parasite.

reply from: JRH

Rape is a circumstance. You can't kill a rapist to save yourself? Being attacked is a circumstance. You can't kill in self defense? These values are idiotic.
The fetus is the same. The issue is one of consent, however, so this is not a relevant point.
People do not have the right to use other people without consent. kthanx
The circumstance is more important than you let on because of the consent issue. If I can save your life by being forced to work a certain job, can I be forced to do that job against my wishes?
Does not matter. Consent is the only real issue in play.
You have not dealt with the OP at all. Do people have the right to use other people to live? Do I have the right to rape you to live? Please start addressing the issues I raised.

reply from: JRH

You are biologically faulted. The human uterine entity is not a parasite.It is good I did not claim it is then.
I know. It is ANALOGOUS to a parasite. Thank you.

reply from: Banned Member

A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman. The conceived child is not an invader. The physical relationship which allow life to flourish in the womb is a natural one. That the woman might not consciously consent to the functions which keep that unborn child alive and growing does not change the fact that she is a mother carrying a conceived child. This conceived child is a person due all the rights of other human persons. Once the child is conceived, the woman may be reasonably expected to accomodate this life in her womb by caring for the health of both, until the child can be safely delivered. This newly conceived life in the womb is a person and has the same right to live as the mother has. After the child is born, the woman is perfectly within her rights to give that child away to the proper institutions that would provide care for that child and seek a proper home for the child where they may be permently care for and loved.
The woman may not have given consent to the means and time of the conception in her womb, but that does not give her the right to cease care and terminate the life of another human person. Abortion in the case of rape should never be allowed, especially because it is a human person in the womb. The carrying of a conceived life in the womb against consent is but one of many instances where a person, through no fault of their own, finds themself in the care of another human person's safety and well being. Carrying the child to term is truly an instance and opportunity for charity and caring and healing. The unlawful act of the child's father does not reflect upon or revoke the rights of the child as a human person in any way. Caring for life is a way to control the events of a persons life by excercising human compassion rather than compounding the violence of rape with the violence of abortion. Caring for life is true personal autonomy. By seeking an abortion you only turn the control of two human persons over the the rapist. By choosing life, a woman dictates the terms of her personal freedom and entrusts herself to the care of and compassion for the second victim of rape, the conceived child.
AN ANALOGY SAYS THAT ONE THING IS LIKE ANOTHER. AN UNBORN HUMAN PERSON IS NOT LIKE A PARASITE. THE WOMANS ENTIRE PHYSIOLOGY CHANGES TO ACCOMODATE THE NEW LIFE THAT IS CONCEIVED WITHIN HER. THE NEW HUMAN PERSON IS WELCOMED INTO HER BODY!

reply from: JRH

It is analogous in that is uses a being without the consent of that being, as does a rape fetus.

reply from: snapdragon

Sorry but unless you are above the law you do not own yourself; the state does, your employer does, your landlord does,your energy company does, lots of people have their claim on you and you can't do without them. Liberetarianism is a fanciful bit of whimsy but ultimately unrealistic. Killing to empower ones self is barbaric.

reply from: Shenanigans

Rape is a circumstance.
Correct.
You can. But be prepared to have to prove in court that the attacker was indeed raping or had raped you. It would be hard to prove intent of rape. Even if his pants were down when you killed him you would have to prove to the court that you were in danger of rape and it was not conscentual sex.
Correct.
You can kill in self defence.
Incorrect.
You are attempting to apply the cirumstance of the act of a rape or attack to the circumstance to a human life growing within the womb of the victim.
The cirumstance of rape is a violent one, the woman is often frightened into submission, or the attacker uses a weapon. The human uterine entity does not violently take the woman or uses any weapon to subdue her. The HUE simply does what naturally occurs when pregnancy takes place. The HUE grows naturally and progresses along a evolutionary defined path of development. The HUE is also HALF the woman's child.
The pro-choice to kill unborn children often harp on about it being the "woman's choice" and "her body" no mention of the man and the father has no legal rights or say. So why then, does rape make the HUE the "rapist's", why does rape make the HUE more about the rapist/father then the mother?
The fetus is the same. The issue is one of consent, however, so this is not a relevant point.
It is a perfectly relevant point. The foetus from the orgy or whever does not ask for the woman's permission to inhabit her body, it does not ask for a signed conscent. The HUE's progression is a natural occurance of ova + sperm.
According to the pro-choice to kill unborn children movement, the HUE is not a "people", and cannot ask for conscent, therefore your statement is voided, and the HUE stands outside of a need for consent.
We're not talking about jobs or cirumstances committed to save lives, we're talking about using a circumstance to justify killing HUE. So please put the straw man away before I grab a box of matches.
It happens all the time. When someone collects their welfare payments they are using tax payers to live. The tax payer may not conscent to their money going to fund some dole bludger, but they dont' have a choice.
Are you defective or something? Seriously. And please present an example where a rape is neccessary to save my or your life.
I have addressed them. I just think you have your blinkers on. Please take them off.

reply from: JRH

You just said killing is never justified by circumstance?
Yes, in both cases someone is used without consent.
So? It still uses her. It does not matter if it violent use or not. I don't see how the fact that someone has sex with you while you are passed out (non violent rape) is different from any other rape. Non consensual use is non consensual use.
While humans were evolving rape was quite common. Throw them into a cave and all that.
Because his body is not use.
It does not make the fetus less the woman's biological off spring. I have not made that claim.
But the woman chooses to have sex knowing she can put the fetus insider her in that situation. If I choose of my own free will to make someone dependent on me than I cannot suddenly decide I want to kill them rather than let the situation I created resolve peacefully. So the fetus has consent in that the woman has done things which put it there.
I agree with this view, but for this thread I am assuming fetuses are people.
Non persons can be killed for any reason. If a fetus is not a person it does not follow that they cannot then be aborted. Secondly, the fact that someone cannot ask for consent does not mean consent is not needed. A deaf mute who is blind might not be able to ask for sexual consent yet he can rape (say in some weird situation. No one is excused from the need for consent. No one. You need consent if you are a person, and if you are not then you can be killed regardless.
This argument is rather silly.
We're not talking about jobs or cirumstances committed to save lives, we're talking about using a circumstance to justify killing HUE.You wish to force the woman to support the fetus; this is saving its life by nurturing it in the one place it can live.
Right, and although we can make a complex social contract argument here, I do not support welfare or income taxes. I'm a libretarian.
They should have a choice, though. You are committing the "is ought fallacy". It is that way, but this does not mean it should be.
A magical box has been created by god. It will send out a bolt of lighting to kill me unless I rape you. It does not matter if can happen in real life or not because we can still discuss what the moral choice to make is, and this is why philosophers use hypothetical examples all the time.
Can I rape you to live?

reply from: JRH

I still own myself even if the state oppresses me.
That's not a slave relationship. It is a voluntary relationship.
Same as above employer example. A Libertarian does consider themselves owned because we may do labor for money or exchange property. That's just a consensual transaction that makes both people involved in better off.
Of course I can-I may die or choose to engage in transactions with others.
I will kill to protect my rights. I do not think the life of anyone is more important than my rights.

reply from: LisaAnne

JRH, I'm not going to say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort if she is a victim of rape. I just would like to suggest that the 3000 women who abort every day probably were not raped. 3000 is appalling, and I think we all should enter into a dialogue on what we can do.

reply from: Banned Member

I have no problem saying that women who have been the victim of rape should not abort. Abortion is always wrong.

reply from: snapdragon

I still own myself even if the state oppresses me.
That's not a slave relationship. It is a voluntary relationship.
Same as above employer example. A Libertarian does consider themselves owned because we may do labor for money or exchange property. That's just a consensual transaction that makes both people involved in better off.
Of course I can-I may die or choose to engage in transactions with others.
I will kill to protect my rights. I do not think the life of anyone is more important than my rights.
If you say so; I think you'd sooner kill yourself for those "rights" you seem to think you have. You are nothing special and are rightfully under the law as is everyone else.

reply from: Banned Member

Please tell President Obama and your Congressional leaders that you do not support abortion and that you do not support the funding of overseas abortions by your tax dollars!
Please also inform your Congressional leaders that you do not support the pro-abortion candidates that President Obama is putting in place which will result in a pro-abortion administration.
Rev.Clenard Childress this weekend called Barack Obama "the new face of black genocide in America."
Congressman Christopher Smith said that Barack Obama would be remembered as "the abortion president".
http://usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/postcard.shtml
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! WRITE EARLY AND WRITE OFTEN!

reply from: snapdragon

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?

reply from: JRH

I still own myself even if the state oppresses me.
That's not a slave relationship. It is a voluntary relationship.
Same as above employer example. A Libertarian does consider themselves owned because we may do labor for money or exchange property. That's just a consensual transaction that makes both people involved in better off.
Of course I can-I may die or choose to engage in transactions with others.
I will kill to protect my rights. I do not think the life of anyone is more important than my rights.
If you say so; I think you'd sooner kill yourself for those "rights" you seem to think you have. You are nothing special and are rightfully under the law as is everyone else.
At least you were smart enough to drop your other points.

reply from: JRH

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.

reply from: SRUW4I5

A preborn child is a parasite by one definition.
According to that defintion a lot of born people are parasites. It's not a good reason to deny a person their rights.

reply from: AshMarie88

"It's not a good reason to deny a person their rights."
Hey, that's right! You're learning fast!

reply from: snapdragon

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.
Rape is a hard case; but I do not think it justifies further violence on an innocent life. We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue as with many others.

reply from: snapdragon

At least you were smart enough to drop your other points.
I don't enjoy beating my head against a brick wall; if that's your opinion you are welcome to it.

reply from: JRH

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.
Rape is a hard case; but I do not think it justifies further violence on an innocent life. We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue as with many others.
Well, that's fine. Moral disagreements cannot really be argued against anyway. I do have a question, though. Is it moral to force someone to take an action if by forcing them to do it you will save a life?

reply from: churchmouse

JRH I would be happy to answer this question. I have no idea what you say your worldview is however. Are you a Christian?
Your answer makes sense to the person that has no conscience, the person that does not have a belief in God. For the person that has both of these, killing a baby concieved of rape is still murder.
No it adds to the problems. The unborn child growing innocently in the womb has a big problem dont they........they will be hacked to death, dismembered and they cant do anything about it.
How about incest?
How about a non-violent act between two concenting people, one say around 22 and one 14? The fourteen year old knows right from wrong, but still goes ahead and gives consent. The 14 is still a minor so the act by law was rape. Does the baby deserve to die?
The fact is the pro-choice person will come up with excuses for just about everything to justify killing.
I'll ask you a few questions.
Does an innocent baby deserve to die for what his father did? The fact remains JRH, however hard the circumstances are, none of it...is the fault of the life in the womb.

If your father did a crime, should you go to jail for it? And think about this one. If you found out your mother was raped, would you then think you had no right to live?
A few scriptures to think about if you are a Christian.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share in the guilt of the father." and "Fathers will not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death because of their fathers: each is to die for his own sin." Deut 24:16
We live in a civilized society don't we? Does killing innocent childen, people in the womb solve anything? What does it really show?
Rape is a violent act but so is the act of abortion. I think you forget that and place the blame on the innocent child because the woman never gave consent for it to be there. Both are done at the childs expense.
The violence of rape parallels the violence of rape. Abortion is no solution it creates new problems. It does not bring healing for the woman of rape.
Abortion because of rape in all circumstances creates a second victim. It does not take away the damage done to the first victim, the woman.
And for the Christian the truth has a way of surfacing. And for most women we are wounded by that truth especially if we did kill our unborn child.
A child is a child no matter how he/she got in the womb. Killing is killing especially if the person kills does not give permission for it to be done.
Is there any circumstance to the fact that a preborn child is a human being?
Well then what if a mother refuses to take care of her child? She doesnt want to do it anymore and walks away. And that child suffers and dies because of it. Should anything happen to the mother? If you say the child in the womb is a parasite.......then isnt a one year old.....a three year old a parasite as well?
You asked the rape question and included personhood to the child. You said it had personhood like the born baby has.
Who says that just because a mother gives birth to a child she should be forced to do everything for that child after it is born. Can the mother just toss the kid aside and walk away?
Wow I love this from
Which means JRH, you are pro-death,pro-choice, even if you only believe in abortion for the tough cases.
So society looked at rape as right? I dont think so. Rape has always been an absolute. Rape is never right.
Rape might have occurred in societies with no laws, but it was never looked at as right there always have been people with consciences that knew it was wrong.

reply from: churchmouse

We get the rape issue JRH, you dont get the LIFE ISSUE.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion doesn't make you un-raped.

reply from: JRH

No
Prove gpd exists and I will be more than happy to convert.
Address the problems I raised. This stuff is emotional blather I am not interested in.
Depends on consent if you think a fetus is a person.
It was not rape if she has the ability to judge accurately for herself. I would allow an abortion. but if I thought that a fetus was a person I would not.
I do not care about why consent is not given to the fetus by the woman. A woman may deny it consent because she thinks it should die. That is none of my concern. The guilt or innocence is also irrelevant to the issue of consent.
Np
No, but you do not seem to get the point. It is not about asserting that the fetus has no right to live. It is about the fetus not having the consent of the woman to live using her body.
Abortion solves a variety of problems. Women stop their lives from being ruined.
I only care about the consent. The fetus may die because it does not have it. That is the way of the world.
Only they can make that choice for themselves.
If she already started caring for it she consented to care for it for a period . Since that is so she still has the right to stop caring for it, but should turn it in to the proper authorities.
In a sense. You forget that people can give away their born children and stop caring for them. It's not like you have to keep taking care of them no matter what. You seem to believe otherwise....
For the purposes of this debate, yes.
She does not have to care for it.
Rape was common among humans as we were evolving. It was a standard method of sex.
You are incorrect. At one point it was normative. This may be why so many women have rape fantasies today.

reply from: carolemarie

Rape is not normative, never was, unless you claim that all men are wanna be rapist.

reply from: JRH

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259

The authors speaking about their book:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/THOUH/thornhill-preface.pdf

reply from: micah

I suspect you are right. The bible certainly doesn't have much to say against rape. You would think it would have made the 10 commandments.
Your comment on rape fantasies is interesting too. The sex in many romance novels is about as far from feminist as you can get.

reply from: JRH

I suspect you are right. The bible certainly doesn't have much to say against rape. You would think it would have made the 10 commandments.
Your comment on rape fantasies is interesting too. The sex in many romance novels is about as far from feminist as you can get.
It seems odd that people actually believe common sexual desires are not the result of evolution, but rather some sort of social construction. If something exists in all human societies it does not seem likely it is cultural.

reply from: snapdragon

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.
Rape is a hard case; but I do not think it justifies further violence on an innocent life. We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue as with many others.
Well, that's fine. Moral disagreements cannot really be argued against anyway. I do have a question, though. Is it moral to force someone to take an action if by forcing them to do it you will save a life?
Give an example please. I don't quite know where you're coming from here.

reply from: JRH

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.
Rape is a hard case; but I do not think it justifies further violence on an innocent life. We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue as with many others.
Well, that's fine. Moral disagreements cannot really be argued against anyway. I do have a question, though. Is it moral to force someone to take an action if by forcing them to do it you will save a life?
Give an example please. I don't quite know where you're coming from here.
Let's say Tom wants to be an actor. If we force Tom to be a doctor against his wishes instead it it guaranteed Tom will save 500 lives. Is is morally permissible to force Tom to become a doctor?

reply from: snapdragon

Why abort in the instance of rape? Is the life concieved somehow different from the one concieved of concentual sex?
As I have pointed out, the consent issue is what makes the cases different-not the fetus itself.
Rape is a hard case; but I do not think it justifies further violence on an innocent life. We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue as with many others.
Well, that's fine. Moral disagreements cannot really be argued against anyway. I do have a question, though. Is it moral to force someone to take an action if by forcing them to do it you will save a life?
Give an example please. I don't quite know where you're coming from here.
Let's say Tom wants to be an actor. If we force Tom to be a doctor against his wishes instead it it guaranteed Tom will save 500 lives. Is is morally permissible to force Tom to become a doctor?
Of course not; ***** and Harry could just as easily save 250 lives a piece and they might actually want to.

reply from: JRH

Then why it is moral to force a pregnant woman (whose has not consented to bear the child to save it's life) to have her child? It seems that you are contradicting yourself; on one hand you want to force someone to protect a life, and on the other you do not.
No, in this situation we know that the 500 will die if Tom does not save them. No one else will be able to save these people. It's a hypothetical....don't try to go outside of it.

reply from: snapdragon

Then why it is moral to force a pregnant woman (whose has not consented to bear the child to save it's life) to have her child? It seems that you are contradicting yourself; on one hand you want to force someone to protect a life, and on the other you do not.
No, in this situation we know that the 500 will die if Tom does not save them. No one else will be able to save these people. It's a hypothetical....don't try to go outside of it.
I wasn't. I was stating a point, if Tom can save five hundred lives if he became a doctor it is logical that anyone who becomes a doctor could save those same lives. This is irrelevent to a woman carrying a fetus, only she can carry that fetus so only she can preserve that life. Illogical hypotheticals do not hold an argument well.

reply from: JRH

Then why it is moral to force a pregnant woman (whose has not consented to bear the child to save it's life) to have her child? It seems that you are contradicting yourself; on one hand you want to force someone to protect a life, and on the other you do not.
No, in this situation we know that the 500 will die if Tom does not save them. No one else will be able to save these people. It's a hypothetical....don't try to go outside of it.
I wasn't. I was stating a point, if Tom can save five hundred lives if he became a doctor it is logical that anyone who becomes a doctor could save those same lives.New example then. Tom needs a kidney transplant. Karen is the ONLY person who can save him but she does not want to. Can we force her?
Please explain why it was illogical. You are logically inconsistent. Do not call me illogical because you got backed into a corner. Thanks.

reply from: snapdragon

Then why it is moral to force a pregnant woman (whose has not consented to bear the child to save it's life) to have her child? It seems that you are contradicting yourself; on one hand you want to force someone to protect a life, and on the other you do not.
No, in this situation we know that the 500 will die if Tom does not save them. No one else will be able to save these people. It's a hypothetical....don't try to go outside of it.
I wasn't. I was stating a point, if Tom can save five hundred lives if he became a doctor it is logical that anyone who becomes a doctor could save those same lives.New example then. Tom needs a kidney transplant. Karen is the ONLY person who can save him but she does not want to. Can we force her?
Please explain why it was illogical. You are logically inconsistent. Do not call me illogical because you got backed into a corner. Thanks.
Again, it is illogical. Karen cannot possibly be the only donor match otherwise those two would be the only two of that blood type in existance. The woman carrying the fetus is the only one who can carry that fetus. Instead of getting miffed why not try posting a scenario that could actually happen. By the way; you haven't backed me into a corner you are stuck in your own imagination.

reply from: JRH

You don't understand what that word means. Look it up.
IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. PHILOSOPHERS USE THEM MAKE ARGUMENTS AND CREATE MORAL DILEMMAS. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
I'm afraid I did. You're just a little slow and don't understand the nature of a hypothetical moral dilemma. Please go read a book.

reply from: micah

JRH, you're kind of like Rosalie in that you think that everyone on this forum is on the same playing field.

reply from: snapdragon

You don't understand what that word means. Look it up.
IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. PHILOSOPHERS USE THEM MAKE ARGUMENTS AND CREATE MORAL DILEMMAS. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
I'm afraid I did. You're just a little slow and don't understand the nature of a hypothetical moral dilemma. Please go read a book.
Actually those with a lesser intellect tend to get angry and just attack when threatened.

reply from: JRH

You don't understand what that word means. Look it up.
IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. PHILOSOPHERS USE THEM MAKE ARGUMENTS AND CREATE MORAL DILEMMAS. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
I'm afraid I did. You're just a little slow and don't understand the nature of a hypothetical moral dilemma. Please go read a book.
Actually those with a lesser intellect tend to get angry and just attack when threatened.
Perhaps if I had relied on an ad hominem attack your response would have merit. I attacked you because your points were stupid, and even told you my problems with them. I wasted my time with you........

reply from: snapdragon

You don't understand what that word means. Look it up.
IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. PHILOSOPHERS USE THEM MAKE ARGUMENTS AND CREATE MORAL DILEMMAS. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
I'm afraid I did. You're just a little slow and don't understand the nature of a hypothetical moral dilemma. Please go read a book.
Actually those with a lesser intellect tend to get angry and just attack when threatened.
Perhaps if I had relied on an ad hominem attack your response would have merit. I attacked you because your points were stupid, and even told you my problems with them. I wasted my time with you........
Sorry you feel that way.

reply from: BobEnyart

JRH, I have not read this thread, only your post. You are wrong because a mother has a special obligation to care for her child. While a rape is horrific, the child is no less hers than any other child.
This is irrelevant. God does not give authority to a mother to abandon or kill her baby because he or she was not wanted, and these simple truths lead to none of your philosophical problems.
-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church

reply from: JRH

Special pleading. This case is like all others. Consent is needed or not needed in human relationships. This event is not in a special category.
Well, it is hard for myths to give people anything.
Of course they do. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You can google it and get back to me.

reply from: Banned Member

JRH, you are a secualr atheist like our new half-wit president. That is his problem. That is your problem. You are a philosophical outcast out or line with American tradition and traditional moral thinking. Why don't you move to Europe? You would be more than happy living in the Netherlands where they kill babies without all the pretense of compassion or rights.

reply from: JRH

Yes, as I a Libertarian there is nothing I love more than borderline socialist policies.

reply from: Banned Member

Libertarians are spineless moral cowards who try to justify anything to do what they damn well please! Take the blinders off your eyes. Abortion is murder.

reply from: JRH

You already lost out debate. It seems fitting that you should resort to ad hominem.

reply from: LisaAnne

This sort of talk really alienates the pro-life movement from mainstream America. We really need to back off the rape and incest cases.

reply from: faithman

This sort of talk really alienates the pro-life movement from mainstream America. We really need to back off the rape and incest cases.
the virtual door to this forum goes both ways.

reply from: BobEnyart

Recap, I wrote: "JRH... You are wrong because a mother has a special obligation to care for her child. While a rape is horrific, the child is no less hers than any other child."
JRH replied: "Special pleading. This case is like all others. Consent is needed or not needed in human relationships. This event is not in a special category."
Taking whatever latitude you need to answer, and excluding the matter of abortion for the next three questions:
JRH, do you acknowledge that the relationship between a mother and child presents a special obligation?
JRH, do you admit hat a child has a right to be cared for by his mother?
JRH, do you contend that a mother for no reason other than her preference has a right to abandon her infant?
You are the one special pleading JRH. (And neither Boonin or Thomson will help you here.) You are special pleading by assuming that in the abortion matter, the widely recognized obligation of a mother to care for and not kill her child is somehow irrelevant. And you make your argument while ignoring that ubiquitously recognized obligation, without mention or justification.
You seem to be willing to answer questions directly JRH. These next two questions are simple. I can answer reciprocal questions from atheists, agnostics, etc. Can you answer these two?
True or False: If there is a God who created mankind and has revealed his principles of right and wrong to us, I, JRH, am not currently qualified to render reliable moral judgments regarding killing unborn children because I do not know our Creator, I have no regard for the claim that He made each child in His image and likeness, and I have been hostile toward Him; therefore, my counsel on the morality of killing unborn children is not reliable.
[JRH, if you have stated the following claim somewhere in this thread, please disregard the italicized words, but do answer the question anyway, if you would:]
True or False: JRH admits that his argument depends upon his previously unstated claim that a mother has no special obligation to her child. However, if a mother does in fact have a special obligation to her child, I, JRH, have used an argument based upon an invalid assumption and if I am to argue with integrity, I now must take that into account before repeating my argument.
-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
p.s. Oh yes, and JRH, you wrote: "Consent is needed or not needed in human relationships." A toddler is a party to the relationship with his parents. No? His consent is not asked for nor required. Agreed? Do these observations falsify this specific claim of yours? And interestingly, hundreds of millions of people who were never given the opportunity to select their parents, nonetheless, have a respect and often a lifelong love for their father and mother, and often, even grandparents, for the vast majority of human beings, none of whom did they select. Because God is love, he created each mom with an innate ability to love her children. Of course, rebellion against God can pervert His desire for a mom to love and not kill her child. -BE

reply from: BobEnyart

LisaAnne, the so-called hard cases opened the door to the holocaust, and we must teach people the truth. For example, abortion for incest is cruel. The abortion clinic covers up the crime of incest, and typically sends the victim back home to her rapist. Even worse, they often send her home with her rapist, the criminal who brought her to the clinic. Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, tempts him to repeat his crime, and is not compassionate because it kills a baby and increases the woman's suffering. Personhood for the unborn helps people understand there are no hard cases when deciding to protect a baby. You don't kill a baby because her father is a criminal. Also, abortion clinics in my state of Colorado (and apparently nationwide as documented by Mark Crutcher) refuse to comply with mandatory reporting laws for suspected child rape. Colorado Right To Life brought audio taped evidence from Crutcher of that failure to our attorney general's office, and Republican John Suthers chooses to look the other way. Please reconsider your hesitancy to protect the child whose father is a criminal. God bless you!
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

reply from: micah

You're confusing a mother or father with a legal guardian. You can be a mother or father, and have no obligation.
Not even talking into account miscarriages, there are about 3000 abortions per day just just in America alone. If there is an all-powerful god, then he's the most pro-choice and pro-abortion entity that has ever existed.

reply from: JRH

No
No
Yes
How? Please explain as I do not think that this is the case.
I claim it does not exist within my philosophical system (libertarianism). This is not an assumption per se; this is a subjective moral belief held because of other subjective moral beliefs which led me to follow my philosophical system.
I would hardly call it as ubiquitous. Many people are pro choice (thinking a woman has no obligation to bear her child), and many more support her ability to not care for her child when it is born (giving up your child for adoption etc is legal in every state).
This is really several claims which can not be answered with a single true ot false. Firstly, it is false that I am not qualified to render moral judgments if god exists . The first problem with your statement is that god did not reveal "Correct" morals to us if he reveled morals. Here merely revealed morals to us which reflect his moral values (or he lied). The mere fact that a god existed who had a moral system would not mean that I am less qualified to formulate my own moral system based on my values and to explain it. You seem to be saying that if god exists his moral system must be correct, but this is not the case. God is just another being that could exist. His power does not render his morality absolute if he exists.
Secondly, I am not "hostile" toward your god. I do not think he exists. Would you behave in a hostile manner to Yoda or Darth Vader?
I thought this claim was present in my OP. When I checked it that post my claim was there. If a person must have consent to use someone else or get their help then it becomes obvious a mother has no special obligation to care for her children. I thought this would be obvious.
My questions for you (since you said you would take them):
1. Does god command good because it is good, or is good good because god commands it?
2. How do you know god exists?
3. If you can claim that mothers have a special obligation to their children, how is that different than someone else claiming that you have a special obligation to a stranger?
4. How do you know that god's morality is the true morality?
5. Why does god allow evil to exist in the world?
:]

reply from: BobEnyart

JRH, I didn't realize you reply so quickly. I edited the post above and added this p.s.
p.s. Oh yes, and JRH, you wrote: "Consent is needed or not needed in human relationships." A toddler is a party to the relationship with his parents. No? His consent is not asked for nor required. Agreed? Do these observations falsify this specific claim of yours? And interestingly, hundreds of millions of people who were never given the opportunity to select their parents, nonetheless, have a respect and often a lifelong love for their father and mother, and often, even grandparents, for the vast majority of human beings, none of whom did they select. Because God is love, he created each mom with an innate ability to love her children. Of course, rebellion against God can pervert His desire for a mom to love and not kill her child.
-----------
Also, I haven't read your reply yet. I'm off to church for our Sunday night Bible Study. Please pray for the event to go well! -Bob E

reply from: micah

I'd like to add one question to JRH's 5 questions, if that is okay:
6) If there is no god, is abortion still wrong?

reply from: Yuuki

Of course. Abortion is a human rights issue, and you don't need God to be human and have rights.

reply from: JRH

An interesting question that is debated by libertarians among themselves. Virtually all agree that the child in question does not have the right to demand the care of the parents. There is debate on if one follows libertarian principles by forcing a toddler not to harm themselves etc. Most would say that one must have the ability to think rationally before one cannot refuse consent or give consent. If a toddler cannot make plain his preferences (or even understand them) then consent would not be needed. I have also heard it argued that a toddler by seeking nourishment and care from his parents gives them tacit consent to care for him, and it to this view which I ascribe.

reply from: Banned Member

Why do you ridicule behaviour that does fall within social norms? Or is what is only nearly socially and morally unacceptable favorable to you?

reply from: Banned Member

Why funny? Why is it funny to do the morally right thing if you are not married? I also don't drink... ever. I have never had alcohol and I have never tried drugs of any kind. I choose these things. Does that shock you? Do you find that humorous?

reply from: carolemarie

I think he should be punished for beating a 7 year old!
That is terrible he needs parenting classes.

reply from: Banned Member

If you are not married to the woman you should not be administering punishment under any circumstances.

reply from: scopia19822

"I think he should be punished for beating a 7 year old!
That is terrible he needs parenting classes."
He doesnt need parenting classes he needs to be kept away from children period. I think maybe he needs to be beaten with a belt and see how he likes it. Only a pathetic coward would beat a child.

reply from: Yuuki

Why funny? Why is it funny to do the morally right thing if you are not married? I also don't drink... ever. I have never had alcohol and I have never tried drugs of any kind. I choose these things. Does that shock you? Do you find that humorous?
Augustine is hardcore xXx aka Straight Edge.

reply from: nancyu

Do you think carolemarie should be aborted, too?

reply from: SRUW4I5

In some cases it's better if the boyfriend gives the punishments. One of my ex friends beats her 3 and 5 year old daughters to punish them. Her boyfriend sends them to time out or makes them take a 2 hour nap. I think it's better for him to give the punishments.

reply from: faithman

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.

reply from: nancyu

Do you think carolemarie should be aborted, too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRv8GqTK8Hk&feature=player_embedded

reply from: CP

Child abuse/neglect laws in the U.S. PROVE that a legal parental obligation exists. It is a criminal offense for a parent to allow harm to come to their child, or even put that child at risk of harm through any act or omission.
While it may be true that one has no legal obligation to help or provide for a stranger, this doesn't apply to your child. Some will argue that you can put your child up for adoption, as if this somehow implies you are not responsible for that child's welfare, but that is ridiculous. You may relinquish your responsibility to a willing third party either permanently through adoption, or temporarily by other means, but you may not harm the child. You may pay another to fulfill your parental obligation, or you may may legally transfer that obligation through adoption, but make no mistake, you are responsible for seeing that the child's needs are met in one way or another...

reply from: BossMomma

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.

reply from: B0zo

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.

reply from: BossMomma

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.
Ah, well, my answer remains a no. Women were never criminalized for seeking abortions, only the doctors that provide them.

reply from: faithman

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.
Ah, well, my answer remains a no. Women were never criminalized for seeking abortions, only the doctors that provide them.
And that is one of the slippery slope reasons the court used to get us here in the first place. If for murder you pay, in prison you must stay.

reply from: BossMomma

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.
Ah, well, my answer remains a no. Women were never criminalized for seeking abortions, only the doctors that provide them.
And that is one of the slippery slope reasons the court used to get us here in the first place. If for murder you pay, in prison you must stay.
Indeed, but abortion is not murder as the fetus is not a legally recognized Person. Even pre-Roe v. Wade it wasn't considered murder, it was considered medical malpractice.

reply from: CP

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.
Ah, well, my answer remains a no. Women were never criminalized for seeking abortions, only the doctors that provide them.
And that is one of the slippery slope reasons the court used to get us here in the first place. If for murder you pay, in prison you must stay.
You should really give some thought to your vindictive nature. In our discussions about Tiller's murder, I told you it seemed that your support was based more on a desire to see your "enemy" killed than any ethical concerns. I think punishing "evildoers" may be as or even more important to you than defending the innocent. You have implied in the past that you would rather abortion continued at the current rate than to accept compromises that would save lives, but would allow women to get away with aborting!
Seriously, I'm not sure you have your priorities straight here. Is punishing the wrongdoer what is important, or should we concentrate on protecting the innocent? I think it is very important to you that you remain able to live up to a standard that will allow you to continue your self righteous posturing, as well. You want to be viewed as taking a hard line against abortion, refusing to give ground, and that's not a bad thing at all, in and of itself, but when your image becomes more important than the actual cause, then we have problems. I think you may have lost sight of the true purpose here, at least to some degree.

reply from: Shenanigans

The best way to protect the innocent in the case of illegal abortion is to go after teh abortionists. Its a numbers game. Why imprision for life a woman who has killed one foetus, albeit her own foetus, and ignore the clandestine abortionists who has killed perhaps thousands of foeti.
I say give the woman a choice, give up the abortionist or give up her freedom. Throw in some mental health care if she needs it, or some community service or short prison term, but go after the bastards doing the killing. Yeah, it is a supply and demand, if it weren't for the women with unplanned pregnancies seeking illegal abortions there wouldn't be abortionists, but it is an interesting concept, if a woman knows of Mr. Abortionist operating out of the shady lookign house on go nowhere road, then perhaps she's more likely to seek an abortion, especially if other friends and women in her life have used Mr. Aboritonist's services.

reply from: aaronmhatch

Being raped does not make abortion ok. Self-defense training, contraception, and other preventative measures seem appropriate.

reply from: faithman

Even an agnostic gets it right!!!!!

reply from: nancyu

But women should not be punished for slaughtering their womb children? you have absolutly no legs to stand on.
No, they shouldn't. That issue is between God and the woman, if she has repented and made her peace with the Lord, I fail to see why anyone here on earth has a right to punish her. According to the laws of man, she has committed no crime.
In this case, I think he was referring to the debate about when/if abortion becomes illegal if women should be punished or given a pass.
Ah, well, my answer remains a no. Women were never criminalized for seeking abortions, only the doctors that provide them.
And that is one of the slippery slope reasons the court used to get us here in the first place. If for murder you pay, in prison you must stay.
Indeed, but abortion is not murder as the fetus is not a legally recognized Person. Even pre-Roe v. Wade it wasn't considered murder, it was considered medical malpractice.
DING DING DING!!! GIVE THE LADY A PRIZE. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG DUFUS. THAT'S WHY WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE "FETUS LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PERSON" NOTHING ELSE WILL CHANGE THE STATUS QUO. PAY ATTENTION FROM NOW ON.

reply from: carolemarie

Overturning Roe is much easier. And serves the same purpose.

reply from: faithman

There is no other way to over turn Roe, than establishing constitutional equality, and personhood for the womb child. OK killer. Please do tell us how to over turn Roe other than personhood? HHHHMMMM ? Did the abortionist suck out your ability to reason along with your three children?

reply from: MC3

CaroleMarie,
Many people within the pro-life community have bought into the idea you just stated. However, legal and Constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue have consistently pointed out that this is not accurate and that the overturn of Roe is less important than the reasoning that the Supreme Court uses to do so.
Both the 5th and 14th Amendments create a Constitutional right-to-life for all "persons" as well as a federal duty to protect those lives. Therefore, if the Court were to overturn Roe on the basis that the unborn child is a person, the statement you made would be correct and this nightmare would be over. After all, it would be irrational to assert that the unborn are persons but the Constitution does not protect their right-to-life. In fact, this is a point Harry Blackmun expressly wrote into the Roe decision.
The problem is, most experts in this field have concluded that this will not be the rationale used by the Court to overturn Roe. Their argument is that, if Roe is directly challenged, the Court is far more likely to overturn it on the basis that the Constitution is silent on abortion and that abortion is, thus, a "state's rights" matter.
That would leave the right-to-life of the unborn as an issue to be negotiated within the state legislatures. Under that scenario, the only possible result would be the creation of a "patchwork quilt" of abortion laws in which a few states prohibit abortion altogether, others allow it in any circumstance and the vast majority stake out some sort of middle ground. Given that state lines are freely crossed, this would leave every unborn baby in every state vulnerable to abortion.

reply from: nancyu

You really think carolemarie doesn't get it MC? She gets it. This is why she's opposed to personhood. (hint hint...she's pro choice)

reply from: MC3

Gosh darn it, Nance, you may be right. But you know how much I want to believe the best about everyone.
I guess maybe it's just my wide-eyed fawn-like innocence that causes me to be this way.

reply from: CP

In my view, punishment is a secondary concern to saving lives, so, in the interest of ending legal abortion, I would gladly advocate legal action that would prohibit abortion even with the stipulation that only abortion providers would be prosecuted, and not the women who abort illegally. This in no way implies that I do not feel such women "deserve" to be prosecuted, it merely reflects my priorities and willingness to compromise in order to put an end to legal abortion on demand. If this position is enough for some to deny me membership in their exclusive club, proclaiming that I am not "prolife," I can live with that. It isn't about me...
I will say that I object to prolifers declaring other prolifers to be "prochoice," but I guess it's OK as long as they still oppose legal abortion on demand. I, for one, am glad they are on our side, even if we don't agree on tactics and every other secondary point. I believe we can only win if we a strong majority on our side, and do not think it's a good idea to maintain an elitist mentality.

reply from: faithman

As soon as you get rid of your elitist mentality, you can tell us how it is done.

reply from: carolemarie

are that I believe it will fail because the amendments don't address all the legal complications that will follow. Such as will birth control be banned, will we arrest women and throw them in jail if they have an abortion, something we didn't even do pre-Roe? (And there are plenty on this board who want to jail women.)
Heck if Arizona's simple little law is already enjoined by the Feds, do you really think that a person hood amendment will be allowed to stand?
And I am obviously prolife and rather resent your implication that I am not, considering I have spent over a decade doing sidewalk counseling.
.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics