I'll put it in the form of a simple question for you to answer, please. How is a 'child' conceived under the conditions of rape or incest any less deserving of rights than a child conceived under 'healthy' conditions? If we're concerned about protecting the 'child,' why are the circumstances of the mother relevant in rape or incest, but not in the context of a drunken fellowship camp hookup?
Again, the determination of whether the fetus conceived or not is an actual person with rights is debatable itself. The circumstances are relevant because the woman in the rape case has no say in the matter and was forced into the situation.
Pro-lifers would argue that there is a great chasm between an unborn child and a grown person who has committed heinous crimes, and I wouldn't disagree. Even though I do oppose the death penalty, I don't think there's a direct contradiction here except in the use of the propagandist term "pro-life." I'd much prefer talking with pro-lifers about how we might best reduce (or even nearly eliminate) abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. I've been talking about this on this board for years. And I have yet to find a single "pro-lifer" that would get on board with condoms and sex ed. Instead they all seem to want to outlaw abortion while resisting these proven methods of reducing it. Let's be clear about this. They oppose condoms and sex ed but they want to jail women and/or doctors for performing abortions. Never mind the fact that that doesn't actually reduce abortions since women will just pursue them through illegal means. In most cases all this could be avoided by encouraging condom use, but they don't seem to want that. They seemingly don't want to reduce abortions nearly as much as they want to punish those who have them. As such this seems to be much more about vengeance than anything else. I truly hope that Landry Landlord or any other pro-lifer on this board will tell me I'm wrong about that and that they are actually so serious about avoiding abortions that they absolutely support the methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies that have been proven to work. But I'm not holding my breath. Too often this issue has proven to be a case of people wanting more to be righteous than to actually address the problem. I hope to be proven wrong in this.
I don't think there should be any difference at all. I think that, in either case, if abortion comes up, it is an extremely difficult, extremely personal question. And one in which the law should not be involved. Which is why I think we need to focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. And which is why I was so happy to hear Obama talk about that after I have been talking about it for years. I can't wait for the "religious" right to get serious about reducing abortions. This is the only way we will do it. Until they get on board with condoms, sex ed, etc., they are liars and they are hypocrites. Until they do this, they are only about judging others (a deeply un-Christian thing) and in no way about addressing the problem they pretend to care about.
I am still struggling on this. I am trying to understand the logic behind the exemption for rape or incest, from someone who is anti-choice, in terms of the culpability of the fetus. What about rape or incest makes the child's soul disposable, when under regular circumstances it is sanctified? If you're anti-choice, the fetus is a person. Abortion is in fact murder. So: Why is the murder morally acceptable in cases of rape or incest? The fetus did not do anything wrong.
You're dealing with a multitude of debatable subjects. Here. I'm glad you're trying to comprehend others instead of insulting them or telling them flatly that they are wrong. I'm anti-choice personally. That means if I was ever presented with an unwanted pregnancy in my personal life, I would not want an abortion but if the woman wanted it then it would be her choice. It is her body, mind, etc. that will be affected, not mine. Again, this is debatable.
I just have to say here, as I have before, that I ****ING HATE the terms pro-choice, pro-life, anti-choice and pro-abortion. They are all, as I've said, divisive terms that are meant to be divisive. And on an issue in which there is absolutely no black and white. Nobody in the entire world is pro-abortion. And nobody in the world is anti-choice. And virtually everybody in this world is both "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Anybody who ever uses either of those other terms (pro-abortion or anti-choice) gets a smack on the wrist from me. If they use them again after being corrected they get a smack on the face. There is common ground to be found here just as soon as we stop demonizing each other. Not on every issue, but on this one for sure.
You're nuts. Isn't the position of wanting to make illegal the incredibly personal decision of pregnancy termination - to remove the legal option to do so - by definition, anti-choice? How is someone pro choice who wants to end legal abortion? Thats not meant to demonize or divide anyone, i just think it is one hell of alot more accurate than "pro-life." What else do you call the movement to overturn roe v wade that is not meant to be divisive? Those Who Wish To Abort Abortions? The horse is way way way out of the barn - there a are people who show up at the houston planned parenthood every day shouting at women entering the clinic. They are not anti-choice? I think it is one of the most respectful terms i could use. I agree there is plenty of common ground (btw, my naive initiative to reduce teen pregnancies in a poor public school in philly was met with such crickets from every corner of the school - its another story - but the desire to reduce teen pregnancy is no way a universally agreed-upon 'good idea' in my experience) But anyway - i agree, its a red herring, a wedge issue. Plenty of ways to reduce abortions. My point is - actually - reducing abortions is not the goal of the Those Who Wish To Abort Abortions. The division and cultivation of fear and moral superiority is the goal. The political currency harnessed from the division is the goal. If they gave two craps about reducing abortions, you're right, they'd get on board with empirically-validated methods for reducing abortions. It would be a sociology-geek-infested public health issue. But its not - its a religious/political issue.
Unfortunate but common thread derail... I agree with CBFC's logic on this. If the government is forcing the mother to carry to term based upon the idea that the fetus has rights and a sentient individual life, then the sins of the father shouldn't be a determining factor in causing an exception to that rule.
My point is that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both propagandist terms. The pro-lifer would ask what choice the fetus (or in their minds "the baby") has. The pro-choicer would assert that she is in no way in favor of death. Both terms are meant to demonize the other. And that is the opposite of helpful in coming to an understanding. And "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion," while being logical extensions of these terms, are even worse. But they ARE logical extensions. We just shouldn't talk like that. Nobody in the world is "for" abortion. And nobody in the world is "against" people being able to choose what they do with their bodies. The devil is in the details and this terminology makes a devil of everyone. I said I wasn't going to get back into my own opinions about abortion, but now I have to (as I expected I would). I'm 39 years old. But in another life, when I was 19, a woman was pregnant by me. And I really wanted her to have the baby, I really wanted to be a father to that baby, even though we weren't together. And it was deeply painful to me that she didn't. I respected her choice in that since she had the more difficult cross to bear, as all women do. But where was my choice? I am still a pro-choice man, but this is not a simple issue. And simple, propagandist terminology disrespects the nature of the conversation. Because it is not a simple conversation. It is a complicated and emotional one. And telling someone with whom you disagree, but who has his or her own personal experience with it (or even not) that he or she is against someone having a choice or for having abortions is a horrible way to have that conversation. In fact, in every case, it will make that conversation impossible.
and termaniting a human life isn't a life altering action? if it were up to me, (clearly it is not) I would ban any forms of abortion, the technology and the people that carry out such actions would be illeagal and charged with homicide, which is exactly what abortion is. 50 years ago, abortion wasn't even an option because, nobody knew what it was, just because we now know of the procedure doesn't take away from it's cruelty or morality. Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn child, but you think it is okay to do the same thing to a child just because it is in it's infant stages of life or is 'unwanted' because of it's timing. I question your ethics tenfold. you are absolutely right, I CANNOT force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want, but that doesn't mean she can kill an innocent child who doesn't want to die. there is no grey area. a childs heartbeat and brainwaves start before most women even realize they are pregnant. well, lets just hope that you or your daughter will never have to make that decision. education is by far the best deterent. but, a kid not being ready to be a parent doesn't give anyone a right to decide if a child should have life or not. I was 14 when my first daughter was born, I wasn't ready either. I did have help from my parents and of course I made mistakes, but my daughter is now 14 herself. straight A student, all honors classes, freshman on the varsity basketball team. ROTC air force, and well on her way to being a great human and a productive member of society. I missed out on ALOT of things many other teenagers did, and none of that is or was my daughters fault. I'd be less of a man if I put any of that before her own precious life. what a pity it would have been for me and my wife to decide, back then, that our own wants and desires were more important than allowing an innocent and beautiful little girls life to sustain. when have I ever brought religion into the equation? one could totally erase religion as a factor altogether from this discussion as I have, and the opposing argument will still fall waaaayyyyyyy short of basic human compassion. but since you brought it up, yes, I firmly beilieve anyone who commits such a hanus act will have their day with the Lord. we arent animals dude, this isn't a litter of unwanted kittens. If you want to reduce yourself to such, in order to justify your arguments, be my guest. I tend to give a human life, no matter how it is concieved, or what manner it is being born unto, a lil more respect than a box of unwanted kittens.
Pro-life in the case of anti-abortion because the child has no part of the decision and does not pose a threat to society at this stage of the game. Therefore, the unborn child deserves to live like everyone else, including anyone reading this. Pro-death as in capital punishment because, for those found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with the current legal system the way it is, the only 100% sure way to make sure they won't kill again is to kill them. When there is photographic, DNA, and testimonial evidence that a man killed 3 adults, then shot an 8 year-old boy in front of his sister, he deserves to die. Don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of both of these, but I'm guessing that's the primary argument.
Landlord: Props to you for stepping up. For real. What is your position on distributing condoms and sex education?
Wouldn't the judgment from that act be with the person and his/her God? That's a long way from legislating government bans against abortion and throwing women in jail. I just don't see how supporting a one-size-fits-all government solution will solve a socially ingrained human issue. It's the same mindset some have in thinking science/technology will bring the end all to this debate by defining when human conscious life begins. People will still have problems with something as ghastly as abortion. Modern or not.
great post, thanks for sharing that. I see where you are coming from in terms of inflaming the debate. But then what does one call that political movement? I dont know. In PTSD, we get alot that - stigmatizing the condition by calling ti a disorder. But you know what - it is a disorder. Its the truth. Its not normative. We change the label to something false but less stigmatizing? Ugh. Maybe I guess. Same to me sort of goes with anti-choice. It inflames, but within the context of abortion rights, seeking legal prohibition is fundamentally anti-choice. I dont really consider it propoganda. I could handle being called pro-abortion rights. Is anti-abortion rights better? I can deal with that. PS Landlord, you're a stud, nice work on quality parenting at such a young age. You clearly had / have perspective on the parent/child relationship beyond your years - I started at 35 or so, and would be happy to have a child with half of your daughter's resume. Cheers to you and your wife on that.
Bull. There are records of abortions in Ancient Rome and probably earlier. Susan B. Anthony wrote about abortions. There have been abortions as long as there has been human society. As far as rape goes, if you believe that the rapist's child should be carried to term and laws are put in place to ensure that, what's stopping me from raping my ex-girlfriend who did me wrong or a Russian agent from raping a woman President so that she would be incapacitated at some point? If that were the law, rape would become more than just an anonymous violent act... it would become much more vengeful and a way to wreck a woman's life. As Mrs. rimrocker likes to say, if men had babies there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner with big screen TVs showing games and Hooters girls serving wings in the waiting room... which is another way of her saying there is a bunch of psycho-sexual-power trip weirdness going on in a lot of abortion debates. EDIT: If not clear, only the first paragraph was directed to the quoted post by LL. The rest falls under general observations.
