Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Post Reply New Topic

It isn't a child either.

Exactly, thus why abortion should be perfectly ok at least before the first weeks.



Err, o, it isn't. For instance it needs to be born before it makes sense calling it a human "child"


Lizards have brain activity, but we do not seem to worry that much about their lives.

Actually it is a child considering it is the offspring of a man and a woman.



Then you agree once it is day 40 after conception that the window for an abortion is over?



No, he/she is a living being long before that if you have brain function and a heartbeat, he/she is alive.



Last I checked human women did not give birth to Iguanas, in fact we aren't even genetically compatible, plus most reptiles do not give birth to live young, the young are hatched from eggs.

I think this is going nowhere. Those who are pro-choice aren't going to agree with us pro-lifers that the fetus/embryo is a baby. Women have brain activity too, so what makes them so much more special than lizards? lol this animal stuff is getting ridiculous...

I know. I just want Inuyasha to stop with the Kangaroo Abortion Crusade, and now hes adding Iguanas to his axis of evil.

Holy crap, it all makes sense now. He wants to become the next Noah and have the world all to himself. He might deny global warming, but that's a lie. He knows for a fact that the ice caps will eventually melt enough to cause massive flooding which he is damn well preparing for. But for now, he's hoping to rack up enough animals and is currently scheming to deregulate the market to get enough money for a boat that'll fit all of em in. LOL I'm ripped

I'm not so sure, even Inuyasha has indicated that he believes that abortion should be legal before 40 days. So, he is admitting he is prochoice to a degree for others.

I presented research that suggests that a 14 week fetus has the ability for social interaction a few posts up; and for me, an individual that sees a requirement for legal abortions and pro choice; the objective evidence presented in that piece of research gives me an understanding of the capabilities of a 14 week old fetus, that puts a fetus in the ballpark of a human person to me.

I don't think the animal argument holds alot of water anyway; the suggestion that humans are somehow superior to animals may be measured in our ability for language, tool making, and culture; but put us out in the jungle without those things and we quickly understand that we are not superior in what it takes for survival as opposed to many other animals. If there were an animal specific means to test for intelligence, we might find that some other animals have levels of intelligence that we can't even comprehend.

Reminds of me of the old Star Trek movie where the Alien force decided to communicate with the whale instead of humans. I digress, but Star Trek was really a deep show at times in regard to the human condition, almost like the Twilight Zone. That was the closest thing we had to google in those days...Gene Roddenberry and Rod Serling.

snip lots of 'zef = child.'

I hope for your sake, and the sake of any future spouse you might have, that you are correct that you will never have to face your partner needing an abortion. However, the assumption that only single women get abortions is incorrect. A significant majority, yes - but far from all. If your future wife had to choose between her life or health and her pregnancy, would you support her in her decision? Would you leave her if she made a choice that you didn't agree with?

@Cave You can not call someone sexist just because they are pro-life, his views on pro-life do not point to a superiority complex and even if he was being inconsiderate(Which I won't acknowledge as true, but it may be) it wouldn't mean he's sexist. After all if men where the ones giving birth you can't assert that his views would be different, you have no evidence. Really your the one being sexist proscribing that men are incapable of having a valid opinion(or perhaps it should be written a valid opinion conflicting with yours) simply because of their sex. You could assert that he might actually change his opinions if he had to put himself at risk for them, but he's apparently abstinent so that argument won't work.


@Jakob aren't you a liberal?

I realize you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyways. I would likely leave her, any woman I would be with would most certainly be worth my life, I would expect the same kind of solidarity with her concerning any offspring of ours.(Replace wife with long term cohabitant though, I wouldn't stick my dick in that institution even if it came with a gold toilet.)

To clarify a few things:
- I am not accusing Inuyasha of being sexist simply because he is "pro-life". There are many people who have posted their "pro-life" views who do not appear in any way to be sexist.
- I would suggest that, if you really want to understand why I believe he is sexist, you should go back and read some of his previous posts. As I indicated, he implies that women who have abortions are doing so only because they can't be bothered with the "inconvenience" of being pregnant. He ignores the serious (and sometimes deadly) health problems that can often accompany pregnancy and delivery. He ignores the serious social and financial impacts pregnant women can often face. He implies that they are all irresponsible, and that they have abortions on a whim. He is, in effect, trying to dehumanize women, as I pointed out in my reply to him.
- His argument is the zef is "innocent" - he indirectly states the mother who aborts is "guilty" or "evil". Again, he gives no consideration to the welfare of women in countries where abortion was made illegal. LKL provided an excellent review of the impact such laws have had on women and society in general. Inuyasha simply ignored them.
- If men who are pro-life do not consider whether or not their views would change if they were women, then I do not believe that they are giving it enough thought. It was easy enough for men to not even consider women "people" - even into the 20th century. Your assertion that sex has nothing to do with one's opinion is flawed, especially when your opinion of what is "right" and "wrong" can limit the choices available only to the opposite sex.




And you think you respect women?

What is the point in protecting it? What evil is wrought of abortion?

He would likely hold the same opinion for any man encouraging his spouse to have an abortion on that basis(what he calls inconvenience.), his opinion is not inherently limited to one sex and there is no reason to assume it is. His focus on women is understandable however seeing as they hold all power given to citizens regarding abortion



Well yes, but he would view the same for any man encouraging his spouse to have an abortion so this is again not a case for sexism. His disregard for consequences could easily be a cause of his rampant idealism, once again not an argument for sexism.



Your argument is irrelevant unless you are asserting that biological drives can control opinions to a significant degree, otherwise your just claiming that its cultural without supplying any evidence. And as I said his opinions are compatible with him being a woman, you could argue that it would be harder for him to maintain them as a woman but that would not stick as Inuyasha is not lacking in will power. And now I will restate again his seeming focus on women is understandable considering women are the only ones who can actually hold abortion rights in our country, there is no indication that he would think it acceptable for a man to push abortion(indeed he has called pro-choice men on this forum murderers before) so there is no evidence that he is a sexist.




I do respect women, women have the same default respect I give to everyone else, which usually amounts to indifference, if they(someone, unisexual) make themselves known I will reevaluate if I need to change my opinion of them.

My opinion is not in any way disrespectful, I could not be with a spouse who would off our offspring for her own sake, I do not approve of parents holding themselves before their children. And while normally I consider this irrelevant as how other people raise their children is generally of no concern to me, I could not hold a spouse to the same standards, and why should I? I should be able to respect a spouse at least as much as I respect myself, and I should be able to admire her behavior, I would never let a child of mine die for my own sake and I would like to know the mother would follow the same guidelines.

So tell me, how is holding potential spouses to high standards disrespectful?

Also understand that I am pro-choice, but I do consider the fetus potential life, if not life itself. This would mean that to me the spouse had just killed what would have become our child, and how could you suggest I would stay with someone who offed one of our children?

My stance on what women do with their fetus is usually indifferent(I do not feel people should be bound to something against their will, aka I do not feel a woman should have to be subject to a fetus if she does not want to be) but in this matter why would I not leave? It is my opinion that it is her right, I would never try and physically or emotionally subvert a spouses choice to abort our fetus once she decided to, but neither would I stay with her after she did it. How is this disrespectful to women, your question did not concern women as a whole, it concerned a spouse and even if you consider my choice to leave as disrespectful to the spouse(which makes no sense) how can you relate that to women as a whole? I do not care enough about what women do with their fetus to let it influence my actions but a spouse aborting our combined genetic fetus is another story.

Also keep in mind that I was raised by a strong woman, I respect her very much if I had shown any tendencies towards misogyny or disrespectful behavior towards women they likely would have been stamped out by her, and likely my sisters next followed by some other women I associate with similarly.

EDIT: I suppose I forgot to address my comments on marriages, the current methods pose to much of a threat to me being bound unreasonably to someone, which is the primary reason I disagree with marriage as it stands.(My opinion about whether or not someone should be bound to another is closely related to the concepts which make me pro-choice btw) Also keep in mind that any spouse(long term partner with whom kids are jointly planned for) of mine would have to be my equal by some standard so I see no reason to risk binding myself permanently to her in marriage, if money or something like it was necessary for her to support herself until she could support herself I would give it to her, unless she decided to leave on her own in which case it is her problem, kids are a different matter entirely.

I will, I consider the fetus a life of sorts, I even consider it human life, it is not however conscious and autonomous. So I see no justification for forcing a mother to risk her life for another against her will. Especially when that person is not even complete.(If you wish to keep the slight metaphor strong replace complete with healthy)

Should a judge refuse to recuse him or herself from ruling about a company in which he or she holds a significant financial stake, simply because he or she does not have a 'biological drive' associated with that company?

A lack of access to abortion does not, and cannot, affect a mans' life or threaten his future. It does, and can, threaten a woman's life and future. If you refuse to even acknowledge that there's a difference there, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Well actually it can(affect anyways I wouldn't say threaten) considering child support laws. I don't understand your analogy between biological drives and a judge with investments. There is a difference(between genders, and their risks concerning lack of abortion) yes but to assert that he can not have a valid opinion by virtue of his birth is silly. (Note I do not think men should have any abortion rights, just to be clear, I just though you stating that the lack of access couldn't affect men should be corrected) I acknowledge that there are differences but that doesn't explain her stating that these differences invalidate his opinions concerning abortion.

EDIT: Also you don't have to be directly affected by something to have a valid opinion concerning that something. And it would certainly be silly to claim that being affected by something makes your opinions valid, so really there is no reason to bring it up.

How many times does this have to be said? Pro-lifers believe the baby's life starts when it becomes an embryo. What's wrong with abortion? It denies the baby the right to live. Seriously, the pro-lifers of this board has repeated these points a million times and you're asking these questions as if you don't know about em.

I think that you are confusing my argument that Inuyasha has made sexist remarks with a blanket argument that the "pro-life" movement is sexist (and that is not what I am stating).

He wants to make abortion illegal. This can (and where it has been implemented, has been proven to) have significant impacts on the health and well being (physically, financially, and socially) of women. When this is brought to his attention, he ignores it. He instead maintains the position that women who seek abortions are doing so with "irresponsible", "evil", or "guilty" motives, while the zef inside of them is but an "innocent child" who is being cast away by said women with no remorse.

My major issue with the "pro-life" movement is that they want to remove a woman's right to make decisions which directly affect her. (I agree with you that her decision can have an impact on the father; however, I believe that it can be agreed that the impact on the woman's life is much more significant. She does not have to pursue child support. And men can easily run from an unwanted pregnancy without abortion; a woman denied access to a safe abortion has no such ability).

If someone who is adamantly "pro-life" is willing to acknowledge that they are pushing for a law which will strip women of their rights, will impact the life and health of many women, and potentially impact the upbringing of untold numbers of children (born into families that resent them, cannot afford them, etc you fill in the blank), then that is their argument, but it is at least grounded. I would never agree with them, nor would I think very highly of them.

To simply ignore that abortion rights (or lack thereof) have more of an impact on women than on men, then one would be being, as LKL stated, deliberately obtuse. If you further that stance by trying to demonize women who seek abortions as murderous-would-be-mothers-with-no-conscience to try to bolster your position, then yes, it is sexist. He may have indicated that men who are "pro-choice" are "pro-murder", but at the end of the day he demonizes the woman because she is the one who has the procedure done.

Furthermore, Inuyasha brought this sexism issue up based on some of my comments. But it is not sexist to remark that it is ridiculous for men to believe that they know what being pregnant is like, and then use this "knowledge" to judge a woman's actions. I would say the same about a woman proclaming to have such knowledge if she had never been pregnant herself. In the case of these abortion threads, however, it is men who have claimed to have such knowledge. It is also not sexist to ask a man if he had considered if his position would be different if he were a woman. Someone could ask me if I think my position would be different if I were a man. Is that not a valid question?

If some of my comments got some people riled, perhaps it is because those comments touched a nerve or two. Maybe it is true what someone else here posted (I'm sorry, I forget who), that those who are so quick to accuse another of being sexist are sexist themselves.

Finally, regarding your position, I cannot imagine myself being married to a man who would leave me should I choose my life over the life of a zef. My husband would not leave me. We discussed this issued in depth before marrying or having a child. Now that I have a child, I would choose my life over that of zef if I were ever faced with that horrible decision. Because my child needs me, and I would not leave him if there were any way I could avoid it. If I had to jump in front of a truck to save my child, I would. But I would not do anything of the sort for a zef who has yet to be born. A woman can be committed to her children, and willing to die for them, and still be open to having an abortion to save herself. And so, to simply say that you would leave her is shocking to me. And it seemed as though you were implying you would leave because you could not be with someone who would do something so horrible. But life is not always black and white. Shades of gray pop up everywhere.

And yes, I agree, you are free to have whatever position you want regarding who you want to marry, and why you would leave them, but I wouldn't be so quick to decide what you would do in such circumstances. I reread your comments several times, and perhaps I misunderstood some of language you used in your first response to the question posed by LKL (ie - I missed the "likely" in "I would likely leave her"). I understand now you may be more open minded, based on individual circumstances - and I can appreciate that.

Both sides of the abortion discussion should be open-minded. I have taken some insights from the "pro-lifers" in this and other threads to heart; however, these haven't changed my "pro-choice" stance because I do not feel it is my right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. And that is why I will always be "pro-choice".