Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Post Reply New Topic

So, it's a matter of an arbitrary line.

So you're admitting to accusing me of being sexist.



1. Statistics do show the majority of abortions are because two people decided to have sex and then didn't want to deal with the consequences.

2. I pin responsibility for this on both the guy and the girl. They both are equally responsible.



If you hold a child's life (even when in the womb) to be sacred, then yeah you view abortion inheritently wrong. I could care less what LKL's latest rationalizations for abortion being legal are. I refuse to indulge in rationalizations for infanticide.



I am pro-life, and if I did end up having sex with a woman and got her pregnent and she didn't want to the kid, I would gladly take custody of the child. People need to take responsibilities for their actions.



That comment was way out of line.



It will have to be said as many times as it takes to get it through to them. It will probably be on the order of a few thousand to several million times before they finally get it through their heads.

His views would harm women but that does not make them sexist, his demonization of women who abort is understandable as only women can abort, and he is idealogical driven.(This does not make him sexist he has shown a willingness to demonize pro-choice men which essentially blows your theory out of the water) He for all appearances feels the same about men who would pressure women into abortion for most reasons as he does about women who would get abortions, all conditions applying of course. aka he is demonizing the same behavior but he can only criticize men for indirect involvement because that is all men have. Which is why him demonizing women for an action that only they can directly take is both understandable and not sexist. He cannot demonize men for having abortions because they cannot have them, he can only demonize indirect action which is exceedingly uncommon.

It is sexist to imply or state that an experience that can only be experienced by one gender is a condition for a valid opinion on a subject. You stating that you would say the same to a barren woman is no excuse as men are always unable to be pregnant. His claiming to know how women know when they are pregnant is silly but it most certainly doesn't discount any of his views by itself.

I already told you why you critic of his sex affecting his position is invalid, holding his views and practices(behavior) Inuyasha would only have to worry about abortion if it threatened his life and/or if he was raped. aka it's not likely his views would be different.

It may seem horrid to you but I can choose my own standards for my own spouse as you and your husband have done, you have no right to call me immoral(You did not say it but your stated shock as well as you preemptively assuming that my opinion was not well thought out implies that is what you think) for applying my own standards to a spouse. I am as open minded as I need to be and my views on this have had ample time to form(With input from both pro-lifers and pro-choicers both of which are ample in various shades both on-line and irl.), I will not stay with a woman who aborts a fetus with our genetic code, the few exceptions to this is fetuses still born in the womb, or fetuses with confirmed genetic defects that would prove fatal. You and your husband have your own standards and they will not work for me.

And yes that is exactly what I am saying, my view of abortion is justified murder with the mother being judge for what is justified.(The mother having the most at stake, and likely the most situational knowledge being best suited to judge) My standards for what strangers(actually its others, my sisters can abort any of their fetuses if they wish, its no business of mine) do is lax, I hold spouses and potential spouses to different standards, as is my right, who are you to critic someone else's standards?

Also Inuyasha has at the very least acknowledged that abortion before the first 40(or was it 20?) is somewhat acceptable, but I doubt he holds hard to that as this was a statement born out of an argument and can only be confirmed as one of his views when he states it on his own, which is too say he could be classified as a pro-choice with limits or as a pro-lifer with exceptions, his disagreements with abortions have nothing to do with any inherently 'feminine' trait so your continued assertions that he is sexist are silly.

EDIT: Which could be summarized as

He is not demonizing women he is demonizing women who abort ergo he is not sexist(As he is not demonizing the entire gender and he is not demonizing a group of people because they are women). I could go on to say that he demonizes men who take steps towards the same results but this really would serve no purpose.

More like it's a matter of what this embryo will amount to. I don't believe in anyone intervening in this process unless it's rape or if it risks killing the mother. Arbitrary line my ass, last time I checked an embryo/fetus has all the characteristics of life as stated by biology. Absorption, respiration, growth, etc. So that means it's a matter of whether you consider its life significant enough to qualify as a human life. That's where it is a matter of interpretation, so your condescension is moronic cuz it's as if you're making a subjective issue out to be objective.

I see it as the same as a condom. And like the condom, it's another form of birth control and individual control of one's body that religious organizations oppose fiercely. Just like how they lie about the effectiveness of condoms and preach abstinence-only sex education. It's an abuse of authority to retain more control over large groups of people. As technology increases and as culture changes and grows, religion opposes the growth. Just like religion has previously condemned rock and roll, jazz, rap, video games, television, and just about everything else they can't control anymore. The inability to force people to breed against their will is a big loss. The line is mostly arbitrary with justification being a post-facto grab for any kind of reasoning they can get. It's why people are vaguely familiar with the process but ignorant enough to not be able to form an educated opinion on all that the subject really encompasses.

It's not about life. It's about control. You don't want abortions? Then don't get them. Otherwise, mind your own business and check your rhetoric at the door.

@ skafather84

Well I got news for you, abortion is not like a condom. A condom's purpose is to prevent pregnency, an abortion is murdering an innocent life because you chose to have sex irresponsibly.

please define life.

if you want to base an argument on life then you need to define it, and yes scientifically an embryo is life, but so are the bacteria that die everytime you eat something.
if you want to base it on sentience then you would need to show that at the earliest stages of embryo develpmont ot call every embryo sentient.
if you want to base it on an "inherent value" of a human life, well then you just ventured into the subjective and here all answers are relative to the observer.

so if you base it on this "inherent value" then it is a belief, just like any ideology.
ideologies of course can be discussed but in the end we all have a right to our opinion of a subjective thing.

I agree with you, but I must admit we've gone over all of these points repeatedly and clearly there will never be a resolution. I honestly think even discussing the issue is pointless, its just making people get annoyed with each other with no tangible benefit to any party involved. There should be a 'NO ABORTION DISCUSSION' sign somewhere here

Bacteria is a single celled organism, as soon as we see the first cell division after conception we're dealing with a multi-celled organism.

Stop with the false equivalencies.

I just wish the conservatives would learn to take a page from their supposed book and keep their noses out of other people's affairs.

the bible does not agree with you.
Biblicly the life begins at the first breath.


-Jake

As if religious types can be bothered with actually KNOWING their holy books.

Religious decrees from the heads of churches are more than enough.

I wish Pro-abortion nuts would stop trying to dehumanize children in order to be able to rationalize the mass murder of said children.

Abortion kills no children. It does, however, drive the stupid crazy.

Irrefutable proof against your position (Link)

It's not that men have no valid opinion, but that the stakes are higher for women. Cave Canem has asked you to imagine whether or not your opinion would be different if you were a woman, you have refused to acknowledge that there might be a valid difference from which you would benefit by imagining such a thing. You refuse to do this simple thing so steadfastly that I can only presume that you know your opinion might change.