Why support abortion for rape victims?

Post Reply New Topic

The most powerful pro-abortion argument is that you should mind your own god damn business instead of telling women whether they should have an abortion or not. I haven't seen anyone take this argument away, so far.

My gosh, well obviously When I say My point, my argument (THE POINT), was the fact that you were being an arse. I was not even talking about the stupid abortion crap, it was the fact you act as if people who dissagree with you should nto be listened to. and you still don't know what my point is, I don't know what to think. I'm not your Polish brother, so stop calling me brother in Polish.

Getting pregnant should not be compared to developing lung cancer. That is disgusting.

You say abortion is not always good, and believe it is a mortal sin. God should come before that pal. I am not seeing you as all bad, just really really annoying.

I keep telling them, they're not listening.

No matter what percentage of abortions are the result of rape or incest, 100 percent of them are the exclusive business of the woman involved, PERIOD.

what about the child?

What child?

I actually am a vegetarian, and the animal products that I do choose to consume are ethically based (pastured chickens for eggs (not just "free range," and grass-fed cows for dairy). However, I don't think that I have a right to impose my diet on other people. Wrt. what is "natural," I don't give a f**k; no medical care is natural. Having a dentist patch a cavity isn't "natural."


I said that the kid's liver was blown to smithereens, not the kid himself.
As far as donating a liver, most parents would of course choose to do so. The question is whether or not they should be forced to do so by weight of law: forcibly held in the hospital, forcibly sedated, forcibly cut open against their wills. 1/3 of pregnancies in the US end in c-sections, so that's not a far stretch for an analogy. The question, further, is whether or not a person should be forced to donate their body to a disorganized lump of tissues with which they have no connection other than a genetic one.


You are incorrect. Infants are physiologically dependent on caretakers, but not necessarily their mother, nor even necessarily any adult. The difference made by biological dependence is that the woman in question has the right to not donate her body to another organism if she does not want to.


When you have any evidence that this actually happens on any statistical level involving medical staff who are not sociopaths, and women who are not sociopaths, I will consider it relevant. Until then, you have no point.


If being a diabetic involved forcing another person to donate their pancreas for the manufacture of insulin, then yes: I would argue that the second person had the right to remove themselves at will as a life-support mechanism. Humans are not machines to be used by other organisms, regardless of the stage of development or the personhood in question.


I don't think zefs are people.

Last edited by LKL on 10 Dec 2013, 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think that a person who was bodily providing life support to another individual would have the right to remove themselves even if they had consciously volunteered to do so before hand.

[/quote]
It's not independent. It has no existence outside of her.


If it were possible to remove a zef from a woman at any stage of gestation, with no more danger to her than an abortion would cause, and place it into an artificial incubator, then the argument would be very different.

Last edited by LKL on 10 Dec 2013, 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

why? They're both medical conditions, and for a woman who didn't want to get pregnant, the diagnosis can be just as devastating to hear.

You are a rather convenient libertarian.



That would be pretty much the textbook definition of an equivocation fallacy with regards to the term 'independent'.



Future generations are going to judge us very harshly for our present situation.

1. You are much older than me, so you've had much more time to change your lifestyle. However, what we do is irrelevant as debates are about our points, not us. You are also apparently a libertarian, I do not subscribe to libertarian philosophy, especially when I believe an catastrophe can be avoided.
Yes. They should be forced to. You really think someone should be allowed to die just because someone doesn't want to bother being cut open? Also, embryos aren't disorganized lumps of tissue, they lack developed morphology, but they are incredibly organized, and unlike brain dead person their functioning is going to increase in the future. You also can't be assured that sentience is completely lacked.

Does the definite autonomy of a single individual versus potentially a different group really matter in a life or death moral decision? Either way the baby is dependent, and it should be cared for.

It has as much of a point as your exploded liver example. The point is that you are admitting that birth is not as absolute of a line as you proclaimed.

False analogy as donating ones pancreas would leave one without a pancreas themselves. If there were no long term harm and only a single person is a viable donor, then yes, they should be forced to donate if the diabetic person demands it. I say ones control over their LIFE is more important than the control of their BODY.


Doesn't matter what you think, other people think that they are and you can't kill something just on the grounds that you don't think it deserves rights.



They're both medical conditions?! Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels. Heck, by that logic BREATHING is a medical condition. If you are going to use medical condition to mean disease as opposed to simply a state that is medical in nature, than pregnancy does not qualify as it is not an abnormal state characteristic of dysfunction of the nature bodily functions, quite the opposite. It's a symptom the body is working as intended. Lung cancer kills, pregnancy creates life. With the view of life as sacred it's abhorrent to compare the two, and it doesn't take religion to have such beliefs. Oh, and yes, finding out you are breathing could be devastating for someone who wanted to stop breathing.

I have serious problems with your implying that forced organ donations should be allowed under any circumstances.



But they most certainly can if their country's laws follow the same thinking. Many people have that same sentiment for anyone who has ever been to prison, is LGBT, is of a different religion/race/political group, of a different socio-economic status, or just from a different country. You have no right to demand others to follow your definition of morality any more than they can do the same to you. It is the law that dictates what you can and cannot do.



They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.



Lung cancer does not always kill. And I suppose if by creates life you mean by a breathing being, then yes, pregnancy creates life (usually). Personally, I feel that in most cases, having a child that one is not mentally, socially, physically, and/or financially able to support robs both the child and parent(s) of life, condemning them to misery and suffering until death.

Some people aren't lax enough to let laws cloud moral law.
And some people actually would rather have people live rather than kill them just because of a poor sh***y life.
This isn't 400 B.C. Sparta.

Well it's not law, at least not now, so you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, what's wrong with it? People need organs. In the very least we should make organ donation the default, it has a huge effect.

So if the law says it's okay to kill gay people you would have no problems with it? Laws change, we are debating ethics.
Oh whatever, substitute Michael for Jesus, doesn't really matter. The point isn't the aren't comparable in anyway, but the dichotomy.

Of all cancers lung cancer causes the most deaths, it usually kills, and untreated it certainly well kill. The natural destination of lung cancer is death, in contrast with pregnancy. And yes, that what life is. I see the creation of life as sacred and beautiful, no matter the ultimate outcome, that is not the result of life being created, but rather the environment the life exists in. Oh, last thing.

>Implying all would be aborted fetuses would live a miserable life

Nice to know you are now the arbitrator of how much someone's life is worth.

And who exactly enforces moral law? That nutjob who thought it was ok to murder someone for performing an abortion?