I am saying that as soon as you kill someone it ceases to be a “personal intimate” matter and becomes a public matter.
Are you saying rape victims’ identities are a “public matter”? You can’t possibly be serious.
I have already raised the analogous scenario – you signed papers to be an organ donor, but you change your mind and back out. This is perfectly legal, even if you are the only match on earth. In the cases of unintended pregnancies, it’s more like you intended to sign papers to give blood sample and ended up signing organ donor papers by accident.
See, that’s where a lot of women who have had abortions would disagree with you - at no point did they grant that access. See, here’s a little something you (and anyone else who furthers this ridiculous argument) need to wrap your head around. When you are doing everything in your power to avoid a side-effect of an activity, you are not inviting that side-effect. If my girlfriend got pregnant, despite the pill and the condoms, it would be ridiculous to claim that she “allowed” that fetus to live inside her. Absolutely ludicrous. Remember, we’re taking every precaution available to ensure that she doesn’t get pregnant. To claim that if she did, she “granted the fetus access”, is just so wrong that it hurts. If anything, it’s there despite our best efforts to keep it out.
Where did you get the “identities” thing from?
I am saying when the rape victim kills the rapist, it is not a “personal intimate” matter. No matter how much you would like it to be. You killed someone. He most probably deserved it (unlike the fetus), but it is not by any stretch of imagination a “personal intimate” matter.
Wrong analogy. How about if you already donated but want the organ back, which would kill the recipient?
Sure she did. She knew that she could get pregnant. In spite of the precautions.
Of course it’s a “personal intimate” matter. Police investigate “personal intimate” matters all the time. Once they determine that the killing was justified, it remains a “personal intimate” matter, and (theoretically, though it probably rarely works out this way) no one will know about it beyond those involved at the time. Even if it goes public, it’s still a “personal intimate” matter.
If someone goes on a facebook rant about their ex-spouse’s sexual deficiencies, that’s still a “personal intimate” matter, even if they made it public.
Out of curiosity, do you believe rape victims should have the right to abort their pregnancies?
Then you and I differ on what “personal intimate” means.
Are there laws about such “personal intimate” matters? Should there be? Is it a “brazen intrusion” to have such laws?
Why do people keep trying for “gotchas”? Not unless there is a danger to the mother’s life.
You know how there are cases where some women don’t even know they’re pregnant right up to the moment they give birth? So - what if a woman was raped and it was such a case and the kid was born. Should we kill the kid because of how he was conceived?
Fine.
It is a “brazen intrusion” if those laws affect the right of an individual to have control over their own bodies.
Are you kidding? This is Great Debates. Haven’t you seen debates on TV before?
Who gets to determine this? Is it enough if the mother and her doctor make this determination?
This question has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Expelling someone/something inside you? Always okay, if that’s what you choose. Killing babies that are not inside you? Never okay.
Doctor - yes. Mother - no. Too easy to lie, because of some other “needs”.
… and so on. See the pattern of circular reasoning here? “Human being”, “kid”, “person”, etc. as a description of something that, I assume, you consider to exist from the moment of fertilization is central to your argument.
And the problem with that is that, as far as I know, no high court anywhere in the civilized world has ever agreed with or made such a determination. Nor, hopefully, would one ever do so. By and large the evolutionary history of abortion laws is that they’ve been enacted by legislative bodies for varied and sundry reasons, often at the behest of religious organizations, and subsequently struck down or substantially weakened by the courts, often on the strength of precisely the personal liberties arguments being made here.
If it’s “always ok” then why are you asking about a specific case?
Until one does.
:smack:
Okay, let’s try this one more time. You claim that women grant the fetuses access to their bodies for the duration of the pregnancy. However, this is not explicitly made clear, and the implicit assumption from our side is that this is quite emphatically not the case. We don’t want it there, we have no interest in it being there, we have taken strong precautions to prevent it from being there, and we would be quite dismayed if it got there. Therefore, the claim that the fetus was granted its presence willingly by the woman is completely wrong. It is an unfortunate and very dangerous side-effect of something we do for very different reasons. Understood?
Why should the child be killed for something his father did? And you know if a rape victim goes to the emergency room, she can take some drug that prevents conception. So it’s still her fault.:rolleyes:
And a rapist should have paternal rights because a chld needs a mother and a father.;)
And if a lesbian gets raped and a pregnancy results, she should have the baby and give it to a real family.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek: