even sven: That last quote is from me, not AD. And for the record, I’m pro-choice. I have no problem with abortion for whatever reason the mother has. I was using that discussion to point out logical inconsistancies in AD’s posts. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
While I’m still marginally pro-choice, I don’t see a lot of strength to this argument. No one forces you to have vaginal sex. Concieving a child is a possible outcome, like it or not, and if you want to engage in the behavior, you do have to be willing to own up to the predictable outcomes. And you can’t bring abortion into the equation because that is precisely the thing that we are discussing.
Now granted, if you don’t think the fetus has moral interests at any stage before birth, the point is moot. But if you do, the “but sex != pregnancy” thing is just an irrelevant dodge of the issue.
First, I think that many people feel that something is good or bad, and then, if someone asks them why, they try to come up with rules to make it fit into their world view.
It’s not the other way round: people don’t have a set of basic rules from which the logically deduce their opinions on all moral issues.
Many times, people can’t come up with consistent rules about why they feel a certain way about some issues.
However, strictly speaking, where is it written that our beliefs of what is right and wrong has to logically follow from a small set of rules, or that it has to be a logically consistent set of beliefs? Why can’t someone’s beliefs of what is good or bad be just a simple enumeration of the things he considers good?
The above, of course, is just “strictly speaking”, and I personally prefer it if people have a logically consistent set of beliefs in what is right and what is wrong.
Having said that, there are a couple of ways pro-lifers could fit the rape exception into a logically sound position.
- “Life begins at conception”, according to some, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe that being human starts at conception.
So, while they would like to preserve life as much as possible (and thus don’t want “frivolous abortions”), that doesn’t mean that the rights of this life-form trump the right of a woman not to spend traumatic 9 months with her rapist’s baby inside her.
2) Even for people who believe that being human starts at conception, it is possible that they view it as “justified ending of human life”.
In society, we have several instances of “justified ending of human life”:
- Death penalty
- Killing people in wartime
- Killing in self-defense
- Pulling the plug on someone in a coma (with no probability of recovery, if his family agrees, even without his prior written consent)
Some people may add “Killing a fetus if the mother was raped” to the list of “justified endings of human life”.
This is because they might believe that “I want to avoid lifelong scarring due to 9 traumatic and humiliating months carrying my rapist’s baby” is a good justification for ending a human life, but might not feel that “I want an abortion because I just don’t want to be pregnant right now” is a good enough justification for ending a human life.
I’m curious, and forgive me if it has already been asked and answered, but what about cases where the child would be born with some sort of birth defect? Would that be an acceptible reason for an abortion?
Peoples’ answer would depend on what type of birth defect it is (how bad it is), wouldn’t it?
What type of defect did you have in mind?
Whoops! Sorry about that.
No prob. I just didn’t want to screw up one of the few instances where you and I actually agree on something! 
first, “sex != pregnancy” is not what was being discussed. “sex = children” was refuted, so “sex != children” is the relevant point. having sex can lead to pregnancy. being pregnant need not lead to bearing children. so abortion is an option for those who believe in it, and “sex = children” (or, in my terms, “sex == children”) is not a valid position. there is no irresponsibility to be derived from that equation, since an abortion is something one can do to interrupt the pregnancy.
now, if one believes that whatever lives inside a woman after conception (or, perhaps, more accurately, implantation) is to be considered a human being with all the rights and responsibilities conferred upon a being of that status, obviously the issue is moot. but those people already don’t believe in abortion. throwing in “a woman who aborts is a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her actions” is superfluous, and not germaine to the issue. i can see no way that it isn’t an inherently misogynistic position.
Just out of interest, at what point do folks consider that abortions should not be permitted, i.e. at what week in the pregnancy?
And why?
I am interested in the reasons for your decision more than I am interested in a rehearsal of the law in the United States.
Despite a huge degree of trepidation at entering an abortion thread, here goes…
Wouldn’t recognizing that ‘life’ began at conception and that a fetus had ‘the same rights’ as a post-natal person actually argue in favor of allowing abortion? Believe me, if I wake up tomorrow morning and someone has plugged themselves into me to depend on my bodily functions for the next nine months, I am perfectly within my rights to unplug them and walk away, even if that results in their death. It might not be a decision that we think of as particularly moral, or it might be, depending on the situation, but I am pretty certain I have the right to do it. I don’t think that right is reduced if the person plugged into me did not chose to use my organs, but was instead in a coma when they were attached to me.
Now, you could argue that if the person consents to having someone else use their organs, that prevents them from altering that consent. But that would certainly allow for a rape exception, as well as probably a failed contraceptive one. And the moment you allow a rape exception, don’t you in effect allow all abortions, unless you are willing to require any degree of proof that a rape occured?
Me too, but I have seen the light, and am seriously considering changing my opinion from pro life to what I would personally consider pro choice, but not in the conventional sense.
My old view is that a fetus is a human life, and as such should have protection, and should not be killed because of a act of violence of another.
But I have no good argument as to why a fetus has a right to use a womb - I feel it does, but again no good argument. In the case of consensual sex, the act of sex is the authorization for a fetus to use the womb, after all that’s what sex is for.
But in the case when the woman is raped, then the woman has not given permission for the fetus to use her womb. We as a function of free will can be a selfish b---- if we want too, and deny the fetus access to the womb.
When such an abortion is preformed, I would like the fetus to be removed from the womb, maybe by clamping/cutting the cord, or if possible detachment from he womb, and allowing it to die (before removal), and given the honors as any human is given.
Why do I think my views prochoice now, well now I have given the choice to women if they wish to open up their womb to fetal implantation. If they have consensual; sex, then yes they have by definition, if raped they still could. Either way they can chose not to by not engaging in sex, or having a fetus removed if it implants due to rape.
Incest is not a reason in itself to me, if it is incestual rape then yes she has a choice, if it was concentual incest then she has already made her choice, unless there are other medical issues.
So in the end, it is all about punishing a stupid whore.
Why do you assume that the precuations weren’t taken? Even with a failure rate of 1%, that amounts to quite a lot of accidental, unwanted pregnancies in a population numbering in the millions.
To someone like me, Doors, pregnancy and motherhood would be punishment because I choose to be child free. I don’t like children, I don’t like babies, and I really, really don’t like the idea of being pregnant. I would prefer death to those things. Trying to force me to ‘take responsibility’ for failure of birth control would be a punishment, and worse than any prison.
Would I still be ‘irresponsible’ if I were married, had my tubes tied, and got pregnant anyway? Should I still have to ‘take responsibility’ and be pregnant with a fetus I never wanted and have a baby I will never want?
Because if that’s the case, please help me convince a doctor to do a hysterectomy on me.
I registered specifically to hopefully provide some contribution to this thread. Hi everyone.
Here goes:
Above, someone quoted a study showing 16% favored no abortion with no exceptions, and 55% favored no abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. You can tell right away that a pro-lifer did not design the questions for that survey. In fact, the person who designed that survey probably had the intelligence of a toad. How the exceptions of rape and incest got lumped in with the life of the mother is beyond me. Rape and incest involve no immediate threat to the life of the mother if the child is carried to term. If there is an immediate threat to the life of the mother, then I can see that as an exception, because SOMEONE is going to die one way or another. The other two, not so much. At least, if you beleive that it’s a human life at conception.
I think that most pro-lifers, at least the ones that I know personally, don’t really care if the mother is a slut or not. They care about the life developing within, period. It’s not ever about punishing someone for having sex. Whether it’s premarital or not, whether it’s incestuous or not, whether it’s consensual or not, the concern is for the life of the unborn. Any other judgements can be left up to God (I happen to believe in God, so I figure he can handle that part.)
and here is a point of bitter disagreement for us. for one thing, this position seems inherently misogynistic, since only the woman is to take “responsibility” for having sex. for another, there are many other reasons for having sex, including the pure enjoyment of it, and someone in this thread has already enumerated several of the benefits to be incurred by both parties engaging in the act.
if “that’s what sex is for”, why are there so many benefits to a healthy sex-life? why are we not like “lesser” animals, who do not experience sex the same way we do, but use it only for procreation (and quite successfully, i might add)?
Only the woman? Evey hear of child support? Did you know that since this is after tax money (Giver pays taxes, receiver does not) that many don’t have enough to live, not just in the US, and in Italy there is now a homeless shelter for child support payers? No not only the woman.
Yes sex is fun, if it were not we wouldn’t be here today. But when one has sex one has to know that it could result in another human being created. We are taught in school health classes that no birth control is 100%, even when combined w/ other forms of BC, so if you engage in sex willingly then you very may create another human life.
In some ways we do have the instinctive drives, w/ desire growing and waining throughout the month, other aminals such as primates seem to derive pleasure from sex, if that factor was removed I would wag they may go extinct. Part of our hard wiring for procreation is the pleasure factor.
Though I’m not worried about humans becoming extinct, what I am concerned with is doing the act that creates human life then killing that life that is created.
You would unless you were raped, Getting one’s tubes tied is not 100% birth control, again we have our wonderful public school system to thank for enlightening us with this information.
You can give up parenting rights and can be child free w/o killing your offspring.
Again you don’t have to raise the child. This doesn’t mean you should take another human life that you two created.
Hi, crazyjoe, it’s nice to “meet” you.
Actually, if you click on the link, the site is very, very anti-abortion. Pretty radically so. I can’t say whether or not the very person who designed the study was pro-choice or not, but the quotes themselves were written by an anti-choice person, and that was the person who decided to lump all three reasons together.
I think one sentence in your reply is pretty important, but you’ve still missed the question of this thread (well, lots of us have, this sort of debate wanders all over the place!). If, as you say, " They care about the life developing within, period. It’s not ever about punishing someone for having sex. Whether it’s premarital or not, whether it’s incestuous or not, whether it’s consensual or not, the concern is for the life of the unborn." then doesn’t it go *against that to allow abortions in the case of rape, inscest (and even to save the life of the mother, actually.) The life started by rape is a life - shouldn’t it be protected like any other? If no, then can you justify this reasoning with a logical argument? No one has been able to so far. If you agree that the only logical stance is either pro-choice or anti-abortion in all cases, then I think you have a logical basis and I’ll shake your hand!
kanicbird, you’re way off topic. If you’d like to join the dabate we’re having, about whether a rape/incest exclusion to an anti-abortion stance is logical, I’d be happy to discuss further. Not that I don’t have replies to what you’re saying, just that I’ve already addressed most of your points, and to re-address them would hijack the thread further than I’m comfortable with.
*Even in this debate, “to save the health or life of the mother” is sacrosanct. Nobody’s really addressed this, but as a culture we practically deify parents who risk their lives to save their children. Most of us, deep down, would feel a little scornful or downright condemn someone who ran out of a burning building but left their kids inside without even attempting to get them out. Yet we allow and even encourage abortion when the mother’s health is at risk. Is this a double standard?
Shoot, sorry for the double post, but there’s two other posters I want to address.
I think that true life and rights begin when viability begins. This varies, but is generally accepted as around 28 weeks. If a fetus can be removed from the womb intact and survive without major medical intervention, then it should be allowed to do so. At this point, any willing volunteer or adoptive parent can feed, clothe, change diapers and tend to the baby’s well-being. I do not think that this is incompatible with allowing life-support or medical intervention later in life, because the individual in question has proven sturdy enough to live - he or she has passed the “test” of life, if you will.
Now, this stance usually provokes some furious response from people whose babies have been saved by machines as premies, or had in-utero surgeries or whatnot. I’m sorry to say that my stance is based on what’s evolutionarily best for the majority of us and the human race as a whole, and is not an attack on your little bambino. The cost of saving sick neonates is unbelievable, and it’s a cost we all bear, especially for unwanted babies. It’s harsh, but I don’t think we should be encouraging the lives of weak and genetically suspect humans - I think it’s weakened our gene pool and is going to cause untold and unforseen problems in the future.
(And yes, the first thing I’m asked when I say this is “Do you have kids? Because no mother would ever say such a thing, you horrible, horrible person!” Yes, I have an almost 12 year old I love dearly and I’m happily 16 weeks pregnant with another. Just because I have a functioning uterus doesn’t mean I don’t have a funtioning brain.)
You have a good point, but what is most likely, and what has indeed happened, is that the “consent” issue is paramount, as we’ve seen demonstrated in this thread. Even as pro-choice as I am, I have trouble accepting the analogy between someone hooking your kidneys up to someone while you sleep and consentual sex. It’s more akin to wandering down a hallway of 100 doors, knowing that if you open one and lay down in that room, you may end up hooked up to someone else in your sleep. Abstinence advocates tell us to leave the building and not open any doors, and Airman Doors tells us we’re not being punished for opening a door and getting hooked up to someone, because we knew it was a possibility, even though we were lying down to sleep, not to get hooked up to somebody. Me, I’d view it as punishment, thankyouverymuch.
Besides that, I simply don’t see something as fully “alive” that can’t live on it’s own or with the support of only one single person in the entire world. As I’ve said in other threads, the very second that medical science comes up with a way to transplant a fetus from a mother’s uterus to a willing surrogate, whether that be man or woman, then I think that avenue should be pursued instead of abortion. But as long as the physical, emotional and social risks of pregnancy and childbirth can be borne by only one person, and the fetus cannot live on its own, abortion must remain an option.
Oh, my! That’s a whole other area I’ve never even thought of. For such a black and white issue this abortion thing sure gets sticky, doesn’t it?
The point is that pregnancy is all that’s needed for someone that’s anti-abortion to feel that there is something there to be responsible FOR.
It isn’t superfluous at all. If you accept the premise of the anti-abortion position (that there is someONE there to be responsible for) then yes, the woman who had consenual sex is refusing to take responsbility, and indeed, is in denial about what she has done in beginning a pregnancy.
In this case, it would be misogynistic to NOT hold the woman accountable, referring instead to her delicate sensibilities, or how deeply emotional and private the issue is.
Wow. Well, that’s just disappointing. I mean, I always knew there were stupid people amongst the pro-lifers (there are stupid people everywhere) but to miss that obvious moral difference just supefies me.
<shakes hands>
Yes, the rape/incest excuse must be somehow tied to people who think that, because the sex was not consensual (assuming all incestual sex is non consensual) that the abortion can be justified. It certainly doesn’t come from a beleif in the general notion of “pro-life.” Pro-life folks oppose the death penalty, too, because they don’t like the idea of taking other human lives (except in situations where one life threatens another).