Oh. Well, in that case… you’re still wrong.
Excuse me? Any contract can be revoked. Furthermore, nobody can force you into doing anything. The best they can do is sue you for breach of contract and monetary damages.
If I sign a contract to give you a kidney and then change my mind, no court in the country can make me give you my kidney.
I’m pro-choice myself, but I’m also a trouble-maker, so I’ll respond with this:
If you give a kidney, no court in the country can make someone give it BACK.
That’s probably the better analogy to a pro-lifer.
(I accidentally typed “pro-liver” which might be appropriate).
I’m perfectly consistent. “Either you protect ALL fetuses, or stay out of it” - make me. 
Yes. Why is that unbelievable?
Right back atcha.
Never said that, personally. I don’t wish to bring the law into this. It’s too grey. I prefer to sit in social judgment of these women instead.
Sometimes murder is OK. See below.
Yes I can, yes it does, and no I don’t. See how easy it is to just declare your opponent wrong?
Uh-huh. It’s also my position and the position of some other pro-lifers, particularly those in the title of this thread.
You show your mistake in thinking when you say “both”. There are not two options here. There are at least three. Second, you’re making a hidden assertion that is not actually true - that babies/children can’t be murdered ever. Sometimes they can, just like how sometimes it’s morally acceptable/mandatory to kill an adult. The cops that shot dead the Empire State Building shooter last week had a moral obligation to kill that person. A family pulling the plug on a comatose child are morally permitted, but not obligated, to do so. A woman killing her rape product is morally permitted to do so, whereas a woman killing her “consentual fetus” is not.
It’s still murder. But sometimes murder is OK. That goes for violent felons, enemy soldiers, comatose loved ones, and rape babies.
Well, add in “unwanted uterus passengers” in general and I don’t care what you call it.
And you are a poster who is looking to be slapped down for violating the rules. This particular post is a direct violation of the rule against insulting other posters outside The BBQ Pit, but your whole attitidue in this thread has been one of simply taunting your opponents.
Knock it off, now.
[ /Moderating ]
This does not follow. If this were true, pro-lifers would have no problem with married women having an abortion, and I’ve never heard that! So I don’t think that’s a valid conclusion.
Is it okay to kill a “rape baby” *after *it’s born? How about an adult who was conceived as the result of rape?
I certainly agree that in some circumstance it’s justified to deliberately end a person’s life – self-defense, for example, or mercy in the face of extreme suffering. I just don’t see why the circumstances of a person’s conception should determine the morality of killing them.
I think that you’re manufacturing a dubious rationale to avoid confronting the implications of your moral stance.
No, you can’t kill the baby or the adult. When a woman is raped and conceived, she hasn’t consented to the pregnancy. But after, say, the first trimester, if she hasn’t done anything to abort the baby, then she’s consented to the pregnancy “after the fact,” if you will. So the rape baby and rape adult have been consented to. Their mothers have either tacitly or explicitly said “Even though I didn’t consent at first to supporting this child inside me for a few seasons, I do consent to it now.”
Personally, not being religious, I don’t understand the whole “begins at conception” stance, so I’m not the best pro-life person to ask about that. I believe life begins at about week 10. That goes for babies from rape, incest, and normal intra-marriage relations.
So it’s really all about consent to support another life for X months. I don’t see why you think my rationale is dubious. It seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps I’m not being clear.
Exactly. Nor is condemnation of premarital sex a necessary part of a pro-life position. I recall seeing an episode of 30 Days (“Pro Life, Pro Choice”) that featured a pregnancy center like in this list. I don’t recall anyone harboring ill will toward the mothers nor their premarital sex.
Hating women and abortion issues do not belong in the same sentence. There is no connection.
Most vigorous possible disagreement. No point in going into detail; nothing new to say. Just… No way, sahib. No fucking way. Hatred of women is at the very core of this issue, else it wouldn’t be an issue at all.
Sure, when you define “hatred” as “not allowing the mother to get her way.” Your statement doesn’t even make sense, considering that half of the saved babies are female. Not to mention all the pro-life women out there. I know Der Trihs and others insist that there’s no such thing as a pro-life woman, but you, Trinopus, have never struck me as someone stupid enough to fall for that line.
What’s unclear to me now is why you call yourself “pro-life”. When you say “life begins about week 10” I assume means that you think that abortions during the first trimester are okay. That’s when 90% of abortions are currently performed and many of the ones that happen afterwards are due to extreme extenuating circumstances. Your position (as I understand it) is very close to what many of us on the pro-choice side of the fence believe.
You are not pro-life.
You apparently believe that a woman has a right to abort in the first trimester, as well as if she has been raped.
Your rationale is all over the map. It’s completely internally inconsistent. It makes no sense.
But you just said it’s okay to murder a rape baby.
Oh, dear.
I was not insulting him. I was using his own language to point out his logical inconsistency.
From now one I will try to be much more clear about that. Here’s how I should have said it:
“Considering that you yourself allow for abortion of a fetus, how does this not also make you, as you put it, a ‘baby-killing monster’?”
I thought that was clear in the context of the thread, but I’ll be more careful next time.
If you want to be consistent, which you’re clearly not, you have to choose a side.
Ah, I think I get it now. You’re satirizing the pro-life position. Well done!
Your murder exception is internally illogical though.
There is no comparison between this exception you’ve made and any of the others you cited.
The idea that murder is acceptable simply because of the way someone was concieved has no basis.
It is okay to kill a baby (not just a fetus, but a born baby) because it was a product of rape? Let’s get you on the record.
Why must you label me? You and I obviously don’t agree, so why struggle so hard to try to get me labelled into your camp?
It wasn’t that part that was the insult. It was the “You have fucked up ethics” part. And the only reason I used the word monster is because even sven used it. Think of it this way: sometimes you’re a baby-killing monster and sometimes you’re a baby-killing decent human being. You can call it killing and murder all day long if you want, but such framing doesn’t faze me.
It’s OK sometimes. It depends on whether you consented to the pregnancy. If you birthed the baby, then guess what…you consented. No murder for you.
Think of it like the difference between killing a rat in your house and killing your pet rat. It’s killing either way, but one is deranged, one is normal.
Well, also that the baby is no longer attached to you physically, therefore your level of involvement (and your authority over the situation) drops significantly.