I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive, but given that choice, yes, I suppose.
Short of allowing the victim to abort the unwanted fetus, how would you propose to alleviate her suffering? Gentle forehead stroking, perhaps? A trip to the Bahamas?
No, no. Much more distance if you tee them up.
So, you’ve shifted to a different logical fallacy, eh? I suppose it’s just a variation on your last one.
Answer the question. How do you propose to address the needs of the rape victim? It’s a simple question. I don’t understand why you’re having so much trouble with it, unless you just don’t have an answer that wouldn’t provoke ridicule.
You’ve heard tell of these new-fangled analogies, haven’t you? They’re all the rage.
Sure. “Bread” is to “aluminum pole” as “fan dancer” is to _______.
Comparing two things that aren’t the same is not an analogy.
You have revolutionized Great Debates. Congratulations, you have eliminated the need to have two different positions, since you’re able to carry on both sides of the argument without assistance, what with your clairvoyance and all. Kudos, sparky! Well done!
I give up. All we’re going to get out of Stratocaster is tap-dancing. He’s not willing to explain how he would deal with a real-life situation. This is shorthand for “I’m stuck for an answer, so I’m going to respond with snappy one-liners that simply evade the issue.”
Really? You can’t see anything analogous, relative to a pro-lifer’s axioms? Was completely lost on you? Hmm, that’s really interesting. Quite a curious perspective you seem to possess. Maybe someone will explain it to you.
Yet another non-answer. Quite a roll you’re on.
You’re um, really bad at this, aren’t you? There, there, keep trying.
Wow. Do you ever run out of these?
If you need someone to explain how that analogy sheds light on a pro-lifer’s beliefs, you’re really out of your depth here. Sorry.
And still no straight answer.
Which question? How I would diminish the pain of the rape victim? Why is that relevant to the debate in this thread? Let’s suppose I have no good suggestion. Now what?
Not to be unreasonably snarky or anything but I think there is your answer.
Once you determine that the person you’re talking to isn’t responding, isn’t it time to move on?
Yup. Time to write this one off as non-responsive.
What about my point? What if the rape victim wants to kill the rapist? Do we allow her to kill the rapist if it would make her feel better?
Sometimes nothing can be done to help someone feel better.
But if we suppose that aborting a perfectly healthy baby is immoral, why would it matter if that baby is the product of rape or not? You don’t get to kill a baby just because the baby was conceived by rape. If a developing embryo has the same ethical status as a baby, then you shouldn’t be able to kill the embryo either.
It’s my understanding that modern forensic investigation of a rape will prevent pregnancy. I hesitate to say that it causes abortion because it depends on exactly what’s going on, but the rape investigation should ensure that any eggs don’t get fertilized, and any fertilized eggs don’t get implanted. And if that’s not standard procedure, it should be.
Note that I’m perfectly fine with decriminalizing abortion for rape victims–since I’m in favor of decriminalizing all abortions.
And I’d be very hesitant to criminalize abortion but leave an exception for rape–since that means anyone could have an abortion as long as she was willing to accuse someone of rape. Or do we wait until the trial is completed and the rapist is convicted, then allow the abortion? After how many months? Or do we allow abortion just on her say-so? Any such exception is bound to cause all sorts of unworkable problems. Better to decriminalize all abortions.
Really? Huerta88 clarified? It seems a great contradiction in logic to me. Here’s the relevant part.
I understand the impact of intent but to say there’s no real crime of homicide if the woman and the state don’t believe a fertilized egg is a person seems like giving over your own sense of morality to someone else’s judgment. Either that or it’s an indication that pro-lifers entertain the real possibility that they are wrong and a fertilized egg is not a human life.
As I said, the KKK might kill Jews or blacks because they don’t consider them fully human but we wouldn’t consider it less of a crime because of what they thought or how they justified it.
Honestly the whole intent thing doesn’t make sense form a pro-lifers POV if they think abortion is destroying a human life.
I also find it intriguing that you claim you’re interested in doing the least harm. Lot’s of pro choice people feel the same way. We see an invasion of privacy and dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body as real harm. You also say that you’re willing to let someone go free of a crime if it helps the cause and restricts abortion. Do you think it will? Do you seriously see not being fully committed to the basic philosophy of pro-life as helping to restrict abortions?
I’m also curious about what you think causes the least harm if the pro-life movement happened to succeed in making every abortion illegal. We’d have to face the reality that they would still happen. I guess then the women and doctors would clearly be criminals regardless of what they believed wouldn’t they? Then we’d also have more children in need to deal with wouldn’t we? I hope there’s also a plan to provide for these children you insist women must have.