So kids without their biological parents all become bums or leeches or criminals? :dubious: In most cases, the mother will not want the child so they can be sent as foster children or put them up for adoption.
What.
What.
Rape can lead to permanent disfigurement or death.
LOL.
well, I’ve actually been pregnant, so I can say with some certainty that you’re wrong with your blanket statement of ‘nine months is nothing and the first three are easy’. I can also tell you that I love being a parent, and would love to be a parent again, but will not go through another pregnancy, and would abort if I fell pregnant for the simple reason I won’t do that again. Not all women have the glowey rosy lovely soft-focus pregnancy, and I know many who suffered serious and ongoing health issues that don’t resolve themselves when the baby is born (and even the manner of birth can cause ongoing injury and suffering… I should know.)
Fie on your ‘nine months is nothing’.
sorry. I get really grumpy when people, males in particular, make blanket statements about how easy pregnancy is for a woman. I know he qualified with ‘it’s hardly ever about that’ but yeah, sometimes it is about that.
A lot of pro-lifers believe that an unborn fetus = human being. Held in that context, it should be obvious why these pro-lifers oppose abortion “even in cases of rape and incest”.
I’m pro-life and support the exceptions. I don’t find the quandary that difficult to solve. And yes, I believe that a fetus is a human being from conception and should have the same rights as you or I.
The government in many instances find some things are more important than an individual’s life. War, as mentioned upthread is a good example. Executions for capital crimes is another and the best example is the fact that we allow cars and automotive transportation. Almost 50,000 people per year die in car accidents in the US. Yet we still have a transportation system because the value that we get from it is greater than 50,000 lives. So we have set the precedent that there are some things that will trump the sanctity of human life.
In regards to abortion, I agree with others that if two heterosexuals have consensual sex, it has to be known that pregnancy can result from it, whatever form of birth control that is used. And since it was consensual, both soon to be parents willingly made the choice. In that circumstance, the fetus’ right to life outweighs the inconvenience that the parents will endure.
In the case of a rape, the woman did not consent to be sexually penetrated. In addition to that, she will be forced to carry it to term and look at a child grow up that reminds her of the tragedy. You could almost say that under the circumstances which it was conceived, the fetus has no moral right to exist. I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s certainly diminished in my mind. As such, the right of the woman to be free from pain and trauma that she did not bring upon herself outweighs the right to life of the fetus.
Others have said something to the effect of “Well, why does the government get to make that distinction and not the woman?” The government makes all kinds of distinctions based on the protections of basic rights like life. It tells me that I can drive 70 on the expressway, but not 71. Who are they to tell me what to do?
They are the government. That’s what they do.
So a person who absolutely knows they don’t wany any(more) children are to be denied sex for the rest of their lives? How is this not punitive?
So can pregnancy and childbirth.
It is obvious. What’s less obvious is why they would approve of the exceptions, which is why the OP is asking that question instead.
I never have understood the reasoning behind people telling others that ‘their ideal/beliefs’ are without merit. If it doesn’t follow logically that you cannot fathom why they feel the way they do, take a look inside. I am sure you hold some beliefs that are illogical, Dr Spock. Inconsistent reasoning does not have to mean they don’t hold the belief.
If you believe the moon is made of green cheese I feel safe in saying that belief has no merit.
What makes you think a belief is unable to be measured as to whether or not it has merit?
Well, if you don’t see a problem with logically inconsistent beliefs, you’re unlikely to understand the reasoning behind lots of things.
I completely get that people totally believe the silly things they believe. I don’t doubt their sincerity. But are you saying no one should point out the logical inconsistencies? Why?
Also, that would be Mr. Spock.
I’m still waiting for a pro-life answer to this.
I am done with childbearing. Very happy with the two I’ve got. Dh and I have taken precautions to prevent another baby. However just to insure that we don’t have another baby, are we supposed to abstain from sex for the next 15 years???
You’ve received the answer, you just don’t like it. No, you do not have to refrain from sex. I’m not ready for a child now, but I still have sex. The thing is, when a man and a woman lay really close together and a man puts his ho-hah into a woman’s he-he, sometimes a baby gets in the woman’s tummy.
You know that, and I know that. We both know that birth control isn’t 100% effective. So why is it a big fucking surprise when pregnancy happens? You might not want it, might not be ready for it, but it is you and your partner’s responsibility to care for the child that you created. You might not want a child right now, but as I said earlier, the fetus’s right to life outweighs the inconvenience it presents for you. And me.
So, if I am a smoker, I deserve the lung cancer, eh? I mean, I knew it was a possibilty. Guess we should stop trying treating it. Stupid smokers deserve their fate!
It is my punishment to bear a child because I deigned to have sex with my husband, according to you.
A child is not a disease nor is it punishment. That is how we all got here.
So a fetus is a person, same as you and me, and has the same rights to exist as you and I. And those rights can be overridden due to non-life threatening circumstances beyond the control of the fetus (such as being conceived as the result of rape). Now, it seems to me that you’re arguing that it is within the rightful scope of the powers of government to end the life of any of its citizens, regardless of any crimes they may or may not have committed. Which strikes me as the sort of thing most conservatives would find abhorrent.
It’s a punishment if that’s what it is being used for. And it’s a parasite if you don’t want it.
So, when? In the first three months? First six month? First 5 years? At anytime? When is it OK to kill the “human being from conception with the same rights as you or I”?
What about the exceptions for incest? Is that just to bring in probable rapes, or is abortion OK for incest between consenting adults? Or, is that exception to avoid birth defects?
One such as this one. If people hold the view, it holds merit, at the least to themselves.
One might also find themselves pro-death penalty but anti-abortion…
The question might not be whether life itself is sacred but whose life.
So in other words, in jtgain’s mind, a fetus is a person with the same rights as you or I, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience its mother in ways HE finds unacceptable.
Touche. (Mr)
The logical inconsistencies don’t change an arbitrary line in the sand though? The fact that the solution would murky the already murky water is telling. Rape cases where the woman doesn’t want the baby would pose a serious hurdle. Incest, well I’ve heard there can be birth defects.
I saw a question posed “If the person performing the rape was the one impregnated, can she be forced to terminate?” Would that even be a real question brought before a real jury?