But she is not taking a action that directly results in that creation of that life.
Exactly. It is like some quantum effect, perhaps 99% of the time a negatron is created when the penisitron colides with the vaginatron, but 1% of the time a positron is created. Everytime you collide this two partials you have a real (nonzero) chance of a positron.
I think some would beg to differ. Perhaps slutty rape victims and chaste ones would get different treatment. The virginal ones could have abortions, but those who dressed or acted promiscuously, or had had sex before, were taking some sort of risk.
But she doesn’t want it. Whatever contract you imagine, she does not want it inside of her. If she’s made to keep it, that is a punishment, and she’s being held against her will. Point final. (All right, all right, I know that can never be said in an abortion debate.)
Ah, you’re right, that works.
But the guy is, so someone is responsible for engaging in behavior that could result in the creation of the unborn child.
So what are we preventing some women from having to endure? Trauma, depression, stress, bad feelings? All of those appertain to unwanted pregnancies regardless of origin.
And you haven’t answered what the unborn child did do to differentiate themselves from those who shouldn’t be murdered?
Because that’s the historical attitude of such religious fanatics. “Blame the woman” has always been the standard, and still is many places in the world where religion is strong. “Forced fornication”, aka rape, is still fornication and against God’s Will, and rightfully punished by death.
I didn’t “imply” it, I said so quite plainly. The anti-abortion movement is much more about a burning hatred towards women, and a fanatic devotion to “God’s Will” than any concern over “babies”. It’s not like they’ve ever shown any concern over all the women worldwide who have died because of the campaign against abortion.
It does, once you realize that the point is not to stop abortions, but to hurt women.
I remember when that was the case, and it wasn’t pretty. If a woman had had sex out of marriage or was dressed wrong, admitted to drinking alcohol or outside alone at night were treated as though they deserved to be raped. A woman accusing a man of rape cold be expected to have her whole sex life brought up in court, but the accused rapist was protected from such treatment that might “prejudiced” the courtroom.
If a woman is forced to have her rapist’s child, could the rapist then sue for legal paternity, visitation and custody?
I asked you to substantiate that claim, not reiterate it. Please provide evidence that pro-lifers have historically decreed that rape victims ar guilty of fornication. Also please substantiate your claim that they demand the death penatly for being raped.
That’s assertion, not evidence. Moreover, even if we grant your claim, there’s a huge difference between saying “blame the victim” and “put the victim to death.”
You’re obviously very confident in your assertion – either that, or you’re capable of tremendous bluster.
So please, put your money where your mouth is. Please provide evidence (not reiteration, and not assertion) that they consider rape to be “forced fornication,” for which the victim is to be blamed).
With all due respect, something tells me that you won’t. Something tells me that you’ll respond with further bluster, expressing your great outrage and the actions of these alleged pro-life fanatics. You are welcome to do so, of course… but outrage is not a synonym for evidence.
True, but there is no way (yet) to transplant the child into him.
Not sure why you are bringing this up. If she knowingly and willing takes a real risk in creating a human life by her choice, why should she then be allowed to murder that human life she chose to create.
In the case of rape, no consent was ever given for the event that created the fetus, so that human life is morally trespassing, and I believe reasonable force can be applied to remove that person at the disgression of the one who was trespassed against. The only way to do this today is abortion.
I agree, I’d further say that most would beg to differ.
Perhaps in real world conditions, I was strictly speaking in a ideal situation. In real world conditions I see my theroy as unworkable. In brief this is how I break it down:
1 -Did she willingly and knowingly engage in a activity that she knew had the potential to cause pregancy:
Yes - Choice made, fetus has moral right to develop - end
No - Goto 2
2 - Did she willingly and knowingly grant permission for the fetus to develop inside her?
Yes - Choice made, fetus has moral right to develop - end
No - No choice was made, the fetus has no moral claim to develop inside her, mother can order the fetus forcefully removed.
But she made the choice that created this human life.
At least one religion is very confused on the subject Is Rape Fornication?
The idea of a fetus “morally trespassing” if it is unwanted due to rape versus due to any other factors is just, really, well, crazy. In fact, the idea of a fetus “morally trespassing” is just plain crazy period. What does it even mean to “morally trespass”? How does trespassing differ from moral trespassing?
And in this quote the punitive aspect that I and others are referring to is explicit. Why should anyone be allowed to “murder a human life”, or be prohibited from that “right”? You cannot seem to help but confuse the right to life of the unborn with the right to avoid the unpleasantness of the rape victim.
In your formula, it all comes down to the fact that the woman chose to have sex or not, and is apparently independent of any right to life of the unborn child.
I don’t understand why an abortion would even be necessary. If the product of a rape does not have the same right to life that anyone else has, why not just carry it to term and deliver, and then kill it? Unless, of course, there’s some meaningful difference between a baby and a fetus?
For the real world, it would probably be better to let the pregnant woman decide what her role in creating a new life was, and what should be done about it, don’t you think?
I don’t think they’re compromising, though. At least not most advocates of this position. A compromise suggests that they really don’t believe “rape babies” have a lesser right to life than non-rape babies, and they are simply making a concession to appease pro-choicers. But where’s the evidence of this? I haven’t really seen any.
The pro-choice argument seems to be platformed on a woman’s right over her own body. The consensuality of sex doesn’t really figure all that heavily into their stance on the issue. So in light of that, I can buy that pro-lifers are making a compromise when they allow for exceptions to women with life-endangering health conditions. Because the pro-choice camp is quick to cite the plight of these women as a reason why abortion should remain legal, a pro-life compromise in this area would make practical sense.
But not for rape. Pro-lifers would have little to gain from making this concession because most pro-choicers don’t care about whether the sex leading up to the conception was consensual. It’s a non-issue for them. So Hentor is right: making this exemption only does damage to their cause because it suggests that pregnancy is more about a woman accepting responsibility for a certain set of actions rather than a baby’s right to life.
I imagine that the rape exemption exists in the minds of pro-lifers when they envision that situation happening to themselves or a loved-one. Who would want to watch their teenaged daughter carry a baby conceived through rape? Certainly not anyone who believes that fornication is a sin and certainly not anyone who thinks of children conceived through fornication as illigetimate bastards. Since it’s impossible for society to differentiate a pregnant rape victim from a pregnant hussy just by sight, there must be something put in place that will allow the rape victim an “out”. Any other arrangement is not fair, you see. A rape victim should never be mistaken as an hussy, so she should be allowed an abortion.
You clearly give not the tiniest of shits about the “humanity” of the fetus in question, so please explain to me how this philosophy can possibly be summed up as something OTHER than “punish the sluts”.
“Take up residency?” The ‘pregnancy as punishment’ angle is well-explored, but this makes it sound like the the fetus is violating the woman. To me - and as far as I know, most of humanity and most of the animal kingdom in most cases - sex is “for” pleasure and not consent to anything other than the act itself. And for that matter, I don’t see how a fetus has more right to live than a zygote, sperm or any other stage of human development (or pre-development), I don’t see how the details of conception (rape or consent) can reasonably be said to affect the fetus’ right to “live” or “keep living,” and I don’t see how the fetus “lives” in the first place and as a result can be “punished” or can be said to die.
Even that cite doesn’t prove Der Trihs’s claim. First of all, it only refers to one group (the Jehovah’s Witnesses), not religion or pro-lifers in general. Second, the article DOESN’T say that JWs declare rape victims per se to be guilty of fornication. Rather, it alleges that women are guilty if they consent to the rape (or, to use the article’s loaded and colorful language, “if she doesn’t scream”).
I’m by no means a fan of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not by a long shot. Despite my distaste for their teachings though – and my distaste for the viewpoints espoused in the aforementioned article – I would never interpret this article to mean that they believe rape victims are automatically guilty of fornication.
Like you’re not glossing over any facts when you refer to it as “someone”.
We use “baby” in anticipation of there being a baby before long. But because an abortion destroys the entity in question–contentiously–precise language is neccessary and common usage won’t do.
I’d counter with the idea of playing with the creation of a human and then murdering it is crazy.
Trespassing legally refers to entering someone’s property w/o permission. The word trespass is also used in a religious context to refer to sin (i.e. a version of the Lords prayer ‘Forgive us our trespasses’), which is a violation of one against the other. A human taking up residence inside another w/o permission is violation against the woman. The woman has the right to decide for herself IMHO what to do if this was to happen.
All it shows is the willingness of some to punish a innocent for the acts of another.
The right is to have that human removed from your body if you played no willing part in it being there, I’m not saying you have to exercise that right.
It’s not the act of sex, it’s the act of creation, once that life is created a human exists. I’d say that a woman who went to a sperm bank and used a turkey baster to create a human life also has given moral consent for that fetus to develop.
Actually that fetus does have the exact right, but it starts and is superseded with the choice of the mother, but IMHO that choice is made during willingly and knowingly engaging in activities that could create human life.
For the real world, unfortunately I have to agree.
The whole philosophy I expressed is based on the humanity and the human rights of the fetus subordinate to the carrier parent and respect for human life and rights of human life.
You are the one who are bringing up sluts, I’m just bringing up mothers and babies (fetuses) - you know humans
While that is a humorous thread, truly, I think of this entity as a fetus (now), and we often refer to it, as well, “it.” Yes, we will use the word “baby” when looking forward to the future, but so do virginal twelve year old girls speculating on what they will name their children in future.
I’ll agree that something is being killed (a fetus is living, just like a kidney or a chicken), but whether someone is being killed is the matter under discussion, so your assertion is just begging the question.
Well, it isn’t a kidney or a chicken, is it? What does it mean to be someone? A fetus isn’t part of the mother, like an organ…it has its own DNA, and by the time a lot of them are aborted, they have their own organs. It’s not a chicken or a goat or a horse…it’s definitely human. If it’s human, and it’s a separate, distinct life, I’d say it’s a human life. Whether or not you want to give it any rights is another issue, but I don’t see how you can say it isn’t someone.