NO, IT’S NOT.
Lieutenant! I have defused the bomb!!
They should all be this easy.
Hmmm, evidently I should never, ever have sex with my husband. Since I’m not willing to be pregnant under any circumstances, and every form of birth control has a failure rate, 'twould be highly irresponsible of me to have a normal, healthy marriage. Righto, then, good to know.
That’s right, but don’t worry, it’s nothing that a little epoxy can’t fix.
Here’s something I’ve always wondered (and maybe it deserves its own thread, and maybe not)…
The argument against abortion always focuses (rightly or wrongly) on the same idea over and over again: You’re killing a baby, and killing is about as evil as you can get. Killing babies is even worse. And on and on it goes, with both sides trying to draw the line as to what qualifies as a “person”.
Don’t care. Not interested. The day one person actually changes anyone else’s mind on this subject is day I win the lottery. Since I buy a lottery ticket about once a year, I can pretty much guarantee that it’ll never happen.
So, here’s the question. I often hear the anti-abortion crowds talking about how abortion should be criminalized “except in cases of rape or incest”. The obvious correlation being that pregnancy from either of those two causes is going to be against the woman’s wishes, and therefore can be aborted.
To this I can only say…huh? Abortion is murder and murder is bad…unless it was a fetus forced on you?
Someone care to explain?
-Joe, pro-choice
What, you’d interfere with a nuke’s right to choose? Even in the early phases before she’s attained critical mass? **
[/QUOTE]
Well, I worry about weapons-grade placenta getting into the wrong hands.
There’s more heat than light in this thread, but I’ll address this question.
- I don’t know any embryologist who say that the product of conception is not human life.
http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html
(although many folks, embryologists or otherwise may not ascribe a philosophical “personhood” status or “rights” status to the z/e/f until later in development).
- There are plenty of folks who do have funerals after miscarriage (in my hometown, for example, a section of a local cemetary was recently created for pre terms).
Or see here
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/miscarriageremains001026.html
But even if that were not the case, does it really matter? Does social custom=right?
Do you consider black folks from say, 1840, to be persons, even though their legal status said that they were not?
Why, you little slut! Don’t you know that the very purpose of marriage is to force you to crank out as many babies as possible? And yet you intentionally use “birth control,” whose sole purpose is to reduce the number of babies you produce?!
Hmph! If I wasn’t a man of good upstanding moral principles, I might accuse you of actually wanting to have sex with your husband!
No, of course not. This isn’t such a big issue for me. I guess what I’m trying to point out is that some people seem to ascribe more value and privilege to the fetus/embryo of a woman who is seeking an abortion than other babies or children. I seems more melodramatic than consistent and rational. I’m not saying every anti-abortion activist is that way, but enough are. It’s also not unlike Merijeek’s point–if a first-trimester human life is so incredibly precious, enough to trump the wishes of its host, why give a “by” to someone who is raped? It seems that once again you are qualifying the value of a life–the very thing you don’t want to let women do on their own.
Hmmm … much as I hate to see any deaths caused because abortions are against the law in some places, tens of thousands of women is an awfully high number to believe. Do you have a cite for that?
By “some people”… are you referring to anyone in this thread? If not…why are we discussing the fringe beliefs of people who aren’t even participating in this thread? Do we then also get to discuss the people who selfy identify as pro abortion (not “pro choice”)…I suspect that the number of people who truly “ascribe more value and privilege to the fetus/embryo…than other children” can’t be any bigger than the number of self identified pro abortion (or even pro infanticide) folks.
If you’re asking what some pro life folks have a rape “clause” in their beliefs, it’s a purely political position. It’s also not a widely held position as Merijeek suggested…certainly not a position advocated by major RTL groups.
In short, I don’t favor women who have been raped having the “right” to have abortion. (incest is a subcategory of rape IMHO for this scenario).
However, if it seemed that there was significant public/political support for a law banning abortions except for rape (and life of mother) cases…AND it seemed like passage of a law outlawing abortions including the rape cases (but not life of mother) seemed very UNLIKELY in the forseeable future, than I might strongly consider support of the former law.
I would essentially be left choosing between a law that bans about 97% (or more) of abortions…or “sticking to my guns” and having the status quo.
I recognize several problems with this position of course…
-
How are rape related abortions proven?
-
The z/e/f of a rape victim is an equivalent organism to that of a non-rape victim, so why shouldn’t it get equal protection.
That’s why I classified the position as a political position…and more accurately a hypothetical political position.
Attitudes like these are what makes me think our civilization is on the way out. In a society where so many implore us to “think of the children,” it’s amazing that pregnancy can be compared to a disease, illness, or injury.
Look, laws forbidding doctors from aborting fetuses do not “force women to remain pregnant.” If a woman gets pregnant, she will by the course of nature remain pregnant until delivery, absent the intervention of abortion. If anything is “forcing,” it’s nature. If one views any pregnancy as an unjust violation of a woman’s will, then one would have to support not only legal abortion, but also free government-provided abortions for anyone who wants one. (Yes, I am aware that there are people who take that line.)
Why? It’s an unwanted physical conditionwhich can be safely remedied.
By the “nature” argument, I shouldn’t brush my teeth.
The grounds for dispute are whether or not the fetus has legal standing as an individual, not whether or not it’s okay to use modern medicine to make our lives better.
Trinopus
Pregnancy is a very serious medical issue, it can be compared to a disease, illness, or injury, because of the number of effects it has on a woman’s body.
Laws forbidding doctors from aborting fetuses do force women to remain pregnant, I think that’s pretty damn obvious. Just because the course of nature says she must go to delivery or die before then, doesn’t mean we should follow it.
If someone gets a cut or gash, do you say, “It’ll heal in 9 months, don’t treat or help it at all, let nature take care of it”? No, you treat it for infection and sew it up.
Before the brainwaves of an infant develope in the womb, it is nothing more than an extension of the mothers body growing into what has potential to be a human, it’s nothing more. It’s just a small sack of cells, they really don’t feel a thing, because there’s no brain wave developement yet.
If you’re arguing about late term abortions, then yeah, I’d have to agree that is inherently wrong, because you are killing something which is already alive and starting to seperate from the mothers body, but before then? When its still just a cluster of small cells that don’t resemble anything near a baby, or even think correctly? It’s nothing more than a parasite to the mother.
I appreciate your thoughtful response to Merijeek’s point.
I understand your whole “some people” concern and realize both sides have to grapple with the rabid extremists in their camp who are embarrassing.
I posited the original question to needle a person who (a) restarted a debate without apparently doing a lot of research on prior board discussions and (b) didn’t seem to be very thoughtful about doing so. I mean, come on, the poor fella writes in ALL CAPS to make his point stronger (his point being that they are WRONG. PERIOD) and then says he won’t debate. I’m just poking the bear. Which is, incidentally, bad board behavior and I ought to know better.
I promise you I’d never engage in such simplistic needling questioning with someone like you, who is capable of (and interesting in) thoughtful debate and who can appreciate the difficult issues we grapple with when we approach a topic like this.
Well it’s a given that the OP started off with more heat than light, regardless of ones’ position on this question. I’m not gonna jump in to defend that particular line of posting.
This business of using terms like “thoughtful” or “interesting” to describe my posts has to stop though.
{Univ of Iowa Grad}
Go IRISH! Kick the Wolverine’s Asses!
{/Univ of Iowa Grad}
If I didn’t have a lot of respect for another U of Iowa “alum,” Mary Sue Coleman, I’d drive to the Quad Cities right now and give you the pounding you so richly deserve.