So, it’s proper to kill inconvenient people so we aren’t reminded of that?
So, a person should not live if they cannot be guaranteed an outcome you think is indicative of dignity?
You want people living in mansions to assist the homeless. Are you telling this to the 1% with their multiple homes, or only justifying the need for abortion because of inequity?
I am explaining why I believe what I believe and cannot be argued into agreeing to what I find reprehensible.
False. Life began either a few thousand or a few billion years ago (depending on how literally you take the Old Testament). It is a continuous process. Saying that “life begins at conception” implies that my sperm are dead, and so are women’s eggs. Objectively, they are not. Both regularly get flushed down the toilet, and nobody cares.
Exactly. How likely is it that our overburdened courts can adjudicate rape claims quickly enough to allow for a termination?
You’re either for a woman’s right to choose or you’re not. Making exceptions for things like rape or incest is unworkable.
In any case it’s illogical to view a zygote or fetus as human or not based on the circumstances of its conception.
Leave it as a choice to be made by a woman and her doctor. Some things aren’t the business of the state.
I just point out to the “pro-lifers” that once you have granted the state the power to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will, you have also granted it the power to force a woman to abort a fetus against her will. When they protest that would never happen, I tell them to ask their liberal friends if they thought Roe v Wade would ever be challenged.
I guessed what the link was going to be. 
I don’t follow the logic. To “force a woman to carry a fetus to term” is incidental to protecting the life of the fetus.
What you said sounds to me like “Once you have granted the state the power to stop me from beating my kids, you have also granted it the power to force me to beat my kids.” It’s a non sequitur.
If and when it becomes feasible to remove a developing embryo/fetus from the womb without ending its life, that will change the whole conversation, and will separate the anti-abortionists who are motivated by concern for the life of the unborn from those who want to force the woman to face the consequences of her actions.
Well you just failed an ideological turing test. No pro-lifer actually believes this. They have a mixture of beliefs that can easily be misrepresented as this, but this is not what they believe and it helps nobody to lie about them like this.
So what? Why is this a meaningful distinction? Every time I cross the street I run the risk of getting rolled over by an 18-wheeler; it does not somehow make this outcome desireable or good, even if I “chose” to assume that risk.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.
20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
The bible kinda sucks, man.
Does it work?
No, seriously, this is an important question. Does it work? Does making people “take responsibility” work? Like, to go back to your statement earlier in the post:
It turns out that handing out free contraceptives to people actually works pretty well. The evidence isn’t particularly strong yet, but it all points in the same direction - that free contraception helps prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Similarly, I hear that Gardasil, without insurance, costs several hundred dollars for a series of shots. I can’t afford that, and most poor people can’t and will just live without it. On the other hand, it’s clearly a social good for HPV to not be an endemic disease.
See, no matter how firm the stick, some people just won’t take responsibility for their actions. And if we force them to do so, the results end up… problematic. Think starving homeless children - never a good look. It’s especially bad as long as emergency rooms are forced to not turn anyone away, because that’s a massive expense taxpayers end up paying - so much so that even housing the homeless may be cheaper than leaving them on the street.
So it turns out that sometimes, helping people isn’t just a matter of “this is good for them”, but also a matter of “this is good for us”. And once you get there, insisting on personal responsibility despite that basically amounts to saying, “it’s good for everyone involved, but it’s not good in the way I want, so we can’t do it!”
Who fights to ensure that LGBT parents can’t adopt? Who forces LGBT or atheist children out of their homes merely for not being christians? Who fights most ardently for “personal responsibility” in ways that are absolutely guaranteed to cause more unwanted pregnancies? (Hint: not secular humanists.)
…Of course, the real reason this accusation keeps coming up is because the same christians who most rabidly shout about the value of life consistently vote for the party which is liable to cut programs designed to help needy children.
Things tend to get unworkable when you start over thinking them. File report of rape/incest with police, get abortion.
No one I’ve seen is deciding whether a fetus is human or not based on circumstances of conception.
If the topic were suicide, medial assisted or not, should we leave it to a person and their doctor?
[quote=“Budget_Player_Cadet, post:126, topic:817013”]
The bible kinda sucks, man. QUOTE]
Interesting and thoughtful post. I snipped this bit so I could explain. I’m not using the Bible as a resource in a scientific discussion, nor am I defending it. I think you’re the first one in the thread to actually quote the Bible, but for those who base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of the Bible AND who demand witnesses and a conviction for a rape exclusion, there’s certainly evidence in the Bible they believe in that says they’re wrong.
There’s a difference between overthinking and thinking things through.
But OK, let’s keep it simple: File report of rape/incest with police, get abortion. Would simply reporting the rape satisfy the rape-is-an-exception crowd? I’m curious because in date-rape threads here, there are quite a few people claiming that a lot of date rape reports are false. It’s inaccurate, but the belief is there. Aren’t those who believe in rape exception going to object that women will be making false rape reports so they can get abortions?
I would like to know the answer to my question that your beliefs lead you to, thanks.
Is there some part of your question that wasn’t addressed by post #114?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, the poster I was asking wasn’t the person who wrote post #114, so there is that.
Also, I don’t believe that post was a serious answer, since I don’t think hospitals put delivered, dead babies into an incinerator.
OK, then you will need to explain your question. What **do **you think happens with a still birth, what do you think **should **happen with a still birth, what **do **you think happens with a miscarriage, what **should **happen with a miscarriage, and how should any of it change, if at all, if abortion is illegal?
If you don’t want to discuss it except with one person, I wouldn’t use a public messageboard. If you do want to discuss it, go ahead.
Regards,
Shodan
What are you talking about? One poster stated that he believes that a few cells that are there a few minutes after conception should have the same rights as a baby that has been born. I simply asked him to clarify his beliefs.
When Mary Tyler Moore had a miscarriage into her toilet, she had to fish the remains out and bring them to the hospital to prove she didn’t have an abortion.
I’ve had “pro-lifers” call my sister and her wife “child abusers” for taking in two children and their mother when the mother was dying, and later adopting them. And telling me the children were not my nieces.
If you ask a women who had three miscarriages before having three children how many children she has had, should she say “six”?
That isn’t the way she tells the story - according to her, she was in the hospital due to her miscarriage and that was when her diabetes was diagnosed.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
I read her memoir. She did indeed fish the expelled embryo out of the toilet, not to prove she hadn’t had an abortion, but so doctors might determine what had caused the miscarriage. She was then admitted to the hospital, where tests revealed her blood sugar was sky-high.
As noted by previous posters, the time it would take to secure any type of conviction, for much of anything, is longer than the human gestational period. The idea of needing a conviction of the rapist to get an abortion is a nonstarter. That’s about as thorough as the thought needs to be I think.
Yes. In this hypothetical that I just constructed, a simple report of rape would suffice. I can’t speak for the “crowd”, or to the claims of “quite a few people” .
I’d bet quite a few insurance claims have paid out on false police reports. In a real world hypothetical I’d imagine the punishment for either false report would be about the same.
I didn’t answer because it’s irrelevant. I am talking about human life, not what to do with the dead.
False equivalency.
The divine spark is not in eggs or sperm, but in the zygote created when one of each unites.