Are pro-lifers who say No exception 4 rape/incest.. extremists?

[Greg Jennings]

That is something popularly called "instant karma".

Way to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Well done

 

[Greg Jennings]

As if it's not cruel to murder the child for something it had zero control over and no moral culpability for.

No, the woman's feelings are more important than human life is; therefore, do an evil to (supposedly) alleviate her feelings about another evil that was done to her.

Trying to talk science to most right wing fanatics falls on deaf ears, so I won't try to explain the difference between a fetus and baby to you.

Would you force your sixteen year old impregnated rape victim daughter, who is severely traumatized, embarrassed, and unfortunately will probably face ridicule from some of her peers, to go to full-term with her pregnancy against her will? What if she doesn't have the means to properly care for the infant when it's born? What if her chance at a quality higher education is destroyed? What if she is so depressed by being forced to go through with the pregnancy that she tries to take her own life, and by extension, the baby's? She didn't choose to be brutally raped and impregnated. It was forced on her. And she'll hate you (rightfully so) for making her go through with even more trauma than she's already been through if you don't even give her the option to abort. Counsel all you want, but she'll never forgive you for forcing her to do that if she doesn't want to despite your counsel.

Please take the time to answer my question. Is it an emotional one? Or course it is. And that's because it's always a very emotional decision for those involved. If you want to force your opinions on somebody else's body when they have been raped, then you don't get to pretend that the emotional trauma doesn't exist

 

[patrick jane]

Trying to talk science to most right wing fanatics falls on deaf ears, so I won't try to explain the difference between a fetus and baby to you.

Would you force your sixteen year old impregnated rape victim daughter, who is severely traumatized, embarrassed, and unfortunately will probably face ridicule from some of her peers, to go to full-term with her pregnancy against her will? What if she doesn't have the means to properly care for the infant when it's born? What if her chance at a quality higher education is destroyed? What if she is so depressed by being forced to go through with the pregnancy that she tries to take her own life, and by extension, the baby's? She didn't choose to be brutally raped and impregnated. It was forced on her. And she'll hate you (rightfully so) for making her go through with even more trauma than she's already been through if you don't even give her the option to abort. Counsel all you want, but she'll never forgive you for forcing her to do that if she doesn't want to despite your counsel.

Please take the time to answer my question. Is it an emotional one? Or course it is. And that's because it's always a very emotional decision for those involved. If you want to force your opinions on somebody else's body when they have been raped, then you don't get to pretend that the emotional trauma doesn't exist

rape pregnancies are rare.

 

[Greg Jennings]

rape pregnancies are rare.

Understood. But that's literally the only case besides incest where I think the woman should be given the option to terminate. And just look at the vitriol that such a radical opinion as mine has garnered! Amazing, truly

If you want to see for yourself scroll through the past few pages. My stance has remained the same and fairly non-radical. Yet you'd think from the responses I've received that I was calling for mandatory abortion for every pregnancy. Again, just amazing

 

[moparguy]

Trying to talk science to most right wing fanatics falls on deaf ears, so I won't try to explain the difference between a fetus and baby to you.

Ah, snark. You could bother to reply to the words I actually used. I said "child," not "baby."

"Definition of child in English:
noun (plural childrenˈCHildrən)
1A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."​

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/child

However, since you really seem to want to go there:

"Definition of baby in English:
noun (plural babies)
1A very young child, especially one newly or recently born:"
​

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/baby

"Definition of fetus in English:
noun (plural fetuses)
An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."​

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fetus

Regardless, it's still a human; it's still morally inculpable; that little person had no choice in how it got where it was, or how it came to be.

It is morally reprehensible to excuse murdering a child to supposedly protect it's mother's feelings and thoughts.

You don't do a moral evil to alleviate another moral evil.

Would you force your sixteen year old impregnated rape victim daughter, who is severely traumatized, embarrassed, and unfortunately will probably face ridicule from some of her peers, to go to full-term with her pregnancy against her will?

Would you force the child involved to die because of somebody else's evil act?

Shall we continue to to round and round in the game of appealing to emotions, instead of discussing the moral right or wrong of the thing in question?

After all, I'm sure some of the zeks in the gulags were emotionally trying to their interrogators, so they deserved being tortured in order to make their interrogators feel better, right? Golly, if emotional distress justifies killing, it at least justifies giving someone the secret brand.

Isn't this appeal to the emotions with no reference to the ethics of a thing fun?

What if she doesn't have the means to properly care for the infant when it's born? What if her chance at a quality higher education is destroyed? What if she is so depressed by being forced to go through with the pregnancy that she tries to take her own life, and by extension, the baby's?

What if, what if, what if. How about some "what is" in reference to right and wrong.

Is it morally right to intentionally kill (murder) someone because it might be hard to care for them?

Should we murder someone if they make someone else lose a chance at college?

Should we murder someone if their very existence is depressing to someone else?

Does depression make it ok to murder yourself and someone else?

Invent away; all you're doing is multiplying the ethical questions.

You appear to be saying that yes, it's ok to murder someone for these reasons. This puts you in the impossible position of having to say why they don't apply everywhere they obtain.

She didn't choose to be brutally raped and impregnated. It was forced on her.

And the human who gets murdered will have that forced on them too. Therefore, the having something forced on a person can't provide you with any justification for the desired murder to be carried out.

And she'll hate you (rightfully so) for making her go through with even more trauma than she's already been through if you don't even give her the option to abort.

The child murdered won't be around to hate you, so I guess that doesn't matter.

Counsel all you want, but she'll never forgive you for forcing her to do that if she doesn't want to despite your counsel.

A person's life is worth enough to be hated for saving it.

Please take the time to answer my question. Is it an emotional one? Or course it is. And that's because it's always a very emotional decision for those involved. If you want to force your opinions on somebody else's body when they have been raped,...

You want to force your opinion on someone else's body.

The child's body.

Except you want worse to be done to the child than rape; you want the child to be murdered.

...then you don't get to pretend that the emotional trauma doesn't exist

I don't pretend that people do not experience emotional trauma for irrational reasons. Humans get upset for incoherent reasons all the time.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I don't pretend that people do not experience emotional trauma for irrational reasons. Humans get upset for incoherent reasons all the time.

You answered none of my questions. Imagine that. So I'll focus on this gem at the end of your response.

You just said that a woman being traumatized due to a rape and/or being told that she will be forced to go through with the rape-pregnancy against her will that could very well wreck her entire life is "irrational" and "incoherent." That's unforgivable. And if that's truly how you feel then you are a despicable human being. That's all there is to it. You probably think that it's the girl's fault for getting raped too, huh? "She shouldn't have dressed that way" and all that bogus? I can't believe people like you exist who would say such insensitive comments.

I bet if your wife or daughter got raped then you wouldn't consider their trauma and your anger "irrational" would you? I'm betting not. You just are so far removed from the situations that you want to dictate for others that you actually believe the toxic drivel coming from your keyboard I suppose.

 

[moparguy]

You answered none of my questions.

Says the person who refused to answer some rather pressing questions. I don't have to imagine that.

You just said that a woman being traumatized due to a rape...

Take the time to read better and presume less. What I posted doesn't mean that in any way, directly or indirectly.

Of course it's rational to be emotionally traumatized as the result of being raped.

When someone doesn't post a thing, they haven't posted a thing. That's not an invitation to insert whatever you want to serve your purposes.

...and/or being told that she will be forced to go through with the rape-pregnancy against her will that could very well wreck her entire life is "irrational" and "incoherent."

It's rational to be upset about being raped. It's not coherent to be upset about the very existence and possible effects of another human that came about from such.

The child didn't choose how it got there and is the closest thing to an innocent human there can be.

You probably think that it's the girl's fault for getting raped too, huh? "She shouldn't have dressed that way" and all that bogus? You're disgusting

Rather quick to assume things for no good reason, aren't you?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Says the person who refused to answer some rather pressing questions. I don't have to imagine that.

Why would I answer your questions when you refused to answer mine? Does that seem normal to you?

Take the time to read better and presume less. What I posted doesn't mean that in any way, directly or indirectly.

Of course it's rational to be emotionally traumatized by being raped.

When someone doesn't post a thing, they haven't posted a thing. That's not an invitation to insert whatever you want to serve your purposes.



It's rational to be upset about being raped. It's not coherent to be upset about the very existence and possible effects of another human that came about from such.

The child didn't choose how it got there and is the closest thing to an innocent human there can be.



Rather quick to assume things for no good reason, aren't you?

Look if that's not what you meant then by all means clarify. I was hoping that you meant something else but I looked at it and couldn't come up with anything. So please explain what it was you meant. Because it looks bad. I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said, but it was not very clear at all

 

[moparguy]

Why would I answer your questions when you refused to answer mine? Does that seem normal to you?

I guess I was wrong to assume you'd be able to validly infer some answers from the questions I posed.

One round of endless whatif, coming right up.

What if she doesn't have the means to properly care for the infant when it's born?

Having a hard life in the future does not justify killing the child. In a return round of endless whatifs, what if the child might get adopted?

What if her chance at a quality higher education is destroyed?

Higher education is not worth more than human life. Therefore, the child should not be killed.

What if she is so depressed by being forced to go through with the pregnancy that she tries to take her own life, and by extension, the baby's?

One wrong does not justify another. The wrong the mother might do does not justify the wrong of murdering the child.

She didn't choose to be brutally raped and impregnated. It was forced on her. And she'll hate you (rightfully so) for making her go through with even more trauma than she's already been through if you don't even give her the option to abort.

And, again, the child didn't choose how it got to be there. It was forced on the child, who won't be around to hate you for not saving it.

"whatif" is a useless game because it has no end and can therefore never produce an answer.

Look if that's not what you meant then by all means clarify. I was hoping that you meant something else but I looked at it and couldn't come up with anything. So please explain what it was you meant. Because it looks bad

I did clarify it. In the post you're replying to here. The clarification is "right under your nose."

 

[Greg Jennings]

I guess I was wrong to assume you'd be able to validly infer some answers from the questions I posed.

One round of endless whatif, coming right up.



Having a hard life in the future does not justify killing the child. In a return round of endless whatifs, what if the child might get adopted?



Higher education is not worth more than human life. Therefore, the child should not be killed.



One wrong does not justify another. The wrong the mother might do does not justify the wrong of murdering the child.



And, again, the child didn't choose how it got to be there. It was forced on the child, who won't be around to hate you for not saving it.

"whatif" is a useless game because it has no end and can therefore never produce an answer.



I did clarify it. In the post you're replying to here. The clarification is "right under your nose."

Well the crux of our differences here seem to be focused on the fact that what you consider a "child" I don't pretend to know is a human being yet, and therefore I don't feel comfortable forcing a rape victim to change her life forever because of that rape and potentially cripple her future prospects for education, having a normal social sphere, having a normal family life, and so on due to an unbelievably traumatic event that she had no control over.

Now if the born infant was to be adopted that's all fine and dandy, but the movie Juno doesn't depict reality all that well. The reality is that there is already a massive over saturation of kids put up for adoption. Many now never get adopted because there are just so many of them, so tell me why you think an infant that is the product of rape is going to be likely to be adopted by a family? Because it's not. Not in the least.

Let me ask you this: if the raped girl takes medication that destroys the zygote or embryo before it develops into a fetus, are you okay with that? It's still alive, but it's no more than a few cells at that time. Surely you wouldn't be opposed to that, right?

 

[moparguy]

Well the crux of our differences here seem to be focused on the fact that what you consider a "child" I don't pretend to know is a human being yet,...

When God, who by definition possesses all perfections, says that a thing is human, in a form of understandable revelation, than you know it's human. That's a perfectly rational way of knowing something, that doesn't involve the ocean of fallacies that other ways of knowing involve.

God's revelation of knowledge speaks of the unborn as people as simple statements of fact; it uses personal pronouns to refer to them, it affords them the same protections as adults, it in fact calls the unborn *children,* and God knows the unborn as people before they are born. If you want the quotes, I'll post them.

...and therefore I don't feel comfortable forcing a rape victim to change her life forever because of that rape and potentially cripple her future prospects for education, having a normal social sphere, having a normal family life, and so on due to an unbelievably traumatic event that she had no control over.

The unborn are human beings. Even otherwise lunk-headed secularist biologists who are in the field know this and have admitted it. You'll note, at any stage of life, it's called a *human* (insert whatever terminology used to describe the life stage).

If you really want to be picky, your body at old age is radically different than your body when you're younger; so if you don't think that being physically radically different in old age doesn't justify your being killed, than it can't justify it for the very young, who haven't chosen to be radically different.

Really, pin down a serious biologist some time. Ask to see the scholarly literature. Even they don't consistently call it "not a human."

Now if the born infant was to be adopted that's all fine and dandy, but the movie Juno doesn't depict reality all that well. The reality is that there is already a massive over saturation of kids put up for adoption. Many now never get adopted because there are just so many of them, so tell me why you think an infant that is the product of rape is going to be likely to be adopted by a family? Because it's not. Not in the least.

Again, the endless game of what-if. "massive over saturation" - Got credible link?

If there are too many kids needing adoption: start socially de-legitimizing the things that led to it; unless you prefer the kids in orphanages.

Let me ask you this: if the raped girl takes medication that destroys the zygote or embryo before it develops into a fetus, are you okay with that? It's still alive, but it's no more than a few cells at that time. Surely you wouldn't be opposed to that, right?

You mean, the human zygote? Get your science terminology straight and clear.

When the Sperm has managed to successfully deliver it's payload into the egg; you have a human (whatever you call that lifestage). Which is just to say, it's a human, and therefore, a person.

 

[Stone Mason]

To the original question that was posed by the OP. The answer is yes, it is extreme.

If the goal of the OP is to discuss theology, and this is a theology forum, then so be it. But if the end goal really is to get women to stop aborting their unwanted babies, the this kind of a position gives the politicians the ammunition they need to keep abortion legal.

 

[Greg Jennings]

When God, who by definition possesses all perfections, says that a thing is human, in a form of understandable revelation, than you know it's human. That's a perfectly rational way of knowing something, that doesn't involve the ocean of fallacies that other ways of knowing involve.

God's revelation of knowledge speaks of the unborn as people as simple statements of fact; it uses personal pronouns to refer to them, it affords them the same protections as adults, it in fact calls the unborn *children,* and God knows the unborn as people before they are born. If you want the quotes, I'll post them.

Well the country doesn't run according to what the Bible says. So that's hardly relevant in matters of the law of the land.

The unborn are human beings. Even otherwise lunk-headed secularist biologists who are in the field know this and have admitted it. You'll note, at any stage of life, it's called a *human* (insert whatever terminology used to describe the life stage).

That's just untrue.
"Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

If you really want to be picky, your body at old age is radically different than your body when you're younger; so if you don't think that being physically radically different in old age doesn't justify your being killed, than it can't justify it for the very young, who haven't chosen to be radically different.

Except your body at old age can function independently. Your body prior to 22 weeks cannot, and must exist as a parasite inside the host's (mother) body.

Again, the endless game of what-if. "massive over saturation" - Got credible link?

http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3017992
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/singletons/200810/why-more-people-don-t-adopt

If there are too many kids needing adoption: start socially de-legitimizing the things that led to it; unless you prefer the kids in orphanages.

What would you "socially de-legitimize?"

You mean, the human zygote? Get your science terminology straight and clear.

Nothing was unclear. We were discussing human development and I used the words "zygote" and "embryo." If you can't figure out what species I'm referring to when only one species has been mentioned, that's on you

When the Sperm managed to successfully deliver it's payload into the egg; you have a human (whatever you call that lifestage). Which is just to say, it's a human, and therefore, a person.

Forcing a raped woman to go through with her pregnancy, while giving her no option to terminate from the very moment of conception, is just ridiculous and cruel. Can you offer a single non-religious reason as to why that should be the case? Because you know we have that pesky separation of church and state thing that Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated was to be an enumerated part of our Constitution

 

[WizardofOz]

That's a toughie. If she didn't know before that point she was pregnant then I'd say yes. If she did and still waited that long to have something done then I'd say no.

So you would take away a rape victim's choice in certain situations.

 

[moparguy]

Well the country doesn't run according to what the Bible says. So that's hardly relevant in matters of the law of the land.

The law is secondary. The primary concern is the ethics. Law is always based upon ethics, even though it comes after them.

That's just untrue.
"Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

You're playing the shell game, even if you don't realize it.

I didn't say that there was agreement amongst people of any kind about what stage of life gives a person the right to not be killed.

I said that the unborn are called human, and the other phrases attached are mere descriptors of the life stage of the human in question.

Except your body at old age can function independently. Your body prior to 22 weeks cannot, and must exist as a parasite inside the host's (mother) body.

No, your body can't function independently. You always have to take in outside things to survive.

That aside, are you really willing to say that only lone castaways on islands have the right to not be killed?

http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3017992
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/singletons/200810/why-more-people-don-t-adopt

Saved. Read them later when it's not 3am.

What would you "socially de-legitimize?"

The things that are immoral that lead to kids winding up in orphanages.

Our desire to make the happy nerves in our private regions tingle doesn't justify the murder of unborn humans - or not bearing the consequences of having intercourse.

The ethics questions simply can't be gotten away from.

Nothing was unclear. We were discussing human development and I used the words "zygote" and "embryo." If you can't figure out what species I'm referring to when only one species has been mentioned, that's on you

You left off the indicator, and in a place that was quite handy for your position, besides it being bad use of science terms.

Forcing a raped woman to go through with her pregnancy, while giving her no option to terminate from the very moment of conception, is just ridiculous and cruel.

So, now we know what you believe.

Can you justify it without having to use fallacies?

Can you offer a single non-religious...

Full stop.

This is just underhanded and stupid.

NO, I will not roll over and intellectually drop dead - give up everything I believe on a topic - just because you ask me to. If you want to stoop to using irrational justifications for your knowledge, and if you want to be rampantly close-minded, that's on you, but don't try and force me to do so.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss any sort of justifications that come down the pipe.

... reason as to why that should be the case? Because you know we have that pesky separation of church and state thing that Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated was to be an enumerated part of our Constitution

Again, all laws are based upon ethics. I'm not going to appeal to irrational ethics as a basis for law just to satisfy you.

Besides the fact that the first amendment as relates to "religion" means that the congress can't establish a federal church, and it can't regulate any churches by law, and that's ALL it means. Church, by the way, wasn't defined by the founders as "anything that is non-secular" or "monuments on public ground" or "discussing God as relates to government." If you don't care what the founders defined things as, than don't appeal to the constitution.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So you would take away a rape victim's choice in certain situations.

The whole reason I'm opposed to abortion in general is that I find it irresponsible that women sometimes allow themselves to become pregnant and let the fetus grow to a certain point to where it may feel pain before taking responsibility for it. It's all about responsibility for me. There are a myriad of ways that, in most cases, women can take care of the problem before it gets to that point (condoms, morning after pill, other contraceptives).

So if the rape victim has known she was pregnant for eight months and chose to not do anything about it when she could've had an abortion before the fetus was developed to the point where it was able to feel pain and is very much alive and (literally) kicking, then she was negligent in the same way that the women I mentioned in my first paragraph were. Now my opinion on restrictions for rape victim abortions isn't set in stone, but that's what it is currently

 

[moparguy]

Signing off for the nite. Be back on sometime this month.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, your body can't function independently. You always have to take in outside things to survive.

Way to be purposefully thick. You know exactly what I meant, but I'll clarify it for you anyway: an old person doesn't require oxygen and nutrition coming from another person's circulatory system in order to survive. A fetus prior to 22 weeks does. That clear now?

That aside, are you really willing to say that only lone castaways on islands have the right to not be killed?

No. I'm saying that you can't compare old people who can live off of their own body systems to a fetus who requires another person's body system in order to survive. Which you already knew, but are just trying to complicate things needlessly for some reason.

The things that are immoral that lead to kids winding up in orphanages.

Our desire to make our happy nerves in our private regions tingle doesn't justify the murder of unborn humans - or not bearing the consequences of having intercourse.

Oh goodness gracious. Have you ever seen the movie Footloose? You could learn something from it, old-timer.

You left off the indicator, and in a place that was quite handy for your position, besides it being bad use of science terms.

Again, if I mention only one species, and you can't figure out what species I'm talking about, then your reading comprehension skills need a refresher.

So, now we know what you believe.

Can you justify it without having to use fallacies?

What you call "fallacies" most would call "science and data."

Full stop.

This is just underhanded and stupid.

NO, I roll over and drop dead just because you ask me to. If you want to stoop to using irrational justifications for your knowledge, and if you want to be rampantly close-minded, that's on you, but don't try and force me to do so.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss any sort of justifications that come down the pipe.

Again, all laws are based upon ethics. I'm not going to appeal to irrational ethics as a basis for law just to satisfy you.

Besides the fact that the first amendment means that the congress can't establish a federal church, and it can't regulate any churches by law, and that's ALL it means. Church, by the way, wasn't defined by the founders as "anything that is non-secular" or "monuments on public ground" or "discussing God as relates to government." If you don't care what the founders defined things as, than don't appeal to the constitution.

This last bit is funny: you think that I'm being underhanded by stating the fact that the Bible has no bearing on the laws of the land? You say I'm not going to the founders for my constitutional knowledge of "separation of church and state?" Man is this gonna blow your mind: it's Jefferson's Letter to the Dansbury Baptists. In it you will see that one of the most influential founding fathers implicitly states that there is to be a stark separation of church and state.

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

So perhaps you need to brush up on your knowledge of the founding fathers instead of claiming others are not knowledgable. So if you are arguing that the Bible should be some sort of authority in regards to the laws of the land then you're greatly mistaken, as Mr. Jefferson just told you, particularly in the underlined portion above.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Signing off for the nite. Be back on sometime this month.

Goodnight

 

[Quetzal]

rape pregnancies are rare.

Correct, however that does not make those cases any less important. I believe they require special consideration.