You know what happens when you assume...
You caught me red herring handed, I just wanted to belittle the stance.
-
Now back to my good friend Rusha, could you tell me whether that handle was inspired by the carelessness of argument construction? I'd probably use it as an excuse too if I saw the back of people's hands so frequently.*
Do you consider consensual sex to be traumatic? :think:
If it's done correctly.
(Against abortions for rape victims)
I'll avoid that, I don't have the patience for any intransigence excluding my own.
Who is forcing women to *get* pregnant?
Nobody is forcing women to get pregnant, I don't even think rapists are forcing women to get pregnant, perhaps some might - since they can get equal parenting rights in some states, how much fun is it to torture victims? If we persist we can make the old testament look like utopia! Yay.
Apparently they are ... after all, certain people believe it is fine to punish a child for the actions of his father. THAT is pretty stupid.
I agree, a child is never responsible for the misdeeds of their parents, no matter how far you go back - wait, what's that about how I was there myself nailing Jesus to the cross - nevermind then, that was a short lived argument due to it's inability to avoid religious hypocrisy.
I actually think that your concern for the life of a child is genuine and I reciprocate that, the problem is our knowledge (not opinions) differ on what constitutes one of those little love bundles, nobody can say that anyone who destroys an embryo or fetus is evil or wicked because our body naturally does it, and quite frequently I may add. It's termed "Spontaneous Abortion" and although that may seem like the favourite novel of a pro-lifer... *trails off into irrelevance*
I can't comment further and I don't want to assume, but without being all vague and self-fulfilling, at what point is a child so?
Just how *brilliant* is it of you to assume I hold a view that I do not? BTW, abstinence DOES work. Any sex education teacher who doesn't have the IQ of a nail will tell you so.
I apologise for my assumption, however it's no surprise your application of sanity to an issue caught me off guard, being against rape victim abortions but being for educating children on sex is like wanting to commit suicide via a tall structure yet not wanting to smash the window open.
I place abstinence in the same wonderful category as communism, wouldn't it be great if everyone shared the wealth and didn't have sex? Sign me up!
The problem is, as we've learnt with priests and pledges to celibacy... what people say and do are two very separate things - however, nobody is going to argue with you that not having sex reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, let's also fill our culture with overtly sexual tones and messages - then let our sexually uneducated children have at it - talk about leaving your keys in the car in a rough neighbourhood.
Of course ... don't you? Have you ever heard the phrase "if you ask a dumb question ... "?
You got me there, but we agree on education so it's irrelevant now.
Then *why* bother making such acts illegal?
(After I said laws aren't solitarily to dissuade crimes like murder and rape)
In the land of the free, it's currently the belief that handguns and assault rifles prevent violent crimes and not laws, I don't think that we do enough to prevent violent crimes if anything we more than likely augment the problem through terrible "correctional" facilities.
So in my mind the purpose of laws is to protect the citizens from the offender in the future and also to either reform or punish the individual. Though personally, I think punishing offenders... quite pointless - I suppose you do too seeing as there's a hell?
Since when does killing an unborn baby not qualify as "hurting other people". In regards to human rights, IF you don't feel the unborn is human, WHAT exactly are they?
I'm glad you asked, we can't say that anything inside the female body related to sex is a child, otherwise men would be annihilating 39 million children most times they visit the WWW, so unless you want to imprison masturbaters (one way to solve exponential population growth), then you have to draw the line somewhere further than conception, you can't class anything potentially a child in the future as such otherwise women are going to be breastfeeding oranges and all other manner of foods, I define a child at the point of viability separate from the mother.
But even before then, I'd draw the limit for abortion exactly where it is (even though a fetus cannot feel pain up to 26 weeks due to the brain pathways not being completed until that point), so I suppose anything over 24 weeks does actually have human rights, however I'd allow a doctor to separate the baby from the mother to save her life at any point. (Okay, perhaps not 13 years, that's just irritation not life-threatening.)
IF you don't believe they are deserving of the right to be protected against harm, then apparently you have no problem with FORCED abortion or with another person intentionally causing a woman to lose her unborn baby, correct?
Correct. I don't use the rights of the fetus or baby to legally protect it in that situation, the rights of the mother will suffice because somebody is causing her harm and intruding upon her own free will. I'd happily allow anyone who'd do such a thing to be liable to harsher sentencing... I have a group in mind that seem to feel justified in causing miscarriages, there you got - you've got them too.
Also, what of those babies who are born drug addicted and permanently harmed? By your logic, it is within the mother's right to do so because her child had no rights.
By my logic, that's absolutely right - and I applaud you on your observation, but if you see it that way, I'm pretty sure any mother will consume (whether intentionally or unintentionally) something that may have a chemical impact on the baby/fetus. I don't think there's anything you can do about that (legally) although ethically, I totally agree that it's wrong, but if that happens due to inaccessibility to abortion... What can I say? I told you so?
Thank you for your time.
* = Facepalm not domestic abuse
Edit: I just realised I asked you to define a child before I answered you requesting the same from me, I apologise - however I'd still like your opinion.
