toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[surrender]

What a wonderful miracle story, Mary! Thanks for sharing it.

 

[surrender]

As I've pointed out prior (though not in our discussion) the question is, when does personhood begin? Does a woman have a right to determine what happens to and within her own body?

I've noticed that you've brought this question up a few times. People have varying opinions on when personhood begins. My question would be, if there's the slightest chance your opinion of when personhood begins could be wrong, why would you chance it? We're talking about someone's life, right? So, why would you choose to go with the "it becomes a life at 3 months" etc.? What if you're wrong? What if life begins at the moment of conception? Are you okay with taking the chance that you might be supporting the option of taking the life of another?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You wouldn't have to raise your baby. You could put him/her up for adoption. Many babies are born from date rape situations, and many of them are adopted out.

It is a matter of choice. If I were a woman I wouldn't want to even carry his (my rapist's) child much less raise it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I've noticed that you've brought this question up a few times. People have varying opinions on when personhood begins.

Yip . . . and when would that be . . . exactly?

My question would be, if there's the slightest chance your opinion of when personhood begins could be wrong, why would you chance it?

Anything based on an opinion by default cannot be wrong.

We're talking about someone's life, right?

Nope. We're talking about a few cells in a puddle of water . . . that can hardly be considered a person in any sense of the word.

So, why would you choose to go with the "it becomes a life at 3 months" etc.? What if you're wrong?

Again . . . anything based solely on opinion cannot be wrong.

What if life begins at the moment of conception?

Life . . . not personhood.

Are you okay with taking the chance that you might be supporting the option of taking the life of another?

Yes, I am.

 

[PureX]

I've noticed that you've brought this question up a few times. People have varying opinions on when personhood begins. My question would be, if there's the slightest chance your opinion of when personhood begins could be wrong, why would you chance it? We're talking about someone's life, right? So, why would you choose to go with the "it becomes a life at 3 months" etc.? What if you're wrong? What if life begins at the moment of conception? Are you okay with taking the chance that you might be supporting the option of taking the life of another?

That's a very good argument. But the counter-argument is just as strong. It states that it's exactly because we don't know, that we should not be presuming the right to make the decision for everyone else.

The fact is that both sides have reasonable arguments for their positions. And neither side can say for sure when a human being becomes a human being. Which is why the debate persists.

 

[surrender]

It is a matter of choice.

We always have choices.

If I were a woman I wouldn't want to even carry his (my rapist's) child much less raise it.

In this life, sometimes we have to do things we don’t want to do.

Yip . . . and when would that be . . . exactly?

I’m not sure. Are you?

Anything based on an opinion by default cannot be wrong.

It’s not the opinion that’s right or wrong, it’s the option in which you place your trust that’s right or wrong. Both options can’t be right at the same time, one of them is wrong.

Nope. We're talking about a few cells in a puddle of water . . . that can hardly be considered a person in any sense of the word.

Option A: At the moment of conception, the life of a human being begins. Option B: At the moment of breath, the life of a human being begins. Your opinion is that option B is correct. There is a possibility that Option B is wrong. Do you agree?

Yes, I am.

You confess that you are okay with taking the chance you might be supporting the option of taking the life of another. This answer reveals the heart of the matter. It’s not that women should have a right to what goes on in their bodies. It’s not that you’re certain that option B is correct. It’s that you don’t really care that you could end up responsible for taking the life of another. I’m not willing to take that risk.

 

[surrender]

That's a very good argument. But the counter-argument is just as strong. It states that it's exactly because we don't know, that we should not be presuming the right to make the decision for everyone else.

I am not making a decision for any other woman when I choose to not legalize the killing of a life.

The fact is that both sides have reasonable arguments for their positions.

I’m not sure if I’d call it reasonable to argue that it’s okay with taking the chance of supporting the option of taking the life of another.

 

[Layla]

That human life has no value but what we assign to it?

I mean, is that really incorrect? We make distinctions between what is killing and what is murder all the time. We kill other humans all the time. We very much do assign value to human lives...

 

[Layla]

You, like he, still refuse to acknowledge the unborn as persons then. Calling them "persons, not in the usual sense of the word" doesn't qualify. That's still not a person, in that it has an inherent right to life. In that its life has inherent value.

Weirdly, your posts are helping me to understand Alate_One's view better.

Life... doesn't really have inherent value. If it did, we wouldn't find it reasonable to kill in war, to support the death penalty, to kill in self defence. Those killed in these ways are all persons, but we judge it to be killing not murder. Alate_one is arguing that there is an area after which personhood is granted a foetus where it is still alright to kill... this isn't really that inconsistent with a world where we make distinctions like that all the time.

I'm not saying that I agree, but I do understand a little better.

I am not making a decision for any other woman when I choose to not legalize the killing of a life.

Yes, you are. If you want it illegal, you want to prohibit the choices of others. There's nothing wrong with that stance, if you believe abortion is murder, but don't pretend you're not trying to make decisions for other people because you are.

 

[Alate_One]

You devalue life, with no reasonable basis, for no other purpose than to justify ending it. You look to things beyond the child's control and, in fact, beyond the child entirely, to determine the value of that child's life. Pick any attempted genocide in history. They all did exactly what you do here to justify their actions.

I could see why you might think that. However, on closer examination it makes little sense and the opposite position (personhood and full rights at conception) is actually devaluing life.

If a fertilized egg is a person in the exact same sense as a newborn, then women around the world are committing genocide on a scale that is almost unfathomable, not so much from abortion but from many forms of contraception.

Not to mention the level of natural death of "people" that is apparently a normal part of human reproduction.

If those deaths are just as valuable as a born human being, why should anyone care about an individual *adult* human life when so many billions are lost at an almost constant rate?

We can discern how you truly feel about life beginning at conception this way:

Imagine you are visiting a fertility clinic with a friend. She's brought along her infant son and there's an entire freezer full of thousands of 100 celled embryos. A fire starts, knocking out power in the building. Do you start ferrying the boxes of embryos to a new freezer, or do you save the baby and the workers inside the building?

Each box of embryos might contain 50 to 100 "people", if every life is equivalent the solution is obvious. But I think it's also obvious what nearly everyone would do in practice.

In the genocides you're talking about killing living breathing human beings, visible to all. Yes, dehumanization is a part of what happened. But it's hard to "dehumanize" something that's the size of a period on the end of a sentence and lacks tissues or organs of any kind. You're instead "humanizing" something that actually has almost no characteristics of humanity.

 

[Alate_One]

Weirdly, your posts are helping me to understand Alate_One's view better.

Life... doesn't really have inherent value. If it did, we wouldn't find it reasonable to kill in war, to support the death penalty, to kill in self defence. Those killed in these ways are all persons, but we judge it to be killing not murder. Alate_one is arguing that there is an area after which personhood is granted a foetus where it is still alright to kill... this isn't really that inconsistent with a world where we make distinctions like that all the time.

Yes. that is basically what I am trying to say, however I would not say abortion even in the case of rape is permissible at any time at all.

At some point, the mother's hesitation (acting on preventing or ending the pregnancy) has to damage her case for being wronged and thus her rights vs. the potential child's rights. Where exactly that line should be, I don't know for sure, but it will certainly be past what Mary would consider "personhood".

I mean, is that really incorrect? We make distinctions between what is killing and what is murder all the time. We kill other humans all the time. We very much do assign value to human lives...

Indeed. It is the EPA's and OSHA's assignment of a numerical value to human lives that determines which regulations are deemed economically worthwhile to save a certain number of human lives.

 

[surrender]

Yes, you are.

Am I? If I’m making a decision for another woman when I choose not to legalize the killing of a life, please tell me what decision I’ve made for her? No rhetoric, please. Just tell me exactly what decision it is I’ve actually made for another woman.

 

[PureX]

I am not making a decision for any other woman when I choose to not legalize the killing of a life.

Of course you are. You are deciding that it should be illegal for other women to choose differently than you.

I’m not sure if I’d call it reasonable to argue that it’s okay with taking the chance of supporting the option of taking the life of another.

But they wouldn't be "taking the life of another" human being, if what is being aborted is not yet a human being. And the fact that you are "not sure" tends to support letting people make their own minds up about this.

 

[Layla]

Am I? If I’m making a decision for another woman when I choose not to legalize the killing of a life, please tell me what decision I’ve made for her? No rhetoric, please. Just tell me exactly what decision it is I’ve actually made for another woman.

You have made the decision that she cannot have an abortion.

If it's illegal, she can't do it. You have removed her decision. You have made the decision your own.

 

[Silent Hunter]

We always have choices.

Sure. For women one of those choices is to have an abortion if they've been raped.

In this life, sometimes we have to do things we don’t want to do.

Yeah, like be raped.

I’m not sure. Are you?

You're the expert.

It’s not the opinion that’s right or wrong, it’s the option in which you place your trust that’s right or wrong. Both options can’t be right at the same time, one of them is wrong.

It depends on the person.

Option A: At the moment of conception, the life of a human being begins. Option B: At the moment of breath, the life of a human being begins. Your opinion is that option B is correct. There is a possibility that Option B is wrong. Do you agree?

Sure . . . and Option A is possibly wrong too. Do you agree?

You confess that you are okay with taking the chance you might be supporting the option of taking the life of another. This answer reveals the heart of the matter. It’s not that women should have a right to what goes on in their bodies. It’s not that you’re certain that option B is correct. It’s that you don’t really care that you could end up responsible for taking the life of another. I’m not willing to take that risk.

I bet you have difficulty deciding weather to get out of bed in the morning or not .

 

[surrender]

problem with posting...

 

[surrender]

Of course you are.

No, I am not. I am not making a decision for any other woman when I choose not to legalize the killing of a life. I am not making any decision whatsoever for any other woman. I’ve made it more difficult for her to follow through with her decision, but I haven’t made any decision for her at all.

You are deciding that it should be illegal for other women to choose differently than you.

First of all, this is not the same thing as “making a decision for another woman.” Not allowing someone to make a decision is not the same thing as making a decision for her.

Second of all, you are still incorrect in saying that I’m deciding it should be illegal for other women to choose differently than me. That’s not at all what I’m deciding. I’m deciding that it should be illegal for doctors to perform abortions.

But they wouldn't be "taking the life of another" human being, if what is being aborted is not yet a human being.

That’s true. Is there any chance it is a human being?

And the fact that you are "not sure" tends to support letting people make their own minds up about this.

I think people should have the right to make their own minds up about it. That shouldn’t change.

People should also have the right to refrain from participating in ending the life of another human being. Since there is the slightest possibility that life begins at conception, I’m compelled to choose to not legalize abortion. If I don’t, there is a chance I am responsible for the death of an innocent life (many, many deaths). Those who believe in the legalization of abortion will reassure me that it’s not yet a life, so no worries. Really, no worries? They will say that and in the next breath admit they don’t know for certain when it becomes a life. Sounds like a worry to me. So, they’re just guessing. A good guess. A pretty sure almost certain guess. A guess they’re so confident in, they’re willing to bet someone else’s life on it. Well, if that’s all that they can guarantee me (their good guess), then I’d rather not risk it. When it comes down to it, the one who believes in the legalization of abortion doesn’t care if they could end up participating in taking the innocent life of another.

 

[PureX]

No, I am not. I am not making a decision for any other woman when I choose not to legalize the killing of a life. I am not making any decision whatsoever for any other woman. I’ve made it more difficult for her to follow through with her decision, but I haven’t made any decision for her at all

Claiming that she can decide for herself when you control her options is being quite dishonest. If you really believe this nonsense then you are lying to yourself.

First of all, this is not the same thing as “making a decision for another woman.” Not allowing someone to make a decision is not the same thing as making a decision for her.

Yes, it's exactly the same thing.

Second of all, you are still incorrect in saying that I’m deciding it should be illegal for other women to choose differently than me. That’s not at all what I’m deciding. I’m deciding that it should be illegal for doctors to perform abortions.

Yeah, but we both know that's just sophistry. It's like saying, "Oh, I'm not denying you the right to drive, I'm just eliminating all the cars!".

I think people should have the right to make their own minds up about it. That shouldn’t change.

But of course you'll force them to do it your way regardless.

 

[surrender]

Yeah, like be raped.

Being raped is not something a woman does. It’s something that is done to the woman.

You're the expert.

Are you uncomfortable with our discussion? If not, why the sarcasm?

It depends on the person.

It has nothing to do with any person. When two contrary definitions are presented, both cannot be true at the same time.

Sure . . . and Option A is possibly wrong too. Do you agree?

Of course I agree. That’s the entire point of this particular part of the discussion—that either option could be true.

I bet you have difficulty deciding weather to get out of bed in the morning or not .

More sarcasm? Nothing I’ve said has been sarcastic or insulting. So, I must have hit a nerve…something I’ve said has rung true for you. It rang true because I only repeated what you yourself admitted to—that you don’t care you could end up responsible for taking the life of another. Again, I'm merely repeating what you’ve admitted to. And I appreciate that you didn’t try to dance around it. I wish more who took your position would just admit that and move on. But I also must say I’m grateful to see a twinge of doubt in your position, as evidenced by your sarcastic digs. And I’m glad the doubt hovers due to the fact that it actually bothers you that you could be responsible for the death of an innocent life.

 

[surrender]

You have made the decision that she cannot have an abortion.

No, I haven’t. I’ve made the decision that it’s illegal for doctors to perform abortions.

If it's illegal, she can't do it. You have removed her decision. You have made the decision your own.

My decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions has nothing to do with any woman at all.