THAT'S UP TO THE MOTHER TO DECIDE! Not you or legislation. I'm not saying she has to, or even SHOULD get an abortion. Who are you to say the better way for the victim to cope is to go through the pregnancy? That's a personal matter and varies person to person.jlay wrote: So, you suggest that the way to help a mother cope is to kill the unborn life inside her? How is that sane? Why should the unborn be punished for the crimes of the rapist father. Last I checked we punished the criminall.
Is it unfortunate for the woman? Absolutely. It is a tragedy. But I fail to see how compounding one wrong with another helps the situation.
Let's say that the woman took the pregnancy to term. Should she not love the child? Should she abandon the child? Should the child have any less rights than any other?
Are they not violating bodily autonomy? They are using part of another person's body in order to live. If there is a better way to word it, let me know. If you are trying to convince someone their argument is weak, provide a stronger argument. If you can show me a better argument or solution, I would gladly change my mind. Calling me names doesn't help your cause (and isn't very Christian of you ).jlay wrote:VIOLATNG??? That is how you see an unborn human. A violater? I don't like ad-hominems, but you need serious help, if you think that a child, unborn or otherwise is the equivalent to some virus or bacteria. You sir, are sick.
Of course the rapist is punished, I never proposed that they weren't. As far as taking the pregnancy to term, again that's for the mother to decide. I never said she shouldn't/wouldn't love the child or anything else you mentioned. The only thing I was saying, is that abortion should be a choice. If she wants to keep the child, that's her choice and I'm perfectly fine with it.
Come now, me being an atheist has nothing to do with it. All that says is I do not believe any gods exist, that's it. It says nothing about my morality. Are you assuming there are no theists who are pro-choice, or no atheists who are pro-life?Byblos wrote: Such is the inevitability of a godless, morally bankrupt society that idolizes the self and reduces a defenseless life to mere bacteria. The Bible says from dust we came and to dust we shall return. Perhaps there's some wisdom in that after all, from bacteria we came and as bacteria we shall die.
1) This is an interesting concept, but my issue with it is it provides the woman with an unfair ultimatum. The woman is pregnant due to the sexual experience she had with the man. If the man says "You have the option of getting an abortion, but if you don't, I'm relinquishing my rights from this and you're getting no support from me." That is an ultimatum that I feel unfairly puts pressure on the person caring the child to take an action they would otherwise not take. Then failing that action puts them at a financial burden. This gives the man more power in the situation. There is no easy solution to this, I agree it's unfair to men to say the person carrying the child gets to make the decision that is going to affect him for the next 18 years of his life. On the other hand, he already made the decision and taken a risk (intercourse) that puts him in this position where he could be treated unfairly. Given the two, I think that the equal responsibility is the more just outcome.Jac3510 wrote: Peirson's position is not only immoral, it is pooly thought out and absurd. That said, the fact that he is willing to admit that he endorses murder is good enough for me. If pro-choice advocates would say that plainly, most people still have enough moral sensibility that they would reject that argument out right, so in that one regard, I at least appreciate his candor. Why is he pro-choice? Because he thinks it is okay to murder childern if they are of a certain level of inconvenience.
I do not think this scenario and the abortion scenario are the same. This is not a bodily autonomy issue.
2) A physician can't operate on someone without their consent. The same argument could be said about a doctor discovering a patient has a tumor. It's up to the patient if they want it removed or not, not the physician. This scenario obviously has some flaws.
3) Home-invader analogy. I prefer this one:
The People-Seeds Example
There are people-seeds that drift around and periodically come into someone’s house through the window and take root in the carpet. They grow into people. Suppose you have taken every reasonable precaution to prevent them from coming into your house, but somehow one got in and took root in your carpet. Have you now given it the right to use your house?
You guys seem to really be running away with the whole "He said it's murder! End of story!" thing. I agreed, it's taking a life and making it dead, by definition: murder. BUT, like I pointed out several times, murder isn't objectively wrong. It's legal to commit murder under a great number of circumstances including war and self-defense. Why is this ok but it's always wrong to have an abortion? Why is murder subjectively moral and abortion is absolutely wrong?
As I pointed out before, it was agreed that having an abortion to save the mother's life was permissible. I asked, would this mother be considered a murderer? Of course not. If you accept this argument, then you already acknowledge that it is not a matter of black and white morality, but a matter of taking the impact of an action into account when judging it. From a medical standpoint, all pregnancies have an impact to the health of the mother, and there are many negatives to the long term health of the mother which arise from carrying a fetus to term and delivery. It is far safer to get a first trimester abortion than to go through with the pregnancy, so depending on how you weigh your values, all abortion could be justified as a form of self-preservation on the account of the mother.
Personally, yes, I would. Would the rest of the population agree? No. I actually had a similar discussion with my girlfriend about organ donation. I didn't see it as a personal choice, but as a moral obligation to society. It literally takes nothing but a signature from you to potentially save lives. I asked for her reasons why, which were all the product of misinformation. She got her facts wrong. It all boiled down to it's her personal choice. Some people are uncomfortable thinking about their mortality, some people have different religious views and choose not to donate. From a moral standpoint I would disagree with these people. But would I press for legislation to tell them their bodily autonomy doesn't matter and they have to do what the government deems morally correct? I would not.Echoside wrote: So let's just make it simple. Do you agree that in many of the scenario's you provided, the right thing to do is to give up your "right"(this is a legal term, not moral) to your body for the good of others? Not that it should be the forced thing to do but is actually the correct thing?
If I were ever in a burning building, and standing before me was a crying five-year-old girl and a canister of 100 frozen, viable embryos, and I could only save one, I would save the girl. And so would you. So would anybody with a modicum of decency.
The question of abortion's morality comes down to where one draws the line that makes the difference whether or not the life of a fetus is worth as much as that of a person.
The organ donation analogy wasn't meant to be an end-all comparison to abortion. It was simply to demonstrate the respect we, as a society, have for individual's bodily autonomy. This discussion is on the topic of abortion, let's not stray away from the issue.Jac3510 wrote: The abortion/organ-donation argument comparison fails in multiple ways. First, it assumes that the child's conception is unrelated to the mother's choice of sexual activity. That is, if I die and I choose not to have my organs donated, my choice not to donate my organs had nothing to do with causing another person's illness that required them to need a new organ (particularly mine).
So, again, for these four reasons (and others--this is just more than sufficient), the analogy fails miserably.
Have you ever read Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade? If you haven't, I would highly recommend it because it's actually one of the most intelligent discussions of the history of how society has viewed abortion I've read. It's not just a legal rationale. It's very long and does go into religion, philosophy, etc. Even Rehnquist's dissent begins with high praise of its extensive historical research and analysis.
You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 13_ZO.html
To paraphrase Bill Clinton (try to refrain from the ad-hominem attacks please ), I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. The ideal scenario would be to better educate people, especially teens, on the various methods of birth control, so that most women would never have to be in the position to choose in the first place. But ironically, it is the Christian right that leads the charge in stopping this from happening, based on the incredibly deluded belief that we can just stop people from having sex outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. Thus it is no surprise that areas where abstinence-only sex education is most promoted have the highest instances of teen pregnancy.