metalslimer
Member
The funny thing is that if life begins purely at conception, god himself is letting literally billions of children die.
GOP hopeful: 'Rape thing' not cause for abortion
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
CornBurrito
Member
Honestly, I don't really see the problem here.
If person A rapes person B, does person B get the right to kill person C?
If abortion is murder, it makes sense not to allow for exceptions even in the case of rape. Getting raped does not and should not ever give you the right to murder.
And I'm pro-choice.
There are plenty of pro-lifers who would allow an exception in case of rape. Exceptions can be justified.
CornBurrito
Member
I know there are pro-lifers that would allow such an exception. I just think they are being inconsistent, and not taking their belief to its full conclusion.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
You can write off one or two goofballs as statistical outliers who aren't representative of an entire set, but how can anyone seriously support a party overflowing with this many dipshits?
Takamura-San
Member
There's a big argument that it is not.
C isn't a person, C is a organism inside of person B. C has no social security number, or rights. Rights are given to you by the government that you pay taxes to provide them for you.
C is an person once it could survive on its own outside of the womb, and be technically "born" and sustain itself.
Because they've already committed to the republican party, so they have to stay republican no matter what, at least the left-over ones. Everyone else who had mind to leave, left.
CornBurrito
Member
You're preaching to the quire. It is like you didn't read the part where I am pro-choice.
I'm specifically talking about people who go "abortion is murder and unacceptable, with the sole exception of rape."
TimeEffect
Member
I found it to be the opposite: he's so uncomfortable and unattached and has no understanding of such a topic that he is unable to properly discuss it. I dont think he thought much of it, to be honest, hence why he calls it a thing.
Yeah but its useful for the rest of the people.
I'm not really seeing any inconsistency, when they can justify that point of view. It doesn't have to be a "zero tolerance" type of thing. If you take "murder is wrong" all the way, then military action should be opposed, too.
We have lots of exceptions to rules. Doesn't mean logical inconsistency at all.
So a newborn/baby is not a person? A newborn/baby does not pay taxes and it also wouldn't be able to survive on its own. It's helpless.
And I also wouldn't make the distinction based on "being inside a womb" or not. Otherwise kicking the stomach of a pregnant woman and killing the baby inside by doing so wouldn't be considered murder. I seriously hope such thing would be considered murder.
monchi-kun
Member
there are some beliefs that should never be taken to their full conclusion. if we're going to pat someone on the back for being consistent with their convictions then we are rationalizing irrational behavior like extreme fanatical terrorism.
monchi-kun
Member
Freedom of speech is a good thing. In this case it allows people to form an opinion on the direction society should be taken. Ideology evolves over time and is replaced with (hopefully) rationality while new ideologies are born.
Ravensmash
Member
""But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?" Koster said in the exchange."
Because she's not being forced to carry an unwanted child which was conceived against her will during sexual assault.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? I love how the emphasis is placed on a fertilised egg over a victim of sexual assault.... :|
Because she's not being forced to carry an unwanted child which was conceived against her will during sexual assault.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? I love how the emphasis is placed on a fertilised egg over a victim of sexual assault.... :|
They don't believe in evolution which is probably why they keep making the same mistake over and over.
At this point blanket banning abortions is as much of an opinion as swallowing Bucky Balls, it's a primitive action you take because you don't have the mental faculties to process why you shouldn't.
http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/
Exactly !
It can be the best mom EVER .... if your child is a constant reminder of one of her most traumatic memories the child will NOT be saved from problems and we will have TWO human beings with huge problematic and crap lifes to the point of one being in a state of pure TORTURE.
So do people choose 2 traumatized and problematic persons with one of those being close to torture levels to ..... one perfectly healthy human being recovered from a trauma just because a simbiotic parasite should be called a full human being.
edit :
Should be also noted that the mom will probably try the abortion anyway, but since it is illegal it will be MUCH more riskier and you can end killing both the Mom AND the parasite
Exactly !
It can be the best mom EVER .... if your child is a constant reminder of one of her most traumatic memories the child will NOT be saved from problems and we will have TWO human beings with huge problematic and crap lifes to the point of one being in a state of pure TORTURE.
So do people choose 2 traumatized and problematic persons with one of those being close to torture levels to ..... one perfectly healthy human being recovered from a trauma just because a simbiotic parasite should be called a full human being.
edit :
Should be also noted that the mom will probably try the abortion anyway, but since it is illegal it will be MUCH more riskier and you can end killing both the Mom AND the parasite
Survive as in breathe... and have functioning organs.
Being viable outside of the womb, like premature children who are still viable outside of the womb.
Not a collection of cell matter with no organs.
A kick in the stomach is a violent crime, if you kill the persons unborn child, you're in trouble with a jury generally.
If a mother has a pregnancy that doesn't go full term, its an accident, nature, she isn't tried for murder. Full term child birth is difficult for people, its not a guarantee. Which is why you can't define conception as a viable child.
Zoe
Member
It's not murder. Assigning personhood to consider it murder would be exactly what pro-lifers want.
There are women like Camille "Woman's flirtatious act of self-concealment means man's approach must take the form of rape" Paglia and Phyllis "A man’s life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father by malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape" Schlafly. It is true that it tends to be male elected officials who get the headlines, but there are plenty of female Republicans with similarly inexecrable views.
I have talked to my neighbor about this before; she is really into the anti-choice movement and her argument is essentially as follows:
"Women have an innate, natural protective sense towards their own children. It is not possible that a woman would legitimately want to end her pregnancy, so if a woman does try to end her pregnancy on her own, it is because she has been brainwashed by a culture in which abortion is commonplace and seen as a solution. If we outlawed abortion, at first there would be a lot of illegal abortions, but as the culture changed and as abortion became taboo again, we would have fewer and fewer abortions as women would be less brainwashed by a culture that believes in abortion. The reason we can't prosecute women who have abortions is because a woman would have to be in her wrong mind to have an abortion, and that's not her fault. I would prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion instead."
Yes, I realize how painful that is to read. It's even more painful to listen to.
So, would you agree that an abortion, even at the earliest stages of development, is technically the killing of a human being?
Was that why he was banned? Because I'm pretty sure no one can be more offended than I am whenever people bring up tumors to compare to human fetuses.
Huh, thank you for this. I've always wondered why some people who seem to be as passionately against abortion as I am argue for the moment of implantation, and not conception. I don't think I agree, but I'll give it some thought.
Really glad someone finally said it.
The use of "pro life" is so terribly clever and insidious. No one is "pro death." I wish the term "anti choice" (which is actually, patently true!) would become more popular.
Oppo
Member
Yeah. it is painful, and it rings... well, not true, but yeah that sounds like something they'd say.
Total lack of empathy, masquerading as just that very quality.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Yeah, they respect life so much that our military had 66k+ (officially) confirmed civilian kills in a conflict started during their last administration for the express purpose of crony capitalism.
Science is what is used to make the comparison when someone says its a human cell that equals a life. A tumor is identical due to that scientific definition. Its like being offended that people don't think the moon is made out of cheese. Tumors can have eyes, hair, and shared DNA. You make up your own definition of what life is, based on non-science. Then claim to be offended when its scientifically accurate to your claim.
Rape isn't a medical procedure, and many members of gaf have been raped. Its severely insensitive.
Were you aborted once?
A citizens life, is a citizens life. And unless you're going to take the burden of the unwanted child off the hands of the mother or rape victim, You're prying into issues that have no bearing on your life. And you are willing to create hardships for others.
The choice is for the mother of the organism growing inside of her. You may or may not condone it, but its her choice. Just as you can't choose what religion people believe in. Specifically referring to a womans body, no person outside of that woman can make decisions about her health, or quality of life. A doctor is the closest to be qualified, and they can only recommend.
Edit:
Amazing find Dev...
but Conservatives will ignore it, as it has nothing to do with them controlling women through their religious beliefs. Thats the important part, the aftermath doesn't matter.
Yes, there are good arguments to make against considering individual life at the point of implantation. No disagreement there.
However, there are good arguments against pretty much every cut-off point that you can set for the beginning of life. Come up with your own, different definition of when life starts, and I guarantee I can find serious faults with it. I don't see the "non-interference" argument as being significantly worse than any of the rest.
As I said earlier, I do not believe there is any perfect answer on this question, therefore I can't be so haughtily dismissive of others' positions.
Another element is the condescending paternalism that insists that women do not know what they actually want and are incapable of knowing what is in their best interest. The only way they could want an abortion is if they were brainwashed into it.
This is consistent with paternalism that insists that women need a medically inaccurate lecture from their doctor, that women need their husbands' permission to have an abortion, that allows physicians to decide if a woman deserves birth control, or that allows an employer to decide whether you deserve coverage for birth control; all of which are other things that the anti-choice movement has advocated.
There was a great topic about it, too.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I posted the whole thing because it really needs to be read.
I don't know. I'm willing to accept it for the sake of argument, I guess. I think my real position is that it's an irreconcilable and indeed unanswerable philosophical debate, which is why I prefer an argument that doesn't really address that question directly. I would definitely prefer fewer abortions to more, obviously, but I think the two best ways to accomplish that are expanded social safety net and investment in reproductive health research. Germany provides excellent evidence that you can lower abortion rates simply by promising support to new mothers. Meanwhile I think it's unbelievable that the most popular method of birth control hasn't received a meaningful technological update in two thousand years.
you make a good point about the logical conclusions of the pro life belief. There are many who do take such a position, and it seems the most logically consistent for that belief.
also, that's the most hilarious spelling of choir I've ever read.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
When did all this rape talk get so big?Was it because of Obama's health plan?
Devolution
Member
If people truly wanted and desire for fewer abortions they'd demand universal and free birth control for all but the people the most concerned with abortions happening instead don't like that idea and think any sort of coverage is an attack on their religion.
Yes because of birth control/abortive coverage. Women's health has been a political football instead of people butting the fuck out and giving comprehensive coverage for reproductive health. Basically my generation and younger needs to wake up.
My condoms have racing stripes on them. AND a spoiler.
Devolution
Member
Duffyside uses condoms? That's not very natural. You're impeding life bro.
A living breathing/feeling/experiencing woman is always more important than some organism she is carrying in her body. If a woman is raped, that 'thing' (as in blob of cells in her body) could eventually become a constant source of mental anguish for the rest of her life, if let come to term. If it would help her heal and she wants it, then fine, but they should always have that choice.
For the argument concerning the life that could have been? Every time contraceptives or even a 'pull out' method is used, that could have been something.. it just turned out to be a mess.
For the argument concerning the life that could have been? Every time contraceptives or even a 'pull out' method is used, that could have been something.. it just turned out to be a mess.
What's scary about the people that want to take no-exceptions stance on abortion want to force women to carry this to term even though it will die moments out of the womb(NSFW).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
They would force a woman to die from this, because remember, no exceptions. It's violent to take out another life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
Women with Cephalopevic disproportion (small pelvis) would also be in extreme danger under a forced pregnancy.
Devolution
Member
This kind of thing has been happening the last several years. Election time just spotlighted the bullshit. The transvaginal ultrasounds and redefining rape bills has been going on a while now.
You know the best thing about the "life begins at conception" argument is it, quite literally, cannot ever, no matter fucking what, be enforced consistently.
We file a missing persons report for a child that runs away. Do we start examining women, verify if they've conceived, and then check weekly to make sure we don't have to do the same?
If a mother is too poor to properly feed her child or give it medical care, society takes that child away in hopes of giving it a better life. If a woman is pregnant and cannot afford to properly take care of herself, at what point do we charge her with neglect?
It's an insane proposition that should make anybody with any grasp on how laws in this country work shake their head in disbelief that there is a political party with millions of members that wants to make "at conception, you are imbued with personhood" a constitutional amendment. How long would we have to wait till the father of a child could charge the mother with child abuse, a few weeks after the event, because she had a few shots of vodka when she didn't know she was pregnant?
We file a missing persons report for a child that runs away. Do we start examining women, verify if they've conceived, and then check weekly to make sure we don't have to do the same?
If a mother is too poor to properly feed her child or give it medical care, society takes that child away in hopes of giving it a better life. If a woman is pregnant and cannot afford to properly take care of herself, at what point do we charge her with neglect?
It's an insane proposition that should make anybody with any grasp on how laws in this country work shake their head in disbelief that there is a political party with millions of members that wants to make "at conception, you are imbued with personhood" a constitutional amendment. How long would we have to wait till the father of a child could charge the mother with child abuse, a few weeks after the event, because she had a few shots of vodka when she didn't know she was pregnant?
I find it so difficult to believe that anyone with even a tiny bit of empathy could hold this position. The idea that women should be forced to carry pregnancies resulting from rape to term is repulsive to me.
What if the pregnancy or birth results in permanent health problems? What if, as others have mentioned, the woman is bankrupted by medical costs? What if she has some incredible opportunity, say, to compete in the Olympics or go into space, that she is forced to give up because of the pregnancy? Can't people imagine how utterly devastating it would be to have the sense of helplessness and lack of control caused by a rape compounded by a lack of control over the trajectory of your entire life?
As someone with experience with trauma and depression, I would not wish the resulting feelings on my worst enemy. I do not understand why terminating something that has no feelings in order to spare someone that kind of pain is wrong. I do not understand how anyone could imagine a loved one having to endure something like that and still hold that position. I try to be an open-minded person, but I find it completely beyond comprehension.
What if the pregnancy or birth results in permanent health problems? What if, as others have mentioned, the woman is bankrupted by medical costs? What if she has some incredible opportunity, say, to compete in the Olympics or go into space, that she is forced to give up because of the pregnancy? Can't people imagine how utterly devastating it would be to have the sense of helplessness and lack of control caused by a rape compounded by a lack of control over the trajectory of your entire life?
As someone with experience with trauma and depression, I would not wish the resulting feelings on my worst enemy. I do not understand why terminating something that has no feelings in order to spare someone that kind of pain is wrong. I do not understand how anyone could imagine a loved one having to endure something like that and still hold that position. I try to be an open-minded person, but I find it completely beyond comprehension.
Sorry, but as bad as that is, there's another kind of rape I'm far more concerned about:
I don't think they're gonna go for it dude.
Angelus Errare
Banned
And this thread is proof that science and sex education need to be kept in schools.
The amount of people in here woefully ignorant of how the human body (Female in particular) is just sad. Especially considering this is GAF where I think some of the brighter denizens of the internet dwell.
The amount of people in here woefully ignorant of how the human body (Female in particular) is just sad. Especially considering this is GAF where I think some of the brighter denizens of the internet dwell.
crackhead_bob
Member
I'm sure privately they do, but you'll never hear that coming out of any republican candidate running for office.
This is one thing that the gop is still disciplined with: never to charge the woman with seeking out and obtaining an abortion. It's only the doctors that they'll boldly pledge to prosecute.
It's why we on the prochoice side need to be equally vigilant in protecting abortion doctors as we are in protecting women seeking them. Women alone aren't the only ones who are in the crosshairs of the prolife movement. Abortion providers are arguably more explicitly targeted than the women whom the prolife movement seeks to subjegate.
It's why conservatives are freaked out over all this rape blowback you've been reading about over the past few months.
And sadly, the only reason why the media has taken notice is because prochoicers have actually bothered to describe these ultrasounds in vivid detail.
Conservatives are crying foul now that these ultrasound procedures are being appropriately titled transvaginal ultrasounds, because that is what they are. That is the appropriate terminology for these procedures. But they've been more than content to keep the true meaning of these ultrasounds as vague as possible, and to sell them to the public as nothing more than a benign inconvenience. I used to think that these ultrasounds were akin to undergoing an MRI body scan. But after reading what they truly entailed, I could see why women were completely freaked out over them.
This is what happened to me and my wife's first attempt. We viewed the termination as pulling the plug on life support more than anything. It was emotionally devestating, and my wife cried hysterically every night between the diagnosis and the procedure.
I can't imagine how bad it would have been if she'd had to carry it all the way to term with the knowledge that she wouldn't last more than a few hours after birth.
Way ahead of you.
- Status