Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[Alceste]

You don´t value the human until later on. If you cut the phrase then you robb important part of it´s meaning.

I don´t have any reason to believe you don´t value, say my life or a stranger´s life.

For what I hear though, and correct me if I am wrong, you don´t have much value for human life until birth?

I place a higher value on a living, breathing woman's economic, physical, emotional and psychological health, security and liberty than I do on the potential opportunity for a fertilized egg to develop into a person (with about fifty fifty odds). I value human life, but a woman is far more of a "human life" than a blastocyst, so I naturally value women more highly than embryos.

It's a very simple question when it comes to emergency contraception (obviously all rape victims should have immediate access to it without any barriers), but gets more complicated as the embryo develops more of the qualities we recognize as fundamentally human, like sentience, sensation, etc. So, at the point of viability, where the fetus has sentience and sensation, I accept describing it as a "baby" and limiting access to abortion to only life-saving procedures.

 

[Storm]

did the question confuse you? I asked about the value you give to the unborn and you talk to me about the value you give to those born.

You seem to reinforce my assumption that you do not value human life until it is born.

No, the question didn't confuse me, though the answer seems to have confused you.

The puppet thinks
It's not so much what they make me do
As their hands inside me
~ Charles de Lint

 

[Me Myself]

I place a higher value on a living, breathing woman's economic, physical, emotional and psychological health, security and liberty than I do on the potential opportunity for a fertilized egg to develop into a person (with about fifty fifty odds). I value human life, but a woman is far more of a "human life" than a blastocyst, so I naturally value women more highly than embryos.

It's a very simple question when it comes to emergency contraception (obviously all rape victims should have immediate access to it without any barriers), but gets more complicated as the embryo develops more of the qualities we recognize as fundamentally human, like sentience, sensation, etc. So, at the point of viability, where the fetus has sentience and sensation, I accept describing it as a "baby" and limiting access to abortion to only life-saving procedures.

Why? the baby is not as smart as an adult dog until some time after birth. Actually, a dog has more of all the qualities we call human. A dog is more able than a newborn baby (not to say non born baby) to walk on 2 legs, have emotions, desires, creativity, etc.

so why isn´t the dog considered more of a "person" than the baby?

 

[Me Myself]

No, the question didn't confuse me, though the answer seems to have confused you.

The puppet thinks
It's not so much what they make me do
As their hands inside me
~ Charles de Lint

Maybe, I didn´t got your quote either

 

[Storm]

Maybe, I didn´t got your quote either

Of course not, this one was three whole lines of text.

 

[Alceste]

Why? the baby is not as smart as an adult dog until some time after birth. Actually, a dog has more of all the qualities we call human. A dog is more able than a newborn baby (not to say non born baby) to walk on 2 legs, have emotions, desires, creativity, etc.

so why isn´t the dog considered more of a "person" than the baby?

I don't think it's right to kill dogs or babies, or indeed any other animal with the capacity for sentience and sensation unless you're going to eat it.

A blastocyst is not a human being or a dog. Observe.

Blastocyst:

Dog:

Human being:

 

[Alceste]

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly:

"I mean where does Mourdock get his crazy fringe ideas about rape and abortion anyway? Ah, I don’t know. Maybe from Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, who cosponsored a Sanctity of Human Life Act so severe that it not only could outlaw all abortions, but it could also effectively ban in vitro fertilization. Or from the platform of the Republican Party, which states that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life, and calls for a human life amendment to the constitution. Nothing in there about exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, or feelings of swing voters.

"In other words, according to the Republican Party platform, and the man who wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, if a woman wants to have a baby, in vitro fertilization, she can't. Rape? She she has to. No wonder they buried it on page fourteen instead of splashing it across the cover."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

did the question confuse you? I asked about the value you give to the unborn and you talk to me about the value you give to those born.

You seem to reinforce my assumption that you do not value human life until it is born.

If I value a person more than a fetus or a zygote, this doesn't necessarily mean that I don't value the fetus or zygote at all.

I mean, consider yourself: by your position, I understand that you value a fetus more than a pregnant woman. Does this mean you consider pregnant women to have no value at all? Probably not.

 

[crossfire]

Why? the baby is not as smart as an adult dog until some time after birth. Actually, a dog has more of all the qualities we call human. A dog is more able than a newborn baby (not to say non born baby) to walk on 2 legs, have emotions, desires, creativity, etc.

so why isn´t the dog considered more of a "person" than the baby?

Women are not dogs. {In spite of the fact that we frequently get called "b1tches."}

I tried to be more subtle about it last time you compared women to dogs, hoping you would catch it.

 

[Mister Emu]

The fact that you have to work that hard to think of what to say doesn't give you pause?

It is a sensitive issue and contrary to what seems to be popular thought, I do care about my words, how they may or may not be construed and any effect they may have; as well, I am empathetic of the situation faced by women who have been victimized and face the prospect of bearing a child of the offender.

Secondarily, any time I have the ability to plan what I am going to say, I attempt to do so thoroughly regardless of the import of the issue. That I give long thought to my words gives me no pause in any situation.

Storm, I am deeply sorry that you went through the experiences you did. I can only imagine being in the situation of pregnant with the father a sexually abusive stepfather.

Crossfire, I don't believe you intended humor, but I couldn't help but giggle at the hyperbole of bringing up Tleilaxu axlotl tanks. Thank you for the smile.

A rape victim who chooses takes emergency contraception doesn't know if there is a fertilized egg in the picture or not.

A blind person shooting a gun could not claim moral latitude because they didn't know if there was someone standing there. This line is irrelevant.

It seems what you object to is not the fact that fertilized eggs are being "murdered" all the time, whether by chance or by your God, but the fact that a woman can choose whether or not to miscarry.

Hey, you got it. Addendum, as long as that miscarriage necessitates death. When we have the technology to preserve the pregnancy outside of the uterus, by all means, don't have the child.

We aren't talking about people.

Of course, we never are.

Interesting question, but I realized that you're setting up an apples-to-oranges comparison: your hypothetical deals with how we should respond after a violation of bodily security has been committed

Which is exactly what the pregnancy is, in terms of Rape, it is the result of an past violation of bodily security. The question, when discussing in these terms, is what moral and legal rights do and should we have to restore our body to its previous condition, and more specifically do those rights extend to killing.

ongoing violation of her bodily security.

Just as the kidney in question being in the body of another when it is recoverable is a continuing violation of bodily security... maybe I'm just biased towards my analogy

If they don't do this, they're disregarding the rights of the mother.

It is not disregarding their rights, it is recognition of the hierarchy of rights. That ol' "your right to swing your arms about ends at my face".

It's telling when someone very easily says "so what?" when it comes to what a woman wants for her own body.

Because if a woman - or a girl - has no right to decide what she should do with her own body, it creates a perspective that her lack of rights of what she can and can't do with her own body extends to other areas.

It isn't a dismissive "so what". But in a situation of morality there is a point where you have to say that wants must submit to what is right.

Further you don't have an inviolable right to do with your body what you want anyways, at least as the government currently sees it. Telling someone that they can't do drugs is no less a violation of the "right to the body" as anti-abortion laws.

This is why it should not be over turned. Because by the time rape was proven the window for termination will be over.

Maybe sneaky Republicans are sneaky.

I was sleeping... I expect your post was ignored because opponents of reproductive choice can't really handle thinking of the women their regressive agenda will impact as real, living, breathing human beings. They know you, and they know me, and if either of us try to incorporate our own personal experiences into the conversation, they'll be swept under the rug in favour of returning to non-personal abstractions that demonize caricatures of women who choose to induce a miscarriage.

It couldn't be that anyone else was sleeping and/or working. No, they were just ignoring.

Perhaps I can ask you to refrain from doing exactly what you are complaining about and we can forestall any more "demonic caricatures" of those being Pro-life as being unempathetic ******** who don't care about women and only think of them as incubators.

You know, at least Mister Emu had the social skills to realize he couldn't make this argument without sounding like a sociopath.

I think you're being unfair to me Storm, that I would make that argument at all; that you should deserve punishment for being beaten to miscarriage by your rapist.

Also, unfair to my skill in rhetoric and sophistry. I can make anything sound reasonable

 

[crossfire]

It is a sensitive issue and contrary to what seems to be popular thought, I do care about my words, how they may or may not be construed and any effect they may have;
<...>
Crossfire, I don't believe you intended humor, but I couldn't help but giggle at the hyperbole of bringing up Tleilaxu axlotl tanks. Thank you for the smile.

Hyperbole? You invoke it here in the same post:

Hey, you got it. Addendum, as long as that miscarriage necessitates death. When we have the technology to preserve the pregnancy outside of the uterus, by all means, don't have the child.

So until we develop axlotl tanks, you have to be an axlotl tank...yeah...hyperbole...

It isn't a dismissive "so what". But in a situation of morality there is a point where you have to say that wants must submit to what is right.

You yourself said:

It is not disregarding their rights, it is recognition of the hierarchy of rights. That ol' "your right to swing your arms about ends at my face".

Why do you get the right to have your body be the boundary against force and pregnant women do not?

Further you don't have an inviolable right to do with your body what you want anyways, at least as the government currently sees it. Telling someone that they can't do drugs is no less a violation of the "right to the body" as anti-abortion laws.

And how effective is that? Not very. Governmental force regarding how you manage your own body is not very effective in regards to how people actually manage their bodies, but it is effective in growing governmental power over individuals.

Perhaps I can ask you to refrain from doing exactly what you are complaining about and we can forestall any more "demonic caricatures" of those being Pro-life as being unempathetic ******** who don't care about women and only think of them as incubators.

Can you present any evidence to the contrary?

Also, unfair to my skill in rhetoric and sophistry. I can make anything sound reasonable

LOL! You'll have to try harder!

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps I can ask you to refrain from doing exactly what you are complaining about and we can forestall any more "demonic caricatures" of those being Pro-life as being unempathetic ******** who don't care about women and only think of them as incubators.

Can you present any evidence to the contrary?

I would consider ample evidence to the contrary as attempting to use reason and persuasion in a manner that acknowledges the personhood of the pregnant woman and their ability to come to rational conclusions regarding their pregnancy, rather than the use of force and removal of any choice or sovereignty over their bodies.

 

[Alceste]

Mister emu, you seen to feel you can avoid all serious thought on the subject by simply calling a miscarriage a "death" and claiming that miscarrying a pregnancy on purpose is "wrong". Morality is a social contract. What's "right" is what most people in any given society would agree is moral. Obviously your opinion on whether or not abortion is wrong differs from the majority. Especially since you seem to believe girls like Storm at 13 should be required to risk their lives, destroy their mental health and permanently damage their bodies in an effort bring the children of incestuous pedophile rapists into the world.

On that subject, you are very much in the minority. In fact, the vast majority of people would agree that in a case like Storm described, where not only was the pregnancy caused by rape and incest, but she was also so young it posed a risk to her life, denying access to abortion would be wrong. To me, it actually seems evil.

So seeing as we will never agree, I have a suggestion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion. That way we can both be content to live by our differing values, and as long as you aren't actively trying to prevent women from access to emergency contraception, I won't think of you as an evil man.

 

[fantome profane]

Just as the kidney in question being in the body of another when it is recoverable is a continuing violation of bodily security... maybe I'm just biased towards my analogy

The problem with your analogy is that it is insufficient, it does not go far enough to reflect the condition of pregnancy. Consider the famous Violinist analogy.

The idea is this. There is a famous and talented violinist who suffers from a very serious medical condition. Certain fanatical members of his fan club have scoured medical records and determined that his only chance of survival involves you.

So one night you get knocked on the head and when you wake up you find that your body has been attached to the violinist throught various tubes. The violinist is alive, but he is now dependent on your heart to pump his blood, your kidneys to filter toxins out of his blood. He is using your liver, your lungs etc. He is dependent on you for oxygen and nutrition. But don't worry, you will only have to remain this way for nine months and then the violinist will be completely cured, and there is only a chance that it could kill you in the process.

The violinist did not ask for this, he was unconscious when this was done. He is innocent. And he will certainly die instantly if you detach yourself from him. He is unquestionably a person, and an innocent person. So should you be forced by the government to stay plugged up to this individual for nine months? Or should you have the right to decide for yourself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is exactly what the pregnancy is, in terms of Rape, it is the result of an past violation of bodily security. The question, when discussing in these terms, is what moral and legal rights do and should we have to restore our body to its previous condition, and more specifically do those rights extend to killing.

Ah - I think we were talking past each other. I agree that rape is a violation of bodily security, but the violation I was referring to is the pregnancy itself.

In an unwanted pregnancy, if the fetus is distinct from the woman, then it is a violation of her bodily security. If it's not distinct from the woman, then it has no rights of its own.

Just as the kidney in question being in the body of another when it is recoverable is a continuing violation of bodily security... maybe I'm just biased towards my analogy

I still think we're talking about fundamentally different things. At the risk of muddying things even more with another analogy, it's like comparing the use of deadly force to end an ongoing home invasion to the use of deadly force when you decide to go to the thief's house to get your stuff back.

It is not disregarding their rights, it is recognition of the hierarchy of rights. That ol' "your right to swing your arms about ends at my face".

Exactly: whatever rights the fetus has - if it has any at all - they end the moment the fetus represents an infringement on the rights of the mother.

Just as I at 35 don't have the right to compel my mother to donate bone marrow, blood, or even a hair on her head to save my life, the rights of the fetus don't compel the woman in that case to provide her body.

Even if we decide to grant the fetus the rights of personhood, we do not consider the right to violate the bodily security of another as one of the rights of personhood.

Edit: based on the principle you just gave, if we grant normal human rights to both the woman and the fetus, the woman wins. That's why I say you're disregarding the rights of the woman.

 

[Indira]

A President can not over turn Row vs Wade. The rape query is pretty much a non issue as the after pill is routinely offered at the hospital when reported so no implantation takes place..unless of course it`s not reported or forcible incest of the under aged. Theoretically, the perps of rape, underage incest and the so called Drs who violate their oath of `First do no Harm` by preforming this killing, could be dealt with just as all criminals are in the event the SC were to reverse Roe vs Wade. The women and children and even the fathers involved in this are pawns and victims in this degradation of the value of human life for political manipulations, imo of course. For those who choose take to the life of their own children, societies punishment is not necessary as karma is the process in that regard.

 

[averageJOE]

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly:

"I mean where does Mourdock get his crazy fringe ideas about rape and abortion anyway? Ah, I don’t know. Maybe from Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, who cosponsored a Sanctity of Human Life Act so severe that it not only could outlaw all abortions, but it could also effectively ban in vitro fertilization. Or from the platform of the Republican Party, which states that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life, and calls for a human life amendment to the constitution. Nothing in there about exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, or feelings of swing voters.

"In other words, according to the Republican Party platform, and the man who wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, if a woman wants to have a baby, in vitro fertilization, she can't. Rape? She she has to. No wonder they buried it on page fourteen instead of splashing it across the cover."

Crazy, crazy, crazy. I would like to ask Romney and Ryan; "How is forcing women to have babies against their will good for the economey?"

 

[averageJOE]

A President can not over turn Row vs Wade. The rape query is pretty much a non issue as the after pill is routinely offered at the hospital when reported so no implantation takes place..unless of course it`s not reported or forcible incest of the under aged. Theoretically, the perps of rape, underage incest and the so called Drs who violate their oath of `First do no Harm` by preforming this killing, could be dealt with just as all criminals are in the event the SC were to reverse Roe vs Wade. The women and children and even the fathers involved in this are pawns and victims in this degradation of the value of human life for political manipulations, imo of course. For those who choose take to the life of their own children, societies punishment is not necessary as karma is the process in that regard.

So you think rape victims should be forced to give birth?

 

[Indira]

So you think rape victims should be forced to give birth?

No, not sure how you got that from my post..Ummm..`Force`of choice of any human condition is not beneficial. Especially so for social manipulations for political control and/or financial greed.

 

[Alceste]

Crazy, crazy, crazy. I would like to ask Romney and Ryan; "How is forcing women to have babies against their will good for the economey?"

The right tends to panic about things like immigration and the declining birth rate of white people around the world. Many women, given the choice, prefer not to have children, or to have only one or two, so reproductive choice is a serious threat if you're paranoid about the world getting less white.

For the economy to grow, the population has to grow. That means either immigration or women having lots of babies. Pick one.