Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There's nothing ethical about your point of view on this issue. Not if your point of view is about when you'd allow others to get an abortion.
It forces women into unwanted pregnancies.
This is the hypocrisy of so many on this issue -- the insistance on the "right to life" but once the little critter is born, the absolute disregard for what the friggin heck happens to it. Gotta love the religious right -- not!
Do you suppose that all abandoned children are adopted? I wasn't -- I stayed a permanent ward of the Children's Aid Society until I was a teenager, and was then dumped onto the streets of Toronto with NOTHING at the ripe old age of 17.I don't understand. Once the child is born, if the mother doesn't want to take custody to raise the child (not forced to raise it) she can give it away to someone who will take care of it.
What happens to it depends on a number of factors. If the child is given to adoption parents, I hope in most cases the biological parent is involved. If giving up to the hospital, I'm sure there are protocols involved with that not just throwing the child away. It depends on her support network, mental health, and education. To many women it's most likely not giving it up and not caring what happens to their child. It's being honest and saying I can't take care of the child (as a rape victim) and I will give it to someone who can.
Depending, maybe that mother keeps in touch with the adopted parents. It's not a one-way situation.
As a society, we acknowledge that aggrieved or traumatized people are in a sound enough state of mind to make far-reaching decisions in many other areas of their lives without the government telling them what to do or how to live. To single out pregnancy in this way is a rather strange line of argumentation, don't you think?Legally, I can see that. Morally, though, it really depends on the mother. If a person was raped, I'm sure she wouldn't be in her right state of mind to decide if she wanted to have the child. Some women are grieved when they realize later they should have had their child. While others are relieved one reason or another. Neither of these mothers were forced. Legally, though, yeah. I can see why people would think the law forces rape women to have children. I get their point but not sure how they would enforce it to where that doesn't become a problem in itself.
As a society, we acknowledge that aggrieved or traumatized people are in a sound enough state of mind to make far-reaching decisions in many other areas of their lives without the government telling them what to do or how to live. To single out pregnancy in this way is a rather strange line of argumentation, don't you think?
It's the nine taxing months that take a massive toll on her mind and body, and in the case of a rape pregnancy it was forced on her against her will. If she doesn't want to carry that pregnancy it is heinous to force women like they're cattle rather than humans.I don't understand. Once the child is born, if the mother doesn't want to take custody to raise the child (not forced to raise it) she can give it away to someone who will take care of it.
Do you suppose that all abandoned children are adopted? I wasn't -- I stayed a permanent ward of the Children's Aid Society until I was a teenager, and was then dumped onto the streets of Toronto with NOTHING at the ripe old age of 17.
And as an adult, I have spoken at conferences with many kids just like me, trying to help them to navigate their way forward in a world where nobody really loved them -- except social workers who earned a living caring for them.
If you make any sort of contract, purchase etc. you have to be assumed to be of a reasonably sound state of mind in order for that transaction to be valid legally - and on a moral level, too, I would presume.How would someone who has been raped bein a sound state of mind to make any decisions objectively and rationally in spite of her traumatic experiences? I do feel it's not that simple but a lot of emotions involved before making that type of decision.
Could you rephrase the question?
It's the nine taxing months that take a massive toll on her mind and body, and in the case of a rape pregnancy it was forced on her against her will. If she doesn't want to carry that pregnancy it is heinous to force women like they're cattle rather than humans.
The same can be asked of many medical procedures. Medically transitioning, for example, is a medical treatment with a long line of detractors (very often, typically, and frequently the same ones in favor of excessively and dangerously restrictive abortion bans) who swear it's not made on sound logic but misguided emotional desires. Hysterectomy is another one.I think there's a lot of mental health issues involved not just carrying the baby. But how would one know if rape victims are making abortion decisions based on emotions (which could mean she may change her mind later when her trauma starts to subside) or sound reasoning?
If we acknowledge your claim that victims of trauma are not of this reasonably sound state of mind, then that would invalidate any decision they make, not just their pregnancy; it would further require some sort of trustee relationship to cover the decisions they would have to make as part of their everyday lives, from everyday purchases to big lifechanging decisions both personal and business related.
To single out pregnancy but leave every other major life decision untouched by this argument gives it a strange and bizarre quality, as if any decision aside from carrying a child to term was of no concern to a woman's life and personhood, and of no moral or legal importance; it singles out women as morally and legally separate from men, and indeed society at large; at its worst, it has the potential to reduce a woman from a person with a full gamut of life decisions ahead of her to a baby delivery service.
It suddenly occurs to me that if we accept the claim that a fetus or embryo is a person, abortion could be justified under Texas's "stand your ground" law at any stage of pregnancy.
Texas's "stand your ground" laws allow the use of deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of a third person in the case of sexual assault.I'd love to hear this.
Texas's "stand your ground" laws allow the use of deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of a third person in the case of sexual assault.
Texas's laws around sexual assault give several scenarios that constitute sexual assault that involve contact between a person and the "sexual organ" of the victim without the victim's consent. I would argue that the "sexual organ" of a person with a uterus includes the uterus.
Well, it's Texas.Interesting logic
The Governor Of Texas Has Signed A Law That Bans Abortion As Early As 6 Weeks
"Most people don't even know if they are pregnant at six weeks... WTF." (My wife)
"The Texas law effectively prohibits any abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant.
The bill, which takes effect in September, makes no exception for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest but does include a rare provision that allows individual citizens to sue anyone they believe may have been involved in helping a pregnant individual violate the ban. The provision cannot be used against pregnant people, but reproductive rights advocates warn it can be used to target abortion providers and abortion-rights activists."
I bet if you ask them about undocumented immigration at our borders, they'll say it's the highest in history. Until you show them a chart. They don't see many charts.
Bingo!This is the hypocrisy of so many on this issue -- the insistance on the "right to life" but once the little critter is born, the absolute disregard for what the friggin heck happens to it. Gotta love the religious right -- not!