Abortion Picture

[Thanatos 2,847]

So you're putting the life of the mother ahead of the possible child in terms of rape and incest but not otherwise? Having a child is life altering in either case. Yes, in one it's emotionally damaging, but what does that have to do with the human child? Anti-abortionists say abortion is murder of an innocent. Being the product of a rape does not make the baby any less innocent. Therefore a position is being taken that it's okay to murder an innocent human being so long as it reduces the emotional damage of a rape victim. How is that not being inconsistent with a belief?

 

It's a nasty choice.

 

On the one hand you are forcing the mother, a rape victim, to continue living with the evidence of someone else's horrific actions. She is no way responsible for what happened to her. So, if you do not allow abortion in the case of rape, you are forcing the victim of a crime to live that crime for another nine months. She does not have a moral obligation to do that.

 

On the other hand, is an innocent life destroyed in this case? Yes. But I cannot in good conscious force the victim of a crime to go through another crime. It is not their responsibility. I would advise them to keep the child, but I will not force them to do so. Simply because the rule has an exception does not make it inconsistent. Such insistence on a black and white view doesn't make sense. It's a thorny issue and there are exceptions, but it's not inconsistent to have an exception.

 

The pro-life argument in the United States is generally inconsistent. I'm not speaking against anyone here, but a lot of "pro-lifers" are also pro-war and pro-death sentence.

 

They are completely and totally different things.

 

Pro-life as we generally use the term is talking about an innocent child who has done nothing. There is no contradiction to also be for the death penalty for a person who has committed a heinous crime.

 

As far as war goes, sometimes it is necessary. Again, not at all the same thing as murdering an innocent child. Completely and totally different scenarios. I never understood why this was brought up as a legitimate argument.

[Shotgun 442]

It's a nasty choice.

 

On the one hand you are forcing the mother, a rape victim, to continue living with the evidence of someone else's horrific actions. She is no way responsible for what happened to her. So, if you do not allow abortion in the case of rape, you are forcing the victim of a crime to live that crime for another nine months. She does not have a moral obligation to do that.

 

On the other hand, is an innocent life destroyed in this case? Yes. But I cannot in good conscious force the victim of a crime to go through another crime. It is not their responsibility. I would advise them to keep the child, but I will not force them to do so. Simply because the rule has an exception does not make it inconsistent. Such insistence on a black and white view doesn't make sense. It's a thorny issue and there are exceptions, but it's not inconsistent to have an exception.

 

It's an inconsistency with how much the anti-abortionist values life. It's either a person with equal rights or it's not. It's either murder or it's not. Making an exception means conceding that it in fact should not have the same rights to life. It also means the pain the victim would live with for 9 months (presumably until it is given up for adoption) is worth more than another humans entire life.

 

I don't believe in this situation "not being so black and white". It's either murder of an innocent human being or it's not. There's no middle ground with this. How the pregnancy came to be should be irrelevant considering the "human" is not responsible for what happened.

[Maverick 791]

Obviously a big factor is when you believe the zygote is conceived when you classify it as a "human being".

 

I'm going to assume the pro-choice members here don't believe it's a baby while inside the womb? Cause again, I don't know how you can see pictures like this and think abortion isn't killing a baby.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's an inconsistency with how much the anti-abortionist values life. It's either a person with equal rights or it's not. It's either murder or it's not. Making an exception means conceding that it in fact should not have the same rights to life. It also means the pain the victim would live with for 9 months (presumably until it is given up for adoption) is worth more than another humans entire life.

 

I don't believe in this situation "not being so black and white". It's either murder of an innocent human being or it's not. There's no middle ground with this. How the pregnancy came to be should be irrelevant considering the "human" is not responsible for what happened.

 

You're not getting it. You're only looking at it from one perspective. There is a massive difference. If the woman was a victim of rape, you have two innocent victims here. If she was not, there is just the child.

 

It's always an innocent life, but you are forcing a person who has done nothing wrong to save another's life at a significant cost to their own.

 

It's like a person pulling you in off the street and saying, "Now, you have a choice here. Either I'm going to shoot you in the leg or I'm going to kill that guy over there." Do you have a moral obligation, assuming those are the only two possible choices, to allow him to shoot you in the leg? Some of us might accept the bullet to save the other's life, but I don't think anyone would argue that you should be forced into doing so.

[Maverick 791]

Agreed. This is probably the nastiest contemporary "political" debate, and one I will not be taking part of. It just gets people riled up and no one's minds are changed.

 

Please, as if topics on TGP actually change your left-wing opinions...

 

Looking at your history here, I'm going to assume your 100% pro-choice and a picture like this just makes you cringe.

[blotsfan 2,112]

It's like a person pulling you in off the street and saying, "Now, you have a choice here. Either I'm going to shoot you in the leg or I'm going to kill that guy over there." Do you have a moral obligation, assuming those are the only two possible choices, to allow him to shoot you in the leg? Some of us might accept the bullet to save the other's life, but I don't think anyone would argue that you should be forced into doing so.

But you're saying if theres a sign that says "Danger" and you walk past it and that scenario happens, you have to take the bullet because you knew there could be consequences. Getting an abortion doesn't make it so you weren't raped. It just takes away the unpleasantness of having to raise a child that you absolutely don't want to have or raise.

 

 

Please, as if topics on TGP actually change your left-wing opinions...

 

Looking at your history here, I'm going to assume your 100% pro-choice and a picture like this just makes you cringe.

I would say that Phail is right. This is a pretty controversial topic that makes people upset and opinions don't change.

 

On the other hand, I've never let that stop me.

 

Just because something doesn't look good doesn't mean you can't still be ok with it. I'd imagine you'd be grossed out by a slaughterhouse but that doesn't stop you from eating meat (no, people aren't the same as animals).

 

As for the "we might have killed the child who would discover the cure for cancer" line, I'll admit that it is an unfortunate possibility, but the odds are much greater that we killed a future convict.

 

Lastly, to touch on "when does it become a person?" When its born. The start of your life is considered the day you were born by everyone. You celebrate your "birthday" not your "conceptionday" (ew). The moment you're born is when you cease to be a part of one person and when you are your own individual.

[Maverick 791]

I would say that Phail is right. This is a pretty controversial topic that makes people upset and opinions don't change.

 

On the other hand, I've never let that stop me.

 

Just because something doesn't look good doesn't mean you can't still be ok with it. I'd imagine you'd be grossed out by a slaughterhouse but that doesn't stop you from eating meat (no, people aren't the same as animals).

 

As for the "we might have killed the child who would discover the cure for cancer" line, I'll admit that it is an unfortunate possibility, but the odds are much greater that we killed a future convict.

 

Lastly, to touch on "when does it become a person?" When its born. The start of your life is considered the day you were born by everyone. You celebrate your "birthday" not your "conceptionday" (ew). The moment you're born is when you cease to be a part of one person and when you are your own individual.

 

Ever think it makes pro-choice people sick to see images like this because it shows a baby that just got aborted? No one here would ever admit it but I'd feel pretty sick to my stomach if I was for humans to do this and I saw images like that.

 

I know you've acknowledged that people and animals aren't the same, but that was still a horrible analogy to make.

 

We have different opinions on when a baby is deemed a "life", so there's no point in debating anymore. It's much easier to be pro-choice if you think your baby isn't born until he/she leaves the womb. Hell, I'm actually thankful you don't think the baby is alive yet before it leaves the womb. I'd be much more upset if you knew it was alive and were still willingly giving humans the choice to murder.

[Thanatos 2,847]

But you're saying if theres a sign that says "Danger" and you walk past it and that scenario happens, you have to take the bullet because you knew there could be consequences. Getting an abortion doesn't make it so you weren't raped. It just takes away the unpleasantness of having to raise a child that you absolutely don't want to have or raise.

 

No? I'm saying that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because since the woman had no responsibility at all in the pregnancy, she should not be forced to be held responsible for another's life. It's not morally her responsibility. It is if she helped to create the pregnancy. I'm not concerned with forcing her to raise the child, as you keep ignoring the adoption part of things. That isn't what worries me. What does worry me is that I know of numerous studies and the like that show that a woman who was raped goes through a ton of emotional trauma. You're essentially forcing her to live with the crime for another nine months before she can even begin the healing process. She did nothing to make her responsible for the life that is growing inside of her.

 

And it would be a lot more than a sign saying Danger. I don't think the analogy works really well there, I was trying to think of what it would be, but I think you just end up stretching it too far.

 

Just because something doesn't look good doesn't mean you can't still be ok with it. I'd imagine you'd be grossed out by a slaughterhouse but that doesn't stop you from eating meat (no, people aren't the same as animals).

 

As for the "we might have killed the child who would discover the cure for cancer" line, I'll admit that it is an unfortunate possibility, but the odds are much greater that we killed a future convict.

 

Lastly, to touch on "when does it become a person?" When its born. The start of your life is considered the day you were born by everyone. You celebrate your "birthday" not your "conceptionday" (ew). The moment you're born is when you cease to be a part of one person and when you are your own individual.

 

I agree with Mav. That's a pretty horrible analogy.

 

Simply because the odds are good that you are killing a convict does NOT excuse doing so. I can't even believe that has to be argued. You are saying it's okay to kill them because odds are they will grow into a criminal? Again, going back to my hypothetical scenario of the death penalty being used for all crimes- that doesn't justify doing so.

 

Can you please explain to me the difference between that argument and someone using the same logic to say that they can kill an infant child?

 

So, as the child is about to come out of the womb, but before it has actually exited, it's not a person? The day before, it's not a person? The Chinese actually do celebrate "conception day"- the child is considered to be a year old when it is born. The mother is keeping the child safe- that doesn't make the child physically a part of the mother. They are two distinct, separate lives.