Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Then induce labor.
- Status
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
You obviously have little to no understanding re pregnancy and development of the baby.Do you think right out of the gate the baby is capable of living outside it’s mothers’s womb? I guess you can feel grateful that your mother didn’t disregard your worth in the way you suggest.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
No I recognize that it will most likely not live, same with the violinist, but doing so doesn’t mean you killed it…
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Gosh, the government is too big and should abstain from getting in the middle of this. This means that the “state”/government should not be making policy for every case. Statistically, abortions from rape are few. Rape is the original sin manifested. THe sin snowballs when life is created from the rape. The Church is sympathetic and wants to lead those who suffer from being hurt this way to healing and forgivness. This path is often long, hard, and the path least taken. It is merciful for the woman to forgive the life in her womb and to stop the acts of sin. Abortion just fortifies the spiritual debacle that it is justifiable to hurt others because you have been hurt. Jesus Christ on the cross teaches us to stop the culture of “hurt people hurt others”. I agree that the “state” should not be making these blanket rules for all … But the healing needs to start with immediate family, friends, church (family in Christ), and as a last resort the state.
However, the state funds abortion clinics with blind eyes and this is wrong! Liberals say its safer than the old illegal clinics — but they are blind to the current safety, ethical, and operating conditions they contribute to.
However, the state funds abortion clinics with blind eyes and this is wrong! Liberals say its safer than the old illegal clinics — but they are blind to the current safety, ethical, and operating conditions they contribute to.
O
Ophelia23
Guest
People are not just dispensable. You speak of the fetus as if it were a parasite. A parasite, by definition, is an organism that lives in or on an organism of a different species for nutrition. At every stage of development, we are talking about a human child. Not a parasite, not something other-than-human. Inducing labor before the child is able to survive on its own is no different than taking an unwanted infant and tossing them over the side of a boat to drown. Why would it be considered ok in any situation? It wouldn’t. It isn’t.
O
Ophelia23
Guest
“I tossed the baby in the water to drown. But I didn’t kill it. The water did!”
If that is really your logic, then I am absolutely done with this discussion. There is no rationalizing or actual discussion with a fool.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
It may not be a parasite but wow is it close then… Also if we follow your logic we are forcing undue burden onto a woman that is heinous.
Also in the case of throwing it in to water to abandon it their are other ways to release your responsibility, adoption for example, but not in pregnancy, not until you deliver the baby…
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I beg to differ.The most fundamental.basic right of human beings is the RIGHT to life. Regardless of the circumstances under which that life was conceived. To remove that right through abortion is most certainly murder. Are you aware that after only four weeks from conception,the embryo is no larger than a poppy seed,yet the heart is beating,neural tube is forming,in just another week that baby is the size of a sesame seed,little arm and leg buds appear.By the end of twelve weeks that baby is fully formed,just needs to mature.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
So the woman should be forced to carry something unduly… that is ridiculous… how can you force this on someone to do so is unethical
po18guy
Well-known member
“Separate”? Who, other than you, claims this?
Science states that it is a unique person with unique DNA.
Are you arguing that science is incorrect?
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
The issue you have is the issue that the woman has to carry to term, a undue burden that despite all the posturing you have yet to address how it is moral and legally rightful to force that on her .
C
choose_to_love
Guest
I’ve noticed a good many abortion arguments require the re-definition of obvious truths, i.e., the fetus is not a parasite, nor is the mother a host, but rather a parent, with a child. Such a re-definition would be jumped upon in any other context. Also, this assumes that the correct term is used at all, i.e., fetus/embryo/blastocyst, as contrasted with “fertilized egg” (hint - - if it is fertilized, it is no longer an egg).
I reckon the violinist argument has been countered by more learned folks more ably than I can, but it seems to me that the woman is not “forced” to carry the pregnancy, but rather is prevented from killing an innocent, which is a pretty typical element of criminal law. Heck, the criminal law would not even allow the victim to apply the death penalty to the rapist if he was not putting her in immediate danger - - I am thinking here not of during the commission of the crime itself (when lethal force would, I expect, be justified), but if the victim were to confront the rapist, say, in the lobby of the court house as he was being led away after conviction.
I reckon the violinist argument has been countered by more learned folks more ably than I can, but it seems to me that the woman is not “forced” to carry the pregnancy, but rather is prevented from killing an innocent, which is a pretty typical element of criminal law. Heck, the criminal law would not even allow the victim to apply the death penalty to the rapist if he was not putting her in immediate danger - - I am thinking here not of during the commission of the crime itself (when lethal force would, I expect, be justified), but if the victim were to confront the rapist, say, in the lobby of the court house as he was being led away after conviction.
M
marymary1975
Guest
in the huge picture of abortion, abortion by rape is the last and smallest of the issue. You can’t tell me abortion should be legal because of rape because 99% of women who abort have not been raped. This is like telling me that classes in school in the US should be thought in Russian because 1% of the population in the US speaks Russian. Makes no sense.It is an issue that needs to be addressed for 1% of legal cases or close to that. Sure if the person proposing it was saying it was all cases it would be a strawman argument. Why is the mother punished for a crime she didn’t commit carrying a child certainty isn’t an undue burden. The laws I guess could be considered inconstant, just need a better lawyer to argue them to constancy. I don’t think it should be able to stop suicides (same for eating ignoring Blumberg) or drug intake until you violate someone else’s rites (in the case of the fetus’s rights remove it from the host). It isn’t hypocrisy for the reasons you list, maybe for other reasons but those haven’t been stated from what I can tell.
Under your statement " why is the mother punished for a crime…carrying a child" carrying a child is a punishment therefore then if it is like that all pregnancies must be considered a crime and ahould be illegal. Carrying a child can’t be a crime for the simple fact that under your statement you have literally extinguished the entire human race, no government can run that risk so that argument makes no sense.
No laws should not be inconstant, laws need constancy otherwise becomes a mess. If you start creating laws picking and choosing according to what you think and what is convenient to you are creating major inequalities. No wonder why the US has so many social problems.
I don’t understand what you mean by it should be able to stop suicide. What I am saying is that the principle under which abortion became legal was under the principle of bodily autonomy which means each person has the right to do whatever they want with their bodies without any governmental interference. I am saying is hypocrital because we are telling you that the government can’t regulate abortion because is your body and we can’t regulate over your body, but how come we can regulate your body other things that are not your reproductive system? Is it that women’ s body is just the uterus and not the rest?
M
marymary1975
Guest
If carrying a child to term is unduly and pregnancy is an under burden then you have to declare all pregnacies illegal. Can you explain to me how are you going to maintain a society of it is illegal to reproduce?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
So,hypothetically,you have a woman who becomes pregnant do to being raped.This alone is a traumatic experience that will require a lot of counseling and time to heal.So now you what to add the trauma of abortion to that mix? I happen to know a woman in my parish who conceived a child through rape.That child is now in her early forties,a lovely woman,who is a mother herself. A child conceived through rape is not some evil spawn to be gotten rid of.The act of rape was evil,the resulting life is innocent .
A
aemcpa
Guest
The short answer is that abortion is active and direct murder, which is never morally permissible under any circumstances. There is no moral requirement to save the life of someone who will die without intervention, but there is a moral prohibition against murder.
P
polki
Guest
Sure it does. Look at the difference between murder and manslaughter. Both involve someone being killed. Same argument between abortion and your theory of inducing labor knowing that the child isn’t going to live.
E
Equites_Christi
Guest
Zimm3r, because the only way to NOT have her carry that child is to kill it, which is not an option.
Is it evil that she must carry the child? Yes! This is the fault of the rapist and we must exact punishment on HIM.
Why can we not kill the child? Because our society does not believe in killing people who have not committed any crime, even if it makes life easier. The child is not evil; the child has done nothing.
It is really very simple. Not to be confused with ‘easy’! May God and His Church help any woman in that situation. But it is simple, and abortion can only be countenanced by avoiding the simple truth.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Here’s a question for you. Do you believe that if a pregnant mother gets murdered it should be prosecuted as a double homicide?
J
JimG
Guest
The question is, should the state impose the death penalty on the child of a rapist?
- Status