I’m not saying that Rebecca Kiessling should have been aborted.Tell Rebecca Kiessling she should have been aborted.
Did you get a chance to read the Human Life Review article cited in my posting #66?I understand what Aux is saying: First of all she’s talking about a woman who has been raped and going from there, while you are trying to force her to include rape in the criteria for returning to status quo ante …
Aux is not talking about “undoing” a rape. Aux is talking about retaining control over one’s body and protecting one’s self from the further harm brought on by a forced pregnancy on top of, and resulting from, a rape.
Just like I said before, your example of the kidney is the most unrealistic and far from any logic scenario in the world and you can’t compare a real situation with something totally unrealistic. Second the government should have a say in the matter for the simple reason that people make stupid decisions, do things that heavily affect the life of others, and human being behave in a destructive way. That is why we need laws and governments because if we were to live in the society where government has no say then society would be a disaster. There is a reason why anarchy wasn’t successful and that is the reason because you DO need to control people’s life otherwise society won’t function.I’m not saying that Rebecca Kiessling should have been aborted.
All I’m saying is that the gov’t should have no say in the matter… Otherwise, it can force Rebecca Kiessling to donate me her kidneys if I need them. I’m a state employee, so my good health is in the state’s vital interest…
Your argument either proves too much or too little. Too much? Try this:The issue of adoption really does not fix the problem, which is, “Is it lawful to force a woman to provide life saving care to another?”
I love your example, especially since almost every so called pro-choice I know is also pro forcing women to breasted which is the most contradictory thing in the world. According them omen have a choice over their uterus but not over their breast. Again behind every pro abortion argument is the believe that the baby is not a human being.Your argument either proves too much or too little. Too much? Try this:
A mother has a tiny infant which she breastfeeds. She is shipwrecked on a remote island (baby and several others survive too). There is plenty of food and water, but obviously no formula and no other nursing mothers. The baby is far too young to survive on solid food. She decides she REALLY wants to quit nursing. By your logic, she has every right to do so, no?
Is this an imposition on the woman’s freedom? Yes. Is it state tyranny to charge her with neglect and manslaughter after the baby dies and rescuers come? Nope. It is the nature of womanhood to care for her children when she has the ability. It simply is not tyranny for the state to require people to behave justly in accord with their nature.
I bet you don’t think that woman should have the right to allow the infant to starve to death, do you? Underneath every rationalization for abortion lurks a mindset that doesn’t really believe that the baby is a human being.
No it’s not. The rapist did, and he did so illegally. The state (in this example) simply isn’t allowing the woman to commit an additional illegal act. It didn’t command the rapist to foist a child on the woman. Your formulation oversimplifies the situation.HOWEVER, in case of rape there was no such consent, so by denying abortion, the state is forcing the rape victim to provide her body for use by another person, i.e. the child.
(1) IF, it is constitutional that the gov’t can force the woman to carry pregnancy from rape to term,Just like I said before, your example of the kidney is the most unrealistic and far from any logic scenario in the world and you can’t compare a real situation with something totally unrealistic. Second the government should have a say in the matter for the simple reason that people make stupid decisions, do things that heavily affect the life of others, and human being behave in a destructive way. That is why we need laws and governments because if we were to live in the society where government has no say then society would be a disaster. There is a reason why anarchy wasn’t successful and that is the reason because you DO need to control people’s life otherwise society won’t function.
YES!Are you really arguing that I should have the right to kill the guy just so I can go about my business?
Your example is faulty. If it’s her child conceived with her consent, then she has implicitly consented to raising the child. So the state has every right to demand she fulfills this obligation.Your argument either proves too much or too little. Too much? Try this:
A mother has a tiny infant which she breastfeeds. She is shipwrecked on a remote island (baby and several others survive too). There is plenty of food and water, but obviously no formula and no other nursing mothers. The baby is far too young to survive on solid food. She decides she REALLY wants to quit nursing. By your logic, she has every right to do so, no?
No I don’t because the government is not going to comit five felonies two misdemeanors and four actionable torts to reach an end so no, besides being unconstitutional is a ridiculous logic.(1) IF, it is constitutional that the gov’t can force the woman to carry pregnancy from rape to term,
(2) THEN, it is constitutional that the gov’t can force person A to provide his/her body for use by person B (generalization of (1) due to equality under the law)
(3) THUS, it is constitutional for the gov’t to force YOU to provide YOUR kidneys for MY use.
Do you like that prospect?
Your example is faulty. If it’s her child conceived with her consent, then she has implicitly consented to raising the child. So the state has every right to demand she fulfills this obligation.
/QUOTE]
If.that is true then why don’t you answer the question I asked you previously: do you agree that Amanda Berry 's infant daughter should be put to.death?
and by the way your logic here is completely wrong too because what you are saying goes totally against the Supreme Court reasoning for legalizing abortion. Read v. Wade and planned parenthood v. Casey.Your example is faulty. If it’s her child conceived with her consent, then she has implicitly consented to raising the child. So the state has every right to demand she fulfills this obligation.
A better example would be this:
There were two women with infants on the ship, A and B. Only A and B’s child survive the shipwreck. Can A be forced to breastfeed B’s child?
Your logic is more faulty. A has no relationship to B’s baby (though I’d say she has a moral obligation to feed that child). A rape victim IS the mother of the child inside her. Apples and oranges.Your example is faulty. If it’s her child conceived with her consent, then she has implicitly consented to raising the child. So the state has every right to demand she fulfills this obligation.
A better example would be this:
There were two women with infants on the ship, A and B. Only A and B’s child survive the shipwreck. Can A be forced to breastfeed B’s child?
How do you figure? ALL law is about the government imposing compliance to moral norms on the larger society. You agree that it would be grossly immoral for a person to unplug a dependent person, but deny that the government has the authority to codify that morality into law? Makes no sense. If ANY moral issue rises to the level of requiring state reinforcement, it is the right to life.It would be grossly immoral on your part to unplug the othe other guy, true. But the state cannot force you to remain plugged.
Exactly manualman! That is why I keep on asking him if he agrees that Amanda berry’s child should be put to.death, which per his logic the child should be put to death. I am still waiting for him to respond to that one.I’ll compromise with you and we’ll say that my original shipwreck victim mom conceived the child after a rape. She carried the baby to term, got shipwrecked and THEN decided she didn’t want to nurse it anymore. Your logic says that nobody can force her to. I say that’s nonsense.
Your (1) is faulty. You’ve written it to be sensationalist, not accurate to the situation. But the actual logical error comes in at (2), where you slightly change the assumption from #1.(1) IF, it is constitutional that the gov’t can force the woman to carry pregnancy from rape to term,
(2) THEN, it is constitutional that the gov’t can force person A to provide his/her body for use by person B (generalization of (1) due to equality under the law)
(3) THUS, it is constitutional for the gov’t to force YOU to provide YOUR kidneys for MY use.
Do you like that prospect?
Because you’re setting up a strawman by asserting a false equivalency between the following statements:If.that is true then why don’t you answer the question I asked you previously: do you agree that Amanda Berry 's infant daughter should be put to.death?
The uterus is where a baby grows which is a fact of nature. The baby has rights. The government is not controlling anyone’s uterus but protecting a baby.And so, you are effectively removing woman’s control of her own uterus and giving it to the state.
Its power to protect innocent life? That is a basic function of the government.So, today the gov’t will use this power to protect the life of the child conceived in rape. That’s great. But how can you guarantee that the gov’t will not abuse this power?
No analogy at all. In one a baby is growing through no fault of his/her own. In the other the government is arbitrarily forcing a woman to become pregnant. Is the government now a rapist?What’s now stopping the gov’t from legislating that a woman must undergo artificial insemination with government-approved sperm? Nothing! It’s exactly the same situation the rape victim is in.
Okay, let’s work this example.I’ll compromise with you and we’ll say that my original shipwreck victim mom conceived the child after a rape. She carried the baby to term, got shipwrecked and THEN decided she didn’t want to nurse it anymore. Your logic says that nobody can force her to. I say that’s nonsense.