What About Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest? Women and Sexual Assault

[Rence]

When you put your responses within the quotes, then we can’t quote you. If you put / quote ] without the spaces where you want to comment, and then quote ] (without spaces) where you want to resume quoting, then others can quote your comments.

So you *don’t *agree with Fr Saunders.

If I believe I don’t have diabetes when I do, will that belief prevent me from getting sick?

If a doctor believes I have one disease but I have another, will his treatment work because he believes I have the other disease?

As you can see, reality trumps our beliefs. It doesn’t matter what I believe, what matters is the *reality. *

Yes, I now understand that contrary to what you said, you do not agree with Fr Saunders.

I agree with some parts of his article. I agree with this part of the article:

• If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum*

They don’t do this test in the ERs where I live, but thankfully, they all have Plan B for their patients who need it and choose to take it. Any other situation just wouldn’t apply where I live anyway: they don’t do the test, so where I live, it’s not a factor. However, I don’t think it should be done at all for rape victims. If it’s not available sometimes, and it’s recommended that erring in favor of the woman is acceptable, why do the test at all for rape victims? We’re lucky because we live here, but others, well they have to just “deal with it” because they have that test over there? Yeah I get that some people think that’s correct, but I don’t. ALL women should have the choice of taking or not taking Plan B in the case of rape, without anything more than a pregnancy test (because of course, if she tests positive, it wasn’t from the rape that just occured).

I really don’t see a correlation between your examples and a womans’ right to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy. I really can’t relate to those over-the-top comparisons that don’t apply. Sorry.

People are not evil for wanting to protect themselves. Obviously Fr. Saunders and the Bishops believe she has this right to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy due to rape as well, but the bone of contention is the ovulation test, right?

As Fr. Saunders says in the article: *The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’ s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae, which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).) *

I understand you think it’s wrong, however I believe it’s wrong to force a woman to become pregnant against her will, and evidently so do others. And honestly, I don’t get why others feel that she should. But thankfully, she doesn’t have to be subjected to further injury by the rapist. By taking Plan B in the ER after the rape, a woman can prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place, rather than having an abortion later because without proper care she got pregnant.

Some women would consider a pregnancy due to rape a blessing, or something good that happened out of something bad. But others would not be able to emotionally and psychologically handle a forced pregnancy. And they shouldn’t have to. They should have a choice. Thankfully, they do. And I doubt that part will change.

 

[Albert_Nygren]

Using the “Day After” pill if conception has taken place or will soon, is an abortion. The pill is an abortifacient. It has 3 modes of action. One of these is to irritate the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized ovum (new human being) cannot implant on the uterine wall. The fertilized egg then continues downward, leaves it’s mother’s body and dies.

If a woman becomes pregnant by rape or incest, I can understand why she would want to put the baby up for adoption. I can understand that because the woman may hate the rapist or abuser that some hate may transfer to the new baby as well. Still, that is no excuse to murder the child by having an abortion. To those who say that you don’t want to take away a woman’s right to choose; after the baby is born, the woman has no right to choose to murder her child. Because the babies life began at conception, she has no right to choose to murder her child before it is born either.

I was convinced that life began at conception by several Bible scriptures. In Psalm 51 the person praying to God says, “surely I was a sinner from the time my mother conceived me.” (original sin). The other scriptures had to do with the birth of Jesus. As soon as the Blessed mother was pregnant she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth who was pregnant with John the Baptist. Jesus had only been conceived a few days before this and Elisabeth was 6 months along with John.

Yet, when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting she felt John jump in her womb and she was filled with the Holy Spirit. Among other things, Elizabeth said that Mary was the “mother of our Lord”. If Jesus was Jesus when He was only a few days after His conception, then that must be true for the rest of us as well.

 

[markomalley]

An interesting thread so far.

The basic logic behind those who support abortion in the case of rape, incest, etc., is that they don’t want the woman to be burdened with the child. On the other hand, those who are opposed to allowing abortion in those circumstances believe that the child has rights from the moment of fertilization.

A couple of ironies that I’ve observed:

1. It seems that, for the most part, the same ones who support allowing the woman to abort in this circumstance (for reasons that center around the woman’s interest, as opposed to the interest of the baby) also support government-mandated health insurance. (That is not universally true, but is true in the most case).
2. It is surprising that on a Catholic message board, the rationale for allowing a woman to abort in these circumstances is profoundly un-Christlike. Christ lived His life and gave it for others. In all cases that I’ve read so far, the rationale for allowing abortion in these circumstances in because of profoundly self-centered reasons (self, in this usage, referring to the perceived interest of the pregnant woman rather than the interest of her baby, who had no say in whether or not he/she was conceived or the circumstances of that conception).

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with some parts of his article. I agree with this part of the article:

• If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at al*l, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. **If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, **the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum

They don’t do this test in the ERs where I live, but thankfully, they all have Plan B for their patients who need it and choose to take it. Any other situation just wouldn’t apply where I live anyway: they don’t do the test, so where I live, it’s not a factor. However, I don’t think it should be done at all for rape victims. If it’s not available sometimes, and it’s recommended that erring in favor of the woman is acceptable, why do the test at all for rape victims? We’re lucky because we live here, but others, well they have to just “deal with it” because they have that test over there? Yeah I get that some people think that’s correct, but I don’t. ALL women should have the choice of taking or not taking Plan B in the case of rape, without anything more than a pregnancy test (because of course, if she tests positive, it wasn’t from the rape that just occured).

IOW, if there is *not *a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, you would not advocate giving the Plan B medication?

I really don’t see a correlation between your examples and a womans’ right to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy. I really can’t relate to those over-the-top comparisons that don’t apply. Sorry.

In that part of my response, I was replying to what you said about beliefs. You seem to think that one belief is as good as another, that the validity of belief rests on the feelings of those who hold those beliefs. I was trying to show that belief is meaningless if not grounded in reality.

People are not evil for wanting to protect themselves. Obviously Fr. Saunders and the Bishops believe she has this right to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy due to rape as well, but the bone of contention is the ovulation test, right?

The “bone of contention” is ovulation. If the woman was ovulating when she was raped, then there would be the chance that the Plan B meds would kill a child rather than prevent pregnancy.

This is why the Bishops and Fr Saunders say that Plan B can be given *only if *it seems that ovulation has not occurred. There is a difference between preventing a pregnancy in the case of rape and killing a child conceived in that rape.

…I understand you think it’s wrong, however I believe it’s wrong to force a woman to become pregnant against her will, and evidently so do others. And honestly, I don’t get why others feel that she should. But thankfully, she doesn’t have to be subjected to further injury by the rapist. By taking Plan B in the ER after the rape, a woman can prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place, rather than having an abortion later because without proper care she got pregnant.

Some women would consider a pregnancy due to rape a blessing, or something good that happened out of something bad. But others would not be able to emotionally and psychologically handle a forced pregnancy. And they shouldn’t have to. They should have a choice. Thankfully, they do. And I doubt that part will change.

You and I agree that a woman has the right to prevent a pregnancy that might occur as the result of rape; the issue is the risk of killing an innocent human being in the course of that. The woman cannot protect herself to the point of doing that, which you seem to agree with also.

 

[choy]

1. Does a zygote or fetus have rights? I personally think no, they’re a clump of cells. Certainly the transition from a fetus with no rights to a baby with some rights is a tricky move. At this point I defer judgment to the land of the law and professionals in the field.

if you think about it, everyone is just a lump of cells

1. That is up to the person. One should adhere to the rule of law as long as it is just, as defined by the community within it. So if killing your husband worked for you, it is not against the law and just, then feel free to kill again.

that is a sad, sad situation. many times through legal loopholes, some form of stealing money is declared within the legal limits. so you also agree to this as long as its within the legal limits? what if its your money they’re stealing, would you be as agreeable? hey, its legal, right?

 

[lynx]

if you think about it, everyone is just a lump of cells

True. However, not all clumps of cells are people. My arm is not a person. My brain is not a person. However, my collective conscious and ability to think makes me a person worthy of life IMO. Otherwise i’m just a body.

that is a sad, sad situation. many times through legal loopholes, some form of stealing money is declared within the legal limits. so you also agree to this as long as its within the legal limits? what if its your money they’re stealing, would you be as agreeable? hey, its legal, right?

What I agree with legally and morally are separate things. In this instance though, I agree with the precedent that has taken place. If a law is just, as defined by the community, you should follow it. From what I can see, and apparently through popular opinion, a lot of people are pro choice instead of anti-freedom. Of course there is a minority who disapproves of the situation and that is their right.

pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Polls swing either way depending upon the pollster but they are still of value. I guess when a majority believes that abortion is wrong we’ll see more about it.

 

[Southparkmom]

Just a bundle of cells that are meaningless.

just a bundle of cells that might cure cancer for the other bundles of cells.

just a bundle of cells that might be a teacher for the other bundles of cells.

just a bundle of cells that might save a life of another bundle of cells.

just a bundle of cells that might fall in love with another bundle of cells

just a bundle of cells that might write a book about another bundle of cells

just a bundle of cells that might help the poor bundles of cells

just a bundle of cells that might play soccer with the other bundles of cells.

just a bundle of cells that might the live.

How can something so simple be wrong…that bundle of cells is a person.

 

[lynx]

I tend to keep up on current events, especially as they pertain to pro-life issues. I’m sorry you were unaware.

LOL. I guess my reason for asking this was because I think you’re wrong. I have never found any state that has “1 minute before birth” as an acceptable time. I’ve seen some as late as 24 weeks, but that’s not 1 minute. So I guess i’m also saying the information you get from your sources is wrong. Otherwise, i’d like to see them.

Secondly, just so you know, it should be “whose”

Good job. This doesn’t make you look petty at all

civil rights, and I’m referring to the baby who is never once a “mindless clump of flesh.” Did you know that a baby’s brain, as well as nervous system and other organs, starts forming three weeks after conception? (source) That’s about the time most women miss their period.

Well assuming you are right, they’re a mindless lump of flesh the first 3 weeks of conception. Next, brain development does not a person make. Technically chickens are capable of brain development while in eggs and even have thoughts. Yet we still feel secure in eating them. No, what I think makes a person worthy of life is a collective conscious (sentience) with the ability to rationalize one’s surrounding and environment, and adapt and evolve to that environment physically and mentally. If we don’t have this ability we’re not much better than animals who we see fit to eat. In addition to this criteria, there is a social acceptance that must be adhered to, but i’m getting ahead of myself.

Thirdly, a human being is (or should be) entitled to human rights from the moment of its existence. The Constitution makes no provision otherwise; it just says that we are all entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say, “Unless you aren’t born yet.” If you are a human being, you have rights. Period. Full stop.

It also doesn’t say all men, women, children, unborn, illegals, undocumented, blacks, aliens, etc. It is ambiguous, left open to interpretation.

People always find a way to justify killing or oppressing those who they consider substandard or otherwise inconvenient. We learned that much from Nazi Germany.

Incidentally, in Nazi Germany, Jews were not legally people. In your opinion, was it perfectly acceptable to kill them, given that it was legally possible to do so?

Morally, it was the wrong move, from the perspective of the US and its allies. Legally it was wrong from the same perspective. However, if you were in Germany then morally and legally it was ok. It’s important you understand the context of what is legal and moral and understand that there is not just one definition. The prevailing definition is the one with the most power; so hopefully you’re on the winning side.

 

[wanner47]

LOL. I guess my reason for asking this was because I think you’re wrong. I have never found any state that has “1 minute before birth” as an acceptable time. I’ve seen some as late as 24 weeks, but that’s not 1 minute. So I guess i’m also saying the information you get from your sources is wrong. Otherwise, i’d like to see them.

You’ve never heard of Roe vs. Wade?

Good job. This doesn’t make you look petty at all

If you want people to take you seriously in a written medium such as a message board format, correct spelling and grammar are essential.

Well assuming you are right, they’re a mindless lump of flesh the first 3 weeks of conception.

I am right. By the way, conception is a one-time event. It takes a nanosecond, not weeks. You seem pretty ignorant about fetal development; if you’re going to participate in abortion debates, you may want to educate yourself.

Next, brain development does not a person make.

What does make a person, then, and by what authority do you make that determination?

Technically chickens are capable of brain development while in eggs and even have thoughts. Yet we still feel secure in eating them.

You do realize, don’t you, that the chicken eggs we eat are UNFERTILIZED? Unfertilized cells do not have brain development, just as a woman’s unfertilized eggs do not have brain development. What DOES have brain development is a living, growing human being with its own unique DNA structure.

No, what I think makes a person worthy of life is a collective conscious (sentience) with the ability to rationalize one’s surrounding and environment, and adapt and evolve to that environment physically and mentally.

So you believe that coma patients are not entitled to human rights? What about the mentally disabled who may not be able to rationalize their surroundings and environment? If my grandmother were to develop Alzheimer’s disease and lose her ability to rationalize her surroundings and environment, does that mean she also loses her human rights? Should I be able to kill her, or other Alzheimer’s patients, with impunity?

It also doesn’t say all men, women, children, unborn, illegals, undocumented, blacks, aliens, etc. It is ambiguous, left open to interpretation.

Actually, it DOES say all men. We know from historical context and exegesis that “all men” = “all mankind” – that is, all human beings.

Morally, it was the wrong move, from the perspective of the US and its allies. Legally it was wrong from the same perspective. However, if you were in Germany then morally and legally it was ok.

Let me get this straight. In your opinion, the Holocaust was a justifiable action, both morally and legally, as long as you were a German citizen living in Germany at the time? Is that your stance?

It’s important you understand the context of what is legal and moral and understand that there is not just one definition. The prevailing definition is the one with the most power; so hopefully you’re on the winning side.

It’s important that you understand how legality and morality are not the same thing; it’s possible for an action to be immoral but still legal (examples from history: owning slaves, the Jim Crow laws).

I frankly don’t care about being on the “winning” side. I care about being on the morally right side; i.e., God’s side. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court does not determine the destination of my immortal soul, so I don’t care two hoots about what they think is moral. I do care about the unborn children who are not receiving their human rights as promised in our Constitution.

No comments on The Apple Argument Against Abortion?

 

[Rence]

IOW, if there is *not *a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, you would not advocate giving the Plan B medication?

If a woman gets raped and goes to the ER for medical attention, she is offered Plan B to prevent a pregnancy (at least here where I live). It should always be her choice. No exceptions. Where I live, that’s what’s done. This is what I support. I don’t mean to be a pain in the petute, but I’m really not sure why you keep asking me to clarify it. I’m hoping I’m clear enough to explain where I stand?

In that part of my response, I was replying to what you said about beliefs. You seem to think that one belief is as good as another, that the validity of belief rests on the feelings of those who hold those beliefs. I was trying to show that belief is meaningless if not grounded in reality.

I believe that if a woman gets raped and goes to the ER for medical attention, she should be offered Plan B to prevent a pregnancy and it should be her choice to either take it or not take it, as her conscience directs her. And that’s the reality of it: it is done, and it is her choice. Therefore, by your reasoning, my belief is not meaningless. It should always be her choice.

The “bone of contention” is ovulation. If the woman was ovulating when she was raped, then there would be the chance that the Plan B meds would kill a child rather than prevent pregnancy.

For me, the race against time would be worth taking to prevent a pregnancy. The primary action of Plan B is to inhibit ovulation. That’s it’s PRIMARY action. The fact that it may change the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation is a side effect. And in my case, would be a side effect that I’m not aiming for. And you know what? there’s a vast difference between risking eliminating a few-hour old blob of cells that can’t be seen with the unaided eye, and a two week old fetus. So the argument of killing a child really isn’t convincing.

This is why the Bishops and Fr Saunders say that Plan B can be given *only if *it seems that ovulation has not occurred. There is a difference between preventing a pregnancy in the case of rape and killing a child conceived in that rape.

Even if ovulation has occurred, it still takes time to conceive. For me, the race against time is worth taking to prevent a pregnancy in the case of rape.

You and I agree that a woman has the right to prevent a pregnancy that might occur as the result of rape; the issue is the risk of killing an innocent human being in the course of that. The woman cannot protect herself to the point of doing that, which you seem to agree with also.

I’m not sure I agree, it depends on whether you agree with all of the above in this reply. And mind you, I’m not saying you have to agree with me by any means. I’m just trying to communicate what I believe and why. I believe that a rape victim is the priority, and she has the right to protect herself from further invasion of the rapist’s sperm and has the right to protect herself from the emotional and psychological damage that might come with becoming pregnant by the rapist. Some women might be able to handle it, many women would not. I am not. I wouldn’t hesitate to take Plan B in the ER, and I wouldn’t bother with an ovulation test. A woman should not be subject to further invasion if she chooses not to. The race against time to prevent the pregnancy should be afforded to her in her effort to protect herself from further harm. As long as she does (and it seems that even in countries were abortion is illegal, she still does have this right), I’m satisfied.

So I’m just very grateful for the fact that if a woman is raped, that she can choose to either take or not take plan B in the ER as part of her medical intervention, as her conscience dictates. Very very very grateful. I pray it will always be so.

 

[St_Francis]

I… I wouldn’t hesitate to take Plan B in the ER, and** I wouldn’t bother with an ovulation test. **A woman should not be subject to **further invasion **if she chooses not to. …

So, even tho you said you agree with Fr Saunders, you actually don’t, because you don’t care if in the process you take an innocent human life and would not try to avoid doing so, which Fr Saunders does not advocate.

Some women might be able to handle it, many women would not. I am not.

God does not send us more that we can handle; He always sends the grace we need.

 

[Rence]

So, even tho you said you agree with Fr Saunders, you actually don’t, because you don’t care if in the process you take an innocent human life and would not try to avoid doing so, which Fr Saunders does not advocate.

God does not send us more that we can handle; He always sends the grace we need.

Only we personally can determine that, not anyone else. It’s between that person and God. If a woman is going to get all tore up and need 20 years of counseling if she takes Plan B in the ER after a rape, then it would be to her benefit to NOT do so. If a woman is going to be all tore up and need 20 years of counseling as a result of a pregnancy due to rape, and not from taking plan b, it would be to her benefit to take the plan b. I think women on both sides of the fence have valid concerns and should follow their conscience. That’s why it should be her choice and no one else should make that choice for her.

 

[kage_ar]

So, 20 years of counseling is more important than the life of a baby. Sad.

 

[wanner47]

Only we personally can determine that, not anyone else. It’s between that person and God. If a woman is going to get all tore up and need 20 years of counseling if she takes Plan B in the ER after a rape, then it would be to her benefit to NOT do so. If a woman is going to be all tore up and need 20 years of counseling as a result of a pregnancy due to rape, and not from taking plan b, it would be to her benefit to take the plan b. I think women on both sides of the fence have valid concerns and should follow their conscience. That’s why it should be her choice and no one else should make that choice for her.

Um, actually, no. This is a promise given to us by God. He WILL give us the grace we need; we have to be willing to accept it.

 

[Rence]

Um, actually, no. This is a promise given to us by God. He WILL give us the grace we need; we have to be willing to accept it.

Um, actually, no. God doesn’t make bad things happen to people. Life makes bad things happen to people. God doesn’t cause someone to be raped. It’s not God’s Will that someone be raped. Therefore, it wasn’t God that gave us the bad thing that happened.

 

[St_Francis]

Only we personally can determine that, not anyone else. It’s between that person and God. If a woman is going to get all tore up and need 20 years of counseling if she takes Plan B in the ER after a rape, then it would be to her benefit to NOT do so. If a woman is going to be all tore up and need 20 years of counseling as a result of a pregnancy due to rape, and not from taking plan b, it would be to her benefit to take the plan b. I think women on both sides of the fence have valid concerns and should follow their conscience. That’s why it should be her choice and no one else should make that choice for her.

The thing is, we are not talking about other *people’s *making that decision; we are talking about God’s will.

 

[Rence]

The thing is, we are not talking about other *people’s *making that decision; we are talking about God’s will.

It’s not God’s Will that someone gets raped. I don’t believe that a rape victim is subject to God for being raped. Rape is the result of a person using evil to exercise free will. Nothing more.

People God isn’t responsible for the bad things in life. It’s part of life that bad things happen. It’s not God’s fault if you fall down the stairs and rip a finger off. It’s not God’s fault if you get cancer. It’s not God’s fault if you get stabbed to death. God doesn’t will bad things to happen.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s not God’s Will that someone gets raped. I don’t believe that a rape victim is subject to God for being raped. Rape is the result of a person using evil to exercise free will. Nothing more.

People God isn’t responsible for the bad things in life. It’s part of life that bad things happen. It’s not God’s fault if you fall down the stairs and rip a finger off. It’s not God’s fault if you get cancer. It’s not God’s fault if you get stabbed to death. God doesn’t will bad things to happen.

Certainly the bad things that happen are not God’s *fault, *but when they do happen to people, He sends grace to people so they can get through it.

So, on those rare occasions when women become pregnant as the result of a rape, God sends His grace to help the woman through. She may reject His grace but that doesn’t mean He didn’t send it.

God has taught us that we shall not take an innocent human life. He did not say, Thou shalt not kill, except when the life you are taking belongs to someone too small to see clearly, or Thou shalt not kill except when the victim is hidden, or Thou shalt not kill except when you think that you could not handle the continued existence of that person.

God creates each and every one of us–He knows us before we are formed in our mother’s womb. You see a “clump of cells;” He sees a human being formed in His Image and Likeness. You see a “bad thing happening;” He sees a person for whom He has a purpose.

I am not saying that an attempt to prevent a pregnancy should not be made, but that protection of an already-formed life must be taken into account in that attempt.

 

[Rence]

Certainly the bad things that happen are not God’s *fault, *but when they do happen to people, He sends grace to people so they can get through it.

So, on those rare occasions when women become pregnant as the result of a rape, God sends His grace to help the woman through. She may reject His grace but that doesn’t mean He didn’t send it.

God has taught us that we shall not take an innocent human life. He did not say, Thou shalt not kill, except when the life you are taking belongs to someone too small to see clearly, or Thou shalt not kill except when the victim is hidden, or Thou shalt not kill except when you think that you could not handle the continued existence of that person.

God creates each and every one of us–He knows us before we are formed in our mother’s womb. You see a “clump of cells;” He sees a human being formed in His Image and Likeness. You see a “bad thing happening;” He sees a person for whom He has a purpose.

I am not saying that an attempt to prevent a pregnancy should not be made, but that protection of an already-formed life must be taken into account in that attempt.

I understand what you’re saying too, believe me I do. But I believe the race against time, and taking immediate action, and not dilly-dallying, is worth the risk in order to prevent a pregnancy. Therefore it is a risk that I would take that I would support women taking, if they choose it. Again, it’s not appropriate for someont to impose what they think is right for another person, in another person’s situation. I know that your heart is in the right place, and even with every fiber in you. But I feel just as strongly as you do for the rights of a rape victim to protect herself, and I believe her rights are paramount. Women aren’t breeding machines or chattel. They aren’t there waiting to be raped and helpless, and forced to be pregnant. We deserve better than that. It’s wonderful and great that a woman endures such horror and cruelty, and then finds it in herself to turn it into something good by choosing to not interfere with a possible pregnancy, and even later, with a confirmed pregnancy. And believe me, I’ve seen it turn into something good. But not everyone’s mental, emotional, and spiritual needs are the same. We’re not wired the same. Rape and its effects have nothing to do with God. The only thing God does is hold us up as we make it through the bad things that happen to us and that are beyond our choices and control.

 

[lynx]

You’ve never heard of Roe vs. Wade?

We’re talking about application in law. Show me proof in the law and i’ll believe you. It’s that easy. Where is your link does it state “1 minute”?

If you want people to take you seriously in a written medium such as a message board format, correct spelling and grammar are essential.

LOL, yeah cuz we’re sooo formal here Look you are either:

1. trying to portray a sense of superiority
2. a word nazi troll
3. ocd grammar checker

If you had been correcting other people’s posts then I might be inclined to believe #3, but since you seem to have focused on just me, my money is #1. Maybe you should focus on the content, rather than trying to make yourself look smart.

I am right. By the way, conception is a one-time event. It takes a nanosecond, not weeks. You seem pretty ignorant about fetal development; if you’re going to participate in abortion debates, you may want to educate yourself.

Yup, i’d say trying to give a sense of superiority. Also, you should address the logical flaw from your past argument. If it takes 3 weeks to begin significant brain development, can you abort a fetus within the first 3 week of conception?

What does make a person, then, and by what authority do you make that determination?

Keep reading.

You do realize, don’t you, that the chicken eggs we eat are UNFERTILIZED?

This depends on your culture. I’ve eaten fertilized eggs, with duck fetuses or chicken fetuses.

Unfertilized cells do not have brain development, just as a woman’s unfertilized eggs do not have brain development.

Well duh.

What DOES have brain development is a living, growing human being with its own unique DNA structure.

You know what else has brain development? Pig fetuses. I hope you don’t eat bacon. When are you going to address the logic holes I give you and not be condescending?

So you believe that coma patients are not entitled to human rights?

I have listed what makes a person worthy of life. If you feel a coma patient does not fit into that category then that is up to you. I personally believe a coma patient might be able to do all of those things. A coma and complete brain death are separate things.

What about the mentally disabled who may not be able to rationalize their surroundings and environment? If my grandmother were to develop Alzheimer’s disease and lose her ability to rationalize her surroundings and environment, does that mean she also loses her human rights? Should I be able to kill her, or other Alzheimer’s patients, with impunity?

I have listed what makes a person worthy of life. If you feel your grandmother does not meet the criteria then her life is in your, and your family’s, hands. I guess you’ll need to weigh the pros and cons of her death.

Actually, it DOES say all men.

Notice that I gave a list. Was the point lost?

We know from historical context and exegesis that “all men” = “all mankind” – that is, all human beings.

That’s what it means now because the term is subjective and relative to society.

Let me get this straight. In your opinion, the Holocaust was a justifiable action, both morally and legally, as long as you were a German citizen living in Germany at the time? Is that your stance?

Yes. It was. I hope the point of relative morality is not yet lost.

It’s important that you understand how legality and morality are not the same thing; it’s possible for an action to be immoral but still legal (examples from history: owning slaves, the Jim Crow laws).

I understand, I just happen to agree with the courts. It’s a shame you don’t. Maybe when your position becomes more popular it will have a chance at changing the law.

I frankly don’t care about being on the “winning” side. I care about being on the morally right side; i.e., God’s side.

And that is what it all boiled down to. You were never able to give a worthwhile defense without God. You’re so blinded by your own morality you have a difficult time seeing the morality is subjective to the individual, which is why everyone doesn’t follow your version of morality.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court does not determine the destination of my immortal soul, so I don’t care two hoots about what they think is moral.

I know. You only care about what you feel is moral, society be damned.

I do care about the unborn children who are not receiving their human rights as promised in our Constitution.

Except that they’re not guaranteed by the constitution. Feel free to cite me some text if i’m wrong.

No comments on The Apple Argument Against Abortion?

I generally only care what the poster has to say. But, for half this post it was you trying to look smart, avoid logical flaws presented, and then get on a self righteous high horse. So, i’m actually not that interested in what comes next.