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

[St_Francis]

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.

Bad things happen to good people; that doesn’t give them the right to do a bad thing. You are not looking at this issue from the Catholic point of view, you are looking at it from the naturalist point of view in which all that matters is what happens in this world. But really the only important thing about what happens in this world is how we use it to choose our ultimate and eternal destination.

This has nothing to do with how we are wired, because as I said, God will provide the graces necessary to make our way through what happens in our lives. And how we are wired has no validity because we are all wired to sin in some ways and to have natural virtue in others. It is not how we are wired that counts, but how we put those wires together.

 

[Rence]

Bad things happen to good people; that doesn’t give them the right to do a bad thing. You are not looking at this issue from the Catholic point of view, you are looking at it from the naturalist point of view in which all that matters is what happens in this world. But really the only important thing about what happens in this world is how we use it to choose our ultimate and eternal destination.

This has nothing to do with how we are wired, because as I said, God will provide the graces necessary to make our way through what happens in our lives. And how we are wired has no validity because we are all wired to sin in some ways and to have natural virtue in others. It is not how we are wired that counts, but how we put those wires together.

Women have every right to take plan B in the ER after a rape, and it’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing for a woman who wants to avoid a forced pregnancy as a result of rape.

I don’t believe that what happens in this world is all that matters, but I do believe that we were given our lives to live it to our fullest. What you do in this life, and how you react to this life will shape what happens in the next life. I don’t believe in destroying one’s self in this life is going to get you to heaven faster. Allowing outside forces to destroy you will only produce poison. I believe healing one’s self after a trauma is more beneficial. Yes, a forced pregancy due to rape can destroy a woman, I’ve seen it. I don’t believe God will punish a rape victim for attempting to protect herself. Risking the usage of plan B after a rape to prevent pregnancy is well worth avoiding the emotional and psychological damage resulting from a forced pregnancy on some women. It is important.

You say that God provides the graces and I know you speak from your heart and you really believe what you’re saying, but honestly, no offense intended, but who are you to make such a claim that a blanket cure for all is out there for everyone? It’s easy to make that claim when it’s someone else’s suffering you’re talking about. It’s easy to make light of someone else’s suffering but, this is something you are not capable of understanding and relating to. Even if you had the same accidents, the same injuries, the same illnesses as the next person, you still could not apply your blanket cure for all to every person. They don’t matter to the next person. The next person has their own situation, and has their own morals and beliefs based on who they are.

God provides yes, but I believe he provided scientific and medical minds the ability to create plan B to prevent such unwanted pregnancies. Surely, plan B can’t come from evil, because even the Church allows its usage in the case of rape.

What I find ironic is that in the “old days” when people were “better” and “stood on a high moral ground”, a raped woman was disgraced. And if she was raped and pregnant, she was wisked away in her shame to have her child and give it up for adoption. And if they decided to keep the resulting child, it was a secret, it was a sibling, etc. But what now that women have a choice in the matter, a forced pregnancy is a gift and pleasure and something good? Well that can’t be if the Church allows one to take plan B in a rape situation. So we can’t say this forced pregnancy is a “gift”. Sorry, but it’s the same today as it was before, we just have more options now. Women have freedom of choice now and their body is their responsibility and not owned by a man. They can choose treatments to help them not become pregnant now. No one knows when the moment of conception is. We know it takes a few to 36 hours after sex. It doesn’t make an ounce of sense to me to say it’s not worth the risk, because it is. Intent matters. The goal is to prevent pregnancy in the case of rape, not fool around, oops and abort.

The reality is exceptions are made for rape. That’s reality. People make those exeptions even in countries where abortion is illegal because they know this to be true. I don’t see that changing. It’s always been “except for the case of rape”. Only a few extremely conservative and traditional don’t recognize rape as a valid reason for plan B. That says something about my beliefs being grounded in reality because it is a fact, and it is real.

I realize there are many who thumb their nose at the law and claim their ‘moral code’ is better. But the reality is, it’s better for that person only. The good thing about the law is that they serve both rape victims who choose plan B as well as rape victims who do not choose plan B. And that’s a good thing.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

See, if ovulation has occurred already, how would taking a drug, (even right away, even right after the woman arrives at the ER) stop ovulation, thus stop a pregnancy from occurring? Taken after ovulation, it can only work to stop implantation.

A raped woman needs medical attention. She needs antibiotics, sometimes even anti aids drugs. She needs a rape kit to collect evidence. Providing urine for a pregnancy test/ ovulation test wouldn’t be more traumatic than her examination…even a blood test wouldn’t be more traumatic…

And something else…what if the rape victim is married and had relations with her husband earlier that week? Shouldn’t they test for pregnancy / ovulation to see if she is carrying her husband’s child already?

 

[Southparkmom]

I have a friend. In college she was given the date rape drug while at a bar. She ended up pregnant. She had an abortion. Let me tell you, the psychological consequences from the rape were far less severe then what she experienced because of her decision to terminate the pregnancy. This was her big regret in her life and it has effected lots of aspects of her life to this day.

I understand. I do. I understand why someone would abort after a rape. Rape is obviously a despicable act. But lets not forget the consequences of abortion…and when someone like Lynx argues this point, there really is no leg to stand on. Unless of course he gets his info from prochoice.org.

 

[Rence]

See, if ovulation has occurred already, how would taking a drug, (even right away, even right after the woman arrives at the ER) stop ovulation, thus stop a pregnancy from occurring? Taken after ovulation, it can only work to stop implantation.

I wouldn’t take the ovulation test, I’d just take the Plan B. I don’t even think it’s offered in the hospitals surrounding me, but I’m sure they could get one for a woman who asks for it. Again, it’s the rape victim’s choice.

A raped woman needs medical attention. She needs antibiotics, sometimes even anti aids drugs. She needs a rape kit to collect evidence. Providing urine for a pregnancy test/ ovulation test wouldn’t be more traumatic than her examination…even a blood test wouldn’t be more traumatic…

I didn’t say anything about tests being any more traumatic than anything else involved in the post-rape medical care. I just said that the ovulation test shouldn’t be required. The reason being, if the Bishops are saying that if a test isn’t available then favor should rest on the side of the woman, why can’t it always favor the woman?

And something else…what if the rape victim is married and had relations with her husband earlier that week? Shouldn’t they test for pregnancy / ovulation to see if she is carrying her husband’s child already?

Well I would, yes. I’ve already said in previous posts that a pregnancy test is reasonable. As to the ovulaton test, I’d probably do that if I were married, but I’d also talk it over with my husband as well.

 

[lynx]

I have a friend. In college she was given the date rape drug while at a bar. She ended up pregnant. She had an abortion. Let me tell you, the psychological consequences from the rape were far less severe then what she experienced because of her decision to terminate the pregnancy. This was her big regret in her life and it has effected lots of aspects of her life to this day.

Lets be clear, abortion is not the right choice for everyone, as evidence by your friend. That is not to say it is the incorrect choice for everyone. I have stated my piece. If you would like to address it with substance I await your reply. If your response is one based upon religion then we will have to agree to disagree. I feel abortion is a religious issue so if you make it one then you and I can never reach an end to the argument.

I understand. I do. I understand why someone would abort after a rape. Rape is obviously a despicable act. But lets not forget the consequences of abortion…and when someone like Lynx argues this point, there really is no leg to stand on. Unless of course he gets his info from prochoice.org.

I’m glad you support prochoice.org , maybe i’ll put it in my sig. I’ve never gone there before but it might have some good information. How’s about you address some of points I have laid out before you state I have no leg to stand on. The last time I checked, the majority and the law agreed with me, as well as the those interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Rence]

I have a friend. In college she was given the date rape drug while at a bar. She ended up pregnant. She had an abortion. Let me tell you, the psychological consequences from the rape were far less severe then what she experienced because of her decision to terminate the pregnancy. This was her big regret in her life and it has effected lots of aspects of her life to this day.

I understand. I do. I understand why someone would abort after a rape. Rape is obviously a despicable act. But lets not forget the consequences of abortion…and when someone like Lynx argues this point, there really is no leg to stand on. Unless of course he gets his info from prochoice.org.

That’s the thing, plan B doesn’t always work. Again, it’s primary action is to prevent ovulation. It may change the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation, but that is not a primary action. But in this capacity, it usually doesn’t work. That’s not what it’s made for. You have to remember too that it doesn’t work after 72 hours.

And mind you, throughout these posts, I was talking about what I would do and that I support a rape victim’s choice. But after taking plan B in the ER, if I still wound up pregnant, I would choose not to take any further action, at least I don’t think I would. This was in my first post.

I’m not sure anyone has to have a leg to stand on because the choice is ours. I’m not sure what you mean because I’m just sharing my opinion and how I feel, just like everyone else.

As to your friend, if she felt strongly against abortion, she shouldn’t have done it. For her own sake she shouldn’t have, otherwise you open yourself up to all kinds of guilt and prolong your recovery. I’m sorry she’s so troubled and I hope she heals.

 

[lynx]

I’m not sure anyone has to have a leg to stand on because the choice is ours. I’m not sure what you mean because I’m just sharing my opinion and how I feel, just like everyone else.

As to your friend, if she felt strongly against abortion, she shouldn’t have done it. For her own sake she shouldn’t have, otherwise you open yourself up to all kinds of guilt and prolong your recovery.

Well said

 

[wanner47]

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”?

Where does it state that abortion is *illegal *one minute before birth?

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.

Wow, you’ve looked at every one of my nearly 3,000 posts AND all of my PMs since March 2006? Got a lot of time on your hands and some superior hacking skills, it seems.

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?

You yourself said that brain development isn’t necessarily what constitutes a human person, and I don’t hold with that either. A human person is present from the moment of conception onwards. So no, it’s not acceptable to abort a fetus within the first three weeks of conception or anytime thereafter.

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

Bully for you. Are ducks and chickens members of the human race and entitled to all rights thereto?

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?

See above.

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.

WORTHY of life? By what authority do you deem who and who is not WORTHY of life?

“It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.” - Dickens, *A Christmas Carol
*

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.

Wow. So I could decide, for example, that all people whose message board monnikers end in “x” are not worthy of life, and exterminate accordingly? And that would be fine and dandy in your book?

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

And everyone in your list is part of mankind.

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

So if it means that now, why do you still deny human rights to the unborn, if you agree that they are part of mankind according to the current interpretation?

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

Wow. Are you also a card-carrying member of the Aryan Nation and/or KKK?

Since you believe that the murder of six million Jews was perfectly moral, I guess it’s not surprising you feel that the genocide of the unborn is similarly moral.

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.

Here’s hoping.

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.

I already have “without God,” but you’re so blinded by your own immorality you can’t see the inherent objective injustice of abortion.

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

Pot, meet kettle! Although in your case it’s apparently what’s legal, morality be damned.

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

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - U.S. Constitution

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.

Again, pot, meet kettle.

Interesting how when I give you an argument against abortion comprised solely of Socratic logic, and not involving religion in any way, you are suddenly speechless. I guess you can’t refute it after all. Where does that leave you?

 

[lynx]

Where does it state that abortion is *illegal *one minute before birth?

So does this mean you’re avoiding the question again? It appears you’re full of hot air

Wow, you’ve looked at every one of my nearly 3,000 posts AND all of my PMs since March 2006? Got a lot of time on your hands and some superior hacking skills, it seems.

I’m a pro son.

You yourself said that brain development isn’t necessarily what constitutes a human person, and I don’t hold with that either. A human person is present from the moment of conception onwards. So no, it’s not acceptable to abort a fetus within the first three weeks of conception or anytime thereafter.

If you’re not arguing from a religious stand point, how do you come to that conclusion?

Bully for you.

Bully! Isn’t it great we live in this time and era.

Are ducks and chickens members of the human race and entitled to all rights thereto?

Nope, but that isn’t the point. If you believe thought is what makes a fetus worthy of life then many animals have thoughts, and we eat them gladly. So, not arguing from a religious stand point, why are fetuses better than the animals we eat? This should be easy to answer.

WORTHY of life? By what authority do you deem who and who is not WORTHY of life?

Generally my own. This is my opinion. I don’t have a higher authority so I must look within myself for strength and guidance occasionally.

“It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.” - Dickens, A Christmas Carol

I think the muppets did a good version of this story somewhere down the road didn’t they? Or was that Bill Murray? Either way, have a future happy holiday from me

Wow. So I could decide, for example, that all people whose message board monnikers end in “x” are not worthy of life, and exterminate accordingly? And that would be fine and dandy in your book?

You can if you like. Generally you want to have a justification for your thoughts and beliefs, but I won’t force you.

And everyone in your list is part of mankind.

Uhhhhh, didn’t I list aliens? My point was that the Constitution does not explicitly/literally give rights to anyone except men.

 

[lynx]

ZOMG 2 parts

So if it means that now, why do you still deny human rights to the unborn, if you agree that they are part of mankind according to the current interpretation?

Because I have been dancing around another issue, what makes one worthy of death. I have stated what I think is worthy of life. What is worthy of death is another matter. IMO part of what makes you worthy of death is the worth of your life. I feel that if the mother does not want the fetus, no one else wants to care for the fetus, and it’s out of the category of being worth of life, then perhaps that fetus can be terminated morally. For reference, my thoughts and beliefs on life and death are open ended, that is to say they are influenced by what I learn. If given the correct situation then perhaps these definitions would be shifted towards your opinion.

Wow. Are you also a card-carrying member of the Aryan Nation and/or KKK?

LOL. Why? Are you inviting me to the club?

Since you believe that the murder of six million Jews was perfectly moral, I guess it’s not surprising you feel that the genocide of the unborn is similarly moral.

I see you missed the point. I never said I personally believe the Holocaust was perfectly moral. You should feel a little ashamed of yourself using the Holocaust to try and attack me. I decline your offer of membership to AN and KKK.

I already have “without God,” but you’re so blinded by your own immorality you can’t see the inherent objective injustice of abortion.

LOL. You haven’t given any stance at all why a fetus is worthy of life other than that it is a person. Maybe if you flushed out your ideas we wouldn’t be here? Also, inherent objective injustice? That’s a long ways away from anything you’ve proven. Take notice of how the majority of Americans and those interpreting the constitution do not see an inherent objective injustice in abortion. Now i’m not saying you’re wrong, but you need A LOT more proof before that statement is even close to true.

Pot, meet kettle! Although in your case it’s apparently what’s legal, morality be damned.

LOL. I see you reject societal morality and substitute your own

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - U.S. Constitution

A fetus does not encompass mankind. The courts and majority morality seem to agree. So, this means you need to prove that a fetus is a part of mankind. Right now it’s the justice system and most of the American public against you. I look forward to seeing your reply. Well, actually I don’t, you avoid questions, make assumptions, use the Holocaust to attack people, use the KKK to attack people, have a need to feel superior (refer to below), etc. Why is there so much hate in your heart brother? Can I introduce you to friend? His name is Jesus.

Interesting how when I give you an argument against abortion comprised solely of Socratic logic, and not involving religion in any way, you are suddenly speechless. I guess you can’t refute it after all. Where does that leave you?

I think I was pretty clear on the subject. State it in your own words and i’ll talk about it. I’m not arguing with an essay.

 

[wanner47]

So does this mean you’re avoiding the question again? It appears you’re full of hot air

No, I’m asking you where it states, in Roe v. Wade, that it’s illegal to abort 1 minute before birth. If it’s not specifically prohibited, how can you claim that it’s illegal? So, pony up.

I’m a pro son.

What does this mean?

If you’re not arguing from a religious stand point, how do you come to that conclusion?

Because I believe that all human life has inherent worth and dignity from the moment of its existence onward, and that’s not a religious belief. Check out www.godlessprolifers.org for other examples of pro-life arguments from a secular perspective.

Nope, but that isn’t the point. If you believe thought is what makes a fetus worthy of life then many animals have thoughts, and we eat them gladly. So, not arguing from a religious stand point, why are fetuses better than the animals we eat? This should be easy to answer.

No, I don’t think “thought” makes a person worthy of life, and never said that I did. Fetuses are “better” because they are human beings. Animals aren’t. Animals still have certain rights, but not the rights that humans are entitled to by virtue of being human.

Generally my own. This is my opinion. I don’t have a higher authority so I must look within myself for strength and guidance occasionally.

Do you believe you have the right to kill with impunity, based upon your opinion of who is and who is not worthy of life?

I think the muppets did a good version of this story somewhere down the road didn’t they? Or was that Bill Murray? Either way, have a future happy holiday from me

Care to comment on the content of the quote? My favorite is the version starring Patrick Stewart, incidentally.

You can if you like. Generally you want to have a justification for your thoughts and beliefs, but I won’t force you.

Perhaps my justification is that such people aren’t worthy of life based upon several arbitrary criteria.

Uhhhhh, didn’t I list aliens? My point was that the Constitution does not explicitly/literally give rights to anyone except men.

I thought “aliens” meant illegal immigrants. Outer space aliens, however, aren’t human beings so aren’t part of mankind, plus there’s no definitive proof of their existence. Once it’s proven they exist, then we can work on ascribing rights to them. My apologies for the misunderstanding. You’ve already acknowledged that the Constitution gives rights to all mankind according to the current definition of mankind, so why do you believe unborn humans aren’t part of mankind?

 

[wanner47]

I had responses to part II all typed out, and I lost the post. Suffice it to say, lynx, that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point for a discussion of why humans have rights, but it’s more of a topic for the Philosophy forum. Feel free to start a thread there.

Also, I see no point in putting The Apple Argument Against Abortion in my own words because Peter Kreeft’s are superior. You asked for a defense of pro-life principles without invoking religion and I gave you one that does so using Socratic logic. Now the ball is in your court. Why and where is Kreeft wrong?

 

[lynx]

No, I’m asking you where it states, in Roe v. Wade, that it’s illegal to abort 1 minute before birth. If it’s not specifically prohibited, how can you claim that it’s illegal? So, pony up.

Times of when an abortion is legal is determined by the state. Since no state lists “1 minute before birth” as an acceptable time period, i’m going to say, with confidence, that it is illegal.

What does this mean?

Mostly that I am a professional hacker, and that you are my son

Because I believe that all human life has inherent worth and dignity from the moment of its existence onward, and that’s not a religious belief.

Orly.

Check out www.godlessprolifers.org for other examples of pro-life arguments from a secular perspective.

How’s about you start putting some of those into your own words, hell even a quote, and then we can debate them, maybe. I’m not debating a website

No, I don’t think “thought” makes a person worthy of life, and never said that I did.

“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?”

This seems to me that you think brain development makes a person worthy of life. But maybe i’m over analyzing.

Fetuses are “better” because they are human beings. Animals aren’t.

Humans are animals. We are mammals and share many characteristics of the animals in our genus/family. I notice you like DNA, chimps and humans contain 95% of the same DNA sequences answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp .

Animals still have certain rights, but not the rights that humans are entitled to by virtue of being human.

Why?

Do you believe you have the right to kill with impunity, based upon your opinion of who is and who is not worthy of life?

Nope.

Care to comment on the content of the quote? My favorite is the version starring Patrick Stewart, incidentally.

I guess. The sight of heaven means nothing to me figuratively. The moral teaching is that qualities of life and death are subjective to the individual. Uhm, well done?

Perhaps my justification is that such people aren’t worthy of life based upon several arbitrary criteria.

What makes criteria arbitrary?

I thought “aliens” meant illegal immigrants. Outer space aliens, however, aren’t human beings so aren’t part of mankind, plus there’s no definitive proof of their existence. Once it’s proven they exist, then we can work on ascribing rights to them. My apologies for the misunderstanding. You’ve already acknowledged that the Constitution gives rights to all mankind according to the current definition of mankind, so why do you believe unborn humans aren’t part of mankind?

Until they become worthy of life IMO they are not part of mankind.

 

[wanner47]

Times of when an abortion is legal is determined by the state. Since no state lists “1 minute before birth” as an acceptable time period, i’m going to say, with confidence, that it is illegal.

Actually, that’s not true. Many states say that third-trimester abortions may be done if deemed necessary due to the health or life of the mother being at risk. The laws do not specify when in the third trimester, so it would be possible to perform a legal abortion one minute before birth.

Mostly that I am a professional hacker, and that you are my son

Rather difficult to be your son, considering I’m a woman. Guess you don’t read signatures much, do you?

Orly.

Yes, rly.

How’s about you start putting some of those into your own words, hell even a quote, and then we can debate them, maybe. I’m not debating a website

It’s called independent research. If I tried to state all the secular arguments for human rights in this space, I’d far exceed the 6,000 character limit. If you want to inform yourself about this subject, feel free. If you want to remain ignorant, that’s your choice.

This seems to me that you think brain development makes a person worthy of life. But maybe i’m over analyzing.

I was stating a biological fact about fetal development regarding your “mindless clump of flesh” remark, not establishing criteria for worth of life.

Humans are animals. We are mammals and share many characteristics of the animals in our genus/family. I notice you like DNA, chimps and humans contain 95% of the same DNA sequences answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp .

Chimps are not human beings. Humans are human beings. 95% doesn’t not equal 100%. Any genetic scientist worth his or her salt can differentiate between the two. When conception occurs after the copulation of two human beings, it is not a chimp that’s created 100% of the time.

Why?

See my previous post.

Nope.

Why not?

I guess. The sight of heaven means nothing to me figuratively. The moral teaching is that qualities of life and death are subjective to the individual. Uhm, well done? :confused

:

If they’re subjective to the individual, why can’t anyone kill with impunity?

What makes criteria arbitrary?

What is your authority to determine the criteria?

Until they become worthy of life IMO they are not part of mankind.

Funny, that’s not what the law says. I thought legality was your morality?

 

[adv1sor]

On my way into work this morning I saw a little two year old girl riding a tricycle on the sidewalk.

Now, I happen to know for a fact that her father is a rapist. So, I thought about jumping the curb with my car and running her over, to take her life.

Does that make sense to anyone here?

Would it make any more sense if she were only one? A new born?

Then why would it make any sense if she were pre-born?

Rape is a terrible crime.
It is twice as bad if the woman is impregnated.
But don’t make it three times as bad by offering to kill the innocent child.

 

[lynx]

I had responses to part II all typed out, and I lost the post. Suffice it to say, lynx, that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point for a discussion of why humans have rights, but it’s more of a topic for the Philosophy forum. Feel free to start a thread there.

Also, I see no point in putting The Apple Argument Against Abortion in my own words because Peter Kreeft’s are superior. You asked for a defense of pro-life principles without invoking religion and I gave you one that does so using Socratic logic. Now the ball is in your court. Why and where is Kreeft wrong?

In short, the apple argument sets a fetus as a person, which is key. If a fetus is a person then they fall under the protection of the Constitution. However, I personally believe they are not because the fetus lacks what I believe are qualities worthy of life. You may agree or disagree with me. Since I do not consider a fetus a person then I take the option of case 4 in the argument section 13. Since morality is subjective to the individual, in the argument based upon philosophizing, there are various reasons I can be wrong or right, it depends how you as a person developed and think. It may be the case that we may never agree. The only way to find out is by critical analysis of supporting proof of a claim of truth. However, if you use a religious stance then we must agree to disagree, as I can’t argue from that stand point for abortion.

 

[lynx]

Actually, that’s not true. Many states say that third-trimester abortions may be done if deemed necessary due to the health or life of the mother being at risk. The laws do not specify when in the third trimester, so it would be possible to perform a legal abortion one minute before birth.

If a child is a minute away from birth there is no need to terminate the pregnancy for health reasons. You’re talking about a reality that can’t happen.

Rather difficult to be your son, considering I’m a woman. Guess you don’t read signatures much, do you?

I left the smiley there to show I was being facetious. How can you get my internet slang but not my ghetto tough guy slang?

Yes, rly.

Awesome. BTW you misspelled really (hey look it’s another smiley, refer to above before posting)

It’s called independent research. If I tried to state all the secular arguments for human rights in this space, I’d far exceed the 6,000 character limit. If you want to inform yourself about this subject, feel free. If you want to remain ignorant, that’s your choice.

You can make 2 posts just as well as I can. That’s no excuse to not put the time and effort into your argument.

I was stating a biological fact about fetal development regarding your “mindless clump of flesh” remark, not establishing criteria for worth of life.

Fair enough.

Chimps are not human beings. Humans are human beings.

I guess you can say that chimps are only 95% human.

95% doesn’t not equal 100%.

Wait a second; let me do some calculations. . . . . . . my god. . . . .

Any genetic scientist worth his or her salt can differentiate between the two.

I should hope so.

When conception occurs after the copulation of two human beings, it is not a chimp that’s created 100% of the time.

Give evolution some time.

Why not?

Killing is against the law, and laws should be adhered to if they are just and moral (as defined by society).

If they’re subjective to the individual, why can’t anyone kill with impunity?

Refer to above.

What is your authority to determine the criteria?

My ability to think and form complex thought about myself, society and the universe. An amount of empathy is also required. In short, I authorize myself.

Funny, that’s not what the law says. I thought legality was your morality?

I think this is the 3rd time you’ve made this mistake. Legality is not my morality. For instance, and law regarding imprisonment for marijuana usage sounds completely unjust IMO. Also, human euthanasia is a victimless crime IMO, albeit selfish, which a sane and rational individual should be free to commit.

 

[lynx]

On my way into work this morning I saw a little two year old girl riding a tricycle on the sidewalk.

Now, I happen to know for a fact that her father is a rapist. So, I thought about jumping the curb with my car and running her over, to take her life.

Does that make sense to anyone here?

Breaking the law and taking it into your own hands sounds like a mistake.

Would it make any more sense if she were only one? A new born? Then why would it make any sense if she were pre-born?

Why are you killing the girl if her father is the rapist? Maybe you should go to the police instead of letting a rapist hang loose

Rape is a terrible crime.
It is twice as bad if the woman is impregnated.
But don’t make it three times as bad by offering to kill the innocent child.

Maybe if you didn’t want to run over the child it wouldn’t be 3x as bad

 

[wanner47]

If a child is a minute away from birth there is no need to terminate the pregnancy for health reasons. You’re talking about a reality that can’t happen.

Where does it say this in the law, and what does it matter? It’s her choice up until the child is born, isn’t it? In many states, abortion is legal long past the stage of viability even when a C-section could deliver the child live. This reality happens all the time – ask the patients of the late Dr. George Tiller, who specialized in abortions when the baby was past the age of viability.

I left the smiley there to show I was being facetious. How can you get my internet slang but not my ghetto tough guy slang?

Maybe because I’m not a ghetto tough guy?

Awesome. BTW you misspelled really (hey look it’s another smiley, refer to above before posting)

img153.imageshack.us/img153/3595/owlorly.th.jpg

You can make 2 posts just as well as I can. That’s no excuse to not put the time and effort into your argument.

We’re talking more like 12. This isn’t a simple topic; entire books have been written about it.

I guess you can say that chimps are only 95% human.

No, you could say that chimp DNA is not human DNA, despite similarities.

Killing is against the law, and laws should be adhered to if they are just and moral (as defined by society).

Is society infallible when it comes to matters of justice and morality?

My ability to think and form complex thought about myself, society and the universe. An amount of empathy is also required. In short, I authorize myself.

So why do you let society tell you who you may or may not kill if you have the authorization to decide for yourself?

I think this is the 3rd time you’ve made this mistake. Legality is not my morality. For instance, and law regarding imprisonment for marijuana usage sounds completely unjust IMO. Also, human euthanasia is a victimless crime IMO, albeit selfish, which a sane and rational individual should be free to commit.

So you believe that society’s wrong on marijuana usage or the legality thereof (for the record, I agree with you there). Is it really so much of a stretch to believe it is wrong about abortion as well?

Human euthanasia isn’t victimless; the deceased as well as his/her family members are all victims. But that’s off-topic.