Rape and Abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

When the law doesn't consider it a "person?"

So if conceived during consensual sex, it's a person and aborting it would be murder, but if conceived due to rape, it's not a person? How does that work? Your personhood is based on how you were conceived?

[Anonymous]

On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are all your thoughts on rape victims getting pregnant. Is it fair to expect the person to keep the baby?

When my kids would complain to me about not getting things their way at times they liked to use these words;"that's not fair! I would tell them that one of the first lessons they needed to learn about life is that, it's not fair. Think about it. How many things can we expect to be fair? It reminds me of something on a more funny note.I learned how to drive in Az and there was a question about what we should do if pedestrian jay walk. The right answer was actually;don't run them over because two wrongs don't make a right. On a more serious note it's the same for a rape victim. Two wrongs don't make a right. And consider if it's fair to punish a dear little baby for the act of a cruel man? I chose to see it a different way; a woman who has been raped can turn a very hurtful and painful act into an amazing and beautiful story. A happy ending for a rough beginning. I know people who were conceived by rape and they are amazing. Instead of letting circumstances control us we have the power to do great things with of them.

I myself am a child who was conceived by rape and given up for adoption. I cannot imagine how difficult it was for my birthmother, and I have incredible gratitude that she made the sacrifice that she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

What does this have to do with the question of how someone justifies supporting exceptions for rape and incest while otherwise supporting a total ban on abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

Agency and consent. When a man has consensual sex, the law states that he has consented to becoming a father, regardless of whether that is what he intended. It is not a stretch to apply the same framework to women, although there is the obvious biological difference. In the case of rape, the woman has not consented. Thus, you have competing interests among the woman and child with no clear and obviously fair way to resolve the conflict. In that specific case, it would be understandable to morally accept abortion even if one views it as murder.

[Anonymous]

Well OP, what are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

Agency and consent. When a man has consensual sex, the law states that he has consented to becoming a father, regardless of whether that is what he intended. It is not a stretch to apply the same framework to women, although there is the obvious biological difference. In the case of rape, the woman has not consented. Thus, you have competing interests among the woman and child with no clear and obviously fair way to resolve the conflict. In that specific case, it would be understandable to morally accept abortion even if one views it as murder.

No wholly fair way, but I'd say asking the mother for endure a temporary pregnancy is more fair than prrmanently murdering an innocent person. Unless, of course, you don't actually view it as murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

Yes, I am ideologically consistent. Severely disabled humans, newborn infants, nor severely premature babies are completely and totally physically dependent on a very specific, non-interchangeable person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

A fetus pre-viability cannot survive, even with advanced medical care. Premise, injured or disabled children or adults can.i don't understand your question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

Agency and consent. When a man has consensual sex, the law states that he has consented to becoming a father, regardless of whether that is what he intended. It is not a stretch to apply the same framework to women, although there is the obvious biological difference. In the case of rape, the woman has not consented. Thus, you have competing interests among the woman and child with no clear and obviously fair way to resolve the conflict. In that specific case, it would be understandable to morally accept abortion even if one views it as murder.

No wholly fair way, but I'd say asking the mother for endure a temporary pregnancy is more fair than prrmanently murdering an innocent person. Unless, of course, you don't actually view it as murder.

That's all in how you frame the issue. Asking an innocent woman to relive a rape for 9 months and suffer the permenant physiological and potential psychological effects thereof is a really huge thing to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

Yes, I am ideologically consistent. Severely disabled humans, newborn infants, nor severely premature babies are completely and totally physically dependent on a very specific, non-interchangeable person.

That's a meaningless distinction to the "non-person" whose "personhood" you are trying to determine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

Agency and consent. When a man has consensual sex, the law states that he has consented to becoming a father, regardless of whether that is what he intended. It is not a stretch to apply the same framework to women, although there is the obvious biological difference. In the case of rape, the woman has not consented. Thus, you have competing interests among the woman and child with no clear and obviously fair way to resolve the conflict. In that specific case, it would be understandable to morally accept abortion even if one views it as murder.

No wholly fair way, but I'd say asking the mother for endure a temporary pregnancy is more fair than prrmanently murdering an innocent person. Unless, of course, you don't actually view it as murder.

That's all in how you frame the issue. Asking an innocent woman to relive a rape for 9 months and suffer the permenant physiological and potential psychological effects thereof is a really huge thing to ask.

Are you actually pro-life? Or are you just trying to imagine what the argument would be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

Agency and consent. When a man has consensual sex, the law states that he has consented to becoming a father, regardless of whether that is what he intended. It is not a stretch to apply the same framework to women, although there is the obvious biological difference. In the case of rape, the woman has not consented. Thus, you have competing interests among the woman and child with no clear and obviously fair way to resolve the conflict. In that specific case, it would be understandable to morally accept abortion even if one views it as murder.

No wholly fair way, but I'd say asking the mother for endure a temporary pregnancy is more fair than prrmanently murdering an innocent person. Unless, of course, you don't actually view it as murder.

That's all in how you frame the issue. Asking an innocent woman to relive a rape for 9 months and suffer the permenant physiological and potential psychological effects thereof is a really huge thing to ask.

Are you actually pro-life? Or are you just trying to imagine what the argument would be?

I don't think very many issues are truly binary, so I'm probably not pro-life in the conventional sense of the term.