Sick and tired of the silly rape argument in abortion.

One of two things is true.

1. What you're about to kill is not a human being.

In this case whether or not the mass of flesh is a product of rape or not is irrelevant. Why would you force a woman to keep something alive which isn't human if it wasn't the result of rape?

2. What you're about to kill is a human being or considered a human being.

Why are you killing a human being for the sins of the father? Are you an Israeli?

If the mother has the right to murder a human being because it was the product of rape, when does this right end? Can she get rid of it when it becomes an annoying teenager?

Do you really think desperate women won't claim rape just to get an abortion? How would you know? How quick does that trial have to be to convict or exonerate a rapist to get the abortion done on time? Or does there even need to be a trial before the abortion? Believe the self-professed victim . . . always? What's the difference between elective abortion and justified abortion due to rape if the mother is always believed? If you find out the mother lied, will you try her for murder?

Why not kill the rapist and not the baby?

Some things . . .

If you call the thing growing in the woman after getting pregnant anything but a baby or human being you are in category 1. If you call it a fetus, a possible human being, a zygote, an embryo, etc. , you are in category one. So don't start arguing stuff like "IT'S NOT A BABY!" - you're in category 1 - don't be silly and try to answer questions outside your category.

 

I don’t understand your argument. Does government decide or does the pregnant woman?

 

if you support abortion in the case of rape or the life of the mother, you support Abortion... do you support Abortion?

 

Do you not understand the difference between INSIDE the womb and OUTSIDE the womb?

 

You're barking up the wrong tree

If you ban abortions then more women are going to die and that is the simple fact of the matter this is why this argument is bogus

If we restore Roe then there won't be any false claims of rape.

Capiche?

Restoring Roe v Wade is favored the vast majority of the electorate -- it's the will of the people so you'll just have to learn to live with it.

I have and I find abortions as repugnant as you do

sooo....... this is fact of life reality pragmatism and screw ideological thinking

 

The only argument I've seen for rape making a difference is in the balance of rights between the woman and the unborn, after one has already decided that the unborn deserves some moral consideration.You've got at that point the life of the unborn weighed against the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Rape or not then goes to the question of if a duty of care is created by the woman in her creating (co-creating) the situation of the pregnancy. The unborn is completely innocent and didn't ask to be there. The woman, if not raped, is responsible (co-responsible) for the unborn being there. In a rape situation, she isn't responsible for the situation and so some argue there is therefore no duty of care on her.

Think of it like a self defence case. The unborn is using the woman's body and it may cause her harm. If she didn't create the situation, then she could argue she is defending her body by aborting the unborn. But if she caused the unborn to be doing what its doing (ie, no rape), then the self defence argument is weaker. Bodily autonomy isn't seen by all as an absolute right, be it regarding abortion, the draft, mandatory vacines, etc. Sometimes the rights of others are found to outweigh the bodily autonomy right.

But yes, if you start by deciding the unborn warrants no moral consideration and should not be seen as a person, then the issue is moot. There is no weighing of rights to be done, and its a private matter of the woman and nobody else's business.

 

2 things.

You talk about the life of the woman, but ignore the baby's life. How many babies are killed yearly due to abortion vs how many women would die if abortion was banned? Which do you think would be less?

And note I said "killed" ...not murdered so don't go down that starwman argument route.

And Dems don't actually care about the majority of the electorate except when it benefits them. As proven with illegal immigration and wanting our laws enforced and the border secured. Also in the fact that the majority of the electorate wants abortions banned after the point of viability, Dems still want it even up to the 9th month.

And one more thing as I think about it in regards to "If we restore Roe then there won't be any false claims of rape." ... Its a meaningless statement. If we get rid of ANYTHING then there would be nothing associated with that "anything".

 

Well said.

 

I am fine with the rapist being held responsible - castration comes to mind……

 

You're being too kind imo. I'd use other.....................methods..........

 

@Bob Newhart I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. It is perfectly viable to recognise the unique significance of a fetus without simply declaring that it is a human being. As is so often the case, reality is much more complex and messy than the simplistic moral principles we'd like to impose upon it.

Also, abortion in the case of rape isn't about punishing the rapist, it is about the wellbeing of the mother. Beyond any physical aspects, the psychological harm of forcing a woman to carry her rapists child to term clearly has the potential to be significant. Given such cases are likely to be identified relatively quickly and therefore lead to a very early abortion, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to give pregnant rape victims that option, even where you're otherwise restricting elective abortions.

The practicalities of confirming the circumstances in the case of alleged rape is obviously difficult more generally, and I'd agree that making medical decisions around abortion a factor in that could only serve to make it worse. Your proposal appears to be to avoid that complication by banning abortion regardless, but you seem to be dismissing, ignoring or ignorant of the related harms that could cause.

Again, reality if much more complex and varied than we'd all like it to be, which is why individual choice within the scope of open medical advice remains the best (or least worst) basis for a practical approach.

 

If you’re against abortion then don’t have one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

You forgot the third option:

3. It is Israel fault.

 

If someone slips a drug in your daughters drink should she be arrested for possession of that drug?

If the state wants a raped woman to carry a baby until birth than the state should be ready to become the father of the baby and support it.

 

If you have to make arguments in absolutes, black or white, this or that... it's like because your positions suck.

 

Yes. Absolutely.

And then at trial, she can make the case she was drugged.

What you do you expect, anybody caught with drugs in their system can simple say "I didn't put that there!" and the police say "welp, guess we have to cut them loose"?

Really?

I agree with this.

Abortion (within the first trimester) from rape should be aborted if the woman desires.

This accounts for less than 1% of all abortions.

 

There is a genetic hazard in rapists babies. If someone is willing to rape someone and they reproduce, then their offspring are also more likely to be willing to rape and reproduce as a result of personality being passed from parent to child. So, the world becomes a world of more rapists over time when rapists babies are enabled to reproduce.

That said, abortion isn't the only way of countering this problem. Sterilization of a rapists babies would also accomplish that.

 

Since the beginning of humans the woman has always decided. It was kept private.

 

Those cave man abortions were rough!

 

Those are valid arguments. So, my question is, when Trump says “I overturned Roe v. Wade, now it’s up to the state,” does he mean "let the states decide which ones permit baby killing and which ones want to save baby"?

 

According to existing law, a 'fetus' is not a 'baby'. Until the SC grants a fetus the status of personhood, with all rights thereto, your argument is moot. No one is suggesting aborting a fetus past viability, unless mother's life is in danger or the fetus is, due to malformity, cannot survive more than a few hours past birth.

do you support abortion for rape, rape/incest? if you do, then your argument is moot.

Women are among the living. Fetus's have yet to be born, Logic/justice/ethics dictates to side with the born regardless of numbers.

Fetus's are not 'killed' or 'murdered', they are terminated. Fetus's have yet to be born, Logic/justice/ethics dictates to side with the born.

The word 'Democrat' is derived from 'Democracy'. Democracy is all about the will of the people, which means the majority rules.

"Rights' are not about democracy, they should be universal, no right should be subject to partisan whims,

Democrats side with justice, fairness, and the will of the people.

That's a lie. Democrats expect doctors/patients to exercise good faith judgement that passed viability, the only legit reason is if a fetus is endangering the woman's health, or the fetus is so defective it's life expectancy is nil post birth. No democrat supports abortion past viability, noting the exceptions. laws the seem to allow it, are there to give doctors the freedom to exercise reasonable judgement, without interference form right wing zealot prosecutors.. They are in, no way, condoning aborting a viable fetus.

Well, that is not an argument not to restore Roe.

So, my response is: whatever.

 

Except what happens when it is a false accusation?

 

The “fetal personhood” thing is very very fraught. We have already seen women charged with everything from “foetal endangerment” to “murder”. Most commonly women who are in the throes of addiction. So my question is - where is the line?

 

There is a rational inconsistency in saying a fetus is a human life, while making exceptions for rape or incest, since we don’t make those same exceptions for after birth.

It is not logical to appose abortions under the notion that the fetus is a human life while also supporting abortion in cases of rape or incest. If you support abortion for the latter cases, then you might as well admit it is not the same as a human life to you… which is okay, there are logical and scientific reasons for concluding that a fetus in its non-viable stages is not a human life, but in that case, all women should have access to that option

 

Yep, since its the woman's body.