Sick and tired of the silly rape argument in abortion.

Indeed. There are many cases in which competing rights of others override a person's right to bodily autonomy. The draft, mandatory vaccination, etc.

Good point. Not all cases will take that long, but still, good point. Many will.
I suppose you could make her take an oath or something. There are penalties for lying under oath.
Or you could ban all abortion after the stage of development that the unborn is considered one worthy of such protection with inalienable rights.

I don't like the use of the word "human being" here, as it's too easily used to equivocate a zygote with a fetus, or baby. Only hard core (and usually religious) prolifers accept that these should all have the same protections. Many others will want increasing protection for the being in the womb the more it/he/she has developed. And very few are fine with killing a baby seconds before birth.

 

No, overt actions against another person has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Yes, we can move the goalposts as we need to, but it reveals a very weak position in a debate.

The woman carries the baby, the man doesn't. Neither the state nor the church has any lawful authority to tell a man or a woman what he or she must do with their own bodies.

 

I don't agree with your attempt to move goalposts. Your right to control your body is restricted when your choice harms others. In abortion there is a weighing of the bodily autonomy of the woman against the bodily autonomy of the unborn (who her abortion actively kills).

If the unborn doesn't warrant protection or bodily autonomy or other rights to life, and is just a mass of cells or just part of the woman's body, then the moral calculation is simple as you see it, and it's entirely her choice. But if the unborn does warrant protection, then it isn't that simple.

Absent a rape, the woman is responsible (co-responsible) for the pregnancy and she has created the peril for the unborn, who had no choice. The unborn is not an invader. It is her (and the father's) victim. Society tends not to leave the choice of protecting victims or not protecting victims solely to the victimizer.

Society often disagrees with you on that: Military drafts, forced prison labour, mandatory vaccination, and yes, the right to swing your fist freely stops at my nose. These are all cases of violating the right of a person to do what they want with their body.

 

If you find the time to read Colonel Thomas Rempfer's book UNYIELDING you will discover that mandatory vaccination has no lawful authority, or at least is severely restricted even within the military. You will also discover what many of us already know, that the federal government including the military doesn't give a damn about the law and lawful authority. To be clear Rempfer does not address the matter of abortion.

You're the one moving the goalposts by defining words and terms to suit your view. Bodily autonomy, the right to it, does not include assault against another person. You offer absurd hypotheticals and sophistry, nothing more. The sanctity of the body is absolute as long as the person owning the body does not assault others.

Suggesting that laws written by a government that routinely shows no respect at all for the sanctity of the body will stop a woman from choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a naive joke. Women have always done that, a small percentage of women at that. It is in our DNA that we protect our offspring. The whole thing is a very complex situation, and you want me to believe that the government that cannot stop people from consuming alcohol and other drugs by law will magically be able to pass a law that will stop women from terminating a pregnancy. You are as naive as they come JP.

 

You are defining words to suit your view. I was very clear in what I wrote and what you responded to. You attacked semantics rather than the point I made, which is word games.

Again, society often disagrees with that. The draft, mandatory vaccination, forced prison labour, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

Abortion is the opposite of protecting offspring.

This does not address what I wrote above.
I wrote nothing about the effectiveness of laws.
Your personal attack is noted though.

 

No, you wrote nothing about the efficacy of legislation, suggesting you're not interested in it at all. I am, as a liberty-oriented tax payer.

I can see any future dialogue you and I might engage in will require a constant fine-tuning of the meaning of words. Dictionaries need not apply.

Offspring, to me, means children and descendants. Hold on to your hat, Webster's Riverside agrees: "the progeny of a person, animal or plant". No mention of fetus, so you might reject Webster.

Checking for progeny, Webster says "Children or descendants: OFFSPRING". Again no mention of fetus. Is your hat still on?

 

This thread is about abortion and why some say rape makes a difference regarding if it is morally permissible. I explored the issue and explained why some will see it as making a difference in their moral judgments. That is all.

Rather then addressing my points and exploring the issue In good faith, you leapt in to argue semantics and then to launch into projection.

You claimed that I want you to believe something about laws, when I wrote nothing at all about laws. You called me naive for holding some position I did not claim. Now you say that my having said nothing about laws suggests I don't care about laws...

What dialogue? You have bickered over semantics and lashed out at strawmen. You haven't addressed any point that I made. Neither I nor my hat have any interest in such games.

 

This is a bit off topic, but interesting.

I note that you said you discussed your wishes and what you want to happen to yourself at that point. What do you think should happen if your wishes, say in a will, conflict with what your family wants to do at the time. Should your wife have the right to demand to keep your form alive should she then want to, against your wishes?

 

This situation comes up quite often.

This isn't up to your family unless you choose to leave it up to them.

 

These issues ARE covered by law.

 

She won’t go against my wishes. That is the whole point of discussing it. But, for sake of argument, if she did go against my wishes of pulling the plug I wouldn’t know anyway, right? Ha

 

Yes, I know. That isn't the question though. I was asking what should be, not what the law currently is.

 

Sure. But I was not addressing the current state of laws (in your country or mine). I was merely exploring the moral issue and why different people see it differently.

 

Lol true true

 

The question is who has the right to make the decision.

We make that decision by passing laws.

I do NOT agree that those other than the pregnant women have the right to consign her to death.

 

I see that. But this thread isn't about what you think or want. Its about why some think rape makes a difference in their moral calculation.
Some find that hard to understand and inconsistent.

 

I'm aware that there are lots of religions and cultures in America.

There are women dying because of this. We can't be arguing about what the title SHOULD have been.

Women can choose the route they take.

But, you and I can not choose THEIR route, any more than we can require they get a transfusion.

 

Depending on how you look at it, there are many more children dying from this. Some see the unborn as kids. That changes the moral calculation for them.

 

Now you are changing the goal posts.

 

Changing the goalposts implies that I have set up goalposts. I have not.

 

I accept and agree your first 3 sentences. Yes, rape is certainly one of many reasons why a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy. I'm sorry if you were offended by my transgressions.

 

We have many states with laws that were specifically written to deny women the life saving healthcare that the need.

I think you are claiming that discussing this issue, which certainly is a moral issue, on the grounds that you don't want to HEARE about it.

True?