Sick and tired of the silly rape argument in abortion.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bob Newhart, Oct 28, 2024.

Tags:
  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depending on what she does with her body, yes, it very well may be. You usually don't have a right to use your body to kill other people for example.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2024
  2. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Law is subject to change. Morally speaking, different people see it differently. It isn't unreasonable to see a fetus as a being like us who should have some moral consideration. A zygote, far less so.
     
  3. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    24,812
    Likes Received:
    9,256
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't get vaccinated you could be doing that.
     
    Surfer Joe likes this.
  4. StillBlue

    StillBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    16,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She's from Australia, when she says castration a machete is involved, not necessarily a sharp one.
     
  5. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,164
    Likes Received:
    3,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not subjective but arbitrary. When science and technology advances enough that we can keep a 2 week embryo alive, would you support a law that bans abortion after two weeks being that it is medically viable now?
    Obviously viability means nothing. What truly matters is if we view it to be a living person.
     
  6. Surfer Joe

    Surfer Joe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    25,362
    Likes Received:
    17,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol…what a load of misogynist sophist babbling.
    Although, I do agree with you that if we killed the man who refused to shoulder half the responsibility after getting a woman pregnant, there would be less need for abortions.
    Just like if we jailed anyone who hired an illegal immigrant for their home, business or farm, the illegal immigrant problem would evaporate.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  7. StillBlue

    StillBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    16,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're not talking about jailing the ex-president.
    At what point do you draw the line? Sex only between couples trying to procreate? No condoms? No birth control? Those are things that prevent children. No sex after pregnancy begins since that obviously is simply personal gratification. The Bible? Until the birth and first breath it gives the fetus no status at all and even permits a man to force an abortion on his wife if he is not the father.
    Leave it up to the women, it's their bodies and their lives.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2024
  8. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So when it comes to abortion you feel you have a right to be involved in what your neighbor does. Interesting.
     
  9. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Laws being subject to change doesn’t change the fact that a fetus has no individual rights per US law.
     
  10. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your rant has no bearing on the facts.
     
  11. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    4,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The viability of a fetus depends more the ability of the organs to develop outside of the womb. Until we have the ability to develop our own organs, the earliest possible date of viability for a fetus is over 20 weeks. Medical providers typically do not make an attempt to keep a fetus alive in the case of a miscarriage before this period.

    We’ll be able to regrow amputated limbs before we can keep a fetus alive before 20 weeks. Note that even cloned animals require a surrogate mother, because we do not have the ability to develop our own organs. The most complicated organ of them all that we would need to artificially develop would be the brain. Brain development is relevant to another ethical standard for when a fetus’s life should be protected.. consciousness

    The principle of the anti-abortion stance is to take the position of empathy for the fetus over empathy for the woman. Empathy is defined as our ability to understand and share feelings for another living being.. but in the case of a fetus’s consciousness, the brain doesn’t develop its own sentience until a little bit after viability.

    Before this, a fetus does not have its own feelings. It has no emotion, no sense of pain, or any awareness of its own existence .
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2024
  12. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not what I said, but thanks for your projection.
     
  13. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say it did. Laws being subject to change also doesn't change the fact that the old abortion case is struck down and states now have some laws against abortion, which you appear to oppose. You are not wrong just because you oppose those laws.
     
  14. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then you’re pro-choice. Cool.
     
  15. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I oppose govt telling people what they can or can’t do with their own body.
     
  16. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, that depends. I bet you'd want the government to stop me from grabbing a 5 year old and throwing her off a cliff with my body.

    "My body my choice" works only so far as you aren't hurting somebody else with how you want to use your body. You may see the unborn as not a somebody else, but others would disagree.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2024
  17. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh for the love of god….asinine analogy.
    So if you feel you have a right to force your neighbor to bring the fetus to term are you going to help care for that newborn? Of course not. You only “care” about someone else’s fetus but once it’s born you wipe your hands of it.
    For the record, and I’ve stated this numerous times on this forum, my wife and I would never have had an abortion. But we both feel people ought to be able to make their own CHOICE. Who the hell am I, or you, to dictate to someone else what they should or shouldn’t do with their own body?!
     
    Diablo likes this.
  18. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    4,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The analogy isn't perfect, but it does demonstrate that bodily autonomy is not absolute. It usually stops when you put others in danger. Your right to swing your fist freely stops at my nose.

    If I dangle a 5 year old over a cliff, and you demand I return her safely to the ground rather than just dropping her to her death, do you lose all moral standing in making that demand because you aren't going to adopt them? You not wanting to support somebody doesn't mean you should be ok with some somebody else killing them. THAT would be asinine.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2024
  19. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36,761
    Likes Received:
    18,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aborting a nonviable fetus isn’t the same as killing a five year old but you know that. Stop with the nonsense. Anywho this is going nowhere so I’ll be the adult and give you the last word. I won’t see it but feel free to post anyway. Cheers.
     
  20. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,473
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope - still a dichotomy.

    Human being >> unique significance of a fetus

    I did mention this BTW
    It doesn't matter what you call it, you're giving it less significance than a human being.
    You do know abortions happen when there is no rape, right?

    In the U.S., the vast majority of abortions are elective abortions based solely on the mother's decision whether one judges those decisions as altruistic or otherwise.

    As for the health of the mother, most would agree to allowing in those cases, although Democrats and Australians like to argue that Republicans want to murder women.
    The above statement is based on fantasy.

    In reality, it takes and average of 6 months for an accusation of rape to the filing of criminal charges. It takes another year before those charges end up in a trial.

    While no one else has mentioned it, the case of statutory rape is different. Statutory rape could be confirmed relatively quickly.
    No. This is the same straw man most people have been posting and reposting.

    In the OP and title, I'm arguing how using rape as a reason to legalize abortion either fully or partially is silly.

    You are trying to argue that it's horrible to force a woman who was raped to carry "the unique significance of a fetus" to term.

    I would argue that it's horrible to force a woman to carry "the unique significance of a fetus" to term.

    (I'm using his terms people. If people want to argue semantics and demand "the unique significance of a fetus" something else like embryo, zygote, baby or whatever, fine. It won't change or refute my argument.)

    Are you arguing that the government should force women to carry "the unique significance of a fetus" to term?

    That's the point you completely missed.
     
  21. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    29,718
    Likes Received:
    11,906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No they aren't.

    Our government admits, in words in text that our rights are guaranteed by our creator and can not be removed by government.
     
  22. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    29,718
    Likes Received:
    11,906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for admitting defeat.
     
  23. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    24,812
    Likes Received:
    9,256
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Man wrote that, made up.
     
  24. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    29,718
    Likes Received:
    11,906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And?

    They documented it the fact.

    If government didn't exist, would you have free speech?

    Lol.

    Yes.

    It's an inherent right.
     
  25. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,473
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't understand what self-defense is.

    Self-defense can only be claimed if you fear for your life or major permanent bodily injury. In both these cases, most people would agree to allowing abortion. Regardless, this is not relevant to the current conversation.

    People are restrained when they threaten the life of another. If I run up to a cop and scream "I'm going to kill you" while waving a baseball bat, I will hopefully be restrained and not killed. No one will complain that I lost bodily autonomy. No one will complain that I when I go to jail for a year or more.

    Does whatever that thing inside the woman have the same value of life as the cop?

    People are continually constrained to protect the lives of others. You can't run over pedestrians in the crosswalk even if they are in your way. When carrying a baby, you can't just drop it when you feel constrained.

    Now a lot of people are trying to have it both ways and call it "the unique significance of a fetus". In my opinion, this is far worse than people who say it has no significance until birth. I would rather abortion be legal all the way to birth like it is in D.C., than follow the murky road of when one can kill a human being for the sake of how much inconvenience it causes.

    In a standard healthy pregnancy, you're saying that the woman should be able to kill another human being for "doing what its doing". I can imagine the court trial - "I sentence you to death!"

    "For what?"

    "Doing what you're doing!!"

    ?????

    If, it's a human being it should be treated as such. Argue when that should be.
     

Share This Page