Abortion, expanded

[Anguille]

what you're telling me now is that we need legalized abortion to protect women from their own weakness and helplessness.

You are just so bizarre.

 

[Anguille]

If by "more choice" you mean they couldn't kill perfectly healthy babies for whatever reason, you're right.

In the past, the only women who got abortions were those who had medical issues which required abortion and occasionally women who were unmarried who had sympathetic doctors. Of course, in those days, it was a stigma to be pregnant while unmarried.

Since it isn't anymore, it's not necessary.

You get pregnant, you go through nine months of pregnancy, you give your baby up for adoption. Oh my god, how HORRIBLE!

Baba, the world did not begin in 1950.

 

[Anguille]

Um, before Roe v. Wade, a decision made by a handful of lawyers in black robes (aka Justices) rather than passed as legislation by either the people or their elected representatives, the prevailing laws in all states (which WERE passed as legislation by the people/their elected representatives) was that abortion was regulated and/or restricted. Ergo, when society actually had a hand in the law, society chose to regulate/restrict abortion.

Can't imagine how you didn't know. I make a practice of telling people when I put them on ignore, so that they don't have to bother talking to me anymore. And you should be flattered. You're the first person I've ever unignored.

Society has always had a hand in the law.

My, what an America-centric viewpoint. You might want to take a look at some countries with permanent dictatorships, Chuckles, rather than the intermittent dictatorship our Supreme Court provides us. Meanwhile, society doesn't have any hand in laws that are simply imposed on it by fiat, take my word for it.

Your assertion here, "When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted." is entirely incorrect. Even though the methods used were less medically advanced, women in the past had more freedom concerning choice of abortion.The cut off date was beyond the first trimester, . Abortion was barely regulated nor restricted. Read the stuff CareForAll has posted if you don't believe me. She has done a lot of reasearch on this subject.

I wouldn't waste my time reading Care if you were paying me to. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at your selective logic. I don't know if I should start with the idea that no abortion after the first trimester could possibly qualify as unrestricted, let alone "more freedom than now", or with the fact that you believe every state in the Union allowed unrestricted abortion in the first trimester.

I don't recall you ever telling me I was on ignore. If you did so in a post, I probably never read it because I usually skip over your posts.

Apparently excepting those you obsessively answer without ever realizing that you never get a response.

on all accounts.

Now that I've had a look at your posts again, I can see why I stopped reading them awhile back.

 

[sidneyworld]

Sex is voluntary. Pregnancy is involuntary. Women cannot tell their eggs to stay away from sperm. All they can do is take preventative measures to try and insure that they never meet up. Sometimes those measures fail or are not taken. Having sex is not a agreement to carry a pregnancy to term.

Okay, now I have to believe that you must be a young individual to make such an ignorant statement. Having sex carries a risk of pregnancy no matter what agreement you might not make, no matter what outcome you might have intended and no matter what type of birth control you might actually utilize.

Good grief, wake up, darlin.

Anne Marie

Because a person takes a risk and has sex does not mean they must make an agreement to carry a pregnancy to term. No matter how much you would like to believe having sex obligates a woman to refrain from aborting whatever she wants from her body, it doesn't make it so.

What that means is that you are morally bankrupt.

Anne Marie

 

[Anguille]

Okay, now I have to believe that you must be a young individual to make such an ignorant statement. Having sex carries a risk of pregnancy no matter what agreement you might not make, no matter what outcome you might have intended and no matter what type of birth control you might actually utilize.

Good grief, wake up, darlin.

Anne Marie

Because a person takes a risk and has sex does not mean they must make an agreement to carry a pregnancy to term. No matter how much you would like to believe having sex obligates a woman to refrain from aborting whatever she wants from her body, it doesn't make it so.

What that means is that you are morally bankrupt.

Anne Marie

That is sort of how I see you.

 

[sidneyworld]

Because a person takes a risk and has sex does not mean they must make an agreement to carry a pregnancy to term. No matter how much you would like to believe having sex obligates a woman to refrain from aborting whatever she wants from her body, it doesn't make it so.

What that means is that you are morally bankrupt.

Anne Marie

That is sort of how I see you.

Hmmmm. "... aborting whatever she wants from her body." Interesting perspective on the value of human life. Woman's liberation has surely come a long way in this society.

Anne Marie

 

[Immanuel]

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

From what I understand, It is true that rape rarely results in a pregnancy. My bringing up the case of an 11 year old rape victim was not meant to justify abortion in the case of rape, but rather to state that I believe that there are times when the circumstances warrant an outcome that I don't find agreeable.

As with any law there are always circumstances that justify breaking the law. One can kill in order to save one's life. One can speed down the freeway in order to get someone else to a hospital. There are circumstances that allow for breaking the law as there should be. Granted abortion in not now against the law and maybe one can make the case that abortion should never be against the law, but, whether or not it is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable.

And Anguille, I did not say all 11 year old rape victims. Again, the circumstances of each individual case should be taken into account. The same goes for any woman of any age. If a woman's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, then exceptions need to be allowed.

To answer your question about why should the unborn child of a rape victim be deprived the right to life since they are not guilty of a crime, the child should not be deprived of life, however, under certain circumstances the rape victim has the right to defend her life too.

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

What is an innocent being and why is the right to life innocent beings especially entitled to protection?

Allie answered the question about an innocent being very well so I won't bother repeating.

The second part has been answered in this post. Sorry I wasn't around to answer earlier.

Immie

 

[Grigorio]

Abortion is for people who aren't limited by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality. It's just another human, there are 6 billion+ already and we're heading for 9 billion+ by mid-century. You folks have your heads screwed on wrong, save every last person but who cares how many other species go extinct? Time to get of the human ego trip of being such superior beings. We're a real danger to all the other species out there.

Do you extend this argument to all instances of homicide? What about rape or theft?

 

[Grigorio]

How does Pro-choice before conception work?

Sounds to me like the implication is that one should exercise responsibility prior to conception and respect human life from the time is is formed.

Just my interpretation, fwiw.

 

[Grigorio]

Abortion bans devalue the value of female life.
.

Do elaborate and demonstrate. What about the unborn female life?

 

[Grigorio]

If the fetus or embryo is going to be aborted anyway.

You're presupposing abortion without showing that it is reasonable to do so.

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

Expanding upon this, it is equally 'unconstitutional' for members of society to be forced to provide for another person without there consent. Should we kill all on welfare?

I don't see how you can force a woman to bear a child against her will without agreeing that the state is responsible for the existence of said child for at least 18 years. And must pay for the upkeep of the child.

How does telling a woman she is not allowed to commit homicide make the State responsible for someone's child?

 

[Grigorio]

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

So once a woman becomes pregnant her right to life is stripped from her?

Not only does this not follow, it seems like quite the Red Herring

 

[Ravi]

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

As if all of your arguments aren't disingenuous.

btw, Allie...you are the one that is always claiming all the underage girls that get abortions are actually victims of rape. Make up your mind.

 

[Immanuel]

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

As if all of your arguments aren't disingenuous.

btw, Allie...you are the one that is always claiming all the underage girls that get abortions are actually victims of rape. Make up your mind.

Hehe,

Good point, however, statutory rape and rape are actually two different crimes.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

What is an innocent being and why is the right to life innocent beings especially entitled to protection?

An innocent being is a being who has done no wrong. They are entitled to protection because it is the job of the strong to protect them so they aren't killed or exploited.

Are women innocent beings? Are they entitled to protection so they aren't exploited?

 

[Immanuel]

What is an innocent being and why is the right to life innocent beings especially entitled to protection?

An innocent being is a being who has done no wrong. They are entitled to protection because it is the job of the strong to protect them so they aren't killed or exploited.

Are women innocent beings? Are they entitled to protection so they aren't exploited?

I have yet to meet an innocent woman!!!

Yet, they are entitled to protections just as even a criminal is entitled to certain protections.

Immie

 

[Grigorio]

Can we all agree that, for the purposes of this discussion, 'rape' shall refer specifically to forcible rape or other sexual assault or abuse against the victim's will?

 

[Anguille]

From what I understand, It is true that rape rarely results in a pregnancy. My bringing up the case of an 11 year old rape victim was not meant to justify abortion in the case of rape, but rather to state that I believe that there are times when the circumstances warrant an outcome that I don't find agreeable.

As with any law there are always circumstances that justify breaking the law. One can kill in order to save one's life. One can speed down the freeway in order to get someone else to a hospital. There are circumstances that allow for breaking the law as there should be. Granted abortion in not now against the law and maybe one can make the case that abortion should never be against the law, but, whether or not it is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable.

And Anguille, I did not say all 11 year old rape victims. Again, the circumstances of each individual case should be taken into account. The same goes for any woman of any age. If a woman's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, then exceptions need to be allowed.

To answer your question about why should the unborn child of a rape victim be deprived the right to life since they are not guilty of a crime, the child should not be deprived of life, however, under certain circumstances the rape victim has the right to defend her life too.

So you are saying that there are certain cases where it would be okay to terminate a pregnancy or deprive a child of it's life, as you put it? What sort of cases would you imagine that to be acceptable for you? Is the immediate threat to the life of the mother the only exception? Are there any others?
Allie didn't give answer my part of the question to you concerning innocent beings who are especially more innocent. Do you consider adults to be innocent? Would an 11 year old child possibly be be innocent?

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

Allie answered the question about an innocent being very well so I won't bother repeating.

The second part has been answered in this post. Sorry I wasn't around to answer earlier.

Immie[/quote] Allie didn't give answer my part of the question to you concerning innocent beings who are especially more innocent. Do you consider adults to be innocent? Would an 11 year old child possibly be be innocent?

No problem about not being around earlier. No one really has any obligation to post. I appreciate that you answer my questions sincerely and without trying to derail the conversation with inflammatory language. I truly want to know how anti-abortionists can reconcile the "killing of the baby" of a rape victim with their belief that all fetuses and/or embryos have a right to life. The making exceptions thing has always seemed hypocritical to me, but maybe that's because no one has been able to explain it properly.

 

[Anguille]

What that means is that you are morally bankrupt.

Anne Marie

That is sort of how I see you.

Hmmmm. "... aborting whatever she wants from her body." Interesting perspective on the value of human life. Woman's liberation has surely come a long way in this society.

Anne Marie

Yes it has, thankfully.

 

[Ceasaro]

Abortion is for people who aren't limited by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality. It's just another human, there are 6 billion+ already and we're heading for 9 billion+ by mid-century. You folks have your heads screwed on wrong, save every last person but who cares how many other species go extinct? Time to get of the human ego trip of being such superior beings. We're a real danger to all the other species out there.

Do you extend this argument to all instances of homicide? What about rape or theft?

Abortion is homicide? Like I said, you're being trapped by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality, your religion. If you can prove that the bible or other religious books actually is the words of god, and that god really exists to have dictated these books, then maybe I'll agree with you. Otherwise, saving humans while eating all other species is hypocritical.