When abortion is illegal for incest and rape

[strollingbones]

it is a simple point.....you either are against abortion in all cases ...or you are just bullshitting when you allow exceptions..a child of rape or incest is still a child is it not?

 

[Coyote]

Rape or incest does not legitimize murder. If abortion is wrong it is wrong in all circumstances.

Sorry. But it is not a murder if it is (or can be) justified as an act of self defense.

Same as it is with an abortion in extreme cases to save the mother's life. Is it still a homicide? Absolutely. But it is not a murder.

Bullshit.

The child had no say in its conception.

If you were ethically consistent the ONLY exception is the mother’s life.

The reason that a woman has a right to an abortion in a situation where it is to save her life is not significantly different from one in a pregnancy that was forced on her.

Yes it is.

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

 

[Coyote]

I added to my answer , see above. what does the law say, please provide link.

I don't feel the need to do your homework and it really wouldn't hurt my feelings if leftardz want to try to ban abortions for rape victims.

You will get an education on the rape exception eventually. One way or the other.

Well this thread is about abortion, and you are speaking for the fetus that does not yet exist when one is being raped, so self defense of the fetus does not come into play.
I do not need to check the law, I am not going to attack anyone first.

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

 

[Chuz Life]

Sorry. But it is not a murder if it is (or can be) justified as an act of self defense.

Same as it is with an abortion in extreme cases to save the mother's life. Is it still a homicide? Absolutely. But it is not a murder.

Bullshit.

The child had no say in its conception.

If you were ethically consistent the ONLY exception is the mother’s life.

The reason that a woman has a right to an abortion in a situation where it is to save her life is not significantly different from one in a pregnancy that was forced on her.

Yes it is.

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't feel the need to do your homework and it really wouldn't hurt my feelings if leftardz want to try to ban abortions for rape victims.

You will get an education on the rape exception eventually. One way or the other.

Well this thread is about abortion, and you are speaking for the fetus that does not yet exist when one is being raped, so self defense of the fetus does not come into play.
I do not need to check the law, I am not going to attack anyone first.

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

You don't seem to really want to consider the answer to that.

 

[Coyote]

Well this thread is about abortion, and you are speaking for the fetus that does not yet exist when one is being raped, so self defense of the fetus does not come into play.
I do not need to check the law, I am not going to attack anyone first.

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

You don't seem to really want to consider the answer to that.

I do consider it. I consider all sides of the debate because there are no truly "right" answers. I come up with my own internally consistent position.

You take a strong position on the side of the child's right. It is a position that can not be consistent if you make the exceptions you claim. This is about your position, as stated above - not what I consider.

 

[Coyote]

Bullshit.

The child had no say in its conception.

If you were ethically consistent the ONLY exception is the mother’s life.

The reason that a woman has a right to an abortion in a situation where it is to save her life is not significantly different from one in a pregnancy that was forced on her.

Yes it is.

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

IS the child endangering your life?

Do YOU have a choice in your actions?

That other person may be responsible but - it was not his decision that ended the child's life.

 

[Penelope]

I added to my answer , see above. what does the law say, please provide link.

I don't feel the need to do your homework and it really wouldn't hurt my feelings if leftardz want to try to ban abortions for rape victims.

You will get an education on the rape exception eventually. One way or the other.

Well this thread is about abortion, and you are speaking for the fetus that does not yet exist when one is being raped, so self defense of the fetus does not come into play.
I do not need to check the law, I am not going to attack anyone first.

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

They you have to be against abortion for rape/incest.

 

[Chuz Life]

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

You don't seem to really want to consider the answer to that.

I do consider it. I consider all sides of the debate because there are no truly "right" answers. I come up with my own internally consistent position.

You take a strong position on the side of the child's right. It is a position that can not be consistent if you make the exceptions you claim. This is about your position, as stated above - not what I consider.

Let's follow your logic on this. . .

You are claiming that if someone were to forcibly grab a child and biologically connect them to your body in a criminal act. . . Your responsibility for that child and the child's welfare should be exactly the same as if you created the child and connected it to your body, yourself.

Correct?

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't feel the need to do your homework and it really wouldn't hurt my feelings if leftardz want to try to ban abortions for rape victims.

You will get an education on the rape exception eventually. One way or the other.

Well this thread is about abortion, and you are speaking for the fetus that does not yet exist when one is being raped, so self defense of the fetus does not come into play.
I do not need to check the law, I am not going to attack anyone first.

Dafuq?

Speaking for the what?

Are you on the bong or something?

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

They you have to be against abortion for rape/incest.

Not entirely.

 

[Chuz Life]

The reason that a woman has a right to an abortion in a situation where it is to save her life is not significantly different from one in a pregnancy that was forced on her.

Yes it is.

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

IS the child endangering your life?

Yes. At least to a extent, they are.. . But you are wrong to assume that the only time a person has a right to act in self defense is when the danger is actually a matter of life or death.

Do YOU have a choice in your actions?

That other person may be responsible but - it was not his decision that ended the child's life.

Neither is it the decision that a customer has a heart attack and dies during a bank robbery. . . Guess what. . . The robber can still face a MURDER charge for that though.

Can't they.

 

[Coyote]

I thought you were speaking for the rights of the fetus not to be aborted. Who are you representing?

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

You don't seem to really want to consider the answer to that.

I do consider it. I consider all sides of the debate because there are no truly "right" answers. I come up with my own internally consistent position.

You take a strong position on the side of the child's right. It is a position that can not be consistent if you make the exceptions you claim. This is about your position, as stated above - not what I consider.

Let's follow your logic on this. . .

You are claiming that if someone were to forcibly grab a child and biologically connect them to your body in a criminal act. . . Your responsibility for that child and the child's welfare should be exactly the same as if you created the child and connected it to your body, yourself.

Correct?

IF my position were that the unborn child's life and rights are constitutionally equal to that of any other human, then the only reasonable position I could take on this is that abortion is murder unless the woman's life is in danger.

The child had no choice in the manner of it's conception. Why would you murder it it was conceived in one way, but support it's rights if it were conceived in another?

 

[Coyote]

Yes it is.

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

IS the child endangering your life?

Yes. At least to a extent, they are.. . But you are wrong to assume that the only time a person has a right to act in self defense is when the danger is actually a matter of life or death.

But that is not what I am assuming. We all have the right to act in self defense in a variety of situations - but that doesn't mean in all those situations we have the right to take a life.

All pregnancies carry a risk, but so does walking across the street. That doesn't mean you can pull a gun out and shoot a driver because you think he might not stop when running across the street will get you out of harms way.

In abortion you are willfully choosing to terminate a life when there is not yet an actual risk to yours.

Do YOU have a choice in your actions?

That other person may be responsible but - it was not his decision that ended the child's life.

Neither is it the decision that a customer has a heart attack and dies during a bank robbery. . . Guess what. . . The robber can still face a MURDER charge for that though.

Can't they.

Except...that really isn't a comparable situation. For example, that customer didn't CHOOSE to have a heart attack.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am speaking for the rights of children in the womb and against any of them being killed unjustly.

Is that what you are getting confused about?

How is killing a child conceived by rape just?

You don't seem to really want to consider the answer to that.

I do consider it. I consider all sides of the debate because there are no truly "right" answers. I come up with my own internally consistent position.

You take a strong position on the side of the child's right. It is a position that can not be consistent if you make the exceptions you claim. This is about your position, as stated above - not what I consider.

Let's follow your logic on this. . .

You are claiming that if someone were to forcibly grab a child and biologically connect them to your body in a criminal act. . . Your responsibility for that child and the child's welfare should be exactly the same as if you created the child and connected it to your body, yourself.

Correct?

IF my position were that the unborn child's life and rights are constitutionally equal to that of any other human, then the only reasonable position I could take on this is that abortion is murder unless the woman's life is in danger.

Annnnnd. . .

You don't think pregnancies are dangerous?

The child had no choice in the manner of it's conception.

That's true of all children. Isn't it?

Why would you murder it it was conceived in one way, but support it's rights if it were conceived in another?

Plainly put, It's not murder if it is an act of self defense.

Is it.

 

[Chuz Life]

No.

It isn't

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

IS the child endangering your life?

Yes. At least to a extent, they are.. . But you are wrong to assume that the only time a person has a right to act in self defense is when the danger is actually a matter of life or death.

But that is not what I am assuming. We all have the right to act in self defense in a variety of situations - but that doesn't mean in all those situations we have the right to take a life.

All pregnancies carry a risk, but so does walking across the street. That doesn't mean you can pull a gun out and shoot a driver because you think he might not stop when running across the street will get you out of harms way.

In abortion you are willfully choosing to terminate a life when there is not yet an actual risk to yours.

Which is it?

Do YOU have a choice in your actions?

That other person may be responsible but - it was not his decision that ended the child's life.

Neither is it the decision that a customer has a heart attack and dies during a bank robbery. . . Guess what. . . The robber can still face a MURDER charge for that though.

Can't they.

Except...that really isn't a comparable situation. For example, that customer didn't CHOOSE to have a heart attack.

You are trying to dance on the head of a pin.

I have no worries though.Lawmakers will see the point (and the justifications) even if you don't. In the meantime, if you want to take on the position that raped women should be forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term? Go right ahead.

 

[Coyote]

The only justification for taking another life that is internally consistent is self defense.

Uh huh.

Didn't I just say that?

If some one came to your door forced his way in and left you a child, do you have a right to kill it?

That depends. . . if they forcibly rig the child's body to mine in such a way that I can't remove it to protect myself without killing it? I would say Yes. Then, I would place the responsibility of that child's death on the person who rigged / used that child as a weapon against me in the first place.

IS the child endangering your life?

Yes. At least to a extent, they are.. . But you are wrong to assume that the only time a person has a right to act in self defense is when the danger is actually a matter of life or death.

But that is not what I am assuming. We all have the right to act in self defense in a variety of situations - but that doesn't mean in all those situations we have the right to take a life.

All pregnancies carry a risk, but so does walking across the street. That doesn't mean you can pull a gun out and shoot a driver because you think he might not stop when running across the street will get you out of harms way.

In abortion you are willfully choosing to terminate a life when there is not yet an actual risk to yours.

Which is it?

Do YOU have a choice in your actions?

That other person may be responsible but - it was not his decision that ended the child's life.

Neither is it the decision that a customer has a heart attack and dies during a bank robbery. . . Guess what. . . The robber can still face a MURDER charge for that though.

Can't they.

Except...that really isn't a comparable situation. For example, that customer didn't CHOOSE to have a heart attack.

You are trying to dance on the head of a pin.

I have no worries though.Lawmakers will see the point (and the justifications) even if you don't. In the meantime, if you want to take on the position that raped women should be forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term? Go right ahead.

1. It is both. When you are pregnant, there are certain potential risks attached to it. When you have eclampsia - there is an actual risk to your life. Do you have the right to take someone's life based on the possible (not probable) risk that person might some day kill you?

2. My position has already been made abundantly clear - a woman has a right to an abortion. My argument is that your position is inconsistent. You can not make a valid case for an unborn child's constitutional rights and right to due process and then turn around and say a person as a right to kill that child based upon the means of conception (which the child had no choice in). When you do so you blow your argument up. Either it has constitutional rights or it doesn't - it doesn't lose those rights based upon how it was concieved.

 

[Chuz Life]

.. Do you have the right to take someone's life based on the possible (not probable) risk that person might some day kill you?

Depending on the other factors, some of which we have already touched on. Yes.

2. My position has already been made abundantly clear - a woman has a right to an abortion. My argument is that your position is inconsistent. You can not make a valid case for an unborn child's constitutional rights and right to due process and then turn around and say a person as a right to kill that child based upon the means of conception (which the child had no choice in).

Sure I can.

For example, all adults have the same equal Constitutional rights. Correct? Yet, when one person becomes a threat to another, they CAN be justifiably killed in an act of self defense whether they have the same Constitutional rights or not.

The same goes for extreme cases where one person uses the life or body of another as a weapon.

Logically, as rape pregnancy is not much different from a criminal grabbing a child and strapping explosives to it and then sending that child to a place to blow up others as my neighbor said was actually done during the Vietnam war.

In a case like that, where the child is being used as a weapon. . . do you seriously believe it is MURDER to kill the child to protect the lives of the others?

When you do so you blow your argument up. Either it has constitutional rights or it doesn't - it doesn't lose those rights based upon how it was concieved.

See above.

My arguments are rock solid, Legally and Constitutionally. Even if not Morally.