Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 41 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229360
XogGyux wrote:It is not just that. You are not only assuming that the fetus is a person, you are using this as your prime justification why abortion should not be allowed because it would be equivalent to murder. Then you seem to have a rather relaxed view about murdering the fetus when it comes to certain eventualities such as rape, incest, increased risk of pregnancy, fetal abnormalities, something else.

The idea that you would allow the abortion and "blame it on the rapist" is analogous as a store owner, not being happy with the money he got from the insurance company for a broken door after a robbery, setting the whole store on fire and claiming "it is ok, I only burned it because I got robbed and the insurance did not pay me enough, blame it on the robber, just add arseny to HIS charges and punish HIM for that.
How is this different from a victim of a rape (store owner) commiting a crime (abortion), when she was not happy with the pregnancy (not being happy with what the insurance covered) and then having the rapist take the blame for the crime (abortion)?

Your views are so full of inconsistencies and arbitrary post-hoc rationalizations because you want to rationalize the views you ALREADY HOLD. Rather than allowing the arguments present themselves and shape your ideals.


No, I'm drawing a clear distinction between on-demand abortion and abortions done for other reasons. Clearly, a woman who's have an abortion after being raped is not having one because she wants. Neither is a woman who's having an abortion to save herself from death or serious injury, nor one aborting because the fetus will be born with deformities incompatible with life. Plenty of people who believe on-demand abortion is unethical, even murder, would agree with this idea.

Also, since I don't know if the fetus is a person, I don't know if on-demand abortion is murder. What I don't understand though is why would you be okay with it if you believed a fetus is a person. Bodily autonomy doesn't cut it, just as it wouldn't cut it in the terrorist attack scenario, just as it doesn't cut it for people who don't want to vaccinate, just as it doesn't cut it for people who smoke inside buildings (even if they are open to the public) and in other cases too.

As for your insurance analogy, you can just get insurance for greater amounts, so you did have an option in case something like this fire happened, but a woman can't get insurance coverage against rape so she actually did not have one either. It's a bad analogy.
#15229364
wat0n wrote:No, I'm drawing a clear distinction between on-demand abortion and abortions done for other reasons.


Based on what? Why do they have to have different reasons?

Clearly, a woman who's have an abortion after being raped is not having one because she wants.

Wait a minute. For 1 week you been going back and forth with me trying to convince me that this is all balanced on the edge of personhood... Wether the woman wants to have an abortion or not, or wether she was raped or wether she had sex with her first cousin does not change in any way shape or form the personhood status of the fetus. Now you are moving the goalpost. Now you are suggesting that the motives of the woman seeking the abortion matters... If she is wanting to have the abortion because she was raped it is OK but if she is wanting to have the abortion because she had 1 night stand... that is not OK... Are we using pregnancy as a way to punish people that don't follow what you see as proper morality?

Neither is a woman who's having an abortion to save herself from death or serious injury, nor one aborting because the fetus will be born with deformities incompatible with life.

The problem is, life is not simple.
Yes... the life of the mother and the fetus might be in immediate danger if the mother develops a severe vasculitis and the fetus is not immediately aborted so that the mother receives medical treatment. But what about the 6w old pregnant that during pre-natal care discovers she has early stage thyroid cancer (or any other sort) and her doctors advises her that the safest way to proceed for her is to have an abortion and receive treatment, but that the cancer is early stage enough that it is possible she might be able to have the pregnancy and still treat it appropriately after the delivery if it has not spread... and newsflash we will not know if it will spread or not until then? How do we deal with this situation? It is certainly not immediate danger, but it is definitely more risky.
Deformities don't need to be incompatible with life. Trisomy 21 is not incompatible with life, tetramelia is not icompatible with life, spina bifida is not incompatible with life, yet the resulting baby can still grow to become an adult, they might even function in society as well. So I guess you think those pregnancies should still complete until birth right?

Plenty of people who believe on-demand abortion is unethical, even murder, would agree with this idea.

Plenty of people believe the earth is flat. Plenty of people believe trump is president right now, and plenty of people believe in lizzard people.
I don't care for what "plenty of people" believe. If you are seriously making a case that abortion = murder, then you cannot allow for abortions for rape/incest/deformities, period.

Also, since I don't know if the fetus is a person, I don't know if on-demand abortion is murder.

Personhood is irrelevant.

What I don't understand though is why would you be okay with it if you believed a fetus is a person.

I explained it to you. Many times. Many, many, many times. Personhood is irrelevant. If I, as an adult, resided inside a very large uterus of a woman, and this woman did not want to proceed with me living inside and would abort me (culminating my life in the process), despite me being a person, being an adult, this would be OK, because I shouldn't have the right to live off the body of someone else against their will.

As for your insurance analogy, you can just get insurance for greater amounts, so you did have an option in case something like this fire happened, but a woman can't get insurance coverage against rape so she actually did not have one either. It's a bad analogy.

Red herrings.

I am surprised you keep bringing this silly personhood argument.
#15229369
XogGyux wrote:Based on what? Why do they have to have different reasons?


Based on proportionality, the same I mentioned earlier. Killing another person is permissible under some specific circumstances, such as self-defense. Why would it be different for fetuses, assuming they are persons?

XogGyux wrote:Wait a minute. For 1 week you been going back and forth with me trying to convince me that this is all balanced on the edge of personhood... Wether the woman wants to have an abortion or not, or wether she was raped or wether she had sex with her first cousin does not change in any way shape or form the personhood status of the fetus. Now you are moving the goalpost. Now you are suggesting that the motives of the woman seeking the abortion matters... If she is wanting to have the abortion because she was raped it is OK but if she is wanting to have the abortion because she had 1 night stand... that is not OK... Are we using pregnancy as a way to punish people that don't follow what you see as proper morality?


I'm not moving anything, I said this almost 3 weeks ago:

wat0n wrote:What I find fascinating about the whole abortion thing is how many are so sure about their position on the matter. Save for saving the mother's life (including carrying out an abortion to reduce possible risk to the mother's life if the fetus is expected to die quickly) and rape (where the punishment for abortion, if any, should be borne by the rapist), I don't have an all that clear position on the matter. I don't know if and when a fetus is a person, personally, and don't find the few arguments provided by either side persuasive, in the rare case they ever provide one. I also know a few arguments from the pro-choice side that are still cogent if the fetus is a person and find those interesting, but also flawed when applied to other persons or situations.

The politics of abortion is fairly straightforward, the merits are not.


I'm not using pregnancy as a punishment for anything. I'd not care about abortion if I was sure fetuses are not persons.

XogGyux wrote:The problem is, life is not simple.


Then why apply such a sweeping standard when it comes to bodily autonomy?

XogGyux wrote:Yes... the life of the mother and the fetus might be in immediate danger if the mother develops a severe vasculitis and the fetus is not immediately aborted so that the mother receives medical treatment. But what about the 6w old pregnant that during pre-natal care discovers she has early stage thyroid cancer (or any other sort) and her doctors advises her that the safest way to proceed for her is to have an abortion and receive treatment, but that the cancer is early stage enough that it is possible she might be able to have the pregnancy and still treat it appropriately after the delivery if it has not spread... and newsflash we will not know if it will spread or not until then? How do we deal with this situation? It is certainly not immediate danger, but it is definitely more risky.


Falls into the risk-benefit analysis. I mean, clearly in this case she's taking a huge amount of risk.

You may say "oh but how do you determine this balance then?" and my answer this the same thing you said: Life's not simple. I think a doc acting in good faith is perfectly able to make the call, as objectively as possible.

And no, it's not murder, there's clearly a good argument to make for the necessity of an abortion even if it meant killing someone else (plus there'd be a chance both the woman and the fetus would die if untreated). This is true even if you don't think there is.

XogGyux wrote:Deformities don't need to be incompatible with life. Trisomy 21 is not incompatible with life, tetramelia is not icompatible with life, spina bifida is not incompatible with life, yet the resulting baby can still grow to become an adult, they might even function in society as well. So I guess you think those pregnancies should still complete until birth right?


Yes, and I understand why would parents (note, parents) may decide that. I'd also be willing to grant these kids euthanasia should they request it, assuming they are mature and competent enough for it, but I don't know if parents should be the ones deciding to terminate this life, no matter how hard it may turn to be down the line... Assuming, of course, the fetus is a person.

I am of course OK with my tax money being devoted to helping these people too.

XogGyux wrote:Plenty of people believe the earth is flat. Plenty of people believe trump is president right now, and plenty of people believe in lizzard people.
I don't care for what "plenty of people" believe. If you are seriously making a case that abortion = murder, then you cannot allow for abortions for rape/incest/deformities, period.


Why do you ignore the "on-demand" part of "on-demand abortion"?

Is killing in self-defense murder? NO.

XogGyux wrote:Personhood is irrelevant.


To you, sure.

XogGyux wrote:I explained it to you. Many times. Many, many, many times. Personhood is irrelevant. If I, as an adult, resided inside a very large uterus of a woman, and this woman did not want to proceed with me living inside and would abort me (culminating my life in the process), despite me being a person, being an adult, this would be OK, because I shouldn't have the right to live off the body of someone else against their will.


But would others be? That's what you don't seem to be getting.

Furthermore, I'd say even in that case where you are okay with your fate, if it was temporary like pregnancy is, it's far from clear it would be ethical to kill you in the process of taking you out.

Because that's the other issue, pregnancy is a temporary condition. If it was permanent, I'd be more inclined to agree with you but ultimately it's not.

XogGyux wrote:Red herrings.

I am surprised you keep bringing this silly personhood argument.


Because it's an idea that you have not shown to be silly.
#15229371
wat0n wrote:Based on proportionality, the same I mentioned earlier. Killing another person is permissible under some specific circumstances, such as self-defense. Why would it be different for fetuses, assuming they are persons?

Who is in immediate danger of death when a pregnant woman that was raped, days or weeks after a rape, goes to a clinic to have an abortion? Or when a woman that "was fooling around with her first cousin" walks into the same clinic to seek an abortion?
You seem like an ardent defendant that abortion is murder, and seem to justify making exertions so that victims of rape or incest are able to commit murder :lol:

I'm not moving anything, I said this almost 3 weeks ago:

I beg to differ. Not long ago you were trying to convince me/readers that a fetus is a person and thus its right should be honored and thus he/she/it should have the right to complete pregnancy to term. But now when facing with difficult choices of higher risk pregnancy, incest, rape, malformations of fetus, etc... now all of the sudden you seem more open to commit murder. So which one is it... is the fetus a person and terminating its life = murder and thus should be prohibited?

I'm not using pregnancy as a punishment for anything.

You seem to have 2 standards. If Jane is raped during a college party, apparently you don't mind if murder is committed by terminating the pregnancy. But if Jane was just having fun... all of the sudden murder is bad, and she must deliver the baby. It is either a punishment for promiscuity OR you are willing to give a "get out of jail free card" (perhaps literally) and allow someone to have an exception to commit murder if they themselves were the victim of a heinous act.

I'd not care about abortion if I was sure fetuses are not persons.

Mark me as a "skeptic" about your claim.

I think a doc acting in good faith is perfectly able to make the call, as objectively as possible.

How can you make a call when the call was already made by a state banning the procedure?

Yes, and I understand why would parents (note, parents) may decide that. I'd also be willing to grant these kids euthanasia should they request it, assuming they are mature and competent enough for it, but I don't know if parents should be the ones deciding to terminate this life, no matter how hard it may turn to be down the line... Assuming, of course, the fetus is a person.

I am of course OK with my tax money being devoted to helping these people too.

:(

Why do you ignore the "on-demand" part of "on-demand abortion"?

Is killing in self-defense murder? NO.

Again... who do you think you are defending? You defending the raped woman? you think the fetus is going to pull a gun and kill her? You defending the fetus with cyclopia or anancephaly or downs? Who are you defending in the case of incest? The family's honor?

To you, sure.

To the argument

Because that's the other issue, pregnancy is a temporary condition. If it was permanent, I'd be more inclined to agree with you but ultimately it's not.

Are you kidding me?
Your whole arugment revolves around personhood. And every single one of the "exceptions" that you offer, has NOTHING to do with personhood. So "duration of pregnancy" apparently is able to override the personhood of the fetus now?
This is silly. :?:

Because it's an idea that you have not shown to be silly.

Read the above line. It is quite silly. All your arguments to prohibit abortion revolve around the fetus being a person. All your exceptions for which you would consider abortion do not rely on the fetus NOT being a person. You are just making your own rules as you please in order to accomodate and be consistent with what you already believe.
#15229373
XogGyux wrote:Who is in immediate danger of death when a pregnant woman that was raped, days or weeks after a rape, goes to a clinic to have an abortion? Or when a woman that "was fooling around with her first cousin" walks into the same clinic to seek an abortion?
You seem like an ardent defendant that abortion is murder, and seem to justify making exertions so that victims of rape or incest are able to commit murder :lol:


The woman is not, what I'm doing there however is shifting responsibility for the abortion to whom it belongs: The rapist.

Get it?

XogGyux wrote:I beg to differ. Not long ago you were trying to convince me/readers that a fetus is a person and thus its right should be honored and thus he/she/it should have the right to complete pregnancy to term. But now when facing with difficult choices of higher risk pregnancy, incest, rape, malformations of fetus, etc... now all of the sudden you seem more open to commit murder. So which one is it... is the fetus a person and terminating its life = murder and thus should be prohibited?


Well, as I said I posted that 3 weeks ago in this very thread. What more convincing do you need, I wonder?

XogGyux wrote:You seem to have 2 standards. If Jane is raped during a college party, apparently you don't mind if murder is committed by terminating the pregnancy. But if Jane was just having fun... all of the sudden murder is bad, and she must deliver the baby. It is either a punishment for promiscuity OR you are willing to give a "get out of jail free card" (perhaps literally) and allow someone to have an exception to commit murder if they themselves were the victim of a heinous act.


Again if Jane is raped and she has an abortion, the abortion is not going unpunished. I'm just shifting the punishment to the person who's actually responsible for the whole situation :roll:

XogGyux wrote:Mark me as a "skeptic" about your claim.


Whatever. At least you've been more willing to discuss the personhood issue than other pro-choice posters, and more willing to do so than all the pro-life ones.

XogGyux wrote:How can you make a call when the call was already made by a state banning the procedure?


Not when it's legal to preserve the mother's life. What, now we can't apply risk-benefit analyses just as we do all the time?

XogGyux wrote:Again... who do you think you are defending? You defending the raped woman? you think the fetus is going to pull a gun and kill her? You defending the fetus with cyclopia or anancephaly or downs? Who are you defending in the case of incest? The family's honor?


In the case of rape? The fetus, definitely, but not by punishing a victim. Same for incest.

For deformities incompatible with life, the mother.

XogGyux wrote:Are you kidding me?
Your whole arugment revolves around personhood. And every single one of the "exceptions" that you offer, has NOTHING to do with personhood. So "duration of pregnancy" apparently is able to override the personhood of the fetus now?
This is silly. :?:


Proportionality, remember? What is it so hard to understand here?

XogGyux wrote:Read the above line. It is quite silly. All your arguments to prohibit abortion revolve around the fetus being a person. All your exceptions for which you would consider abortion do not rely on the fetus NOT being a person. You are just making your own rules as you please in order to accomodate and be consistent with what you already believe.


And yet I've provided cases where I (and I think most people) would find abortion acceptable even if the fetus was a person. The reason, again, has to do with proportionality.

Just because one believes homicide is a bad thing, doesn't mean one can't also find it acceptable if it's done for self-defense or other extreme circumstances. You said it yourself, life isn't simple.
#15229377
wat0n wrote:The woman is not, what I'm doing there however is shifting responsibility for the abortion to whom it belongs: The rapist.

Get it?


That is ridiculous. The rapist is responsible for the rape. Not the abortion.

If I plan your murder because you raped me 5 months ago, if I get caught, I go to prison for your murder.

Again if Jane is raped and she has an abortion, the abortion is not going unpunished.

So you will punish Jane and her Doctor, right?

I'm just shifting the punishment to the person who's actually responsible for the whole situation :roll:

Jane and her healthcare team are responsible for the abortion. Jane could proceed with the pregnancy, there is nothing wrong with her or the fetus. Why are you suggesting that she needs to commit baby on this poor creature?

Not when it's legal to preserve the mother's life. What, now we can't apply risk-benefit analyses just as we do all the time?

Because risk-benefit analysis is between the patient and the doctor. When a court gets involved, the courts are going to be mandating what is legal or not.

In the case of rape? The fetus, definitely, but not by punishing a victim. Same for incest.

You are defending the fetus by killing it? :knife:

For deformities incompatible with life, the mother.

Again, incompatible with life is a spectrum not a diagnosis.
What if the baby can survive 10 days? 10 months?
Are you allowed to murder someone 24h prior to their "expected natural death"? How can you justify "MURDERING" a person before their time naturally comes?

Proportionality, remember? What is it so hard to understand here?

I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking.
You using this as a scapegoat to allow you to agree to certain instances when you are OK w/ abortion, even though those instances do not in any way shape or form are an exception of the main objection to abortion that you offer, personhood. You are offering "proportionality" (whatever that means) to allow you to "murder" "people".

And yet I've provided cases where I (and I think most people) would find abortion acceptable even if the fetus was a person.

Precicely. That is my point. How hard is for you to understand. None of the examples that you have provided where presumably you are OK with abortion alter in any way, shape or form, the "personhood" status of the fetus. In otherwords, you are offering "personhood" as a reason not to perform abortions, yet you offer exceptions in which abortion is OK, and none of these exceptions are because "it is not a person".
This is ridiculous.

And when you say abortion = murder... you know a murder has no statute of limitations right? If you truly believe this... we gonna need much bigger prisons to imprison all those murderous women that have had abortions over the last century. Presumably, all of them are premeditated, so they will be spending a long time in jail.
Also... how do you feel about going to other states and/or countries were abortion is legal... if you come back, you get charged with murder and imprisoned? Just as if you had murdered your husband during a Royal Caribbean cruise?

Your argument is weak, and the implications of your propositions are terrifying.
#15229380
XogGyux wrote:That is ridiculous. The rapist is responsible for the rape. Not the abortion.


The rape that ended up in pregnancy you mean?

XogGyux wrote:If I plan your murder because you raped me 5 months ago, if I get caught, I go to prison for your murder.


And yet if you ended pregnant then I'd be responsible for your pregnancy.

XogGyux wrote:So you will punish Jane and her Doctor, right?


No.

XogGyux wrote:Jane and her healthcare team are responsible for the abortion. Jane could proceed with the pregnancy, there is nothing wrong with her or the fetus. Why are you suggesting that she needs to commit baby on this poor creature?


She could, yes, but she's not responsible for being raped and the direct consequence of that. The rapist is.

Of course she can still carry the pregnancy to term if she wants.

XogGyux wrote:Because risk-benefit analysis is between the patient and the doctor. When a court gets involved, the courts are going to be mandating what is legal or not.


That doesn't negate what I said. A doctor can perfectly be sued if he is negligent when carrying that analysis out.

XogGyux wrote:You are defending the fetus by killing it? :knife:


By deterring rape.

XogGyux wrote:Again, incompatible with life is a spectrum not a diagnosis.
What if the baby can survive 10 days? 10 months?
Are you allowed to murder someone 24h prior to their "expected natural death"? How can you justify "MURDERING" a person before their time naturally comes?


I think I already addressed this. This spectrum is something that can be perfectly regulated, just as it is in many countries where abortion on-demand is limited to X weeks but abortion of deformed fetuses (and I don't mean trisomy 21) is legal at any stage.

XogGyux wrote:I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking.
You using this as a scapegoat to allow you to agree to certain instances when you are OK w/ abortion, even though those instances do not in any way shape or form are an exception of the main objection to abortion that you offer, personhood. You are offering "proportionality" (whatever that means) to allow you to "murder" "people".


Yeah, exactly, that's the point just as there are circumstances when it's acceptable to kill another person.

And guess what, they are based on a proportionality.

XogGyux wrote:Precicely. That is my point. How hard is for you to understand. None of the examples that you have provided where presumably you are OK with abortion alter in any way, shape or form, the "personhood" status of the fetus. In otherwords, you are offering "personhood" as a reason not to perform abortions, yet you offer exceptions in which abortion is OK, and none of these exceptions are because "it is not a person".
This is ridiculous.


The exceptions are analogous to those we accept for killing any person.

XogGyux wrote:And when you say abortion = murder... you know a murder has no statute of limitations right? If you truly believe this... we gonna need much bigger prisons to imprison all those murderous women that have had abortions over the last century. Presumably, all of them are premeditated, so they will be spending a long time in jail.
Also... how do you feel about going to other states and/or countries were abortion is legal... if you come back, you get charged with murder and imprisoned? Just as if you had murdered your husband during a Royal Caribbean cruise?

Your argument is weak, and the implications of your propositions are terrifying.


No, your strawman is weak, which is different.
#15229390
wat0n wrote:The rape that ended up in pregnancy you mean?

Ended in pregnancy. Not in abortion. In this example, abortion is a choice after the fact.

And yet if you ended pregnant then I'd be responsible for your pregnancy.

And?
You propose that personhood would make an abortion murder. Why does it matter to the fetus if he/she is the son/daughter of a rapist or of a careless teenager? How is this situation at all its fault? How is this under its control? Why does this fetus have to pay with its life the crime of a rapist? Or the 1st cousin of its mother. This is sloppy justice, a crime committed by rapist, murder the unborn fetus.

No.

Why not? The doctor and Jane are willfully ending the life of this person (fetus), they are committing murder under your view.

She could, yes, but she's not responsible for being raped and the direct consequence of that. The rapist is.

The rapist is responsible to everything bad that hapens to Jane for eternity? If Jane decides to have the pregnancy to completion and then molest the kid... since this kid is the result of the rapist... does Jane get away with it and all forgiven? If she decides to kill the baby after it is born... does she still get impunity? How is it... that Jane can abort the fetus which is the result of a rape... but jane cannot kill the newborn after she delivers it? Or should she be able to kill the newborn after she delivers it... maybe she gets to kill this creature at anypoint she wants... maybe she can raise the kid and constantly remind this kid that she can end his/her life at any point with impunity forever because he/she is the product of a rape. Or perhaps you think this fetus is not a person, but somehow after it is born now becomes a person and Jane now cannot kill it?
You see? You putting yourself in very akward positions because you are trying to make sense of shit that does not make sense after the fact. It can be dizzying.

Of course she can still carry the pregnancy to term if she wants.

Maybe she will, and kill it when the resulting "rape baby" turns 2 years old. And it would be the rapist's fault because this 2 year old is the result of a rape right?
How does it work... the rapist gets 10 years in prison, and when Jane figures out he is coming out of prison she says "psyched", promptly kills the 10 year old kid, and now adds murder to the sentence of the rapist, thus ensuring the rapist does not get out of Jail? :lol:

That doesn't negate what I said. A doctor can perfectly be sued if he is negligent when carrying that analysis out.

Sure. That is not remotely the problem.

By deterring rape.

And you think killing fetuses deter rape? Can you explain how?

Yeah, exactly, that's the point just as there are circumstances when it's acceptable to kill another person.

Such as when it is inconvenient the way you were coincived?
Gotcha.

No, your strawman is weak, which is different.

It is not a strawman.
This is not far-fetched, at least not in some states. There are people that think like this and you youself suggest it. Now you might be getting cold feet when presented the hard questions. Don't you think you ought to consider the implications of this?
#15229392
XogGyux wrote:Ended in pregnancy. Not in abortion. In this example, abortion is a choice after the fact.


A choice done under duress, like the "choice" a refugee fleeing his country from war has.

XogGyux wrote:And?
You propose that personhood would make an abortion murder. Why does it matter to the fetus if he/she is the son/daughter of a rapist or of a careless teenager? How is this situation at all its fault? How is this under its control? Why does this fetus have to pay with its life the crime of a rapist? Or the 1st cousin of its mother. This is sloppy justice, a crime committed by rapist, murder the unborn fetus.


Sloppy justice in this case would be for the victim to be responsible for something the rapist directly caused.

Again, why do you think some societies ban on-demand abortion but do not ban a abortion in the case of rape? My proposal at least makes sure the person responsible for the situation is punished.

XogGyux wrote:Why not? The doctor and Jane are willfully ending the life of this person (fetus), they are committing murder under your view.


Because neither is responsible for the situation.

XogGyux wrote:The rapist is responsible to everything bad that hapens to Jane for eternity?


No, just for the pregnancy.

XogGyux wrote: If Jane decides to have the pregnancy to completion and then molest the kid... since this kid is the result of the rapist... does Jane get away with it and all forgiven? If she decides to kill the baby after it is born... does she still get impunity? How is it... that Jane can abort the fetus which is the result of a rape... but jane cannot kill the newborn after she delivers it? Or should she be able to kill the newborn after she delivers it... maybe she gets to kill this creature at anypoint she wants... maybe she can raise the kid and constantly remind this kid that she can end his/her life at any point with impunity forever because he/she is the product of a rape. Or perhaps you think this fetus is not a person, but somehow after it is born now becomes a person and Jane now cannot kill it?
You see? You putting yourself in very akward positions because you are trying to make sense of shit that does not make sense after the fact. It can be dizzying.


XogGyux wrote:Maybe she will, and kill it when the resulting "rape baby" turns 2 years old. And it would be the rapist's fault because this 2 year old is the result of a rape right?
How does it work... the rapist gets 10 years in prison, and when Jane figures out he is coming out of prison she says "psyched", promptly kills the 10 year old kid, and now adds murder to the sentence of the rapist, thus ensuring the rapist does not get out of Jail? :lol:


If Jane decides to carry the baby to term then she's responsible for raising and take care of it just like any parent is. Because, you know, she decided it.

I don't get what's so hard to understand here. Sounds desperate.

XogGyux wrote:And you think killing fetuses deter rape? Can you explain how?


I don't know, maybe because the higher penalty will make the prospective rapist think it twice before committing rape.

XogGyux wrote:Such as when it is inconvenient the way you were coincived?
Gotcha.


You mean when you were forced to as a result of rape and that as such the one to be punished is the rapist?

XogGyux wrote:It is not a strawman.
This is not far-fetched, at least not in some states. There are people that think like this and you youself suggest it. Now you might be getting cold feet when presented the hard questions. Don't you think you ought to consider the implications of this?


You cannot be jailed for doing something that was legal at the time. This is actually unconstitutional in the US (against the Due Process Clause) so I am not sure about whatever you are talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive

@Unthinking Majority why is a fetus a child?
#15229398
wat0n wrote:A choice done under duress, like the "choice" a refugee fleeing his country from war has.

The abortion clinic is "under duress"? If so... then why can the other women claim the exact same thing and have an abortion "under duress"?

Sloppy justice in this case would be for the victim to be responsible for something the rapist directly caused.

So if a person is inconvenient, you can murder it and just not talk about it?
Listen, I am not against this woman getting an abortion, I am just pointing out the flaws of your argument...

Again, why do you think some societies ban on-demand abortion but do not ban a abortion in the case of rape?

Because they are fucked up. THey shouldn't ban it period.

Because neither is responsible for the situation.

They are responsible for the abortion.

If Jane decides to carry the baby to term then she's responsible for raising and take care of it just like any parent is. Because, you know, she decided it.

What if it wasent her decision. What if she finds out when giving birth? It has happened

Sounds desperate.

Probably because I am. I am trying to have a discussion with someone that keeps moving the goal post, have no consistent values and constantly goes in circles :lol: It is a carousel of madness. I am desperate to get out :knife: :lol:

I don't know, maybe because the higher penalty will make the prospective rapist think it twice before committing rape.

Why kill the fetus at all. Just send the rapist for life in prison if he/she rapes. You do know we get to decide how long criminals spend in jail right? We dont need to kill an innocent person as some sort of quasi-sacrifice to make it official.

You cannot be jailed for doing something that was legal at the time. This is actually unconstitutional in the US (against the Due Process Clause) so I am not sure about whatever you are talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive

You are incorrect. The laws of many states had outlawed abortion before RvW and continues to have the laws that prohibited. At the very least, this is something that could be tested in courts and not outside the realms of possibilities while it is ultimately unlikely to ever happen.

You have spent the last week+ trying to convince people that abortion should be illegal because it will end the life of a person. Now you are making great contortions trying to convice us that in certain cases you should be able to murder this unborn person with inpunity, and/or blame others for this murder. Tell me, if abortion is murder and a fetus is a person. If you kill a fetus, by accident while doing a negligent thing... does that make you liable for manslaughter? Let's say the pregnant woman speends or runs the red light, crashes and fetal demise... she goes to jail right? She was being negligent, and her actions caused the death of a person (the fetus). She must pay for this transgression! What if this woman is cleaning her house, wearing slippery sandals, slips and falls on the wet floor and loses the pregnancy... also goes to jail right? What if a woman is told by her doctor to "bed rest" due to a having some contractions on the 20th week, but this woman is cash strapped and needs to work for money, so she goes to work anyway.... and sure enough, she ends up having a miscarriage... She surely must be responsible for the fetal demise right?
#15229402
Women need to be punished for having sex. It's as simple as that. If a woman seeks an abortion in the case of rape she should, at a minimum, be required to:

  • File a police report
  • Post an advertisement in her local paper informing other women of her experience for their own edification
  • Pay for a full funeral plot or cremation of the precious and beautiful child
  • Speak to a grade school class about what she did to bring this upon herself

Assuming she can do this in 3 weeks I believe she should be allowed to petition the court for a legal abortion and be placed on a waiting list.

I am pro life and I think these are a few compromises we can make to justify the murder of a child. It's the baby killers who want to murder children who are being unreasonable.

Abortion in the case of incest is unjustified. A woman's relative is far more qualified to determine if she is ready to carry a child than the state. If anything, they are the guardians of her sexuality and we must trust their judgment.
#15229404
XogGyux wrote:The abortion clinic is "under duress"? If so... then why can the other women claim the exact same thing and have an abortion "under duress"?


Was she raped? Is the pregnancy putting her life at risk? Is it risking her grievous harm?

XogGyux wrote:So if a person is inconvenient, you can murder it and just not talk about it?
Listen, I am not against this woman getting an abortion, I am just pointing out the flaws of your argument...


It's not a matter of inconvenience, I think. It's simply that the woman is not guilty for what happened to her, is she?

And the abortion is not going unpunished either. The punishment is being inflicted on the responsible party, that's all.

XogGyux wrote:Because they are fucked up. THey shouldn't ban it period.


Or maybe because they understand life ain't simple.

XogGyux wrote:They are responsible for the abortion.


But not for the pregnancy.

XogGyux wrote:What if it wasent her decision. What if she finds out when giving birth? It has happened


How is this relevant? I'm asking because she clearly didn't have the time to get an abortion anyway.

XogGyux wrote:Probably because I am. I am trying to have a discussion with someone that keeps moving the goal post, have no consistent values and constantly goes in circles :lol: It is a carousel of madness. I am desperate to get out :knife: :lol:


I'm not moving the goalpost :roll:

I even laid out my position 3 weeks ago.

XogGyux wrote:Why kill the fetus at all. Just send the rapist for life in prison if he/she rapes. You do know we get to decide how long criminals spend in jail right? We dont need to kill an innocent person as some sort of quasi-sacrifice to make it official.


Because the victim is not responsible for the situation she's in.

XogGyux wrote:You are incorrect. The laws of many states had outlawed abortion before RvW and continues to have the laws that prohibited. At the very least, this is something that could be tested in courts and not outside the realms of possibilities while it is ultimately unlikely to ever happen.


No, because those laws are not in effect as long as Roe v Wade is. They even have trigger provisions to that effect.

XogGyux wrote:You have spent the last week+ trying to convince people that abortion should be illegal because it will end the life of a person. Now you are making great contortions trying to convice us that in certain cases you should be able to murder this unborn person with inpunity, and/or blame others for this murder. Tell me, if abortion is murder and a fetus is a person. If you kill a fetus, by accident while doing a negligent thing... does that make you liable for manslaughter? Let's say the pregnant woman speends or runs the red light, crashes and fetal demise... she goes to jail right? She was being negligent, and her actions caused the death of a person (the fetus). She must pay for this transgression! What if this woman is cleaning her house, wearing slippery sandals, slips and falls on the wet floor and loses the pregnancy... also goes to jail right? What if a woman is told by her doctor to "bed rest" due to a having some contractions on the 20th week, but this woman is cash strapped and needs to work for money, so she goes to work anyway.... and sure enough, she ends up having a miscarriage... She surely must be responsible for the fetal demise right?


Save for the first example, neither would count as manslaughter. Come on, it's not that hard :roll:

In the first case, assuming fetuses are regarded to be people, it should be treated just like if she'd done the same with a passenger in the car. If she'd be charged for manslaughter in that case, well... I'll let you finish up.
#15229405
SpecialOlympian wrote:Women need to be punished for having sex. It's as simple as that. If a woman seeks an abortion in the case of rape she should, at a minimum, be required to:

  • File a police report
  • Post an advertisement in her local paper informing other women of her experience for their own edification
  • Pay for a full funeral plot or cremation of the precious and beautiful child
  • Speak to a grade school class about what she did to bring this upon herself

Assuming she can do this in 3 weeks I believe she should be allowed to petition the court for a legal abortion and be placed on a waiting list.

I am pro life and I think these are a few compromises we can make to justify the murder of a child. It's the baby killers who want to murder children who are being unreasonable.

Abortion in the case of incest is unjustified. A woman's relative is far more qualified to determine if she is ready to carry a child than the state. If anything, they are the guardians of her sexuality and we must trust their judgment.

:lol:
I cracked over. I must say, you seriously do an impersonation so well. I wonder if this is just a skill in written form or if you are capable of saying this with a straight face outloud :lol: .
#15229406
wat0n wrote:Was she raped?

Interesting question... You tell me, will the woman be able to to get this abortion based solely on her word that she was raped or do we need some sort of proof?
What if she was only "a little raped"?
Does the rapist need to be in custody for the woman to be able to terminate the pregnancy?

It's not a matter of inconvenience, I think. It's simply that the woman is not guilty for what happened to her, is she?

So you using pregnancy as a form of punishment. If you are guilty as far as the creation of the pregnancy, you must complete the pregnancy, if you are "not guilty" because you were raped, you can abort?
All of this disregards the personhood of the fetus btw. Whether the woman intended to get pregnant, got pregnant by accident due to casual sex and/or inadequate/defective birth control or wether she was forced (raped) does not have any bearing of whether a fetus is a person. So why... do you think any of this should be used in any way, shape or form to justify an abortion?

And the abortion is not going unpunished either.

You seem to be more concerned about punishment than anything. This is a weird fetish.

The punishment is being inflicted on the responsible party, that's all.

I beg to differ. The fetus is not responsible for anything and he/she is getting the death penalty without chance for appeals. :?:

But not for the pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not a crime. Murder is, and you seem to be comfortable calling abortion a murder because "a fetus is a person". As despicable as rape is, murder is an even greater crime. So you seem to be OK committing a greater crime because a pregnancy was the result of a lesser crime? Is like murdering someone for shoplifting.

How is this relevant? I'm asking because she clearly didn't have the time to get an abortion anyway.

So what.... there is still time to murder the little creature. Who cares if it is outside the womb right? If a woman is raped, for some weird reason does not find out until delivery day, perahps she should get a "30-day rape-back guarantee" and she should be able to shoot the little thing in the face right?

I'm not moving the goalpost :roll:

No, you are running around the field with the goalpost attached to your back :lol:

Because the victim is not responsible for the situation she's in.

Well... you dont care about the victim that is getting murdered? The fetus is not responsible for the rape either... Why are you going to punish the fetus for the rape?

Save for the first example, neither would count as manslaughter. Come on, it's not that hard :roll:

Explain how? If you are saying the fetus is a person, and interfering with the life of this person has the right to live... how come terminating this life through negligence does not end up with a criminal conviction?

In the first case, assuming fetuses are regarded to be people, it should be treated just like if she'd done the same with a passenger in the car. If she'd be charged for manslaughter in that case, well... I'll let you finish up.

But the other cases not? Why? The woman is being negligent and putting the life of the fetus at risk.
Also... if you are caught speeding (but nobody gets hurt) and you are pregnant.... you should be charged with fetal endangerment right? You can be charged in the case of children (minor endangerment, which is misdemeanor/felony) so all of the sudden a lot of pregnant women are committing felonies right at this exact time (speeding is common) :lol: .

For days I have been telling you, the key to this is not personhood. Look all the mess you need to clean up now :lol: :lol:
#15229409
SpecialOlympian wrote:Women need to be punished for having sex. It's as simple as that. If a woman seeks an abortion in the case of rape she should, at a minimum, be required to:

  • File a police report
  • Post an advertisement in her local paper informing other women of her experience for their own edification
  • Pay for a full funeral plot or cremation of the precious and beautiful child
  • Speak to a grade school class about what she did to bring this upon herself

Assuming she can do this in 3 weeks I believe she should be allowed to petition the court for a legal abortion and be placed on a waiting list.

I am pro life and I think these are a few compromises we can make to justify the murder of a child. It's the baby killers who want to murder children who are being unreasonable.

Abortion in the case of incest is unjustified. A woman's relative is far more qualified to determine if she is ready to carry a child than the state. If anything, they are the guardians of her sexuality and we must trust their judgment.

I think we can all agree that people getting pleasuring in their genitals, unencumbered by condoms and other boner-killers, is well worth killing babies for. And that babies themselves are huge boner-killers.
#15229411
XogGyux wrote:Interesting question... You tell me, will the woman be able to to get this abortion based solely on her word that she was raped or do we need some sort of proof?
What if she was only "a little raped"?
Does the rapist need to be in custody for the woman to be able to terminate the pregnancy?


A filed police report dated around the estimated fetal gestational age would suffice for me.

XogGyux wrote:So you using pregnancy as a form of punishment. If you are guilty as far as the creation of the pregnancy, you must complete the pregnancy, if you are "not guilty" because you were raped, you can abort?
All of this disregards the personhood of the fetus btw. Whether the woman intended to get pregnant, got pregnant by accident due to casual sex and/or inadequate/defective birth control or wether she was forced (raped) does not have any bearing of whether a fetus is a person. So why... do you think any of this should be used in any way, shape or form to justify an abortion?


No, this is yet another strawman. If the fetus isn't a person, none of this matters at all.

XogGyux wrote:You seem to be more concerned about punishment than anything. This is a weird fetish.


That fact would still recognize fetal personhood, which is what I'm assuming for the sake of the argument.

Or what, you'd let an unjustified homicide go unpunished?

XogGyux wrote:I beg to differ. The fetus is not responsible for anything and he/she is getting the death penalty without chance for appeals. :?:


It isn't, it's just another victim of the rapist.

XogGyux wrote:Pregnancy is not a crime. Murder is, and you seem to be comfortable calling abortion a murder because "a fetus is a person". As despicable as rape is, murder is an even greater crime. So you seem to be OK committing a greater crime because a pregnancy was the result of a lesser crime? Is like murdering someone for shoplifting.


Nonsense. The responsible party here is the rapist, that's it. The victim has a valid defense.

XogGyux wrote:So what.... there is still time to murder the little creature. Who cares if it is outside the womb right? If a woman is raped, for some weird reason does not find out until delivery day, perahps she should get a "30-day rape-back guarantee" and she should be able to shoot the little thing in the face right?


Why would she have an abortion while she's in labor? At that point, it would probably be safer for her to deliver the baby.

Or what, now you support infanticide? You said yourself there's no fundamental developmental difference between this fetus 4 hours before birth and just after. So even if you want to do the "bodily autonomy" argument, the logical option in that case is to just deliver the baby. And if she had been raped, then she could give the baby up for adoption.

XogGyux wrote:No, you are running around the field with the goalpost attached to your back :lol:


My 3-week old post doesn't lie :)

XogGyux wrote:Well... you dont care about the victim that is getting murdered? The fetus is not responsible for the rape either... Why are you going to punish the fetus for the rape?


Of course I care, that's why I advocate for punishing the person responsible for what's going on, namely, the rapist.

I hope you will not suggest this would be the victim's fault just for the sake of defending on-demand abortion.

XogGyux wrote:Explain how? If you are saying the fetus is a person, and interfering with the life of this person has the right to live... how come terminating this life through negligence does not end up with a criminal conviction?


XogGyux wrote:But the other cases not? Why? The woman is being negligent and putting the life of the fetus at risk.
Also... if you are caught speeding (but nobody gets hurt) and you are pregnant.... you should be charged with fetal endangerment right? You can be charged in the case of children (minor endangerment, which is misdemeanor/felony) so all of the sudden a lot of pregnant women are committing felonies right at this exact time (speeding is common) :lol: .

For days I have been telling you, the key to this is not personhood. Look all the mess you need to clean up now :lol: :lol:


For the speeding woman, let's just say that saying "speeding is common" would not be a defense if she crashed and killed someone else.

I highly doubt the other cases you mention would qualify as criminal negligence. If you were wearing slippery flops, tripped and fell on someone else, killing him, I doubt it would be regarded as anything else but an accident. Same for the other scenario, and for that one she could claim losing her job could have plausibly led to a miscarriage down the line.

Can you see why the question whether the fetus is a person or not does in fact matter to this discussion? Note that in all the examples you gave, the bodily autonomy argument would not apply. What sustains your position is the assumption that the fetus is not a person, which may as well be true, but it's an assumption nonetheless. In reality there's no agreement about it and as far as I can see many just prefer to avoid that discussion altogether.

@Unthinking Majority why is the fetus like a child and not the like, I don't know, a piece of hair? Is there a point during pregnancy where the fetus becomes a child and if so, when?
#15229417
wat0n wrote:A filed police report dated around the estimated fetal gestational age would suffice for me.

:lol:

If the fetus isn't a person, none of this matters at all.

If? Didn't you spend the last week trying to make an argument for it? What's going on, having 2nd thoughts?

That fact would still recognize fetal personhood, which is what I'm assuming for the sake of the argument.

Or what, you'd let an unjustified homicide go unpunished?

How about you prevent the homicide. Ban the rape victim from killing the innocent unborn person.

It isn't, it's just another victim of the rapist.

No it was not. The rapist could be in jail, damn, the rapist could have been shot the day after the rape and be long gone by the time abortion occurs. As much as you would want to blame the rapist for the abortion, it does not make sense. It is like blaming Hittler's mom for the holocaust...
The logic you propose is bizarre to say the least.

Nonsense. The responsible party here is the rapist, that's it. The victim has a valid defense.

You got it right with the first word. Nonsense. What you saying is nonsense.

Why would she have an abortion while she's in labor? At that point, it would probably be safer for her to deliver the baby.

Who cares, maybe she does not want to hear the cry of the child of the rapist. Who cares... You seemed to have no issue with abortions in case of rapists before... you gonna blame it on the rapist anyway, so who cares if this woman kills a newborn or a near-term fetus?

Or what, now you support infanticide?

You are the one that wants to allow women to kill people as long as those people are sons/daughters of rapists :lol: .

So even if you want to do the "bodily autonomy" argument, the logical option in that case is to just deliver the baby. And if she had been raped, then she could give the baby up for adoption.

So you don't seem so sure now...

My 3-week old post doesn't lie :)

Neither does the back and forth since.

Of course I care, that's why I advocate for punishing the person responsible for what's going on, namely, the rapist.

As despicable as a rapist might be, he/she is not responsible for everything that happens after the rape. He is not responsible for an abortion, if you truly believe abortions should be banned due to fetus being person, then you should also protect this unborn person. You are OK ignoring body autonomy of a woman that was NOT raped to save a live, but suddently, in the case of a raped one... you don't seem to care about the same life being saved.

I hope you will not suggest this would be the victim's fault just for the sake of defending on-demand abortion.

If the victim is looking for an abortion... and that abortion is considered murder... then yes, the victim is at fault for the murder.
Again, if you rape me, and I shoot you in the middle of the trial, after you are in custody. I am going to jail for murder. You cannot just murder someone and blame it on someone else.

For the speeding woman, let's just say that saying "speeding is common" would not be a defense if she crashed and killed someone else.

Precisely. Thus, she must be liable for speeding while pregnant for fetal endargerment, and if she has a miscarriage as a result of an accident she has to go to jail for manslaughter.

I highly doubt the other cases you mention would qualify as criminal negligence.

No? If your doctor tells you, don't let your todler inside the hot car, and you do it and the todler dies... aren't you criminally negligent? How is this different from your doctor telling you not to do something, you do it anyway and results in miscarriage? (death of a fetus).

If you were wearing slippery flops, tripped and fell on someone else, killing him, I doubt it would be regarded as anything else but an accident.

Fine... lets switch it a bit. You slip in the mall, there is a clear, obvious sign that warns against walking in the wet. It is no longer an accident, there is a warning, you were negligent walking despite the sign.

Can you see why the question whether the fetus is a person or not does in fact matter to this discussion?

NO lol. All I am seeing you have no answers for those questions that are problematic for you, and when you do, you have bad answers.

Note that in all the examples you gave, the bodily autonomy argument would not apply.

Absolutely it does.

What sustains your position is the assumption that the fetus is not a person, which may as well be true, but it's an assumption nonetheless.

The personhood status of the fetus is irrelevant.

In reality there's no agreement about it and as far as I can see many just prefer to avoid that discussion altogether.

Wow. nice non-committal answer.
  • 1
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 64
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Igor Antunov Looks like the HIMARS has been […]

Joe Biden is doing great. His approval rating is […]

Serbian Icon Theft in Ukraine

Icons are holy for orthodox christians. It is ro[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Even rape and sexual abuse can women not abort....[…]