Abortion Discussion

[Cearbhall]

Why must a new human life, innocent of the evil done to the mother suffer death when the offender male committed the crime?

They don't have to. It's not a sentence. The abortion isn't being forced. It's just an option if that's what the woman wants.

And I would blame the rapist if you have a problem with it. He not only violated the woman, but he took the risk of creating a zygote where it isn't wanted.

 

[PapaZoom]

Because it is based off the criminal violation of the woman's body. If it is the result of a crime then the woman has no obligation to go through with the pregnancy and carry the offspring of her attacker.

None, whatsoever because that's not something she ever decided to be a part of. The fact that the product of such a crime is alive and cannot be carried by anyone else is just too bad for that baby. The woman still has no obligation to carry the sperm of a person who forced it into her.

That's just rhetoric. You don't kill the innocent child for the crimes of another. And the "offspring" is the woman's as well. Furthermore, we have testimony from adult humans who were conceived in rape and they are very much happy with the fact that their mother's didn't kill them.

And no woman on the planet in the history of ever carried the sperm of another person. So present your facts correctly. There is no such thing scientifically as a fertilized egg even though you will read such language. A fertilized egg doesn't exist. Neither does a sperm exist once fertilization has taken place. The egg only exists before fertilization, not after. After it is no longer an egg. The same is true with the sperm. It no longer exists.

So if a woman is raped, and conception takes place, she is carrying a human being that is genetically 1/2 the product of her and 1/2 the product of the man. That the man was a rapist is certainly a horrible thing. That won't be changed by killing the unborn human being the woman is carrying.

But let's take this argument in another direction. If you are granted the right to abort in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (as in she will die if she continues the pregnancy) then you are left with a huge percentage of pregnancies that do not fall into those categories. Would you then concede abortion should be illegal in those remaining cases?

 

[Archivist]

The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.

And to force the woman to carry the fetus to term punishes her.

 

[Archivist]

One of the most unintelligent things I've ever read.

Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.

 

[PapaZoom]

Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.

No actually you are being unintelligent. From a scientific view, it's a life. A sperm is a life. So you're simply wrong on the way you're stating it. You likely mean something else. Any embryology textbook will tell you that even a zygote is a human life. Not just alive. But a life. Your view rests on a philosophical position and is unscientific.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's just rhetoric.

No, it's a fact. I know because the law is on my side of the argument and not yours.

You don't kill the innocent child for the crimes of another.

There is no child involved. It is a fetus and has no right over the mother's life (that is a legal fact that you cannot just ignore), especially since it is the result of a criminal violation against the woman's body. Because it was a criminal act, she is under no obligation to go through with anything that results from that act. If she wants to, and can muster the strength to go through with the pregnancy, and risk hers and her potential baby's life, and commit her body to nine long, physically, financially and emotionally taxing months, then I am all for it. That is her decision. But if she doesn't want to go through that after having been violated by some lowlife scum and had him [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into her against her will, then I thank God we don't live in a country where she would not have that choice. I thank God she has the legal right to kill that baby growing inside her.

And the "offspring" is the woman's as well.

Yeah... So? Was she planning on having a baby conceived in a criminal act against her body? If not, then I don't see how you can force her to go through with it.

Furthermore, we have testimony from adult humans who were conceived in rape and they are very much happy with the fact that their mother's didn't kill them.

That's great for them. I'm not saying that every woman who has ever been raped should end the pregnancy. If a woman elects to go through with it then more power to her. If she doesn't want to go through with raising the offspring of her attacker, then I would never fault her for that or force her to go through with something so demanding like pregnancy, completely against her will.

And no woman on the planet in the history of ever carried the sperm of another person. So present your facts correctly. There is no such thing scientifically as a fertilized egg even though you will read such language. A fertilized egg doesn't exist. Neither does a sperm exist once fertilization has taken place. The egg only exists before fertilization, not after. After it is no longer an egg. The same is true with the sperm. It no longer exists.

Hey, thanks for the biology lesson... We are talking about law. Two different things.

Whatever you want to call it, the woman doesn't have to go through with any of it since we are talking about something that is a completely illegal violation of her body.

Even if we were talking about something beneficial to the woman, you still cannot force her to go through with it against her will, like a life saving procedure or medicine for a life threatening illness. Why would you think a criminal act against her would be any exception to that?

So if a woman is raped, and conception takes place, she is carrying a human being that is genetically 1/2 the product of her and 1/2 the product of the man.

Yes, that's right. Genetically it is half and half. What is your point?

That the man was a rapist is certainly a horrible thing. That won't be changed by killing the unborn human being the woman is carrying.

The point isn't changing the fact that he's a rapist. It is about not further subjecting the victim to a secondary violation of her body.

Let's say it wasn't a rapist. Let's say we have a man and his child. Could he legally (or illegally) leave the child at someone's house, let's say by breaking and entering, and then have the state force that victim of the crime to raise that child against their will? Of course not.

So why should it be any different for the woman who was raped?

But let's take this argument in another direction. If you are granted the right to abort in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (as in she will die if she continues the pregnancy) then you are left with a huge percentage of pregnancies that do not fall into those categories. Would you then concede abortion should be illegal in those remaining cases?

I would agree that elective abortions go into a moral grey area that medically required ones generally don't, depending on your own moral convictions. But still, I would side with the woman, her spouse and their doctor in making the decision for themselves since they know better than I do what they can or cannot do for their potential baby.

I don't make medical decisions for others that have not granted me that right.

 

[PapaZoom]

No, it's a fact. I know because the law is on my side of the argument and not yours.

There is no child involved. It is a fetus and has no right over the mother's life (that is a legal fact that you cannot just ignore), especially since it is the result of a criminal violation against the woman's body. Because it was a criminal act, she is under no obligation to go through with anything that results from that act. If she wants to, and can muster the strength to go through with the pregnancy, and risk hers and her potential baby's life, and commit her body to nine long, physically, financially and emotionally taxing months, then I am all for it. That is her decision. But if she doesn't want to go through that after having been violated by some lowlife scum and had him [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into her against her will, then I thank God we don't live in a country where she would not have that choice. I thank God she has the legal right to kill that baby growing inside her.

Yeah... So? Was she planning on having a baby conceived in a criminal act against her body? If not, then I don't see how you can force her to go through with it.

That's great for them. I'm not saying that every woman who has ever been raped should end the pregnancy. If a woman elects to go through with it then more power to her. If she doesn't want to go through with raising the offspring of her attacker, then I would never fault her for that or force her to go through with something so demanding like pregnancy, completely against her will.


Hey, thanks for the biology lesson... We are talking about law. Two different things.

Whatever you want to call it, the woman doesn't have to go through with any of it since we are talking about something that is a completely illegal violation of her body.

Even if we were talking about something beneficial to the woman, you still cannot force her to go through with it against her will, like a life saving procedure or medicine for a life threatening illness. Why would you think a criminal act against her would be any exception to that?

Yes, that's right. Genetically it is half and half. What is your point?

The point isn't changing the fact that he's a rapist. It is about not further subjecting the victim to a secondary violation of her body.

Let's say it wasn't a rapist. Let's say we have a man and his child. Could he legally (or illegally) leave the child at someone's house, let's say by breaking and entering, and then have the state force that victim of the crime to raise that child against their will? Of course not.

So why should it be any different for the woman who was raped?

I would agree that elective abortions go into a moral grey area that medically required ones generally don't, depending on your own moral convictions. But still, I would side with the woman, her spouse and their doctor in making the decision for themselves since they know better than I do what they can or cannot do for their potential baby.

I don't make medical decisions for others that have not granted me that right.

No one I know is making the argument that is isn't lawful to have an abortion. That it's lawful doesn't mean it's moral. Aside from your point that it is lawful, the rest of what you say is simply rhetoric and has little to do with the law.

 

[PapaZoom]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/judaismandscience/item/the_curious_consensus_of_jews_on_abortion

Consequently, while it is clear that for over two thousand years, Judaism has understood (1) personhood begins at birth and not conception and (2) that the life of a mother supersedes that of a fetus which threatens that mother, the notion reportedly expressed by roughly half of American Jews that abortion should be permissible in all cases is absolutely unwarranted by Jewish tradition and values, whether filtered through an Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist or Reform lens. For instance, and without limitation, abortion for purposes of gender selection, convenience or purely economic reasons, especially at any time in gestation, is not defensible Jewishly.

To be clear, the 2012 Jewish Values Survey did not describe the reason(s) for the hypothetical abortion being considered. Consequently, it is not even clear that a majority of American Jews really do approve of abortion in “most” cases, though they surely do in many cases. To the extent the view of American Jews on abortion is premised on the argument that abortions are not properly the subject of criminal laws, that view finds stronger support in the Jewish tradition.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No one I know is making the argument that is isn't lawful to have an abortion. That it's lawful doesn't mean it's moral. Aside from your point that it is lawful, the rest of what you say is simply rhetoric and has little to do with the law.

You read the first sentence and then ignored the rest.

I'm done wasting my time with you here.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[PapaZoom]

FYI http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html

 

[PapaZoom]

You read the first sentence and then ignored the rest.

I'm done wasting my time with you here.

Have a wonderful day.

No I read it all. But the main point of your argument is that abortion is lawful. So the rest of what you have to say is pointless.

 

[PapaZoom]

Another must read article in understanding Jewish law regarding abortion:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No I read it all. But the main point of your argument is that abortion is lawful. So the rest of what you have to say is pointless.

Wrong.

My main point was about subjecting the woman to a further violation against her will. This will be clear to anyone who reads what I posted. You'd know that if you had read past the first sentence. The very first sentence, that you actually replied to was only a comment on you dismissing my previous post as "rhetoric." That should have been a red flag that I am wasting my time with you.

It wouldn't have taken so many lines of text for me to say we won and you lost, like 40 years ago. If that was the entirety of my point, I would have said only that. And since that seems to be all you want to read into my posts, regardless of what they actually say, then I'll just leave it at that.

We won and you lost this argument about 40 something years ago.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Second, any discussion of abortion starts with the inevitable fact that every abortion kills a baby. This is not a christian concept. it was admitted to by two prominent abortionists who went on the record.

It's not a baby:

ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun

1. 1.
   a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

Third, this being the case, we should ask ourselves why an innocent baby that has done no wrong should be offered up on the altar of convenience for any reason and I say this because the majority of abortions are matters of convenience.

The idea of a first trimester fetus being "innocent" of anything is silly. A first trimester fetus has no mechanism to be "innocent" or "guilty" of anything. It's just one more case of emotional rhetoric.

One. Better and more widespread sex education is a failure. I was on a committee that advised the government on sex education in schools. We said the evidence is that sex education will increase teen pregnancy. They ignored our advice and introduced it. Result. An increase in teen pregnancy. Response. More sex education. Result more teen pregnancies. Response. More sex education. Result. More teen pregnancies.

In the US, this is not the case at all. Wider availability to birth control and comprehensive sex education has seen a steady drop in teen pregnancy since 1990.

 

[redleghunter]

And if you want to affect the lives of others the burden of proof that a fetus is a person with a soul is upon you. Otherwise it is a moral question for the victim to answer.

The life in the woman is human life and the burden of proof is on the aborter as biology confirms at conception a new human life is created.

"Personhood" is thrown about these threads often. Can you define person or personhood? I've seen several different definitions and some us the term and never define it.

One poster actually told me a fetus is not a legal person. I should hope not because I would not want a pre born baby managing my stocks or buying property for me.

So these terms are bounced about a lot. Define your version of personhood and we can discuss.

 

[Hank77]

Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.

If we are going to make determinations about abortion from the Jewish perspective, then in all honesty we have to consider all of it. Most Jews are against abortion. They see the fetus as potential life and that they should not interfere with the development of a potential life.

 

[PapaZoom]

Wrong.

My main point was about subjecting the woman to a further violation against her will.

This is basically irrelevant to the law. And it's debatable that this is an accurate description of what's going on.

This will be clear to anyone who reads what I posted. You'd know that if you had read past the first sentence. The very first sentence, that you actually replied to was only a comment on you dismissing my previous post as "rhetoric." That should have been a red flag that I am wasting my time with you.

I've read enough of your posts over time and you've said nothing in your previous post that you haven't said before. To comment on your ranting on would be pointless since your bottom line is that abortion is legal.

It wouldn't have taken so many lines of text for me to say we won and you lost, like 40 years ago. If that was the entirety of my point, I would have said only that. And since that seems to be all you want to read into my posts, regardless of what they actually say, then I'll just leave it at that.

Just because you write something in a post doesn't mean that a person has to respond to everything you post. And speaking of ignoring what was said, earlier I asked you a specific question and that question was ignore by you.

We won and you lost this argument about 40 something years ago.

Not only that but you managed to kill nearly 60 million little human beings with this "win" of yours. Congrats.

Have a wonderful day.

you as well

 

[Subduction Zone]

The life in the woman is human life and the burden of proof is on the aborter as biology confirms at conception a new human life is created.

No, it clearly is not. Biology never confirms when there is any significant difference between a human being and a cat or a dog. If you want to tell other people what they have to do with their bodies the burden of proof is upon you. You know that you can't prove your case so you are dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof.

"Personhood" is thrown about these threads often. Can you define person or personhood? I've seen several different definitions and some us the term and never define it.

No, I seriously can't. That is why I don't tell others what they can do with their bodies. Can you? You will need to support your claims.

One poster actually told me a fetus is not a legal person. I should hope not because I would not want a pre born baby managing my stocks or buying property for me.

So then you agree with them to an extent. Also by saying that they are not a legal person you took away all rights for you to tell women what they can do with their bodies.

So these terms are bounced about a lot. Define your version of personhood and we can discuss.

I don't need to. Once again I am not the one trying to affect what another person does with their own body. You are the one that wants to change things. The burden of proof is upon you not me.

 

[redleghunter]

All of which ignores the fact that it is her body. To require her to carry her attackers spawn to term constitutes involuntary servitude, a violation of her constitutional rights. Do you believe on slavery in other cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

Again an emotional and understandable reaction to a violent act. Yet an unjustified act.

How about the husband of a rape victim? Don't know about you but my first emotion would be to find the rapist pig and pump him full of lead. Some may sit at home and point to my arrest on TV and say "can't blame him, the rapist violated his wife."

Were my actions in the above scenario understandable to a male who loves their wife, mother and sisters? Perhaps. Should I expect to watch some rapist pig eat three square meals a day and watch HBO in prison only to get patrolled in a few years and back out raping women again?

Yet with all of the above my actions are emotional, probably understandable to most, but not justified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is basically irrelevant to the law. And it's debatable that this is an accurate description of what's going on.



I've read enough of your posts over time and you've said nothing in your previous post that you haven't said before. To comment on your ranting on would be pointless since your bottom line is that abortion is legal.



Just because you write something in a post doesn't mean that a person has to respond to everything you post. And speaking of ignoring what was said, earlier I asked you a specific question and that question was ignore by you.



Not only that but you managed to kill nearly 60 million little human beings with this "win" of yours. Congrats.



you as well

What makes someone a "human being"? If you can't justify your definition you can't claim that abortion is the killing of human beings. Right now the burden of proof is upon those that want to change things. It usually is. The problem is that prolife people cannot reasonably support there own claims.