Alabama's Restrictive Abortion Law: Rape and Incest Discussion

[GodLovesCats]

At this point in medical technology, there is no way to avoid the killing of the child and spare the mother having to carry the child.

The LIFE of the child has more value than ~9 months of the mother's distress. However great that distress and discomfort are, isn't worth more than a person's life.

Please argue to me how a person's great distress for a fixed time, less than 1 year, which will ultimately be resolved, is worth extinguishing the life of another.

I don't understand your first statement. To avoid carrying a child the woman must not be a mother. If the fetus is old enough to live on its own both people survive and the mother no longer needs to be pregnant.

I posted earlier because this thread is political, the legal side of a raped girl wanting an abortion must not be ignored. Alabama's governor is not allowed to base signing or vetomg the bill on the Scripture.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Liberty and happiness for everyone but women it would seem.

This is why I ciited the DOI. It is for everyone, not just males and sterile females.

As opposed to what? Death to a human to ensure 9 months of liberty? That sounds better to you?

Did you know when the DOI was written, Thomas Jefferson was not thinking about unborn babies? It was specifically for American citizens and as we all know you must be born to be a citizen.

 

[bekkilyn]

As opposed to what? Death to a human to ensure 9 months of liberty? That sounds better to you?

That's a choice for the human person whose body is to be used as the incubator. If a person is unwilling to have someone else residing inside their body, then they have the right to say no. Humans make life and death decisions all the time, but it's strange that when it comes to a *woman* making that choice over something that's part of *her* own body, then and only then do people seem to get outraged. The life that is growing inside her body belongs to *her* at that point...not to me, not to you, and certainly not to the government. It is her choice as to what happens to it until it is able to live autonomously outside of her.

 

[Archivist]

As opposed to what? Death to a human to ensure 9 months of liberty? That sounds better to you?

But you are a male, so you won’t have to worry about giving up “9 months of liberty” because of carrying the fetus if your attacker to term.

Women do have issues because of pregnancy. What happens if our rape victim develops diabetes? That is giving up much more than “9 months of liberty.” What if she falls off a ladder and looses the fetus? Do we charge her with reckless endangerment or even murder?

 

[bekkilyn]

But you are a male, so you won’t have to worry about giving up “9 months of liberty” because of carrying the fetus if your attacker to term.

Women do have issues because of pregnancy. What happens if our rape victim develops diabetes? That is giving up much more than “9 months of liberty.” What if she falls off a ladder and looses the fetus? Do we charge her with reckless endangerment or even murder?

Just paying off the hospital debt alone could last a lifetime, and that's if everything happens smoothly. And years of mental trauma from reliving the rape every single day for nine months. But all the armchair outrage is easy when there is no actual skin in the game.

 

[SPF]

Just paying off the hospital debt alone could last a lifetime, and that's if everything happens smoothly. And years of mental trauma from reliving the rape every single day for nine months. But all the armchair outrage is easy when there is no actual skin in the game.

Yes, so that justified killing an innocent human being, a unique creation, created in the image of God and just as precious and valuable to him as you are. The answer to one terrible act is to commit another terrible act and kill an innocent and vulnerable person.

 

[SPF]

I’ll never understand how people think it’s acceptable to kill innocent and vulnerable children of God. Women who do not want to raise a child are welcome to give them up.

I just can’t understand how someone who claims Christ as their God and Scripture as the foundation of their worldview can walk away thinking it’s an acceptable decision to literally kill another human who has done no wrong.

 

[Kaon]

Alabama Senate passes near-total abortion ban - CNNPolitics

The Alabama law makes abortion illegal except for three exceptions:

• "To avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother"
• For ectopic pregnancy
• If the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly."

You'll see that of the exceptions, rape and incest are not among them. Opponents of the bill did attempt to have it amended to include rape and incest. Here is what Eric Johnson said below:

Eric Johnston, head of the Alabama Pro-life Coalition and the drafter of the initial legislation, told CNN "it would upend the law's legal standing.Regardless of how the conception takes place, the product is a child, and so we're saying that that unborn child is a person entitled to protection of law," he added. "So if, be it a rape or incest conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not."

I think he's right. When it comes to the morality of abortion, the how in which a new human being comes into existence plays absolutely no role in determining their moral worth and value.

Oh how inconvenient fairness is - especially in treatment in argument. This is why it is better to be just than fair, although justice requires the wisdom to wield it.

While I don't think anyone has the wisdom to determine a proper conclusion in the gray areas of justice, on paper the issue of morality and rape is an inconvenient truth.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, so that justified killing an innocent human being, a unique creation, created in the image of God and just as precious and valuable to him as you are. The answer to one terrible act is to commit another terrible act and kill an innocent and vulnerable person.

No, the answer is to let the choice up to the rape victim. Yes, she might choose to have an abortion, but she might also choose to carry the fetus of her attacker to term.

 

[chilehed]

The question in the case of rape isn’t the moral worth of the fetus, but whether you can force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term if doing so is against her will. She didn't ask to be raped.

Rather, the question is whether or not all human beings have human rights (yes), and whether or not the path to her recovery from the trauma of the assault can include murdering the innocent child (no).

 

[SPF]

No, the answer is to let the choice up to the rape victim. Yes, she might choose to have an abortion, but she might also choose to carry the fetus of her attacker to term.

I guess the reason I struggle with that position is because we are talking about the killing of another human being. That just seems like a big deal to me.
I don’t think we should have the freedom to choose whether or not another innocent human has the right to live or not.

If I thought the unborn wasn’t as morally valuable as a newborn then I could see the argument for it. But I really believe that an unborn truly is created in God’s image and truly does possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

Therefore, I don’t see how I could hold any position other than one that says the killing of the unborn for any reason other than medical emergency is wrong and we shouldn’t allow it

 

[GodLovesCats]

That's a choice for the human person whose body is to be used as the incubator. If a person is unwilling to have someone else residing inside their body, then they have the right to say no. Humans make life and death decisions all the time, but it's strange that when it comes to a *woman* making that choice over something that's part of *her* own body, then and only then do people seem to get outraged. The life that is growing inside her body belongs to *her* at that point...not to me, not to you, and certainly not to the government. It is her choice as to what happens to it until it is able to live autonomously outside of her.

Specifically, the placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic sac are temporary parts of a woman's body during pregnancy. I wish sex education laws existed in everu state because the lack of it causes men to have no understanding of the difference between a pregnant woman's reproductive system and fetal anatomy. An unborn baby never loses them unless something bad happens to the mother.

But you are a male, so you won’t have to worry about giving up “9 months of liberty” because of carrying the fetus if your attacker to term.

Women do have issues because of pregnancy. What happens if our rape victim develops diabetes? That is giving up much more than “9 months of liberty.” What if she falls off a ladder and looses the fetus? Do we charge her with reckless endangerment or even murder?

I had a coworker who weighed 150 pounds when she got pregnant, but suffered gestational diabetes that became permanent and has weighed over 300 pounds ever since. She also almost lost her son by having a grand mal seizure (she has epilepsy) during those 9 months. Because of that seizure, she had her tubes tied.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Rather, the question is whether or not all human beings have human rights (yes), and whether or not the path to her recovery from the trauma of the assault can include murdering the innocent child (no).

All human beings obviously includes pregnant women. They have the same basic human rights as all men and sterile women. You cannot deny them these rights just because they have babies inside.

The path to recovery from rape trauma is different for everyone. There is no single answer.

 

[Kaon]

The path to recovery from rape trauma is different for everyone. There is no single answer.

That is precisely what makes the moral issue of abortion for the purposes of rape so murky.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There are no "purposes of rape." We are arguing about the responses to rape, which is a horrible crime in the minds of everyone who knows the word.

 

[chilehed]

All human beings obviously includes pregnant women. They have the same basic human rights as all men and sterile women.

No one has said otherwise.

You cannot deny them these rights just because they have babies inside.

There is no right to deprive a baby of its human rights by murdering it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No one has said otherwise.

There is no right to deprive a baby of its human rights by murdering it.

People have stated it is better to let the mom die than the baby. I don't consider that supporting women's rights.

The right to deprive a baby of life outside the uterus has existed since the late 1700a.

 

[chilehed]

People have stated it is better to let the mom die than the baby. I don't consider that supporting women's rights.

There are no circumstances under which it is necessary to murder an unborn child in order to save the mother's life. None.

The right to deprive a baby of life outside the uterus has existed since the late 1700a.

There has never been, and can never be, a right to murder an innocent baby.

 

[JacksBratt]

The question in the case of rape isn’t the moral worth of the fetus, but whether you can force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term if doing so is against her will. She didn't ask to be raped.

Did the child ask to be conceived? However, God has allowed conception, there is a child. Do we not believe that all life is sacred?

In the case of rape, the health of the child and the mother is not in question. It's the thought and "feeling" of carrying a child of the rapist. We all go through things that we do not want to.. things that remind us of tragedy... It's not the child's fault, it's not the mothers fault.... why should anyone die.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There are no circumstances under which it is necessary to murder an unborn child in order to save the mother's life. None.

There has never been, and can never be, a right to murder an innocent baby.

There always have been and always will be medical reasons to end a pregnant early. Denying this is a big display of ignorance.

There has never been a law that classifies abortion as murder. Women have always had the right to abort pregnancies in the United States.