How do abortion supporters respond to this? I don't think there is a way to.

[GodLovesCats]

So you support making abortion illegal if it makes an exception for rape?

And a few medical conditions where the mother must choose between her own life and the baby's life, but only before the baby can live outside her body unless it is an emergency.

I would support restrictions such as requiring a sonogram and other relevent medical records to go with a police report to prove she was impregnated by rape or incest.

I oppose throwing doctors in prison for life. Revoking a doctor's medical license permanently and a huge fine are bad enough.

 

[Calminian]

...I oppose throwing doctors in prison for life. Revoking a doctor's medical license permanently and a huge fine are bad enough.

So you want to make abortion illegal, but take away any meaningful consequence. Some retiring doctor could perform them, and the consequences would virtually be nothing.

If babies are humans and have rights, I say charge him with first degree murder.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So you want to make abortion illegal, but take away any meaningful consequence. Some retiring doctor could perform them, and the consequences would virtually be nothing.

If babies are humans and have rights, I say charge him with first degree murder.

Involuntary retirement would have the same effect if all you want is no more abortions by that doctor. No license, no abortions - anywhere in the country, not just the state of residence. So even if a doctor is only in prison for 10 years he/she will never abort any babies again. Also, many employers will not hire anyone who has committed a felony, so the former doctor would have a hard time working anywhere. I would not mind a shorter prison sentence in severe cases, but being locked up for lfie is too extreme unless it was a wrongful death (negligence or without permission).

 

[SPF]

Involuntary retirement would have the same effect if all you want is no more abortions by that doctor. No license, no abortions - anywhere in the country, not just the state of residence. So even if a doctor is only in prison for 10 years he/she will never abort any babies again. Also, many employers will not hire anyone who has committed a felony, so the former doctor would have a hard time working anywhere. I would not mind a shorter prison sentence in severe cases, but being locked up for lfie is too extreme unless it was a wrongful death (negligence or without permission).

So if I hire a hitman to kill my 3 year old because I no longer wanted to raise my child, what kind of prison sentence should he get?

The moral of the story is that you're not considering the life of the unborn to be of the same moral significance as the lives of those already born. Surely you're seeing the disconnect.

 

[Calminian]

So if I hire a hitman to kill my 3 year old because I no longer wanted to raise my child, what kind of prison sentence should he get?

The moral of the story is that you're not considering the life of the unborn to be of the same moral significance as the lives of those already born. Surely you're seeing the disconnect.

Exactly. It's disingenuous at best. Make it illegal but protect the murderers from consequences. This is basically a pro-legalized abortion position.

Think of how this thinking would play with abolition. Make slavery illegal, but protect those still practicing it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So if I hire a hitman to kill my 3 year old because I no longer wanted to raise my child, what kind of prison sentence should he get?

The moral of the story is that you're not considering the life of the unborn to be of the same moral significance as the lives of those already born. Surely you're seeing the disconnect.

Totally different situation. You don't have to be on the job to kill a three-year old kid. It should be very clear to you I was specifically talking about a doctor's job being the crime.

Do you not understand it is impossible for anyone without a medical license to do a medical procedure, including abortion, anywhere in the United States or any of the six territories?

 

[Calminian]

Totally different situation. You don't have to be on the job to kill a three-year old kid. It should be very clear to you I was specifically talking about a doctor's job being the crime.

Your position is clear. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, and help the other side.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Your position is clear. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, and help the other side.

I never saw the word obfiscate before, so that is defnitely not my position.

I have said it a zillion times: Abortion is not the best solution or even a good one if the baby is viable but sometimes necessary and understandable from the mother's POV. States need to fix all of the problems that lead to immoral abortions. not just make them crimes and leave mothers hopeless.

 

[SPF]

Totally different situation. You don't have to be on the job to kill a three-year old kid. It should be very clear to you I was specifically talking about a doctor's job being the crime.

Sure, but they're analogous, and you're not being consistent.

 

[Calminian]

I never saw the word obfiscate before, so that is defnitely not my position....

Another interesting argument.

 

[SPF]

Abortion is not the best solution or even a good one if the baby is viable but sometimes necessary and understandable from the mother's POV.

Can you provide an example of when abortion is an understandable choice when the baby is viable? And when you say understandable, do you mean not morally wrong? Or do you mean something else?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Can you provide an example of when abortion is an understandable choice when the baby is viable? And when you say understandable, do you mean not morally wrong? Or do you mean something else?

What is morally wrong is if the mother must choose between her own life and the baby's life, she can't be the one to make that decision because the state already did. So the question is, "When is a fetus viable?" Is it when the fetus can live on machines with tubes in its nose and mouth? Is it after the baby can take a breath during labor? From the mother's POV, it is understandable to be confused about this because even the judges were. This is a situation where pregnancy counseling would be very hlepful if states provide it. A specific example of this is the woman has inoperable cancer and the only treatment would kill the baby.

 

[SPF]

What is morally wrong is if the mother must choose between her own life and the baby's life, she can't be the one to make that decision because the state already did. So the question is, "When is a fetus viable?" Is it when the fetus can live on machines with tubes in its nose and mouth? Is it after the baby can take a breath during labor? From the mother's POV, it is understandable to be confused about this because even the judges were. This is a situation where pregnancy counseling would be very hlepful if states provide it. A specific example of this is the woman has inoperable cancer and the only treatment would kill the baby.

I don't know if you're just incapable of addressing a specific example or what... But a baby is viable when they can be removed from the womb and survive. Whether they need breathing tubes or not is irrelevant.

What I'm asking is can you provide an example where abortion is an understandable choice when the baby is viable? I don't think you can.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't know if you're just incapable of addressing a specific example or what... But a baby is viable when they can be removed from the womb and survive. Whether they need breathing tubes or not is irrelevant.

What I'm asking is can you provide an example where abortion is an understandable choice when the baby is viable? I don't think you can.

We have talked about this enough already. If it still does not make sense to you by now, it never will. I'm not in favor of what you keep calling "convenience" abortions, but more sympathetic to mothers than you seem to be.

 

[SPF]

We have talked about this enough already. If it still does not make sense to you by now, it never will. I'm not in favor of what you keep calling "convenience" abortions, but more sympathetic to mothers than you seem to be.

What doesn't make sense is that you aren't consistent in what you say. Your respond to virtually everything everyone says and say contradicting things with half your posts.

My question is very straight forward and very simple. It doesn't actually require an in depth, super long sort of response.

A baby is considered viable when it can survive outside the womb. What I would like you to answer (a simple yes or no is sufficient) is whether or not you think it is ever morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion once the unborn has reached viability. If your answer is yes, can you provide a hypothetical example?

Keep in mind that life-threatening is a non-issue here because the baby is viable, they don't need to abort the baby in a life-threatening situation.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A baby is considered viable when it can survive outside the womb. What I would like you to answer (a simple yes or no is sufficient) is whether or not you think it is ever morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion once the unborn has reached viability. If your answer is yes, can you provide a hypothetical example?

NO

 

[GodLovesCats]

Looking, you are just repeating the same old argument that most abortion oppoinents make. There isn't a single word of insight about why anyone should believe abortion is wrong when all you say about it is you don't know why people do it. This statement also screams ignorance considering the length of the thread. I am sure all of the answers you need are on the first 10 pages, and not just beside my name.

Have you ever stopped to think about how it would feel to be raped and learn you are pregnant after fetal heartbeats are detected (when it is too late to have an abortion if any unconstitutional laws are enforced) and the state said it is your fault that your life will suck for nine months, not the rapist who made you be an expecting mom. When every state is 100% perfect at providing sex education and all of the services a pregnant woman needs at no cost to her, then we can start talking about shortening the list of reasons to get an abortion after being raped.

 

[SPF]

When every state is 100% perfect at providing sex education and all of the services a pregnant woman needs at no cost to her, then we can start talking about shortening the list of reasons to get an abortion after being raped.

Which of course will never happen. But it’s also not true. Aborting a healthy unborn child itself is an immoral act and is a form of murder, and that is therefore a good enough reason in itself to make it illegal.

The HOW in which a new human being comes into existence has no bearing upon their moral worth and value. And it is their moral worth and value that is at the crux of the issue.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It absolutely is true that any state which outlaws abortion needs to also provide a support system to help rape victims who do not want to keep their babies. Nothing justifies forcing a rape or incest victim to stay pregnant for nine months without giving her all of the financial, emotional, and physical help she needs. I would support more abortion bans if they were written after everything is in place to help pregnant rape, incest, and sexual assault victims who do not want their babies. To me states are working backwards and should be looking for ways to discourage abortions in the legal system before they say, "Sorry, you would be a murderer if you kill your unborn baby."

 

[SPF]

It absolutely is true that any state which outlaws abortion needs to also provide a support system to help rape victims who do not want to keep their babies. Nothing justifies forcing a rape or incest victim to stay pregnant for nine months without giving her all of the financial, emotional, and physical help she needs. I would support more abortion bans if they were written after everything is in place to help pregnant rape, incest, and sexual assault victims who do not want their babies. To me states are working backwards and should be looking for ways to discourage abortions in the legal system before they say, "Sorry, you would be a murderer if you kill your unborn baby."

When a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and does not want the child there are two victims: The mother and the unwanted, unborn child.

What you’re suggesting is that until the government funds programs to support one of the victims that the right thing to do is to allow one of the victims to be killed.

Your thinking is flawed.

Especially flawed if you’re a Christian because you should believe that God will provide and care for and take care of both victims if the mother seeks after God. I would rather rely on God than the government.